tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post8234125535879096930..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Is the system rigged?David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger159125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30759439753120777432017-06-06T05:57:58.486-07:002017-06-06T05:57:58.486-07:00That German referendum paper isn't from the 19...That German referendum paper isn't from the 1934 referendum, but from the 1938 referendum on the Austrian Anschluss.George Cartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12170378024031141482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67234427567152741782017-06-03T20:41:15.661-07:002017-06-03T20:41:15.661-07:00onward
onwardonward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81562009992487849082017-06-03T18:01:53.534-07:002017-06-03T18:01:53.534-07:00Duncan Cairncross:
It does not detract from the m...Duncan Cairncross:<br /><i><br />It does not detract from the men's heroism but they were in little or no danger from that shark.<br />...<br />The other time a shark will attack is a spear fisherman - the shark sees him/her as stealing it's lunch and will attempt to drive the dastardly interloper away.<br /></i><br /><br />Well, if the shark thought the woman was prey, it might have thought the men were spear fishermen. Just sayin'<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48126379624069040142017-06-03T17:56:01.749-07:002017-06-03T17:56:01.749-07:00locumranch:
Why would I mock the protector caste ...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Why would I mock the protector caste to which I belong? The public will provide such mockery soon enough when it seeks to monetise the harm that any rescuer was unable to prevent. Then, the lawyers will come to visit & demand compensation for an imperfect rescue and, soon, the protectors will learn to doubt & 'second guess' the wisdom of their bravery, self-sacrifice & good intentions.<br /></i><br /><br />That's understandable and all. What I don't get is why you think this particular community--none of whom I would daresay have any intention of doing what you just described or of validating those who do--are the ones to vent your hostility upon. None of us think it best to be a hammer <b>or</b> a nail, yet you blame us for the choice being foisted upon you.<br /><br />You seem to commit the error of a comedian (or Dave Sim) lambasting his audience for being so small. His anger is understandable, but he's taking it out on the ones who <b>did</b> show up--the last ones he should blame.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10816501148677426902017-06-03T17:47:18.042-07:002017-06-03T17:47:18.042-07:00Hi donzelion
It does not detract from the men'...Hi donzelion<br />It does not detract from the men's heroism but they were in little or no danger from that shark<br /><br />Sharks eat fish and nearly all fish are predators - a shark will attack a fish about 1/3rd of it's own size - bigger than that and the risk is too high<br /><br />The problem is that in bad visibility or on a surfboard the shark does not see a 5 ft long human but a hand or foot or a fin - so a moderately sized shark will take a bite - it won't stay around when it finds it's mistake<br /><br />A shark big enough to see a human as prey is about 15 ft long and an attack is not survivable<br /><br />The other time a shark will attack is a spear fisherman - the shark sees him/her as stealing it's lunch and will attempt to drive the dastardly interloper away <br /><br />You can see the different type of attacks in the wounds - the "I think you are a small fish" attacks are bites with tissue bitten off<br />The "Damn interloper" attacks are slashes with no tissue bitten offduncan cairncrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14153725128216947145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-34848938161467210112017-06-03T17:43:54.235-07:002017-06-03T17:43:54.235-07:00Re: self righteous indignation
"The greater ...Re: self righteous indignation<br /><br />"The greater the hatred the less the reason"<br />http://markhumphrys.com/laws.html#no.2<br />Humphrys examples are all of groups of people hated for no rational reason. However, his observation also applies to ideas, eg: evolution, or technologies, eg: vaccination, nuclear power, or GMOs.<br /><br />Jim BaergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6957051040582125032017-06-03T17:17:34.381-07:002017-06-03T17:17:34.381-07:00locumranch:
