I see the failing is more widespread. In the examples I gave, animals are acting in the Austrian School sense of making purposeful decisions.
Bees are pretty much considered non-intelligent, even though hives/swarms may have some kind of emergent behavior that looks purposeful. They don't think and they certainly don't make purposeful decisions. They're more reactive/random than that.
I guess that makes them at least somewhat *human* in the Austrian School sense.
I'm not an expert on economics so perhaps you can elaborate. I thought you said the Austrian School doesn't consider the actions of things like bees, but now you're saying they are agents capable of action like humans in the Austrian School?
In addition to the other recommendation you've received, I suggest Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." I read it in high school and found it accessible.
That bolded part can be refuted easily by observing non-human actors such as computer trading programs and animals. The latter can make economically relevant decisions without having a human involved anywhere in the process, for example, bees harvesting honey and incidentally pollinating plants or a host of scavengers and predators taking turns on a large carcass.
A computer trading program is a tool used by humans. Animals "act" in the vernacular sense but the Austrian school's idea of action derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... which is the study of *human* action.
In thinking of economics, while it certainly makes sense to consider the actions of animals as you noted, the only relevance is in guiding the actions of humans. It's irrelevant to consider what honeybees are going to do outside of how that impacts humans and how we must react to them.
That's questionable. Many of those advances were done by people who were taken over by Muslims. Some of them may have converted or been forced to convert.
In any case, it's more than that. The reason it's called the "Islamic golden age" is because it's the height of scientific advancement UNDER ISLAM, not because of its absolute magnitude. The Islamic golden age was not more fruitful than the time that came before it. The same people were producing science, art, literature, etc under Persian rule or Christian rule or Egyptian rule or Babylonian rule or whatever. If you read about the history of these cities, you'll see they were doing quite well before Islam came, then they did okay for a while as they were allowed to continue their activities relatively unimpeded, then after a time the previous culture eroded and Islam took its place and everything had to be couched in Islamic terms to placate the rulers and progress suffered immensely.
It would have been MY mistake to assume it must take an entire culture to destroy valuable archaeological sites. But I didn't so fuck you very much.
Okay I'm glad you are aware of that. It really wasn't clear from your reply.
A more appropriate statements of the fact would have included something like "Some Egyptians Muslims" or "Extremist Egyptian Muslims" or "Egyptian Religious Radicals".
Adding "some" would not make it more appropriate, it's redundant. Adding "some" to every reference of a group is stupid.
Adding the word "extremist" is problematic. Extremist from whose perspective? From my perspective, even mainstream Muslims are extremely religious compared to what I'm exposed to. Extremist from the perspective of mainstream Muslims? Which Muslims? American Muslims? Egyptian Muslims? Do you actually KNOW the proportion of Egyptian Muslims who support the closure of Western tourist attractions like the pyramids? If you're going to attach the word "extremist" to them then you better have some idea. If it's more than a few percent it's not really extremist.
Leaders of the Salafist and Wahabi parties have called for the destruction of pagan idols and the pyramids, and they won about 25% of the seats in 2012. So calling them "extremists" is totally accurate for me and you (hopefully, I don't know you) but that's not the same as "unpopular" or "non-representative."
If I see some White dude with Nazi tats screaming vitriol against minorities, I'm not going to say "White People call for race war".
That's a stupid analogy. If the KKK won 25% of Congress, it would be totally appropriate to say "white people call for race war" even though many or most white people didn't. It's enough.
If you have deluded yourself into thinking only a handful of Muslims in Egypt have a problem with the glorification of pre-Islamic society, that's your problem. It doesn't make you sound smart though.
I never stated that it must take an entire culture to destroy the pyramids. What I said had nothing to do with such a claim.
You said "A few radicals =/= an entire country/culture" in reply to "Egyptian Muslims have already called for the destruction of the pyramids and the sphinx."
What was the relevance of that rather obvious fact if it has "nothing to do" with what we were TALKING ABOUT... the destruction of the Egyptian pyramids?
