 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>>> of responsability.
>>
>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not, and
>> cannot be, part of.
>
> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
has no value when it comes to the argument.
--
Why do so many foods come packaged in plastic? It's so uncanny.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> > I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
> I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
> has no value when it comes to the argument.
I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
which makes a point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
>> You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law, etc?
>
>> I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
>
> I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
> which makes a point.
The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
assumptions that are not commonly shared.
--
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
>> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
>>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
>>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
>>>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that kind
>>>> of responsability.
>
>>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
> and
>>> cannot be, part of.
>
>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>
> Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> nothing to break.
>
There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what
the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are
given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of
'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that
strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of
rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the
previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that
supported this view were given more money and other support to spread
these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of
their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be
attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of
the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly
rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
the creeps.
* The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2009 20:57, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>>> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
>>> You know all these laws we have about Internet arguments? Godwins Law,
etc?
>>> I need to come up with a catchy sounding phrase that points out the
>>> meaningless throwing around of the word "irrational". It almost always
>>> has no value when it comes to the argument.
>> I honestly fail to see how the use of the word "irrational" was meaningless
>> and without value in his post. It looks to me like a perfectly valid opinion,
>> which makes a point.
>
> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>
Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him. As
long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
likes his privacy anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
>> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
>> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>>
> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>
> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him. As
> long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
> is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
> position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
> would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
> my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
> likes his privacy anyway.
Yes, but now you're making assumptions on why (either of the two)
declared something as irrational.
As you said, rational implies reasoning. Assumptions were not stated on
the input to the reasoning. Declaring something to be irrational without
knowing those assumptions is faulty.
If someone is not at all concerned with what happens after his death
(quite understandable), then his position is quite rational, because it
wasn't devoid of reason. If Chambers cares quite a bit about future
generations (also quite understandable), then his position is quite
rational.
Given the lack of certainty on people's assumptions, and that two
completely opposite viewpoints can be rational, I fail to see the point
of labeling things as rational or irrational. It doesn't add anything of
value to the discussion, and while perhaps not here, is often used more
as an (often faulty) ad hominem.
Instead of stating whether something is irrational or not, just state
your argument and your assumptions and let people decide the merits of
the argument. As a reader, seeing anyone declare something as irrational
is a waste of space and of my time. I care not whether anyone thinks
others are being rational or not, or whether others think *I'm* being
rational. I care only about whether someone is making a meaningful case.
(And no, I don't see the validity of using the word "irrational" to
mean the other side is not making a meaningful case - if that's how you
feel, just focus on pointing out the flaws).
--
What kind of electricity do they have in Washington? D.C.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:53:03 -0300, nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>No prob. Pigs will avenge them all. ;)
Napoleon, a Berkshire boar, Rulz :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I am an atheist who is firmly
> rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
> the creeps.
Well, someone could have a philosophy like: "I'm only an individual,
I cannot affect the grand scale of things. I'm poor and I don't have
children, there's nothing I can leave them as inheritance, not even a
better world, both because I don't have children and because I can't make
the world better. The world will follow its course regardless of what
I do, so stressing about the world being destroyed would be useless,
even if this destruction happened in my lifetime, much more useless if
it happens hundreds of years after I'm dead."
I personally wouldn't say I absolutely abhor that type of thinking in
my case.
(I wonder which school of philosophy this most closely conforms to.
Maybe nihilism?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2009 22:07, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>> The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
>>> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>>>
>> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
>> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
>> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
>> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
>> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>>
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him. As
>> long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
>> is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
>> position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
>> would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
>> my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
>> likes his privacy anyway.
>
> Yes, but now you're making assumptions on why (either of the two)
> declared something as irrational.
Merely pointing out that he is using the word irrational when he means
(fundamentally) ununderstandable. Which is not the meaning you or I
would attribute to it, but not really uncommon either. Perhaps he is not
really aware of the original meaning of the latin word 'ratio' and its
history. But then I am speculating again.
To support that: if you ask wikipedia you'll only find fraction as the
meaning. With a link to a philosophical meaning of 'reason' in the
disambiguation part, suggesting that 'ratio' may not be used by the
common English speaking man with a meaning of 'reason'. I don't know,
English is not my first language and ratio does have this meaning in Dutch.
