It's hard to pass down traditions to people who never exist.
And yet, homosexuality, promiscuity, and extramarital sex have persisted for many millions of years of mammalian, primate, and human evolution. Obviously, if those traits were so harmful or incompatible with successful societies, they would have been eliminated long ago.
The fact that a behavior exists isn't an argument for it. Granted, a few acts of that behavior didn't completely wipe out humanity.
But every behavior exists. Think of some type of behavior. Has it been completely eliminated? No. Some types have been mostly eliminated. But none completely.
As I was saying, I'm sympathetic to the idea that traditional marriage is generally a good thing. However, the conservative reasoning you exhibit is as brain-dead and authoritarian as that of totalitarian leftists.
It's merely an explanation of how traditional relationships became a tradition. Judge it whichever way you prefer. The guys who made it a tradition were more interested in protecting their societies than in whether they might be called an "authoritarian".
I’d say totalitarianism is more of a threat than non-family-oriented behavior these days.
My brain tells me people don't know the future. And that people who make up stories about what would have happened in an alternate future are fantasizing. And fantasies are a poor basis for decision-making. And reasoning with others based on your own fantasies is not a worthwhile use of time for either the speaker or the audience.
If you want to tell a story about how Hillary wins and rides a winged horse to the inaugural ball then that might be a story worth hearing (especially if Hillary were better looking).
Is it "people who serve others are worse than people who only do things for themselves and take advantage of others"? Is it "helping your fellow man is exactly the same as sitting at home watching Netflix"? Is it "nothing matters at all"?
Understood, people who have unmarried sex can only be drunkards, selfish, homeless, etc. No biased argument at all.
No need to get defensive. If you don't understand the difference between one type of behavior and another, that's 100% ok with me. One type tends to lead to growing old and spending time with your grandchildren. The other type doesn't. That's all. It's hard to pass down traditions to people who never exist. Or if you believe in nothing, it's also hard to pass that down as a tradition. I hope you're having fun.
... more with the fact that they believe that people ought to have sex only inside a heterosexual marriage
It's a traditional belief based on observation.
Some guys looked around and saw who was strong: - villages with families and children - strong ties over generations - hard work to support and protect the family and the people of the villiage - putting the needs of the group ahead of momentary self indulgences
And they also saw who was weak: - homeless, fatherless children - drunkards - people who always seek their own pleasure over the needs of their family and the people around them - people used by others for sex (and then abandoned or disposed of)
They picked the one they thought would work out the best, taught it to their children, and it became a tradition. Some other guys presumably picked the opposite one and that became their tradition. One of those traditions lasted a few thousand years in the west — with mostly similar traditions elsewhere in almost every non-Western culture for the same time period or longer.
This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.
You don't know how climate models work. Almost no one does. Yet you "believe in them". Is it because they produce results that fit your politics? What's the difference?
How is the climate stuff not mostly people waving red or blue flags to show which team they are on? Be honest — if not with us, at least with yourself .
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have.
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."?
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
Because if you don't work, then someone else has to work for you, against their will. How else will food get into your hands? Even if you imagine robots doing all the farming and delivery, someone had to make the robots.
Also, if you don't do anything for anyone, WTF good are you?
Predictions of the future? Is that really the beginning and end of thinking?
You know the future. You know what would have happened in an alternate future where Hillary was elected. You are so sure that you know the future that you're emotionally upset about it. You're willing to treat others badly, be mean to them, divide people and pick out villains based on your knowledge of the future?
What if you don't know the future? Would that mean you could be nice to others? Could you agree to disagree peaceably with them? Could you stop worrying and maybe have a better life?
Knowing the future doesn't seem to be helping you.
If he made rational, sensible predictions they wouldn't make the news. You make news by predicting outlandish things that are carefully calculated to be exactly what the news reporters want to hear.
Not really. None of them demand anything from anyone. They just build stuff that people like (except Facebook). Anyone can easily disengage with any of their companies without difficulty (except Facebook).
You are confusing a personality with a cult. They aren't the same. Don't be shallow.
I think the author doesn't want to be blacklisted. Proclaiming reality -- by pointing out how some particular statements are not reality -- gets you blacklisted.
You're a monster if you make some specific, very self-involved, very dramatic people feel bad. Meanwhile those people make everyone around them feel bad most of the time. They demand to be catered to and spend their time trying to police others' behavior. But there's a quasi-religious devotion to them. Cults look weird from the outside.