Look, I'm guessing you just weren't aware of how much support there was in Egypt to destroy the pyramids. It's not 0.1%. It's a pretty big proportion, and it's largely an urban vs rural issue because cities benefit more from the tourism dollars. People out in the country are like "You are making money by glorifying pagans and selling alcohol to infidels, that should stop."
That's not really accurate, while Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were "in power" in the government, they did not control the military which is the arbiter of force in any country. And of course it's the military that removed Morsi from power. So how can you say they actually had any power in Egypt?
The reason the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were blown up was that they had a complete Islamist power in the government and the military. IF that were to happen in Egypt, then you'd see similar consequences.
You are absolutely correct that Islam has nothing to do with it, yet it's called the golden age of Islam anyway and this guy is the first example in your reference of a product of this "golden age." Why is that? Why would they attribute any of this to Islam when it has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact the conditions of the time were closer to the dark ages of Europe than anything that could be called "golden?"
My example illustrates how the golden age of Islam is a sham. You don't seem to be adding anything to counter that, just explaining that it wasn't better than the darkest period of European history. Well I agree.
Fighting for something doesn't automatically mean you're committing crimes.
Correct, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the terrorists who claim to be fighting for Islam could actually be fighting for Islam. OP claimed they are not, they are simply using religion to justify their crimes.
My point is that they are indistinguishable.
And Isis, is of course, the name of a false god and thus anathema to the fundamental tenet of Islam.
I hope you're joking. That's an acronym invented by Westerners. You realize that they use a different alphabet and different words than we do... right? The transliteration of their own acronym is something like "DASH" I believe, not "ISIS."
I suspect if the Islamists get power in Egypt they'll do 1 of 2 things: 1. Turn the pyramids into mosques 2. Close them off, stop restoring them, loot and deface whatever art remains
Also the Sphinx will be defaced.
Perhaps you're being too literal in your interpretation of "destroy."
Your mistake is that it doesn't take "an entire country/culture" to destroy the pyramids, just like destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan didn't take the concerted effort of every Muslim in Afghanistan.
Oh yes the fabled golden age of Islam. What a joke. Let me demonstrate... I'll just take the first person mentioned in your Wikipedia link.
Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen) was significant in the history of scientific method, particularly in his approach to experimentation,[20] and has been referred to by his modern biographer Bradley Steffens and others [21] as the "world’s first true scientist".
Wow sounds cool. I guess Islam really helped him out in being the first true scientist! Let's click on his article to confirm.
According to one version of his biography,[18] al-Haytham, confident about the practical application of his mathematical knowledge, assumed he could regulate the floods of the Nile. Having been ordered to do so by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, he quickly realised its impossibility. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][19] and was placed under house arrest.
lol yeah. Sounds really "golden."
There's a similar story about Galileo, and it's used as an example of how overbearing the Catholic Church was at the time. But nooo, in this case, it's an example of how "golden" Islam is. Makes sense!
I seriously did not know this story before clicking the first link in your reference, btw. But to be honest, I have read similar stories and I already knew the golden age of Islam was a crock of shit.
Tell me what the difference is between "fighting for Islam" and "using religion as an excuse and justification for their crimes." Honestly it sounds about the same, except perhaps for connotation.
I mean, if someone does something that you personally perceive as a crime, and they do it in the name of Islam, and they justify and excuse it with Islam, then they've ticked both boxes. Why do you think there's a distinction?
Islamists are not interested in Western tourism dollars. You might as well say "Well look at all the money you can make selling pork and alcohol!" The argument just doesn't appeal to them.
Argentina was forced by some creditors to sign agreements giving jurisdiction to US courts because the creditors did not trust Argentinian courts. Argentina bartered their sovereignty on the issue for better credit terms, now they are crying because they are being held to those terms by a court that is not corrupt and subject to their own control.
This whole deal shows the world that: 1. If you're selling bonds and plan on ripping everybody off, do not mess with US courts because they are not scared of your shithole government and they will confiscate your "sovereign" asse(t)s 2. If you're buying bonds from risky countries, do so under a stable jurisdiction like the US otherwise you can be completely screwed by some populist who thinks you're a criminal because you bought what they were voluntarily selling
In this thread, the "accusation" is that the accusations against Zoe have truth to them. The accusation takes the form of a comment, not an article in its own right. Your "[citation needed]" post is out of place.
