New Zealand mosque shooting

[Spurtacular]

Willfully bringing in criminal elements into a country is counter intuitive.

What does that mean? That's a gross generalization you're now trying to backpedal.

The only reason you hate islam is because you're christian or some other religion and you feel threatened with their expansion and religious customs. Period. This is really not rocket science.

It's a point that m-pulp just conceded. Nothing gross about it; it's hardcore reality.

I get that as immigrant yourself, you must be hyper sensitive to people shitting on immigration, though.

[ElNono]

You really believe this? You should give it a second thought.

Hint: Who benefits the most from wars?

The biggest islamophobes are people that outright hate it, and most members of other religions. A non-religious person basically can not like islam, but put it in rational terms. Rationally, there's no place for hate.

[Spurtacular]

The biggest islamophobes are people that outright hate it, and most members of other religions. A non-religious person basically can not like islam, but put it in rational terms. Rationally, there's no place for hate.

I get that you desperately think throwing around the h-word (and the i-word, nother buzz word) is some sort of trump card for you. It's pretty lazy; maybe, it's your way of saying you need a break.

[ElNono]

It's a point that m-pulp just conceded. Nothing gross about it; it's hardcore reality.

I get that as immigrant yourself, you must be hyper sensitive to people shitting on immigration, though.

Hmm, no, I actually said many times I dislike illegal immigration. Plus, who am I has no bearing in your gross generalization, or this discussion.

So how you reconcile the previous quote with the fact that the vast majority of muslims being non-violent, or in your own words:

I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.

Don't be reactionary, take your time to think about the response.

[midnightpulp]

One in six persons in one year. We all know what that shit is all about.

Europeans have different and sometimes very loose definitions of violent crimes. As it stands, Sweden's historical murder rate didn't spike. And rapes can be difficult to prove (did you believe what's her name when she claimed conservative hero Brett Kavanaugh raped her?) I'm not suggesting African Muslim immigrants haven't increased the crime rate by some level, that happens any time there's an influx of poor immigrants, I'm saying it's not some fuckin' doomsday scenario that is a historical aberration per Swedish crime history.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not the importation of immigrants of any religion from any country is worth the trade-off of increased crime, we can have that. I'm on the pro-side here, because it would hypocritical vis a vis our history to ban immigration when so many of us benefitted being born in the US because our ancestors, regardless of the perceived blight they brought into the country, were allowed in. Boil it down. A descendent of Irish or Italian immigrants is throwing boulders at glass houses if he's against immigration.

[ElNono]

I get that you desperately think throwing around the h-word (and the i-word, nother buzz word) is some sort of trump card for you. It's pretty lazy; maybe, it's your way of saying you need a break.

You can keep dodging the conversation, and try to make it personal. I won't let you, this is not about me.

[Spurtacular]

You can keep dodging the conversation, and try to make it personal. I won't let you, this is not about me.

There's nothing to dodge. You're free to be desperate and lazy.

[ElNono]

And you should embrace islamophobia if that's how you feel about it. Frosty, for example, has no trouble admitting to being an outright racist.

At the end of the day, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[ElNono]

There's nothing to dodge. You're free to be desperate and lazy.

So which is it?

Willfully bringing in criminal elements into a country is counter intuitive.

or

I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.

[Spurtacular]

Europeans have different and sometimes very loose definitions of violent crimes. As it stands, Sweden's historical murder rate didn't spike. And rapes can be difficult to prove? I'm not suggesting African Muslim immigrants haven't increased the crime rate by some level, that happens any time there's an influx of poor immigrants, I'm saying it's not some fuckin' doomsday scenario that is a historical aberration per Swedish crime history.


Yes, stats can be flat out wrong or manipulated. I'm pretty much the one who introduced this narrative when I called out your leading BS stat. That's why the eye test is not obsolete. I've been around; I know what's what.

You even concede Muslims are bringing crime. Yet you (or others) think I'm a "hater" or whatever label you want to put because I'm literally arguing for safety for a nation.

[Spurtacular]

(did you believe what's her name when she claimed conservative hero Brett Kavanaugh raped her?)

BK was exposed as a bit of boob; but liberals were once again exposed for the heroism that they attach to character assassins and their institutional power play was exposed. But that seems like a convo for another time and place.

[midnightpulp]

Hmm, no, I actually said many times I dislike illegal immigration. Plus, who am I has no bearing in your gross generalization, or this discussion.

So how you reconcile the previous quote with the fact that the vast majority of muslims being non-violent, or in your own words:

I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.

Don't be reactionary, take your time to think about the response.

Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some shithole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.

:cry but it's diffffffferrrrrrrrrent now!!!!! :cry

Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Now, if you want to debate whether or not the importation of immigrants of any religion from any country is worth the trade-off of increased crime, we can have that. I'm on the pro-side here, because it would hypocritical vis a vis our history to ban immigration when so many of us benefitted being born in the US because our ancestors, regardless of the perceived blight they brought into the country, were allowed in. Boil it down. A descendent of Irish or Italian immigrants is throwing boulders at glass houses if he's against immigration.

No. Countries have the full right to regulate immigration. That's the way of the world; you get in at the right time or you don't. Nobody ever said life is perfectly fair.

[Spurtacular]

And you should embrace islamophobia if that's how you feel about it. Frosty, for example, has no trouble admitting to being an outright racist.

At the end of the day, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

At the end of the day, I know you want a label to comfort yourself with. And when I don't give you one, you make one up like a desperate and lazy person would do.

[Spurtacular]

So which is it?

Willfully bringing in criminal elements into a country is counter intuitive.

or

I could make an argument that there are more good muslims than bad muslims.

Not mutually exclusive.

:lol Desperate and lazy.

[midnightpulp]

Yes, stats can be flat out wrong or manipulated. I'm pretty much the one who introduced this narrative when I called out your leading BS stat. That's why the eye test is not obsolete. I've been around; I know what's what.

You even concede Muslims are bringing crime. Yet you (or others) think I'm a "hater" or whatever label you want to put because I'm literally arguing for safety for a nation.

Murder is the hardest crime stat to manipulate, which is why it's cited more often that others. No, you're a "hater" because you're singling out a group because of their religious beliefs. If you want to be against immigration in general, no matter the race, creed, or country, you're intellectual position would be a lot more valid. I probably wouldn't even argue with you, since your position of, "Well, I just don't think the marginal uptick in crime is worth the charity effort." Fair enough. I'm of the opposite position, because I think it's arbitrary to be for immigration "back then," and against it now. If you're Irish or Italian descent, would you go back in time and tell your ancestors to "go back?"

[Spurtacular]

Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some shithole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.

:cry but it's diffffffferrrrrrrrrent now!!!!! :cry

Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants. :lol

You should learn history better, then your blood won't boil. Immigrants coming here often had it harder in many respects. They weren't playing the lotto. If we're talking 16th and 17th century, we're talking about people who faced even more mortality via Indian attack and the perils of wilderness survival. And even when they were established, they still had to battle their colonial overlords and pay a price of blood. None of this was done because it was meriting future persons from far-off lands an outright right to America. That's just silly. Your mindset is ridiculous.

[midnightpulp]

No. Countries have the full right to regulate immigration. That's the way of the world; you get in at the right time or you don't. Nobody ever said life is perfectly fair.

It's still a hypocritical position. "It was okay for MY ancestors, but no one else now. We got ours. Fuck erryone!" You're entitled to your hypocrisy, but I don't see it as coherent foundation to build an argument on.

[Spurtacular]

It's still a hypocritical position. "It was okay for MY ancestors, but no one else now. We got ours. Fuck erryone!" You're entitled to your hypocrisy, but I don't see it as coherent foundation to build an argument on.

Were my ancestors doing it for their posterity or for someone else's posterity? There's nothing hypocritical about it.

[midnightpulp]

You should learn history better, then your blood won't boil. Immigrants coming here often had it harder in many respects. They weren't playing the lotto. If we're talking 16th and 17th century, we're talking about people who faced even more mortality via Indian attack and the perils of wilderness survival. And even when they were established, they still had to battle their colonial overlords and pay a price of blood. None of this was done because it was meriting others cart blanche. That's just silly. Your mindset is ridiculous.

Yes, yes. Them people were just better back then! (btw, why the fuck are you bringing up Colonial times? I'm talking about immigration after the US was a sovereign country). Did you even read the Nat Geo article I posted? In 1907 alone, we admitted over a million immigrants who were processed in minutes. This massive influx correlated with a spike in murder rates. So yeah, it was "meriting others carte blanche" as those immigrants barely had to prove themselves as "worthy" to gain entry.

[Spurtacular]

Yes, yes. Them people were just better back then! (btw, why the fuck are you bringing up Colonial times? I'm talking about immigration after the US was a sovereign country). Did you even read the Nat Geo article I posted? In 1907 alone, we admitted over a million immigrants who were processed in minutes. This massive influx correlated with a spike in murder rates. So yeah, it was "meriting others carte blanche" as those immigrants barely had to prove themselves as "worthy" to gain entry.

Okay, a sovereign country decided to take whatever number of immigrants. None of that means they have to take immigrants indefinitely. But this seems like a moot argument given that US leads the world in the number of immigrants (even before the BS illegal immigration on the southern border).

[midnightpulp]

Were my ancestors doing it for their posterity or for someone else's posterity? There's nothing hypocritical about it.

And the migrant farm worker isn't doing it for his posterity in the exact same way your ancestors escaped a potato famine to ensure their posterity? And you're assuming motive of immigrants to justify your hypocrisy. "My people were different, I tell you!" You tell me to "learn history," take that fuckin advice yourself and read about the angry backlash Irish and Italian immigrants received from nativist assholes of the time. It's too often erroneously perceived that these immigrants walked off their boats, assimilated in a manner of weeks, and were welcomed with open arms by the population at large. They were vilified much the same way the current wave of Latino immigrants are, as criminals, rapists, degenerates, etc.

[ElNono]

At the end of the day, I know you want a label to comfort yourself with. And when I don't give you one, you make one up like a desperate and lazy person would do.

I don't want to put labels, I'm encouraging you to think before you post. When you post this (direct quote from a couple posts back):

What I have effectively argued though is that Islam is cancer

then what do you think people are going to think? That you love Islam? That there's room for debate there?

[ElNono]

Not mutually exclusive.

:lol Desperate and lazy.

How is it not mutually exclusive? Argue your own point instead of trying to make this personal again :lol

[midnightpulp]

Okay, a sovereign country decided to take whatever number of immigrants. None of that means they have to take immigrants indefinitely. But this seems like a moot argument given that US leads the world in the number of immigrants (even before the BS illegal immigration on the southern border).

This is a much more coherent opinion, and yes, there will come a time when logistics will conflict with the math, i.e. a homeless shelter that only has room for 100 occupants can't accept 1000, no matter how much they want to. That's a more nuanced debate and I have no idea how large the population in the US needs to be until we're logistically strained.

[ElNono]

Nothing honestly makes my blood boil more in the immigration debate when a likely descendent of immigrant who fled some shithole situation in Europe takes up a hard anti-immigration position, oblivious to the fact that if people like him ran immigration policy in the days when Great-Grandpappy and Great-Granny O'Fallon sailed the seas on the way to the New World, they would've been told to "go back" and left to die by potato famine or being put up against the wall by some dictator.

:cry but it's diffffffferrrrrrrrrent now!!!!! :cry

Not really. Well, maybe different in the fact that the modern immigrants from Latin countries are considerably less violent than 20th century immigrants. :lol

I have no problem debating about anything, really, as long as we're dealing with rationality and facts, not 'my hunch is', or 'they're all rapists and criminals', or 'My cousin once got shot by xxxx'...

I certainly expressed and continue to express my disdain for people that not only are massively uneducated, but proud of that fact. I really have no patience for fools.

[Ghazi]

Islamophobes' definition/perception of Islam is the exact definition/perception Rupert Murdoch and the Zionists and Neocons want them to have.


Mesmerized the simple minded ;)

Propaganda leaves us blinded ;)

[Spurtacular]

This is a much more coherent opinion, and yes, there will come a time when logistics will conflict with the math, i.e. a homeless shelter that only has room for 100 occupants can't accept 1000, no matter how much they want to. That's a more nuanced debate and I have no idea how large the population in the US needs to be until we're logistically strained.

Your problem still is that you think the US is under some sort of moralistic obligation to hit a quota. It's not.

[midnightpulp]

You're problem still is that you think the US is under some sort of moralistic obligation to hit a quota. It's not.

I never suggested we need a "quota," but I do believe in the US's role as a "Land of Opportunity" centered on Christian morality (even though I'm not believer, but charity is CENTRAL to Christianity). To me, a Bible thumper who wants to build walls (figuratively, speaking. I'd be for a fucking moat filled with sharks as our southern border if the byzantine immigration process was made easier, as it was in the Ellis Island era) is a hypocrite. Chris's deflection to laws of the land passages in scripture is directly overruled by Jesus commanding his followers to be charitable to the poor and even criminal.

[Avant]

Start fixing this fucked up world by dumping the internet. OR....getting rid of all the garbage on it. Keep educationed stuff, sports, that kind of thing. Get rid of places people can spread harmful bullshit.

Mods must report anyone talking off topic shit about anything that can be harmful to anyone.

[apalisoc_9]

Start fixing this fucked up world by dumping the internet. OR....getting rid of all the garbage on it. Kepp educationed stuff, sports, that kind of thing. Get rid of places people can spread harmful bullshit.

The most cultured man...speaks.

[Spurtacular]

I never suggested we need a "quota," but I do believe in the US's role as a "Land of Opportunity" centered on Christian morality (even though I'm not believer, but charity is CENTRAL to Christianity). To me, a Bible thumper who wants to build walls (figuratively, speaking. I'd be for a fucking moat filled with sharks as our southern border if the byzantine immigration process was made easier, as it was in the Ellis Island era) is a hypocrite. Chris's deflection to laws of the land passages in scripture is directly overruled by Jesus commanding his followers to be charitable to the poor and even criminal.

It's funny how you make arguments about how corrupt Christians are relative to Muslims when it suits you. You (left in general) makes arguments of separation of church and state when it suits you, but then preach about how something governmental is our Christian duty. But leaving that aside, if you want to explore the moralistic obligation from a Christian perspective, then fair enough. So, I don't mean that as an aspersion, rather than that I'm noting the convenience of it all.

You want more immigration; that's your right to have that opinion. But we do allow the most immigrants of any country, so I really don't know why you're so bent out of shape on that front, anyways. And again, that's even after the uncounted illegal immigration. And if the process is f'd up, it's because illegals (that Democrats roll out the welcome mat for) are over extending our resources and making it so that legal immigration isn't getting the proper attention.

