Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I see Luminon.

Locked systems of thought tend to be Rationalistic and Idealist in nature and almost impermeable to Empiricism and counter evidence (sometimes using empirical evidence that fits the pre-existing conclusions). This is where I depart from some libertarians and all anarchists.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
28-05-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 04:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 04:11 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Bitcoin is a joke, as are other unregulated cryptocurrencies.

Also, how were you able to watch a 45 minute long video and then write up a 3 paragraph 'response' to it only 30 minutes later?Consider
By knowing everything the professor was saying from official study, self-study and independent sources. It's just a mix of official narrative, economy 101 and history 101. The truth is simple. Quantitative easing is mass forgery of currency, as if a Zimbabwe dictator had an infinite supply of paper and ink.

You on the other hand don't know that Bitcoin is the most regulated currency on Earth, its code is designed to slow down the creation of new bitcoins and stop at 21 million or so. It's encrypted and there's no way to create any more bitcoins. Bitcoins are unstable, because our view is moving with dollar.

[Image: 10389519_793831723969336_840115134879946276_n.jpg]

(28-05-2014 04:30 AM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  I don't like our government much either but I just deal with it, don't care about america's government enough to careDrinking Beverage
When someone halfway across the planet is printing money, your purchasing power drops as if that someone was stealing money from you. Meet Mr Obama. Whatever your currency is, it's likely 80 % dollar-based.
It's the same thing that destroyed Roman empire. Only in Roman empire gold coins had at least 3 % of gold in them.

Nothing you can do about that, just next year there is an increased risk of downfall in dollar value and in value of every currency on the planet. This year we're probably still OK, making it worse.

Yabut I am going to japan.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 01:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 01:21 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I see Luminon.

Locked systems of thought tend to be Rationalistic and Idealist in nature and almost impermeable to Empiricism and counter evidence (sometimes using empirical evidence that fits the pre-existing conclusions). This is where I depart from some libertarians and all anarchists.
Right. But I know Moly well, I know why he's impervious to change. Not that he needs to change, he does a great job for the foreseeable time. But given opportunity, I would remind him of his aversion to people he perceives as damaged. People from dysfunctional families like me, they go to great lengths to explore alternative ways of thought - even scientifically and sometimes they have valuable stuff. We both know that childhood trauma screws up logic, so he's right in shooting first if these people show up. I got shot down as well and I'm a little pissed off at Moly. However, frankly speaking I'm much more pissed at my parents for the same reason and I know that.

He can't take these people seriously, until they face their demons. Not everyone does. Pablo Picasso was a big violent douchebag. So was Ernest Hemingway, an alcoholic. Thomas A. Edison was a slanderer of Tesla. Albert Einstein was unfaithful eccentric. Steve Jobs was an evil bastard towards his employees. No matter their accomplishments, he won't talk to such people fairly until they are virtuous, because virtue is essential for making and processing logical arguments. Until he meets a virtuous person with self-knowledge who disagrees with him, Moly will interpret the other person through his psychological theories and won't take the arguments literally, he'll always Freudize them away.

There's more to that, but I think I've got the point. There's a way to wake up the bald sleeping beauty, and it takes to be a prince on a white horse in shining armor, not an ugly hag in rags. Of course I don't have all that much to criticize him, I rather build on him, generalize him. I think he doesn't shoot down some people like me consciously and he'd try to control it if told and proven, but nonetheless I think he has fair demands. Even if it takes a donation to prove I'm serious, I think that is fair, considering how much of his content I consume. We'll see about that when I get a steady income. One thing I hate about him is his equation of mental health and aptitude on the job market! Sometimes he pisses me off with his virtuous Capitalism, even though he's right about that. But still, if there were no inept hunters, nobody would invent agriculture Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 01:45 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Right. But I know Moly well, I know why he's impervious to change. Not that he needs to change, he does a great job for the foreseeable time. But given opportunity, I would remind him of his aversion to people he perceives as damaged. People from dysfunctional families like me, they go to great lengths to explore alternative ways of thought - even scientifically and sometimes they have valuable stuff. We both know that childhood trauma screws up logic, so he's right in shooting first if these people show up. I got shot down as well and I'm a little pissed off at Moly. However, frankly speaking I'm much more pissed at my parents for the same reason and I know that.

He can't take these people seriously, until they face their demons. Not everyone does. Pablo Picasso was a big violent douchebag. So was Ernest Hemingway, an alcoholic. Thomas A. Edison was a slanderer of Tesla. Albert Einstein was unfaithful eccentric. Steve Jobs was an evil bastard towards his employees. No matter their accomplishments, he won't talk to such people fairly until they are virtuous, because virtue is essential for making and processing logical arguments. Until he meets a virtuous person with self-knowledge who disagrees with him, Moly will interpret the other person through his psychological theories and won't take the arguments literally, he'll always Freudize them away.

