If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Conversation (Academic))   You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to call your opinion bullshiat   (theconversation.edu.au) divider line 194
    More: Obvious, scientific opinion, fair and balanced, University of Sydney, rhetoric of science, Meryl Dorey, Plato  
•       •       •

9710 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2012 at 1:14 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



194 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-11 02:24:07 PM

Rent Party: mooseyfate:

To you, yes, he's a moron, but this is the Internet so what else is new. To me, he's a friend. One that I value enough not to belittle incessantly over something as insignificant as to wether or not 9/11 was inside job. If he's going to cling to that, let him. I know people with far shiattier opinions regarding things like religion and science, and they're farking schoolteachers.

It's OK to have dumb friends. God knows I've got enough of them. I've got dumb relatives, too, and most are pretty successful folks. But what I don't do is conflate the fact that just because you're good at something that you're smart. If you believe something that flies in the face of objective reality, and yet insist that what you believe is reflective of objective reality, you're dumb as a box of hammers.


Does it really bother you that much that I know that my friend is both smart AND incredibly misinformed about something? Because you seem to have a problen with the fact that I don't hold it against him or lord it over his head everytime he speaks.
 
2012-10-11 02:24:41 PM
After reading TFA, it sounds like he's expressing a lot of his opinions (ironic), his job is likely on the line, and he'll soon have to argue to his superiors as to why he's worthy to be kept on-board in a Liberal Arts position at a no-name school.

/"I think I'm worthy."
//"Why? Prove it."
///"It's my opinion that I'm..."
////"You're fired."
 
2012-10-11 02:26:02 PM

mooseyfate:
Does it really bother you that much that I know that my friend is both smart AND incredibly misinformed about something? Because you seem to have a problen with the fact that I don't hold it against him or lord it over his head everytime he speaks.


No, it bothers me that you continue to defend as "incredibly smart" someone who is objectively "incredibly dumb." It is at it's heart exactly what TFA was talking about.
 
2012-10-11 02:30:35 PM
Great article.

As a corollary, I've noticed that people have become increasingly afraid to argue. By argue, I don't mean trading insults. I mean making the case for something and persuading others.

That's fun for me and why I enjoy being a lawyer.

But it's hard to find anyone to argue with, especially the nuts. Every so often Christians come to the door. I politely listen to their opening spiel. When they ask me a question, I tell them that I'm an atheist and that they would be a lot happier without religion. And that I'd be happy to show them the errors and contradictions in the Bible.

Haven't had one take me up on it. The last ones looked horrified and started slowly backing away, saying nothing. They wouldn't even make the case for Christianity. Pathetic.
 
2012-10-11 02:30:52 PM

Rent Party: mooseyfate:
Does it really bother you that much that I know that my friend is both smart AND incredibly misinformed about something? Because you seem to have a problen with the fact that I don't hold it against him or lord it over his head everytime he speaks.

No, it bothers me that you continue to defend as "incredibly smart" someone who is objectively "incredibly dumb." It is at it's heart exactly what TFA was talking about.


He's the very smartest person in the whole wide world!
 
2012-10-11 02:34:37 PM

L.D. Ablo: Great article.

As a corollary, I've noticed that people have become increasingly afraid to argue. By argue, I don't mean trading insults. I mean making the case for something and persuading others.


I think that is an artifact of the whole "You should respect people's opinions" movement. Your mom thinks it's rude if you call someone wrong, even if they are. No politics or religion at the dinner table! I can't count the number of times I've heard "You think your opinion is always right."

Well no shiat! How many opinions do you hold that you think are wrong?
 
2012-10-11 02:37:44 PM

meat0918: The Dog Ate My Homework: FTA: Firstly, what's an opinion?

Firstly? A professor of philosophy actually uses this non-word? Good lord.

But that aside, it's actually a very interesting article.

I liked it.

You can't really argue over taste. But when your opinion is that vaccines cause autism, or the moon landing was fake, or the president was born in Kenya, well, I dunno what to say except, you're wrong and sadly no amount of facts will get you to change your mind.

Subtle nudges might work, but people don't want to question their beliefs. It's scary. Just suggesting it can cause anger and in extreme cases violence.


I wouldn't argue with the logic of the article since I agree with it but I do wonder about the vaccine part. While I don't doubt the efficacy of the flu vaccine, I do doubt the efficiency in real-world environments - thousands of strands and all that - justifies getting it.

From a quick Wiki read, I can't argue with the part where Dorey is saying, "We don't believe we have the right to tell people whether or not to vaccinate... and neither does the government". I did once hear someone say that the two largest contributors to the "population jump" of our past century was due mainly to antiseptics and proper sewage and not vaccination. While I do find that interesting, I can't find anything to actually support or debunk the claim.
 
2012-10-11 02:38:33 PM

Slartibartfaster: Moon landing - evidence will soon be proven either way, but the NASA declaration to avoid the landing zones is suspicious, I hope this happens soon (I am not a moon landing denier, but .. that act was suspicious)


No, you're just a moron. That was for historic preservation- I'm pretty sure once we have a big dome and a city on the moon or whatever, more than a few people are going to want to visit the Apollo 11 site or see Al Shepard's golf ball. NASA's putting out the word early that we're going to want to make sure those are preserved. It's the same reason we don't let people chisel off little bits of the Lincoln Memorial.

Plus, you can, you know, look at pictures. You also realize that anyone can pick up radio transmissions, right? If we hadn't gone, the Russians would have known, because there wouldn't have been any radio traffic actually coming from, you know, the moon, and they would have cried bloody murder.

The moon landings are way beyond doubt. We went there. People died doing it, both US and Russian. Every argument against them happening has been repeatedly disproven.
 
2012-10-11 02:39:01 PM

gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one.


And nobody wants to hear it.
 
2012-10-11 02:40:07 PM

rawbert7:

From a quick Wiki read, I can't argue with the part where Dorey is saying, "We don't believe we have the right to tell people whether or not to vaccinate... and neither does the government".


Well, that would be one opinion. My opinion would be that the primary function of government is to provide for the common good, and preventing widespread contagious disease is fine a place to start as any, so get your damn vaccinations, and keep your infectious kid away from mine if you don't.
 
2012-10-11 02:40:41 PM

Rent Party: No politics or religion at the dinner table


I don't know, I prefer to eat my meal in peace.

Funny actually, because the older generation (my father, and father-in-law) are always the ones arguing at the diner table and feel no need to keep they're crazy left/right wing ideas to themselves.
 
2012-10-11 02:43:02 PM

vactech: Rent Party: No politics or religion at the dinner table

I don't know, I prefer to eat my meal in peace.

Funny actually, because the older generation (my father, and father-in-law) are always the ones arguing at the diner table and feel no need to keep they're crazy left/right wing ideas to themselves.


I've always found that the dinner table is the best place to have those discussions. Politics and religion are the two foundations for how ethics play out in public policy. They need to be discussed more, not less.
 
2012-10-11 02:43:10 PM

NannyStatePark: meat0918: Sticky Hands: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to mock you for it.

Spoken like a true socialist.

//Words my father said to me when I said something similar to what you said. Needless to say, I don't speak much with him anymore since he went off the deep end.

I'd call that libertarian myself.

On Fark, it's open season anyway. Just when I think that things are getting civil I get called names or told by someone what I must think of something marginally related to the issue. If i didn't find it entertaining I'd leave.


It's Fark Classic Argumentum Ad Hominem.

You being a potential socialist has no bearing on the discussion.
 
2012-10-11 02:46:00 PM

Rent Party: LaraAmber: Mock26: I once had someone ask me what I thought of a particular singer, and when I said that I thought she was not very good he actually told me, "You're wrong." He then proceeded to lecture me on why my opinion was wrong. Years later his arrogance still makes me laugh!

I had one of those, but then he pointed out that "Good" could be interpreted as technical merit. So an artist could be "good" (well trained, hits notes correctly, can do very complex songs without error) but still "not be your style".

Object lesson in why that argument fails.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x390]

/ You've released the farking fury!


Yngwie is a perfect example. I don't care whether you like him or not, he is a very good player of the guitar, whether or not he plays notes in a pattern and tempo that pleases your ears.

It's not the argument I'd go with, because Yngwie is awesome, and anyone who hates him is a failed guitarist just jealous they can't shred like him. Also he's an expert showman. I saw him recently in London, on stage with other greats like Satriani, Gilbert, Kerry King was there for a bit, Zakk Wylde, etc, and they all played great, but didn't move much. Yngwie ran all over the place, throwing his guitar across the stage, literally, threw it to someone, over his head, without even looking... He makes a good spectacle, and any mad old woman upset by his language who throws water over him deserves to have the fury unleashed upon her.

That story was how I first learned about the existence of his Malmsteenian majesty.

So yeah, he plays a trillion notes a second without any need for your lame human 'feeling' and 'soul', therefore your opinion is invalid.
 
2012-10-11 02:51:43 PM

Rent Party: I've always found that the dinner table is the best place to have those discussions.


Why? There is...uh....everywhere else to have those discussions. Maybe you aren't used to enjoying good food or something.
 
2012-10-11 02:51:49 PM

L.D. Ablo: As a corollary, I've noticed that people have become increasingly afraid to argue. By argue, I don't mean trading insults. I mean making the case for something and persuading others.


"Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculating. Openness - and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings - is the great insight of our times. The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all." - Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (1986)
 
2012-10-11 02:54:10 PM

MadSkillz: NannyStatePark: meat0918: Sticky Hands: I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to mock you for it.

