Are we there yet? Anybody still in doubt that a Trump Presidency is a national disaster?

[agent00f]

Yeesh.

Yeah, I suppose I overlooked that part. I'm going to say that while prejudice has a limited number of positives, your equating blanket statements about Mexicans to blanket statements about Trump supporters is... at best... ill-advised.

You're digging your own rabbit-hole at that point.

He's just mad that trumpsters are overwhelmingly resentful of other races and will say anything to obfuscate that uncontroversial reality. Eg: https://thewpsa.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/racial-resentment-and-the-rise-of-donald-trump/

"People who call out racists are the Real racists". Hmm.. where have we heard that before.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It's only a very few if you're willfully ignorant of overwhelming empirical data.

Your "empirical" data from February? That's already been dismissed. Try gathering some actual data from election day. In elections thing change rather drastically from one day to the next. If not, Hillary would have won the election based on the data from the day before the election.

 

[agent00f]

Your "empirical" data from February? That's already been dismissed. Try gathering some actual data from election day. In elections thing change rather drastically from one day to the next. If not, Hillary would have won the election based on the data from the day before the election.

Sure, dismissed by some worthless fact-free mind. I like how you put empirical in quotes as if you even know what that means.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yeesh.

Yeah, I suppose I overlooked that part. I'm going to say that while prejudice has a limited number of positives, your equating blanket statements about Mexicans to blanket statements about Trump supporters is... at best... ill-advised.

You're digging your own rabbit-hole at that point.

There's no hole. I am merely pointing out how he (or she) is making wild claims based primarily on his/her own personal political bias.

 

[agent00f]

There's no hole. I am merely pointing out how he (or she) is making wild claims based primarily on his/her own personal political bias.

No, you're just mouthing off trailer park style when factual reality doesn't suite you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Sure, dismissed by some worthless fact-free mind. I like how you put empirical in quotes as if you even know what that means.

There you go again, acting like an arrogant douchebag. It does you no service yet you somehow feel compelled to engage in such behavior. Apparently you just can't help yourself.

Do continue. It only serves to prove my point.

 

[agent00f]

There you go again, acting like an arrogant douchebag. It does you no service yet you somehow feel compelled to engage in such behavior. Apparently you just can't help yourself.

Do continue. It only serves to prove my point.

Not my role here to provide gold stars to dumbshits. That's the alt-right recruiter job, which I've already credit them for competence at.

"TastesLikeChicken, you're so smart to figure we're not really racists and those mean old liberals are just as bad". LOL.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: Doesn't religion have to promise the supernatural incl. that forever afterlife to dispense authority in this one, or even encourage good behavior? Appears to rather exploit self-interest to me, if a great big kickback is on order. A lot of people sure talk jesus profusely, but for many it certainly looks like a bunch of instinctive rationalization for what sins they just committed; he sure is a forgiving one for allowing them to pollute that good name.

M: The religion you speak of is the result of having returned to the mechanicality of the disease.

a: OTOH, compare this to encouraging selfless behavior through nothing but an abstract categorical imperative. The ethnics of this situation seems pretty clear to me.

M: Clear as mud to me. I know a categorical imperative is term implying something that involves intellectualized thinking, an effort I avoid like a plague of cliches. Keep it simple. I discovered long ago that in my case I used to love to go so far out in the weeds, push out the synaptic connections I could travel down to such limits, that the very complexity of my thoughts was sufficient to confuse me into thinking I might actually be on to something. At such a level of abstraction you have to be a genius of a genius to tell. So sorry, not going down that road.

a: I think living entities use what environment/tools available to them to best survive & flourish. They are where they are both as a group and individually due to what they have done. I'm only judging how they got there and beyond based on their own professed ethics and observable decisions. Maybe if they proclaimed honor in duplicity and what have you, that outlook would be different.

M: I believe we see what we believe rather than the other way round and without actually knowing that is what we are doing. Again, you are describing behavior. I infer motivation behind belief because the awareness of my motivations destroyed my beliefs.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: Doesn't religion have to promise the supernatural incl. that forever afterlife to dispense authority in this one, or even encourage good behavior? Appears to rather exploit self-interest to me, if a great big kickback is on order. A lot of people sure talk jesus profusely, but for many it certainly looks like a bunch of instinctive rationalization for what sins they just committed; he sure is a forgiving one for allowing them to pollute that good name.

M: The religion you speak of is the result of having returned to the mechanicality of the disease.