There's more to that, but I think I've got the point. There's a way to wake up the bald sleeping beauty, and it takes to be a prince on a white horse in shining armor, not an ugly hag in rags. Of course I don't have all that much to criticize him, I rather build on him, generalize him. I think he doesn't shoot down some people like me consciously and he'd try to control it if told and proven, but nonetheless I think he has fair demands. Even if it takes a donation to prove I'm serious, I think that is fair, considering how much of his content I consume. We'll see about that when I get a steady income. One thing I hate about him is his equation of mental health and aptitude on the job market! Sometimes he pisses me off with his virtuous Capitalism, even though he's right about that. But still, if there were no inept hunters, nobody would invent agriculture Tongue

Right, the Freudianeske explanation for everything that's wrong with society reminds me of the maxim: "explanations that explain everything, explain nothing".

Again he believes "there are no good parents in the world today like [he] believe[s] there were no good physicians in the 13th century". It really doesnt get any more dogmatic thatn that.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2014 02:44 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 02:04 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Right, the Freudianeske explanation for everything that's wrong with society reminds me of the maxim: "explanations that explain everything, explain nothing".

Again he believes "there are no good parents in the world today like [he] believe[s] there were no good physicians in the 13th century". It really doesnt get any more dogmatic thatn that.
That's the thing, I don't think he's as radical as you say! I never caught him claiming any absolutes like that. I think outside sources don't reflect him accurately, they radicalize him and leave out the rational reasons for what he says. (surprise surprise)
He said that about one person in 100 (general population) needs to deFOO. Although the studies say that 90 % of people still spank their children, especially the younger ones! That is truly a medieval practice. He says he is greatly in favor of good and happy families, he's just against corruption. I have heard him praising the sibling relationships, siblings tend to be of similar age, so they can support each other for all their lives, which can be one of deepest relationships ever. And I know how bad his brother was.
However, Moly is empiricist. People claim family bond is the strongest bridge between people. If you say that, put a foot on it! If we believe that our relationship with family is good, then great! Be an empiricist, tell them how do you feel and let them react! If they respond in a loving, nurturing, curious way, it's a good family. If they deny your feelings, defend themselves, invent excuses or act hurt or passive aggressive, then something is not right.

This is where shit hits the fan. Moly gives people a way to prove what he says. Only it's a very dangerous test that very often proves him right, among those who actually call him. He was proven right in my case. What about you? You know the drill. That's where people leave him, because it's more than a verbal hobby. This kind of moral talk creates personal obligations and goes way out of people's comfort zone. Being honest in dishonest relationships is one of the greatest taboos and this culture has jealously guarded taboos like any other culture. Only they're better hidden. I think those who fail his test (or spanked and yelled at their children who later left them!) are his most vocal critics. Happy rational people prefer to spend time with their families than to criticize one internet guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 03:00 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 02:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 02:04 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Right, the Freudianeske explanation for everything that's wrong with society reminds me of the maxim: "explanations that explain everything, explain nothing".

Again he believes "there are no good parents in the world today like [he] believe[s] there were no good physicians in the 13th century". It really doesnt get any more dogmatic thatn that.
That's the thing, I don't think he's as radical as you say! I never caught him claiming any absolutes like that. I think outside sources don't reflect him accurately, they radicalize him and leave out the rational reasons for what he says. (surprise surprise)
He said that about one person in 100 (general population) needs to deFOO. Although the studies say that 90 % of people still spank their children, especially the younger ones! That is truly a medieval practice. He says he is greatly in favor of good and happy families, he's just against corruption. I have heard him praising the sibling relationships, siblings tend to be of similar age, so they can support each other for all their lives, which can be one of deepest relationships ever. And I know how bad his brother was.
However, Moly is empiricist. People claim family bond is the strongest bridge between people. If you say that, put a foot on it! If we believe that our relationship with family is good, then great! Be an empiricist, tell them how do you feel and let them react! If they respond in a loving, nurturing, curious way, it's a good family. If they deny your feelings, defend themselves, invent excuses or act hurt or passive aggressive, then something is not right.

This is where shit hits the fan. Moly gives people a way to prove what he says. Only it's a very dangerous test that very often proves him right, among those who actually call him. He was proven right in my case. What about you? You know the drill. That's where people leave him, because it's more than a verbal hobby. This kind of moral talk creates personal obligations and goes way out of people's comfort zone. Being honest in dishonest relationships is one of the greatest taboos and this culture has jealously guarded taboos like any other culture. Only they're better hidden. I think those who fail his test are his most vocal critics. Happy rational people prefer to spend time with their families than to criticize one internet guy.