So, perhaps 'irrational' is not always used as an ad hominem, depending
on the cultural background. Other than that I agree with what you said.
But you knew that already ;)
> As you said, rational implies reasoning. Assumptions were not stated on
> the input to the reasoning. Declaring something to be irrational without
> knowing those assumptions is faulty.
>
> If someone is not at all concerned with what happens after his death
> (quite understandable), then his position is quite rational, because it
> wasn't devoid of reason. If Chambers cares quite a bit about future
> generations (also quite understandable), then his position is quite
> rational.
>
> Given the lack of certainty on people's assumptions, and that two
> completely opposite viewpoints can be rational, I fail to see the point
> of labeling things as rational or irrational. It doesn't add anything of
> value to the discussion, and while perhaps not here, is often used more
> as an (often faulty) ad hominem.
>
> Instead of stating whether something is irrational or not, just state
> your argument and your assumptions and let people decide the merits of
> the argument. As a reader, seeing anyone declare something as irrational
> is a waste of space and of my time. I care not whether anyone thinks
> others are being rational or not, or whether others think *I'm* being
> rational. I care only about whether someone is making a meaningful case.
>
> (And no, I don't see the validity of using the word "irrational" to
> mean the other side is not making a meaningful case - if that's how you
> feel, just focus on pointing out the flaws).
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:49F### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 1-5-2009 16:29, somebody wrote:
> > "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
> > news:49fa99cb$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On 4/30/2009 4:24 PM, somebody wrote:
> >>> "nemesis"<nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> >>>> This argument of "well, that's a problem for our sons and grandsons"
> >>>> really bothers me. We may well have no descendants to handle that
kind
> >>>> of responsability.
> >
> >>> I find it irrational for people to care about realities they are not,
> > and
> >>> cannot be, part of.
> >
> >> I find it irrational not to plan for sustainability.
> >
> > Sustain what exactly? If you don't exist, there's nothing to sustain,
> > nothing to break.
> >
> There are a couple of theological and philosophical schools about what
> the fact that we as a species 'rule' the earth means. One is that we are
> given the power to do what we want and another stresses the concept of
> 'stewardship'. I know a fair number of small 'left wing' churches that
> strongly support the latter but it is also important for big parts of
> rather typical for the sort of born again Christians that were in the
> previous US administration. Or at least those within that church that
> supported this view were given more money and other support to spread
> these concepts by those that had earned lots of money by not thinking of
> their grandchildren. It might be that part of this difference may be
> attributed to a different value of the Buxton index* on the two sides of
> the Atlantic, but whatever the cause, I am an atheist who is firmly
> rooted in the stewardship school and you're attitude frankly gives me
> the creeps.
>
> * The Buxton Index is a prospective measure of individual or
> institutional persistence, defined as the time horizon over which an
> entity makes its plans. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buxton_Index )
I'm an atheist too, and this is how it works: I care about what happens
during my lifetime, nothing else. Someone 20 years my senior cares about
what happens during *his* lifetime, which falls 20 years short of my period
of interest. Someone 20 years my junior has a vested interest in an
additional 20 years after my expiry. In the end, if everybody is selfish, as
they should be, it forms a continuum and it all works out - well, as
smoothly as anything works out in nature, which may not be saying much.
While recognizing that different people have different expactations, it
would be foolish of me to trade mine for someone else's. Just as I don't
expect a 15 year old to care for the types of things I care, you cannot
expect me to care for the things that a 15 year old should.
Buxton index for individuals is simple. $1M to a person at age 20 is the
same worth as $10M to a person at age 60 and $inf to a person in
deathbed/grave. It's the aforementioned overlap across generations is what
makes institutions or corporations behave unlike individuals. But, to state
what should be painfully obvious but apparenty is not, I am not an
institution. Those who accuse me of inconsistency miss the obvious that my
personal expectations and even values can, and should be, different from
what I expect from institutions, corporates or governments. I don't need to
do as what I lobby for the government to do, for instance.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