[Avant]

The most cultured man...speaks.

Take this place for an example look at how people act while in hiding. Nobody acts like that in public.

[Spurtacular]

Start fixing this fucked up world by dumping the internet. OR....getting rid of all the garbage on it. Keep educationed stuff, sports, that kind of thing. Get rid of places people can spread harmful bullshit.

Mods must report anyone talking off topic shit about anything that can be harmful to anyone.

I didn't know you were a hardcore fascist; but I'm not surprised.

[midnightpulp]

I have no problem debating about anything, really, as long as we're dealing with rationality and facts, not 'my hunch is', or 'they're all rapists and criminals', or 'My cousin once got shot by xxxx'...

I certainly expressed and continue to express my disdain for people that not only are massively uneducated, but proud of that fact. I really have no patience for fools.

I mean, does Spurt (I'm assuming he's Christian) enjoy when New Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their hordes of followers demonize Christianity? Spurt probably thinks I'm the type of liberal that defends critiques against Islam but stays silent when liberals take aim at Christianity. Fact is, I've debated New Atheists more times than I can count, and they probably have a worse understanding of Christianity's history and nuances than conservatives do of Islam. My blood similarly boils when I read New Atheists, in their self-assured arrogant way, with "I Fuckin Love Science!" avatars, talk about how Christianity set progress back 400 years, lynched Galileo, and caused every war in the history of mankind. The truth is a lot more interesting than that.

[Spurtacular]

I mean, does Spurt (I'm assuming he's Christian) enjoy when New Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their hordes of followers demonize Christianity?

Not familiar with all of them. But I don't hate Hitchens. Much of what he said was insightful and amusing. Sure, he was quite the prick in his own right; but he spoke truth to power about as much as anyone.

[Spurtacular]

Fact is, I've debated New Atheists more times than I can count, and they probably have a worse understanding of Christianity's history and nuances than conservatives do of Islam.

Leaving aside your butthurt comment about Christian views on Islam, I'm hardly surprised. To call oneself an atheist is about the most ridiculous position a person can take. Of course their views on other matters are going to be reflective of that personality trait of pretentiousness.

[midnightpulp]

It's funny how you make arguments about how corrupt Christians are relative to Muslims when it suits you. You (left in general) makes arguments of separation of church and state when it suits you, but then preach about how something governmental is our Christian duty. But leaving that aside, if you want to explore the moralistic obligation from a Christian perspective, then fair enough. So, I don't mean that as an aspersion, rather than that I'm noting the convenience of it all.

You want more immigration; that's your right to have that opinion. But we do allow the most immigrants of any country, so I really don't know why you're so bent out of shape on that front, anyways. And again, that's even after the uncounted illegal immigration. And if the process is f'd up, it's because illegals (that Democrats roll out the welcome mat for) are over extending our resources and making it so that legal immigration isn't getting the proper attention.

Where did I label Christians as corrupt? I'm simply saying that someone who professes to be a devout Christian isn't living in accordance with the religion's core tenants if they're attending alt-right rallies and chanting "Build that Wall!" Also, nowhere did I state that I want concepts of Christian charity to become law, just that it's my personal belief we try to live up to the "Christian Nation" label we've given ourselves.

[Spurtacular]

My blood similarly boils when I read New Atheists, in their self-assured arrogant way, with "I Fuckin Love Science!" avatars, talk about how Christianity set progress back 400 years, lynched Galileo, and caused every war in the history of mankind. The truth is a lot more interesting than that.

They're anti-christians; atheism and their professed adoration of science supposedly at odds with Christianity is just their facade. The fact is that Christianity is not at odds with science. Unless counting some fringe sects; but that is cherry picking; and honestly who cares how they practice their religion if they're not intruding on other people's rights.

I do understand that modern medicine (science) has made great leaps and bounds over the last two centuries. Why did it take so long? Could religion (institutions) have been a hindrance? Sure....

[midnightpulp]

Leaving aside your butthurt comment about Christian views on Islam, I'm hardly surprised. To call oneself an atheist is about the most ridiculous position a person can take. Of course their views on other matters are going to be reflective of that personality trait of pretentiousness.

What butthurt comment? I'm not butthurt about anything. What draws me into any debate, where it's a sports or political debate, is when someone offers up a shaky argument not supported by facts and/or logic. It's not logical to demonize an entire group/religion based on the actions of a few, as you did with Muslims/Islam. I'll go to bat for Christians the same way when a cocky atheist who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room because he read Carl Sagan one time goes after Christians/Christianity with similar self-assured ignorance.

[Spurtacular]

Where did I label Christians as corrupt? I'm simply saying that someone who professes to be a devout Christian isn't living in accordance with the religion's core tenants if they're attending alt-right rallies and chanting "Build that Wall!"

Christians don't believe in the rule of law? They do believe in unfairness (towards legal immigrants)? I think your interpretation of Christianity is very convenient.

[midnightpulp]

Christians don't believe in the rule of law? They do believe in unfairness (towards legal immigrants)? I think your interpretation of Christianity is very convenient.

If that rule of law conflicts with a commandment from God, the rule of man is to be ignored. Would Jesus deny entry into the US to a desperate man looking to better to his life? I highly, highly doubt it.

[Spurtacular]

Spurt probably thinks I'm the type of liberal that defends critiques against Islam but stays silent when liberals take aim at Christianity.

I think your positions are largely based in reason and compassion if not always reality. You're ultimately not the dime a dozen liberal who is scourging this planet.

[Spurtacular]

If that rule of law conflicts with a commandment from God, the rule of man is to be ignored. Would Jesus deny entry into the US to a desperate man looking to better to his life? I highly, highly doubt it.

Jesus said to give to Ceasar what is his and to Christ what is his. There is no commandment on immigration. Why? Because Jesus would never pretend that shades of gray are not a reality in this world. People try to make Jesus into some simpleton like that. But what I can say is that Christ did advocate for having one's house in order. So, if that helps you get on whatever right track....

[midnightpulp]

They're anti-christians; atheism and their professed adoration of science supposedly at odds with Christianity is just their facade. The fact is that Christianity is not at odds with science. Unless counting some fringe sects; but that is cherry picking; and honestly who cares how they practice their religion if they're not intruding on other people's rights.

I do understand that modern medicine (science) has made great leaps and bounds over the last two centuries. Why did it take so long? Could religion (institutions) have been a hindrance? Sure....

Your garden variety anti-religious Internet atheist gets his science understanding from pop-sci sites, like I Fuckin Love Science. Their knowledge of history is even more laughable, thinking we'd all be a space faring species right now if not for them ebil Christians. Good read:

https://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Most evidence suggests that Christianity replacing Paganism actually accelerated philosophical and scientific understanding. Pagan Germans were the group who burnt Rome to the ground, and who saved any and all texts they could, were the monks who were caretakers of those libraries:


Aside from the fact that, as we've already explained, most people in the Middle Ages did not think the Earth was flat, the church wasn't responsible for killing science -- to the contrary, it was largely responsible for saving it.
After the barbarians invaded Europe and Rome went the way of the dinosaurs, the Catholic church was the last remaining aspect of Roman culture in Western Europe. The church went about setting up monasteries across Europe, and along with the monks came the monks' massive libraries. Monks were just about the only educated people in the early Middle Ages, and pretty much everything we know about this entire time period was written by them.

https://www.cracked.com/article_20186_6-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

[ElNono]

I mean, does Spurt (I'm assuming he's Christian) enjoy when New Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and their hordes of followers demonize Christianity? Spurt probably thinks I'm the type of liberal that defends critiques against Islam but stays silent when liberals take aim at Christianity. Fact is, I've debated New Atheists more times than I can count, and they probably have a worse understanding of Christianity's history and nuances than conservatives do of Islam. My blood similarly boils when I read New Atheists, in their self-assured arrogant way, with "I Fuckin Love Science!" avatars, talk about how Christianity set progress back 400 years, lynched Galileo, and caused every war in the history of mankind. The truth is a lot more interesting than that.

Even all those guys recognize there are utilitarian aspects to religion, which doesn't mean they're necessarily worth it on the whole (but, on the other hand, if somebody is getting better through those utilitarian aspects, then great stuff).

Specifically on what we're discussing, the addition of dogma/theology on any conflict it's almost always a sure fire way to escalate it. Even in the mildest, non-violent form, religion has a fanatical component attached to it (which is empirically provable, since the whole construction rests on faith).

[Spurtacular]

Even in the mildest, non-violent form, religion has a fanatical component attached to it (which is empirically provable, since the whole construction rests on faith).

It's your own biases that prevent you from being next level. You basically said any form of faith is irrational.

[midnightpulp]

Jesus said to give to Ceasar what is his and to Christ what is his. There is no commandment on immigration. Why? Because Jesus would never pretend that shades of gray are not a reality in this world. People try to make Jesus into some simpleton like that. But what I can say is that Christ did advocate for having one's house in order. So, if that helps you get on whatever right track....

Yes, shades of gray meaning there's no simplistic objective right or wrong answer. As I said, if you want to argue that the uptick in crime isn't worth bettering the lives of the immigrants who do not commit those crimes, then that's a valid position. Similarly, I don't believe the accidental killing of one innocent person in a bombing run that results in 100 terrorist deaths is "worth it." Utilitarianism can be a tricky moral philosophy. In regards to immigration, though, I simply don't agree with sending someone back to a situation in which they most likely won't survive if we have the resources to help them.

[Spurtacular]

Similarly, I don't believe the accidental killing of one innocent person in a bombing run that results in 100 terrorist deaths is "worth it."

The world would be better, imo. But it's an interesting moral quandary you present nonetheless.

[Spurtacular]

I simply don't agree with sending someone back to a situation in which they most likely won't survive if we have the resources to help them.

You're speaking of asylum vs. regular immigration. Our asylum laws are set up to not allow that. If you're arguing they aren't being followed, that's one thing. But even asylum is something that does get abused, or people try to abuse it.

[Spurtacular]

Yes, shades of gray meaning there's no simplistic objective right or wrong answer. As I said, if you want to argue that the uptick in crime isn't worth bettering the lives of the immigrants who do not commit those crimes, then that's a valid position.

Well, would Jesus support / vote for something that would cast chaos into a country or community?

[apalisoc_9]

It's amazing to me that 50 Muslims died in such recent events but we have people in spurstalk demonzing the victims thesmelves.

Trolling aside, I have never came across more demonic mentalities and attitudes as the current crop of far right extremist in my 13 year stay in spurstalk.

Not even in the days of 08-10.

The shit we read here now is practiclly, /Donald, 4chan material.

[Spurtacular]

It's amazing to me that 50 Muslims died in such recent events but we have people in spurstalk demonzing the victims thesmelves.

Trolling aside, I have never came across more demonic mentalities and attitudes as the current crop of far right extremist in my 13 year stay in spurstalk.

Not even in the days of 08-10.

The shit we read here now is practiclly, /Donald, 4chan material.

You really should go to a barbecue at chump's trailer home like reck did. You'll feel better.

[midnightpulp]

Even all those guys recognize there are utilitarian aspects to religion, which doesn't mean they're necessarily worth it on the whole (but, on the other hand, if somebody is getting better through those utilitarian aspects, then great stuff).

Specifically on what we're discussing, the addition of dogma/theology on any conflict it's almost always a sure fire way to escalate it. Even in the mildest, non-violent form, religion has a fanatical component attached to it (which is empirically provable, since the whole construction rests on faith).

My issue with that group is that they're non-historians who flat out spout historical untruths about religion's role throughout history, yet position themselves as dispassionate seekers of "truth." See my posts to Spurts about the review of God's Philosophers, where an atheist historian expresses frustration at the lack of historical understanding your average "religion hating" Internet atheist has. They also can't quantify religion's cost/benefit to humanity, and simply speculate that if we weren't held back by "superstition" for all those eons, then we'd be living in a utopia right now. We've seen societies try the non-religion approach before (the Soviet Union) and all it resulted in was destitution. We've seen scientific concepts like Darwinian Evolution dogmatized to justify abhorrent practices like forced sterilization and eugenics.

The religious mindset will never go away, no matter how much "rationality" you throw at it because we live in an uncertain universe where objective truth is beyond our grasp (and will forever be beyond it), so people use religion to inject some certainty and "truth" into their lives, especially in the face of tragedy. For many people, they need God in this regard to make sense of it all, and the prospect of never seeing their loved ones again is too frightening an idea to have. Also, even if the supernatural aspects of belief/faith die out, it'll be replaced by something else, and it already has in the form of an incredulous faith in technology. You have "science minded" people believing in such nonsense as nanotechnology, cryonics, mind-uploading, simulation theory (where we replace God with a programmer), robot gods, and the like. And this nonsense gets write ups in tech rags like Gizmodo and Motherboard, so people are more prone to believe it since it's sold through the guise of "science."

Basically, our religious mentally is never going away, as stated. Mortality is a powerful driver of our collective imagination, for better or worse.

[apalisoc_9]

You really should go to a barbecue at chump's trailer home like reck did. You'll feel better.

You're so violent.

You don't even have the decency to leave this thread and respect the dead.

Why dont you just build chumps shrine or altar on your room since you're so inlove with him.

My last reply. As I resepct the humans who have died under the hands of a demon whose cause is "anti-immigrarion" anti-islam, anti-left"

Righoutsnes shall prevail over evil causes.

[midnightpulp]

Well, would Jesus support / vote for something that would cast chaos into a country or community?

I live in SoCal, which people would call little Mexico these days. The Latino immigrants aren't creating chaos here. SoCal's crime rate is the lowest it's been in a long time. Only thing they do that irritates me is their seeming resistance to learn English. Don't like the waving of the Mexican flag, either. But those are just annoyances that aren't deserving of seething backlash on my part.

[Winehole23]

Deplatforming ISIS largely worked, why not do the same to white supremacists?

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/downloads/JMB%20Diminishing%20Returns.pdf
https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/downloads/Nazis%20v.%20ISIS.pdf

[Winehole23]

https://i.redd.it/uedawtfzqbgz.jpg (https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6ub41y/the_paradox_of_tolerance/)

[Spurtacular]

You're so violent.

You don't even have the decency to leave this thread and respect the dead.

Why dont you just build chumps shrine or altar on your room since you're so inlove with him.

My last reply. As I resepct the humans who have died under the hands of a demon whose cause is "anti-immigrarion" anti-islam, anti-left"

Righoutsnes shall prevail over evil causes.

We all get that you're doing a character. Who knows what you really believe; probably this is a manifestation of your own inferiority complex though, tbh.