If you're curious about it, look it up. If you dispute it, dispute it. This is a website where people comment about the article, and often about things completely unrelated to the article. Some work on your part is required, the comment thread isn't a place for you to whine about not being spoon-fed. For your [citation needed] comment to be taken at all seriously, you have to at least add that you searched for it and couldn't find it, so you don't believe it's true without more work on OP's part, thus [citation needed].
As it turns out I was curious about the accusation as well so I searched for some more information. Took me about 10 seconds to find some interesting things:
If we take a page from the feminist playbook and define these gaming communities as "safe spaces" for men, then anything goes there and women have no right to complain.
I think your comment would better be addressed to serviscope_minor who made the claim that acknowledging gender differences automatically means the speaker thinks women are inferior. He is the one who took a comment about women having a different point of view than men and turning it into an ism.
Your comment raises a good point about other factors playing a role in sending people to jail though. It's certainly not *purely* related to reasoning. But, all else equal, wouldn't you agree that reasoning plays *a* role? After all there are black guys from poor neighborhoods with broken families receiving pressure from gangs (add in whatever other factors you think play a role) who are NOT in jail. Surely at least part of that is up to the individual's reasoning in choosing one action over another, and not just down to pure luck?
Attempts to end misogynist sexism are different in character than attempts to balance misogynist sexism with misandrist sexism, so a distinction can be drawn.
It's also a straw man because there are plenty of drives in other, female dominated industries to get more men in.
No it's not a straw man because while there are some resources going towards addressing the lack of men in female dominated industries, it's so much less significant than what is being done to help women that it can only be called a gross imbalance.
Never said it was the same. The OP claimed it was not the case. That is false, as I have demonstrated.
You should try reading OP's post again. He said there was no "crusade" to address the imbalance in female dominated industries. "Crusade" is much stronger than your response of "there are some programs to help men." And if you look at the coverage given to things like these diversity numbers from tech companies, and all the coverage and programs to get women in STEM, it is much more widespread than the programs to help men.
What the fuck are you on about? No one's claiming there's no problem. The OP was calaiming there was no drive to get women into male dominated industries like mining. That is provable false.
It may be provable, but you did not prove it. A handful of crappy websites does not a "drive" make, otherwise like I said we can all stop talking about women in STEM because I can also Google for 30 seconds and find a few websites. The drive exists. It's good enough. We don't need more. Right? Because that's what you said, and what you're now confirming... that a handful of websites is enough of a "drive" that calling for more action (as OP did) is unfounded.
Wow, so ALL women have to do something to gether as a united group before you'll have patience for speeches of equality from some of its members.
No... that is wrong... the people giving the speeches about equality need to believe it, otherwise they are hypocrites. This isn't complicated. When a handful of rich, powerful, or famous women go out and say "I'm going to do something today about.. INEQUALITY!" and the result is "So I'm going to start pushing purely on behalf of women in a select few fields that I'd like to see more women in" that is hypocrisy. This is not hard to understand.
It would be like me, a white guy, saying "I'm going to do something about racism today. I know, I'll start a white male scholarship program!! Man, I am so anti-racism, it's awesome."
You see the problem right? Is it more clear when a white guy is doing it?
You don't see that requiing all women to act together as a single entity is a sexist point of view?
Well technically it's not, because I expect the same thing from men.
I do not support hypocritical pro-male-only-in-the-name-of-equality programs. I can't really think of any modern ones to list as examples. They probably exist but are not nearly as well known as the pro-women programs.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Yeah I know. You probably don't agree that sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on sex.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks well researched and has citations.
I picked one thing at random (Obama's support of Cesar Chavez) and looked it up and it checks out.
Why are you insinuating that it's unreliable, without explicitly calling it so?
I see the failing is more widespread. In the examples I gave, animals are acting in the Austrian School sense of making purposeful decisions.
Bees are pretty much considered non-intelligent, even though hives/swarms may have some kind of emergent behavior that looks purposeful. They don't think and they certainly don't make purposeful decisions. They're more reactive/random than that.
I guess that makes them at least somewhat *human* in the Austrian School sense.
I'm not an expert on economics so perhaps you can elaborate. I thought you said the Austrian School doesn't consider the actions of things like bees, but now you're saying they are agents capable of action like humans in the Austrian School?
Lucky for me, uverse service became available at my address sometime in the last 2 years.
I'm reeeeally hoping that they extend their gigapower service or whatever to all existing uverse-capable addresses eventually.
I think it's a form of the association fallacy (guilt by association).
In addition to the other recommendation you've received, I suggest Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter." I read it in high school and found it accessible.
That bolded part can be refuted easily by observing non-human actors such as computer trading programs and animals. The latter can make economically relevant decisions without having a human involved anywhere in the process, for example, bees harvesting honey and incidentally pollinating plants or a host of scavengers and predators taking turns on a large carcass.
A computer trading program is a tool used by humans. Animals "act" in the vernacular sense but the Austrian school's idea of action derives from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... which is the study of *human* action.
In thinking of economics, while it certainly makes sense to consider the actions of animals as you noted, the only relevance is in guiding the actions of humans. It's irrelevant to consider what honeybees are going to do outside of how that impacts humans and how we must react to them.
That's questionable. Many of those advances were done by people who were taken over by Muslims. Some of them may have converted or been forced to convert.
In any case, it's more than that. The reason it's called the "Islamic golden age" is because it's the height of scientific advancement UNDER ISLAM, not because of its absolute magnitude. The Islamic golden age was not more fruitful than the time that came before it. The same people were producing science, art, literature, etc under Persian rule or Christian rule or Egyptian rule or Babylonian rule or whatever. If you read about the history of these cities, you'll see they were doing quite well before Islam came, then they did okay for a while as they were allowed to continue their activities relatively unimpeded, then after a time the previous culture eroded and Islam took its place and everything had to be couched in Islamic terms to placate the rulers and progress suffered immensely.
It would have been MY mistake to assume it must take an entire culture to destroy valuable archaeological sites. But I didn't so fuck you very much.
Okay I'm glad you are aware of that. It really wasn't clear from your reply.
A more appropriate statements of the fact would have included something like "Some Egyptians Muslims" or "Extremist Egyptian Muslims" or "Egyptian Religious Radicals".
Adding "some" would not make it more appropriate, it's redundant. Adding "some" to every reference of a group is stupid.
Adding the word "extremist" is problematic. Extremist from whose perspective? From my perspective, even mainstream Muslims are extremely religious compared to what I'm exposed to. Extremist from the perspective of mainstream Muslims? Which Muslims? American Muslims? Egyptian Muslims? Do you actually KNOW the proportion of Egyptian Muslims who support the closure of Western tourist attractions like the pyramids? If you're going to attach the word "extremist" to them then you better have some idea. If it's more than a few percent it's not really extremist.
Leaders of the Salafist and Wahabi parties have called for the destruction of pagan idols and the pyramids, and they won about 25% of the seats in 2012. So calling them "extremists" is totally accurate for me and you (hopefully, I don't know you) but that's not the same as "unpopular" or "non-representative."
If I see some White dude with Nazi tats screaming vitriol against minorities, I'm not going to say "White People call for race war".
That's a stupid analogy. If the KKK won 25% of Congress, it would be totally appropriate to say "white people call for race war" even though many or most white people didn't. It's enough.
If you have deluded yourself into thinking only a handful of Muslims in Egypt have a problem with the glorification of pre-Islamic society, that's your problem. It doesn't make you sound smart though.
I never stated that it must take an entire culture to destroy the pyramids. What I said had nothing to do with such a claim.
You said "A few radicals =/= an entire country/culture" in reply to "Egyptian Muslims have already called for the destruction of the pyramids and the sphinx."
What was the relevance of that rather obvious fact if it has "nothing to do" with what we were TALKING ABOUT... the destruction of the Egyptian pyramids?
Look, I'm guessing you just weren't aware of how much support there was in Egypt to destroy the pyramids. It's not 0.1%. It's a pretty big proportion, and it's largely an urban vs rural issue because cities benefit more from the tourism dollars. People out in the country are like "You are making money by glorifying pagans and selling alcohol to infidels, that should stop."
