Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2014, 04:37 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 03:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Why would we give you more respect than you give us? You *have* been given the time of day by many people in this very thread. You have then proceeded to diagnose them with personality problems when they don't agree with you and you have not *once* to my knowledge, in this thread, taken note of any other person's point of view, even to the point of saying "I'll think about it".
Yes, you're completely right about that. The only thing I can say, this is how all Christians feel when an atheist comes along. The guy thinks he knows everything! He acts as a smartass trying to impress us with his fancy evolution and astrophysics and never gives Bible a chance.

If we ever were 1 on 1, especially in person, I could do it right. I could learn the person's POW and motivations and suggest only small changes, which I can't do when this damn thread is like airport lobby. But frankly, I'd first need to find someone who has a significant potential as a philosopher and doesn't get pissed off easily - who insist on talking on this stuff and doesn't think he's doing me some sort of favor by his presence. So consider this as a non-interactive presentation in the airport lobby for passersby to look at. Interested parties may call a phone number and order more materials.

(21-08-2014 03:42 PM)WeAreTheCosmos Wrote:  HBL was retired as the non sequitur champion. Lumi tends to connect the dots fairly well I think... All those imaginary dots.
Laugh out load Thumbsup

(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I... see. You heard an opinion.
And since it's one you agree with, it must be true!
Riiiiight.
I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that. But in a civil company, expressing opinions is not a bad thing. One day I'd love to have a group of friends where we can share opinions in which we are mutually interested and don't counter them by (citation needed).

(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You insult and belittle people all the time.
Not with dirty words and impersonations and direct attacks. Unintentionally. I think people are so insecure, that they feel bad in presence of someone who doesn't apologize or justify his existence and stance all the time.

(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I, for one, have literally never been threatened or substantively insulted by anything you have ever said.
Blink Then why do you treat me like shit? Why do you rant? Do you do that often in real life too? How many friends do you have? I mean friends, not frienemies.

(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here is the $64,000 question:
Why do you refuse to consider anyting anyone else presents to you?

It is far from a matter of no one wishing to look at what you present. It is very much a matter of looking and finding it incredibly wanting.
Because literally everything everyone is saying here, I have thought that before, I heard that a thousand times at school and another thousand times in Stefan Molyneux show. Same thing as Christian arguments. I am unable to fake interest, not with too many people at once, none of which is a prospective philosopher willing to withstand lots of discomfort to get to the core of truth. Molyneux pissed me off, but I returned for more. He still pisses me off about some things, but at least I've got ideas for my thesis.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I... see. You heard an opinion.
And since it's one you agree with, it must be true!
Riiiiight.
I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that.

You've done so repeatedly throughout this and other threads. It's your standard MO.

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But in a civil company, expressing opinions is not a bad thing. One day I'd love to have a group of friends where we can share opinions in which we are mutually interested and don't counter them by (citation needed).

In what is framed as a skeptical community, I should hardly desire to see unsubstantiated assertions taken at face value.

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You insult and belittle people all the time.
Not with dirty words and impersonations and direct attacks. Unintentionally.

"Unintentionally".

Forgive me for finding that hard to believe.

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I, for one, have literally never been threatened or substantively insulted by anything you have ever said.
Blink Then why do you treat me like shit?

That doesn't follow, but in any case...

Do I?

Have you considered that your perception of my tone may be divergent from my actual tone?

I freely concede I think you're full of shit, but I maintain that I was quite polite until you insulted me too many times, and I defy you to show otherwise.

How many people are even willing to attempt to engage with you to the extent that I have?

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do you rant?

Buddy, my responses to you do not, under any stretch of the imagination, constitute "ranting".

At best they embody wry detachment.

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you do that often in real life too? How many friends do you have?

"How many friends"...
Facepalm
Weeping

See, ol' Lumi, that's just the kind of inane, disingenuous bullshit that makes you so priceless.

(21-08-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Here is the $64,000 question:
Why do you refuse to consider anyting anyone else presents to you?

It is far from a matter of no one wishing to look at what you present. It is very much a matter of looking and finding it incredibly wanting.
Because literally everything everyone is saying here, I have thought that before, I heard that a thousand times at school and another thousand times in Stefan Molyneux show. Same thing as Christian arguments. I am unable to fake interest, not with too many people at once, none of which is a prospective philosopher willing to withstand lots of discomfort to get to the core of truth. Molyneux pissed me off, but I returned for more. He still pisses me off about some things, but at least I've got ideas for my thesis.

That's not an answer. Do you not see the problem with that response?

"I've heard it before" is not a valid dismissal. It does nothing to address your willingness and ability (or lack thereof) to actually examine and confront your own presuppositions.

That backhanded insult - "none [of you interlocutors] is a prospective philosopher" is just icing on the cake.

Consider the following: there are many Christians who are aware of evolution. They have heard of it many times before. They do not accept it. Why do you think that is?

Or consider: there are many physicists who are aware of string theory. They have heard of it many times before. They do not accept it. Why do you think that is?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
21-08-2014, 05:25 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 05:44 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 04:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not an answer. Do you not see the problem with that response?