[Spurtacular]

I live in SoCal, which people would call little Mexico these days. The Latino immigrants aren't creating chaos here. SoCal's crime rate is the lowest it's been in a long time. Only thing they do that irritates me is their seeming resistance to learn English. Don't like the waving of the Mexican flag, either. But those are just annoyances that aren't deserving of seething backlash on my part.

That's a load of crap. Latinos are creating all kinds of chaos in SoCal. The state used to have much higher standards across the board. You cannot tell me that the state is better now than in the 50's or 60's. You just can't. And that waving Mexican flag represents all this, but you cannot come to terms b/c somewhere along the way you internalized that you'll somehow be a racist if you admit it.

[Spurtacular]

https://i.redd.it/uedawtfzqbgz.jpg (https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6ub41y/the_paradox_of_tolerance/)

:lmao Even your cartoons are boring.
:lmao Tolerance though intolerance
:lmao Dumbass blakehole

[midnightpulp]

That's a load of crap. Latinos are creating all kinds of chaos in SoCal. The state used to have much higher standards across the board. You cannot tell me that the state is better now than in the 50's or 60's. You just can't. And that waving Mexican flag represents all this, but you cannot come to terms b/c somewhere along the way you internalized that you'll somehow be a racist if you admit it.

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3511/CF_Trends_16.jpg

Spike was crack epidemic.

So should I be angry when I see a "Proud to be Irish" flag stickered on a rear window?

[Spurtacular]

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2016/3511/CF_Trends_16.jpg

Spike was crack epidemic.

So should I be angry when I see a "Proud to be Irish" flag stickered on a rear window?

I'm not saying anyone should not be proud of their heritage (except for muslims; fuck that hellion shit) to whatever degree. And honestly, many first gen illegals are hard working. But if I'm being honest, they brought a butt load of problems with them.

[midnightpulp]

Furthermore, aren't Texans always celebrating the growth of their economy, which has been among the healthiest in the country over the last couple of decades? Texas Latino pop? Hispanic of any race: 37.5%

California Hispanic pop: 37.6%

The two biggest economic contributing states have large Hispanic populations. Chaos indeed. :lol

[midnightpulp]

I'm not saying anyone should not be proud of their heritage (except for muslims; fuck that hellion shit) to whatever degree. And honestly, many first gen illegals are hard working. But if I'm being honest, they brought a butt load of problems with them.

Remember the Unz article I posted earlier? In the Southwest especially, Latinos don't behave any worse than whites. What are the buttload of problems here? I don't feel like posting graphs, but trust me (googling): Whites have higher addiction rates than Hispanics. Hispanic unemployment is marginally less at 5.9% (that's lower than Canada) vs. 4.2%. Dependence on social programs is about the same per percentage of households. Not seeing it. Think you've watched American Me and Blood in, Blood Out a few too many times.

[FrostKing]

https://i.redd.it/uedawtfzqbgz.jpg (https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/6ub41y/the_paradox_of_tolerance/)
:: mental gymnastics

[Spurtacular]

Remember the Unz article I posted earlier? In the Southwest especially, Latinos don't behave any worse than whites. What are the buttload of problems here? I don't feel like posting graphs, but trust me (googling): Whites have higher addiction rates than Hispanics. Hispanic unemployment is marginally less at 5.9% (that's lower than Canada) vs. 4.2%. Dependence on social programs is about the same per percentage of households. Not seeing it. Think you've watched American Me and Blood in, Blood Out a few too many times.

Where are the drugs coming from? Who is bringing the crime? Come on now; it's ghetto culture. It's not what you would choose for your kids if you could live anywhere.

[Avant]

The internet needs to be revamped.

[midnightpulp]

Where are the drugs coming from?Who is bringing the crime? Come on now; it's ghetto culture. It's not what you would choose for your kids if you could live anywhere.

Pharmaceutical companies through their men-in-white coated dealers? Shit, the Sacklers purposely targeted the economically depressed Midwest since they knew it would be a fertile ground of potential addicts. But yes, cartels also deal a shitload of drugs, but we're not talking about cartels based in Mexico, but Latino immigrants. Sure, no doubt cartel affiliated people who snuck in have committed crime, but even taking that into consideration, the Latino crime rate is relatively low. Here's a graph (for the year of 2015):

https://www.ultius.com/images/easyblog_shared/immigration-law-racial-profiling/arrests-by-race-and-type-of-crime.jpg

I will also again refer to the Unz article. I don't see all this crime they're bringing in?

[midnightpulp]

:: mental gymnastics

Nazism has no place in a civil society. It isn't a "differing point of view," but an ideology that has a genocidal end-game. If someone tells me they're a Nazi, I take that as a death threat, since their goal would indeed be to have me (and you) killed if they could get away with it.

[Spurtacular]

Pharmaceutical companies through their men-in-white coated dealers? Shit, the Sacklers purposely targeted the economically depressed Midwest since they knew it would be a fertile ground of potential addicts. But yes, cartels also deal a shitload of drugs, but we're not talking about cartels based in Mexico, but Latino immigrants. Sure, no doubt cartel affiliated people who snuck in have committed crime, but even taking that into consideration, the Latino crime rate is relatively low. Here's a graph (for the year of 2015):

https://www.ultius.com/images/easyblog_shared/immigration-law-racial-profiling/arrests-by-race-and-type-of-crime.jpg

I will also again refer to the Unz article. I don't see all this crime they're bringing in?

You might want to revisit that wiki page you posted showing Mexico's murder rate. You really think the dregs of their society ain't bringing that with them?

[Spurtacular]

midnightpulp

Honestly, as a baseball fan you should know this stuff from even just one night at the Dodger stadium parking lot. That's not the tone at other parking lots around the country.

[midnightpulp]

You might want to revisit that wiki page you posted showing Mexico's murder rate. You really think the dregs of their society ain't bringing that with them?

Again, that's in Mexico. Not here. Why hasn't that murder rate translated to here? Maybe because it's the good people trying to escape that shitty situation? Proof is in the stats. Re: Dodger Stadium. That's a cherry pick. And events like Bryan Stow are relatively rare. I can counter by referencing the Spurs 2014 celebration during the night they won the title (it was on youtube). I don't recall seeing a white face, yet that was a peaceful celebration (meanwhile, the majority white Vancouver burns their city down when they lose an NHL playoffs). And yeah, we probably have more gang-banging Latinos here and they wind up at places like Dodger Stadium, but their existence is still not enough to drive up the demographic's crime rate overall.

My point is let's try blaming individuals rather than groups.

[Spurtacular]

Again, that's in Mexico. Not here. Why hasn't that murder rate translated to here? Maybe because it's the good people trying to escape that shitty situation? Proof is in the stats. Re: Dodger Stadium. That's a cherry pick. And events like Bryan Stow are relatively rare. I can counter by referencing the Spurs 2014 celebration during the night they won the title (it was on youtube). I don't recall seeing a white face, yet that was a peaceful celebration (meanwhile, the majority white Vancouver burns their city down when they lose an NHL playoffs). And yeah, we probably have more gang-banging Latinos here and they wind up at places like Dodger Stadium, but their existence is still not enough to drive up the demographic's crime rate overall.

My point is let's try blaming individuals rather than groups.

Dude, you're trying to stat this to death. You go to places like Huntington Beach, New Port Beach, Carlsbad, Santa Barbara; they're nice places and predominately white. In it's heyday, that's how all of California was. You find a shit neighborhood, it's going to inevitably have a high number of minorities. Sure, there may be a few white trash area exceptions (related to the crystal meth boom). Again now, I'm not saying there aren't plenty of good Mexicans; in fact, a great many of them are good. But I'm just telling you of some macro realities.

[midnightpulp]

Dude, you're trying to stat this to death. You go to places like Huntington Beach, New Port Beach, Carlsbad, Santa Barbara; they're nice places and predominately white. In it's heyday, that's how all of California was. You find a shit neighborhood, it's going to inevitably have a high number of minorities. Sure, there may be a few white trash area exceptions (related to the crystal meth boom). Again now, I'm not saying there aren't plenty of good Mexicans; in fact, a great many of them are good. But I'm just telling you of some macro realities.

:lol no it wasn't. You didn't see murder rate stats I posted? Also, California has always had a significant Latino population. The classic census used to consider Latinos white in those glory days you speak of. I stat things to death because stats are more accurate than anecdotes and arguments from experience. Also, those areas are predominantly rich. Economic stability tends to correlate to lower crime rates. Oh, 30 percent Latino and only 58% white, lowest murder rate out of large cities in the US:

https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2018/12/18/san-diego-had-lowest-murder-rate-among-30-largest-u-s-cities-in-2018/

I'll also reiterate the point that the "white" Italian and Irish immigrants spiked the crime rate far higher than Latino immigrants. I'm not saying this to suggest any of the ethnicities are inherently less violent than each other, but to illustrate that crime is more a by product of economic status over anything else. Once those ethnicities maturated into American life over a couple of generations, the crime rate of that group fell dramatically. This has already happened to Latinos (see again, Unz report) and is happening with blacks. Yes, I know blacks have been here as long as whites, but their set backs have been a bit more significant. Sure, Irish and Italians were discriminated against, but weren't lynched in public for leering at white women.

[ElNono]

It's your own biases that prevent you from being next level. You basically said any form of faith is irrational.

You either don't know what faith or rational means. Believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever and for which there is little to no evidence is exactly what irrationality is. Faith fits like a glove there.

There's nothing inherently wrong with something being irrational. Everybody has wishes and hopes, which, a lot of times, are irrational.

The problem is arguing, or even fighting over irrational things, which is a waste of time. By definition, you could never prove to being neither right or wrong.

Rounding up my previous post, that's why fights over irrational ideas are largely driven by fanaticism and emotion.

[Spurtacular]

You either don't know what faith or rational means. Believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever and for which there is little to no evidence is exactly what irrationality is. Faith fits like a glove there.

"Makes no sense" if you're a cuck like blake and can't comprehend anything more than what's in front of your face, like some dude fucking your wife, maybe.

But I don't care if you have faith in anything or not; I just mock your utter arrogance on the matter.

[ElNono]

My issue with that group is that they're non-historians who flat out spout historical untruths about religion's role throughout history, yet position themselves as dispassionate seekers of "truth." See my posts to Spurts about the review of God's Philosophers, where an atheist historian expresses frustration at the lack of historical understanding your average "religion hating" Internet atheist has. They also can't quantify religion's cost/benefit to humanity, and simply speculate that if we weren't held back by "superstition" for all those eons, then we'd be living in a utopia right now. We've seen societies try the non-religion approach before (the Soviet Union) and all it resulted in was destitution. We've seen scientific concepts like Darwinian Evolution dogmatized to justify abhorrent practices like forced sterilization and eugenics.

The religious mindset will never go away, no matter how much "rationality" you throw at it because we live in an uncertain universe where objective truth is beyond our grasp (and will forever be beyond it), so people use religion to inject some certainty and "truth" into their lives, especially in the face of tragedy. For many people, they need God in this regard to make sense of it all, and the prospect of never seeing their loved ones again is too frightening an idea to have. Also, even if the supernatural aspects of belief/faith die out, it'll be replaced by something else, and it already has in the form of an incredulous faith in technology. You have "science minded" people believing in such nonsense as nanotechnology, cryonics, mind-uploading, simulation theory (where we replace God with a programmer), robot gods, and the like. And this nonsense gets write ups in tech rags like Gizmodo and Motherboard, so people are more prone to believe it since it's sold through the guise of "science."

Basically, our religious mentally is never going away, as stated. Mortality is a powerful driver of our collective imagination, for better or worse.

:lol woha, back up two steps.

As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.

Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.

That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.

[Spurtacular]

There's nothing inherently wrong with something being irrational. Everybody has wishes and hopes, which, a lot of times, are irrational.

The problem is arguing, or even fighting over irrational things, which is a waste of time. By definition, you could never prove to being neither right or wrong.

Rounding up my previous post, that's why fights over irrational ideas are largely driven by fanaticism and emotion.

I don't make it a matter to argue with people about their faith or lack of faith or the specifics thereof. I just think it's naive to assume that someone cannot be enriched by faith in something that you cannot prove and to cast yourself above that person. But I get it; there's something to be said for little displays of subtle dominance. You feel better about yourself that way. In a paradoxical way, it's your own sort of faith.

[ElNono]

"Makes no sense" if you're a cuck like blake and can't comprehend anything more than what's in front of your face, like some dude fucking your wife, maybe.

But I don't care if you have faith in anything or not; I just mock your utter arrogance on the matter.

You keep getting upset at me, but refuted none of what I said. "if you're a cuck like blake" is not a empirical argument.

I don't do make-believe. If that's what 'next level' is, yeah, that's the cuckoo level I'm definitely not getting to.

[midnightpulp]

You either don't know what faith or rational means. Believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever and for which there is little to no evidence is exactly what irrationality is. Faith fits like a glove there.

There's nothing inherently wrong with something being irrational. Everybody has wishes and hopes, which, a lot of times, are irrational.

The problem is arguing, or even fighting over irrational things, which is a waste of time. By definition, you could never prove to being neither right or wrong.

Rounding up my previous post, that's why fights over irrational ideas are largely driven by fanaticism and emotion.

Believing in a creator (not necessarily the creator featured in a specific religion) does make logical sense when you consider the ex nihilo paradox and the probability of the universe being fine-tuned in such a way to harbor our existence (and yes, I'm familiar with the counterarguments to the fine tuned universe argument). It's definitely still a belief based on pure faith since there's no evidence to support intelligent design, but the belief isn't necessarily based on total irrationality. As I said in a prior post, now some thinkers are trying to give intelligent design a "scientific" angle with the simulation argument, which "geniuses" like Elon Monk believe.

[Spurtacular]

:lol no it wasn't. You didn't see murder rate stats I posted? Also, California has always had a significant Latino population. The classic census used to consider Latinos white in those glory days you speak of. I stat things to death because stats are more accurate than anecdotes and arguments from experience. Also, those areas are predominantly rich. Economic stability tends to correlate to lower crime rates. Oh, 30 percent Latino and only 58% white, lowest murder rate out of large cities in the US:

https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2018/12/18/san-diego-had-lowest-murder-rate-among-30-largest-u-s-cities-in-2018/

I'll also reiterate the point that the "white" Italian and Irish immigrants spiked the crime rate far higher than Latino immigrants. I'm not saying this to suggest any of the ethnicities are inherently less violent than each other, but to illustrate that crime is more a by product of economic status over anything else. Once those ethnicities maturated into American life over a couple of generations, the crime rate of that group fell dramatically. This has already happened to Latinos (see again, Unz report) and is happening with blacks. Yes, I know blacks have been here as long as whites, but their set backs have been a bit more significant. Sure, Irish and Italians were discriminated against, but weren't lynched in public for leering at white women.