Spoken like a true socialist.

//Words my father said to me when I said something similar to what you said. Needless to say, I don't speak much with him anymore since he went off the deep end.

I'd call that libertarian myself.

On Fark, it's open season anyway. Just when I think that things are getting civil I get called names or told by someone what I must think of something marginally related to the issue. If i didn't find it entertaining I'd leave.

It's Fark Classic Argumentum Ad Hominem.

You being a potential socialist has no bearing on the discussion.


The bandwagon effect is rampant as well. I was in this crazy strip club thread and people didn't even read what I wrote because they needed me to be the sandy one. Oh well, showing my husband the thread was a good laugh.
 
2012-10-11 02:55:17 PM

Slaxl: Yngwie is awesome, and anyone who hates him is a failed guitarist just jealous they can't shred like him


Yngwie Shredding (pops)
 
2012-10-11 02:55:44 PM

rawbert7: I do doubt the efficiency in real-world environments - thousands of strands and all that - justifies getting it.


Doctors know more than you do.

There aren't thousands of strands. There are all of ten that occur in humans, and one type is usually far and away the most prevalent in any given year. We can make pretty good guesses as to the couple strains with the best odds, and the vaccine each year includes the three most likely. The only time the vaccine does not have a significant effect over a population is when you have a new strain, because it takes time to develop a vaccine, as was the case with the H1N1 pandemic a few years ago. Since then, H1N1 has been included in the vaccine cocktail. While it's not really necessary for most adults with healthy immune systems, that's not a reason to argue against vaccines in general.

And anti vaxxers aren't just against the flu vaccine, usually they go after stuff like the MMR vaccine. They have a much broader pattern of stupid, and it's often deadly. And the government absolutely should be mandating vaccines- it's a public health issue. Refusing vaccines can kill your kid, and can compromise the herd immunity that is valuable to keeping other people healthy- and absolutely critical to keeping people who have allergies to the vaccines alive. Among other reasons.
 
2012-10-11 02:55:53 PM

vactech: Rent Party: I've always found that the dinner table is the best place to have those discussions.

Why? There is...uh....everywhere else to have those discussions. Maybe you aren't used to enjoying good food or something.


Because religion and politics are ultimately about ethics, and your family should be the first place you discuss ethics. Arguing with Anonymous Internet Guy is, like all things internet related, for entertainment purposes only.

I am also the best farking cook you'll ever meet, including your momma.
 
2012-10-11 02:58:27 PM

cptjeff: Slartibartfaster: Moon landing - evidence will soon be proven either way, but the NASA declaration to avoid the landing zones is suspicious, I hope this happens soon (I am not a moon landing denier, but .. that act was suspicious)

No, you're just a moron. That was for historic preservation- I'm pretty sure once we have a big dome and a city on the moon or whatever, more than a few people are going to want to visit the Apollo 11 site or see Al Shepard's golf ball. NASA's putting out the word early that we're going to want to make sure those are preserved. It's the same reason we don't let people chisel off little bits of the Lincoln Memorial.

Plus, you can, you know, look at pictures. You also realize that anyone can pick up radio transmissions, right? If we hadn't gone, the Russians would have known, because there wouldn't have been any radio traffic actually coming from, you know, the moon, and they would have cried bloody murder.

The moon landings are way beyond doubt. We went there. People died doing it, both US and Russian. Every argument against them happening has been repeatedly disproven.


Everything cptjeff says is correct. There is ample evidence that we were at the moon and virtually no argument that we were not that stands up to more than a 1 minute explanation of some artifacts of photography and/or astronomy. (There are some arguments that take longer to explain why they're bunk. :-))
 
2012-10-11 03:01:27 PM

cptjeff: Slartibartfaster: Moon landing - evidence will soon be proven either way, but the NASA declaration to avoid the landing zones is suspicious, I hope this happens soon (I am not a moon landing denier, but .. that act was suspicious)

No, you're just a moron. That was for historic preservation- I'm pretty sure once we have a big dome and a city on the moon or whatever, more than a few people are going to want to visit the Apollo 11 site or see Al Shepard's golf ball. NASA's putting out the word early that we're going to want to make sure those are preserved. It's the same reason we don't let people chisel off little bits of the Lincoln Memorial.

Plus, you can, you know, look at pictures. You also realize that anyone can pick up radio transmissions, right? If we hadn't gone, the Russians would have known, because there wouldn't have been any radio traffic actually coming from, you know, the moon, and they would have cried bloody murder.

The moon landings are way beyond doubt. We went there. People died doing it, both US and Russian. Every argument against them happening has been repeatedly disproven.


