i'd say on the jerusalem thing... what we got out of it is that the world didn't end. the arab world didn't explode into violence. it was recognition of the reality on the ground, and the reality was that nobody fucking cared if the US recognized jerusalem or not, not our allies, and barely a peep out of our enemies. the palestinians fumed a bit, but the sky didn't come crashing down.
think there was a survey recently, and the majority of the middle east would rather cozy up to israel than to iran. that... is something significant.
the palestinians have been holding out for the whole pie this entire time, recognizing jerusalem should be enough to shock them out of that illusion and perhaps make them realize that if they don't come to the table for something, they might end up with nothing.
they've got a lot of sympathetic countries... that will do nothing for them when push comes to shove. as nobody did anything for the ukraine. the UN is a joke.
for some of us... it is more than a law, but a guiding principle. and i don't know that you can enforce the guiding principle without breaking it at the same time.
i want to live in a world where people can say whatever the fuck they actually think, without risking their livelihood. without exception. but having the government enforce it would be granting the government more power than i'm comfortable granting it.
it really just means, that i'm waiting for everybody to grow up a little, and let people make the mistakes that are necessary for growth.
yes, the first amendment is about government intervention. but that's literally as much as it could cover without trodding on our rights. be careful of growing that lion you're riding too big.
did you read your link? it's saying atmospheric pressure and hence density isn't good so not particularly viable, except during dust storms.
not enough energy to power a turbine unless you've got enough speed to kick up all the dust and block out the sun.
possible... but also not the best way to generate electricity. when you can just plop some radioactive stuff on that rock and generate electricity that way.
hah, it feels as if you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my questions.
as far as i know, you can either believe that evolution works or doesn't. unless we're no longer using the definition of conservative that lies on the political spectrum. the only thing i can imagine you're saying is that the 'conservative position' on evolution is that it is intelligent design or creationist. i'm pretty sure the vast majority of conservatives, probably the preponderance of conservatives have a firm grasp of the mechanics of evolutionary biology.
i'm conservative in regards to quick social change because i'm risk averse. nothing more and nothing less.
i don't actually know what you mean by a conservative attitude toward evolution.
I have a conservative attitude toward the moral structure of our society. and a conservative attitude toward societal structure as a whole. that stance is partially informed by my belief that the evolution of our species and of our societies has built in a working model of how societies can function properly over long spans of time. sure it moves over time, but radical shifts are more likely than not to produce worse results and not better.
i've moved in a conservative direction with age and thus believe that 'if it ain't broke don't mess with it in the hopes of improving it.'
i would say that the best case for the 'system 1' thinking is that it has worked so far for us, and we consciously or unconsciously shift from it at our peril. a little bit of entropic theory plays here, with the understanding that the number of ways you can screw up is invariably orders of magnitude greater than the number of ways you can succeed.
the rule of rationality is new, and it's powerful... but as jordan peterson suggests, it does not indicate how we should act in the world. it's not really in the domain of rational or logical thought to direct human endeavor.
the why is irrelevant to logic, only the how and what happens. i think peterson would say, while correct, the second mode of thinking addresses how the world is, but not how we as individuals should move through it.
our positions are probably closer than you think. my position is simply saying that there is a underlying basis for all our subjective moralities that is evolutionarily driven and determined. higher power does not necessarily factor in.
we do define good and evil. but it is not independently determined person to person because of our shared evolutionary path. i'm atheistic by necessity by the way. so no, the supernatural doesn't factor into my world view.
yes, i realize that. animals can neither be good or evil, that's entirely a human construct on the nature of existence.
i would say that jordan peterson has convinced me that it is evolutionary in nature and not strictly subjective.
the story i'd summarize is that morality is the ingrained pattern of behaviors and mores that has worked for us so far and in general has outcompeted every other 'moral structure' that has arisen by happenstance. And that at this point, it is so deeply ingrained in our make-up from generations upon generations of reinforcement through selective breeding mechanics that it is no longer strictly subjective but transcendent to a certain extent.
that is why utility might seem good, sacrifice the 1 for the 100. but that is a pretty simple moral system which has most likely been tried in the past, and the current morality, that muddies that calculus has won in the long run.
sacrifice might be good, but self-sacrifice is ideal if one person needs to die. and the reverence we hold for those that give their life for their fellow man, is no accident. it's bred into us to revere those people.
the natural world is amoral. without humanity there is no morality. until such a future time when some animal develops the intelligence to understand good and evil.
i'm betting on the other primates, then the pigs, then dolphins then cephalopods.
primates are easy, pigs because land is infinitely more conducive to that evolution i think. necessity for persistent tool use etc. etc. dolphins because close, but water based. and cephalopods because they only live for 3 years. crows never, brains too tiny and costly for flight.
i'm well aware of executive orders, just don't like them when they're used to bypass the legislative process. executive orders are incredibly easy to reverse. and we grant too much power to the presidency. regardless of the president in power. my issue with obama's use in daca is that it acted blatantly to contravene existing immigration law.
