You know, I wonder how many of these people always held these views, they just decided at some point that they weren't running for President, they were rich and famous enough to get away with anything, and that as a consequence, they might as well just be honest about it all. We've all got biases we don't like admitting to.
Stalin led the USSR to victory in WWII - that doesn't mean I'm going to start eulogizing the guy, because we all know what a total bastard he was in so many other ways.
That's a harsh and unforgiving analogy, but it's also a harsh and unforgiving viewpoint when taken at face value. Stalin was without a doubt insane and the world is better off without him than we were with him, but another tragedy is that a human being was made into a twisted madman by his early life experiences, and became the monster that he did. On the other hand I do attempt to practice understanding and sympathy for all humans, which is something few people are capable of or inclined to attempt.
A lot of this goes to the analytic/continental split--I have very little respect or regard for continental philosophy post-Kant, with rare exceptions (some existentialists make for dramatic readings, as does Nietzsche, but even there there is little philosophical insight; Hegel is right out). Other notable American philosophers include Dennett, Rawls, Nozick, Gettier, van Inwagen, Hilary Putnam, David Lewis, and Kripke, but I'm sure their names (with rare exception) are as foreign to you as most French philosophers of the past 50 years would be to me. Incidentally, I'd like to see you do better than Quine:)
I don't know much about the landmine market (do you?) but landmines are one of the easiest weapons to manufacture. This is the main reason why banning landmines accomplishes nothing: any rogue state can easily make their own.
It's not our freedoms, it's our vast piles of cash. And it's not our best and brightest--we import the best and brightest from all around the world. How many immigrants do you see entering our high schools? How many immigrants do you see exiting our doctoral programs? Much different proportion there.
Actually the SAT isn't the problem--it's emphasized less and less because the SAT itself is "too hard". What does that mean? It means you can't bullshit it. You can bullshit your GPA if they lower the bar far enough, but the SAT is harder, despite the fact that each revision to the SAT makes it easier.
the war on drugs, which emphasizes prohibition (based mostly on dogma) over harm reduction (based on empiricism--"what works")
I don't like the war on drugs either, but you're totally mischaracterizing the issue here. The operating principle behind harm reduction is utilitarianism, not empiricism. Empiricism is in the realm of epistemology, utilitarianism is within the realm of ethics (and thus politics, to some extent).
Actually, German's neutral gender is inappropriate to use with a gendered word, as far as I'm aware. So a computer is "der Computer" (male), and a shirt is "die Hemd" (female), but "das Computer" and "das Hemd" (neuter) would be wrong. Also, the German for "human" is "der Mensch" (male), so German does have the equivalent of an English gender bias there. Interestingly, I don't think the Germans really mind it--they're so used to words being gendered that it doesn't strike them as very meaningful, I suppose.
This is the same logic used for gun control, drug laws, seatbelt laws, child protection laws, etc...
You just listed a bunch of things I'm against, except child protection laws which exist to protect children from abusive parents and are absolutely nothing like the others. So don't expect me to accept your bad argument.
I'll tell you why the Americans hate the French - it's because the French have history and culture, philosophy and art. They have a cuisine which is based on rather more than saturated fat and corn syrup. They don't roll over and beg whenever the US clicks its colonial fingers (how I wish the UK were the same). And the French themselves are attractive, intelligent, reliable, honourable people. That's why the Americans hate them.
I think the real question is why you hate Americans. (P.S.: England and America have better philosophy than France--Hume, Locke, Russell, Quine, etc. France has Descartes and a bunch of existentialists.)
I think the big deal in this case is that some people are so strongly bigoted against Catholics that they would rather harp on crap like "the Pope was a Nazi" rather than address the issues honestly. Any serious discussion of moral responsibility gets lost in all the bigotry.
The universe has always acted such that in time t+1 it had properties satisfying theorems based on observations made in time t.
That is not the same as what I said and I invite you to study the problem of induction in greater detail.
It is an absurd question that you chose to ask, and even if for some reason I couldn't prove it, that doesn't mean the nonsensical and logically flawed philosophy of religion is on par with the scientific method because of your little nitpick on what could be provably unknowable statements.
I am responding to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe. I'm not trying to say it's equal with religion in any way.
As for empirical observtion being an accurate way of knowing things about the world, it is the only option we have at the moment.
Indeed and I agree we ought to use it--but we do not know that it tells us anything about the real world as it actually exists (cf Kant).
Now compare that to the "assumptions" (more like outrages) made by religion. Any religion. And remember that faith by definition defies reason. You will see that our conversation is not really on track at all.