The religion I speak of is simply what works per evolutionary advantage over alternatives, which is the reality of the matter no apologism is going to change. If the alternatives were more effective, then they would've survived instead.

a: OTOH, compare this to encouraging selfless behavior through nothing but an abstract categorical imperative. The ethnics of this situation seems pretty clear to me.

M: Clear as mud to me. I know a categorical imperative is term implying something that involves intellectualized thinking, an effort I avoid like a plague of cliches. Keep it simple. I discovered long ago that in my case I used to love to go so far out in the weeds, push out the synaptic connections I could travel down to such limits, that the very complexity of my thoughts was sufficient to confuse me into thinking I might actually be on to something. At such a level of abstraction you have to be a genius of a genius to tell. So sorry, not going down that road.

Liberalism speaks instead of the greater good, no excessive reward necessary except self-satisfaction of doing the right thing and the belief that others will also. As a fortunate side-effect of genetics, many humans are conducive to this more civilized way of thinking, and it has fortuitously resulted in modern successes.

Some however are not so predisposed, and there's no reason to include them in a system when it's only detrimental to honest actors. Let's start on this forum by refusing to provide them serious audience.

a: I think living entities use what environment/tools available to them to best survive & flourish. They are where they are both as a group and individually due to what they have done. I'm only judging how they got there and beyond based on their own professed ethics and observable decisions. Maybe if they proclaimed honor in duplicity and what have you, that outlook would be different.

M: I believe we see what we believe rather than the other way round and without actually knowing that is what we are doing. Again, you are describing behavior. I infer motivation behind belief because the awareness of my motivations destroyed my beliefs.

I'm aware of cognitive biases, which is why I minimize my own by describing people as they would see themselves if could look in the mirror as they see others, and what results is a great curiosity. For example, you profess to not intellectualize, yet theorize all sorts of connected motivations beyond the objectively visible.

What makes what you were aware of, or came to be aware of more real than what we can readily agree to be physical reality, or what you might come to be aware of in the future. That's what many an intellectual pondered over the years, which is why their collective skilled insight can provide greater value, same as the expertise found in any other field.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Equivalent." You must have missed that part. He takes the behavior of a very few and transposes it to the many, which is the same thing racists idiots do. It's the same thing Trump did when he claimed Mexican were rapists. He's using the very same type of reasoning which means he's arguing on the same level as Trump. I hope he feels awesome about his intellectual level since he seems to believe he's so damn smart.

What's that new phrase the kids are all saying? Oh yeah, "the ironing".

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: The religion I speak of is simply what works per evolutionary advantage over alternatives, which is the reality of the matter no apologism is going to change. If the alternatives were more effective, then they would've survived instead.

M: What you present as an ineluctable truth is just your opinion, one I do not share.

a: Liberalism speaks instead of the greater good, no excessive reward necessary except self-satisfaction of doing the right thing and the belief that others will also. As a fortunate side-effect of genetics, many humans are conducive to this more civilized way of thinking, and it has fortuitously resulted in modern successes.

M: What you present here as fact is again just your opinion. I don't agree with it.

a: Some however are not so predisposed, and there's no reason to include them in a system when it's only detrimental to honest actors. Let's start on this forum by refusing to provide them serious audience.

M: Good luck getting your opinion accepted by others. I might not like the results if somebody decides my opinion of what is truthful turn out to be lies.

a: I'm aware of cognitive biases, which is why I minimize my own by describing people as they would see themselves if could look in the mirror as they see others, and what results is a great curiosity. For example, you profess to not intellectualize, yet theorize all sorts of connected motivations beyond the objectively visible.

M: I make the assumption that I am real.

a: What makes what you were aware of, or came to be aware of more real than what we can readily agree to be physical reality, or what you might come to be aware of in the future. That's what many an intellectual pondered over the years, which is why their collective skilled insight can provide greater value, same as the expertise found in any other field.

M: Mulla Nasrudin told me but I had to swear to keep it a secret.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f: The religion I speak of is simply what works per evolutionary advantage over alternatives, which is the reality of the matter no apologism is going to change. If the alternatives were more effective, then they would've survived instead.

M: What you present as an ineluctable truth is just your opinion, one I do not share.

a: Liberalism speaks instead of the greater good, no excessive reward necessary except self-satisfaction of doing the right thing and the belief that others will also. As a fortunate side-effect of genetics, many humans are conducive to this more civilized way of thinking, and it has fortuitously resulted in modern successes.

M: What you present here as fact is again just your opinion. I don't agree with it.

a: Some however are not so predisposed, and there's no reason to include them in a system when it's only detrimental to honest actors. Let's start on this forum by refusing to provide them serious audience.

M: Good luck getting your opinion accepted by others. I might not like the results if somebody decides my opinion of what is truthful turn out to be lies.

a: I'm aware of cognitive biases, which is why I minimize my own by describing people as they would see themselves if could look in the mirror as they see others, and what results is a great curiosity. For example, you profess to not intellectualize, yet theorize all sorts of connected motivations beyond the objectively visible.

M: I make the assumption that I am real.

a: What makes what you were aware of, or came to be aware of more real than what we can readily agree to be physical reality, or what you might come to be aware of in the future. That's what many an intellectual pondered over the years, which is why their collective skilled insight can provide greater value, same as the expertise found in any other field.

M: Mulla Nasrudin told me but I had to swear to keep it a secret.

Evolutionary advantage is simply a definitional concept. Organism/ideas that outsurvive others in some given environment are said to be more suitable for it by english semantics. You also don't appear to dispute that rewards (ie self-interest) based religion has out-competed other modes of belief in a higher power at least in the west.

If you can't come to agree with everyone else on the simplest definitions for words communicated then I'm afraid conversation isn't very useful.

 

[Puffnstuff]

One big problem, of course, is that so many of the moral values that magnetize conservatives are the very ones the religious practices they usually follow were designed to cure with that curative part now completely perverted and buried by the original disease they were meant to fix. It's not very healthy to have moral values when those moral values are corrupted. and misapplied.

I would just like to say that I am called a liberal for telling church people that they should adhere to Matthew 7 just like Jesus did. He would be a liberal by today's standards for healing the sick, caring about the impoverished and poor in spirit and for basically standing against most of the actions that you see modern organized religion partaking in. I get attacked by church people for telling them that they should stop attacking LBGT's because the bible tells them not to judge people like that but then again what do I know about these things?

Let me just help you out in understanding something. Jesus often referred to the Sadducees, Pharisees and the Scribes but I've never heard a sermon that actually explained to people who they were so I'd like to help everyone understand who this mystical group of people were. Sadducees, Pharisees and the Scribes = Organized Religion and they are the very same sad lot today that they were back then. Hypocrisy is their modus operandi as they pursue wealth and influence and spew hatred whilst hiding behind pseudo Christianity..

 

[Moonbeam]

[agent00f: Evolutionary advantage is simply a definitional concept. Organism/ideas that outsurvive others in some given environment are said to be more suitable for it by english semantics.

According to you. The survival of organisms and the persistence of ideas are two different phenomenon. The horseshoe crab is nearly identical to ome that lived 400 million years age and terrible ideas can persist for centuries.

a: You also don't appear to dispute that rewards (ie self-interest) based religion has out-competed other modes of belief in a higher power at least in the west.

M: It hasn't out competed anything. It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is profoundly difficult to awaken.

a: If you can't come to agree with everyone else on the simplest definitions for words communicated then I'm afraid conversation isn't very useful.

M: i don't think that a categorical imperative sounds anything like a moral value that would apply to all people but it does imply that you have read Kant. And given how often you describe people as stupid, and knowing well the temptation myself to appear intelligent having myself been told countless times I'm not, I can't escape a feeling that you aren't so much on about communication as you are about sounding intellectually impressive.

I would call that handing me the dirty end of the stick and I'm not keen on taking it. I want to know what you feel. I'm not interested in the collection of relics you've collected in your head.

 

[Painman]

Yes. (In doubt)

And update your av, you lazy fuck

 

[agent00f]

[agent00f: Evolutionary advantage is simply a definitional concept. Organism/ideas that outsurvive others in some given environment are said to be more suitable for it by english semantics.

According to you. The survival of organisms and the persistence of ideas are two different phenomenon. The horseshoe crab is nearly identical to ome that lived 400 million years age and terrible ideas can persist for centuries.

They work through differing mechanisms but the tautological relationship of designs fit for their environment surviving is identical. The horseshoe crab makes for a perfect example of human misconception about its simple yet effective design proven incorrect by the factual reality of it out-competing/surviving any alternative.

a: You also don't appear to dispute that rewards (ie self-interest) based religion has out-competed other modes of belief in a higher power at least in the west.

M: It hasn't out competed anything. It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is profoundly difficult to awaken.