LarryH makes the most common linguist...locumranch:<br /><i><br />LarryH makes the most common linguistic error of the politically correct. He equates that which is preferred & desirable with that which is "correct" and conflates this moral correctness with factual truth. This merits repeating.<br /></i><br /><br />No, what it merits is explanation. What statements or assertions of mine are you referring to? I don't recall saying that anything was "correct"--policially or otherwise--here recently.<br /><br />Donald Trump is the one who does exactly what you're talking about, though in the negative. So any news that he doesn't like is "fake".<br /><br /><i><br />Human magical thinkers are crazy-cooperative this way. Call them a monster often enough & they will become a monster; lambast them for being hateful & they will become filled with hate; and demonise them if you wish to become the very demon you despise.<br /></i><br /><br />There is truth in that. The converse is also true. Demonstrate that you <b>are</b> a monster or hateful or a demon often enough, and eventually someone will notice and call you on it. Shutting the messenger up doesn't make the message false. Neither does your magical wish that reality was other than it is.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-53936839420887803572017-06-03T15:46:29.783-07:002017-06-03T15:46:29.783-07:00LarryH makes the most common linguistic error of t...<br /><br />LarryH makes the most common linguistic error of the politically correct. He equates that which is preferred & desirable with that which is "correct" and conflates this moral correctness with factual truth. This merits repeating.<br /><br />LarryH argues that that which is preferred & desired equals (or SHOULD equal) that which is correct, true & factual, as an article of faith or a rhetorical ploy, just as David uses this same construct to condemn the CC non-supporter as a CC denier.<br /><br />Donzelion intuits the meaning of my words without directly understanding them. I never said that I desired to become a bully, fascist or hammer. Instead, what I said was this: <br /><br />If forced to choose between being EITHER a whipping dog (nail) OR a hammer (bully), then I would choose a hammer, as this is the most reasonable 'either-or' choice for the non-masochist.<br /><br />Ideally, though, I would prefer to be neither a hammer nor a nail, assuming that I had that third non-partisan option. Yet, our NWO no longer offers the neutrality option because any indifferent 'meh' against the 'cause du jour' immediately identifies the meh-sayer as a luddite, denier, misogynist or monster.<br /><br />By no coincidence, this is also the cause of the Alt-Right ascendancy & the Labour Left's humiliating defeat in the recent EU & US elections, but these avoidable misunderstandings continue despite the extended definition of 'should', 'ought' & 'supposed to' that I provided above.<br /><br />Human magical thinkers are crazy-cooperative this way. Call them a monster often enough & they will become a monster; lambast them for being hateful & they will become filled with hate; and demonise them if you wish to become the very demon you despise.<br /><br /><br />Best<br />_____<br /><br />A prior lifeguard, rescue diver & ambulance attendant here. Why would I mock the protector caste to which I belong? The public will provide such mockery soon enough when it seeks to monetise the harm that any rescuer was unable to prevent. Then, the lawyers will come to visit & demand compensation for an imperfect rescue and, soon, the protectors will learn to doubt & 'second guess' the wisdom of their bravery, self-sacrifice & good intentions.locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20093500305099966712017-06-03T15:18:06.249-07:002017-06-03T15:18:06.249-07:00@donzelion,
Hate is the dark side of the Force--&...@donzelion,<br /><br />Hate is the dark side of the Force--"quicker, easier, more seductive."<br /><br />The good side <b>can</b> win, but it requires almost constant vigilance. The problem being that the type of person for whom "constant vigilance" is an acceptable way of life is the same type of person most seduced by the dark side. <br /><br />If your goal in a war is to win and then end the war, but your opponent's goal is to keep fighting no matter what--because he <b>enjoys</b> fighting and you don't--then your task is that much harder. Republicans <b>enjoy</b> being in campaign mode all the time.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88943888318769448772017-06-03T13:09:55.419-07:002017-06-03T13:09:55.419-07:00LarryHart: "In this case, the prize matters ...LarryHart: <i>"In this case, the prize matters more than the game does."</i><br />The prize is America, and for a season or two, one side has the political reins, just as they've long held the financial reins. But this prize is bigger than a couple types of reins, and better. <br /><br />I'm sick of losing too, and certainly have advocated diving into the ugly (I really, really wanted the 2016 circus to include a refrain in which Christian evangelicals struggled to justify how Jesus supports strip clubs at Trump-branded casinos) - but such tactics cannot work...it's not enough to point out hypocrisy, and laugh at the hypocrite, because we're all guilty somewhere or other. One has to still love the hypocrite and strive to make his plight better, because end of the day, we're all guilty.