Gay scientists isolate 'Christian Gene'
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No trouble at all. Civilization IS oppression, and it cannot be avoided. Liberty is not being free to stick your penis wherever you please, it is being free to participate in how tyranny ultimately becomes defined.
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't need to keep up with it, I live right in the middle of it.
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Many people I know do feel that Israel is part of biblical predictions. But that isn't why they vote the way the do and that isn't why our foreign policy is what it is.
There are reasons for supporting Israel that have nothing to do with prophecy and many people support Israel on those non-prophetic grounds. However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds. This is plain from the statements of various evangelical leaders. The fact that it may not be happening in your home town is beside the point.
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, if you wish to come and look for yourself, I will give you a hundred dollars for every church you can find that is actively promoting any such agenda. (That is, trying to influence US foreign policy via the political system in order to help Israel win Armegeddon or whatever)
What will you accept as evidence?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
I know you do. And I consider it a fundamental truth. A basic, undeniable fact of human societies. Every single political principle I embrace proceeds from that singular fact. It was ultimately the very basis for the American Revolution and the rationale for our form of government.
John Carson wrote:
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
I have lived in virtually every part of the American heartland, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. I have done business in virtually every place in between. I know the hearts and minds of the American people about as well as any one possibly could. Oh, and I also have a very large extended family representing virtually every religious point of view imaginable.
John Carson wrote:
However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds.
Of course there are. And there always has been. I found a Zionist phamplett published in the early 20th century among other religious papers of one of my wife's grandparent's. It is clear that even than the Zionist movement recognized that American christians might be friendly towards their goals. But it is ridiculous to believe that the creation of Israel was for anything other than strategic cold war purposes. Is it possible that the American public might have been comfortable with it due to underlieing evangelical zeal? Well, perhaps, but that is not why any one was voting the way they were or why the government did what it did. Then or now.
John Carson wrote:
What will you accept as evidence?
A recording or video of an identifiable preacher actually saying from the pulpit that his congregation should vote for candidate X because candidate X will send AMerican forces into help Israel fight the battle of Armegeddon (or some other similar prophecy), and a confirmation from candidate X that he actually supports that policy for that reason.
The only conspiracies that concern me
-
John Carson wrote:
I regard this as utter nonsense, but it is a view that you have expressed many times before and I can see no reason to believe that I can persuade you of its error when all previous attempts (by myself and others) have failed.
I know you do. And I consider it a fundamental truth. A basic, undeniable fact of human societies. Every single political principle I embrace proceeds from that singular fact. It was ultimately the very basis for the American Revolution and the rationale for our form of government.
John Carson wrote:
No you don't. You live in a specific geographical region and what happens in your neighbourhood does not define what happens in the evangelical movement as a whole.
I have lived in virtually every part of the American heartland, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. I have done business in virtually every place in between. I know the hearts and minds of the American people about as well as any one possibly could. Oh, and I also have a very large extended family representing virtually every religious point of view imaginable.
John Carson wrote:
However, many others do support Israel on prophetic grounds.
Of course there are. And there always has been. I found a Zionist phamplett published in the early 20th century among other religious papers of one of my wife's grandparent's. It is clear that even than the Zionist movement recognized that American christians might be friendly towards their goals. But it is ridiculous to believe that the creation of Israel was for anything other than strategic cold war purposes. Is it possible that the American public might have been comfortable with it due to underlieing evangelical zeal? Well, perhaps, but that is not why any one was voting the way they were or why the government did what it did. Then or now.
John Carson wrote:
What will you accept as evidence?
A recording or video of an identifiable preacher actually saying from the pulpit that his congregation should vote for candidate X because candidate X will send AMerican forces into help Israel fight the battle of Armegeddon (or some other similar prophecy), and a confirmation from candidate X that he actually supports that policy for that reason.
The only conspiracies that concern me
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have lived in virtually every part of the American heartland, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. I have done business in virtually every place in between. I know the hearts and minds of the American people about as well as any one possibly could. Oh, and I also have a very large extended family representing virtually every religious point of view imaginable.