And therefore tautologically unfit for mass appeal/direction, whereas the simple/direct methods continue to prove effective. In any case what religion should be is irrelevant to this conversation of what is (see: is-ought) in the real world of the religious right, who certainly do believe a very favorable transactional exchange of external salvation for doing what needs to be done in this life.

a: If you can't come to agree with everyone else on the simplest definitions for words communicated then I'm afraid conversation isn't very useful.

M: i don't think that a categorical imperative sounds anything like a moral value that would apply to all people but it does imply that you have read Kant. And given how often you describe people as stupid, and knowing well the temptation myself to appear intelligent having myself been told countless times I'm not, I can't escape a feeling that you aren't so much on about communication as you are about sounding intellectually impressive.

I would call that handing me the dirty end of the stick and I'm not keen on taking it. I want to know what you feel. I'm not interested in the collection of relics you've collected in your head.

The categorical imperative (argument for the greater good) & such as key point of ethics in continental idealism was rather influential on western liberalism. You know, the kind of ideas & values that informed the french & american revolutions and founded the nation we speak of, which I hope you're not disputing as matter of opinion. I would also think using smaller words than most appropriate to be patronizing for people who have the capacity to understand.

Recall this came up as a contrast between a straight reward, ie self-interest, based system vs doing what is right in itself. If it makes you feel better it was never implied the latter is necessarily secular, and if anything much closer to what jesus was talking about than jerry falwell.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would just like to say that I am called a liberal............. and they are the very same sad lot today that they were back then. Hypocrisy is their modus operandi as they pursue wealth and influence and spew hatred whilst hiding behind pseudo Christianity..

Thank you

 

[Sunburn74]

And so it continues

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/richard-spencer

A white supremacist is given a talk/rally on Texas A&M campus emboldened by the latest trump win.

Freaking national disaster.

 

[Moonbeam]

agent00f: They work through differing mechanisms but the tautological relationship of designs fit for their environment surviving is identical. The horseshoe crab makes for a perfect example of human misconception about its simple yet effective design proven incorrect by the factual reality of it out-competing/surviving any alternative.

M: What is a tautological relationship of designs? What are the designs specifically and how are they related. Isn't a tautology a linguistic phenomenon where the same idea is repeated like calling something an empty void rather than describing two processes as having similar properties? Or were you striving to be tautological by saying the tautological relationship is identical. Furthermore, what does environment surviving mean. I would think you meant fit for surviving in their environment not that they are fit in a way that makes their environment survive which is what you seem to have actually said. I believe that you reach for a level of erudition beyond what your English abilities can support. I am not trying to belittle your abilities but to suggest that you are difficult enough to understand without sounding, what, professorial?.

As for the horseshoe crab, the point I was making is that it hasn't changed because its simple and effective design hasn't faced selective pressure because the environment in which it successfully functions hasn't changed. And the grammar in your sentence is also messed up. When you place 'proven incorrect' behind 'effective design' it sounds like the effective design was proven incorrect rather than the human misconception. And we don't prove misconceptions to be incorrect since that is implied in the mis part of misconception.

a: And therefore tautologically unfit for mass appeal/direction, whereas the simple/direct methods continue to prove effective. In any case what religion should be is irrelevant to this conversation of what is (see: is-ought) in the real world of the religious right, who certainly do believe a very favorable transactional exchange of external salvation for doing what needs to be done in this life.

M: My brain just flat lined......

a: The categorical imperative (argument for the greater good) & such as key point of ethics in continental idealism was rather influential on western liberalism. You know, the kind of ideas & values that informed the french & american revolutions and founded the nation we speak of, which I hope you're not disputing as matter of opinion. I would also think using smaller words than most appropriate to be patronizing for people who have the capacity to understand.

Recall this came up as a contrast between a straight reward, ie self-interest, based system vs doing what is right in itself. If it makes you feel better it was never implied the latter is necessarily secular, and if anything much closer to what jesus was talking about than jerry falwell.[/QUOTE]

M: I am all for high ideals. The problem isn't the size of the words but that they are so abstractly applied I think only you know what was intended.

 

[jackstar7]

And so it continues

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/richard-spencer

A white supremacist is given a talk/rally on Texas A&M campus emboldened by the latest trump win.

Freaking national disaster.

I anticipate a lot of the same people that defend Milo Y at every turn to request that we allow for free speech and to hear out this speaker. And the protesters (invariably) are just SJWs who want a safe space from Nazis.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Thank you

You are welcome.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The categorical imperative

I have a deontological duty to tell you that I Kant fathom what you are saying.

