Total posts: 291
Posted in:
I feel like I'm not writing this as carefully as I should. Anyway, I just saw on my social media timeline that Indonesia's ulamas have begun their condemnation of Taliban's extremist interpretation of Islam. I think it's amazing that neither the muslims nor the Americans could save Afghanistan.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying you'd like the option to HIDE all posts from particular users, but without technically BLOCKING them from responding to you (and without HIDING your posts from them) ?
Yes, yes and yes. I want another button that allows me to temporarily see their "hide" replies, because in some cases, I might be curious. I'll determine whether their replies are worth my time. If they're not, then I won't bother reading. I'll simply move on with my life without sparing a single thought about them. For example, I had a recent nasty exchange in the religious forum with another muslim arab. All things considered, I wouldn't want him to stop spreading what he believes in but if I'm continually going to be personally attacked by him, Id rather not give him time. I'd rather "hide" him.
A mutual HIDE & BLOCK function seems like a simple solution to the "restraining order" problem that somewhat shockingly seems to be a reoccurring problem here.
I haven't been reading those ROs so I've no comment.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I guess third-worlders are exempt from seeing Ads. I don't see any ads anywhere on the site.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that's a great idea. I'm currently pressed for time, but whenever time permits me to be on the site, i'd rather not see posts I've elected to ignore. That said, I guess you could add a second feature that allows you to see what "Hide" posters are writing about. Sometimes, I want my freedom to quote/tag "Hide" users without unnecessarily antagonizing them since they don't know that I've effectively "hide" them permanently.
Now that I'm thinking about this, I think the subscription function is underwhelming. i want notifications on the users that I've subscribed because I want to read each of their public posts. I know the site is free but I think it's a bit annoying to manually browse someone's profile just to check where their recent posts were published. I think the novel aspect of the subscription button is to be a fan of someone. Currently, I feel nothing whenever I click subscribe.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don't believe it, even if it's true. Murray must have had anti-black sentiments alongside the occasional yellow fever. Where are all the prominent asian poets? Do they look up math manuals like Asians in Asia do? From my impression, they seem dumber than whites and blacks. I don't even know why I'm talking about this.
Created:
users here write better than the regular stuff that I've had in my college.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
From where do you derive the claim that Asians have high IQ? I've had expat professors speak perfect English and had a Black Emiritus Professor in Singapore (though, he wasn't in philosophy) who writes really well, and his writing standard was intimidating to most asian professors.
Your claim sounds very suspicious. If Asians had high IQ, I should conclude that the writing skills of asian professors are superior. However, they're pretty mediocre.
Created:
Posted in:
I thought people would underestimate fauxlaw but I'm glad fauxlaw won
Created:
Posted in:
Debate
- Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to political oppression
Thread
- Send trumpet to jail now
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I guess it's true that wealth buys happiness (and courts).
Created:
I think there's an often missed-topic in philosophy: Ethical Contextualism. Not sure if that's what you're looking for. I won't post my own undergrad papers, primarily because I think they're often inferior to a friend in college. That said, here's a small introduction about ethical contextualism.
Created:
Posted in:
I think my votes are based on what I think about their posts and debates. I haven't read all of them but the ones that I have encountered pretty much influenced my votes. My decision:
Users:
fauxlaw
whiteflame
misterchris
Debates:
- Resolved: Violent Revolution is a just response to political oppression
- Thbt Systemic Racism Is Definitely a Problem in the US
- Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.
Threads:
- Send trumpet to jail now
- Why are we banning wylted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I was waiting to see if you'd reply once you read the study you mentioned at the bottom of your reply, so that I could bundle this response together. You might be busy with life or not intending to respond to it, so I'll just respond to what you've already written because it's worth responding to.
Thank you for the compliment. I was planning to read it. Personally, this has been difficult. To be frank, I could just be johnny-on-the-spot and reply quickly to your earlier post. But I appreciate literature and a well-researched OP, so i won't be doing that. I commit time to worthy endeavors (like your op) when I realize that something is worth reading. However, me taking actual time to focus and read what you post is difficult because of my circumstances. I'll keep them short: I'm maintaining dual identities.
My real identity is that I've apostatized from the muslim faith. If Allah exist, he'll know that I've said the words of apostasy. I take solace primarily from my western literature that I read in my free time. I consider DART a close second. Anyway, you could probably guess it: my second false identity is to pretend to be an adherent of the muslim faith, because most of my relatives and friends are religious muslims. I think maintaining both identities are extremely tiring. I have to really act like a muslim and I have to take a hiatus from the website because both identities are really not compatible. I can't really read DART and western poetry while maintaining my second identity. I want to note that transitioning between the two identities takes time and it's only pleasurable if I'm reverting back to my real identity.
Unfortunately, this is still ongoing. There's lots of religious festivals here and I don't want to give cause to my deranged taliban-look-a-like father. My brother (he's equally religious) is also well-versed with the internet, and while he's busy fvcking a complete dumb bum on the side (I'm pretty sure she never held a book in her entire life), who knows what he's up to. He could spy on me and he once snitched on me. I'm not trusting anyone ever again. My father's ire should not be underestimated, I'm currently manipulating my whole family by pretending that I'm one of them.
I think youre going to have to wait even longer. I'm just being honest. I know that's not a satisfactory answer since I think you're looking for insightful views. Again, i can't do much. I think my western literature deserves equal time and I haven't been devoting myself to it either.
It seems that more important issues (such as religion, politics etc.) have greater impact in determining whether people like each other, so I'd lean towards the measured interactions having more weight (less likely to espouse deeper beliefs in conversations with banter and light-heartedness). Although, alcohol will have an effect on this (people more likely to say what they think), but not all spontaneous interactions have alcohol.