SD is rich. It's not a big destination for illegals, tbh. And whites still double the existing latinos. Head to LA and it's a different story.

Dude, I grew up in a white socal town that was later flooded with poorer minorities. I know what happens. You're either naive or you're trying to BS the wrong person.

[Spurtacular]

You keep getting upset at me, but refuted none of what I said. "if you're a cuck like blake" is not a empirical argument.

I don't do make-believe. If that's what 'next level' is, yeah, that's the cuckoo level I'm definitely not getting to.

It doesn't take faith to be a pathetic cuck like blake; just ask him. This has nothing to do with being upset with you, dude. That whole lazy and desperate thing again, tbh.

[midnightpulp]

:lol woha, back up two steps.

As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.

Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.

That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. I just feel it more prudent to blame men and not the idea. I mean, the Nazis (and others) took a fairly innocuous scientific idea and used it as justification for all sorts of terrible shit. Dumbass Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche's ubermensch concept. The Soviet Union badly misapplied Marx. I just feel like religion is usually unfairly singled out by the Dawkins, et al when there's been just as many ideas from the secular world, many sold as "scientific" and promoted by "scientists" that influenced terrible behavior. The latest one is probably the race/IQ/violence controversy, which was built on specious science, but is used by the "converted" as an excuse for ethno-national policies.

[ElNono]

I don't make it a matter to argue with people about their faith or lack of faith or the specifics thereof. I just think it's naive to assume that someone cannot be enriched by faith in something that you cannot prove and to cast yourself above that person. But I get it; there's something to be said for little displays of subtle dominance. You feel better about yourself that way. In a paradoxical way, it's your own sort of faith.

No, actually, I don't think you get it at all. As I mentioned earlier, there's utilitarian, that is, good things that can come from faith. They wouldn't work for me, but, I absolutely agree that helps certain people (which I don't consider any less than me). There's no way to separate religion from psychology, IMO. As much as it ruined a lot of people's lives, it also helped a lot of people.

The biggest problem I see, however, is that having an argument over one guy hopes and dreams over another guy's hope and dreams is largely, well, irrational. There's no basis in provable fact where you can reach a conclusion one was wrong and the other was right. That's just a logical extension of the fact that neither is really talking about anything that we can ascertain conclusively it's right or wrong. It basically becomes Opinion A vs Opinion B. Those kind of discussions we see in this place every day, and are largely driven by personal fanaticism towards our own ideas.

Now, I don't hope or wish Jesus Christ shows up tomorrow on earth, but should it happen, then now we have something empirical to talk about, and we can start flagging: this guy was wrong, this guy was right.

[midnightpulp]

SD is rich. It's not a big destination for illegals, tbh. And whites still double the existing latinos. Head to LA and it's a different story.

Dude, I grew up in a white socal town that was later flooded with poorer minorities. I know what happens. You're either naive or you're trying to BS the wrong person.

What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve. :lol. I'm from one of the hardest hit towns in California (not due to immigration, but due to a base closure that removed 10,000 jobs overnight and a historically corrupt city council (majority white. The biggest embezzlers were white). This resulted in more Latino immigration for obvious reasons, and even though the town looks quite bad on paper, it's by no means in "chaos." Yes, crime rates have increased, but the primary blame is due to the city's economic downturn and not because more Latinos. They're not even the primary demo that commits the crime. But I don't want to have that debate, at the moment.

Also, following the city's decline, a shitload of homeless poured in. Most are white.

[Spurtacular]

apalisoc_9

:cry Christopher Hitchens sounds like the shooter, too :cry


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2cSTq4CgiE

:lmao

[ElNono]

Oh, I don't disagree with you. I just feel it more prudent to blame men and not the idea. I mean, the Nazis (and others) took a fairly innocuous scientific idea and used it as justification for all sorts of terrible shit. Dumbass Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche's ubermensch concept. The Soviet Union badly misapplied Marx. I just feel like religion is usually unfairly singled out by the Dawkins, et al when there's been just as many ideas from the secular world, many sold as "scientific" and promoted by "scientists" that influenced terrible behavior. The latest one is probably the race/IQ/violence controversy, which was built on specious science, but is used by the "converted" as an excuse for ethno-national policies.

There's some dogma in that, if you think about it. People that took some idea, not quite sure if it was right, but loved it so much that became fanatics about it. Once you cross that bridge, you're done, IMO.

There's a human aversion at a perfectly valid scientific position which is: we don't know yet. We want to be right all the time, and we can accept when we're wrong, but nobody wants to be in the middle. People love to pick sides and defend them to the end, death sometimes.

And we live at a time where this is a well known fact, and some people love to drive a large wedge there. It's actually kind of ironic when I read about drinking the kool aid, or the red/blue pill... that's really fanaticism at work.

[LaSíSí]

ElNono (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=8054) Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

Hitch says the moral thing is to kill Jihadists. No faith involved. Just the flat out moral thing to do. What you guys think?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgW7YJ4AXJo

[ElNono]

Kill is certainly his opinion, but capture, lock in jail and throw away the key, for sure. Extremism is the maximum expression of fanaticism, and I don't know one instance where it doesn't end badly.

This guy in New Zealand was a radicalized extremist. It's really not exclusive to islam.

[ElNono]

Plus, he's maintaining coherency, tbh... you can't make a case about organized religion in general if you start picking and choosing.

[ElNono]

I like Sam Harris better, btw

[midnightpulp]

There's some dogma in that, if you think about it. People that took some idea, not quite sure if it was right, but loved it so much that became fanatics about it. Once you cross that bridge, you're done, IMO.

There's a human aversion at a perfectly valid scientific position which is: we don't know yet. We want to be right all the time, and we can accept when we're wrong, but nobody wants to be in the middle. People love to pick sides and defend them to the end, death sometimes.

And we live at a time where this is a well known fact, and some people love to drive a large wedge there. It's actually kind of ironic when I read about drinking the kool aid, or the red/blue pill... that's really fanaticism at work.

As I said prior, uncertainty is uncomfortable. And we like simple answers to difficult questions, like the Race/IQ debate. "Oh no, black intellectual achievement compared to whites couldn't possibly be a result of a variety of socioeconomic factors that will take effort (and compassion) to solve. They're just genetically dumber!"

[LaSíSí]

Kill is certainly his opinion, but capture, lock in jail and throw away the key, for sure.

What's the redeeming value of keeping them alive?

[Spurtacular]

No, actually, I don't think you get it at all. As I mentioned earlier, there's utilitarian, that is, good things that can come from faith. They wouldn't work for me, but, I absolutely agree that helps certain people (which I don't consider any less than me). There's no way to separate religion from psychology, IMO. As much as it ruined a lot of people's lives, it also helped a lot of people.

The biggest problem I see, however, is that having an argument over one guy hopes and dreams over another guy's hope and dreams is largely, well, irrational. There's no basis in provable fact where you can reach a conclusion one was wrong and the other was right. That's just a logical extension of the fact that neither is really talking about anything that we can ascertain conclusively it's right or wrong. It basically becomes Opinion A vs Opinion B. Those kind of discussions we see in this place every day, and are largely driven by personal fanaticism towards our own ideas.

Now, I don't hope or wish Jesus Christ shows up tomorrow on earth, but should it happen, then now we have something empirical to talk about, and we can start flagging: this guy was wrong, this guy was right.

Well, I think I candidly noted that I have no intention of making points over another person based on faith; so, we're on the same page there. Though, I think it's a bit stupid to equate faith with empiricism. That's not how it works by definition. Your argument against it based on that is naive or laughable really.

[Spurtacular]

What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve. :lol. I'm from one of the hardest hit towns in California (not due to immigration, but due to a base closure that removed 10,000 jobs overnight and a historically corrupt city council (majority white. The biggest embezzlers were white). This resulted in more Latino immigration for obvious reasons, and even though the town looks quite bad on paper, it's by no means in "chaos." Yes, crime rates have increased, but the primary blame is due to the city's economic downturn and not because more Latinos. They're not even the primary demo that commits the crime. But I don't want to have that debate, at the moment.

Also, following the city's decline, a shitload of homeless poured in. Most are white.

Chicken or the egg stuff, honestly.

[Spurtacular]

What town so I check the historic crime rates? Naïve. :lol. I'm from one of the hardest hit towns in California (not due to immigration, but due to a base closure that removed 10,000 jobs overnight and a historically corrupt city council (majority white. The biggest embezzlers were white). This resulted in more Latino immigration for obvious reasons, and even though the town looks quite bad on paper, it's by no means in "chaos." Yes, crime rates have increased, but the primary blame is due to the city's economic downturn and not because more Latinos. They're not even the primary demo that commits the crime. But I don't want to have that debate, at the moment.

Also, following the city's decline, a shitload of homeless poured in. Most are white.

Big surprise. Black people committing the most crime.

At least at the end of the day we both understand that poverty and lack of education are the biggest factors in crime. We at least have that common understanding.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao Shooter Hitchens


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sEcBzxoMB8

[ElNono]

What's the redeeming value of keeping them alive?

The remote chance they caught the wrong guy, for example.

[midnightpulp]

:lol woha, back up two steps.

As I mentioned on my previous post, there's nothing inherently wrong with irrational thoughts (other than, perhaps, they foster certain fanaticism over the lack of actual provability). Everybody has hopes, dreams... sometimes more achievable than not. I'm not generally one that will mock somebody that believes in religion, or writes an article about the Spaghetti Monster or nanotech on Motherboard.

Irrationality has a measurable cost, however. Writing an irrational article on Gizmodo, at most, will make people have a few laughs once it's completely blasted. Going to war "because god told me so" and destroying thousands of lives, or immolating over 72 virgins, it's a very, very different story.

That's why I was pointing out that when you bring irrationality into a conflict, there's almost no way it doesn't get worse. Basically because if the conflict was about facts before, now you have to frame it against a bunch of nonsense.

More on this point. I think as conventional religion dissolves over the next century, it'll be replaced by a form of religion where "faith" in technology plays the central role. As a techie/nerd, you know I'm talking about the singularity, with the movement's biggest prophet Ray Kurzweil writing such books titled as "The Age of Spiritual Machines." And people, especially in Silicon Valley, take him and his ideas seriously, even if they're total bullshit. Even A.I. researchers who should know better play up the hype because VCs don't really care about Kalman filters and regression models, they wanna know when am I going to be able to upload my brain into a robot body and live forever!

The pop-sci and pop-tech rags are complicit because the tone of their coverage on these nonsense technologies is very much serious, and with our ever increasing blind faith in technology and "scientists" (I label them in quotes, because while I do think the take their in lab work seriously, they hype shit up to keep the grant money coming in, and people just take anyone with PhD beside their name at face value), people believe that retarded animatronic chatbots (Sophia) are "alive," and are the first step toward "Skynet" or transcendence or whatever.

Now will this nerdy idea be dogmatized to commit atrocities in the name of it? If history is any indication, any idea that promises immortality, more power, or positions you as superior to the "other," is typically dogmatized. Hopefully we collectively grow up and don't think our tech toys that are sure to wow us over the next century are anything more than toys and tools.

Good read: https://blog.piekniewski.info/2019/03/12/a-short-story-of-silicon-valleys-affair-with-ai/

[midnightpulp]

Chicken or the egg stuff, honestly.

Not really. Latinos were always prominent in the city. The ones with more money left. Rich flight.

[ElNono]

Well, I think I candidly noted that I have no intention of making points over another person based on faith; so, we're on the same page there. Though, I think it's a bit stupid to equate faith with empiricism. That's not how it works by definition. Your argument against it based on that is naive or laughable really.

I didn't equate them, I actually noted they're the exact opposite. If some Jesus Christ shows up tomorrow, then it's stops being faith by definition, and becomes empirical. It's something/somebody that's tangible and testable.

[ElNono]

More on this point. I think as conventional religion dissolves over the next century, it'll be replaced by a form of religion where "faith" in technology plays the central role. As a techie/nerd, you know I'm talking about the singularity, with the movement's biggest prophet Ray Kurzweil writing such books titled as "The Age of Spiritual Machines." And people, especially in Silicon Valley, take him and his ideas seriously, even if they're total bullshit. Even A.I. researchers who should know better play up the hype because VCs don't really care about Kalman filters and regression models, they wanna know when am I going to be able to upload my brain into a robot body and live forever!

The pop-sci and pop-tech rags are complicit because the tone of their coverage on these nonsense technologies is very much serious, and with our ever increasing blind faith in technology and "scientists" (I label them in quotes, because while I do think the take their in lab work seriously, they hype shit up to keep the grant money coming in, and people just take anyone with PhD beside their name at face value), people believe that retarded animatronic chatbots (Sophia) are "alive," and are the first step toward "Skynet" or transcendence or whatever.

Now will this nerdy idea be dogmatized to commit atrocities in the name of it? If history is any indication, any idea that promises immortality, more power, or positions you as superior to the "other," is typically dogmatized. Hopefully we collectively grow up and don't think our tech toys that are sure to wow us over the next century are anything more than toys and tools.

Good read: https://blog.piekniewski.info/2019/03/12/a-short-story-of-silicon-valleys-affair-with-ai/

Never heard about it/him, tbh... but thanks for the link.

As a more broader point, are we going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the past? sadly, I think that's very likely. This is why I hold no sympathy for people that take pride in their ignorance. And I don't mention this with any kind of air of superiority, but strictly on the point you mention. People that don't understand what mistakes were made in the past are bound to repeat them. Our entire civilization has been built on the shoulders of generations behind us, and the mistakes and successes they made. I can only think a fool would not learn from that to make a better world.

[midnightpulp]

Never heard about it/him, tbh... but thanks for the link.

As a more broader point, are we going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the past? sadly, I think that's very likely. This is why I hold no sympathy for people that take pride in their ignorance. And I don't mention this with any kind of air of superiority, but strictly on the point you mention. People that don't understand what mistakes were made in the past are bound to repeat them. Our entire civilization has been built on the shoulders of generations behind us, and the mistakes and successes they made. I can only think a fool would not learn from that to make a better world.

Surprised you never heard of the singularity. It's when we create the first greater-than-human-intelligence machine, at which point it's going to indefinitely improve itself to omnipotent levels and bring us with it into digital heaven :lol.

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/04/ray-kurzweil-and-singularity-visionary.html

[Winehole23]

1107090378623279107

[Bill_Brasky]

When are we going to start addressing the problem of right wing terrorism?

