patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

It's not logical enough for Dan.

It's not correct enough for me. History disproves this hypothesis repeatedly. History is full of stable systems based on violence and oppression, often enforced with anger. Propaganda uses anger extensively to accomplish its goal. How do you think Trump was elected? Don't underestimate how successful anger-based manipulation and anger-based actions can be, whether those actions are for good or evil.

It is far more important to acknowledge the uncomfortable aspects of reality than the comfortable ones.

Dan8267 says

Stories that sound like nice parables are often wrought with bad advice and logic. In contrast, math may be boring to the vast majority of dumb humans, but it is far more beautiful, useful, and insightful than parables.

Math is the study of what is or is not possible. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is beautiful or desirable. Nuking the planet is possible with a thermonuclear war, but it's not a desirable option. Eliminating a population of Jews might be a possible Final Solution, but it's also a monstrous one. Killing or enslaving millions who dissent with your politics is one way to keep power if your name is Stalin or Pol Pot or Idi Amin, but it's a pretty shitty way to treat your fellow human beings.

Those who worship possibility and disdain morality are just psychopaths masquerading as idealists. The world has had enough experience with your kind to know better than cede power to such.

Quigley says

And you wonder why people mistrust atheists even more than child molesters...

I don't. It's pure bigotry.

Atheists statistically are far more trustworthy than Christians. In every state, per capita Christians are far more likely to commit violent crimes and make up a far greater percentage of the prison population relative to their share of the general population.

People who are atheists are so because they are both intelligent and honest, and this combination forces them to be atheists. To be a Christian, you either have to be dumb or dishonest or both. Either you have to get basic reasoning wrong, or you have to choose to ignore reality and engage in a lie. This is not an opinion. It is a fact.

In any case, there is no correlation between who people trust and who is trustworthy. Finally, as every news story on child rape shows, Christians are orders of magnitude more likely to be child molesters and rapists than atheists are. You constantly hear stories about Christian organizations and churches being full of child rapists whose crimes are covered by other Christians. You never hear a story of an atheist child molester. So once again, atheists are far more trustworthy than Christians.

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Also, you are completely dishonest to attempt to twist what I said into an avocation of evil when it is clearly the exact opposite. Like a hypocrite, you are doing EXACTLY what Google and the mainstream media did to the Google employee who wrote the memo referenced in the original post.

Quigley says

Math is the study of what is or is not possible. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is beautiful or desirable.

No one said "just because something is possible, it is beautiful or desirable". That's a straw man.

What I said is that there is beauty in the mathematical modeling and explanations of morality. If you cannot see that, this is your loss.

Quigley says

Those who worship possibility and disdain morality are just psychopaths masquerading as idealists. The world has had enough experience with your kind to know better than cede power to such.

Last time I checked, I never advocated genocide and I've written quite a bit on effective ways to prevent it. So if we are flinging around baseless accusations, have you let that 8-year-old girl you kidnapped go yet?

Dan8267 says

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Yep.

Atheists thought immoral, even by fellow atheists: study
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/atheists-thought-immoral-even-fellow-atheists-study-150953056.html

What is it about Atheist's sales job that they can't even convince their own flock?

Dan8267 says

Last time I checked, I never advocated genocide and I've written quite a bit on effective ways to prevent it.

If I could be bothered to look through this site, I do believe reading several of your comments claiming Conservatives and Religious people should be driven from society and never be allowed to hold political power.

My history is fuzzy, but wasn't there some fine gentlemen in Europe and Asia in the 20th century that held similar views about certain ideological and religious groups that ended in massive genocide?

socal2 says

several of your comments claiming Conservatives and Religious people should be driven from society and never be allowed to hold political power.

Try several hundred posts like this. Dan has proven me right so many times that I'm getting tired of all this winning!

Dan reminds me of this little Maoist shit threatening to throw a Russian immigrant into a labor camp for debating the efficacy of Socialism.

So cocksure of his righteousness and ideological views.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot didn't murder hundreds of millions all by themselves. They had millions of true-believing "enlightened" Dan's of the world more than willing to do their part to make "heaven on earth".

www.youtube.com/embed/lEvWDwZYvk8

Liberals are now h8ting on SCIENCE!

Deleted - I see this story was linked in a separate post.

Of course they do. If there are hardwired bits of human behavior, then you can't blame society for them.

socal2 says

Atheists thought immoral, even by fellow atheists: study

1. Perception is not reality. Even if the study is true, all it indicates is prejudice, not trustworthiness.
2. The study's author states that the distrust is due to religion brainwashing people into prejudice.
3. No link to the study. Is it even peer reviewed?

The bottom line is that by every accepted metric, atheists are more moral than Christians. Again, the empirical proof is in the prison population. Christians are orders of magnitude more likely to commit violent crimes like rape, murder, assault, and robbery. None of your cherry picking is going to change that fact.

socal2 says

I do believe reading several of your comments claiming Conservatives and Religious people should be driven from society and never be allowed to hold political power.

I never made such a statement about conservatives or religious persons. More specifically, I never claimed anyone should be driven from society. Nor have I ever claimed that conservatives, left or right, should never be allowed to hold political power, however, limiting their power is certainly in the interests of society.

I have claimed that rights trump laws, and that those who create laws that violate rights should be immediately removed from power permanently. For example, if a politician sponsors a bill to round up all the Jews and burn them in ovens, he should not be allowed to hold office.

I have also claimed that religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such. If a person is so divorced from reality that he thinks a benevolent sky daddy is going to ensure America wins any war it fights, i.e. god is on our side, then that person does not have enough of a grasp on reality to vote or hold office. There are reasons we don't allow the insane to vote. Belief in an all powerful sky daddy is a delusion, and delusions are, by definition, mental disorders. A delusion as wide sweeping as the belief in a god is a severe enough mental disorder as to render a person incapable of casting a sane vote.

socal2 says

Liberals are now h8ting on SCIENCE!

More lies from the pathological liar.

Dan8267 says

I never made such a statement about conservatives or religious persons. More specifically, I never claimed anyone should be driven from society. Nor have I ever claimed that conservatives, left or right, should never be allowed to hold political power, however, limiting their power is certainly in the interests of society.

Dan8267 says

I have also claimed that religion is a mental illness and should be treated as such. If a person is so divorced from reality that he thinks a benevolent sky daddy is going to ensure America wins any war it fights, i.e. god is on our side, then that person does not have enough of a grasp on reality to vote or hold office.

Dan8267 says

2. The study's author states that the distrust is due to religion brainwashing people into prejudice.

Yet even fellow atheists thought atheists were more immoral according to this study.

Dan8267 says

Those aren't contradictory positions, idiot.

Do you even bother to read the shit you write?

Recommend you take a deep breath and spend more time getting your thoughts together before vomiting out another one of your screeds.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

2. The study's author states that the distrust is due to religion brainwashing people into prejudice.

Yet even fellow atheists thought atheists were more immoral according to this study.

Yes. Even the atheists were brainwashed as children, and despite shrugging off most of the ills of religion, it is impossible to completely undo brainwashing.

This is why the indoctrination of children into religion is the worst form of child abuse in the world.

Saw female google employees are banding together to sue google for discrimination. I love it when the system cannibalizes itself!

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Tell that to Jesus when you meet Him.

Your Jesus is dead, if he ever existed. He's not immortal. Neither are you. Deal with it.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. You and I have an eternal soul. I hope you don't wait till you leave this world to finally understand it.

rando says

Buddhists think heaven and hell are here and now, and you can simply choose to live in one or the other:

A soldier comes to visit a famous zen master Hakuin. And the soldier asks, “Is there really a heaven and a hell?” The zen master replies, “Who are you?” The soldier says, “I am a samurai.” Hakuin replies, “You? A samurai? What kind of lord would have you as his guard? You look like a beggar.” The soldier starts to get angry and becomes so enraged that he’s about to draw his sword. The zen master continues and he says, “Oh, so you have a sword. It’s probably even too dull to cut off my head.” At this point, the soldier is indignant and he brandishes his sword. The zen master says, “Now you are in hell.” And the soldier immediately recognizes the wisdom in those words and he puts his sword away. The zen master says, “Now you are in heaven.”

Dan8267 says

rando says

The zen master says, “Now you are in hell.” And the soldier immediately recognizes the wisdom in those words and he puts his sword away. The zen master says, “Now you are in heaven.”

The zen master is an idiot. His survival depended on the irrational soldier suddenly becoming rational. In real life, any soldier that would have drawn his sword would have proceeded to kill the zen master.

Also the zen master is wrong. It would not be the soldier in hell. It would be his victim. People who do evil deeds most often enjoy life. To deny this is to underestimate evil and to invite defeat at its hands.

Stories that sound like nice parables are often wrought with bad advice and logic. In contrast, math may be boring to the vast majority of dumb humans, but it is far more beautiful, useful, and insightful than parables.

Dan completely misunderstands the story. It is not a story about being angry. It is not even a story about heaven and hell. It is a story about the difference between being controlled by your emotions vs. being in control of your emotions. People who are controlled by their emotions are living a life of self torture and impotence. It is this kind of existence that causes people to ban others from their threads. They can't handle the emotional pain that having people disagree with them causes. Proverbs 16:32 "Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city."

PeopleUnited says

You and I have an eternal soul.