What you're saying is anecdotal evidence not empirical evidence. Yes, he is right on the fact that you shouldnt spank your kids. Psychologists have been saying this for a long time. The issue is that he proposes a libertarian parenting system (no time outs or go to your rooms or grounding) that has little to no data for comparison. Kudos on him for advocating against child abuse. The issue is that because he is an idealist first and not an empiricist, he goes for a complete unauthoritarian system where he has to figure out how to manipulate (or negotiate as he calls it) the child to do what the parent wants. I don't know that psychologists go that far.

Other things that are commendable from him are, opposition to socialism, relativism, feminism and religion.

His approach to therapy, anarchy and statistics is worrisome.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2014, 10:58 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2014 08:18 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-05-2014 04:58 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also pointing to Zimbabwe's hyper-inflation ignores the dozen or so other factors that simply do not apply to modern America. That was the point of the video. Thanks for proving you didn't watch it.
Frankly, it's painful to watch. I get the same feeling like when Jehovah's witnesses give me their pamphlets with "moral advice" and "scientific evidence for creation" and tell me: "it's supposed to be convincing for you! Take it seriously or we get offended!"
I am unable to imagine any possible reason that would make wholesale printing of money and going hundreds of trillions into debt a good idea. There's no way to sugarcoat american fiscal policy, it stinks so bad. It's like when you look at the Jehovah's pamphlet and there's "proof of creation inside", you just know there's going to be bullshit inside.

That's because instead of trying to comprehend anything, you instead reflectively reject anything that even appears to contradict with your assumed preconceptions. Well, if you can't be bothered and would rather make poor excuses, then fuck you too. Why should I bother looking at any of your shit?

(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am unable to imagine any possible reason..

That because you simply refuse to, and instead would rather strawman a video you didn't even watch rather than attempt to actually counter what it actually said. Fuck you.

Then you add this on top of that...

(28-05-2014 10:56 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm from Czech Republic. It's a small oligarchy with ridiculously corrupt government. Our schools, police, currency, hospitals and pension security are Communist (just like in USA), but nobody sees them that way, because words don't mean anything anymore, after media are done with them.

Yeah, you're fucking retarded and ignorant as all hell.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
29-05-2014, 02:35 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(28-05-2014 10:58 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's because instead of trying to comprehend anything, you instead reflectively reject anything that even appears to contradict with your assumed preconceptions. Well, if you can't be bothered and would rather make poor excuses, then fuck you too. Why should I both looking at any of your shit?
Frankly, TTA is so addictive and I should rather study for exams and do homework. I keep myself at least from watching videos that I know are false, because things I have learned for years tell me they're fase.

I am already using a browser-blocking app, but apparently I'm not using it enough.
I'll be able to watch that economic video with clear conscience in a few days, no sooner. I procrastinate a lot, another courtesy of my family that bullied me into duties.

So I'm going to push this Nuclear option button to block me for a few hours now.

(28-05-2014 03:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  What you're saying is anecdotal evidence not empirical evidence. Yes, he is right on the fact that you shouldnt spank your kids. Psychologists have been saying this for a long time.

The issue is that he proposes a libertarian parenting system (no time outs or go to your rooms or grounding) that has little to no data for comparison. Kudos on him for advocating against child abuse. The issue is that because he is an idealist first and not an empiricist, he goes for a complete unauthoritarian system where he has to figure out how to manipulate (or negotiate as he calls it) the child to do what the parent wants. I don't know that psychologists go that far.
I don't know what do you mean libertarian parenting system, I've never heard of it. Moly is a philosopher who married a psychologist. As I've discovered, psychology is not all crap and psychobabble, it can cut pretty deep, especially Alice Miller and John Bradshaw.
Moly definitely is an empiricist. But empirical reality is specific to area of science that it was found in. Empirical method can't formulate generally valid statements about reality that we need for moral philosophy, facts tend to have no moral meaning in themselves. It only serves for corrections and testing, not as a beginning. Moly first formulates a moral theory and then corrects it for biological state of children, such as toddler aggression doesn't count as initiation of violence...