I simply don't buy it. The fact is that there are plenty of statements by evangelicals on this point and plenty of opinion poll support showing that voters take this prophetic stuff seriously. I'm not saying it dominates US policy (which has been pro-Israel since before the prophecy angle became signficant), but it is now a factor with a significant part of the Republican base.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it is ridiculous to believe that the creation of Israel was for anything other than strategic cold war purposes.
I think it was for a variety of reasons beside the cold war, but I don't think it had much to do with prophecy. That has only become politically significant more recently.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A recording or video of an identifiable preacher actually saying from the pulpit that his congregation should vote for candidate X because candidate X will send AMerican forces into help Israel fight the battle of Armegeddon (or some other similar prophecy), and a confirmation from candidate X that he actually supports that policy for that reason.
a) Telling a congregation who to vote for loses a church its tax advantages. Most are cautious not to. b) I never suggested anything about fighting the battle of Armegeddon, just that they want Israel to hold all lands on which it has a historical claim (which includes the West Bank) because this is considered to be a precondition for the second coming.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
What a fool you continuously insist upon acting! "We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is." You acknowledge that 'science' isn't about truth -- while falsely claiming that "we all know" this and that no one has claimed otherwise. You all continuously claim otherwise ... even as you deny you are doing so. You (singular and plural) have your panties in a twist precisely because I am "insulting" ( :rolleyes: ) this "science" thingie. THEN: "It's the never ending pursuit of understanding." Then you demonstrate your inability to even think ratinally. Apparently, for you scientistes "understanding" is a wholly meaningless term. Apparently, you scientistes imagine that one can have "understanding" without actually having knowledge. THEN: "Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg)." Then, using a very faulty "argument-by-authority," you make a self-refuting assertion. The very claim is a truth-and-knowledge-claim. It happens to be false, but it is, nonetheless, the claim to know some truth -- in fact, and even more damning, it is the claim to know a universal truth. What absolute *fools* humans make of themselves when they refuse to reason! "Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds." Only a fool would imagine that *your* "science" even matters at all -- "understanding" without knowledge. Of what use is that to anyone? This "science" thingie sounds just like something 13-year-olds arguing about different versions of the "Superman universe" might care about; certainly like nothing an adult would care about. But then, I do frequenly say that "Science is a toy for little boys." LASTLY: "And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours." You (singular and plural) continuously demonstrate that your view of "science" is one that only a fool could entertain.
Ilíon wrote:
Science is a toy for little boys.
Hehehe...Ilíon, I didn't know you had such a filthy mind!
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
BoneSoft wrote:
We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is. It's the never ending pursuit of understanding. Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg). Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds. And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours.
What a fool you continuously insist upon acting! "We all know it's not about truth, nobody has claimed that it is." You acknowledge that 'science' isn't about truth -- while falsely claiming that "we all know" this and that no one has claimed otherwise. You all continuously claim otherwise ... even as you deny you are doing so. You (singular and plural) have your panties in a twist precisely because I am "insulting" ( :rolleyes: ) this "science" thingie. THEN: "It's the never ending pursuit of understanding." Then you demonstrate your inability to even think ratinally. Apparently, for you scientistes "understanding" is a wholly meaningless term. Apparently, you scientistes imagine that one can have "understanding" without actually having knowledge. THEN: "Nobody will ever know the truth about anything (Heisenberg)." Then, using a very faulty "argument-by-authority," you make a self-refuting assertion. The very claim is a truth-and-knowledge-claim. It happens to be false, but it is, nonetheless, the claim to know some truth -- in fact, and even more damning, it is the claim to know a universal truth. What absolute *fools* humans make of themselves when they refuse to reason! "Only a fool would try to discount science on those grounds." Only a fool would imagine that *your* "science" even matters at all -- "understanding" without knowledge. Of what use is that to anyone? This "science" thingie sounds just like something 13-year-olds arguing about different versions of the "Superman universe" might care about; certainly like nothing an adult would care about. But then, I do frequenly say that "Science is a toy for little boys." LASTLY: "And only a fool would continually assume that our view of science is as simplistic and rudimentary as yours." You (singular and plural) continuously demonstrate that your view of "science" is one that only a fool could entertain.