That's not really accurate, while Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were "in power" in the government, they did not control the military which is the arbiter of force in any country. And of course it's the military that removed Morsi from power. So how can you say they actually had any power in Egypt?
The reason the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan were blown up was that they had a complete Islamist power in the government and the military. IF that were to happen in Egypt, then you'd see similar consequences.
What's Islam got to do with that?
You are absolutely correct that Islam has nothing to do with it, yet it's called the golden age of Islam anyway and this guy is the first example in your reference of a product of this "golden age." Why is that? Why would they attribute any of this to Islam when it has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact the conditions of the time were closer to the dark ages of Europe than anything that could be called "golden?"
My example illustrates how the golden age of Islam is a sham. You don't seem to be adding anything to counter that, just explaining that it wasn't better than the darkest period of European history. Well I agree.
Fighting for something doesn't automatically mean you're committing crimes.
Correct, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether the terrorists who claim to be fighting for Islam could actually be fighting for Islam. OP claimed they are not, they are simply using religion to justify their crimes.
My point is that they are indistinguishable.
And Isis, is of course, the name of a false god and thus anathema to the fundamental tenet of Islam.
I hope you're joking. That's an acronym invented by Westerners. You realize that they use a different alphabet and different words than we do... right? The transliteration of their own acronym is something like "DASH" I believe, not "ISIS."
I suspect if the Islamists get power in Egypt they'll do 1 of 2 things:
1. Turn the pyramids into mosques
2. Close them off, stop restoring them, loot and deface whatever art remains
Also the Sphinx will be defaced.
Perhaps you're being too literal in your interpretation of "destroy."
Your mistake is that it doesn't take "an entire country/culture" to destroy the pyramids, just like destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyan didn't take the concerted effort of every Muslim in Afghanistan.
So it's also a natural phenomenon that we restore monuments with the sole motive of tourism income...
Oh yes the fabled golden age of Islam. What a joke. Let me demonstrate... I'll just take the first person mentioned in your Wikipedia link.
Ibn Al-Haytham (Alhazen) was significant in the history of scientific method, particularly in his approach to experimentation,[20] and has been referred to by his modern biographer Bradley Steffens and others [21] as the "world’s first true scientist".
Wow sounds cool. I guess Islam really helped him out in being the first true scientist! Let's click on his article to confirm.
According to one version of his biography,[18] al-Haytham, confident about the practical application of his mathematical knowledge, assumed he could regulate the floods of the Nile. Having been ordered to do so by Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, the sixth ruler of the Fatimid caliphate, he quickly realised its impossibility. Fearing for his life, he feigned madness[1][19] and was placed under house arrest.
lol yeah. Sounds really "golden."
There's a similar story about Galileo, and it's used as an example of how overbearing the Catholic Church was at the time. But nooo, in this case, it's an example of how "golden" Islam is. Makes sense!
I seriously did not know this story before clicking the first link in your reference, btw. But to be honest, I have read similar stories and I already knew the golden age of Islam was a crock of shit.
Tell me what the difference is between "fighting for Islam" and "using religion as an excuse and justification for their crimes." Honestly it sounds about the same, except perhaps for connotation.
I mean, if someone does something that you personally perceive as a crime, and they do it in the name of Islam, and they justify and excuse it with Islam, then they've ticked both boxes. Why do you think there's a distinction?
Islamists are not interested in Western tourism dollars. You might as well say "Well look at all the money you can make selling pork and alcohol!" The argument just doesn't appeal to them.
Argentina was forced by some creditors to sign agreements giving jurisdiction to US courts because the creditors did not trust Argentinian courts. Argentina bartered their sovereignty on the issue for better credit terms, now they are crying because they are being held to those terms by a court that is not corrupt and subject to their own control.
This whole deal shows the world that:
1. If you're selling bonds and plan on ripping everybody off, do not mess with US courts because they are not scared of your shithole government and they will confiscate your "sovereign" asse(t)s
2. If you're buying bonds from risky countries, do so under a stable jurisdiction like the US otherwise you can be completely screwed by some populist who thinks you're a criminal because you bought what they were voluntarily selling
Try the wordpress, it's not anonymous and paints a pretty bad picture of this woman. She's very manipulative.