[Winehole23]

Thoughts and prayers good nowNZ went one better with Parliamentary swiftness.

1106733469483200512

[DMC]

NZ went one better with Parliamentary swiftness.

1106733469483200512

Because knee jerk legislation is good now

[Winehole23]

Because knee jerk legislation is good nowWhy not, in this case?

What's your gripe?

[DMC]

Why not, in this case?

What's your gripe?

Anything done in a wake of an emotional moment wasn't clearly thought out. They could ban semi-autos, I don't care. Moving so quickly to ban something because of an event can set dangerous precedent however that's NZ and I don't have a dog in the hunt. It's placebo legislation though, because the mentality that allowed people to walk into a peaceful environment and slaughter wholesale innocent human beings isn't being addressed. The real solution that would be frowned upon would be to comb social media sites and kick doors in and investigate everyone involved. Close hate speech sites. Stop people from spreading their hate online. Firearms are easy to get, even in countries that ban them.

[midnightpulp]

Why not, in this case?

What's your gripe?

Most likely the unfairness of punishing the majority for the actions of one. But I don't think New Zealand has a gun culture like we do, so per their country's culture, the populace probably won't protest the prohibition.

[Winehole23]

Anything done in a wake of an emotional moment wasn't clearly thought out. They could ban semi-autos, I don't care. Moving so quickly to ban something because of an event can set dangerous precedent however that's NZ and I don't have a dog in the hunt. It's placebo legislation though, because the mentality that allowed people to walk into a peaceful environment and slaughter wholesale innocent human beings isn't being addressed. The real solution that would be frowned upon would be to comb social media sites and kick doors in and investigate everyone involved. Close hate speech sites. Stop people from spreading their hate online.By comparison, banning firearms seems a measured, reasonable countermeasure.

[midnightpulp]

Anything done in a wake of an emotional moment wasn't clearly thought out. They could ban semi-autos, I don't care. Moving so quickly to ban something because of an event can set dangerous precedent however that's NZ and I don't have a dog in the hunt. It's placebo legislation though, because the mentality that allowed people to walk into a peaceful environment and slaughter wholesale innocent human beings isn't being addressed. The real solution that would be frowned upon would be to comb social media sites and kick doors in and investigate everyone involved. Close hate speech sites. Stop people from spreading their hate online. Firearms are easy to get, even in countries that ban them.

Isn't that another slippery slope that could lead to infringement on 1st amendment rights or overreactions to trolling and jokes, like a poster here telling another poster that he'll be coming to kick his ass? Also, they'll just retreat to dark web forums anyhow. There's no simple answer. The "answer" will likely be a multifaceted approach that addresses mental illness, gun control (as we've discussed, laws are already on the books prohibiting sale to the mentally ill, but they're still obtaining them), and examination of the role sociological phenomena plays into this (media infamy, Internet hate culture, etc).

[pgardn]

Dp

damn phone always.

[DMC]

From the NYT

The outright prohibition of semiautomatic weapons proposed by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern may no longer be on the near-term table. But she’s made clear that lawmakers will look at a range of options, from gun buybacks to restrictions on magazines for semiautomatic rifles.

[DMC]

Isn't that another slippery slope that could lead to infringement on 1st amendment rights or overreactions to trolling and jokes, like a poster here telling another poster that he'll be coming to kick his ass? Also, they'll just retreat to dark web forums anyhow. There's no simple answer. The "answer" will likely be a multifaceted approach that addresses mental illness, gun control (as we've discussed, laws are already on the books prohibiting sale to the mentally ill, but they're still obtaining them), and examination of the role sociological phenomena plays into this (media infamy, Internet hate culture, etc).

They don't have the BoR.

[midnightpulp]

I might have to begrudgingly start accepting the prospect of having armed guards in public places (because the level of gun control that might have a measurable effect on reducing mass shootings ain't coming). I don't like this idea in theory, because armed guards in public places is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd world countries, but I suppose we can make it "aesthetically" work if the guards in question blend in while carrying a concealed firearm. Make them more difficult for a potential mass shooter to target. If you just had a couple of guards at an entrance, the mass shooter could easily plan for them in advance.

[DMC]

By comparison, banning firearms seems a measured, reasonable countermeasure.

And even suggesting that the government would move so swiftly to ban something to give the impression of "taking action" after a traumatic event is why a huge rush to buy guys occurred immediately after the shooting. The net effect then becomes more guns in circulation and the actual legislation is neutered into magazine or evil feature restrictions.

[pgardn]

This is a very interesting topic as an aside.

Technology has been around since people started picking up a rock s.
In my opinion the above will never happen we will go extinct first .
One could even ask why this has not already happened.

Along with technology getting better we also understand better how limited we are in our assumptions about the universe through science . In fact I could say the opposite might happen . Once people really understand how science is done and understand our brains better , we will find out how little we know or how little we can know, and become more open to metaphysical or supernatural beliefs

Back on topic sorry.
Please continue trying to explain mass killings in minutes by an individual via technological advances.
And who cares and who doesn’t.

A response to:

More on this point. I think as conventional religion dissolves over the next century,

[DMC]

I might have to begrudgingly start accepting the prospect of having armed guards in public places (because the level of gun control that might have a measurable effect on reducing mass shootings ain't coming). I don't like this idea in theory, because armed guards in public places is the sort of thing that happens in 3rd world countries, but I suppose we can make it "aesthetically" work if the guards in question blend in while carrying a concealed firearm. Make them more difficult for a potential mass shooter to target. If you just had a couple of guards at an entrance, the mass shooter could easily plan for them in advance.

These "watch this" shooters won't go where they have a low chance of success. They attack churches, mosques and synagogues because it's a room full of people, unarmed, who they can kill without worry. There's a reason they don't attack military bases and police stations or gun ranges.

[DMC]

Dp

damn phone always.

The level of religious belief trends away from intelligence, not toward it.

There's nothing to suggest that knowing more about our world will suddenly reverse the trend.

[midnightpulp]

This is a very interesting topic as an aside.

Technology has been around since people started picking up a rock s.
In my opinion the above will never happen we will go extinct first .
One could even ask why this has not already happened.

Along with technology getting better we also understand better how limited we are in our assumptions about the universe through science . In fact I could say the opposite might happen . Once people really understand how science is done and understand our brains better , we will find out how little we know or how little we can know, and become more open to metaphysical or supernatural beliefs

Back on topic sorry.
Please continue trying to explain mass killings in minutes by an individual via technological advances.

Yeah, if machine consciousness was possible, it would've happened already. We've built systems resembling the brain's structure (neural nets), they didn't "wake up." As I've explained in an earlier discussion on this topic with RandomGuy, consciousness only emerges from "mushy stuff" (i.e. a biological substrate). Some think it's a software problem, but then you're courting dualism at that point.

When it comes to the hard problem of consciousness, yes, many thinkers have taken somewhat of a metaphysical position as a physicalist position is insufficient in explaining how mind emerges from matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_mysterianism

To steer it back on topic, maybe there wouldn't be so much violence in the world if people appreciated the sublimity of consciousness. For lack of a better term, it really is something "magical."

[pgardn]

The level of religious belief trends away from intelligence, not toward it.

There's nothing to suggest that knowing more about our world will suddenly reverse the trend.

Actually there is.

The more we know example evolution, The more religions try to incorporate the new idea into beliefs or stay away from making very broad statements about what their God can do. When we discovered the earth was not the center of everything religion adjusted accordingly just fine.

I would also add our curiosity will remain so we will always try different methods of explaining the world around us.

[DMC]

Actually there is.

The more we know example evolution, The more religions try to incorporate the new idea into beliefs or stay away from making very broad statements about what their God can do. When we discovered the earth was not the center of everything religion adjusted accordingly just fine.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.png

What you mentioned isn't evidence to suggest knowing more leads people back to religion. It's just an example of how hard it is for people to let go, but let go they do... eventually, unless they have a low IQ.

[pgardn]

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.png

You need to have some measure of understanding of what science can and cannot do on the Y axis.
Not how well people are able to discern patterns of numbers and words. IQ.

[Winehole23]

And even suggesting that the government would move so swiftly to ban something to give the impression of "taking action" after a traumatic event is why a huge rush to buy guys occurred immediately after the shooting. The net effect then becomes more guns in circulation and the actual legislation is neutered into magazine or evil feature restrictions.Doesn't seem to have worked out that way in the EU. If guns were so easy to get why don't we see comparable levela of gun-related violence?

So much for abstract prognostication.

[DMC]

You need to have some measure of understanding of what science can and cannot do on the Y axis.
Not how well people are able to discern patterns of numbers and words. IQ.

How well do low IQ people have the ability to understand what science can and cannot do?

The odds that any of those data points lacks that understanding seems to increase exponentially as you move down the IQ scale. That's where it moves toward a god belief.

[DMC]

Doesn't seem to have worked out that way in the EU. If guns were so easy to get why don't we see comparable levela of gun-related violence?

So much for abstract prognostication.

We're talking about NZ. It worked out that way there. It wasn't prognostication.

Out of concern that gun sales might be significantly restricted, Radio New Zealand reported that there was a rush on gun stores this weekend, with people “panic buying” weapons. - NYT

[midnightpulp]

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.png

What you mentioned isn't evidence to suggest knowing more leads people back to religion. It's just an example of how hard it is for people to let go, but let go they do... eventually, unless they have a low IQ.

I think his point is that there are certain intractable problems for science that, when science eventually explains away all the "easier" stuff, future human cultures might fill in the gaps with metaphysics or new religions (smart people are doing this, and in the latter case, are developing new secular religions that I find more ridiculous than traditional religions. Just read any of Ray Kurzweil or Frank Tipler's babble).

[pgardn]

How well do low IQ people have the ability to understand what science can and cannot do?

The odds that any of those data points lacks that understanding seems to increase exponentially as you move down the IQ scale. That's where it moves toward a god belief.

Very well if taught it properly.
Its not like some higher math where you have to apply patterns.
Hell, you dont even have to know how to read.

IQ is a bs quotient. There is so much it does not measure. Most useful in finding those who have real learning disabilities and are exceptionally low.
You can throw out the rest. Especially high. Hes a genius... BS. Genius at what, taking an IQ test.

[midnightpulp]

To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward superstitious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is :lol. This ridiculous concept was discussed on a web forum that, get this, promoted cold rationality. The concept was so troubling to some members, the owner went so far as to ban all discussion of the concept.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.

[redzero]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-03-16/nz-threatens-10-years-prison-possessing-mosque-shooting-video-web-hosts-warned


On Saturday, journalist Nick Monroe (https://twitter.com/nickmon1112) reported that New Zealand police have warned citizens that they face imprisonment (https://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-Material) for distributing the video, while popular New Zealand Facebook group Wellington Live (https://www.facebook.com/WellingtonLIVENZ/posts/2141893862569134) notes that "NZ police would like to remind the public that it is an offence to share an objectional publication which includes the horrific video from yesterday's attack. If you see this video, report it immediately. Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment."




While the Christchurch attacks were utterly reprehensible, supporting them is now punishable in the United Kingdom. On Saturday afternoon, a 24-year-old man from Oldham was arrested (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/new-zealand-christchurch-mosque-attack-man-arrested-oldham-social-media-post-a8826576.html) on suspicion of sending malicious communications in support of the mosque attacks. It is unclear what he is alleged to have written.



New Zealand, Australia and the UK don't have anything resembling the 1st Amendment.

[DMC]

I think his point is that there are certain intractable problems for science that, when science eventually explains away all the "easier" stuff, future human cultures might fill in the gaps with metaphysics or new religions (smart people are doing this, and in the latter case, are developing new secular religions that I find more ridiculous than traditional religions. Just read any of Ray Kurzweil or Frank Tipler's babble).

That will be fewer gaps than we have today, so fewer metaphysical gap fillers. People with the tendency to say "fuck it, must be some invisible all knowing deity doing it" aren't at the precipice of discovery.

[pgardn]

To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward superstitious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is :lol. This ridiculous concept was discussed on a web forum that, get this, promoted cold rationality. The concept was so troubling to some members, the owner went so far as to ban all discussion of the concept.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.

The really impressive part of science is that it does a pretty good job at predictions as long as they are not really long term and not variable ridden.
This is very powerful, yet not close to what are always called really big questions that continue to arise. The more we learn, the more we find out there are holes in our reasoning and capabilities. I actually dont see a good argument for even (whatever conventional religions are defined as) going away. Im thinking modern day, monotheistic stuff that is widespread. Religion fills the gap in what we can know. And we do want to pretend we know. Its comforting.

[DMC]

Very well if taught it properly.
Its not like some higher math where you have to apply patterns.
Hell, you dont even have to know how to read.

IQ is a bs quotient. There is so much it does not measure. Most useful in finding those who have real learning disabilities and are exceptionally low.
You can throw out the rest. Especially high. Hes a genius... BS. Genius at what, taking an IQ test.

So there are no people with low learning capability?

Regardless how much credence you lend to IQ, all of the data points are based on the same test and yet you don't see the mental prisoners escaping the silo until the IQs get higher. If you have another intelligence or income level or education level test you want to use to show a reverse trend, go for it.

I highly doubt you'll have anything that shows dumber people become more atheist through examination of the facts.

[midnightpulp]

That will be fewer gaps than we have today, so fewer metaphysical gap fillers. People with the tendency to say "fuck it, must be some invisible all knowing deity doing it" aren't at the precipice of discovery.

I don't think pg was suggesting that they are, just that when we reach the end of science or at the very least arrive at a point where progress is excruciatingly slow, like thousands of years between discoveries, new insights, people will turn to some form of mumbo jumbo for comfort. As I said, they already are. Elon Musk and many "smart people" think an all knowing computer programmer is doing it (simulation argument, another idiotic idea that has traction with some academics, believe it or not).

[pgardn]

So there are no people with low learning capability?

Regardless how much credence you lend to IQ, all of the data points are based on the same test and yet you don't see the mental prisoners escaping the silo until the IQs get higher. If you have another intelligence or income level or education level test you want to use to show a reverse trend, go for it.

IQ test is first and foremost for finding exceptionally low level abilities.

There are a number of basic to difficult reasoning tests. If they could be read to people and or illustrated I bet you would find some incredible surprises with ability to manipulate complex shapes in 3-d, musical prowess, on and on... These wont show up on tests designed to weed out people of exceptionally low ability due to some basic brain disorder that we cant figure out right now.