These peope are breaking the social contract (in it's most basic form: don't fuck people over) and don't even realise it. Worse, they think they are breaking new ground and helping society. Most people that behave this way don't think that they are normal and are helping. It's fucked up.
Some of them realize they're fucking people over. They just don't care because [reasons]. Smart people can be very good at finding justifications for hurting others.
Not like they need to try very hard. "Trump" seems to be accepted as an all-purpose justification for whatever. No matter what you do, one hater group or another will take your side if you did it because "Trump".
Yeah, ideologues are at odds with reality. And ambition is looking past current reality toward a less real (but better) future. So when ambitious ideologues get ahead of themselves, they seem out of touch with reality — because they are.
It's not reality that Silicon Valley needs, it's humanity. Don't "make the world a better place"; make things better for people instead. People need your help, they don't need you to be their overseer, they don't need your ideas for how they should think or how they should live their lives. Don't impose. Don't preach at people. Don't try to engineer or optimize people who didn't ask you. Don't be a bully.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, homosexuality, promiscuity, and extramarital sex have persisted for many millions of years of mammalian, primate, and human evolution. Obviously, if those traits were so harmful or incompatible with successful societies, they would have been eliminated long ago.
The fact that a behavior exists isn't an argument for it. Granted, a few acts of that behavior didn't completely wipe out humanity.
But every behavior exists. Think of some type of behavior. Has it been completely eliminated? No. Some types have been mostly eliminated. But none completely.
As I was saying, I'm sympathetic to the idea that traditional marriage is generally a good thing. However, the conservative reasoning you exhibit is as brain-dead and authoritarian as that of totalitarian leftists.
It's merely an explanation of how traditional relationships became a tradition. Judge it whichever way you prefer. The guys who made it a tradition were more interested in protecting their societies than in whether they might be called an "authoritarian".
I’d say totalitarianism is more of a threat than non-family-oriented behavior these days.
Use your brain.
My brain tells me people don't know the future. And that people who make up stories about what would have happened in an alternate future are fantasizing. And fantasies are a poor basis for decision-making. And reasoning with others based on your own fantasies is not a worthwhile use of time for either the speaker or the audience.
If you want to tell a story about how Hillary wins and rides a winged horse to the inaugural ball then that might be a story worth hearing (especially if Hillary were better looking).
That is how a sociopath thinks.
Cool. What's the answer?
Also, what's the alternative thought process?
Is it "people who serve others are worse than people who only do things for themselves and take advantage of others"?
Is it "helping your fellow man is exactly the same as sitting at home watching Netflix"?
Is it "nothing matters at all"?
Help me out.
Any model specifically made to fit the data will fit the data.
Understood, people who have unmarried sex can only be drunkards, selfish, homeless, etc. No biased argument at all.
No need to get defensive. If you don't understand the difference between one type of behavior and another, that's 100% ok with me. One type tends to lead to growing old and spending time with your grandchildren. The other type doesn't. That's all. It's hard to pass down traditions to people who never exist. Or if you believe in nothing, it's also hard to pass that down as a tradition. I hope you're having fun.
... more with the fact that they believe that people ought to have sex only inside a heterosexual marriage
It's a traditional belief based on observation.
Some guys looked around and saw who was strong:
- villages with families and children
- strong ties over generations
- hard work to support and protect the family and the people of the villiage
- putting the needs of the group ahead of momentary self indulgences
And they also saw who was weak:
- homeless, fatherless children
- drunkards
- people who always seek their own pleasure over the needs of their family and the people around them
- people used by others for sex (and then abandoned or disposed of)
They picked the one they thought would work out the best, taught it to their children, and it became a tradition. Some other guys presumably picked the opposite one and that became their tradition. One of those traditions lasted a few thousand years in the west — with mostly similar traditions elsewhere in almost every non-Western culture for the same time period or longer.
But WTF did they know, right?
This is not about whether he "knows" science. This is about appointing someone who *doesn't believe in science* because it produces results that don't fit his politics.
You don't know how climate models work. Almost no one does. Yet you "believe in them". Is it because they produce results that fit your politics? What's the difference?
How is the climate stuff not mostly people waving red or blue flags to show which team they are on? Be honest — if not with us, at least with yourself .
That's an imaginative story. What does it have to do with unconditionally paying able-bodied people not to work?
And you are right. Knowledge of the future isn't helping me. It sickens me to think of the problems the next generations of humans are going to have.