<br /><br />Love really does trump hate. It may take time, and the victory may be a subtle one, but it is the only one worth winning. Indeed, the form of love has to be carefully chosen: a colonel who loves his service, his country, his troops - a social organizer? A lawyer? All have their place, and shared loves can override a lot of hurt and despair.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-7568178053282604152017-06-03T12:54:06.524-07:002017-06-03T12:54:06.524-07:00An interesting story: 3 Californians dive into sha...An interesting story: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-surfer-attack-shark-20170502-story.html" rel="nofollow">3 Californians dive into shark-infested waters to save woman attacked</a><br /><br />I prefer my headline to the editor's. If this woman survives, she ought to marry the boyfriend who dived in after her when the shark pulled her under. Or one of the men who leapt out to help her. I want more Americans like this; I am proud of the Californians among them. Fun-loving, thrill-seeking, and brave enough to fight deadly sharks to save a woman in trouble. For me, worth pausing and pondering before turning to politics...<br /><br /><i>"Deploying that hatred against Americans is a sure way to destroy this country."</i><br />Whenever Trumpsters plot to destroy America, they are claiming they want to 'save it.' Well, before challenging means, it's worth asking what it is that is worth saving. I will think today of those Americans who dived in, and wonder what their health insurance covers, or doesn't. The woman who was attacked is a mother of three; I will wonder who and how her children will be cared for if she does or doesn't survive. Whether they will have health care, educational opportunities, jobs, homes, as good a life as possible. And the families of the men who tried to save her. I am pro-life: their lives, and those of millions of others.<br /><br />I will quietly seethe with rage at the wannabe tyrants who see all these people as sheep to be fleeced. I will seethe with a bit less rage at the misguided fools who think they are serving freedom by supporting the fleecers.<br /><br />If Locum has the bad taste to mock these people ("meh, surfers...idiots had it coming...") - I will seethe a little, roll my eyes a bit, then mitigate my own self-righteous instincts, and remind myself: perhaps, one day, it'll be me on the beach, and him coming to save my ass. Or his son or daughter, or a friend, or someone else who but-for his help, could not have been there. <br /><br />That possibility is one reason why we cannot indulge in hatred toward our fellows.<br /><br /><i>"What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?" :)</i><br />LOL, precisely. I wondered who would see it first... ;-)<br /><br /><i>"In the metaphorical scenario you describe, the only way to win is not to play."</i><br />Exactly. If the game is political football, play 'science softball' - show the superiority of this game (and attach far bigger stakes to it), rebuild neighborhoods around this game - and then those who still want to play political football can be sidelined in a much bigger game. The cosmos is so much bigger than the feudalists wish it to be. <br /><br />Indeed, the great problem of all feudalists everywhere is that they shrink the contours of possibility to perpetuating their own comfort at everyone else's expense (and yes, Dr. Brin, if you read that as an indictment of the Saudi royal family as it is now and has been, it is intended precisely so - this is the real problem I have with every feudalist everywhere, not secretive cabals or conspiracies, but simply a system that denies wondrous possibilities when they are so humanly, humanely realizable).<br /><br /><i>"The problem with the real world scenario is that the Republicans are being deplorable and winning with that strategy."</i><br />They haven't won just yet. There's a mother at Scripps Memorial Hospital fighting for her life right now, who has a fighting chance because (a) brave men did more than their duty, and (b) that hospital, and all its capabilities, exists - a product of our society, the work of many tens of thousands who contributed. And whether she lives or dies, her children will be cared for, by a community that recognizes what is really valuable.<br /><br />So long as we keep working, contributing, they will never win - they'll just inflict a bit more misery so they can afford gold-plated golf carts and mega yachts, and post their selfies showing off. Distasteful, but not exactly fatal.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-69246523678063169282017-06-03T12:29:13.132-07:002017-06-03T12:29:13.132-07:00donzelion:
LarryHart: being a 'good loser'...donzelion:<br /><i><br />LarryHart: being a 'good loser' against a rogue keeps both sides from going rogue. It keeps the country alive.<br /></i><br /><br />The good loser shows respect for the game. It's a demonstration of long-term thinking beyond the one game or the one season. In politics, long-term thinking also has to take into account, "If those guys acquire enough power now, they'll fix the game permanently." It's not enough to keep our hands clean while losing. In this case, the prize matters more than the game does.<br /> LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39462390793178879912017-06-03T12:22:25.756-07:002017-06-03T12:22:25.756-07:00donzelion:
The Allies deployed hatred to destroy ...donzelion:<br /><i><br />The Allies deployed hatred to destroy a country. In the case of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, our modern judgment asserts that those were countries that deserved to be destroyed. <br /><br />Deploying that hatred against Americans is a sure way to destroy this country. <br /></i><br /><br />Some right-wingers and (I'd wager) many Trumpsters think America does indeed deserve to be destroyed. Trump is a feature, not a bug, for them in exactly this manner.<br /><br /><i><br />"I just don't want to go locum's "rather be a hammer than a nail" route."<br />Again, Locum SAYS that, but I really do not think he means it. There are myriad places in the world where he could go and actually be a hammer, rather than a nail - and yet, here he is, with us, getting mocked, challenged, questioned - and coming back for more. He is venting a desire not to be a victim, but prefers small victimhood...to attaining and utilizing actual power to hammer anyone. <br /></i><br /><br />I attribute that to inertia, the same thing that kept me in an increasingly sucky job for twelve years. The less-charitable way to say that is "laziness". Actually oppressing people is hard work.<br /><br /><i><br /> (oh no! the PC police are coming by and telling him not to say 'n1gger!' so oppressive!) (wait, he didn't even want to say n1gger in the first place...but it's still oppressive!) <br /></i><br /><br />"What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?" :)<br /><br /><i><br />LarryHart: being a 'good loser' against a rogue keeps both sides from going rogue. It keeps the country alive. If baseball players carried guns onto the field, the game would cease to be baseball, and become something else. Some might be even more entertained by it, but to me, it would be an ugly game. Better to lose for a season than risk destroying the game forever by cheating.<br /></i><br /><br />In the metaphorical scenario you describe, the only way to win is not to play. You then rely on the audience to let MLB know that they have no interest in watching this new version of the "game". The problem with the real world scenario is that the Republicans are being deplorable and <b>winning</b> with that strategy. You and I might say, "Better to lose than to get down in the mud," but it's not just a game--the winners get to decide how this country is run and get to have real effects on your life and mine.<br /><br />At some point, you have to separate the game from the prize. When I say "I want to be the good guys when we win," I mean that I want the Democrats to rule wisely when they have power again. I don't want them emulating Republicans under the mistaken notion that the voters demand right-wing policies, when what's really happening is that the voters have embraced the GOP <b>brand</b>. No one likes the actual things Trump is doing now, but they still vote Republican because Republicans (in their minds) are the real American leaders, and Democrats are uppity advocates for bad people. If Democrats try to embrace Republican policies, it is just the worst of both worlds.<br /><br />But I separate that from saying we won't play the election game itself by the rules that the Republicans play it by. That's tying our own hands and guaranteeing that how we would govern is a mere hypothetical exercise, because we'll never govern again. The beef I have with Republicans is that they change the rules on the fly to advantage themselves (like, Mitch McConnell will not refuse to confirm a Supreme Court nominee proposed in <b>Trump's</b> last year. He won't even pretend there's a reason to do so). But once the rules of the game are in place, we have to win by them. We can't say "I'd rather this rule didn't exist, so I won't make use of it, even though my opponent will without suffering any penalty." The Democrats basically did that in 2016, and we're living the result.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32502276868985556602017-06-03T11:30:53.290-07:002017-06-03T11:30:53.290-07:00A small late observation, regarding those complain...A small late observation, regarding those complaining about the relative levels of US/Euro defence spending, and particularly complaining that Europe gets an unfair economic advantage from America's defence profligacy.