Drama Vote: Voice your opinion on the recent drama.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

WHERE IS THE LOVE?  
                        \

[Doktor Howl]

EACH ARGUMENT MAY ONLY BE USED ONCE, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT APPLIES.

THIS IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE LIBERTARIANS DON'T SHIT THEMSELVES.

[Vene]

EACH ARGUMENT MAY ONLY BE USED ONCE, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT APPLIES.

THIS IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE LIBERTARIANS DON'T SHIT THEMSELVES.

I'd rather fling feces at Libertarians. Maybe it will remind them they're primates.

[Doktor Howl]

EACH ARGUMENT MAY ONLY BE USED ONCE, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT APPLIES.

THIS IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE LIBERTARIANS DON'T SHIT THEMSELVES.

I'd rather fling feces at Libertarians. Maybe it will remind them they're primates.

NO.  THEY ARE SUPREMELY RATIONAL BEINGS.  AYN RAND SAID SO.

[hooplala]

EACH ARGUMENT MAY ONLY BE USED ONCE, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN IT APPLIES.

THIS IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE LIBERTARIANS DON'T SHIT THEMSELVES.

I'd rather fling feces at Libertarians. Maybe it will remind them they're primates.

NO.  THEY ARE SUPREMELY RATIONAL BEINGS.  AYN RAND SAID SO.

I actually don't believe people are rational all the time, or that they should be, so I'm not sure where you are getting that from.   Ayn Rand thinks that reason is man's primary tool of survival, and I patently disagree with her.  I think there are many factors which together form man's tools of survival, reason is only one, and quite fallible.

So I would prefer it if you would mock me for what I actually say, rather than what you wish I said so you could mock me more easily. 

[Triple Zero]

You know, I think I too am getting jaded with the whole fatalistic monkey thing, just like we got jaded with the Principia pinealism 5 years ago.

Sure you can make the same argument multiple times. But the irrational monkey gloom and doom is kind of becoming a very trite conversation killer with just about the same amount of interestingness and novelty as "All Is One" or "Nothing Is True Everything Is Permitted".

So yeah, all we need now is a barstoolesque oneliner to kill it when someone brings it up.

I propose OOK OOK IM AN IRRATIONAL MONKEY YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

[LMNO]

The "humans are irrational" is a barstool.  And it's also about as depressing as the BIP (and you know how much we argued with Rat about that).

It's not saying "give up".  It's saying "TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT."


If you propose a solution that will only work if every person involved acts rationally, altruistically, or generally nice, then you are proposing something that cannot exist in the real world; or at least in large groups.

It's like if some people were building boats with enormous holes in the hull so they could see the fish, and then getting pissed and saying, "all you ever complain about is that we have holes in our boats.  Can't you come up with something else?" 

It's not a statement claiming things will never get better.  It's a statement claiming that a solution has obvious flaws if this is not recognized.

[hooplala]

The "humans are irrational" is a barstool.  And it's also about as depressing as the BIP (and you know how much we argued with Rat about that).

It's not saying "give up".  It's saying "TAKE THIS INTO ACCOUNT."


If you propose a solution that will only work if every person involved acts rationally, altruistically, or generally nice, then you are proposing something that cannot exist in the real world; or at least in large groups.

It's like if some people were building boats with enormous holes in the hull so they could see the fish, and then getting pissed and saying, "all you ever complain about is that we have holes in our boats.  Can't you come up with something else?" 

It's not a statement claiming things will never get better.  It's a statement claiming that a solution has obvious flaws if this is not recognized.

I don't see how it was applicable in the Grant Morrison discussion, which is why it caused me to see red and foam at the mouth.  Nobody was proposing that the ways around the overpopulation problem involved everyone acting "rationally, altruistically, or generally nice", and yet it got brought up again. 

[Eater of Clowns]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

[hooplala]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

It doesn't seem scientific to me, and its sad that its been implemented thus far, but I don't see why that tosses the whole idea out the window.  Things can be improved on.  This whole idea is only 40 years old... would people be happy if we were using the same medical methods from the Nineteenth Century?  Of course not, things improve.  Why should this be different?

Mistakes are made, and then the original idea is improved upon.  It has nothing to do with large groups acting rationally.   Just because something fucked up in the past does not necessarily mean it will continue to fuck up forever.

Perhaps I was just in a bad mood last night, but it really started to sound like people were looking forward to overpopulation and mass starvation.  Which I certainly hope I am wrong about.

[LMNO]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

[hooplala]

Well, the question might be, how did the medical methods change; and could knowing that help us in implementing new methods and ideas for agriculture?

Good question.  I am not entirely certain how exactly medical methods changed.  Admittedly, most likely NOT by committee.   

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

[hooplala]

Alright, listen. What the fuck LMNO just said.

If someone says something along the lines of "That fact about human behavior is irrational, therefore how can it be true?" and the answer is "Because human beings are not typically very rational, and therefore often behave in irrational ways" what should the respondent do, sugar-coat the actual answer into something else? Really, the reason we don't use logical, reasonable sustainable farming methods is because ook ook, motherfucker. Too bad, so sad.

Is there a solution? You bet your fucking ass there is. But if you don't take ook ook into account, that solution will never be implemented.

Human beings are driven largely by food, sex, competition, envy, and oooh shiny! not  necessarily in that order. Logic and concern for the future are pretty low on our list of motivations. That doesn't mean we will always be this way, but there must be compelling reasons for change or we'll go right ahead and Roman-Empire ourselves right into the Dark Ages again and again.

Alright listen, I don't think anything I said refuted that.  So, tell me, what are the compelling reasons?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I believe it was brought up after you said planting a monoculture crop wouldn't be very scientific, at which point it was given as an explanation as to why we might implement a less than perfect farming system.

There's no "might" about it. We DO implement a completely irrational farming system which has not only historically been shown to be an invitation to disaster, but is CURRENTLY demonstrating an agricultural disaster. What Hoopla did was ask why, which was responded to with the only true and correct answer; we are irrational monkeys ook ook. SURE, that's shorthand for "human beings will usually choose short-term profits over long-term survival" but it's implicit that the person you are talking to has the reasoning capacity to interpret that, just as I assumed that the reference I made to the Irish Potato Famine was adequate to convey my point, because my assumption was that anyone engaging in a discussion about population and agriculture has at least that much agricultural history under their belt; if not, they do not belong in a discussion about population and agriculture.

I refuse to repeat seventh grade for the sake of those who are not already armed with that degree of education. If you know little about a subject but still wish to argue it, do your own research and then come back to the discussion, please. And THEN you may realize that "ook ook, motherfucker" is referring to documented historical or current human behavior that flies in the face of logic.

I may be making little sense because my best girl came over with a pint of really excellent bourbon last night for my birthday, and I'm operating on a hangover and very little sleep.