[DMC]

To reiterate, pgardn's observation is pretty astute in how people will look for replacements to conventional religion as scientism and techno-fetishism gain traction over the next century. We like to think of "smart people" who are "science minded" as supremely rational agents who'd never be inclined toward superstitious or irrational beliefs. All I have to say to that is :lol. This ridiculous concept was discussed on a web forum that, get this, promoted cold rationality. The concept was so troubling to some members, the owner went so far as to ban all discussion of the concept.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

Long read, so I'll tl;dr it. The person feared that when the "AI God" eventually emerged in some not too distant future, that said AI God would create simulations of all the people who didn't help bring about its existence and punish their simulations for eternity, since their failing to help bring said God into existence sooner resulted in the deaths of millions of people (i.e. if AI God came earlier, he might've been able to solve climate change or some other calamity that would've saved lives). These people no doubt perform well on your standard IQ tests.

Well no, Pgardn said the following:

Along with technology getting better we also understand better how limited we are in our assumptions about the universe through science . In fact I could say the opposite might happen . Once people really understand how science is done and understand our brains better , we will find out how little we know or how little we can know, and become more open to metaphysical or supernatural beliefs

What is supernatural or metaphysical about AI? Even thinking AI could control humans isn't supernatural or metaphysical.

[DMC]

IQ test is first and foremost for finding exceptionally low level abilities.

There are a number of basic to difficult reasoning tests. If they could be read to people and or illustrated I bet you would find some incredible surprises with ability to manipulate complex shapes in 3-d, musical prowess, on and on... These wont show up on tests designed to weed out people of exceptionally low ability due to some basic brain disorder that we cant figure out right now.

I don't discount that people can score low on IQ tests and still have abilities (autism, for example). I don't discount that the tests are geared toward a certain segment of the population either. I am saying that the data shows just the opposite of what you propose. What data are you using to support your supposition or is it just a feeling you have?

[DMC]

I don't think pg was suggesting that they are, just that when we reach the end of science or at the very least arrive at a point where progress is excruciatingly slow, like thousands of years between discoveries, new insights, people will turn to some form of mumbo jumbo for comfort. As I said, they already are. Elon Musk and many "smart people" think an all knowing computer programmer is doing it (simulation argument, another idiotic idea that has traction with some academics, believe it or not).

Mumbo jumbo isn't metaphysical or supernatural. It could be irrational, but that's a different thing altogether. Some of the highest IQ people were irrational based on the common mindset.

These fringe ideas you're talking about are nowhere near the mean. They aren't representative of science or atheism. The trend is away from god belief, not toward it. Do you disagree?

[midnightpulp]

So there are no people with low learning capability?

Regardless how much credence you lend to IQ, all of the data points are based on the same test and yet you don't see the mental prisoners escaping the silo until the IQs get higher. If you have another intelligence or income level or education level test you want to use to show a reverse trend, go for it.

I highly doubt you'll have anything that shows dumber people become more atheist through examination of the facts.

IQ does test a narrow range of intellect based around making connections between abstract concepts, and yes, the type of problem solving skills measured on IQ tests does strongly correlate to success in academia and professional life. But we're conflating problem solving and rationality/wisdom. They can be mutually exclusive mental traits. Jeffrey Skilling no doubt had a high IQ, but his arrogance and narcissism overrode his rationality (no one in their right mind would think they'd eventually get away with a con that big).

[DMC]

IQ does test a narrow range of intellect based around making connections between abstract concepts, and yes, the type of problem solving skills measured on IQ tests does strongly correlate to success in academia and professional life. But we're conflating problem solving and rationality/wisdom. They can be mutually exclusive mental traits. Jeffrey Skilling no doubt had a high IQ, but his arrogance and narcissism overrode his rationality (no one in their right mind would think they'd eventually get away with a con that big).


If you have another intelligence or income level or education level test you want to use to show a reverse trend, go for it.

I highly doubt you'll have anything that shows dumber people become more atheist through examination of the facts.

I'm not sure what you're debating here. Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased intelligence leads to god belief, yes or no?

[midnightpulp]

Mumbo jumbo isn't metaphysical or supernatural. It could be irrational, but that's a different thing altogether. Some of the highest IQ people were irrational based on the common mindset.

These fringe ideas you're talking about are nowhere near the mean. They aren't representative of science or atheism. The trend is away from god belief, not toward it. Do you disagree?

The simulation argument is just as ridiculous a concept as a "sky daddy." Hell, it's basically the same thing. My point here is that we kind of fetishize the ideas of "high IQ" people as always worthy of consideration because they have status as a PhD, inventor, etc, when much of the time they don't know what they're talking about when they step out of their domains, or tell some pop-sci magazine about how their latest science fiction fantasy is "just around the corner."

[pgardn]

I don't discount that people can score low on IQ tests and still have abilities (autism, for example). I don't discount that the tests are geared toward a certain segment of the population either. I am saying that the data shows just the opposite of what you propose. What data are you using to support your supposition or is it just a feeling you have?

And Im saying that data says nothing of the sort if you line it up on the axis of atheism.

Im saying its laughable that you line it up against a test designed to find people of exceptionally weak capabilities in what we consider basic capabilities in today's world.

Do a survey on people who are philosophers of what science is and does and you will get what you want.
If Supernatural is defined as something we cant know, you are going to get people who believe in supernatural.
There are some very complex yet fundamental flaws in what we consider good reasoning.

[DMC]

The simulation argument is just as ridiculous a concept as a "sky daddy." Hell, it's basically the same thing. My point here is that we kind of fetishize the ideas of "high IQ" people as always worthy of consideration because they have status as a PhD, inventor, etc, when much of the time they don't know what they're talking about when they step out of their domains, or tell some pop-sci magazine about how their latest science fiction fantasy is "just around the corner."

It might be ridiculous but it's not supernatural or metaphysical. It's falsifiable, ergo not the same.

You latched onto the IQ aspect of the topic and didn't address the trend. You still haven't. Forget the IQ aspect. Let's just say higher education level. Are you going to argue that some home schooled people with street smarts are actually smarter than college professors?

Just use whatever criteria you choose to decide intelligence, because the caveat is "they are at the precipice of learning". They cannot learn much more.

To some people, science cannot do much now. They have no idea how anything works so they are in essence where the hypothetical future people would be anyhow. Are these people what you personally consider to be intelligent?

[DMC]

And Im saying that data says nothing of the sort if you line it up on the axis of atheism.

Im saying its laughable that you line it up against a test designed to find people of exceptionally weak capabilities in what we consider basic capabilities in today's world.

Do a survey on people who are philosophers of what science is and does and you will get what you want.
If Supernatural is defined as something we cant know, you are going to get people who believe in supernatural.
There are some very complex yet fundamental flaws in what we consider good reasoning.

Then show your data.

[midnightpulp]

I'm not sure what you're debating here. Do you have any evidence to suggest that increased intelligence leads to god belief, yes or no?

My argument is that people of higher intelligence are essentially no different in this regard because that "god belief" often takes a different form, like credulous belief in unscientific concepts such as nanotechnology, cryonics, AI gods, universe as a simulation. Smart people have always been superstitious. Many of history's greatest minds were religious. Pgardn made a good point that when conventional religious belief dissolves, it's replaced by something else that makes "little bit more sense," (i.e. monotheism made more sense than paganism in those days, and today, belief in science fiction fantasy makes more sense than monotheistic religions).

[pgardn]

The simulation argument is just as ridiculous a concept as a "sky daddy." Hell, it's basically the same thing. My point here is that we kind of fetishize the ideas of "high IQ" people as always worthy of consideration because they have status as a PhD, inventor, etc, when much of the time they don't know what they're talking about when they step out of their domains, or tell some pop-sci magazine about how their latest science fiction fantasy is "just around the corner."

This is so very true.
Your run of the mill PHDs in science dont bother with the philosophy behind science, they dont need to.
But you are more likely to find people in this group who actually do bother to question very fundamental stuff concerning what they are doing.

In my experience, some of the most ill-informed people concerning "intelligent" life on other planets are physics types who have no true understanding of biological evolution as we understand it know, biological nervous systems, and have not even defined intelligent. imo the SETI stuff was absolutely ridiculous. But possibly fun.

[DMC]

My argument is that people of higher intelligence are essentially no different in this regard because that "god belief" often takes a different form, like credulous belief in unscientific concepts such as nanotechnology, cryonics, AI gods, universe as a simulation. Smart people have always been superstitious. Many of history's greatest minds were religious. Pgardn made a good point that when conventional religious belief dissolves, it's replaced by something else that makes "little bit more sense," (i.e. monotheism made more sense than paganism in those days, and today, belief in science fiction fantasy makes more sense than monotheistic religions).

You're using false equivalence to suggest any belief not supported by evidence is the same as theism. This approach fails if you consider the concept of falsifiablity. God claims are not falsifiable which is why so many different gods are believed to exist. We could create a few more right here and they could be just as safe from being disproved.

So again, do you have any data to suggest that people with higher learning are more apt to have metaphysical or supernatural beliefs than people with lower learning?

[DMC]

This is so very true.
Your run of the mill PHDs in science dont bother with the philosophy behind science, they dont need to.
But you are more likely to find people in this group who actually do bother to question very fundamental stuff concerning what they are doing.

In my experience, some of the most ill-informed people concerning "intelligent" life on other planets are physics types who have no true understanding of biological evolution as we understand it know, biological nervous systems, and have not even defined intelligent. imo the SETI stuff was absolutely ridiculous. But possibly fun.

All this rebuttal you two are offering is just "education is overrated" talk. While it could be true that some education is overrated, and no doubt the anecdotes are likely true, it has nothing to do with whether or not learning about science and the world around you is directly proportional or inversely proportional to belief in the supernatural or metaphysical.

[pgardn]

Then show your data.

You want to give you books to read?



First try Kurt Goedel. And dont read about what he is famous for; But what he says about fundamental reasoning in math thus basic assumptions made in so much science.
Then follow the path of authors that pop up. Hes long dead so there is lots of new stuff.

Your conclusion from your study is that smart people dont believe in a God I guess.
I think this is completely silly.
Ive explained why.

[midnightpulp]

It might be ridiculous but it's not supernatural or metaphysical. It's falsifiable, ergo not the same.

You latched onto the IQ aspect of the topic and didn't address the trend. You still haven't. Forget the IQ aspect. Let's just say higher education level. Are you going to argue that some home schooled people with street smarts are actually smarter than college professors?

Just use whatever criteria you choose to decide intelligence, because the caveat is "they are at the precipice of learning". They cannot learn much more.

To some people, science cannot do much now. They have no idea how anything works so they are in essence where the hypothetical future people would be anyhow. Are these people what you personally consider to be intelligent?

Simulation argument isn't falsifiable, since no evidence to the contrary would satisfy the proponents of the argument because they could merely handwave, "Well, that's because the simulators are purposely keeping us in the dark, stupid!" Essentially, you can never logically disprove the argument. Other technology they "believe in" does assume supernaturalism, like cryonics and nanotech

It really does depend on how we define "intelligence." I think there's such a thing as moral intelligence which has a foundation in empathy (the ability to "see"rom another's perspective). Personally, I would consider a morally righteous person with a 100 IQ more intelligent than Jeffrey Skilling, because I think people like him (sociopaths) lack the necessary visualization ability to "put themselves in another's shoes." If you want to define intelligence as measured by IQ tests, then sure, Skilling wins.

I think we will eventually arrive at point where scientific knowledge ends, either due to cognitive limitations or lack of framework (like you'll never be able to prove the multiverse theory since those many universes are theorized to have separated from each other faster than the speed of light). I think it's more logical to assume some limit on scientific understanding than to assume it can continue indefinitely until it's all figured out.

[pgardn]

All this rebuttal you two are offering is just "education is overrated" talk. While it could be true that some education is overrated, and no doubt the anecdotes are likely true, it has nothing to do with whether or not learning about science and the world around you is directly proportional or inversely proportional to belief in the supernatural or metaphysical.

B fckn S.

You again make up your own narrative.
I say exactly the opposite.

What I am saying is once a person knows more about how science works and the limitations; The more inclined even "smart" people come to see why metaphysical or supernatural explanations are attractive.

And you disagree.

[spurraider21]

So white dude slaughters Muslims and the debate here is if Muslims are too dangerous to let in

now that’s what i call privilege

[midnightpulp]

You're using false equivalence to suggest any belief not supported by evidence is the same as theism. This approach fails if you consider the concept of falsifiablity. God claims are not falsifiable which is why so many different gods are believed to exist. We could create a few more right here and they could be just as safe from being disproved.

So again, do you have any data to suggest that people with higher learning are more apt to have metaphysical or supernatural beliefs than people with lower learning?

Isn't it? And per my latest post, many of the beliefs aren't falsifiable. Furthermore, what does it say about a person's rationality when they continue to believe in something that has been proven to be bunk? There's a lot of smart people who think nanotechnology as portrayed in movies and sci-fi is feasible, despite the it violating the laws of physics. Yes, I would admit that people of lower IQs are more apt to believe in the supernatural, as your graph showed, but that graph only considered religious beliefs and not any other nonsense ideas that, to me, are as unlikely as sky daddies.

To clarify, my essential point is that people of higher intelligence aren't inherently more rational when it comes to believing in things that "comfort them." I don't have data for this, since no one has studied what I'd call alternate forms of belief. I'd love to see a poll of Silicon Valley techies who believe a robot God will be created. Or who believe in the simulation argument.

[Winehole23]

I wonder if a person could get through a single day normally and productively, if it were required that every single judgement and decision made be empirically and rationally supportable.

[DMC]

So white dude slaughters Muslims and the debate here is if Muslims are too dangerous to let in

now that’s what i call privilege

Who here is debating that?

[pgardn]

Simulation argument isn't falsifiable, since no evidence to the contrary would satisfy the proponents of the argument because they could merely handwave, "Well, that's because the simulators are purposely keeping us in the dark, stupid!" Essentially, you can never logically disprove the argument. Other technology they "believe in" does assume supernaturalism, like cryonics and nanotech

It really does depend on how we define "intelligence." I think there's such a thing as moral intelligence which has a foundation in empathy (the ability to "see"rom another's perspective). Personally, I would consider a morally righteous person with a 100 IQ more intelligent than Jeffrey Skilling, because I think people like him (sociopaths) lack the necessary visualization ability to "put themselves in another's shoes." If you want to define intelligence as measured by IQ tests, then sure, Skilling wins.

I think we will eventually arrive at point where scientific knowledge ends, either due to cognitive limitations or lack of framework (like you'll never be able to prove the multiverse theory since those many universes are theorized to have separated from each other faster than the speed of light). I think it's more logical to assume some limit on scientific understanding than to assume it can continue indefinitely until it's all figured out.