if you want to reform immigration, convince congress to pass reform. if you can't do that, work to change the makeup of congress. i don't like it when public policy swings wildly.
no, i just need him to enact something NOT SPECIFICALLY delegated to him in his capacity as president of the United States.
for example, when obama unilaterally declared a moratorium on prosecution of dreamers... that's not really in the purview of his office to do, to pick and choose which laws to enforce. partial enforcement is of course acceptable, but he declared a categorical stop on enforcement. if you want amnesty, pass a bill. but that power is relegated to congress and our political process.
if the president plays within the rules of game as defined, he is not tyrannical. breaking the rules of the game is tyranny. if you want to change the rules of the game, the rules of the game allow for that too. if we want to delegate those powers to the presidency. pass a bill. sign it into law... or ratify an amendment.
the issue isn't that he doesn't fit the mold of a tyrant, it's whether or not he is one. and tyranny, like murder, has one or two 'traits' that must be met.
according to wikipedia "Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as a person who rules without law, using extreme and cruel methods against both his own people and others." and further along, defines it as someone that 'usurps sovereign power'.
you're saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.. i'm saying... it's not even a bird you loon.
in essence, he fits the 'psychological profile' of a tyrant... but he hasn't actually done anything tyrannical.
read the link, trump may have the classic 'traits' seen in a tyrant. but that does not make this government tyrannical nor trump a tyrant. please again, point me to something tyrannical that has happened. having the impulse, is very different from having the follow through.
yeah, and a bunch of farmers with AKs can't fight the military might of the US armed forces.
presumably, control is about controlling people... and it defeats the purpose if you bomb all the people to hell. if the armed forces are fighting against the people...
you have 1.5 million active military right now... and 100 million guns in the US among 300 million us citizens. as we see time and time again, boots on the ground is still a vital part of war.
its in poor taste, but he's not taking direct action. unless someone makes the case that he's trying to sway the NFL leadership with threat of governmental reprisal if they don't comply.
wait... that argument seems pretty damn close to racial profiling. i'm not sure if you wanted to go in that direction, but sure. lets look at demographics and paint them all with additional scrutiny and stop and frisk.
Slashdot Mirror
i'd say on the jerusalem thing... what we got out of it is that the world didn't end. the arab world didn't explode into violence. it was recognition of the reality on the ground, and the reality was that nobody fucking cared if the US recognized jerusalem or not, not our allies, and barely a peep out of our enemies. the palestinians fumed a bit, but the sky didn't come crashing down.
think there was a survey recently, and the majority of the middle east would rather cozy up to israel than to iran. that... is something significant.
the palestinians have been holding out for the whole pie this entire time, recognizing jerusalem should be enough to shock them out of that illusion and perhaps make them realize that if they don't come to the table for something, they might end up with nothing.
they've got a lot of sympathetic countries... that will do nothing for them when push comes to shove. as nobody did anything for the ukraine. the UN is a joke.
for some of us... it is more than a law, but a guiding principle. and i don't know that you can enforce the guiding principle without breaking it at the same time.
i want to live in a world where people can say whatever the fuck they actually think, without risking their livelihood. without exception. but having the government enforce it would be granting the government more power than i'm comfortable granting it.
it really just means, that i'm waiting for everybody to grow up a little, and let people make the mistakes that are necessary for growth.
yes, the first amendment is about government intervention. but that's literally as much as it could cover without trodding on our rights. be careful of growing that lion you're riding too big.
holy shit... you're a highlander? what's it like to live for hundreds of years?
controversy is almost never good. introduces variability into the profit model.
did you read your link? it's saying atmospheric pressure and hence density isn't good so not particularly viable, except during dust storms.
not enough energy to power a turbine unless you've got enough speed to kick up all the dust and block out the sun.
possible... but also not the best way to generate electricity. when you can just plop some radioactive stuff on that rock and generate electricity that way.
win an election, and change it, convince people and change it.
in obama's words,
you don't like what i'm doing? win an election.
hah, it feels as if you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my questions.
as far as i know, you can either believe that evolution works or doesn't. unless we're no longer using the definition of conservative that lies on the political spectrum. the only thing i can imagine you're saying is that the 'conservative position' on evolution is that it is intelligent design or creationist. i'm pretty sure the vast majority of conservatives, probably the preponderance of conservatives have a firm grasp of the mechanics of evolutionary biology.
i'm conservative in regards to quick social change because i'm risk averse. nothing more and nothing less.
i don't actually know what you mean by a conservative attitude toward evolution.