Perhaps not yours. My purpose here, as I said, is to respond to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe, and that conversely, that scientists refrain from making assumptions that lack an empirical or rational basis. The fact is, it's impossible to do so.
Really, this whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and begs the question, in both meanings of the phrase, of just why the meaning "circular reasoning" should be the correct one; after all, if mere common usage is not sufficient to make that usage correct, then what is the correctness of that usage based on?
The same principles I've been citing the whole time--unambiguity and precision.
I do think any nation that lays mines has a responsibility to pick them up after they're no longer used. The solution to that problem is not for landmines not to exist, but for them to be used responsibly--any weapon of war can be used irresponsibly.
Well, first you actually have to have such a vehicle, second, even if you have one a minefield forces you to waste resources using it, and third, you're still forced into a 7m wide channel instead of being able to roam widely across the entire field.
Landmines by themselves will usually kill only wandering civilians and stray dogs. The enemy is clever enough to figure out that landmines exist and might be planted somewhere, and as soon as they discover a minefield they'll find a way to avoid being killed by it.
Landmines, in conjunction with other defenses, are extremely effective. For example, if the North Korean army were to swarm south across the DMZ, they would come under heavy machinegun fire, and would lack the time and ability to safely go through the minefield. Their only choices would be to retreat or to go recklessly into the mines, doubtlessly incurring heavier casualties than they would against the machineguns alone.
Not far south of those landmines and machine guns is a peaceful liberal democracy that holds a significant place in the world economy. Now do you understand the reason for landmines to exist?
In fact the idea that people bottle up their sexuality the way you're suggesting is damaging in itself, and not everyone is willing to make that tradeoff.
The way the Church is suggesting. I have no faith in the Church and don't believe or follow any of their teachings on sexual morality.
The singular usage of "they" is attested all the way back to Shakespearean times (in fact, to Shakespeare himself) and has no negative consequences to the language as a whole. The issue here is not that some of us accept that language changes and others don't. The issue here is that some of us prefer to see language be used as eloquently and articulately as possible. Using "raises the question" instead of "begs the question" when one isn't referring to the logical fallacy maintains precision and avoids ambiguity. Similarly, using "they" to refer to a singular person of indeterminate gender is far more elegant than awkward constructions such as "s/he", "he/she", "(s)he", and so forth, while avoiding the ambiguity and gender bias of using "he".
The game is faster and rougher and vastly supported (and in my opinion enhanced) by technology (helmets, pads, shoes, etc). But that would be nothing if players were augmented in such a way to play faster / better / stronger.
You'd have to seriously improve safety equipment before significantly upgrading the speed and strength of football players. Otherwise people would probably get killed.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I wonder how many of these people always held these views, they just decided at some point that they weren't running for President, they were rich and famous enough to get away with anything, and that as a consequence, they might as well just be honest about it all. We've all got biases we don't like admitting to.
That's a harsh and unforgiving analogy, but it's also a harsh and unforgiving viewpoint when taken at face value. Stalin was without a doubt insane and the world is better off without him than we were with him, but another tragedy is that a human being was made into a twisted madman by his early life experiences, and became the monster that he did. On the other hand I do attempt to practice understanding and sympathy for all humans, which is something few people are capable of or inclined to attempt.
A lot of this goes to the analytic/continental split--I have very little respect or regard for continental philosophy post-Kant, with rare exceptions (some existentialists make for dramatic readings, as does Nietzsche, but even there there is little philosophical insight; Hegel is right out). Other notable American philosophers include Dennett, Rawls, Nozick, Gettier, van Inwagen, Hilary Putnam, David Lewis, and Kripke, but I'm sure their names (with rare exception) are as foreign to you as most French philosophers of the past 50 years would be to me. Incidentally, I'd like to see you do better than Quine :)
I don't know much about the landmine market (do you?) but landmines are one of the easiest weapons to manufacture. This is the main reason why banning landmines accomplishes nothing: any rogue state can easily make their own.
Wikipedia's got lots of examples.
It's not our freedoms, it's our vast piles of cash. And it's not our best and brightest--we import the best and brightest from all around the world. How many immigrants do you see entering our high schools? How many immigrants do you see exiting our doctoral programs? Much different proportion there.
Actually the SAT isn't the problem--it's emphasized less and less because the SAT itself is "too hard". What does that mean? It means you can't bullshit it. You can bullshit your GPA if they lower the bar far enough, but the SAT is harder, despite the fact that each revision to the SAT makes it easier.
I don't like the war on drugs either, but you're totally mischaracterizing the issue here. The operating principle behind harm reduction is utilitarianism, not empiricism. Empiricism is in the realm of epistemology, utilitarianism is within the realm of ethics (and thus politics, to some extent).
