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 5 6 ... 2163
31
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« on: June 28, 2017, 04:56:34 pm »
In my estimation, the core principle of conservatives is to maintain status quo.

Also in my estimation, the status quo consists of rigid hierarchical power structures, economic inequality, systemic racism, and class inequity.

Therefore, I believe much of conservative thought is designed for the ruling class (the Haves) to hold on to their power over the rest of society (the Have Nots).

A "balance of left and right" (i.e. a balance of conservative and liberal thought) is to agree that the (ine)qualities of the status quo should be at least partially maintained.

At least, that's what my radical progressive mind daydreams about.

32
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« on: June 27, 2017, 07:53:24 pm »
 :spag2:

33
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« on: June 27, 2017, 07:31:51 pm »
Expect an invoice in the next 60 business days.

34
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« on: June 27, 2017, 06:40:16 pm »
Firstly, please forgive typos. Can't type for toffee on my phone.

Right and wrong beliefs? That's an interesting one. I have a moral framework based on my religion (Nordic paganism) and personal morality.

This leads to a mixed bag, I support equal rights and came down hard on the side of gay rights and gay marriage, I don't have any of that judeo-christian baggage. However I also favour the death penalty.

Many of my "right and wrongs" are personal. I am against abortion but as a man feel it's none of my damn business. I'd encourage a lass to seek other options but it's her own choice.

This leads to the question, how are you right wing? My right leanings tend to be more economic and geo-political than social.

My point regarding "no platforming" is the precedent set in the far left for censorship of ideas. Today it's holocaust deniers and anti-gay rights protestors. Not exactly a bad idea to be honest, however what next? The far left set the precedent that shutting down "bad" thought and speech is ok.
What happens when they come to power and become those who decide what is "bad"?

The bolded phrases lead me to think you might need to re-read my post.  I don't think I said anything to the effect of "right and wrong beliefs", and if I did make any implications about my personal principles based on my post, I have no idea how you concluded I was right wing.

35
Or Kill Me / Re: Look both ways before you cross
« on: June 27, 2017, 05:55:29 pm »
I notice the OP is discussing what could be called the framework of ideas.

Side A shuts down and taboos a certain kind of speech, rather than mandating all views be presented.

Idealistically, all views should be acknowledged, discussed, concurred, and resolved.

Where you're falling down is on the last part.  For example, should every discussion on Astrophysics also include equal time for heliocentric flat earth theory?  For every hour's lecture on molecular biology, should there also spend an hour on creationism?

Should every discussion about systemic racism feature a Pros and Cons section about why racism is bad?

Think For Yourself doesn't mean every thought must be built from the void and derived from first principles, just like a quantum equation doesn't need to start with F=ma.

Pragmatically, many - if not most - if not almost all - of the views in the marketplace of ideas are old ones.  They have been acknowledged, they have been discussed, they have been debated, conclusions have been made, and they have been resolved, one way or the other.

And Bayes' Theorem says we only need to update our priors in the presence of new information.

Since you don't state any of your own ideas or beliefs (or strong leanings, or fuzzy logic, or whatever) about things, let's take Gay Rights as a subject.

In the modern culture, homosexuality has been acknowledged for millennia.  Discussions about Homosexuality have been happening for an equal amount of time.  Typically, they fall into the Homophilic and Homophobic (in the Greek sense of the suffix) camps.

"Homosexuals are equal to Heterosexuals because..."
"Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals because..."

Much of the historical argument against Homosexuality has been religious, especially once the false trappings of "civilized decency" and "morality" have been made apparent.  Science soon followed, but when examined closely, the science was also shown to be developing evidence based upon conclusions.

The Religious arguments haven't really changed in a few thousand years.  The scientific arguments have changed in the last 100 years, but they have all faced the same problem, i.e. they're not scientific arguments.  I can't conceivably think of a new, novel, untested, undebated argument against Homosexuality since probably the AIDS crisis, and that wasn't a terribly good one.

So: the idea that Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals has been acknowledged, discussed, debated, and resolved (at least by Side A). 

And: No new ideas have been brought to the argument.

Meaning: Priors do not need to be updated.



The above being true, is there any reason why, for example, a Pride parade should be compelled to lend their "platform" to the Westboro Baptist Church to tell them "God Hates Fags"?




That out of the way Fallenkezef, would you mind sharing your right wing beliefs?  I only ask because your post seems to complain about left wing groups disagreeing with right wing ideas, and the examples you use unfortunately imply that you have a severe lack of compassion in your idea set, and may think certain groups of humans are not equal to others.

I would very much like to be shown the opposite.

36
Aneristic Illusions / Re: General Trump hilarity free-for-all thread
« on: June 24, 2017, 03:29:31 pm »
Well, THAT made me want to bleed out on an abandoned highway somewhere.

37
Aneristic Illusions / Re: General Trump hilarity free-for-all thread
« on: June 23, 2017, 07:48:12 pm »
Nah.  He's used fake tapes as a bluff before with reporters when he was just an asshole real estate con artist.  It's more believable he'd go with an old trope as opposed to concocting a real surveillance system.

Plus, with the amount of leaks so far, the absence of leaks about this points to truth.

38
I mean, really.  I can totally see any wrenches you throw at this point would only improve the situation.

39
I'll be over here in the corner, quietly valuing our species.

40
So, new guy (he's been there 2 days longer than me) has a sick wife.  Like in the ICU getting organs removed kinda sick.  Her recovery is not assured.

And he's terrified that I'm going to let him go because he hasn't been to work this week, and he's still a "contingent employee" (also means "no paid time off of any kind").  Instead, I send him database work to do so he can bill hours while he sits next to his unconscious wife, both taking his mind off of a situation he can't control AND letting him make rent.  My boss thinks that makes me a saint.

It doesn't.  It's just good management, for 3 reasons:

1.  That database work needs to be done.
2.  He's not at work in an industrial environment with his head not in the game, so we don't wind up hosing him out of the gears.
3.  Anything I do at this point sends a message, both to him and the rest of the crew.  One message is "if you fall down, go fuck yourself."  this makes a crew go bad.  Another message is "your job is safe, too bad you can't make the rent".  This doesn't inspire hatred, but neither does it inspire loyalty.  The last potential message is "we have your back", and this makes employees feel secure.  And employees that feel secure will make work part of their life, and THAT means better production, better thinking, and all around better lives for everyone.

So what do you know?  They were right about altruism being a survival mechanism.  This isn't goodness, it's just plain pragmatism.

How is this not obvious to everyone?

This needs to be stitched onto a million throwpillows.

42
Quote from: The Chao te Ching, Chapter 4
This is Chaos: it is everything, including itself.
All of Starbuck's Pebbles come from it.
It confuses Order, it arranges Disorder.
It multiplies its opposite, it positively negates.
Lying below life, lining the world.
The origin of all patterns.
It has existed before we observed it.
Ok, that last one's not quite accurate.
You can't really observe Chaos, just the consequences.

43
RPG Ghetto / Re: Masterwork Monsters for Pathfinder
« on: June 15, 2017, 07:24:31 pm »
Please note that guy did not get shot on sight.

Also please notice the melatonin level.

44
Holy shit.

45
It's Nordstrom's.  The play is, "let's see what rich people will buy if we tell them it's exclusive."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 2163