Because a limit on scienitific understanding, is the limit on our own brains.
IMO no AI will solve this. Its as flawed as we are.

We are derived from little savanna hominids with limited sensory structures designed to survive that environment.
Yet we are going to figure "it" all out. The hubris is all encompassing, from the ultra religious, to the people who "just say no" through science.

"I dont know" cant be overused in these discussions however.
I could be very wrong. But right now, I dont think so.

[DMC]

I wonder if a person could get through a single day normally and productively, if it were required that every single judgement and decision made be empirically and rationally supportable.

So if one thing needs to be supportable rationally, all things must?

[DMC]

You want to give you books to read?



First try Kurt Goedel. And dont read about what he is famous for; But what he says about fundamental reasoning in math thus basic assumptions made in so much science.
Then follow the path of authors that pop up. Hes long dead so there is lots of new stuff.

Your conclusion from your study is that smart people dont believe in a God I guess.
I think this is completely silly.
Ive explained why.

Do you have evidence to suggest countries that are on average more highly educated are less secular than countries that are not?

[midnightpulp]

All this rebuttal you two are offering is just "education is overrated" talk. While it could be true that some education is overrated, and no doubt the anecdotes are likely true, it has nothing to do with whether or not learning about science and the world around you is directly proportional or inversely proportional to belief in the supernatural or metaphysical.

Not at all. To clarify, I think we overrate the competence of people with high intelligence when speaking about things they have a limited understanding of. We too often grant them oracle status when their opinions on a matter outside of their expertise is no better than "common folk." Here's an example. I'll bring up Kurzweil again. Brilliant computer scientist, sky high IQ I'm sure, said bullshit about the brain that even with my casual understanding of neuroscience knew was bullshit. After a prominent neuroscientist took him to task, he still wouldn't yield and admit he doesn't know what he's talking about. But you'll still have people believing him because he's Ray Kurzweil and he's "smart." If you're interested:

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/21/kurzweil-still-doesnt-understa/

Hell, if anything these examples prove education isn't overrated :lol.

[DMC]

Not at all. To clarify, I think we overrate the competence of people with high intelligence when speaking about things they have a limited understanding of. We too often grant them oracle status when their opinions on a matter outside of their expertise is no better than "common folk." Here's an example. I'll bring up Kurzweil again. Brilliant computer scientist, sky high IQ I'm sure, said bullshit about the brain that even with my casual understanding of neuroscience knew was bullshit. After a prominent neuroscientist took him to task, he still wouldn't yield and admit he doesn't know what he's talking about. But you'll still have people believing him because he's Ray Kurzweil and he's "smart." If you're interested:

https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/17/ray-kurzweil-does-not-understa
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/21/kurzweil-still-doesnt-understa/

Hell, if anything these examples prove education isn't overrated :lol.

It's not about competence. It's about the trend toward or away from god belief.

[pgardn]

Do you have evidence to suggest countries that are on average more highly educated are less secular than countries that are not?

Do you think countries that contain populations under severe deprivation are more or less secular that countries that are not?

[DMC]

I have to catch a flight to Toronto. Hopefully someone will drop some charts and data to show that people with little understanding of science are more likely to become atheist.

[DMC]

Do you think countries that contain populations under severe deprivation are more or less secular that countries that are not?

Evidence

[pgardn]

Evidence

Its a question.

[Winehole23]

So if one thing needs to be supportable rationally, all things must?Any thing not supported by evidence is the same as theism, says you.

I wonder. It's odd to conflate religion (understanding the objects of belief) with science (which grasps the objects of sense.) Seems different faculties of mind are involved, though one can, like Aquinas, adduce reasons to believe, for whoever cannot take it on simple faith.

[Winehole23]

So if one thing needs to be supportable rationally, all things must?Why does one thing need to be supportable rationally?

[midnightpulp]

It's not about competence. It's about the trend toward or away from god belief.

Isn't believing in omnipotent computer programmers, mind uploading, and robot gods essentially god belief, though? To me it is. People only give those ideas credence because they vaguely sound scientific. But yeah, I don't have data, since it's something we haven't polled. My primary point is that the intelligent aren't all that much better at teasing out superstitious, nonsensical, and even supernatural beliefs than people of lower intelligence. People of lower intelligence simply haven't moved on from "sky daddies" while the "intelligent" moved on to science fiction.

I guess I just don't agree with the idea that the "intelligent" are inherently more "enlightened" compared to the religious believing "rabble."

[Winehole23]

I guess I just don't agree with the idea that the "intelligent" are inherently more "enlightened" compared to the religious believing "rabble."People like having someone else to spit on. Makes 'em feel better about themselves.

[midnightpulp]

Because a limit on scienitific understanding, is the limit on our own brains.
IMO no AI will solve this. Its as flawed as we are.

We are derived from little savanna hominids with limited sensory structures designed to survive that environment.
Yet we are going to figure "it" all out. The hubris is all encompassing, from the ultra religious, to the people who "just say no" through science.

"I dont know" cant be overused in these discussions however.
I could be very wrong. But right now, I dont think so.

Sometimes I think human intelligence might be perhaps the theoretical limit on how intelligence an organism can be. For one, think about how limitless our imagination is. Now someone might object and say, "No way is human intelligence the limit! Look how fast computers can calculate and shit!"

Well, computers at the moment aren't performing any mental feats we couldn't do. They're just performing them much, much faster. Second of all, sorting data in a brute force way isn't intelligent behavior. Thirdly, I think perhaps our consciousness adds a "cognitive weight" if you will that couldn't co-exist with the kind superspeed calculating feats a computer can do. Adding consciousness to our "intelligence" is very much like adding mass to an object in motion. Think of a computer as the speed of light and the human brain as a jet. The speed of light is so fast because it's unencumbered by any kind of mass, existing purely as a wave. More mass, slower speeds. But the trade off is, well, more mass (consciousness).

To clarify, much how like an object with a large mass can't travel anywhere near the speed of light, an intelligence with consciousness can't "calculate" above a certain speed.

[midnightpulp]

People like having someone else to spit on. Makes 'em feel better about themselves.

I really do dislike our narrow definition of "intelligence" and the way we praise "cleverness" in our culture to almost, dare I say, religious degrees. As I said before, empathy is certainly a form of intelligence, based on the ability to step outside of yourself to try and view the world from someone else's point of view. The Sacklers (Purdue Pharma, who pushed Oxycontin like candy) are definitely "intelligent" as measured by IQ, but are totally stupid when it comes to empathy. To me, an empathetic person with a 100 IQ is far more intelligent than any Sackler.

[Winehole23]

I really do dislike our narrow definition of "intelligence" and the way we praise "cleverness" in our culture to almost, dare I say, religious degrees. As I said before, empathy is certainly a form of intelligence, based on the ability to step outside of yourself to try and view the world from someone else's point of view. The Sacklers (Purdue Pharma, who pushed Oxycontin like candy) are definitely "intelligent" as measured by IQ, but are totally stupid when it comes to empathy. To me, an empathetic person with a 100 IQ is far more intelligent than any Sackler.Let's call it what it is, caste distinction based on education level. Those who can afford advanced specialization lording it over everyone else with little good cause apart from the social prestige their advanced degrees -- or the mere pretense to "higher education" -- affords them.

There's no doubt that there's more to intelligence than testable academic chops, but people always seem to insist on measuring it that way. There's a certain circularity to what gets included and excluded. Fuzzy things like empathy and personability are defined out.

[pgardn]

Sometimes I think human intelligence might be perhaps the theoretical limit on how intelligence an organism can be. For one, think about how limitless our imagination is. Now someone might object and say, "No way is human intelligence the limit! Look how fast computers can calculate and shit!"

Well, computers at the moment aren't performing any mental feats we couldn't do. They're just performing them much, much faster. Second of all, sorting data in a brute force way isn't intelligent behavior. Thirdly, I think perhaps our consciousness adds a "cognitive weight" if you will that couldn't co-exist with the kind superspeed calculating feats a computer can do. Adding consciousness to our "intelligence" is very much like adding mass to an object in motion. Think of a computer as the speed of light and the human brain as a jet. The speed of light is so fast because it's unencumbered by any kind of mass, existing purely as a wave. More mass, slower speeds. But the trade off is, well, more mass (consciousness).

To clarify, much how like an object with a large mass can't travel anywhere near the speed of light, an intelligence with consciousness can't "calculate" above a certain speed.

In order to define intelligence and consciousness we are limited by a look around us at other organisms and really ask how are we different. Because biochemically speaking, we are not very different.

When we do this, things like the ability to empathize, to contemplate one's own existence, to recognize we are an individual among many like us, on and on... seem to best to define consciousness. Intelligence... This one continually baffles me because all these royally labeled tests invented by ourselves measure limited abilities. You do well in school, or business, you are intelligent. And Only certain artists are given this status.

But what is truly striking to me is the invention of symbolic language by our species and ancestors.
Its like one day we looked out into a field and took a stick and pointed at one of few animals and pointed at both? Like the stick represents this animal in that group? So you got counting started and then a rock may represent another type of animal. Then we are drawing maps in dirt and on caves and such. Then it gets so complex you got letters that represent words that if put together in different ways mean very different things. This is what seems to me to be incredible. And now of course, we have the ability to make this planet perfectly uninhabitable for ourselves by communicating all types of skills and methods.

I dont know if they have found any mammals or birds, that if they put a certain group of sounds together, mean entirely different things concerning future events. This is what is astounding or "miraculous" about us. Symbolic language does not have to happen to a social group evolutionarily. The insects and division of labor and chemical communication seems much more evolutionarily advantageous for social animals. Yet here we are, miscommunicating (me anyway) our thoughts via computers.

I also like how we relate so much to vision. A black hole and dark matter are things we cant know certain things about. They dont send us signals of a type we can model properly. But as models they might work well to explain other occurrences around them. We constantly make and remake models of how things around us work mechanistically, so we think we get it because it can be predictive. And we basically do all this through symbolic language and testing never thinking that when we say "its like a ball rolling down a hill" that might be a really horrid model and this can lead to some really bad reasoning. Then we throw some math in that seems to fit the observed mechanism and describe it well. But it only works given.... Its a mess. Especially in biology where variation in individuals causes so much confusion in the "right" things to eat, how much sleep to get, which drugs work... And this leads people to disregard science findings in more complex situations. Antivaccers and such arise.

Enough.
Back to topic.

[Winehole23]

the alt-right doctrine of civilizational war makes it an analogue of ISIS/Al Qaeda:

1107292666247688197

[DMC]

Its a question.

I don't have any reason to believe something without data or evidence to support it. I haven't looked into it.

[DMC]

the alt-right doctrine of civilizational war makes it an analogue of ISIS/Al Qaeda:

1107292666247688197

Sure it does.

[DMC]

Why does one thing need to be supportable rationally?

The opposite is irrational. There's a reason those definitions exist

[Winehole23]

it sure does. the internet is its grapevine.

[Winehole23]

which has killed more Westerners, white supremacy or ISIS?

[DMC]

it sure does. the internet is its grapevine.

Yes because the conservative party is killing people left and right burning them in cages, castrating them, shooting in the head in the streets. That's a great analogy. This is basically the Hitler analogy to anything you disagree with.

[DMC]

which has killed more Westerners, white supremacy or ISIS?
Why does it have to be restricted to westerners?

You're falsely equating white supremacy with conservatism. The two are not analogous.

[Winehole23]

Yes because the conservative party is killing people left and right burning them in cages, castrating them, shooting in the head in the streets. That's a great analogy. This is basically the Hitler analogy to anything you disagree with.The doctrine of civilizational war based on race is more or less the ideology of Hitler and yes, I do disagree with it.

[Winehole23]

Why does it have to be restricted to westerners?

You're falsely equating white supremacy with conservatism. The two are not analogous.I didn't equate white supremacy with conservatism, but I do see your guilty conscience showing.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1107305306663510016

[apalisoc_9]

https://twitter.com/Imamofpeace/status/1107305306663510016

Muslicoon.

These trump defending muslims have no shame.

Coons of the highest order.

Wouldnt surprise me if they're paid though.

[Spurminator]

Thanks, Chris, for making sure the discussion in the thread came back around to Donald Trump.

[DMC]

Isn't believing in omnipotent computer programmers, mind uploading, and robot gods essentially god belief, though? No. One is falsifiable through scientific testing, one is not. Being delusional is not the same as being theist.
To me it is. People only give those ideas credence because they vaguely sound scientific. But yeah, I don't have data, since it's something we haven't polled. My primary point is that the intelligent aren't all that much better at teasing out superstitious, nonsensical, and even supernatural beliefs than people of lower intelligence. Then you probably have a different way of discriminating between the two. If high Intelligence doesn't give you the ability to suss out bullshit, what does it do?
People of lower intelligence simply haven't moved on from "sky daddies" while the "intelligent" moved on to science fiction.
I think it's wrong to put all people from either group into either category. Not all lower intelligence people are believers and not all high intelligence people are atheist. I just don't believe as time goes by and more things are discovered that people will have more belief in supernatural and metaphysical things. The very act discovery itself erodes both of those concepts.

I guess I just don't agree with the idea that the "intelligent" are inherently more "enlightened" compared to the religious believing "rabble." I don't necessarily believe the intelligent are more enlightened but seems counterintuitive to think the unintelligent are.

[DMC]

I didn't equate white supremacy with conservatism, but I do see your guilty conscience showing.

You're taking the acts from one country and applying them to a party in another country. You certainly did that. I would describe myself more of a libertarian but I've never voted party lines.

Of course you may make any assumptions you like. It seems to be the go-to argument here that the person you're disagreeing with must belong to some group you don't like.

[Chris]

10 year prison sentence for having a copy of the video in NZ

[Chris]

Judge Pirro told to go home after saying Sharia Law is incompatible with the Constitution.

[Winehole23]

Well, it's not.

Exactly no one aims Jewish Halacha is incompatible with the US Constitution or being American, can you guess why?

[Winehole23]

Fox's suspension of Pirro for her bigoted comment about Islam and Rep. Omar s one hundred percent appropriate.

[Chris]

I'm not talking about Jewish Halacha.

Tell me how Sharia Law is compatible with the Constitution.

[Chris]

Was she inciting hate speech or direct threats? I don't understand why the suspension was warranted?

Also: Fox News good now?

[Winehole23]

I'm not talking about Jewish Halacha.

Tell me how Sharia Law is compatible with the Constitution.Halacha and Sharia are both spiritual law and of equivalent status, legally speaking.

Neither conflicts with the Constitution.