Oh my God you are an idiot. I give up, I can't talk to you. Learn the concept of 'degrees of certainty' and I'll reconsider. We know nothing completely, we know lots of things to a degree of certainty determined by experimentation. I couldn't give a rats ass what you think of science, it's not like you are in a position of any influence. I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm done. Feel free to post some incoherent insulting response, I know you have to have the last word.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
John Carson wrote:
people don't campaign against those who currently hold power unless the two groups have different agendas in some respect. If gay rights is not a real point of difference, what is?
The only true campaign is between those who wish the power to define oppression to be centralized in the hands of an elite, and those who wish it to be distributed thinly into the ranks of the public at large. Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself. If you can achieve that, you can achieve anything you please. My suspicion is that the real goal ultimately is the entrenchment of overall Marxist ideals. That is, centralized economic control, a thorough desconstruction of western traditions and the construction of a shiny new civilization with no borders, no races, no cultural distinctions of any kind. But I certainly don't think it will end there. The end will be the enslavement of the entire human race to the will of a tiny elite minority.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only true campaign is between those who wish the power to define oppression to be centralized in the hands of an elite, and those who wish it to be distributed thinly into the ranks of the public at large. Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself. If you can achieve that, you can achieve anything you please. My suspicion is that the real goal ultimately is the entrenchment of overall Marxist ideals. That is, centralized economic control, a thorough desconstruction of western traditions and the construction of a shiny new civilization with no borders, no races, no cultural distinctions of any kind. But I certainly don't think it will end there. The end will be the enslavement of the entire human race to the will of a tiny elite minority.
Wow. :omg: :omg: :omg: You really are paranoid. I could seek clarification but...it is clearly hopeless.
John Carson
-
Oh my God you are an idiot. I give up, I can't talk to you. Learn the concept of 'degrees of certainty' and I'll reconsider. We know nothing completely, we know lots of things to a degree of certainty determined by experimentation. I couldn't give a rats ass what you think of science, it's not like you are in a position of any influence. I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm done. Feel free to post some incoherent insulting response, I know you have to have the last word.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Oh my God you are an idiot. I give up, I can't talk to you.
I've given up. All I do now is confess my undying love for him.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only true campaign is between those who wish the power to define oppression to be centralized in the hands of an elite, and those who wish it to be distributed thinly into the ranks of the public at large. Forcing a change in public attitudes and legal definitions towards sodomy, for example, would merely be a demonstration of power, not a goal in and of itself. If you can achieve that, you can achieve anything you please. My suspicion is that the real goal ultimately is the entrenchment of overall Marxist ideals. That is, centralized economic control, a thorough desconstruction of western traditions and the construction of a shiny new civilization with no borders, no races, no cultural distinctions of any kind. But I certainly don't think it will end there. The end will be the enslavement of the entire human race to the will of a tiny elite minority.
Wow. :omg: :omg: :omg: You really are paranoid. I could seek clarification but...it is clearly hopeless.
John Carson
There simply no way that you can deny that the power of oppression is more centralized now than it once was in American society. When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed. How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia? You want to describe it as paranoia simply because you wish to continue the farce that currently exist within American politics. We are trading our Jefferonian liberty of local government rule for libertarian liberties of personnel hedonism. And people such as yourself are relentless defining any attempt to criticize that as some kind of paranoid, demented religious tyranny of some kind. It isn't. You are trying to help destroy Jeffersonian society. That is a simple fact. And you are doing it quite purposefully fully knowledgeable that everything I am saying is true.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Will you be my science project? Troy D. Hailey - genius, or cretin? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
If you haven't already, try googling for Troy. Interesting read indeed. He's a bigger wanker than I thought!
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have lived in virtually every part of the American heartland, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. I have done business in virtually every place in between. I know the hearts and minds of the American people about as well as any one possibly could. Oh, and I also have a very large extended family representing virtually every religious point of view imaginable.
I simply don't buy it. The fact is that there are plenty of statements by evangelicals on this point and plenty of opinion poll support showing that voters take this prophetic stuff seriously. I'm not saying it dominates US policy (which has been pro-Israel since before the prophecy angle became signficant), but it is now a factor with a significant part of the Republican base.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it is ridiculous to believe that the creation of Israel was for anything other than strategic cold war purposes.