Humans have always had problems. They always will. It gets easier and easier to deal with them as time passes and resources and knowledge increase. Note: it's "deal with them", not "prevent them" like some characters in a movie who won't listen to Jeff Goldblum's dramatic warnings.
If the Marshall Islands become submerged in 2050, will you see the news and say, "Not my problem, I didn't cause it."?
The Marshall Islands? 2050? The possibility that they — the people of the Marshall Islands — might have trouble with high sea levels 30 years from now? Is that really one of the things that matter most? (Why? Are the 2050 Marshall Islanders the chosen ones? There's no one today, in your home town, who needs help?)
I'd solve it myself if I could, but this problem requires a team effort at solution. We should be able to make significant progress on this with a few deniers, but not when one of them is the president.
There's zero reason to believe it matters very much. You had a climate guy for 8 years. How much did it truly matter? A little maybe? You want to be upset about maybe a little difference?
Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels.
That area is subsiding. It has been for a very long time, just as sea levels have been rising for a long time. Virginia is a rich state, especially right near the coast. Perhaps they should formulate their own plan to use their own resources to deal with their problems.
Ignoring the large group of well-informed people that is warning us that much worse is in store is idiocy, def. "foolishness".
And being upset about some vaguely-defined potential future problem you can't change is wise?
Socialism tends to run on the assumption that people enjoy working.
Systems tend to run on whatever assumption works for the material benefit of the people in power.
Who is setting the tone of the conversation here?
Bullies.
Because if you don't work, then someone else has to work for you, against their will. How else will food get into your hands? Even if you imagine robots doing all the farming and delivery, someone had to make the robots.
Also, if you don't do anything for anyone, WTF good are you?
... is going to cause "only" serious problems ...
Predictions of the future? Is that really the beginning and end of thinking?
You know the future. You know what would have happened in an alternate future where Hillary was elected. You are so sure that you know the future that you're emotionally upset about it. You're willing to treat others badly, be mean to them, divide people and pick out villains based on your knowledge of the future?
What if you don't know the future? Would that mean you could be nice to others? Could you agree to disagree peaceably with them? Could you stop worrying and maybe have a better life?
Knowing the future doesn't seem to be helping you.
If he made rational, sensible predictions they wouldn't make the news. You make news by predicting outlandish things that are carefully calculated to be exactly what the news reporters want to hear.
Has CNN connected to dots to Russia yet?
Miss D. Opportunity.
A business incubator? So your business can languish like Yahoo while others thrive?
Turn right where the Burger King used to be before it burned down in 2015.
Please Google, make it happen.
No you wouldn't. You'd feel emotionally threatened by that person and treat them badly.
(If not "you" then the collective "you" -- the plurality that would be required to elect someone.)
Not really. None of them demand anything from anyone. They just build stuff that people like (except Facebook). Anyone can easily disengage with any of their companies without difficulty (except Facebook).
You are confusing a personality with a cult. They aren't the same. Don't be shallow.
The problem is that when robots take your job ....
Why are you making up stories? What are you trying to justify that needs a made-up story as a reason for it to happen?
I think the author doesn't want to be blacklisted. Proclaiming reality -- by pointing out how some particular statements are not reality -- gets you blacklisted.
You're a monster if you make some specific, very self-involved, very dramatic people feel bad. Meanwhile those people make everyone around them feel bad most of the time. They demand to be catered to and spend their time trying to police others' behavior. But there's a quasi-religious devotion to them. Cults look weird from the outside.
Not really an example.
These peope are breaking the social contract (in it's most basic form: don't fuck people over) and don't even realise it. Worse, they think they are breaking new ground and helping society. Most people that behave this way don't think that they are normal and are helping. It's fucked up.
Some of them realize they're fucking people over. They just don't care because [reasons]. Smart people can be very good at finding justifications for hurting others.
Not like they need to try very hard. "Trump" seems to be accepted as an all-purpose justification for whatever. No matter what you do, one hater group or another will take your side if you did it because "Trump".
Yeah, ideologues are at odds with reality. And ambition is looking past current reality toward a less real (but better) future. So when ambitious ideologues get ahead of themselves, they seem out of touch with reality — because they are.
It's not reality that Silicon Valley needs, it's humanity. Don't "make the world a better place"; make things better for people instead. People need your help, they don't need you to be their overseer, they don't need your ideas for how they should think or how they should live their lives. Don't impose. Don't preach at people. Don't try to engineer or optimize people who didn't ask you. Don't be a bully.
Here's a trial by a tv station: http://www.nbc12.com/story/182...
Summary: don't pay up for Duracells