Those NASA creeps got to you too, huh cptjeff?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-11 03:08:40 PM

SquiggsIN: Considering all the other things they've proven the government lied to us about, why would anyone think that anything is sacrad?

9/11 being an inside job? Why?

to get billions in insurance money to NYC developers to rebuild where an aging structure was standing.
to get the aging structure destroyed so that they could get billions of money spread around to rebuild
to get the publics support to invade Afghanistan (and later Iraq)
to ensure oil and natural gas supplies were being given their proper American priorities
to replace foreign "leaders" with puppets who will play ball with the US agenda
to ensure that we spend billions of dollars over a 10-15 year period on defense contractors
to ensure that the public didn't revolt when they legalized domestic spying
to remove the ability to question the government's actions immediately following the event
to coalesce the fabricated emotion of patriotism
to allow us to blame Muslim extremists and deflect blame for anything and everything away from the people in charge of our own government

all things being equal, it isn't that implausible. Maybe i'm not that smart, perhaps I'm deluded. But, when you go to trial for a murder they look for a motive. There were a lot of motives.


There's nothing inherently nefarious about having a motive. If my wife or I were to be killed tomorrow, the survivor would automatically have a motive, simply for the fact that we're the beneficiaries on each other's life insurance policies.

But looking at your list, not everyone who "benefitted" from the 9/11 attack and subsequent legislation/political shifts had the means or the opportunity to carry off the attack.

In addition, most of the items in your list don't attribute the motive to *specific people* - people who are going to benefit personally in the long run in such a way as to make it worth the risk. It just sounds like a list of "boy, wouldn't 'big government' love it if all these things came to pass". While that may be true, it doesn't identify specific people who could pull off the planning and execution of something that big, and then keep it a secret afterward.
 
2012-10-11 03:09:01 PM

PallMall: offmymeds: gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one. 

[d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net image 500x271]

Chinese man born with no anus Probably NSFW


Chinamen arent people
 
2012-10-11 03:13:20 PM

Tainted1: achingachingaching

 
2012-10-11 03:14:36 PM

BronyMedic: Those NASA creeps got to you too, huh cptjeff?


blogs.discovermagazine.com
 
2012-10-11 03:15:12 PM

mooseyfate: meat0918: The Dog Ate My Homework: FTA: Firstly, what's an opinion?

Firstly? A professor of philosophy actually uses this non-word? Good lord.

But that aside, it's actually a very interesting article.

I liked it.

You can't really argue over taste. But when your opinion is that vaccines cause autism, or the moon landing was fake, or the president was born in Kenya, well, I dunno what to say except, you're wrong and sadly no amount of facts will get you to change your mind.

Subtle nudges might work, but people don't want to question their beliefs. It's scary. Just suggesting it can cause anger and in extreme cases violence.

I have an incredibly smart friend of mine that honestly believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. His argument is that "buildings don't fall like that because a plane hits them.". My argument against that was "How would you know? The only two documented 747 attacks on skyscrapers caused them to collapse just like that.". His counter-argument was just a restatement of his first. I don't understand people sometimes.


Another option: what you consider to be incredibly smart may not actually be incredibly smart.
 
2012-10-11 03:19:52 PM

Rent Party: rawbert7:

From a quick Wiki read, I can't argue with the part where Dorey is saying, "We don't believe we have the right to tell people whether or not to vaccinate... and neither does the government".

Well, that would be one opinion. My opinion would be that the primary function of government is to provide for the common good, and preventing widespread contagious disease is fine a place to start as any, so get your damn vaccinations, and keep your infectious kid away from mine if you don't.


That's an opinion too, I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.
 
2012-10-11 03:22:14 PM

Rent Party: Arguing with Anonymous Internet Guy is, like all things internet related, for entertainment purposes only.


Actually, it's as good a place as any to discuss this stuff. Traditionally in civil society, you have spheres of influence- family, social group, community, state, country, world, and you while you can slowly build outward, for the vast majority of people, you're never going to extend beyond the first level or two. When arguing on the internet, you're snaking tendrils out into the other spheres, and engaging in a larger discussion. Think of it like a net. Your social group is a knot, and there are lines of connection between knots- through people, through ongoing argument, whatever. Just due to geographic proximity, you're only going to touch those nearest to you. But now, you're drawing lines to little nodes in Califorinia, in Iowa, in DC, in Shanghai.

Think about it- you're on here discussing ethics and policy with a great multitude of people from all over the world, a disproportionate percentage highly educated. You're making connections to other local groups that you would never have touched before, and through argument, defining issues and bases for argument for a much more widely dispersed network geographically. You're tying distant nodes together, and in doing, you're turning the net into a ball. The entire thing gets much closer together, and becomes more coherent as a whole.