"I've heard it before" is not a valid dismissal. It does nothing to address your willingness and ability (or lack thereof) to actually examine and confront your own presuppositions.

That backhanded insult - "none [of you interlocutors] is a prospective philosopher" is just icing on the cake.

Consider the following: there are many Christians who are aware of evolution. They have heard of it many times before. They do not accept it. Why do you think that is?

Or consider: there are many physicists who are aware of string theory. They have heard of it many times before. They do not accept it. Why do you think that is?
Ah. I should have said, I've heard it before and then I've heard it all again plus very funny and insulting refutations for every single local "argument". But meanwhile I got into philosophy courses and learned what is an argument and what isn't, what does have existence and what doesn't. I learned a lot, changed a lot and learned so much of partly related or unrelated stuff on the side, and passed so many exams, that I can not easily imagine how I was back then. In some ways, I got more down to earth and practical. In other ways, that practicality made me more sure of myself, which made me more radical, less careful and thus seemingly more crazy. Somewhere along the way, people started to understand me less and less, yet I started to understand them more and more.
And yes, I know this is the most insane thing I could possibly say. So what? I like the challenge. I am having a good laugh at everything cultural right now.

I should wear a black and yellow striped shirt saying "UNDER CONSTRUCTION". And you know what? I like that. It's not like my old life at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 05:36 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:25 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And yes, I know this is the most insane thing I could possibly say. So what? It's my adrenaline sport.

There are easier ways to have fun than to play an idiot on a forum.
(hint: that's called trolling)

(21-08-2014 05:25 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Ah. I should have said, I've heard it before and then I've heard it all again plus very funny and insulting refutations for every single local "argument". But meanwhile I got into philosophy courses and learned what is an argument and what isn't, what does have existence and what doesn't. I learned a lot, changed a lot and learned so much of partly related or unrelated stuff on the side, and passed so many exams, that I can not easily imagine how I was back then. In some ways, I got more down to earth and practical. In other ways, that practicality made me more sure of myself, which made me more radical, less careful and thus seemingly more crazy. Somewhere along the way, people started to understand me less and less, yet I started to understand them more and more.

None of that addresses my comments.

You've attempted to substantiate yourself with things that are factually inaccurate. Either you are unable to vet sources or you don't care so long as they support you. This lamentable inexactitude is absolutely rampant throughout everything you post.

If the disagreement is between you and the rest of the universe, it is not sane to conclude the universe to be in error.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
21-08-2014, 06:33 PM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2014 07:00 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 10:02 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 05:41 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  NoYes, DLJ. That's the theory of its function, but it does not always function this way. I've been on the inside of regulation for 10 years. I promise you that the bank - if it really wants the funds - will violate federal securities laws and take their fine as a cost of doing business.

Most of the regulation is already in place, I promise you. The securities rules are clear and in place, yet Broker dealers like UBS traded credit default swaps like it was going out to style. They bet against their customers. All those regulations were Already in place. But UBS made 2 billion from it. The fine was 500 million. Cost of doing business.

I made some small corrections.

And there is a well known Indian IT Services company that does the same thing.

But taking DBS as a recent example... they had a 7.5 hour outage of their ATMs and the MAS (Monetary Authority of Singapore) slapped a $210m fine on them and ordered a change to the Incident Management process for all operating banks in SG so that major outages had to be reported within one hour.

All banks complied before the July deadline.

This also applies to more every-day regulations like the highway code / parking restrictions etc.

Most people comply most of the time. If the regulation is known about, then it acts as a deterrent.

Sometimes benefits of non-compliance outweigh the risks so not everyone complies all the time.

Wink

Again, no.

Anti-Money Laundering regulations have been in place for a long time. UBS and RBS repeatedly violate them. Because it's lucrative.

FYI - I'm speaking specifically about US securities regulations.

If the AML regulations worked, literally all the Broker Dealers wouldn't have purposely and willfully violated these regulations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryal...fine-club/

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:44 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Meh. I'm not sure that's even enough of a disincentive. Here is the thing:

The securities market is nothing more than a casino. It's all a matter of placing bets. Some of those bets have good odds and lower payouts (low risk investments), others have low odds and high payouts (high risk investments).

In order for someone to win their bet, someone must lose. The problem is that EVERYTHING has risk. Even if you stuff all your money in your mattress, you still have the risk that your house will burn down.

And people can't handle it when risk is realized. They think someone must have cheated if they lost their bet. And in many instances, people were placing bets at high stakes tables that they had no business playing at. Then they use regulation to try to ensure that people don't lose their ass (and that is impossible)

Right, and that makes sense. Another thing to do would be to separate investment (gambling) bank from regular savings. Another thing to do would be to force a split of the banks, so that the market could absorb it when one failed. Actually give themselves a chance to wipe themselves out of existence, and hope that's enough incentive to take safer bets. Another thing I would like to see, and this was proposed by Elizabeth Warren, was reintroducing basic banking services within US Post Offices. It could help generate revenue and would simultaneously offer cheap, reliable, and secure banking for millions of Americans that otherwise need to rely on payday loan sharks and such.

