Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LMNO

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 2154
Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: Yesterday at 03:22:58 pm »
The short answer is that metaphors can be incredibly deceptive and can lead to entirely false notions of how the universe works.

Cf: metaphors for quantum behavior leading to the belief that consciousness literally changes objective reality.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: General Trump hilarity free-for-all thread
« on: April 25, 2017, 06:14:24 pm »
Not to mention "my rich father let me do what I wanted" is not a policy position.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: Spagbook
« on: April 25, 2017, 06:11:17 pm »
Yeah, even if RationalWiki has a known hateboner for YK, he has become a sort of Nassim Taleb Black Swan thing, where at the beginning it's a really awesome tool/resource/concept, but after a while you have to kill your idol.

The old essays are still pretty great, though.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: Spagbook
« on: April 25, 2017, 02:56:32 pm »
That's what I meant about finding the limits of my bubble.  I've was caught up in the Less Wrong stuff a while back, and Bayes is heavily stressed.  I made the false assumptions that a) a lot of so-called "rationalists" would be at the march, and b) more science people in general would know the formula. 

Although, that means it would make a pretty cool tattoo someday.

And thanks!  I like the beard look too.  I certainly haven't lost weight, but I may appear less puffy because I'm getting high a lot more than getting drunk.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: Spagbook
« on: April 23, 2017, 10:26:06 pm »
Guess I found where my bubble ends. I totally thought more people at the Science March would recognize Bayes' Thorem. Oh, well.

Richard Nixon's glittering half-life sarcophagus / Re: ABSOLUTE CHAOS
« on: April 23, 2017, 02:48:22 pm »
I dunno. The movie could have a cool plot twist that, as the last ambulance drives away, it suddenly becomes clear that the world is a fundamentally better place now, despite all the blood.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: April 22, 2017, 04:02:45 pm »
Thanks, all. I miss him a lot.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: April 21, 2017, 05:30:20 pm »
Yeah, I agree; I had an emotional flinch.  Disregard previous posts.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: April 21, 2017, 04:38:33 pm »
Oh, wait.  The article you linked is not the article you quoted...

To explain my emotional reaction that may have clouded my judgement, Marburger was my dad.

Techmology and Scientism / Re: Weekly Science Headlines
« on: April 21, 2017, 03:36:43 pm »

The role of Science Advisor comes with the position of Director for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  That means they control the budget and policies for science and technology across the nation.  Being the Science Advisor is incredibly minor compared to being responsible for the entire federal funding for science.

And, as he said at the time, "If I don't take the job, can I trust the next guy down the line to do it right?"

Caveat:  I may take this personally.

Or Kill Me / Re: You're not conscious
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:48:54 pm »
I'd just like to step in here and remind everyone that I <3 Huckabees is a work of genius that is simultaneously often hard to watch due to it being a poorly-constructed film.


2) fathers should be allowed to request an abortion - if the mother chooses to have the child anyway, the father should not have to pay child support

Your trilby is crooked.

Thank you for referencing the correct style of hat.

It's an important distinction.  I don't want to tar Tom Waits with this brush.

They fact that I know the difference, and am sometimes upset when an error is made, worries me that I may be part of the former group, rather than the latter.


Following the links would be a good start.

Also paying attention to what women say about abortion is also a good idea.

See, that's where I don't think you're seeing the hidden arguments.  BASIC programming jokes aside, the argument is:

"I believe life starts at conception."

"I don't believe life starts at conception."

The reasoning for these conclusions come from different places, but they both exist. 

You don't hear a lot of pro-choice people explicitly say this, because there's really no point to it.  "Women's rights" isn't used because there's no response available; it's used to shift context and reframe.  If one side tries to gain a moral advantage by insisting life begins at conception, the other side shifts the argument away from the nebulous religious and biological arguments, and reframes it as a woman's right -- that way, the other side feels has to assume (or admit) an anti-woman point of view, losing a portion of moral ground.

But you know what?  This is just another man talking about abortion.  I'll just re-quote QG.

The pro-choice people I know who were raised pro-life were converted by arguments of reducing abortions through education and contraceptive availability, and from there walking back on late term bans (since most late term abortions are non-viable fetuses and/or threatening the life of the mother), and eventually walking back on all abortion access.

Compassion sells, not science.

I swear to God(dess) if anyone with a penis WELL ACTUALLYs me on this one they will wake up short one testicle.

PoFP, I'm fascinated that you're approaching this from a moral stance, and your apparent solution is an attempt to manipulate and warp a person's religious texts and beliefs and essentially trick them into agreeing with you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 2154