This has happened before. Improved transportation allowed for faster mail and more travel, and really helped solidify the US as a whole. The telegraph, the telephone- allowed for instantaneous communication all over the country. Cars, planes... very few delegates to the first continental congress had been outside of their state before. A representative from Massachusetts used to the small farm and free labor had no conception of the massive estates filled with slavery and indentured servitude in Virginia or Georgia, or of the people who lived there. Now, somebody from Oklahoma knows exactly what you're referencing and will be able to join you in a laugh when you fake a bad Boston accent.

It may seem like fun and games, but forums like this on the internet are creating a seriously big change in the structure of Civil Society. Hell, pull up a LOLcat. At no other time in human history could you have a visual meme like that understood by just about everyone of a certain generation in the world*.


*I refuse to get into the effects of the digital divide right now. If you're going to say something about teenagers in Africa, please don't. I know. The world is complex, and to fully delve into all that you'll have to read the book that I probably could write given enough motivation.
 
2012-10-11 03:29:03 PM

howdoibegin: mooseyfate: meat0918: The Dog Ate My Homework: FTA: Firstly, what's an opinion?

Firstly? A professor of philosophy actually uses this non-word? Good lord.

But that aside, it's actually a very interesting article.

I liked it.

You can't really argue over taste. But when your opinion is that vaccines cause autism, or the moon landing was fake, or the president was born in Kenya, well, I dunno what to say except, you're wrong and sadly no amount of facts will get you to change your mind.

Subtle nudges might work, but people don't want to question their beliefs. It's scary. Just suggesting it can cause anger and in extreme cases violence.

I have an incredibly smart friend of mine that honestly believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. His argument is that "buildings don't fall like that because a plane hits them.". My argument against that was "How would you know? The only two documented 747 attacks on skyscrapers caused them to collapse just like that.". His counter-argument was just a restatement of his first. I don't understand people sometimes.

Another option: what you consider to be incredibly smart may not actually be incredibly smart.


Most of the 9/11 people I know aren't dumb, just a victim of "wishful thinking" where the world is actually a peaceful place if we'd just put our own politicians in jail and "make nice" to the rest of the world.

They'll spin 9/11 where it's always a "conspiracy" of a few to fake an atrocity, because

A) Real atrocities couldn't possibly be done by some evil person outside the US
B) Surely only a few dozen people would be behind this and we can put them in prison and stop the wars
C) (Optional) we'll become an isolationist and peaceful nation, leading the world by example, and nobody would ever try to replace us in power through violence, especially not extremely brutal violence that makes no difference between civilian and military targets, and nobody would ever have imperialist ambitions of their own and force another major regional or even world war with casualties matching the scales of WWI and II as opposed to the smaller wars of the past few decades....

Hm... Maybe they are dumb, when I put it that way.
 
2012-10-11 03:30:32 PM

rawbert7: Rent Party: rawbert7:

From a quick Wiki read, I can't argue with the part where Dorey is saying, "We don't believe we have the right to tell people whether or not to vaccinate... and neither does the government".

Well, that would be one opinion. My opinion would be that the primary function of government is to provide for the common good, and preventing widespread contagious disease is fine a place to start as any, so get your damn vaccinations, and keep your infectious kid away from mine if you don't.

That's an opinion too, I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.



It's possible that 1,002 years ago some governments might have had that goal in mind. But I've always been told that back then they were more interested in violently spreading religion. Which was just to keep the Pope rich, so..... I guess you're right.
 
2012-10-11 03:31:54 PM

rawbert7: That's an opinion too, I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.


I never liked marxisim as the primary means of understanding power structures, it relies on too many deterministic arguments and flawed assumptions. It can be useful in some applications, but as a comprehensive system, it's pretty flawed.

If you really want to learn about why government exists and how it functions in society, I heartily recommend Francis Fukuyama's latest book, "On the Origins of Political Power". Half history, half political theory, it examines how governments actually did form, on a case by case basis, and tries to peel apart the various factors that made each take the forms they took. I don't think he succeeds at pulling together any sort of unified rule, but I think he does succeed in picking out which factors interact to really drive the formation and mechanisms of states.
 
2012-10-11 03:32:52 PM

rawbert7:
Well, that would be one opinion. My opinion would be that the primary function of government is to provide for the common good, and preventing widespread contagious disease is fine a place to start as any, so get your damn vaccinations, and keep your infectious kid away from mine if you don't.

That's an opinion too,


Well sure, but it's also one of the explicitly stated reasons for the existence of our* government, so I feel safe in assuming that the founders of our government felt the same way.


I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.


I will not argue that the outcome is as you state. In fact, I will argue that your assertion *is* the outcome that happened. The system in place does not protect everyone, it protects the rich in power at the expense of the poor. I will also argue that outcome is in contradiction with the stated intent of the people that put it together. I will argue that the current outcome is immoral and unethical, and that half the reason we do not have intelligent programming on our airwaves or intelligent curriculum in our schools is to deliberately exacerbate that division.

