 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted
> out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin lands
and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is you're hoping
you'll find.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>
> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.
> Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?
>
Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
"After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
on College Campuses.""
If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
any. Right?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who
> are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether
> that's the case or not.
>
> Jim
The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their
*own* lives. Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning
(and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to
reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and
sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on
the same reasoning. It also leads them, invariably, to false
equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating
for/against, etc. We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, religious views,
religious interpretations, and telling everyone, "We respect the wacky
shit you believe!", we got fundamentalists, George Bush, Sarah Palin,
and the Tea Party, oh, and some bozo trying to build an Ark in Kentucky,
and whining about conspiracies, every time real experts, instead of his
own friend, claims his "attendance and income projections" are even more
fictional than Genesis.
Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
fools.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
> >> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
> >
> > The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
> > resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
> >
> Yeah, me too.
Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.
It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
constitution.
I don't understand where this idea is coming from. I have never heard
of any other country which would have such an attitude towards their
constitution. In most other countries I know of (obviously most importantly
Finland) the constitution reflects the current "state of art" in human
rights and the foundations of parliamentarian democracy. Changing the text
of the constitution is not something that can be done lightly, of course
(it requires, among other things, something like a 70% majority vote in the
parliament), but there are no qualms in doing so as needed.
The United States constitution and its first amendments reflect the
"state of art" of human rights and democracy of the 1780's. The world has
changed a bit since then. It was rather obviously impossible for the authors
to know how the world would be like in 2011.
Just consider the second amendment, for instance. In 1787 the most commonly
used handgun was a muzzle-loaded musket, which was very inaccurate and very
slow to load (the first fully self-contained breech-loaded cartridges were
not invented until about 1808, and eg. the modern revolver did not become
commonly used until Samuel Colt patented a revolver mechanism in 1836 that
led to its widespread use.) In the 1780's you could probably do more damage
with a sword than with a handgun.
That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
the second amendment.
The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
Adding text to the end is how we change it. One amendment says "By the way,
now the federal government is allowed to pass laws about alcohol, too."
Another, later, says "That was a mistake. The federal government no longer
gets to do that."
> This goes sometimes to such ridiculous extents as there being a small
> controversy on whether a small smudge in article 1, section 10, is accidental
> or really a comma. If it's really a comma (rather than an accidental drop of
> ink), the sentence could ostensibly be interpreted slightly differently.
I think this is true of a great number of legal systems, really. Arguing
over the precise meaning of sentences and words and asking whether they
apply in this particular case is exactly what the whole appeals process is
about.
I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for
effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard
that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)
> It feels like the Constitution is holier than the Bible itself. Not even
> a small smudge can be altered! Instead, lots of speculation and controversy
> arise about what is it that the authors really meant when they wrote the
> constitution.
It's the highest law in the country. If you can convince the supreme court
that the law as written means a certain thing, regardless of *why* it means
that, then that decision is enforced on everyone in the country. So, yeah,
it's a lot like the Bible, were God actually real and enforcing it. :-)
> That is the background under which the second amendment was written.
> Nowadays it's used to argue for the right of people to own fully automatic
> rapid-fire weapons such as the M16 rifle or the Browning M2 machine gun.
> Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what the authors had in mind when they wrote
> the second amendment.
Chances are, it is. The whole point of the second amendment is to give the
people forming the government the ability to overthrow the government if it
goes badly.
Now, admittedly, it turns out that *today*, we've figured out that this
"democracy" thing and this "federal" thing isn't too bad and is not too hard
to steer. But at the time, just coming off King's rule and feudalism, it
wasn't really obvious that a new democratic government was going to work
out. And, really, it wasn't until after the US Civil War that the federal
government really took over the governing from the individual states.
> The original constitution of the United States is an invaluable piece of
> history, but where is this idea coming from that it's perfect, infallible
> and completely applicable to the modern world, over 200 years later?
It's not. Most people don't think it is. That's why we have amendments every
few decades, including amendments that contradict what's already written.
It's just that the legal mechanisms for amending the constitution don't say
"cross out this text". Many other laws in this country do, but we just don't
do that with the federal constitution. It's not because there's some
strange reverence.
Some judges think it should be interpreted as "original intent". Some think
it should be interpreted in a more modern way. It's an ongoing battle, with
people picking sides not out of any particular philosophy but out of
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/21/2011 10:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I'll just point out again that it wasn't the executive branch, but the
>>>> congress, that declared a national day of prayer.
>>>
>>> The first words of the first amendment to your constitution somehow
>>> resonate in my head when I read that, causing a terrible pain...