[Winehole23]

Was she inciting hate speech or direct threats? I don't understand why the suspension was warranted?

Also: Fox News good now?Blind pig finds an acorn.

The suspension is warranted because her remarks were bigoted and offensive and tend to bring disrepute upon her employer.

Would be surprising if the suspension was without any contractual basis.

[BD24]

Because knee jerk legislation is good now
Australia did the same after their last mass shooting, except they took it a step further and banned guns in general.

Guess what has come of that? 0 mass shootings since then. Seems to have worked out pretty well for them tbh.

[Spurtacular]

I didn't equate them, I actually noted they're the exact opposite. If some Jesus Christ shows up tomorrow, then it's stops being faith by definition, and becomes empirical. It's something/somebody that's tangible and testable.

The doctrine states Christ comes because of faith....

[LaSíSí]

NZ went one better with Parliamentary swiftness.

1106733469483200512

Gonna be good for whatever invading force (probably China) when WWIII comes.

hater (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7609)

[koriwhat]

which has killed more Westerners, white supremacy or ISIS?

the black community tbh

[Chris]

the black community tbh

Planned Parenthood has killed more Westerners than anyone could possibly conceive, especially in the black community where they are frequently located.

Thanks Margaret Sanger!

[Chumpette]

Planned Parenthood has killed more Westerners than anyone could possibly conceive, especially in the black community where they are frequently located.

Thanks Margaret Sanger!

Fake outrage. We all know you want blacks killed.

[koriwhat]

Fake outrage. We all know you want blacks killed.

here's another loser projecting like the rest of the idiots here.

[Chucho]

here's another loser projecting like the rest of the idiots here.

That's a derp alt.

[ElNono]

The doctrine states Christ comes because of faith....

What we know as Christ right now... should Christ materializes in actual tangible form, he stops being a construction of faith...

[Trill Clinton]

the black community tbh

wow

[ElNono]

Now, obviously, should Christ show up, he might be nothing like what we were told, but, he would be testable...

[ElNono]

it was only a matter of time before some redneck brought up the Chicago! ding...

[Winehole23]

You're taking the acts from one country and applying them to a party in another country. You certainly did that.White power is pretty much the same wherever you go. The American roots are deep and culturally speaking, have a broad reach.

What did the shooter say about DJT?

[BD24]

That's a derp alt.
So fuckig stupid he can’t even recognize an obvious troll that is one of his homies

[Spurtacular]

What we know as Christ right now... should Christ materializes in actual tangible form, he stops being a construction of faith...

Sure. But your scenario still would have precluded faith.

[ElNono]

Sure. But your scenario still would have precluded faith.

How so? I don't deny there's people waiting for Christ to show up based solely on faith...

[Chris]

FBI data shows rifles account for less than 3% of ALL murders in the United States.

[apalisoc_9]

here's another loser projecting like the rest of the idiots here.

Cuck.

Faggots who live of their babymamas have no say.

[apalisoc_9]

the black community tbh

Bannable offense imo.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/IsraelUSAforevr/status/1107444513109405696

See how that works?

[Spurtacular]

How so? I don't deny there's people waiting for Christ to show up based solely on faith...

Well, unless you think Christ is a liar and happens to show up irrespective of his prophesy...

I guess you'd still have to take on faith as to why he has arrived.

[DMC]

White power is pretty much the same wherever you go. The American roots are deep and culturally speaking, have a broad reach.

What did the shooter say about DJT?

I did not read that faggots statements. Too bad you played along.

[Winehole23]

Reading bad now.

[DMC]

Australia did the same after their last mass shooting, except they took it a step further and banned guns in general.

Guess what has come of that? 0 mass shootings since then. Seems to have worked out pretty well for them tbh.

Not true.

[BD24]

Not true.
I am not sure of the exact timeline, maybe it wasn’t as quick as new Zeland did this.

The jist of it was australia had a mass shooting, shortly after they banned guns( yea I know their was exceptions and people would voluntarily turn in guns, we can call it tight gun laws if that makes you more comfortable), and since the gun ban they have had 0 mass shootings. Now which part of that is false? Are you going to sit here and argue semantics instead of the main point that their gun ban worked?

[DMC]

They didnt ban guns. They have had mass shootings since. There were none prior. No way to draw cause and effect.

[ElNono]

Well, unless you think Christ is a liar and happens to show up irrespective of his prophesy...

I guess you'd still have to take on faith as to why he has arrived.

The 'prophecy' part is all irrational. Him showing up, whether it's fulfilling a prophecy or because he's from planet Doom, it's immaterial in so far as why.

If he does show up, you can just ask him. You no longer need faith.

[Spurtacular]

The 'prophecy' part is all irrational. Him showing up, whether it's fulfilling a prophecy or because he's from planet Doom, it's immaterial in so far as why.

If he does show up, you can just ask him. You no longer need faith.

And you'd still have to take his answer on faith if you accepted it.

[DMC]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/australia/mass-shooting.html

[midnightpulp]

No. One is falsifiable through scientific testing, one is not. Being delusional is not the same as being theist.

The latter two concepts are falsifiable, but simulation theory isn't. As I said, it basically redefines God(s) as a nigh-omnipotent computer programmers. I see no difference between Elon Musk believing in this and a theist believing in the Christian God.


Then you probably have a different way of discriminating between the two. If high Intelligence doesn't give you the ability to suss out bullshit, what does it do?

As defined by IQ, make connections between seemingly unrelated abstract concepts and things. You can also "intelligence" your way into believing bullshit and seeing connections, logic and patterns where they might not exist. I don't criticize this quirk of us because living in a coldly rational/logical/scientific world would be extremely boring, i.e. our suspension of disbelief is key to our creative imaginations.


I think it's wrong to put all people from either group into either category. Not all lower intelligence people are believers and not all high intelligence people are atheist. I just don't believe as time goes by and more things are discovered that people will have more belief in supernatural and metaphysical things. The very act discovery itself erodes both of those concepts. I don't necessarily believe the intelligent are more enlightened but seems counterintuitive to think the unintelligent are.

My point really was that I don't think either group is more enlightened than the other. They're still human beings who put their pants on one leg at a time, as the saying goes. I'm simply using this discussion to somewhat examine how we're prone to putting more authority into the words of our "intelligent class" because we collectively overrate the competence of intelligent people. If a beer gutted Bible thumper who never passed high school said, "I think God probably made our universe like a computer programmer makes one of them vidya games" he'd be laughed out of the room. Elon Musk says the same thing and people give the idea credence.

[pgardn]

I don't have any reason to believe something without data or evidence to support it. I haven't looked into it.

I have not looked into it either... and it’s still a question.

[Winehole23]

https://twitter.com/IsraelUSAforevr/status/1107444513109405696

See how that works?Great, let's arm all the mosques.

[ElNono]

And you'd still have to take his answer on faith if you accepted it.

Well, no, clearly he would have to prove he is who he claims to be. We're working on the assumption he did prove that, otherwise we wouldn't be calling him Jesus Christ.

[Chris]

Great, let's arm all the mosques.

Hyperbole :jack

[Spurtacular]

Well, no, clearly he would have to prove he is who he claims to be. We're working on the assumption he did prove that, otherwise we wouldn't be calling him Jesus Christ.

Sure. He'll be doing a Power Point for you.

[Winehole23]

Hyperbole :jack
Might be a good idea.

Why be sitting ducks for murdering racist assholes? Be prepared to take them out.

[midnightpulp]

The 'prophecy' part is all irrational. Him showing up, whether it's fulfilling a prophecy or because he's from planet Doom, it's immaterial in so far as why.

If he does show up, you can just ask him. You no longer need faith.

Belief in Christ will always come down to faith, even if he showed up and started performing supernatural miracles like it was going out of style, because you'd have skeptics claiming it's the work of an advanced alien civilization deceiving us, skeptical religious people claiming it's really Satan deceiving us, etc, etc.

[Spurtacular]

Belief in Christ will always come down to faith, even if he showed up and started performing supernatural miracles like it was going out of style, because you'd have skeptics claiming it's the work of an advanced alien civilization deceiving us, skeptical religious people claiming it's really Satan deceiving us, etc, etc.

Basically my point. Elnono's faithless world is as pie in the sky as it comes.

Certainly, as numbers trend his way he'll feel vindicated in his outlook; but that doesn't mean his outlook is "rational".

[midnightpulp]

it was only a matter of time before some redneck brought up the Chicago! ding...

:lol It's kind of funny that Chicago's murder rate is actually the lowest it's been in 40 years.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Chicago_Homicides_each_Year.svg/750px-Chicago_Homicides_each_Year.svg.png

Be willing to bet gun control was much more lax from 1970-1990 and it obviously was in the 1920s. Doesn't seem like too many "good guys with a gun" were stopping Capone from visiting terror on the city.

[Winehole23]

Spiking to historic lows.

[ElNono]

Sure. He'll be doing a Power Point for you.

He'll have to demonstrate there's hell and heaven, and all that. He's supposedly Jesus Christ, shouldn't be much of a problem, at least according to the fantasy version of him.

[ElNono]

Belief in Christ will always come down to faith, even if he showed up and started performing supernatural miracles like it was going out of style, because you'd have skeptics claiming it's the work of an advanced alien civilization deceiving us, skeptical religious people claiming it's really Satan deceiving us, etc, etc.

But it would be rational at that point (that was my claim). It would be tangible, testable and repeatable, fulfilling the scientific process. Whether some crazy/cospiratard folk think is immaterial to the point.

We know the Earth is round, not because Galileo said so, but because we have repeatable, testable ways to prove that. If some idiots still want to convince themselves it's flat, well that's their prerogative.

[TSA]

:lol It's kind of funny that Chicago's murder rate is actually the lowest it's been in 40 years.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Chicago_Homicides_each_Year.svg/750px-Chicago_Homicides_each_Year.svg.png

Be willing to bet gun control was much more lax from 1970-1990 and it obviously was in the 1920s. Doesn't seem like too many "good guys with a gun" were stopping Capone from visiting terror on the city.

Glad to hear homicides are on the decline, but it’s still a fucking war zone. A person shot every 5 mins 22 sec, fuck that.

https://heyjackass.com

[midnightpulp]

Glad to hear homicides are on the decline, but it’s still a fucking war zone. A person shot every 5 mins 22 sec, fuck that.

https://heyjackass.com

Note, I'm not by any means a gun grabber, just that the reference to Chicago by gun-control opponents to illustrate the "failure" of gun control policy isn't supported by facts. My gun control philosophy is: "How do we keep a Nicholas Cruz from waltzing into a gun store and buying an AR-15?"

[Winehole23]

Glad to hear homicides are on the decline, but it’s still a fucking war zone. A person shot every 5 mins 22 sec, fuck that.

https://heyjackass.com9th among big cities in 2018, high, but way behind St.Louis and Baltimore.

[Chris]

Bad people do bad things. They are not going to go away no matter how many laws you write down on paper. Cruz was exceptional because all the signs were there, but the school working with the police department decided not to press charges on previous incidents so they would receive more money. It's pretty simple stuff once you do a little digging past the MSM spin.

[TSA]

Note, I'm not by any means a gun grabber, just that the reference to Chicago by gun-control opponents to illustrate the "failure" of gun control policy isn't supported by facts. My gun control philosophy is: "How do we keep a Nicholas Cruz from waltzing into a gun store and buying an AR-15?"

Chicago even at these lows isn’t a success story regardimg gun control. A fat fuck who weighed 700 pounds and lost 150 pounds is still a fat fuck.

I don’t know if you’ll ever be able to stop a Nicolas Cruz from buying an AR-15. He didn’t have any felonies on his record to get denied during a background check. His mental health problems and prior violence don’t show up on the background check, should they? That’s up for debate and I think both sides of that one have equally valid points. I do think the NICS system needs to be improved a great deal.

[BD24]

They didnt ban guns. They have had mass shootings since. There were none prior. No way to draw cause and effect.
wrong. Multiple links below for you so that you don't complain about source. The closest thing they had was a guy who murdered 2 people and injured another 5. They tightened gun laws even further after that and haven't even had anything that size since. I mentioned originally it wasn't a ban in the sense that you can't own a gun, its just very difficult to as a regular citizen.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australia-data-shows-gun-controls-a-huge-success-20-years-after-mass-shooting-idUSKCN0XP0HG

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

There was another mass shooting prior, link for that below as well. I'm sure it is all just coincidence that gun violence has declined in Australia as well right? Anyway this is my last post on this as I am not going to argue for the sake of argument. You will either look at the facts and accept it or you wont. Either is fine by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting#Oceania

[midnightpulp]

The "good guy with a gun" concept is also unfounded.

Here's an impartial presenting of the statistics that show when states enacted right to carry laws, the decline (or spike) in gun violence in that state correlated with the national average (or gun violence was already in precipitous decline prior to right-to-carry law enaction), suggesting right-to-carry laws had no measurable effect on gun violence for better or worse (the 80s-90s to 00s national decline had more to do with the decline of the crack epidemic). To clarify, I'm not saying right-to-carry laws should be repealed, just that using the "good guy with a gun" argument as a solution to gun violence can't be backed up by facts. Some example graphs:

https://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/texas-full.png
https://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida-full.png
https://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/michigan-full.png

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[ElNono]

Bad people do bad things.

Somewhat expect insight here...

[Winehole23]

wrong. Multiple links below for you so that you don't complain about source. The closest thing they had was a guy who murdered 2 people and injured another 5. They tightened gun laws even further after that and haven't even had anything that size since. I mentioned originally it wasn't a ban in the sense that you can't own a gun, its just very difficult to as a regular citizen.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-guns/australia-data-shows-gun-controls-a-huge-success-20-years-after-mass-shooting-idUSKCN0XP0HG

http://fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

There was another mass shooting prior, link for that below as well. I'm sure it is all just coincidence that gun violence has declined in Australia as well right? Anyway this is my last post on this as I am not going to argue for the sake of argument. You will either look at the facts and accept it or you wont. Either is fine by me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting#OceaniaDMC has the always being right disease. He'll never admit he's wrong.

[Spurs Homer]

Finally saw that video...

what a piece of shit.

One barbaric thing we could do for these types of killers -

is allow

TORTURE

and film it.

It would sure send a message to any of these mass murderers.

A good slow torture lasting weeks - until death.

[BD24]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/australia/mass-shooting.html
I knew you were gonna use that goalpost move. Always using semantics. No one thinks about a crazy ass dad murdering his family when they hear mass shooting. Unfortunately no laws are going to prevent that.

What these laws are meant to prevent is large shootings in public places. They have done just that in Australia.