It is easy to control an uneducated, uninterested population that thinks it's rude to talk about what is right and wrong at the dinner table. Alan Bloom (quoted up there somewhere) was completely correct in that regard.

* Assumes you're a good 'Murkin like God intended...
 
2012-10-11 03:37:30 PM

Leeds: It's possible that 1,002 years ago some governments might have had that goal in mind. But I've always been told that back then they were more interested in violently spreading religion. Which was just to keep the Pope rich, so..... I guess you're right.


Read the book I just recommended. Really. It is much, much, more complex and interesting than that.
 
2012-10-11 03:39:49 PM

gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one.


Assholes are like opinions, there are so many out there that you have to just have to be with the ones you agree with and ignore the rest.
 
2012-10-11 03:42:43 PM

cptjeff:
*I refuse to get into the effects of the digital divide right now. If you're going to say something about teenagers in Africa, please don't. I know. The world is complex, and to fully delve into all that you'll have to read the book that I probably could write given enough motivation.


The digital divide hasn't happened in Africa, it's happened right at your dinner table. You wrote this nice little expository essay (and I mean that sincerely) on the importance of digital communications and how it can tie together all the world, etc... but have failed to realize that it hasn't brought us closer, it's taken us farther apart. As exhibit 1, I submit the American dinner table. As exhibit 2, I submit any video of any crisis situation you can find these days. Count the number of people walking around taking pictures and video with their cell phones as opposed to the number of people lending a hand. It's frightening how people view the world through a digital lense, rather than through the filter of their own ethical frameworks.

The digital divide is right here, right now. People don't talk to each other because they're afraid expressing an opinion might be rude. But I can get on line and do it!

r.phonedog.com
 
2012-10-11 03:52:16 PM

cptjeff: rawbert7: I do doubt the efficiency in real-world environments - thousands of strands and all that - justifies getting it.

Doctors know more than you do.

That's your opening statement? Want a cookie? That doesn't make them "all knowing and never wrong". shiat, 100 years ago "Doctors" were bleeding us with leeches and prescribing tobacco for speech impediments. Today, they still get sued for malpractice all the time, not that has anything to do with what I said.

There aren't thousands of strands.

You're right, there aren't thousands, they are always evolving and we can only try to keep up. Link

There are all of ten that occur in humans, and one type is usually far and away the most prevalent in any given year. We can make pretty good guesses as to the couple strains with the best odds, and the vaccine each year includes the three most likely. The only time the vaccine does not have a significant effect over a population is when you have a new strain, because it takes time to develop a vaccine, as was the case with the H1N1 pandemic a few years ago. Since then, H1N1 has been included in the vaccine cocktail. While it's not really necessary for most adults with healthy immune systems, that's not a reason to argue against vaccines in general.

We are posting on a thread explaining the difference between "opinion" and "informed opinion", please refer to the Link above.

And anti vaxxers aren't just against the flu vaccine, usually they go after stuff like the MMR vaccine. They have a much broader pattern of stupid, and it's often deadly. And the government absolutely should be mandating vaccines- it's a public health issue. Refusing vaccines can kill your kid, and can compromise the herd immunity that is valuable to keeping other people healthy- and absolutely critical to keeping people who have allergies to the vaccines alive. Among other reasons.


I AM talking JUST about the flu vaccine.
 
2012-10-11 03:56:07 PM

cptjeff: rawbert7: That's an opinion too, I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.

I never liked marxisim as the primary means of understanding power structures, it relies on too many deterministic arguments and flawed assumptions. It can be useful in some applications, but as a comprehensive system, it's pretty flawed.

If you really want to learn about why government exists and how it functions in society, I heartily recommend Francis Fukuyama's latest book, "On the Origins of Political Power". Half history, half political theory, it examines how governments actually did form, on a case by case basis, and tries to peel apart the various factors that made each take the forms they took. I don't think he succeeds at pulling together any sort of unified rule, but I think he does succeed in picking out which factors interact to really drive the formation and mechanisms of states.


Sweet, I've been looking for something new to read, thanks!
 
2012-10-11 03:59:32 PM

howdoibegin: mooseyfate: meat0918: The Dog Ate My Homework: FTA: Firstly, what's an opinion?

Firstly? A professor of philosophy actually uses this non-word? Good lord.

But that aside, it's actually a very interesting article.

I liked it.

You can't really argue over taste. But when your opinion is that vaccines cause autism, or the moon landing was fake, or the president was born in Kenya, well, I dunno what to say except, you're wrong and sadly no amount of facts will get you to change your mind.

Subtle nudges might work, but people don't want to question their beliefs. It's scary. Just suggesting it can cause anger and in extreme cases violence.