>>>
>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
> Btw, the attitude that Americans have towards their Constitution seems
> quite strange. Seemingly they consider it an infallible and untouchable
> holy scripture, and even the idea of going and changing even a single letter
> of it is tantamous to blasphemy. (Amendments can be added, but changing
> existing text, *especially* the original text written by the Founding
> Fathers, is considered some kind of sacrilege.)
>
Not true.. There have been recent calls by some of the "new" people on
the right wing to "repeal" whole sections of it, ranging from
desegregation, to well... if it involves civil liberties, or the right
to not be lorded over by religious fanatics, they want it removed. Those
things apparently being "unnecessary", sort of like taxes, health care
and the minimum wage.
No, the ones that are required to take it as a sacred document, in
theory, is the supreme court. Which is why the ones now there, all
appointed, and non-removable, by right wingers, have ignored it, and
case law, in order to declare corporations full citizens, and thus able
to spend every dime they have to elect people who will write corporate
friendly laws (and maybe even adjust the constitution, so they can deny
people the right to work/get service there, if they don't like their
religion, color, or national origin).
I bloody wish they took it as sacred. Though.. maybe that is the
problem... these idiots don't read their own damn bible with enough
seriousness to have a frakking clue what it says, its hardly a surprise
they have an equal amount of "total respect" for the constitution, i.e.,
no frakking clue what it actually says, since actually reading and
understanding it would like, I don't know.. taint it, or be a sin, or
something...?
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure what drop of ink you're talking about. Are you exaggerating for
> effect, or have you actually heard an argument about this? (I *have* heard
> that in some contract disputes, but not the Constitution.)
I misremembered: The smudge-that-could-be-a-comma was not in article 1,
but in the 5th amendment (the typo in article 1 is an "it's" which should
be an "its").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Errors_in_the_United_States_Constitution
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:26:25 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say".
>>
>> Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there
>> is. Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm)
>> wrong?
>>
> Its called "critical thinking". Apparently a practice that isn't taught
> too well in colleges (never mind it should start in grade school:
>
> "After the full four years, 36 percent had shown no development in
> critical thinking, reasoning and writing, according to the study, which
> forms the basis of the new book "Academically Adrift: Limited Learning
> on College Campuses.""
Sure, it's critical thinking, but just because people don't employ it the
same way you do, that doesn't make it wrong. There's nothing wrong with
having a system that works for an individual to organize one's thoughts
in a way that lets you think about them.
> If you don't know how to interpret facts in the first place, you can
> hardly, in the case of those people with the opinion there "is" some
> huge difference, whine about someone else pointing out that there isn't
> any. Right?
Sure. But at the same time, if you use a tool to help you organize facts
so you can interpret them, that puts you in a position of being able to
talk about the different interpretations, or seeing that there isn't any.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 23:05:39 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I
>> wanted out of a new job, I accepted the offer.
>
> If you need to make a decision, flip a coin. Between the time the coin
> lands and the time you look at it, you'll learn exactly what it is
> you're hoping you'll find.
That might work for you, it doesn't work for me.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:35:39 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2011 8:56 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those
>> who are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened -
>> whether that's the case or not.
>>
>> Jim
> The problem is.. It doesn't just stop at them using it to effect their
> *own* lives.
If the outcome is agreeable to everyone, there isn't a problem with
this. In my case, of course it affected more than just my life, it
affected my wife's life and my stepson's life. And we talked about it as
well, but they ultimately said that since I'm the one who will be
affected the most by the change (in that what I do from day to day would
change dramatically), that ultimately it was my decision to make.
> Failure to recognize that it is a form of applied reasoning
> (and I would argue that isn't always the case, since you need data to
> reason from, and religion tends to reject wide ranges of data and
> sources), leads people to trying to make decisions for *others* based on
> the same reasoning.
Which is why I don't think anyone should ever, ever, ever do a tarot
reading for someone else, because it shifts the purpose from really
organizing one's thoughts about an issue to just being entertainment.
There's absolutely nothing mystical about it at all when done properly.
> It also leads them, invariably, to false
> equivalencies, failure to understand what they are actually advocating
> for/against, etc.
I find for me that when I do a "reading" myself, it actually *helps* me
understand what I'm actually advocating for/against. Because it's a tool
that helps me be introspective while looking at the topic from all
angles. That's how I use the tool, and why it's an appropriate tool for
me.
> We spent decades in the US, far more than any other
> country in the world, being "nice" to the religious, [...]
Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious whackos
out there.
> Oh, right, and it also plays in to the hands of quack psychology, quack
> pharmacology, quack gizmos, modern patent medicine gibberish, and all
> the rest of the stuff, which preys in the same inability to tell the
> difference between confirmation bias, placebo, and/or what their own
> brain is doing, versus "quantum, spiritual, all natural, suplimental,
> toothpaste", or what ever they have made up this week to sell the same
> fools.
That's a completely different topic.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