In this thread, the "accusation" is that the accusations against Zoe have truth to them. The accusation takes the form of a comment, not an article in its own right. Your "[citation needed]" post is out of place.
If you're curious about it, look it up. If you dispute it, dispute it. This is a website where people comment about the article, and often about things completely unrelated to the article. Some work on your part is required, the comment thread isn't a place for you to whine about not being spoon-fed. For your [citation needed] comment to be taken at all seriously, you have to at least add that you searched for it and couldn't find it, so you don't believe it's true without more work on OP's part, thus [citation needed].
As it turns out I was curious about the accusation as well so I searched for some more information. Took me about 10 seconds to find some interesting things:
http://www.escapistmagazine.co...
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
http://pastebin.com/Ph22THkJ
If we take a page from the feminist playbook and define these gaming communities as "safe spaces" for men, then anything goes there and women have no right to complain.
Chip and signature may not help against physical theft of the card, but it will put a stop to these massive breaches by hackers.
I think your comment would better be addressed to serviscope_minor who made the claim that acknowledging gender differences automatically means the speaker thinks women are inferior. He is the one who took a comment about women having a different point of view than men and turning it into an ism.
Your comment raises a good point about other factors playing a role in sending people to jail though. It's certainly not *purely* related to reasoning. But, all else equal, wouldn't you agree that reasoning plays *a* role? After all there are black guys from poor neighborhoods with broken families receiving pressure from gangs (add in whatever other factors you think play a role) who are NOT in jail. Surely at least part of that is up to the individual's reasoning in choosing one action over another, and not just down to pure luck?
Attempts to end misogynist sexism are different in character than attempts to balance misogynist sexism with misandrist sexism, so a distinction can be drawn.
It's also a straw man because there are plenty of drives in other, female dominated industries to get more men in.
No it's not a straw man because while there are some resources going towards addressing the lack of men in female dominated industries, it's so much less significant than what is being done to help women that it can only be called a gross imbalance.
Never said it was the same. The OP claimed it was not the case. That is false, as I have demonstrated.
You should try reading OP's post again. He said there was no "crusade" to address the imbalance in female dominated industries. "Crusade" is much stronger than your response of "there are some programs to help men." And if you look at the coverage given to things like these diversity numbers from tech companies, and all the coverage and programs to get women in STEM, it is much more widespread than the programs to help men.
What the fuck are you on about? No one's claiming there's no problem. The OP was calaiming there was no drive to get women into male dominated industries like mining. That is provable false.
It may be provable, but you did not prove it. A handful of crappy websites does not a "drive" make, otherwise like I said we can all stop talking about women in STEM because I can also Google for 30 seconds and find a few websites. The drive exists. It's good enough. We don't need more. Right? Because that's what you said, and what you're now confirming... that a handful of websites is enough of a "drive" that calling for more action (as OP did) is unfounded.
Wow, so ALL women have to do something to gether as a united group before you'll have patience for speeches of equality from some of its members.
No... that is wrong... the people giving the speeches about equality need to believe it, otherwise they are hypocrites. This isn't complicated. When a handful of rich, powerful, or famous women go out and say "I'm going to do something today about.. INEQUALITY!" and the result is "So I'm going to start pushing purely on behalf of women in a select few fields that I'd like to see more women in" that is hypocrisy. This is not hard to understand.
It would be like me, a white guy, saying "I'm going to do something about racism today. I know, I'll start a white male scholarship program!! Man, I am so anti-racism, it's awesome."
You see the problem right? Is it more clear when a white guy is doing it?
You don't see that requiing all women to act together as a single entity is a sexist point of view?
Well technically it's not, because I expect the same thing from men.
I do not support hypocritical pro-male-only-in-the-name-of-equality programs. I can't really think of any modern ones to list as examples. They probably exist but are not nearly as well known as the pro-women programs.
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Yeah I know. You probably don't agree that sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on sex.