Ok. Perhaps I was conflating one of your statements with another. You said it was important, on logical grounds, to entertain the possibility of god's existence, and at the same time you said it was not necessary, on subjective grounds, to accept other fictional characters if you accept god. Those were the two statements I was seeing as contradictory and indicative of a double standard. The conflict would be resolved if you were to say that it is important to entertain the possibility of the existence of Gandalf and Arthur Dent. Then god is only special in the subjective eyes of believers and holds no particular rational superiority.
In fact, to really bring it into parity, I think you'd have to say it was *foolish* not to entertain the possibility of the existence of Gandalf and Arthur Dent:)
Because some people believe that only a being that is at least semi-intelligent could do such a thing. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is their thought process.
So essentially, it sounds reasonable to some people, so that gives it a special status that elevates it above other crazy speculation in such a way that *everyone* is obligated to afford it more respect than unicorns and invisible leprechauns? What if I don't think it's more reasonable than those things? Whether or not you find the premise more reasonable than unicorns is purely a matter of subjective opinion. Logically/rationally, one is not better than the other. Now if people want to believe in god despite there being no rational reason to do so, they should. But we were talking about formal reasoning and if you're going to argue that you have to entertain the possibility of god's existence, then you also have to entertain the possibility of Gandalf and Arthur Dent as the earlier poster said.
To put it another way, if it is acceptable to reject Gandalf and Arthur Dent on the grounds that they don't sound reasonable to you, then why can't god be rejected on those grounds? Regardless of what others think, I do not find the notion of a creator god to be reasonable. Either we're reasoning formally or not, and we should apply the standards consistently to all unfalsifiable premises.
People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable.
You must have misinterpreted me. You don't have to "entertain" it so much as you have to "entertain" the possibility of it. All you have to say is "I don't know, but I don't believe in it and it's probably not real." That won't affect you in the slightest.
Well, you don't even have to entertain the possibility. At least not of that specifically. Formally, you could recognize that the unknowable is unknowable, and maybe that's worth doing, but it doesn't inform your decisions, so if you don't give it any thought at all, it won't matter.
Before this sentence, had you ever entertained the possibility that the earth is a shapeshifting walrus that is currently in the form of a planet? You probably hadn't, I'm guessing, and your ability to function and to evaluate scientific ideas was unaffected. In a broad sense, sure, recognize that things that are unknowable cannot, by definition, be known, but there's no reason to entertain the possibility any *particular* unfalsifiable premise.
I agree that it's not a reason to fill in the blanks and add characteristics to a hypothetical entity that we know nothing about, but it is one possible solution. Some people choose to believe in it (like with everything else). I don't really understand the point of religions themselves.
So if it is not sound to ascribe any additional properties to the entity, it is not sound to ascribe omnipotence (creation of the universe required only a finite amount of power), self-awareness, intelligence, or intention to it... or even that it is a singular entity. Essentially, how is it any different from saying "The universe is here because of *something* but we have no idea what it was"?
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room.
Stating with absolute certainty that something exists or doesn't exist when there's no evidence either way (unless there is supposed to be evidence for it, of course), no matter what it is, is quite foolish, I think.
You and I have different standards for foolishness, I think. Closing your eyes as you cross a rope bridge is foolish. Denying the existence of fairies and whatnot may not be logically airtight, but it's far from foolish. People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable. While you are technically correct that we can't know whether or not there is a god, the important thing to take away from that is that it is therefore out of the bounds of epistemology. There's no reason for us to entertain hypotheses that can't be falsified. If a person wants to take a shortcut and say that we shouldn't believe in things we don't entertain, I find that reasonable. Sure, formally, we'll keep right on acknowledging that certain things can never be known, but informally, we're going to live our lives as though there are no unicorns, so what difference does it make whether we say we don't believe in unicorns or say the answer to the question of unicorns is unknowable?
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
Not necessarily. For some, there is a reason to believe in a god. The reason being is that we exist, and they search for the catalyst which caused us to exist. Their belief, so far, is purely speculation, but the reason is there and I don't believe it to be entirely unreasonable (unlike with those other characters).
That's not a reason to believe in god. That's a reason to believe that something caused the universe to come into existence. The other traits ascribed to god are irrelevant. Would you find those "other characters" more reasonable if we added that they created the universe?