I have an incredibly smart friend of mine that honestly believes the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. His argument is that "buildings don't fall like that because a plane hits them.". My argument against that was "How would you know? The only two documented 747 attacks on skyscrapers caused them to collapse just like that.". His counter-argument was just a restatement of his first. I don't understand people sometimes.

Another option: what you consider to be incredibly smart may not actually be incredibly smart.


What would you consider to be incredibly smart? Maybe I just need a basis of comparison.
 
2012-10-11 04:01:13 PM

Tainted1: PallMall: offmymeds: gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one. 

[d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net image 500x271]

Chinese man born with no anus Probably NSFW

Chinamen arent people


They don't bleed...not like we do.
 
2012-10-11 04:02:12 PM
I can't believe I'm the--fark it, Boobieser--to say didn't Drew have a whole chapter in his book on this subject, called "Equal Time for Nutjobs"?
 
2012-10-11 04:04:19 PM

BarkingUnicorn: gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one.

And nobody wants to hear it.


static.someecards.com
 
2012-10-11 04:05:24 PM

Rent Party: The digital divide hasn't happened in Africa, it's happened right at your dinner table.


I'm aware of that too. But there have been books written on the digital divide, and there will be more, and that was just a couple paragraphs on fark.

But the fun thing with complex situations is that while can bring people together geographically, it can also drive us apart in other ways- both can be true. We're seeing a marked age divide now in how people think and communicate, and how they interact socially. Long term, that's going to go away, but in the next 40 years or so, it's going to be an interesting issue, and it's going to keep a lot of strategic marketing people in business. But the existence of new ties doesn't mean the old ones have to go away, and I really don't think that the internet is really driving the decline of the old forms of civil society. You had whining about it before the internet existed, but back then, a lot of people blamed it on TV. But very few families have honest to god conversations at the dinner table any more, on any subject, because they're not at the dinner table. We don't do family meals anymore, for a variety of reasons. Blame the blurring of home and office life. People work harder and later, and, unlike in olden days, the division of labor where one parent worked (we'll leave aside the sexism in how that division was aligned for now) and one stayed home is gone. Now two parents are often working multiple jobs to make ends meet- blame the decline of unions and the corresponding decreases in wages/productivity for that one. Grandma and grandpa aren't there to help, they're in a home, thanks to the growing medicalization and specialization of aging.

The good news is, it's beginning to come back. Our (well my, I don't know where you fall) generation, both male and female, is apparently demanding a lot more family work balance from employers, and starting to drive the pendulum back towards more quality time with family. The people causing the shift back towards a more traditional family structure are the ones most tied into these online communities. It's not an either or. Right now, we're seeing those trends coincide, but they don't have to.
 
2012-10-11 04:05:28 PM

flynn80: Assholes are like opinions, there are so many out there that you have to just have to be with the ones you agree with and ignore the rest.


www.norcalblogs.com
 
2012-10-11 04:14:11 PM

cptjeff: When arguing on the internet, you're snaking tendrils out into the other spheres, and engaging in a larger discussion. Think of it like a net.


I prefer to think of it like a series of tubes.
 
2012-10-11 04:14:53 PM

offmymeds: gopher321: Opinions are like assholes...everybody's got one. 

[d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net image 500x271]


I'll just leave this right here.
 
2012-10-11 04:19:42 PM

cptjeff: Rent Party: The digital divide hasn't happened in Africa, it's happened right at your dinner table.

I'm aware of that too. But there have been books written on the digital divide, and there will be more, and that was just a couple paragraphs on fark.

But the fun thing with complex situations is that while can bring people together geographically, it can also drive us apart in other ways- both can be true. We're seeing a marked age divide now in how people think and communicate, and how they interact socially. Long term, that's going to go away, but in the next 40 years or so, it's going to be an interesting issue, and it's going to keep a lot of strategic marketing people in business. But the existence of new ties doesn't mean the old ones have to go away, and I really don't think that the internet is really driving the decline of the old forms of civil society. You had whining about it before the internet existed, but back then, a lot of people blamed it on TV. But very few families have honest to god conversations at the dinner table any more, on any subject, because they're not at the dinner table. We don't do family meals anymore, for a variety of reasons. Blame the blurring of home and office life. People work harder and later, and, unlike in olden days, the division of labor where one parent worked (we'll leave aside the sexism in how that division was aligned for now) and one stayed home is gone. Now two parents are often working multiple jobs to make ends meet- blame the decline of unions and the corresponding decreases in wages/productivity for that one. Grandma and grandpa aren't there to help, they're in a home, thanks to the growing medicalization and specialization of aging.

The good news is, it's beginning to come back. Our (well my, I don't know where you fall) generation, both male and female, is apparently demanding a lot more family work balance from employers, and starting to drive the pendulum back towards more quality time with family. The pe ...


