And I've never met a rational religious person who had actually examined their beliefs.
That says more about your choice in friends, I think. I'm not sure how much we disagree--I certainly don't think there's compelling evidence for God--but if you listen to people without making fun of them, sometimes they'll share the deeper and more personal reasons they believe what they believe. Often it's superstitious, but other times I'm just forced to admit that maybe unless I've had the same experiences they've had, I shouldn't be making fun of them for their beliefs.
Actually, we've firmly established that the moon is made of rock, which is rather not green cheese. Also, we know how cheese is made, and we know those conditions don't exist in Earth orbit. As soon as we get similar empirical evidence ruling out the existence of God, you win. (Of course, calling the existence of God an "empirical question" is contentious as well--especially for people who claim to have experienced personal contact with God). While I don't personally believe God exists, I also think it's possible for reasonable people to believe otherwise--this is the only thing I've been arguing for within the context of this entire thread.
Most hijackings are unsuccessful, because at some point the plane has to land.
Most of the time, the entire point of the hijacking is to land at a different airport. Why the communist didn't get on a plane to Havana to begin with is another question.
I think your main fallacy is a common one with intelligent people with a good understanding of technology: you just cannot comprehend how stupid and terrified of computers a lot of people are.
Doc, I hope you'll see this -- but I'm not sure anyone else will. Even though this tangent has generated a lot of discussion from a significant number of different people, someone apparently doesn't like the direction it is taking. I guess that challenging the Slashdot group-think is now considered "offtopic".
Indeed, and it's gone above and beyond the point of just "some moderator"--the whole discussion was downmodded, although not buried to -1. I haven't seen something like that for a long time, but when it used to happen back in the day it was usually due to editor intervention. Quite odd, though--tangential discussions are pretty much the norm around here and are tolerated unless they arise as total non-sequiturs.
Incidentally, in another post I noted that "well-regulated" was also attested as meaning something like "in good working order". So if you had a well-regulated watch, for instance, it kept time accurately. Although I do like Doc Ruby's explanation as well, because it amuses me to think of the Founders deliberately poking fun at the King even in the Bill of Rights.
None of the things you listed are in any way similar or equivalent to belief in God. For instance, I don't know a single otherwise intelligent and reasonable person who believes that 2+2=5, or that the moon is made of green cheese. It is possible to be an atheist without making bad and insulting analogies for people who disagree with you about it, just as it's possible to hold any other philosophical position.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
I still maintain that cultivating geniuses will have a better net effect on society--if the genius does 100 times as much for society as he would if uncultivated, or even 10 times as much, even considering the cost of imprisoning someone who "slips through the cracks", the net contribution is still nine times greater. Of course, I think it's inhuman to use utilitarian analyses to determine who's more worthy of an education--everyone deserves the opportunity to make the most they can out of their lives, and if that means vast resources should be spent on autistic children even if they'd be better for society spent elsewhere, it's still the right thing to do. Vast resources should be spent on gifted children as well, and for the same reasons. Making decisions based upon the "real cost" (and "real benefit") to society is a self-defeating game in this situation, but either way it's still a game I don't play.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
I'm glad they are too. I just don't think that's the optimal use of resources if you're looking at it from a utilitarian perspective. The intention of my post was to call bullshit on the post I was replying to, and not so much to say special education isn't worthwhile.
I get your point, but honestly, there's a lot of people who perceive God as female so I didn't want to bias the discussion. Also, I'm not really sure how God can have a gender. As for the remarks about breakfast, let's just say I've studied enough Descartes that I've heard the same types of arguments, and they aren't very convincing to me for reasons I'm not inclined to go into at the moment.
Okay, but you can still believe in some notion of God while not disagreeing with evolutionary theory. I'll agree with you that creationism is unscientific, but that's a far cry from saying that the existence of God is a closed question.
You can still shoot people with shotguns, although less on the battlefield and more in the streets. Nonetheless, in the words of a man who later became an honorary American citizen, "we shall fight them in the streets".
Honestly, insurgents in Iraq are doing a decent job with homemade bombs and AK-47's. The Viet Cong did a good job with AK-47's and the ingenuity to stick spikes into the ground. We don't have much to worry about, since our rifles are a fair bit more accurate than the AK-47's.
The best explanation I've seen was in "The Constitution, a Biography", where the concept of the militia is explained as a duty equivalent to the duty of Jury Duty. Historically it fits pretty well. Also the most frustrating since no militia has been enjoined in that fashion since pretty much immediately after the war itself.
Oh really? When you get called up for jury duty, the government sends you a notice and you show up and do your duty. When you get called up for militia duty, the government sends you a draft notice and you are enlisted in the Army of the United States (as opposed to the United States Army, as a matter of fact.) What did you think those parts in the Constitution enabling Congress to call up the militia meant?
Also, the militia is supposed to call itself up in some emergencies. At least that's the legal definition for the scenario in the gripping 1980's drama, Red Dawn. Or, although they did it without guns, what happened on Flight 93.
As opposed to crew-operated weapons, like artillery or anti-aircraft guns or atom bombs. A rifle is easily suitable for use by individuals, in fact, I'm not sure how else it could be suitably used.
From the US Code:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
It so turns out that unless you're a member of the National Guard or something called the "naval militia", you're in what's called the "unorganized militia". But you're still in the militia. This is good--this means that, if there's some sort of horrible security threat, part of being a good citizen and being a member of the militia is to use physical force to preserve a free state. The passengers on Flight 93 did this, for instance. (This is also the same way that the Constitution allows for conscription--while the federal government does not have the power of committing people to involuntary labor, it does have the power to "call up the militia" and form them into an organized military. That doesn't just mean the National Guard. The basic idea, of course, is that citizens have a basic duty to defend the state and the society they live in.)
Now, "well regulated" didn't mean "micromanaged by bureaucrats" back in the heyday of The Constitution. It was a common phrase, and seemed to mean "in good working order"--this usage is attested in the OED well around the era. Indirect citation, check the OED on me if you don't believe it..
The whole idea was that, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have a well-regulated militia--i.e. the subset of the population capable of defending a free state would be capable of doing so. Even as late as World War II, people in coastal areas discussed how they would defend their county from the Japanese if need be.
I remember reading part of the U.S. code that defines an age-defined subset of the male citizen population as the "unorganized militia", while an "organized militia" would be the formal state militia and the military itself is what it is. It's not difficult to think of "militia" as referring to the portion of the populace capable of bearing arms. And since the purpose of the second amendment is to create "a well-regulated militia", which is necessary for "the security of a free state", it's also fair to read that as meaning that the militia be "well-regulated"--i.e. kept regular by having all of them be armed, not just the ones who were organized by the state. This was before "regulated" meant "micromanaged by bureaucrats".
It's not quite that clearcut--in fact, very few issues of real controversy are, unless you're biased to the point of blindness.
To start with, there are many notions of Godhood. One notion is that of God as the Prime Mover, i.e. the force that maintains the universe as it is. Some believe that natural laws (i.e. the laws of physics, except the laws of physics as we understand them are probably not exactly the same as the laws of physics As They Truly Are) function as a Prime Mover, and with some justification, identify them with God. In other words, God is the aggregate of all the mathematical and physical laws that keep the universe functioning.
There are other notions, but many of them tend to acknowledge God as a fictional character and simply address him in those terms. But even if you want to take the most religious and personal notions of God, well, in that case God is a bit more like the female orgasm than he is like Captain Picard--many people claim to have experienced it, many people think the others are either lying or crazy, and it's largely an open question as to who to believe. The main difference is that the female orgasm is a bit more amenable to scientific experimentation (especially if the female in question has a fetish for being experimented on!), of course, which is why we're certain about that but not so much about God.
I don't particularly think God exists in any significantly religious way, and I think it trivializes the idea of God somewhat to equate it to the laws of physics, but the minute you start acting like it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with you, you're being a fundamentalist.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
We tried literacy tests, but we found out it's politically impossible to fairly administer one without (for one historical example) screwing over all the blacks.
Re:It doesn't take a genius to figure it out !!!
on
Failing Our Geniuses
·
· Score: 1
If you invest enough resources into cultivating a genius, you'll have someone who contributes 100 times as much to society. If you invest those same resources into trying to fix a retard, you'll have someone who costs 50% less to support. What's the best aggregate benefit in the long run? Don't pull that "which is cheaper in the long run" on this argument.
Classes were named from A through J and your initial class was determined by a criterion that no one seemed to know:P. However, after that, it was all merit-based. Your class (A - J) in the next grade was determined by how well you did in the current grade (exams, etc.) Upward mobility was the key...
If what I learned in school was accurate, I think your country modeled its education system after its idea of reincarnation. Which means that in my country, after each year the best students would be given cake and the worst students would be held in detention for the whole summer.
Success isn't about intelligence: it's also about discipline, energy, drive, and attitude. A surplus of the last four can even mitigate against weaknesses in brain power.
Then really, shouldn't our schools be about developing discipline, energy, drive, and attitude even in their best students, instead of developing boredom, cynicism, and putting them in an environment where, paradoxically, people only have their intelligence to feel good for themselves about?
It's rather easy to treat everyone with respect and politeness when you don't get shoved into lockers or called a fag every day, for instance. When those things do happen to you, you learn that the only way to treat some people is to treat them to a good chokeslam against the wall.
But since p=mv anything with momentum does have mass.
p=mv is not the definition of momentum. If anything, p=mv times the Lorentz factor, which converges to 1 at low speeds. But that's only for massed objects--the momentum of a photon is Planck's constant divided by wavelength.
Physics is not algebra--in algebra, if x=y, then x and y are interchangeable. In physics, not so much. The physical properties of an object may be a function of its other properties, but that doesn't preclude different functions for different types of objects. Momentum is a prime example.
Slashdot Mirror
That says more about your choice in friends, I think. I'm not sure how much we disagree--I certainly don't think there's compelling evidence for God--but if you listen to people without making fun of them, sometimes they'll share the deeper and more personal reasons they believe what they believe. Often it's superstitious, but other times I'm just forced to admit that maybe unless I've had the same experiences they've had, I shouldn't be making fun of them for their beliefs.
If you're clever enough to see how much your school sucks, you start to wonder if anything is run correctly and you become cynical.
Actually, we've firmly established that the moon is made of rock, which is rather not green cheese. Also, we know how cheese is made, and we know those conditions don't exist in Earth orbit. As soon as we get similar empirical evidence ruling out the existence of God, you win. (Of course, calling the existence of God an "empirical question" is contentious as well--especially for people who claim to have experienced personal contact with God). While I don't personally believe God exists, I also think it's possible for reasonable people to believe otherwise--this is the only thing I've been arguing for within the context of this entire thread.
Most of the time, the entire point of the hijacking is to land at a different airport. Why the communist didn't get on a plane to Havana to begin with is another question.
I think your main fallacy is a common one with intelligent people with a good understanding of technology: you just cannot comprehend how stupid and terrified of computers a lot of people are.
Indeed, and it's gone above and beyond the point of just "some moderator"--the whole discussion was downmodded, although not buried to -1. I haven't seen something like that for a long time, but when it used to happen back in the day it was usually due to editor intervention. Quite odd, though--tangential discussions are pretty much the norm around here and are tolerated unless they arise as total non-sequiturs.
Incidentally, in another post I noted that "well-regulated" was also attested as meaning something like "in good working order". So if you had a well-regulated watch, for instance, it kept time accurately. Although I do like Doc Ruby's explanation as well, because it amuses me to think of the Founders deliberately poking fun at the King even in the Bill of Rights.
None of the things you listed are in any way similar or equivalent to belief in God. For instance, I don't know a single otherwise intelligent and reasonable person who believes that 2+2=5, or that the moon is made of green cheese. It is possible to be an atheist without making bad and insulting analogies for people who disagree with you about it, just as it's possible to hold any other philosophical position.
I still maintain that cultivating geniuses will have a better net effect on society--if the genius does 100 times as much for society as he would if uncultivated, or even 10 times as much, even considering the cost of imprisoning someone who "slips through the cracks", the net contribution is still nine times greater. Of course, I think it's inhuman to use utilitarian analyses to determine who's more worthy of an education--everyone deserves the opportunity to make the most they can out of their lives, and if that means vast resources should be spent on autistic children even if they'd be better for society spent elsewhere, it's still the right thing to do. Vast resources should be spent on gifted children as well, and for the same reasons. Making decisions based upon the "real cost" (and "real benefit") to society is a self-defeating game in this situation, but either way it's still a game I don't play.
I'm glad they are too. I just don't think that's the optimal use of resources if you're looking at it from a utilitarian perspective. The intention of my post was to call bullshit on the post I was replying to, and not so much to say special education isn't worthwhile.
I get your point, but honestly, there's a lot of people who perceive God as female so I didn't want to bias the discussion. Also, I'm not really sure how God can have a gender. As for the remarks about breakfast, let's just say I've studied enough Descartes that I've heard the same types of arguments, and they aren't very convincing to me for reasons I'm not inclined to go into at the moment.
Okay, but you can still believe in some notion of God while not disagreeing with evolutionary theory. I'll agree with you that creationism is unscientific, but that's a far cry from saying that the existence of God is a closed question.
And, more to the point of the amendment itself, well-armed.
You can still shoot people with shotguns, although less on the battlefield and more in the streets. Nonetheless, in the words of a man who later became an honorary American citizen, "we shall fight them in the streets".
Honestly, insurgents in Iraq are doing a decent job with homemade bombs and AK-47's. The Viet Cong did a good job with AK-47's and the ingenuity to stick spikes into the ground. We don't have much to worry about, since our rifles are a fair bit more accurate than the AK-47's.
Oh really? When you get called up for jury duty, the government sends you a notice and you show up and do your duty. When you get called up for militia duty, the government sends you a draft notice and you are enlisted in the Army of the United States (as opposed to the United States Army, as a matter of fact.) What did you think those parts in the Constitution enabling Congress to call up the militia meant?