I have a conservative attitude toward the moral structure of our society. and a conservative attitude toward societal structure as a whole. that stance is partially informed by my belief that the evolution of our species and of our societies has built in a working model of how societies can function properly over long spans of time. sure it moves over time, but radical shifts are more likely than not to produce worse results and not better.
i've moved in a conservative direction with age and thus believe that 'if it ain't broke don't mess with it in the hopes of improving it.'
i would say that the best case for the 'system 1' thinking is that it has worked so far for us, and we consciously or unconsciously shift from it at our peril. a little bit of entropic theory plays here, with the understanding that the number of ways you can screw up is invariably orders of magnitude greater than the number of ways you can succeed.
the rule of rationality is new, and it's powerful... but as jordan peterson suggests, it does not indicate how we should act in the world. it's not really in the domain of rational or logical thought to direct human endeavor.
the why is irrelevant to logic, only the how and what happens. i think peterson would say, while correct, the second mode of thinking addresses how the world is, but not how we as individuals should move through it.
our positions are probably closer than you think. my position is simply saying that there is a underlying basis for all our subjective moralities that is evolutionarily driven and determined. higher power does not necessarily factor in.
we do define good and evil. but it is not independently determined person to person because of our shared evolutionary path. i'm atheistic by necessity by the way. so no, the supernatural doesn't factor into my world view.
yes, i realize that. animals can neither be good or evil, that's entirely a human construct on the nature of existence.
i would say that jordan peterson has convinced me that it is evolutionary in nature and not strictly subjective.
the story i'd summarize is that morality is the ingrained pattern of behaviors and mores that has worked for us so far and in general has outcompeted every other 'moral structure' that has arisen by happenstance. And that at this point, it is so deeply ingrained in our make-up from generations upon generations of reinforcement through selective breeding mechanics that it is no longer strictly subjective but transcendent to a certain extent.
that is why utility might seem good, sacrifice the 1 for the 100. but that is a pretty simple moral system which has most likely been tried in the past, and the current morality, that muddies that calculus has won in the long run.
sacrifice might be good, but self-sacrifice is ideal if one person needs to die. and the reverence we hold for those that give their life for their fellow man, is no accident. it's bred into us to revere those people.
the natural world is amoral. without humanity there is no morality. until such a future time when some animal develops the intelligence to understand good and evil.
i'm betting on the other primates, then the pigs, then dolphins then cephalopods.
primates are easy, pigs because land is infinitely more conducive to that evolution i think. necessity for persistent tool use etc. etc. dolphins because close, but water based. and cephalopods because they only live for 3 years. crows never, brains too tiny and costly for flight.
never heard penguin before. kudos on that whimsical insults.
enjoy your stress.
i'm well aware of executive orders, just don't like them when they're used to bypass the legislative process. executive orders are incredibly easy to reverse. and we grant too much power to the presidency. regardless of the president in power. my issue with obama's use in daca is that it acted blatantly to contravene existing immigration law.
if you want to reform immigration, convince congress to pass reform. if you can't do that, work to change the makeup of congress. i don't like it when public policy swings wildly.
no, i just need him to enact something NOT SPECIFICALLY delegated to him in his capacity as president of the United States.
for example, when obama unilaterally declared a moratorium on prosecution of dreamers... that's not really in the purview of his office to do, to pick and choose which laws to enforce. partial enforcement is of course acceptable, but he declared a categorical stop on enforcement. if you want amnesty, pass a bill. but that power is relegated to congress and our political process.
if the president plays within the rules of game as defined, he is not tyrannical. breaking the rules of the game is tyranny. if you want to change the rules of the game, the rules of the game allow for that too. if we want to delegate those powers to the presidency. pass a bill. sign it into law... or ratify an amendment.
the issue isn't that he doesn't fit the mold of a tyrant, it's whether or not he is one. and tyranny, like murder, has one or two 'traits' that must be met.
according to wikipedia "Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as a person who rules without law, using extreme and cruel methods against both his own people and others." and further along, defines it as someone that 'usurps sovereign power'.
you're saying, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.. i'm saying... it's not even a bird you loon.
in essence, he fits the 'psychological profile' of a tyrant... but he hasn't actually done anything tyrannical.
read the link, trump may have the classic 'traits' seen in a tyrant. but that does not make this government tyrannical nor trump a tyrant. please again, point me to something tyrannical that has happened. having the impulse, is very different from having the follow through.
i don't think that word means what you think it means. please point to something tyrannical as enacted by the current government.
tyranny isn't here. the president is not a king.
venezuela
last refuge, other factors are also very important.
yeah, and a bunch of farmers with AKs can't fight the military might of the US armed forces.
presumably, control is about controlling people... and it defeats the purpose if you bomb all the people to hell. if the armed forces are fighting against the people...
you have 1.5 million active military right now... and 100 million guns in the US among 300 million us citizens. as we see time and time again, boots on the ground is still a vital part of war.
isis just claimed him, but that's up in the air
its in poor taste, but he's not taking direct action. unless someone makes the case that he's trying to sway the NFL leadership with threat of governmental reprisal if they don't comply.
wait... that argument seems pretty damn close to racial profiling. i'm not sure if you wanted to go in that direction, but sure. lets look at demographics and paint them all with additional scrutiny and stop and frisk.