I think it was for a variety of reasons beside the cold war, but I don't think it had much to do with prophecy. That has only become politically significant more recently.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A recording or video of an identifiable preacher actually saying from the pulpit that his congregation should vote for candidate X because candidate X will send AMerican forces into help Israel fight the battle of Armegeddon (or some other similar prophecy), and a confirmation from candidate X that he actually supports that policy for that reason.
a) Telling a congregation who to vote for loses a church its tax advantages. Most are cautious not to. b) I never suggested anything about fighting the battle of Armegeddon, just that they want Israel to hold all lands on which it has a historical claim (which includes the West Bank) because this is considered to be a precondition for the second coming.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The fact is that there are plenty of statements by evangelicals on this point and plenty of opinion poll support showing that voters take this prophetic stuff seriously.
As I have alrady said, that is absolutely true. But that does not necessarily translate into reasons people vote for who they do. Christian fundamentalims has been a part of American society since our earliest beginnings. But it was never associated with politics. There is now an obvious association of those traditions with the republicans. But it is merely because the other side has been taken over by a virulent anti-Christian fundamentalism all its own that has driven this group into politics out of self defense. But that group represents a very small minority within the republic fold, and even then they are not in control of any aspect of the agenda. The democrats, on the other hand, are completely controlled by their radical fringe elements. They use the most out of context propaganda imaginable to obfuscate their own extremism. They continuously use the spectre of Christian fundamentalism as something that Americans should be concerned about as a distraction from their own obvious extremism. Are there christian fundamentalists? Yes. Are they generally associated with Republicans? Yes. But what you are essentially proposing is that we Americans stand by and allow an important part of our traditional culture to be driven into extinction while you build an inherently socialistic culture in their place. Well, I'll take the Christian fundamentalist any day. They have always been with us and have done us little harm. And what if they do try to take over? Well, than we will have two totalitarian groups fighting to destroy one another while we Jeffersonians wait in the wings to reassert true Jeffersonian democracy.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
Ilíon wrote:
I understood, from the start, that this where you must end up. ?
Than all you had to do is ask. My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
Ilíon wrote:
In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something. Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
-
Oh my God you are an idiot. I give up, I can't talk to you. Learn the concept of 'degrees of certainty' and I'll reconsider. We know nothing completely, we know lots of things to a degree of certainty determined by experimentation. I couldn't give a rats ass what you think of science, it's not like you are in a position of any influence. I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm done. Feel free to post some incoherent insulting response, I know you have to have the last word.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You're too, too entertaining.
-
Ilíon wrote:
Certainly, the secularists don't care about "gay rights" (whatever that vacuuous phrase means at any particular usage of it), except as one tool in their attempts to demolish traditional society.
I wonder what you think motivates this desire to "demolish traditional society". If not a concern for gay rights and other standard items on the liberal agenda, what then?
Ilíon wrote:
More importantly, secularists do not respect "gays" as persons. Just look at how quickly they *always* play the "faggot card" when opposed by someone who may be (or whom they think they can portray as being) "gay" or as in some way associated with "gays."
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique. ... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:29:38 PM
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion. Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth. Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth. Yet both of them provided specific and useful answers to specific questions. Answers that could be tested and varified by others. But just becuase they can be tested and verified does not mean that they are the truth. Einstien, in his turn, will undoubtedly be overthrown by someone somewhere. A new answer will emerge, but it will not yet be the truth. Each one of these answers allows us more power and control over our physical environment. So, it doesn't really matter if,at the end of the day, we ever find the truth. So long as our knowledge continues improving that might be as good as it gets.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
There simply no way that you can deny that the power of oppression is more centralized now than it once was in American society. When the federal court system, for example, declared locally defined sodomy codes unconstitutional that was a use of centralized authority being used to destroy decentralized authority. How else could you possibly define it? Even if you believe that sodomy is some kind of liberty, you cannot deny that the decision came from a centralized authority which had not previously existed. How is merely observing that obvious fact paranoia? You want to describe it as paranoia simply because you wish to continue the farce that currently exist within American politics. We are trading our Jefferonian liberty of local government rule for libertarian liberties of personnel hedonism. And people such as yourself are relentless defining any attempt to criticize that as some kind of paranoid, demented religious tyranny of some kind. It isn't. You are trying to help destroy Jeffersonian society. That is a simple fact. And you are doing it quite purposefully fully knowledgeable that everything I am saying is true.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There simply no way that you can deny that ...
Certainly he can. That sort do it all the time. Now, if you'd said something like "There is no way you can *honestly* deny that ..." (which, I do realize is what you meant) ... The point I'm trying to make is that words matter, phrasing matters. Just think about Clinton: he did his "best" lying when he could speak literal truth that his listeners would understand differently from what he'd actually said.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I was interested in having a rational debate, but since you speak as if you have had a severe head wound and are trying to prove that you still have brain function, it's taken this long to determine that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
You're too, too entertaining.
Actually, Ilíon you're probably the greatest source of amusement here. It's like watching an babbling infant, albeit one that's capable of using big words (bombast: language that is full of long or pretentious words, used to impress others), but still has no underlying intelligence.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Actually, I think you need to get some sleep, dude.
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written] Well, dude, that's certainly an opinion. However, that opinion/statement doesn't appear to correspond to reality.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than all you had to do is ask.
I *did* ask. That's how we made our journey of discovery (and we actually discovered something). Stan, unlike most of the regulars here, you don't throw a snit-fit when your beliefs/opinions and statements are questioned -- you apparently are willing to *think* about your beliefs. By drawing you out, the odds are greater that you will continue to think about what you've said -- for, after all, *you* said it. That is, the odds are greater that you will be dissatisfied with your beliefs as you currently hold them, so you will eventually seek to refine them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
My personnal view of the universe is that it is kind of a game. Our goal is to seek the truth. Once someone actually discovers the truth, the game is over. The winner gets to be God in the next round. Knowing that probably means I'm the winner this round.
And yet, the world still exists.
Ilíon wrote:
Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" . It is, of course, "getting truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with that. I always have more fun trying to solve a problem than I do having the solution. My motivation is the fun of being mentally engaged. Once I have the solution, I'll probably just go watch Oprah or something.
I didn't ask "For what phychological reason(s)/cause(s) does one engage in "discovery?""
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats probably why I enjoy arguing with all the rest of you morons so much. ;)
Speak for the kiddies.
Ilíon wrote:
[goes to look at self in the mirror; returns and re-reads what was written]
You probably keep a mirror handy at all times, and stare at it all the time.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
-
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion. Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth. Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth. Yet both of them provided specific and useful answers to specific questions. Answers that could be tested and varified by others. But just becuase they can be tested and verified does not mean that they are the truth. Einstien, in his turn, will undoubtedly be overthrown by someone somewhere. A new answer will emerge, but it will not yet be the truth. Each one of these answers allows us more power and control over our physical environment. So, it doesn't really matter if,at the end of the day, we ever find the truth. So long as our knowledge continues improving that might be as good as it gets.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion.
I think you've lost track of the discussion, both of the over-all trajectory of it and of what specific points have been raised. And by whom. Oh, do you mean this assertion:
Stan: Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. . Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. [i.e. the fun part is the process one employs in making "discovery," rather than the result that one discovers] . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
That's simply the truth, that you disagree doesn't change reality: one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth.
You're both (seemingly) misunderstanding what I've said [Though, one wonders how you can possibly be doing that, since my statement that "Science is not about truth." is what has the kiddies in an uproar. Today. It will be something different on another day.] AND speaking literal nonsense: "Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth.
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth. There are complex statements, of which the simple component statements are individually true or not-true; and thus, a complex statement is false if even one of its component statements is false. Come on now, you employ this logic on a daily basis; you couldn't progra
-
John Carson wrote:
Name me one out of the closet gay person of whom that has been true.
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique. ... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
modified on Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:29:38 PM
Ilíon wrote:
Not only can you not be bothered to think, you can't even be bothered to *read* what you pretend to critique.
You are an arrogant jerk with very little to contribute beside an obnoxious attitude.
Ilíon wrote:
... even as you exhibit the very sort of thinking (and behaviors) I was talking about: What business of yours is it that some "gay" person is not "out of the closet?" Where do you (collective) get off "outing" someone as the penalty for opposing you, when the person's sexual preference has nothing to do with the point at issue?
