Reply With Quote
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.
Not really. Latinos were always prominent in the city. The ones with more money left. Rich flight.
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.
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.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.c...visionary.html
When are we going to start addressing the problem of right wing terrorism?
NZ went one better with Parliamentary swiftness.
Because knee jerk legislation is good now
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.
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.
By comparison, banning firearms seems a measured, reasonable countermeasure.
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).
Dp
damn phone always.
Last edited by pgardn; 03-17-2019 at 11:30 AM.
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.
They don't have the BoR.
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.
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.
A response to:
More on this point. I think as conventional religion dissolves over the next century,
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