He often mentions Allison Gopnik and her book The Philosophical Baby. Babies can do moral and statistical calculations very well, they can spot fairness and inequality and above all, they generalize. They observe a parent's behavior and consider that a general rule. If the parent is a hypocrite (do as I say, not as I do), then he loses natural respect and problems start.
Molyneux does not manipulate, perhaps except me, I triggered his defenses. He negotiates with honesty, logic and reason, as we all deserve as human beings. Freedom for you is freedom for me. He permits his daughter to exercise her will at times that would seem trivial to us and at which a normal parent would simply force or manipulate the child to obey for his convenience. He does not lie, but tells parts of truth on a level that the child can understand.
Real parenting only starts when we forbid ourselves to initiate coercion against children. Then we really need to start explaining and negotiating, as we would as adults in a healthy relationship. Hell, any relationship really starts when we don't beat the person!
Children need first 4 years of intense training, explanation and preparation, then they'll grow up healthier and more independent than you or me. 99 % of parenting is preparation, says Moly and that sound like a pretty active approach to me.

Now imagine if the child was a person. Children indeed are persons, but imagining it is painful. Their will and desires seem stupid and trivial to us. Yet these desires will, when they grow up, decide what do they want to do in life. These will get them out of bed, they will find them better jobs and better relationships. Desire is an enormously important power. If our desire is unfullfilled, bent and twisted, we become escapists, addicted to instant gratification (computer games). If our will is replaced by external will, then when that (parental) will is gone, we are left unmotivated, unambitious and procrastinating. If we are treated like slaves, we will work like slaves, slowly and badly.
Today's corporations reflect that. We blame corporations a lot, but they're built of people who grew up bullied into work and don't work without bullying. We can't grow up bullied and with our will thwarted at every step and then start behaving like self-confident citizens in a free democratic state. It just doesn't work that way.

(28-05-2014 03:00 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Other things that are commendable from him are, opposition to socialism, relativism, feminism and religion.

His approach to therapy, anarchy and statistics is worrisome.
Man, don't you wish he was wrong? If Molyneux was wrong about these things, the world would be such a better place. But that would be a whole different world, I think.
I don't know what's his problem with statistics, but I can't see how statistics could be so much better that it would invalidate his points. He quotes an awful lot of statistics and many of them are related. In economy, what goes around, comes around and there's always more hidden than it shows. If some statistics are bad, there is no way how other statistics could be that much better. For example, high U.S. prison population likely means high national debt (who's paying) which likely means lots of money printing...

Therapy is worrisome. Crappy childhood means crappy therapy. As I once said, it's a whole can of Frank Herbert's Dune worms and I stand by this metaphor.

One of the worst things that parents can do is shaming. Toxic shame is agony. It is extremely effective at making kids do things, but it destroys personality. It's not just torture, toxic shame is a condemnation to a lifetime of self-torture. It drives narcissism and perfectionism and it is contagious on all the further generations. It's one of poisons that destroyed my family and it's what such parents use to parent their children, because they know no better. They have no self-worth and so they don't believe their children could possibly obey them voluntarily. So they must shame and enslave them. Of course they did a terrible, immoral thing, but they must portray themselves as virtuous. That's the worst lie - bad things can happen to us, but if we believe they are virtuous, we are bound to repeat them.

When you understand toxic shame, you understand that Molyneux deals with very, very scary things. Moral philosophy is one of the most dangerous things in the world, morality exists primarily to be twisted, misused and used as an ideological weapon. Preferably, to shame masses into mass killing. Parents install the shame buttons, rulers push them to control masses. Philosophers' job is to set the morality and logic right, but that goes through self-knowledge. It's one of the most difficult things I ever did.
If you don't believe this is real, read these books.

Here it's the end of rationality as usual, to check the facts and figures by googling them up. Darwin knows our society is deeply irrational and so it can only tolerate a deeply impersonal rationality - instrumental, as sociologists would say. Natural scientists do not care if heavy elements are used for curing cancer or making bombs, science is a blunt, convenient tool and so are all the academics and intellectuals. They are correct, but not right, in moral sense. Social scientists are almost all deeply politized, worshiping the state.

Yes, anarchy is a bad idea, if people are broken down and toxically shamed, seeking parental figures to follow. Molyneux prefers the approach of bringing up children in a healthy way. That would be a natual and very realistic approach.
I accepted it as my own and it drives me to change everything that my family taught me. In that, I'm a lot like Christian de-converts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2014, 06:28 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(29-05-2014 02:35 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Darwin knows our society is deeply irrational and so it can only tolerate a deeply impersonal rationality - instrumental, as sociologists would say.

Which Darwin would that be?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
29-05-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(29-05-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-05-2014 02:35 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Darwin knows our society is deeply irrational and so it can only tolerate a deeply impersonal rationality - instrumental, as sociologists would say.

Which Darwin would that be?

The spirit of Charles that with in invisible hand ensures the stability and bliss of a society with no government.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djkamilo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: