A Dawkins No-No

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:39 am But some can be 'trusted' more than others. What about referendums? Ever heard of 'the wisdom of the crowd'?
I have no use for mobs. Nothing is true or right because of the number of people who believe or favor it. I've been observing the, "wisom of crowds," in the news. In Myanmar and, my favorite, the BLM (burn, loot, and murder) crowd in the US.

I really reject all supposed social or political, "solutions," to anything anyone decides is a, "problem." If I have a problem, it's up to me to fix it. If someone else has a problem, it's none of your or my business, unless our interest is invited and we choose to be involved. In most cases, attempting to improve the condition of others or solve their problems is really nothing more than meddling.

Don't misunderstand. I have no objection to others doing whatever they choose, even meddling in others' lives, so long as they do not force it on anyone. I think it is almost always a mistake, but who doesn't make mistakes.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:22 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:39 am But some can be 'trusted' more than others. What about referendums? Ever heard of 'the wisdom of the crowd'?
I have no use for mobs. Nothing is true or right because of the number of people who believe or favor it. I've been observing the, "wisom of crowds," in the news. In Myanmar and, my favorite, the BLM (burn, loot, and murder) crowd in the US.

I really reject all supposed social or political, "solutions," to anything anyone decides is a, "problem." If I have a problem, it's up to me to fix it. If someone else has a problem, it's none of your or my business, unless our interest is invited and we choose to be involved. In most cases, attempting to improve the condition of others or solve their problems is really nothing more than meddling.

Don't misunderstand. I have no objection to others doing whatever they choose, even meddling in others' lives, so long as they do not force it on anyone. I think it is almost always a mistake, but who doesn't make mistakes.
It's not the same thing as mob rule. Mobs don't have voting. It's based on the idea that most people are basically stupid and apathetic (but open to persuasion) while a small percentage are either outright loons and/or malevolent, and a small percentage are benign, knowledgeable, and interested. It's about maths more than anything else.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:18 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:13 am No government can be trusted. The Israelites should have listened to Samuel.
Yes, and yes.
I meant to mention I appreciate the fact you are probably the only one here who would understand that allusion.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:56 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:22 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:39 am But some can be 'trusted' more than others. What about referendums? Ever heard of 'the wisdom of the crowd'?
I have no use for mobs. Nothing is true or right because of the number of people who believe or favor it. I've been observing the, "wisom of crowds," in the news. In Myanmar and, my favorite, the BLM (burn, loot, and murder) crowd in the US.

I really reject all supposed social or political, "solutions," to anything anyone decides is a, "problem." If I have a problem, it's up to me to fix it. If someone else has a problem, it's none of your or my business, unless our interest is invited and we choose to be involved. In most cases, attempting to improve the condition of others or solve their problems is really nothing more than meddling.

Don't misunderstand. I have no objection to others doing whatever they choose, even meddling in others' lives, so long as they do not force it on anyone. I think it is almost always a mistake, but who doesn't make mistakes.
It's not the same thing as mob rule. Mobs don't have voting. It's based on the idea that most people are basically stupid and apathetic (but open to persuasion) while a small percentage are either outright loons and/or malevolent, and a small percentage are benign, knowledgeable, and interested. It's about maths more than anything else.
I'm sorry, Veg, I don't think I really understand your point here. I'm not going to disagree, because of my inability to understand. Are you advocating the, "wisdom of crowds," notion, or pointing out what's wrong with it? Sorry for my confusion.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:14 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:18 am
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:13 am No government can be trusted. The Israelites should have listened to Samuel.
Yes, and yes.
I meant to mention I appreciate the fact you are probably the only one here who would understand that allusion.
:D Thanks, yes. I have to admit that I was surprised you used it. You have to have some OT background, I'm guessing....probably not superficial, either.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:08 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:41 am So: you got nuthin' to support your claim I supports taxes to fund the military ...
Do you believe there should be a military, Henry?
I'm a minarchist...I advocate for the the Night Watchman proxy...

*Minimal, sensible, local constabulary.

*Minimal, sensible, local court of last resort.

*A straight forward border patrol (about as close to a military as I wanna get).

*The militia.

No legislators included or required.

These four exist solely to offer redress for violations of individual life, liberty, and property.

I'm thinkin' you don't approve of even this minimal collection of proxies (in fact, I know you don't cuz we, you and me, done talked about all this before).

-----

edit: took out an unnecessary line that most surely woulda been misconstrued
Last edited by henry quirk on Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:03 am
henry quirk wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:49 pm No man craves the leash ...
If you think a leash is the only form of slavery or that, so long as one is not chained up or imprisoned, they are free, you have a very shallow view of freedom, it seems to me. Most people gladly give up, what they call, "a little freedom," for the sake of society, or safety, or peace-of-mind, or to evade risk or difficulty. Some give up freedom for very practical reason (like indentured servants). Most give up freedom simply because they are unwilling to pay the price of total responsibility for their own life and choices and crave relief from risk and difficulty such responsibility entails.
When I say leash I'm not talkin' about just the obvious physical example.

Yeah, folks get hoodwink'd into tradin' freedom for security, but this is gullibility on their part, not some desire to be ruled...meh...already wrote about this up-thread...you didn't address it then, so why repeat myself?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:56 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:41 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:36 am

I'm not going to trowel through a decade of comments. You must know what you've written. You always brush over it but include it in your ideal govts. 'limited spending'.
Why do yanks equate freedom with money anyway? Surely in your law-of-the-jungle utopia there would be no money. Ron Swanson has his riches in gold, in a hole in the ground (while working for the govt.) :lol:
So: you got nuthin' to support your claim I supports taxes to fund the military (which, had you gone lookin', you woulda never found cuz I never said it).

And: the rest is for crap and not worth comment (cuz you're wrong, wrong, wrong).
Cuz you say so....
If you had said you don't believe in funding the military then that would have definitely stood out.
Veg, any time you wanna hang me, just back up your claims about what I believe or don't believe with citation. As you say, there's years of posts, years of me declarin' this or sayin' that. Go find some evidence to back that mouth of yours or be quiet.

You won't, of course, cuz...

1 You know no such evidence exists to back your accusations. The best you could do is cherrypick, dis-embed quotes from context thereby givin' those quotes the appearance of bein' damning. You know I'd simply restore the context to those quotes and negate you.

2 All this back & forth isn't about my politics or philosophy...fact is you plain don't like me so you jab away with a sharp stick like a demented chimp. The proof is: not once have you accused RC of promotin' a doomed law of the jungle utopia and he favors no gov at all. You give him no grief over a lack of details when he offers little beyond what to my mind appears to be just idealism (coupled with some truly bleak notions about folks in general).

Truth is, as I say, you don't like me and all your lil jabs are fueled by that dislike. You couldn't care less about my notions 'cept as miscategorin' 'em gives you ammo.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:43 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:08 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:41 am So: you got nuthin' to support your claim I supports taxes to fund the military ...
Do you believe there should be a military, Henry?
I'm a minarchist...I advocate for the the Night Watchman proxy...

*Minimal, sensible, local constabulary.

*Minimal, sensible, local court of last resort.

*A straight forward border patrol (about as close to a military as I wanna get).

*The militia.

... These four exist solely to offer redress for violations of individual life, liberty, and property.

I'm thinkin' you don't approve of even this minimal collection of proxies (in fact, I know you don't cuz we, you and me, done talked about all this before).
First of all, it's not up to me to approve or disapprove of how anyone chooses to, "organize," things, if they want to. That organization is certainly not one I'd be interested in, because to have those things there must be some kind of, "agencies," in charge of policing (constabulary), judging (courts), and defense (malitia). Who pays for them? Who decides which individuals are members of those agencies? What about those who aren't interested in any of them and choose to handle their own protection and negotiations with others?

I certainly don't care if you can arrange to have things that way. Personally I'll provide or pay for my own protection and since I am never a threat to anyone else and only deal with others on a voluntary basis, I have no need of anyone else making judgements for me.

I think the main difference we have is that whatever, "system," you believe is the right one, you'd require everyone to be subject to it, otherwise our disagreement is only about a personal preference.

Of course, the real problem is, your scheme will never actually be implemented. I don't mean this offensively, but it's really a Utopian dream. Do you really believe there will ever be such a system?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Who pays for them?

People pay for what they want; they don't pay for what they don't want. I suspect more folks will voluntarily pay for what amounts to insurance than not.


Who decides which individuals are members of those agencies?