I don't disagree with any of that too much, other than to say I don't think the "decline of the dinner table" (a good metaphor for the entire phenomenon, I think) is directly due to the work/life balance issue, and I do believe that growing hours of "screen time" are. Yes, we are working more hours and the atomic family unit has fallen by the wayside, but the issue is again, one of ethics. I have limited time when I get home, what do I do with it. As one of those people you mentioned that is demanding better family time, it is important to me to spend that time with the family, and meals are the best place to do it. Unlike those, though, I don't make that demand of my employer first, I make it of my family first. My youngest daughter is mystified as to why she has to come and eat at the table when she isn't even hungry. My oldest daughter was, too, but she completely gets it now.

Point is, people aren't running home and use their limited time to cook dinner and have these conversations with their partners and their kids. They're running home to watch Kim Kardashian have conversations, or to have them with Anonymous Internet Guy on facebook.  That is an ethical decision, too.
 
2012-10-11 04:26:33 PM

Rent Party: rawbert7:
Well, that would be one opinion. My opinion would be that the primary function of government is to provide for the common good, and preventing widespread contagious disease is fine a place to start as any, so get your damn vaccinations, and keep your infectious kid away from mine if you don't.

That's an opinion too,


Well sure, but it's also one of the explicitly stated reasons for the existence of our* government, so I feel safe in assuming that the founders of our government felt the same way.


I was told in Government 1010 that the primary function of government is to keep the rich in power and defend them from the poor but you're arguing what the reasoning is not whether or not it actually works, which is what I'm interested in knowing.

I will not argue that the outcome is as you state. In fact, I will argue that your assertion *is* the outcome that happened. The system in place does not protect everyone, it protects the rich in power at the expense of the poor. I will also argue that outcome is in contradiction with the stated intent of the people that put it together. I will argue that the current outcome is immoral and unethical, and that half the reason we do not have intelligent programming on our airwaves or intelligent curriculum in our schools is to deliberately exacerbate that division.

It is easy to control an uneducated, uninterested population that thinks it's rude to talk about what is right and wrong at the dinner table. Alan Bloom (quoted up there somewhere) was completely correct in that regard.

* Assumes you're a good 'Murkin like God intended...


Hahaha, quite the contrary, well not so much - I grew up in Cancun, came to the US for college and have been here since, but I'm a hybrid (Mexican-American) with dual citizenship. I'm not so sure on religion, leaning atheist because of science but open to discussion because... I find it more interesting than... who threw what for how many touch downs last night. Not that I don't enjoy that too, just that the former is more important/interesting to me.

I like your explanation that it's the outcome, but not necessarily agree that it wasn't also intended. We still need to satisfy the bottom rung of Maslow's hierarchy and in our current system that means money but maybe not so much then. As awesome as this country is I believe the founders (and those influencing them) would still rather their offspring be secured a future than have to duke it out with the rest of us. I hope you're right though, that would make them even more remarkable. Do you know if they helped provide education to the masses?
 
2012-10-11 04:29:47 PM
Well, what the heck. Not posted yet, so here we go.

images.elephantjournal.com

/I miss the Good Doctor
 
2012-10-11 04:32:28 PM

cptjeff: Rent Party: Arguing with Anonymous Internet Guy is, like all things internet related, for entertainment purposes only.

Actually, it's as good a place as any to discuss this stuff. Traditionally in civil society, you have spheres of influence- family, social group, community, state, country, world, and you while you can slowly build outward, for the vast majority of people, you're never going to extend beyond the first level or two. When arguing on the internet, you're snaking tendrils out into the other spheres, and engaging in a larger discussion. Think of it like a net. Your social group is a knot, and there are lines of connection between knots- through people, through ongoing argument, whatever. Just due to geographic proximity, you're only going to touch those nearest to you. But now, you're drawing lines to little nodes in Califorinia, in Iowa, in DC, in Shanghai.

Think about it- you're on here discussing ethics and policy with a great multitude of people from all over the world, a disproportionate percentage highly educated. You're making connections to other local groups that you would never have touched before, and through argument, defining issues and bases for argument for a much more widely dispersed network geographically. You're tying distant nodes together, and in doing, you're turning the net into a ball. The entire thing gets much closer together, and becomes more coherent as a whole.

This has happened before. Improved transportation allowed for faster mail and more travel, and really helped solidify the US as a whole. The telegraph, the telephone- allowed for instantaneous communication all over the country. Cars, planes... very few delegates to the first continental congress had been outside of their state before. A representative from Massachusetts used to the small farm and free labor had no conception of the massive estates filled with slavery and indentured servitude in Virginia or Georgia, or of the people who lived there. Now, somebody fr ...


Awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 194 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report