Only fools believe in souls. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that arbitrary Bronze Age myth, and plenty of reasons to not from the complete lack of any evidence that souls exist to the failure of anyone who dies passing on a clear message to the living.

Your stupid heaven myth also makes no sense. A mother dies and goes to heaven. Meanwhile on Earth her daughter is brutally raped. How the fuck could the mother be in perfect bliss? Hitler goes to hell, but Hitler's mom goes to heaven. How can any mother be happy when her child is being tortured for all eternity? Oh, Hitler's mom is also in hell? Then her mother can't be happy in heaven. OK with that? Keep regressing until you get to a common ancestor of you and Hitler. That ancestor and all others can't be perfectly happy either.

The Bible is full of nothing but lies that make no sense and contradict themselves.

PeopleUnited says

It is a story about the difference between being controlled by your emotions vs. being in control of your emotions.

It fails even at that. It is not hell to be not in control of your emotions. For example, two people having passionate sex. That's heaven, not hell.

Second, it is not heaven to be in control of your emotions. Example: a man at his mother's funeral holding it inside.

Finally, even a person in complete control of his emotions can be harmed by another person in complete control of his emotions. This happens all the time. Some evils are rationally motivated and executed.

PeopleUnited says

You and I have an eternal soul.

Question: if you see one day an AI talking to you and making sense like an other human being and appearing to be conscious, will you then admit we have no soul, but that it's all mechanics.

PeopleUnited says

Tell that to Jesus when you meet Him.

What if you meet Mohamed in the afterlife and he sends you to hell for being Christian?
Or Zeus?

You have to admit that there is no proof one way or an other and so it's all the same: mythology.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

It is a story about the difference between being controlled by your emotions vs. being in control of your emotions.

It fails even at that. It is not hell to be not in control of your emotions. For example, two people having passionate sex. That's heaven, not hell.

Second, it is not heaven to be in control of your emotions. Example: a man at his mother's funeral holding it inside.

Finally, even a person in complete control of his emotions can be harmed by another person in complete control of his emotions. This happens all the time. Some evils are rationally motivated and executed.

1. Being in control of your emotions is not the same as being emotionless. Being angry vs. acting in anger is the difference. Experiencing grief vs. acting out of grief is the difference. your funeral analogy is false.

2. Sex is not an emotion. If sex was an emotion vibrators and sex bots would be worthless. your sex analogy is false

3. The story is about how to achieve divinity of experience or experience heaven. The Zen master rightly defines it as ruling over your emotions rather than letting them rule over you. That does not mean there are not other ways to also achieve divinity of experience or experience heaven on earth. your rational evil argument fails (also sex is another form of experiencing heaven on earth, but again sex is not an emotion, just ask Rin).

Heraclitusstudent says

PeopleUnited says

Tell that to Jesus when you meet Him.

What if you meet Mohamed in the afterlife and he sends you to hell for being Christian?

Or Zeus?

You have to admit that there is no proof one way or an other and so it's all the same: mythology.

The only myths are the one's that are not true. This includes any belief that contradicts the Word of God, which is freely available to anyone who will hear it, see it and respond to it.

I expect to see Mohamed in the afterlife, but he won't be sending me anywhere. Zeus may even exist, as a fallen angel or human-angel hybrid, but he won't have any power over you and I. And keep in mind, God created hell for the devil and the fallen angels. He was not intended for any human being but the devil wants to take as many people as he can with him. Many will choose to reject Jesus and the free gift of redemption that he offers to anyone who will accept Him as their savior. But if you are still reading this, God wants to show his love and mercy if you will have Him as your Lord and Savior.

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic". He was riffing hard, making sense, then botched a few bars there and killed his claim with that.

If women have preferences/worldviews/behaviors that are biologically innate in most, then by definition it's not neurotic.

That was the "Oops", the wrong note, with which Google justified his firing.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic".

Yes, you have to be extremely careful about choice of words when speaking truth to power.

They will seize on any hint of weakness in your position to justify your execution.

PeopleUnited says

I expect to see Mohamed in the afterlife, but he won't be sending me anywhere. Zeus may even exist, as a fallen angel

Pure suppositions.
Why do you believe that?
Let me tell you why: your parents believed it and they brainwashed you at a young age.
If your parents had been Muslims, you'd be an Islamic devout bending over 5 times a day toward the Levant.

PeopleUnited says

The only myths are the one's that are not true.

Myths are other just people religions.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic". He was riffing hard, making sense, then botched a few bars there and killed his claim with that.