Doesn't Jaime cripple a child as one of his first acts in the books? Maybe he's not "epic fantasy Hitler", but I wouldn't say he's a "decent person" *exactly*. But then again, I only read the first two books, so I suppose it's possible that he somehow redeemed himself for doing that... hard to imagine how you redeem yourself for intentionally crippling a child (while actually trying to kill said child).
I'm sure you could argue that that doesn't prove anything. And you'd be right, technically. You can find almost anything with a google search. But perhaps you'd be willing to share with me what makes you so certain you're right. Do you know something I don't? Perhaps you could share.
I've always found that statistic surprising. My personal experience in online gaming and reading gaming websites and forums is that I tend to be the old man most of the time, and I'm only 30, which makes me younger than the average. The people who are older than me must play different games or hide themselves well.
You should tell that to a rape victim. Man, what crybabies they are. It's just their vagina. Surely the damage done by a rape doesn't extend beyond the physical discomfort inflicted upon their genitals.
Then you *really* don't want to hear about selective service. But kidding aside, drinking age is stupid but ultimately arbitrary and irrelevant. *None* of us can smoke pot legally (in America). If they suddenly changed it so that people over the age of 40 were allowed to smoke pot, it wouldn't make 39 year olds children, suddenly.
However, your final point is spot on. I remember my master told me something a long time ago that sticks with me to this day. Skill trumps no skill, but attitude trumps skill. If, for whatever reason, I'm not treating a physical confrontation as the fight of my life (perhaps afraid of getting hurt, reluctant to hurt others) and my opponent is, my odds of winning just went way down regardless of relative skill level.
This is true in my experience even if you aren't fighting for real. I had a friend I used to spar with who was a black belt in hapkido. His skill greatly exceeded my own, but sometimes my attitude would win. We used to have informal no rules weapon fights (with padded weapons), and I'd do things he wouldn't expect. He broke my nunchaku with his sticks one time, and I responded by immediately darting to grapple range and ripping his sticks out of his hands. With my weapon broken, he probably expected me to retreat, but doing the opposite confused and surprised him enough that he was shocked into inaction. Mental combat is every bit as important as physical combat.
Well done. I love the idea of women successfully fighting off her attackers. But regarding the original point of everyone learning martial arts to end rape, I just don't find that a credible solution. I have a fair amount of martial arts training myself, but I wouldn't like my chances against three guys, one of whom has a knife. I don't like my chances against one guy with a knife, even if he's not out to kill me. Who knows what can happen in a chaotic situation? Sounds like things went well for you, but could have gone much worse. Not that I would recommend you handle it differently. Just saying that once a physical confrontation begins, there's little you can do to guarantee a good outcome. Our time is better spent avoiding those situations than training to be victorious in them.
Really? I think "Woman kicks the ass of would-be rapist" would be a very popular news story. I don't have any data to back that up, but it sounds like the sort of thing people would love.
Re-read what you just wrote. You are angry and outraged because you completely fell for the fear. Pretty much nothing which goes on is new. A small subset of wealthy Americans have tried to grab more power pretty much constantly since the country was founded. It has not destroyed the country in over 200 years, what makes you think this time it's suddenly different?
Nothing. It's not different. I'm curious what makes you think that the small subset of wealthy Americans in this country have never done anything worth fighting against. Also, you have an odd kind of metric, here. I guess as long as the country hasn't been destroyed, we should all just be happy with what we've got and keep our mouths shut.
... yet when someone suggests cutting off taxpayer support, their listeners act as if Hitler were back banning newspapers. That isn't hypocritical fearmongering?
Question: do you think it undermines your point at all to use a Hitler analogy when criticizing people for overreacting and needlessly sensationalizing/inflaming an issue?
This is true, so there will, of course, always be a market for it. But I wonder how many people care that much? I find it plenty good enough, and being able to pick the movie I want from a menu and watch it beats fiddling with discs even if we aren't considering that every blu ray movie individually accounts for 2-3 months of Netflix.
How does it prevent the sale of a new one? I mean, maybe you didn't buy a new one, but you could have driven someone else to do so.