There are no agencies, just service and product providers. Is your local grocer run by an agency? No, it's only hamstrung by legislators. In a self-regulated free enterprise enviroment, providers will rise and fall based solely on performance. Over time, natural monopolies will form and last only as long as they perform well.


What about those who aren't interested in any of them and choose to handle their own protection and negotiations with others?

As I say: These four exist solely to offer redress for violations of individual life, liberty, and property.

Seems clear to me: I'm talkin' about free transactions, thru contract or on a case-by-case basis.


I have no need of anyone else making judgements for me.

You can envision no circumstance where a third-party arbiter might be needed?


you'd require everyone to be subject to it,

Nope...for those who want it, it would be available...that's it, that's all.


Do you really believe there will ever be such a system.

Yep. As I say, the long haul direction has been and will continue to be away from the slaver kings toward recognizing individual liberty. It's inevitable.
Last edited by henry quirk on Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:16 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:09 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:56 am
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:41 am

So: you got nuthin' to support your claim I supports taxes to fund the military (which, had you gone lookin', you woulda never found cuz I never said it).

And: the rest is for crap and not worth comment (cuz you're wrong, wrong, wrong).
Cuz you say so....
If you had said you don't believe in funding the military then that would have definitely stood out.
Veg, any time you wanna hang me, just back up your claims about what I believe or don't believe with citation. As you say, there's years of posts, years of me declarin' this or sayin' that. Go find some evidence to back that mouth of yours or be quiet.

You won't, of course, cuz...

1 You know no such evidence exists to back your accusations. The best you could do is cherrypick, dis-embed quotes from context thereby givin' those quotes the appearance of bein' damning. You know I'd simply restore the context to those quotes and negate you.

2 All this back & forth isn't about my politics or philosophy...fact is you plain don't like me so you jab away with a sharp stick like a demented chimp. The proof is: not once have you accused RC of promotin' a doomed law of the jungle utopia and he favors no gov at all. You give him no grief over a lack of details when he offers little beyond what to my mind appears to be just idealism (coupled with some truly bleak notions about folks in general).

Truth is, as I say, you don't like me and all your lil jabs are fueled by that dislike. You couldn't care less about my notions 'cept as miscategorin' 'em gives you ammo.
It's not a 'lil jab'. You have definitely included the military in the things you don't mind paying taxes for. You didn't give any other detail. Well I see that now you have. You have to admit you aren't generally big on detail.
I don't dislike you. I think your ideology is far too extreme and unworkable (like communism is). This is why you are short on detail--you know it can be picked apart easily. I can only think of two posters on here that I actually dislike (there are probably others who have slipped my mind). One of them is ''progressive'', the other a religious nut. There have been others in the past. TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things :lol: I haven't had much to do with him.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:09 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:56 am

Cuz you say so....
If you had said you don't believe in funding the military then that would have definitely stood out.
Veg, any time you wanna hang me, just back up your claims about what I believe or don't believe with citation. As you say, there's years of posts, years of me declarin' this or sayin' that. Go find some evidence to back that mouth of yours or be quiet.

You won't, of course, cuz...

1 You know no such evidence exists to back your accusations. The best you could do is cherrypick, dis-embed quotes from context thereby givin' those quotes the appearance of bein' damning. You know I'd simply restore the context to those quotes and negate you.

2 All this back & forth isn't about my politics or philosophy...fact is you plain don't like me so you jab away with a sharp stick like a demented chimp. The proof is: not once have you accused RC of promotin' a doomed law of the jungle utopia and he favors no gov at all. You give him no grief over a lack of details when he offers little beyond what to my mind appears to be just idealism (coupled with some truly bleak notions about folks in general).

Truth is, as I say, you don't like me and all your lil jabs are fueled by that dislike. You couldn't care less about my notions 'cept as miscategorin' 'em gives you ammo.
It's not a 'lil jab'. You have definitely included the military in the things you don't mind paying taxes for. You didn't give any other detail. Well I see that now you have. You have to admit you aren't generally big on detail.
I don't dislike you. I think your ideology is far too extreme and unworkable (like communism is). This is why you are short on detail--you know it can be picked apart easily. I can only think of two posters on here that I actually dislike (there are probably others who have slipped my mind). One of them is ''progressive'', the other a religious nut. There have been others in the past. TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things :lol: I haven't had much to do with him.
Hey, you want detail, I'm happy to oblige. You never do. Like a lotta folks, you sniff my posts, ask no questions and just criticize. In the face of that why would I offer details? I have, you know, here and there, and it never goes well. When I explain and detail and justify, the opponent, just reverts back some inane criticism, or pretends I meant sumthin' other than what I actually said.