<br /><br />The complaint suggests:<br /><br />1) That the complainer wants to reduce US military spending. If not, what are they complaining for? (If my friend is going to paint the whole wall himself anyway, am I lazy if I don't paint over his paint? If we share the job, if I can ease his workload, then sure, I'm not a good friend if I don't. But if he insists on not only painting every inch himself, but painting many many more coats than are required, who gains from my adding yet another unnecessary layer?)<br /><br />2) That the complainer believes that nations which reduce their military gain an economic advantage.<br /><br />Interesting then that the complaint comes only from those who are strongly advocating increasing US military spending.<br /><br />I mean, I don't disagree with those two points, but apparently <i>they</i> do. So what is their complaint?Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31534382356540811152017-06-03T10:34:26.019-07:002017-06-03T10:34:26.019-07:00Daniel Duffy: "The Democrats can get far mor...Daniel Duffy: <i>"The Democrats can get far more vicious than the Republicans (hey have much greater resources in media and technology to do so - if we chose to we could easily out hack the Russians and wage cyber warfare on both them and the Republicans)"</i> <br /><br />I have no doubt of it. The second militia men learn what a well-programmed, well-operated drone can do despite all their pretty little collections of Glock & Friends, they'll spend their fortunes on drones themselves (and enrich the blue staters who build and sell them...as well as Chinese, and many others). That said, I don't expect them to dabble in the true power of genetics...too much science needed to do that, and the mere process of learning how would alter many of the people who might otherwise try to do it. Thankfully.<br /><br /><i>"and like the Allies still be the good guys."</i><br />The Allies deployed hatred to destroy a country. In the case of both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, our modern judgment asserts that those were countries that deserved to be destroyed. <br /><br />Deploying that hatred against Americans is a sure way to destroy this country. <br /><br /><i>"I just don't want to go locum's "rather be a hammer than a nail" route."</i><br />Again, Locum SAYS that, but I really do not think he means it. There are myriad places in the world where he could go and actually be a hammer, rather than a nail - and yet, here he is, with us, getting mocked, challenged, questioned - and coming back for more. He is venting a desire not to be a victim, but prefers small victimhood (oh no! the PC police are coming by and telling him not to say 'n1gger!' so oppressive!) (wait, he didn't even want to say n1gger in the first place...but it's still oppressive!) to attaining and utilizing actual power to hammer anyone. <br /><br />LarryHart: being a 'good loser' against a rogue keeps both sides from going rogue. It keeps the country alive. If baseball players carried guns onto the field, the game would cease to be baseball, and become something else. Some might be even more entertained by it, but to me, it would be an ugly game. Better to lose for a season than risk destroying the game forever by cheating.donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-90296718969570819792017-06-03T10:12:30.471-07:002017-06-03T10:12:30.471-07:00locumranch:
So, shut up already about how 'sc...locumranch:<br /><i><br />So, shut up already about how 'scientific' your personal preferences & desires are. They are NOT scientific. A preference for vanilla is not science, nor is a preference for chocolate, nor is a moral prescriptive about how the world 'should', 'ought' & is 'supposed to' conform to your personal preferences & desires.<br /></i><br /><br />If you're allergic to chocolate, then an assertion that you "should" avoid chocolate <b>is</b> science, even if you prefer the taste of the thing that will make you die.<br /><br />You don't get that "should" is always conditional upon what one is attempting to accomplish. Dr Brin's "should" items generally presuppose that one wishes to have an environment that will support human life for many generations to come, but they also work if one merely wishes to avoid near-long term cost explosions. Sure, you can say you don't care about any of that and therefore no one can tell you what you "should" do. Just don't be surprised (as Dave Sim continually is) that the people who <b>do</b> want those things consider you an enemy and a traitor to humanity. But still, no scientist is forcing you to do anything. Unless you consider "hurting your snowflake feelings" to be coercion.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-76855775713679367882017-06-03T10:05:49.659-07:002017-06-03T10:05:49.659-07:00locumranch:
We are happy when our desires & p...locumranch:<br /><i><br />We are happy when our desires & preferences align with reality; we are unhappy when they do not align with reality; we call it 'science' when we alter our desires & preferences (our hypothesis) to conform to objective reality (data); we call it 'magical thinking' when we demand that objective reality (data) conform to our desires, preferences & hypothesis; and the elimination of unrealistic expectations coincides with the elimination of disappointment even when it cannot make us happy.<br /></i><br /><br />You're confusing expectations of unguided processes vs guided processes. We call it <b>'technology'</b> when we build processes which <b>cause</b> reality to conform to our desires and preferences in a specific instance. Everything from your refrigerator to your water heater to your house to your car is an instance of making reality conform to your desires. Do you consider that to be "magical thinking"?<br /><br />You conservatives love putting offenders in prison. What is the point of that other than encouraging human beings to act in ways that they "should" rather than the ways that they do. Is that "magical thinking" as well? What crime have illegal immigrants committed other than acting other than they "should"?<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-2875129411141614052017-06-03T09:45:49.722-07:002017-06-03T09:45:49.722-07:00Dr. Brin - I actually like the idea of a strong ca...Dr. Brin - I actually like the idea of a strong cadre of candidates in the Democratic primary. Shucks, you could run and represent science, Applegate represent another aspect, and Levin run and represent bureaucracy (and science too, since he is a longterm global warming activist). When the other side is a useless rogue, having a team of 4 or 5 candidates attacking what Issa has done (and what he hasn't) may prove a better means of motivating and mobilizing those last 2000 votes needed to oust him from power. <br /><br />That said, Applegate is a good man, but there are other colonels in Congress with whom we would both disagree (though even then, they tend to be much better men than the rest of that ilk).donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19252533727064764212017-06-03T09:40:17.890-07:002017-06-03T09:40:17.890-07:00"but don't be surprised (or disappointed)...<i>"but don't be surprised (or disappointed) to discover that your personal preferences & desires are not shared by the entire world"</i><br /><br />I would be shocked and disappointed if they were. Nor do I have any interest in driving the world to conform to my why of thinking. But I similarly do not believe the world SHOULD be a place where the strong abuse the weak, exploit and derive their pleasure from doing so, nor do I believe the weak SHOULD try to become strong by oppressing the even weaker. Since all of us will be both strong and weak at different points over the course of our lives, I am reasonably confident that MOST of us would agree. When that does not happen - and majorities elect someone determined to hurt the weak, I become perplexed, even vexed. <br /><br />It is an odd, sad, and small world where those oppressed and beset by one set of folks decide their best course of action is to aid and abet the oppressors and join them in railing against the problem solvers. Do they hope they'll direct the oppressor's attention at softer targets than themselves? Silly ploy. Such folks defer their own turn being a nail. For a season, they may feel 'stronger...' - but they will never wind up better off for long. <br /><br />donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20712260541234559792017-06-03T09:30:28.815-07:002017-06-03T09:30:28.815-07:00Locum: "So, shut up already about how 'sc...Locum: <i>"So, shut up already about how 'scientific' your personal preferences & desires are. They are NOT scientific."</i><br /><br />Never asserted they were scientific. Only that to the extent one can, one SHOULD aspire to apply the same principles of using evidence and applying it to theories that is demanded in the sciences to other contexts. <br /><br />Doing so is what made America - and modern science as we know it possible. That endeavor is a good one that SHOULD continue. donzelionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991849781932619746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22075964807710111682017-06-03T09:01:35.888-07:002017-06-03T09:01:35.888-07:00"Should', 'ought' & 'supp...<br />"Should', 'ought' & 'supposed to' are expressions of desire & preference insomuch as they need not correspond with reality. <br /> <br />We are happy when our desires & preferences align with reality; we are unhappy when they do not align with reality; we call it 'science' when we alter our desires & preferences (our hypothesis) to conform to objective reality (data); we call it 'magical thinking' when we demand that objective reality (data) conform to our desires, preferences & hypothesis; and the elimination of unrealistic expectations coincides with the elimination of disappointment even when it cannot make us happy.