In this interview he disarmed a lot of booby traps. Presents himself as moderate. Dismisses links with alt-right. Says he is in favor of women access tech positions, and he is only talking of what women WANT to do. Says tech guys themselves are a few percent of the male population, etc... He comes out as pretty reasonable.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engineer-damore-i-feel-google-betrayed-me-video

Heraclitusstudent says

In this interview he disarmed a lot of booby traps. Presents himself as moderate. Dismisses links with alt-right. Says he is in favor of women access tech positions, and he is only talking of what women WANT to do. Says tech guys themselves are a few percent of the male population, etc... He comes out as pretty reasonable.

He did, but that one bad word choice gave Google an excuse, because...

rando says

Yes, you have to be extremely careful about choice of words when speaking truth to power.

And if they can't find something, they'll carefully edit something, use a moment of satire as if it was an earnest statement of belief (a favorite, CNN just did this to Lord, Meghan Kelly did it to Alex Jones), or otherwise eliminate context.

In any case, the demonization of people seems to be having a reverse impact, since unlike 20 years ago you can use the internet to look people up and read/hear them for yourself. So all publicity is good publicity - for now, until YouTube and Social Media becomes totally under SJW bot control. Also, "Language Learning" AI will be used to root out "Cant" where people substitute a common word/phrase for what they really mean ("The City of the Seven Hills" instead of "Rome".)

ThreeBays says

Good read: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

TL;DR more stupid than brave.

Very good read. Please don't confuse dan, patrick, TPB, and lips with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

I thought they guy was more stupid also. Sounds like a red pill type. My theory on the lack of women in tech is that when they do go into college to do stem then after a couple of semesters dealing with the red pill crowd they say screw this I don't want to work with these anal orifices for the next 40 years and change majors. Just a thought.

My sister-in-law who is a computer programmer had an opinion on the manifesto in question. She agreed with the assertion that google is suppressing ideological debate or diversity, but thought that he should have ended with that. Going after women in STEM was just too much, and offended her as a woman who enjoys her work.

PeopleUnited says

1. Being in control of your emotions is not the same as being emotionless.

Straw man argument that doesn't address what I said.

PeopleUnited says

2. Sex is not an emotion.

People have sex because of the emotions involved. How can you not know this?

PeopleUnited says

The Zen master rightly defines it as ruling over your emotions rather than letting them rule over you.

No, that's the point. Ruling over your emotions does not prevent you from being stabbed in a robbery. Nor is there any cosmological force that causes people who fail to do so to magically get their comeuppance. Life if often unjust. It does not self-correct. To make life just requires active effort, not karma.

PeopleUnited says

That does not mean there are not other ways

Another straw man argument.

PeopleUnited says

your rational evil argument fails

I sincerely doubt you even know what I'm stating, and thus cannot judge it. But hey, prove me wrong. Clearly and accurately state what my position is. We'll see how close you get.

Quigley says

Going after women in STEM was just too much, and offended her as a woman who enjoys her work.

I don't think he was "going after" women in tech at all. To characterize it that way is to create a strawman for easy attack.

He was just coherently explaining why there are fewer women in tech, namely their greater disinterest in it, and objecting to the relentless blaming of male "sexism" for women's disinterest.

As well as objecting to shaming as a means of suppressing open discussion of the issue. He's absolutely right about that for sure.

rando says

I don't think he was "going after" women in tech at all. To characterize it that way is to create a strawman for easy attack.

People with no legitimate counterarguments always go for straw men and poisoning the well. You see that all the time on PatNet and every other forum. This is exactly what the mainstream media did to the memo's author.

Straw men and well poisonings are clear indications of weak positions.

ThreeBays says

Good read: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

Nope, sucky read that confirms yet again everything James pointed out. Just start with the very first line:

You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.

Yet another disingenuous strawman. Will they never end? James never once even implied we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers. Not in the least.

And that article continues with the usual relentless shaming. The "author does not understand" over and over and over ad nauseum.

Lol.

rando says

And that article continues with the usual relentless shaming. The "author does not understand" over and over and over ad nauseum.

Must be written by a PatNet user.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

And if they can't find something, they'll carefully edit something

Yes, this is a core technique of "fake news". When you go see the original video of an interview then you clearly understand how the press is twisting everything to fit an agenda. They keep their credibility in the gutter this way. It's sad, and it's happening right now with James Damore.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

In any case, the demonization of people seems to be having a reverse impact, since unlike 20 years ago you can use the internet to look people up and read/hear them for yourself. So all publicity is good publicity - for now, until YouTube and Social Media becomes totally under SJW bot control.

That reverse impact effect is exactly how Trump got elected. Every press hissy fit that put Trump in the headlines again was another billion dollars effectively donated to his campaign. That was really beautiful to behold.

When YouTube and the rest of social media have completely exterminated honest open discussion, patrick.net will be the place to be! Looking forward to it.