If the alternative is to not buy a PS3 at all, then you leave the used one for someone else to buy rather than leaving someone else with no choice but to buy new. That's what he means by increasing scarcity. If you buy PS3s on the used market, you decrease the size of the used market, ultimately driving people, potentially, to the new market. Of course, it makes no difference if there aren't any people who are willing to buy new in the absence of used hardware, but I doubt that's the case.
And I have a third theory: A lot of us curse at things our computer does, but the target of our cursing is the gang of malevolent idiots who built the software.
Ah, that's probably the distinction that 61% of respondents are making. They're all willfully misunderstanding the question so they can give a misleading answer on the basis of an arbitrary technicality.
Also, in that regard, do you think Mubarak would even consider stepping down if the Egyptians posted a billboard? I think not. Hence, the 'illegal' protests in the street.
What on earth does this have to do with Mubarak? He said: "Perhaps I'd feel differently if there were no outlet for protest other than a DDoS, but there are." You don't get to just point to Egypt and then sit back and congratulate yourself on a job well done. He's accounting for that already by expressing the opinion that this situation is inherently different.
What does this have to do with Afghanistan or Iraq? Am I missing something? I thought the story was that HBGary Federal was trying to out people who participated in Anonymous's DDoS attacks and people passing themselves off as "members" of Anonymous responded by hacking their accounts and humiliating them. That's what we're talking about, right? Let's carry the "giant list of things that are worse than that" to another discussion. Or better yet, let's not talk about it at all, because it's beside the point.
Is that what he said? I think the conversation went "A is bad" "Unrelated thing B is worse" "Sure, B is really bad, but back on A for the moment, here's why I think it's bad."
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. Perhaps I was conflating one of your statements with another. You said it was important, on logical grounds, to entertain the possibility of god's existence, and at the same time you said it was not necessary, on subjective grounds, to accept other fictional characters if you accept god. Those were the two statements I was seeing as contradictory and indicative of a double standard. The conflict would be resolved if you were to say that it is important to entertain the possibility of the existence of Gandalf and Arthur Dent. Then god is only special in the subjective eyes of believers and holds no particular rational superiority.
In fact, to really bring it into parity, I think you'd have to say it was *foolish* not to entertain the possibility of the existence of Gandalf and Arthur Dent :)
Because some people believe that only a being that is at least semi-intelligent could do such a thing. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that is their thought process.
So essentially, it sounds reasonable to some people, so that gives it a special status that elevates it above other crazy speculation in such a way that *everyone* is obligated to afford it more respect than unicorns and invisible leprechauns? What if I don't think it's more reasonable than those things? Whether or not you find the premise more reasonable than unicorns is purely a matter of subjective opinion. Logically/rationally, one is not better than the other. Now if people want to believe in god despite there being no rational reason to do so, they should. But we were talking about formal reasoning and if you're going to argue that you have to entertain the possibility of god's existence, then you also have to entertain the possibility of Gandalf and Arthur Dent as the earlier poster said.
To put it another way, if it is acceptable to reject Gandalf and Arthur Dent on the grounds that they don't sound reasonable to you, then why can't god be rejected on those grounds? Regardless of what others think, I do not find the notion of a creator god to be reasonable. Either we're reasoning formally or not, and we should apply the standards consistently to all unfalsifiable premises.
People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable.
You must have misinterpreted me. You don't have to "entertain" it so much as you have to "entertain" the possibility of it. All you have to say is "I don't know, but I don't believe in it and it's probably not real." That won't affect you in the slightest.
Well, you don't even have to entertain the possibility. At least not of that specifically. Formally, you could recognize that the unknowable is unknowable, and maybe that's worth doing, but it doesn't inform your decisions, so if you don't give it any thought at all, it won't matter.
Before this sentence, had you ever entertained the possibility that the earth is a shapeshifting walrus that is currently in the form of a planet? You probably hadn't, I'm guessing, and your ability to function and to evaluate scientific ideas was unaffected. In a broad sense, sure, recognize that things that are unknowable cannot, by definition, be known, but there's no reason to entertain the possibility any *particular* unfalsifiable premise.