Also, the militia is supposed to call itself up in some emergencies. At least that's the legal definition for the scenario in the gripping 1980's drama, Red Dawn. Or, although they did it without guns, what happened on Flight 93.
As opposed to crew-operated weapons, like artillery or anti-aircraft guns or atom bombs. A rifle is easily suitable for use by individuals, in fact, I'm not sure how else it could be suitably used.
It so turns out that unless you're a member of the National Guard or something called the "naval militia", you're in what's called the "unorganized militia". But you're still in the militia. This is good--this means that, if there's some sort of horrible security threat, part of being a good citizen and being a member of the militia is to use physical force to preserve a free state. The passengers on Flight 93 did this, for instance. (This is also the same way that the Constitution allows for conscription--while the federal government does not have the power of committing people to involuntary labor, it does have the power to "call up the militia" and form them into an organized military. That doesn't just mean the National Guard. The basic idea, of course, is that citizens have a basic duty to defend the state and the society they live in.)
Now, "well regulated" didn't mean "micromanaged by bureaucrats" back in the heyday of The Constitution. It was a common phrase, and seemed to mean "in good working order"--this usage is attested in the OED well around the era. Indirect citation, check the OED on me if you don't believe it..
The whole idea was that, by protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, we would have a well-regulated militia--i.e. the subset of the population capable of defending a free state would be capable of doing so. Even as late as World War II, people in coastal areas discussed how they would defend their county from the Japanese if need be.
I remember reading part of the U.S. code that defines an age-defined subset of the male citizen population as the "unorganized militia", while an "organized militia" would be the formal state militia and the military itself is what it is. It's not difficult to think of "militia" as referring to the portion of the populace capable of bearing arms. And since the purpose of the second amendment is to create "a well-regulated militia", which is necessary for "the security of a free state", it's also fair to read that as meaning that the militia be "well-regulated"--i.e. kept regular by having all of them be armed, not just the ones who were organized by the state. This was before "regulated" meant "micromanaged by bureaucrats".
It's not quite that clearcut--in fact, very few issues of real controversy are, unless you're biased to the point of blindness.
To start with, there are many notions of Godhood. One notion is that of God as the Prime Mover, i.e. the force that maintains the universe as it is. Some believe that natural laws (i.e. the laws of physics, except the laws of physics as we understand them are probably not exactly the same as the laws of physics As They Truly Are) function as a Prime Mover, and with some justification, identify them with God. In other words, God is the aggregate of all the mathematical and physical laws that keep the universe functioning.
There are other notions, but many of them tend to acknowledge God as a fictional character and simply address him in those terms. But even if you want to take the most religious and personal notions of God, well, in that case God is a bit more like the female orgasm than he is like Captain Picard--many people claim to have experienced it, many people think the others are either lying or crazy, and it's largely an open question as to who to believe. The main difference is that the female orgasm is a bit more amenable to scientific experimentation (especially if the female in question has a fetish for being experimented on!), of course, which is why we're certain about that but not so much about God.
I don't particularly think God exists in any significantly religious way, and I think it trivializes the idea of God somewhat to equate it to the laws of physics, but the minute you start acting like it's impossible for reasonable people to disagree with you, you're being a fundamentalist.
We tried literacy tests, but we found out it's politically impossible to fairly administer one without (for one historical example) screwing over all the blacks.
If you invest enough resources into cultivating a genius, you'll have someone who contributes 100 times as much to society. If you invest those same resources into trying to fix a retard, you'll have someone who costs 50% less to support. What's the best aggregate benefit in the long run? Don't pull that "which is cheaper in the long run" on this argument.
If what I learned in school was accurate, I think your country modeled its education system after its idea of reincarnation. Which means that in my country, after each year the best students would be given cake and the worst students would be held in detention for the whole summer.
Then really, shouldn't our schools be about developing discipline, energy, drive, and attitude even in their best students, instead of developing boredom, cynicism, and putting them in an environment where, paradoxically, people only have their intelligence to feel good for themselves about?
It's rather easy to treat everyone with respect and politeness when you don't get shoved into lockers or called a fag every day, for instance. When those things do happen to you, you learn that the only way to treat some people is to treat them to a good chokeslam against the wall.
p=mv is not the definition of momentum. If anything, p=mv times the Lorentz factor, which converges to 1 at low speeds. But that's only for massed objects--the momentum of a photon is Planck's constant divided by wavelength.
Physics is not algebra--in algebra, if x=y, then x and y are interchangeable. In physics, not so much. The physical properties of an object may be a function of its other properties, but that doesn't preclude different functions for different types of objects. Momentum is a prime example.