<br /><br />In subtext, this is what Donzelion means when he says 'many scientific breakthroughs started with someone somewhere noting, 'this should be that, but is in fact something else...why is it other than what I thought it should be?', the error being the assumption of what 'should', 'ought' & is 'supposed to' be.<br /><br />So, when Simon, Garfunkel & I sing about how "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail", this is a statement of personal preference. When Bill Maher prescribes a course of Democratic Party action, this is also a statement of personal preference. It is also a statement of personal preference when David tells us how the world 'should', 'ought' and is 'supposed to' be. And, personal preference need not represent either objective reality or science.<br /><br />So, shut up already about how 'scientific' your personal preferences & desires are. They are NOT scientific. A preference for vanilla is not science, nor is a preference for chocolate, nor is a moral prescriptive about how the world 'should', 'ought' & is 'supposed to' conform to your personal preferences & desires.<br /><br />Now, if you want to talk about how we can use our scientific knowledge of objective reality as the means of achieving more of our personal preferences & desires, then that's 'Science', but don't be surprised (or disappointed) to discover that your personal preferences & desires are not shared by the entire world.<br /><br /><br />Best locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-45829838949074968362017-06-03T08:55:20.740-07:002017-06-03T08:55:20.740-07:00TRUE THE DEMS NEED TO GET STRINGER AND MORE FORCEF...TRUE THE DEMS NEED TO GET STRINGER AND MORE FORCEFUL. I'll be posting about how this calls for Colonels. Lots and lots of colonels.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82034731261877769382017-06-03T06:41:48.708-07:002017-06-03T06:41:48.708-07:00Tony Fisk:
...it seems to me that following Maher...Tony Fisk:<br /><i><br />...it seems to me that following Maher's recipe will ensure that most people will just give up on elections in disgust, leaving the hyperpartisans to drive issues on both sides, not just one. <br /></i><br /><br />Yes, and in this country, when turnout is down, Republicans win.<br /><br /><i><br />That said, Dems do need to learn how to pitch torrents of hot, sticky scorn on their opponents when appropriate. <br /></i><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br /><i><br />Maybe Maher could give them lessons?<br /></i><br /><br />Maybe Lin-Manuel Miranda too.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19763868566939025702017-06-03T06:37:18.845-07:002017-06-03T06:37:18.845-07:00Daniel Duffy:
The Democrats can get far more vici...Daniel Duffy:<br /><i><br />The Democrats can get far more vicious than the Republicans (hey have much greater resources in media and technology to do so - if we chose to we could easily out hack the Russians and wage cyber warfare on both them and the Republicans) and like the Allies still be the good guys.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm not disagreeing with you there. I think we're on the same side.<br /><br />I just don't want to go locum's "rather be a hammer than a nail" route. We don't win by beating up reporters or outing CIA operatives or threatening to jail opponents<b>too</b>. I would not like to see Democrats conclude that in order to win, we have to also be the party of Wall St and the party of climate change denial and the party of white privilege.<br /><br />I see a big difference between playing (elections) by the same <b>rules</b> as the other side vs <b>using</b> power once elected the same as the other side. The Democrats are failing badly in the former area. It's like they won't use a designated hitter because they'd prefer to play "pure" baseball, while the Republicans's DHs keep racking up home runs. That is what has to change.<br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84131339552513442232017-06-03T06:15:17.067-07:002017-06-03T06:15:17.067-07:00Hmmm...
in Australia we have witnessed a version o...Hmmm...<br />in Australia we have witnessed a version of this which has come to be called "The race to the bottom". Neither side ends up looking electable. Now, I realise that the least unelectable would still get the prize (election), but it seems to me that following Maher's recipe will ensure that most people will just give up on elections in disgust, leaving the hyperpartisans to drive issues on both sides, not just one. (Voting is compulsory in Australia but, even so, informal votes have skyrocketed in recent times. I don't think it's because the voting process has become too hard.)<br /><br />That said, Dems do need to learn how to pitch torrents of hot, sticky scorn on their opponents when appropriate. Maybe Maher could give them lessons?Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.com