I agree that it's not a reason to fill in the blanks and add characteristics to a hypothetical entity that we know nothing about, but it is one possible solution. Some people choose to believe in it (like with everything else). I don't really understand the point of religions themselves.
So if it is not sound to ascribe any additional properties to the entity, it is not sound to ascribe omnipotence (creation of the universe required only a finite amount of power), self-awareness, intelligence, or intention to it... or even that it is a singular entity. Essentially, how is it any different from saying "The universe is here because of *something* but we have no idea what it was"?
We are constantly dismiss non-probably events like invisible leprechauns hidden in the server room.
Stating with absolute certainty that something exists or doesn't exist when there's no evidence either way (unless there is supposed to be evidence for it, of course), no matter what it is, is quite foolish, I think.
You and I have different standards for foolishness, I think. Closing your eyes as you cross a rope bridge is foolish. Denying the existence of fairies and whatnot may not be logically airtight, but it's far from foolish. People get really caught up here, as though the inability to falsify the unfalsifiable means that we must entertain the unfalsifiable. While you are technically correct that we can't know whether or not there is a god, the important thing to take away from that is that it is therefore out of the bounds of epistemology. There's no reason for us to entertain hypotheses that can't be falsified. If a person wants to take a shortcut and say that we shouldn't believe in things we don't entertain, I find that reasonable. Sure, formally, we'll keep right on acknowledging that certain things can never be known, but informally, we're going to live our lives as though there are no unicorns, so what difference does it make whether we say we don't believe in unicorns or say the answer to the question of unicorns is unknowable?
If you accept god(s), then you must accept all fictional beings including Gandalf and Arthur Dent.
Not necessarily. For some, there is a reason to believe in a god. The reason being is that we exist, and they search for the catalyst which caused us to exist. Their belief, so far, is purely speculation, but the reason is there and I don't believe it to be entirely unreasonable (unlike with those other characters).
That's not a reason to believe in god. That's a reason to believe that something caused the universe to come into existence. The other traits ascribed to god are irrelevant. Would you find those "other characters" more reasonable if we added that they created the universe?
Doesn't Jaime cripple a child as one of his first acts in the books? Maybe he's not "epic fantasy Hitler", but I wouldn't say he's a "decent person" *exactly*. But then again, I only read the first two books, so I suppose it's possible that he somehow redeemed himself for doing that... hard to imagine how you redeem yourself for intentionally crippling a child (while actually trying to kill said child).
You would be wrong.
Would I? Did you try a google search? I did.
First result. From 6 days ago.
I'm sure you could argue that that doesn't prove anything. And you'd be right, technically. You can find almost anything with a google search. But perhaps you'd be willing to share with me what makes you so certain you're right. Do you know something I don't? Perhaps you could share.
"The average age for a video game player is 35".
I've always found that statistic surprising. My personal experience in online gaming and reading gaming websites and forums is that I tend to be the old man most of the time, and I'm only 30, which makes me younger than the average. The people who are older than me must play different games or hide themselves well.
You should tell that to a rape victim. Man, what crybabies they are. It's just their vagina. Surely the damage done by a rape doesn't extend beyond the physical discomfort inflicted upon their genitals.
Then you *really* don't want to hear about selective service. But kidding aside, drinking age is stupid but ultimately arbitrary and irrelevant. *None* of us can smoke pot legally (in America). If they suddenly changed it so that people over the age of 40 were allowed to smoke pot, it wouldn't make 39 year olds children, suddenly.
However, your final point is spot on. I remember my master told me something a long time ago that sticks with me to this day. Skill trumps no skill, but attitude trumps skill. If, for whatever reason, I'm not treating a physical confrontation as the fight of my life (perhaps afraid of getting hurt, reluctant to hurt others) and my opponent is, my odds of winning just went way down regardless of relative skill level.
This is true in my experience even if you aren't fighting for real. I had a friend I used to spar with who was a black belt in hapkido. His skill greatly exceeded my own, but sometimes my attitude would win. We used to have informal no rules weapon fights (with padded weapons), and I'd do things he wouldn't expect. He broke my nunchaku with his sticks one time, and I responded by immediately darting to grapple range and ripping his sticks out of his hands. With my weapon broken, he probably expected me to retreat, but doing the opposite confused and surprised him enough that he was shocked into inaction. Mental combat is every bit as important as physical combat.