As anyone who follows these matters should be aware, the notorious cases of criticism of gay people from the left have arisen in a context of avowed heterosexuals who actively oppose gay rights --- Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, for example. These people are liars and hypocrites. Surely someone as sanctimonious as yourself can appreciate the desire to expose them as such. (There are some gay people who make a campaign of outing anyone since they consider everyone in the closet to be a hypocrite, but it would be hard to claim that these gay people don't care about gay rights.) My last post was motivated by a desire to disinguish between two hypotheses. Ilion's Hypothesis. The left is hostile or, at best, indifferent to gays. John's Hypothesis. The left is sympathetic to gays in general but hostile to hypocrites who pose as heterosexuals and oppose gay rights while themselves engaging in gay sex. If you could come up with an out-of-the-closet gay person who has been targeted by the left over their sexuality, then that would be evidence in favour of your hypothesis and against mine. There are, after all, a lot of gays who are out of the closet. Surely if the left has no sincere regard for gay rights, there should be examples of it attacking these people over their sexuality when it suited them.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine. All I can say is that I disagree with your 'getting truth' assertion.
I think you've lost track of the discussion, both of the over-all trajectory of it and of what specific points have been raised. And by whom. Oh, do you mean this assertion:
Stan: Knowing truth would mean the end of human discovery. No more question, no more exploration. Having questions is a good thing for a human mind. Having truth is rather meaningless. . Ilíon: What good or use is "discovery" it it never gives us truth? . Stan: Because it gives us something interesting to do. Have you ever solved a Rubics cube? The fun part is the solving - not the little cube with the sides all the same color. [i.e. the fun part is the process one employs in making "discovery," rather than the result that one discovers] . Ilíon: In the context of "question" or "discovery," what is "solving?" It is, of course, "getting truth."
That's simply the truth, that you disagree doesn't change reality: one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Science is not about trying to discover truth. It is about trying to determine a specific answer to a specific question. Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth.
You're both (seemingly) misunderstanding what I've said [Though, one wonders how you can possibly be doing that, since my statement that "Science is not about truth." is what has the kiddies in an uproar. Today. It will be something different on another day.] AND speaking literal nonsense: "Even if it accurately answers the question it still might not represent the truth."
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did Newton provide truth? No. Did Einstien provide truth? No, or at least probably not and certainly not a complete truth.
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth. There are complex statements, of which the simple component statements are individually true or not-true; and thus, a complex statement is false if even one of its component statements is false. Come on now, you employ this logic on a daily basis; you couldn't progra
Ilíon wrote:
one hasn't solved a question until one has the true answer to the question. One may be *satisfied* with a false answer to the question, but that's a different matter.
I disagree with that. A false answer can still be the correct answer for a false question. It simply means the question was not properly constructed, and typically that means thay insufficient information had been acquired to properly frame the question in the first place. Knowledge is gained in any case, even if truth isn't.
Ilíon wrote:
There is no such thing as a "partial truth;" there is truth and not-truth.
Nonsense. Ensteins answer is incomplete because it answers certain questions, but not others. And those that it does answer, may or may not be the correct question. We will not know until more information is available.
Ilíon wrote:
What does "verify" mean? Or for that matter, "falsify?"
They merely indicate whether the same answer can be derived for the same question. It doesn't indicate a final answer, but merely that the methods used to answer the question reliably reproduce the same answer.
Ilíon wrote:
How can one truthfully say one has "knowledge" is one does not know truth? One cannot.
Why not? I claim that knowledge is independent of truth. We can put men on the moon with the knowledge that Newton provided, yet it was still not the truth.
Ilíon wrote:
Now you're getting at what science *is* about; it's about the practical extension of our control over nature, regardless of whether we truly understand *why* it is that we are able to do today that we couldn't do yesterday.
And I claim that is precisely the point I made quite some time ago.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all. Freedom is not something you express with your genitals, it is something you express with your mind.
-
Actually, Ilíon you're probably the greatest source of amusement here. It's like watching an babbling infant, albeit one that's capable of using big words (bombast: language that is full of long or pretentious words, used to impress others), but still has no underlying intelligence.
"We were backstage, playing Monopoly. Totally forgot there was a show, so sorry we are late." - Maynard James Keenan
That's got to be the best description of him I've heard so far. I'd say you nailed it.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.