It was called Glass Steagall act. Which forbid banks and investment banks and insurance arms to affiliate.

Then, the glass Steagall act was repealed by the gramm-leach-bliley act which allowed citi bank and Citigroup to affiliate. Creating a "too big to fail" megabanks.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2014, 06:42 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 06:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 12:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, and that makes sense. Another thing to do would be to separate investment (gambling) bank from regular savings. Another thing to do would be to force a split of the banks, so that the market could absorb it when one failed. Actually give themselves a chance to wipe themselves out of existence, and hope that's enough incentive to take safer bets. Another thing I would like to see, and this was proposed by Elizabeth Warren, was reintroducing basic banking services within US Post Offices. It could help generate revenue and would simultaneously offer cheap, reliable, and secure banking for millions of Americans that otherwise need to rely on payday loan sharks and such.

It was called Glass Steagall act. Which forbid banks and investment banks and insurance arms to affiliate.

Then, the glass Steagall act was repealed by the gramm-leach-bliley act which allowed citi bank and Citigroup to affiliate. Creating a "too big to fail" megabanks.

Biggest mistake of the Clinton era.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
21-08-2014, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 05:42 AM by Cathym112.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 06:42 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(21-08-2014 06:40 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  It was called Glass Steagall act. Which forbid banks and investment banks and insurance arms to affiliate.

Then, the glass Steagall act was repealed by the gramm-leach-bliley act which allowed citi bank and Citigroup to affiliate. Creating a "too big to fail" megabanks.

Biggest mistake of the Clinton era.

Agreed.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
21-08-2014, 07:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 06:33 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  ...
Again, no.

Anti-Money Laundering regulations have been in place for a long time. UBS and RBS repeatedly violate them. Because it's lucrative.

FYI - I'm speaking specifically about US securities regulations.
...

I know you are.

But then, y'know, Murikans, :sigh:, :rolls eyes:

What does one expect from a society founded by / evolved from land-grab, gold-rush, scum-sucking settlers. Angel

So, again you say "no" as though you are disagreeing with the wider concept that policies and procedures cannot act as a deterrent or change behaviour.

If this is true then Lumi is correct and governance is useless and therefore superfluous.

I don't think you are missing the wider point but it does read that way.

But I think we are both saying that many profit-oriented social groups e.g. banks, are behaving with Pre-Conventional morality:

(16-08-2014 12:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
i ..... Obedience and punishment orientation (“how can I avoid punishment?”)
ii .... Self-interest orientation (“what's in it for me?” ; Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
i ..... Interpersonal accord and conformity (social norms; the “good boy/girl” attitude)
ii .... Authority and social-order maintaining orientation (law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
i ..... Social contract orientation
ii .... Universal ethical principles (principled conscience)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...evelopment
...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2014, 05:23 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2014 05:29 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-08-2014 05:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  None of that addresses my comments.

You've attempted to substantiate yourself with things that are factually inaccurate. Either you are unable to vet sources or you don't care so long as they support you. This lamentable inexactitude is absolutely rampant throughout everything you post.

If the disagreement is between you and the rest of the universe, it is not sane to conclude the universe to be in error.
Facts are meaningless without interpretation and connection into a systematic worldview. That needs a lot of divergent thinking, not just convergent. I think that is an objective process, but it can't be algorithmized. Which means, people will come at the same conclusions if they've got the same skill, but the skill can't be easily transferred. Practice will literally change you and the way how you experience theory and facts. Marathon running is an objective discipline, but you don't become a runner by studying it. There marathon experience plays a role in evaluation.

In sociology this skill is called "theoretical sensitivity" and there's another called "sociological imagination". The latter is more of a personality trait, the former is more of a skill or expertise. There's no way of mass producing that. Or proving that I have these skills, for that matter. Or getting anyone admit that I do. I might be a million times right and accurate, but I don't know how to say it in a non-threatening and non-predatory way.

I'm sorry, this must sound terrible. Another of my attempts to look smarter or more competent in some way, which you must of course vehemently deny in order to save face. Well, I'm getting a little sick of that. This is what I've been trying to get - get sick, upping the stakes until I do. I want to get sick of things that I should, when I should. I understood some of the influence I have on people and it was some terrible psychological arithmetics to do. You've been very helpful.

(FYI, that's the problem with trauma, it gets suppressed or sublimated in order to maintain sanity and self-respect, but then when it's safe, it's difficult to dig up and deconstruct, it tends to remain in personality in form of predatory habits, even though quite intellectually sublimated and even valued socially as a virtue)

(21-08-2014 07:44 PM)DLJ Wrote:  But I think we are both saying that many profit-oriented social groups e.g. banks, are behaving with Pre-Conventional morality:
Government is by definition a pre-conventional profit-oriented institution (Roman and medieval ages had taxes too). Banks and other profit-oriented groups simply go by the way of the least resistance, they do whatever is a successful profit strategy. Government just takes money without asking. So banks and corporations invest into the government and they're short term good, election-term oriented. If people were allowed to keep their money without the various taxes, the banks would be customer-oriented and focused on generational good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: