In responding to a picky critique of one word in your post, you managed to steer right back to the crazy. Nice job. At least you don't hide your agenda.
Unfortunately, some people believe that science can do no wrong, no matter the countless counter-examples in history.
Yes, but fortunately the application of science tends to isolate those people, and limit the influence they have on the directions and practice of science. (Notice I didn't say it works perfectly - it's not like I have irrational faith in science.)
One thing though... history is documentation of past events. By definition, the things that people have documented can be counted. You meant "many" instead of "countless", right?
The smart ones tend to have arrived at their belief after intellectual reasoning
What reasoning would that be, I wonder?
Let's look at it logically. Does human consciousness have a naturalistic basis? If no, then there must be a "creator". If yes, then there is no reason that we should not be able to create artificial consciousnesses.
There's your problem right there - "does human consciousness have a naturalistic basis"? You pose a vague question, then jump to an unsupported conclusion. Then you follow it up with a nebulous supposition about artificial reality and a hand-waving assumption about what that means statistically.
Really, you just jumped off into the wild blue yonder like any group of college freshmen bullshitting in the dorm the first week of college.
Anyone who actually believed in a flying spaghetti monster would be suffering from a serious mental defect. In this hypothetical, it is reasonable to automatically infer some type of cognitive impairment if IQ was negatively correlated with a belief in flying spaghetti monsters. However as soon as you throw Jesus or Allah in the mix people go fucking nuts. If you're suggesting that we investigate why these individual clearly lack critical thinking skills, that would be great, but I don't think that's what you meant with your statement.
You make a nebulous statement that you believe in some sort of deity, so I think it's a valid assumption that you share the same type of "mental defect" as someone who actually believed in the FSM. Your faith is probably based on nothing provable as well. Whatever it is you believe in, I challenge you not to "go fucking nuts" if you respond.
How does an identical twin raised apart inherit poor education? By being adopted inside US so all schools are equally bad?
Hmm, what's the appropriate term for a false and gratuitous insult directed at an entire country? Not ad hominem, certainly... how about ad gens? (to the nation).
There may be a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ, but it's not a reliable indicator of intelligence. You should see me and my uncle arguing over we are atheists or agnostics.
Funny that your over the top imagined response to this article involved a call to (metaphorically) burn christians. It's usually the christians who cite burning as the fate for the rest of us, literally, and for eternity.
NSA what? I'm sorry I can't hear you over all this FREEDOM.
You know, one doesn't have to be pro-NSA to imagine that the contemporaneous events really don't have anything to do with each other. The Syrian civil war started before Snowden. The NSA didn't order Assad's goons to use chemical weapons.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. The point is that there is *always* an opportunity at hand to distract people from the embarrassing. If it weren't Syria they could always rewarm the problem with Iran. Or North Korea.
And this isn't the first use of chemical weapons by Assad, but it looks like the first one that's going to win them a cruise missile or two.
For what it's worth, I *don't* think this is an attempt to distract from the unconstitutional NSA programs or Snowden. I think it's just more stupidity from the president I voted for twice, and for whom I had such great hope.
I agree - we have no strong national interest in interfering with the Syrian civil war.
And no moral position to do so, either. I'm trying to figure out how we're better than Assad, when he kills a thousand people in a short period, and we kill many more times that fucking around in Iraq, in a longer period. And how much more heinous are chemical weapons than slaughtering innocent men, women and children at a wedding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike
I could catalog each of the things you wrote that is factually wrong, misogyny presented as fact, and poisonous bile, but it's not really worth the time.
I'd be curious to see how you were raised (no, please don't tell me), but... wow. Just wow.
To end on a positive note, I did enjoy how you chose to become a programmer instead of dying in the gutter. That was nice.
Oh, and I won't read any reply you post. Life's too short.
What are these employment contracts you speak of? I'm a VP (it's a real position, I don't work for a bank), and I'm as "at will" as the most junior of my direct reports.
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
Ironically, in 1892 (close enough), Andrew Carnegie used private security forces to physically battle striking steel workers in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike - Carnegie was an asshole who paid workers as little as he could, but built hundreds of libraries and opera halls, so his six-days-per-week workers could better themselves. When asked for better wages, he replied that they would just spend the money on better food, or more drink with their meals, and that he knew what they actually needed.
You can call him a heartless fuck, but the announcers on NPR still say his name ("Andrew Carnegie Foundation") dozens of times a day.
When you two went on the dad/son bonding crime spree, did you notice any telepathic communication during the holdups, like when you saw the guard on the floor pulling his gun, and your dad just spun and shot him?
Slashdot Mirror
In responding to a picky critique of one word in your post, you managed to steer right back to the crazy. Nice job. At least you don't hide your agenda.
Your post.
Um, Robert Heinlein wrote "Job: A Comedy of Justice".
I didn't care for his later work. Heinlein is more enjoyable when you're young, and don't recognize the Ayn Rand philosophy, sexism and racism.
Thats the sort of plague i'd be looking at if i was god.
You seem like a decent person, so I'd prefer your actual existence, as opposed to being a fictional character.
Unfortunately, some people believe that science can do no wrong, no matter the countless counter-examples in history.
Yes, but fortunately the application of science tends to isolate those people, and limit the influence they have on the directions and practice of science. (Notice I didn't say it works perfectly - it's not like I have irrational faith in science.)
One thing though... history is documentation of past events. By definition, the things that people have documented can be counted. You meant "many" instead of "countless", right?
The smart ones tend to have arrived at their belief after intellectual reasoning
What reasoning would that be, I wonder?
Let's look at it logically. Does human consciousness have a naturalistic basis? If no, then there must be a "creator". If yes, then there is no reason that we should not be able to create artificial consciousnesses.
There's your problem right there - "does human consciousness have a naturalistic basis"? You pose a vague question, then jump to an unsupported conclusion. Then you follow it up with a nebulous supposition about artificial reality and a hand-waving assumption about what that means statistically.
Really, you just jumped off into the wild blue yonder like any group of college freshmen bullshitting in the dorm the first week of college.
Anyone who actually believed in a flying spaghetti monster would be suffering from a serious mental defect. In this hypothetical, it is reasonable to automatically infer some type of cognitive impairment if IQ was negatively correlated with a belief in flying spaghetti monsters. However as soon as you throw Jesus or Allah in the mix people go fucking nuts. If you're suggesting that we investigate why these individual clearly lack critical thinking skills, that would be great, but I don't think that's what you meant with your statement.
You make a nebulous statement that you believe in some sort of deity, so I think it's a valid assumption that you share the same type of "mental defect" as someone who actually believed in the FSM. Your faith is probably based on nothing provable as well. Whatever it is you believe in, I challenge you not to "go fucking nuts" if you respond.
How does an identical twin raised apart inherit poor education? By being adopted inside US so all schools are equally bad?
Hmm, what's the appropriate term for a false and gratuitous insult directed at an entire country? Not ad hominem, certainly... how about ad gens? (to the nation).
There may be a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ, but it's not a reliable indicator of intelligence. You should see me and my uncle arguing over we are atheists or agnostics.
Hate to break it to you, but it's a whole different country. It's the one with the Indians, that Gandhi freed from the Brits.
I disagree.
:-)
But if it came to that, I still wouldn't leave you for the Eaters.
Funny that your over the top imagined response to this article involved a call to (metaphorically) burn christians. It's usually the christians who cite burning as the fate for the rest of us, literally, and for eternity.
Here, I got this for you... read it.
http://www.vaccineinformation.org/how-vaccines-work/
http://xkcd.com/603/
Come on now, the nice congressman deserves a shout out for his extraordinary courage. To wit;
Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior. http://news.yahoo.com/congressman-calls-evolution-lie-pit-hell-175514039.html
It's worth repeating; he believes that (the theory of) evolution, embryology, and (the theory of) the Big Bang are LIES MADE UP BY THE DEVIL.
Look for the video on YouTube. He says these things in front of a wall covered with creepy mounted deer heads.
You know, one doesn't have to be pro-NSA to imagine that the contemporaneous events really don't have anything to do with each other. The Syrian civil war started before Snowden. The NSA didn't order Assad's goons to use chemical weapons.
Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. The point is that there is *always* an opportunity at hand to distract people from the embarrassing. If it weren't Syria they could always rewarm the problem with Iran. Or North Korea.
And this isn't the first use of chemical weapons by Assad, but it looks like the first one that's going to win them a cruise missile or two.
For what it's worth, I *don't* think this is an attempt to distract from the unconstitutional NSA programs or Snowden. I think it's just more stupidity from the president I voted for twice, and for whom I had such great hope.
I agree - we have no strong national interest in interfering with the Syrian civil war.
And no moral position to do so, either. I'm trying to figure out how we're better than Assad, when he kills a thousand people in a short period, and we kill many more times that fucking around in Iraq, in a longer period. And how much more heinous are chemical weapons than slaughtering innocent men, women and children at a wedding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike
I could catalog each of the things you wrote that is factually wrong, misogyny presented as fact, and poisonous bile, but it's not really worth the time.
I'd be curious to see how you were raised (no, please don't tell me), but... wow. Just wow.
To end on a positive note, I did enjoy how you chose to become a programmer instead of dying in the gutter. That was nice.
Oh, and I won't read any reply you post. Life's too short.
What are these employment contracts you speak of? I'm a VP (it's a real position, I don't work for a bank), and I'm as "at will" as the most junior of my direct reports.
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
Ironically, in 1892 (close enough), Andrew Carnegie used private security forces to physically battle striking steel workers in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike - Carnegie was an asshole who paid workers as little as he could, but built hundreds of libraries and opera halls, so his six-days-per-week workers could better themselves. When asked for better wages, he replied that they would just spend the money on better food, or more drink with their meals, and that he knew what they actually needed.
You can call him a heartless fuck, but the announcers on NPR still say his name ("Andrew Carnegie Foundation") dozens of times a day.
Except that it tops out at a pay rate much lower than I have seen in the past 20 years.
Believe me, unemployment checks for me would be a pittance.
And no, I'm not looking for sympathy.
...which is why I keep all my money in bitcoins.
This was brilliant, except for the problem that Lady Gaga is a tranny.
You can look it up.
When you two went on the dad/son bonding crime spree, did you notice any telepathic communication during the holdups, like when you saw the guard on the floor pulling his gun, and your dad just spun and shot him?
Good point. Except the entire series is just a VR fantasy of one of the real crew on the Red Dwarf.
Or is it?