How many times have I posted this...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property


...only to have you declare it as my utopian strongman wet-dream without any explanation of how recognizin', respectin', and defendin' the individual leads to the opposite.

You don't pay attention, cuz you don't care...almost no one here does.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

Almost forgo this...

You have definitely included the military in the things you don't mind paying taxes for

...I never said it.

You're lyin' or you're mistaken.

Pony up the evidence, or let it drop.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:08 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 5:09 pm

Veg, any time you wanna hang me, just back up your claims about what I believe or don't believe with citation. As you say, there's years of posts, years of me declarin' this or sayin' that. Go find some evidence to back that mouth of yours or be quiet.

You won't, of course, cuz...

1 You know no such evidence exists to back your accusations. The best you could do is cherrypick, dis-embed quotes from context thereby givin' those quotes the appearance of bein' damning. You know I'd simply restore the context to those quotes and negate you.

2 All this back & forth isn't about my politics or philosophy...fact is you plain don't like me so you jab away with a sharp stick like a demented chimp. The proof is: not once have you accused RC of promotin' a doomed law of the jungle utopia and he favors no gov at all. You give him no grief over a lack of details when he offers little beyond what to my mind appears to be just idealism (coupled with some truly bleak notions about folks in general).

Truth is, as I say, you don't like me and all your lil jabs are fueled by that dislike. You couldn't care less about my notions 'cept as miscategorin' 'em gives you ammo.
It's not a 'lil jab'. You have definitely included the military in the things you don't mind paying taxes for. You didn't give any other detail. Well I see that now you have. You have to admit you aren't generally big on detail.
I don't dislike you. I think your ideology is far too extreme and unworkable (like communism is). This is why you are short on detail--you know it can be picked apart easily. I can only think of two posters on here that I actually dislike (there are probably others who have slipped my mind). One of them is ''progressive'', the other a religious nut. There have been others in the past. TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things :lol: I haven't had much to do with him.
Hey, you want detail, I'm happy to oblige. You never do. Like a lotta folks, you sniff my posts, ask no questions and just criticize. In the face of that why would I offer details? I have, you know, here and there, and it never goes well. When I explain and detail and justify, the opponent, just reverts back some inane criticism, or pretends I meant sumthin' other than what I actually said.

How many times have I posted this...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property


...only to have you declare it as my utopian strongman wet-dream without any explanation of how recognizin', respectin', and defendin' the individual leads to the opposite.

You don't pay attention, cuz you don't care...almost no one here does.
Yet none of it MEANS ANYTHING.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: A Dawkins No-No

Post by henry quirk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:16 pm
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:08 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 7:06 pm

It's not a 'lil jab'. You have definitely included the military in the things you don't mind paying taxes for. You didn't give any other detail. Well I see that now you have. You have to admit you aren't generally big on detail.
I don't dislike you. I think your ideology is far too extreme and unworkable (like communism is). This is why you are short on detail--you know it can be picked apart easily. I can only think of two posters on here that I actually dislike (there are probably others who have slipped my mind). One of them is ''progressive'', the other a religious nut. There have been others in the past. TBH I didn't realise RC shared your ideology. I got the impression you two disagreed on most things :lol: I haven't had much to do with him.
Hey, you want detail, I'm happy to oblige. You never do. Like a lotta folks, you sniff my posts, ask no questions and just criticize. In the face of that why would I offer details? I have, you know, here and there, and it never goes well. When I explain and detail and justify, the opponent, just reverts back some inane criticism, or pretends I meant sumthin' other than what I actually said.

How many times have I posted this...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property


...only to have you declare it as my utopian strongman wet-dream without any explanation of how recognizin', respectin', and defendin' the individual leads to the opposite.

You don't pay attention, cuz you don't care...almost no one here does.
Yet none of it MEANS ANYTHING.
See? No questions, just inane criticism.

I have questions for you, though (none are meant to be crass or or misleading...I believe they cut to the root of things)

Is rape wrong?

If yeah, why?

If not, why not?

Please, think on it before you answer.
Post Reply