 

[werepossum]

agent00f: The liberal mental defect is it instinctive believes people are good and therefore misled instead of self-interested and perfectly willing to mislead. Would Trump admit to attempts at scamming people any more than his predecessors or the buckshitters?

I do not believe that is the LBD. The problem with liberals is that they share basically only about 2 classes of moral beliefs with conservatives whereas conservatives have quite a few others It is the liberals who fail to see the moral underpinnings of conservative belief that constantly causes them to be broadsided in elections. Conservatives have a larger pallet of moral concerns than liberals do and so does the general public. People carry their moral values in their guts and are motivated by them. Liberals try to win elections completely blind to what the real emotional level issues are. It's pathetic. Liberals use reason to try to explain complicated ideas devoid of moral passion.

One big problem, of course, is that so many of the moral values that magnetize conservatives are the very ones the religious practices they usually follow were designed to cure with that curative part now completely perverted and buried by the original disease they were meant to fix. It's not very healthy to have moral values when those moral values are corrupted. and misapplied.

You believe, mistakenly, in my opinion, that people consciously and intentionally choose to be that way for their own personal advantage. I say it is an unconscious form of self destruction. You are driven to condemn and I to pity them. That doesn't mean I see the dangers they create or that invite being stabbed in the back.

You consistently conflate liberals with progressives. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give us all free speech rights. Progressives are the ones who say free speech is fine as long as one says only what is approved. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give individuals power to elect our leaders. Progressives are the ones who say democracy is fine as long as they always get the results they want. Liberals are the ones who established universities where ideas are freely exchanged and challenged. Progressives are the ones who demand that only approved ideas can ever be heard and demand safe spaces free of even accidental exposure to non-approved words. Liberals are the ones who said that individuals should be judged not by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, but on their character. Progressives are the ones who establish group identities so that individuals must be judged ONLY by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give individuals power over the government. Progressives are the ones who struggle to grant government more power over the individual, to counter such horrors as unapproved ideas being expressed or too large a soft drink being ordered with lunch.

These are not the same critters, even if at times they must hold their noses and vote for the same candidate. One group gave us Western civilization and almost everything we value; the other group seeks to destroy much of that progress.

 

[Moonbeam]

You consistently conflate liberals with progressives. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give us all free speech rights. Progressives are the ones who say free speech is fine as long as one says only what is approved. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give individuals power to elect our leaders. Progressives are the ones who say democracy is fine as long as they always get the results they want. Liberals are the ones who established universities where ideas are freely exchanged and challenged. Progressives are the ones who demand that only approved ideas can ever be heard and demand safe spaces free of even accidental exposure to non-approved words. Liberals are the ones who said that individuals should be judged not by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, but on their character. Progressives are the ones who establish group identities so that individuals must be judged ONLY by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give individuals power over the government. Progressives are the ones who struggle to grant government more power over the individual, to counter such horrors as unapproved ideas being expressed or too large a soft drink being ordered with lunch.

These are not the same critters, even if at times they must hold their noses and vote for the same candidate. One group gave us Western civilization and almost everything we value; the other group seeks to destroy much of that progress.

Eew. I'm going to have to start calling myself a ham sandwich. What would you call somebody who has all the range of moral values of a conservative in pure form and none of the moral blindness and hypocrisy? I can't just run around calling myself God.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Progressives are the ones who establish group identities so that individuals must be judged ONLY by race or creed or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation. Liberals are the ones who struggled to give individuals power over the government. Progressives are the ones who struggle to grant government more power over the individual, to counter such horrors as unapproved ideas being expressed or too large a soft drink being ordered with lunch.

Jeepers I consider myself to be a progressive liberal who attempts to apply critical thinking skills in every decision I make. I am progressive in that my thoughts are free to adjust for corrections when new information is presented to my brain which critically sifts through it and if it is valid I can immediately apply it and make a course correction. I refuse to go along with group think just because it might be a group norm and I am liberal in that I believe that each person has the right of self governance even if I don't agree with what you are doing as long as it only affects you and perhaps other consenting adults around you..

I reject religion just like Jesus did. Just in case you didn't know it Jesus had issues with organized religion and they were always butting heads about principles since Jesus was God in the flesh I believe that his views take precedence over those of any other person. Kindness, respect and tolerance trump hate and stone throwing all day long.