Actually, German's neutral gender is inappropriate to use with a gendered word, as far as I'm aware. So a computer is "der Computer" (male), and a shirt is "die Hemd" (female), but "das Computer" and "das Hemd" (neuter) would be wrong. Also, the German for "human" is "der Mensch" (male), so German does have the equivalent of an English gender bias there. Interestingly, I don't think the Germans really mind it--they're so used to words being gendered that it doesn't strike them as very meaningful, I suppose.
The Know-Nothings were a 19th-century anti-immigration political party--not fundamentalists.
You just listed a bunch of things I'm against, except child protection laws which exist to protect children from abusive parents and are absolutely nothing like the others. So don't expect me to accept your bad argument.
I think the real question is why you hate Americans. (P.S.: England and America have better philosophy than France--Hume, Locke, Russell, Quine, etc. France has Descartes and a bunch of existentialists.)
I think the big deal in this case is that some people are so strongly bigoted against Catholics that they would rather harp on crap like "the Pope was a Nazi" rather than address the issues honestly. Any serious discussion of moral responsibility gets lost in all the bigotry.
That is not the same as what I said and I invite you to study the problem of induction in greater detail.
It is an absurd question that you chose to ask, and even if for some reason I couldn't prove it, that doesn't mean the nonsensical and logically flawed philosophy of religion is on par with the scientific method because of your little nitpick on what could be provably unknowable statements.I am responding to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe. I'm not trying to say it's equal with religion in any way.
As for empirical observtion being an accurate way of knowing things about the world, it is the only option we have at the moment.Indeed and I agree we ought to use it--but we do not know that it tells us anything about the real world as it actually exists (cf Kant).
Now compare that to the "assumptions" (more like outrages) made by religion. Any religion. And remember that faith by definition defies reason. You will see that our conversation is not really on track at all.Perhaps not yours. My purpose here, as I said, is to respond to the assertion that scientists "know" and "can prove" everything they believe, and that conversely, that scientists refrain from making assumptions that lack an empirical or rational basis. The fact is, it's impossible to do so.
Similar but not quite the same.
Really, this whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and begs the question, in both meanings of the phrase, of just why the meaning "circular reasoning" should be the correct one; after all, if mere common usage is not sufficient to make that usage correct, then what is the correctness of that usage based on?The same principles I've been citing the whole time--unambiguity and precision.
I do think any nation that lays mines has a responsibility to pick them up after they're no longer used. The solution to that problem is not for landmines not to exist, but for them to be used responsibly--any weapon of war can be used irresponsibly.
Well, first you actually have to have such a vehicle, second, even if you have one a minefield forces you to waste resources using it, and third, you're still forced into a 7m wide channel instead of being able to roam widely across the entire field.
Too impersonal and not attested. Making up a new usage is a lot harder and to be avoided when compared to adopting existing usage.
So far, peaceful methods have yet to prove ineffective in stopping that.
Landmines by themselves will usually kill only wandering civilians and stray dogs. The enemy is clever enough to figure out that landmines exist and might be planted somewhere, and as soon as they discover a minefield they'll find a way to avoid being killed by it.
Landmines, in conjunction with other defenses, are extremely effective. For example, if the North Korean army were to swarm south across the DMZ, they would come under heavy machinegun fire, and would lack the time and ability to safely go through the minefield. Their only choices would be to retreat or to go recklessly into the mines, doubtlessly incurring heavier casualties than they would against the machineguns alone.
Not far south of those landmines and machine guns is a peaceful liberal democracy that holds a significant place in the world economy. Now do you understand the reason for landmines to exist?
The way the Church is suggesting. I have no faith in the Church and don't believe or follow any of their teachings on sexual morality.
Another example of awkward usage.
The singular usage of "they" is attested all the way back to Shakespearean times (in fact, to Shakespeare himself) and has no negative consequences to the language as a whole. The issue here is not that some of us accept that language changes and others don't. The issue here is that some of us prefer to see language be used as eloquently and articulately as possible. Using "raises the question" instead of "begs the question" when one isn't referring to the logical fallacy maintains precision and avoids ambiguity. Similarly, using "they" to refer to a singular person of indeterminate gender is far more elegant than awkward constructions such as "s/he", "he/she", "(s)he", and so forth, while avoiding the ambiguity and gender bias of using "he".
You'd have to seriously improve safety equipment before significantly upgrading the speed and strength of football players. Otherwise people would probably get killed.
I always thought that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is burned at the stake.