Well done. I love the idea of women successfully fighting off her attackers. But regarding the original point of everyone learning martial arts to end rape, I just don't find that a credible solution. I have a fair amount of martial arts training myself, but I wouldn't like my chances against three guys, one of whom has a knife. I don't like my chances against one guy with a knife, even if he's not out to kill me. Who knows what can happen in a chaotic situation? Sounds like things went well for you, but could have gone much worse. Not that I would recommend you handle it differently. Just saying that once a physical confrontation begins, there's little you can do to guarantee a good outcome. Our time is better spent avoiding those situations than training to be victorious in them.
On the other hand, his inability to perform may be little consolation if he decides to take revenge by killing you.
Really? I think "Woman kicks the ass of would-be rapist" would be a very popular news story. I don't have any data to back that up, but it sounds like the sort of thing people would love.
Re-read what you just wrote. You are angry and outraged because you completely fell for the fear. Pretty much nothing which goes on is new. A small subset of wealthy Americans have tried to grab more power pretty much constantly since the country was founded. It has not destroyed the country in over 200 years, what makes you think this time it's suddenly different?
Nothing. It's not different. I'm curious what makes you think that the small subset of wealthy Americans in this country have never done anything worth fighting against. Also, you have an odd kind of metric, here. I guess as long as the country hasn't been destroyed, we should all just be happy with what we've got and keep our mouths shut.
... yet when someone suggests cutting off taxpayer support, their listeners act as if Hitler were back banning newspapers. That isn't hypocritical fearmongering?
Question: do you think it undermines your point at all to use a Hitler analogy when criticizing people for overreacting and needlessly sensationalizing/inflaming an issue?
In short, this was the Audi 5000 all over again, and people need to learn how to drive instead of blaming their mistakes on their cars.
Wow that takes me back. My grandpa had that car and I remember talking to him about it at the time.
This is true, so there will, of course, always be a market for it. But I wonder how many people care that much? I find it plenty good enough, and being able to pick the movie I want from a menu and watch it beats fiddling with discs even if we aren't considering that every blu ray movie individually accounts for 2-3 months of Netflix.
I was being sarcastic, of course. I'm in the camp with those who think most of the 61% are simply lying.
How does it prevent the sale of a new one? I mean, maybe you didn't buy a new one, but you could have driven someone else to do so.
If the alternative is to not buy a PS3 at all, then you leave the used one for someone else to buy rather than leaving someone else with no choice but to buy new. That's what he means by increasing scarcity. If you buy PS3s on the used market, you decrease the size of the used market, ultimately driving people, potentially, to the new market. Of course, it makes no difference if there aren't any people who are willing to buy new in the absence of used hardware, but I doubt that's the case.
And I have a third theory: A lot of us curse at things our computer does, but the target of our cursing is the gang of malevolent idiots who built the software.
Ah, that's probably the distinction that 61% of respondents are making. They're all willfully misunderstanding the question so they can give a misleading answer on the basis of an arbitrary technicality.
So the goal is press? Would you say, then, that Anonymous's press has helpful to Wikileaks? I know I wouldn' t.
Also, in that regard, do you think Mubarak would even consider stepping down if the Egyptians posted a billboard? I think not. Hence, the 'illegal' protests in the street.
What on earth does this have to do with Mubarak? He said: "Perhaps I'd feel differently if there were no outlet for protest other than a DDoS, but there are." You don't get to just point to Egypt and then sit back and congratulate yourself on a job well done. He's accounting for that already by expressing the opinion that this situation is inherently different.
He would... If you thought that what the revolutionaries were doing was wrong.
What does this have to do with Afghanistan or Iraq? Am I missing something? I thought the story was that HBGary Federal was trying to out people who participated in Anonymous's DDoS attacks and people passing themselves off as "members" of Anonymous responded by hacking their accounts and humiliating them. That's what we're talking about, right? Let's carry the "giant list of things that are worse than that" to another discussion. Or better yet, let's not talk about it at all, because it's beside the point.
Is that what he said? I think the conversation went "A is bad" "Unrelated thing B is worse" "Sure, B is really bad, but back on A for the moment, here's why I think it's bad."