Interesting. If the general coming together is measured, then it follows that most people would consider measured interactions as a basis for close friendships. That said, the only possible challenge that I could think of is the probability that i'll enjoy someone with similar experiences. For example, in romantic relationships, opposites attract but they're also the main demographics of divorce. I think people are inadequate; they employ the vast majority of their measured interactions on polar opposites. I think it's probably why I whine alot about my enemies while never mentioning my loyal friends. My enemies are probably polar opposites.
I'd argue that this kind of "measured" love doesn't exist, that "love" is poorly defined lust with many rationalizations bundled in. You don't really get to "choose" (in a thoughtful sense) to love someone because that drive is largely physical sexual appeal, particularly in the facial area. That's probably why a Coptic Christian and Baathist Muslim would come together: they find each other quite physically hot, not because they intellectually stimulate each other after 3 hours of discussing quantum mechanics.
Perhaps, I do think that I agree with the fact that facial attractiveness is a determining factor for most people. There's also attraction on wealth (for most women and some men) and attraction on bodies (for most men and some women). Plus, if a country is currently undergoing an economic crisis, I think people won't read economic journals; they'll just read newspaper opinions. Yeah, I guess you're right.
The studies all prove various levels of correlation, so they implicitly admit there are exceptions. It would be nigh impossible, barring a super small sample size or a lots of time, to account for every exception. It's probably just better to call it a trend of nature, anyway.Exceptions mean something but I'm more interested in what large correlations or consistencies we can find. I guess people's mood can affect this. I guess the type of interactions (spontaneous) can affect this. The time they talk will affect it. Hard to list everything.
Ok. I understand. I'm assuming that you're referring to sociology and psychology. Imho, Soft sciences are still scientifically valid and reliable, despite what some observers would say.
If you have enough data points, I don't think it remains spurious because you've inductively shown consistency on many occasions.
I think It remains spurious because you're trying to make a cause-and-effect from a correlational study. Well, i think I really should've read your sources now that I've read your reply. I should follow a more determined work ethic. Ugh.
The source makes the argument better than I do.
Ok.
Created:
Posted in:
Interesting thread. I don't think I can comment on thr specifics since this is the first time I've read about them. I do want to say that an awareness of authority is a healthy sign of a working democracy. I think you should always be cautious of people in important positions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
True altruists are indirectly motivated samaritans. If my mother died of Covid-19, I am more likely to treat covid-19 patients without pay, because anything related to covid reminds me of my deceased mother. They're thin because you are less likely to help flood victims if you've never formed an intimate connection with "flood".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting post. I think it's hard to discern cause and effect in your examples. Being a sentimentalist isn't that hard, I think it's all about the passion.
Example of sympathy,My grandparents stole from your grandparents, I feel bad about that, but I'm not really sure what to do about it, maybe we'll build a monument to your grandparents and change some of the laws that let my grandparents steal from your grandparents.
I think this sounds a lot more appealing to the passionate "feeler" than it is to directly confront the problem. You're forcibly motivated by the event so much so that you'll build a monument in their image. Now that you've said it, I can't help but think that cities should allow the construction of random citizen monuments.
Example of empathy,My grandparents stole from your grandparents, I will return to you what my grandparents stole from your grandparents (because that's what I would want if I was in your shoes).
Good point. Regardless, naturally, although this is the more direct approach, you're not taking into consideration the degrees of passion. I think this sounds a lot lazier than building a monument. It requires less energy and returning it is probably going to land you a nasty awkward exchange in which the victims threaten your grandparents with pagan curses. Of course, you were there to return with the bare minimum of passion so naturally, you wouldn't care much about their threats. My opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
...will be a high reliance on social integration of that group - a tight knit sense of community with at least a certain set of values which are held in common. This predicts that these groups will be more religious and conservative.
Fascinating.
Created:
Posted in:
I took the American SAT once. Irrelevant, I know, but I just want to say that it made absolutely no sense to me. I failed it while international schools enjoyed a huge jump because there was a sizeable Australian expats scoring high in the SAT. I'm guessing non-whites mingle with them to score well on it too. My point: tests are region-specific. They have no validity outside of their intended audience. The IQ test doesn't measure intelligence because if it did, the test would score accurately across different cultures.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
...becomes the mode for any group of peopleJust to be clear, I'm talking about a general coming together as a result of similarity, which sometimes applies to romantic interests, but not always (e.g. friends, acquaintances). I'm in no way claiming that I know every exception to this rule.
Is this measured or spontaneous?
For example, if I'm learning piano for the first time, I would classify my first training as measured. Me learning the music keys would be excruciatingly painful as a first-time music learner. I think measured activities require a lot of work. That's different from a spontaneous act of drinking and getting drunk on a random night.
So, is the general coming together as a result of similarity spontaneous or measured?
Yes, the studies I found on sexual relationships were about marriage, hence the marriage slant.I'd even go so far as to say that it's possible to have hot sex with someone and not like them at all (beyond their face/body). Hate sex is also a thing. I'd guess they're behaviors men are more likely to engaged in, though. I'm guessing these are some exceptions to the rule you asked me about before.
What? I think that sounds more of a genetic than behavior kind of thing. Not to interject a stereotype but women gossip about things and men talk about sex. But I'm not talking about actions borne from laziness or "spur of the moment". I'm talking about things that require plenty of thought. A coptic christian choosing to love a baathist muslim would definitely require more work than a typical high school romance or whatever.
They might be more similar than we think. They might not be similar at all. It's an anecdote. Who knows?
Forethought of generalized rules without exceptions can never be made into actual laws of nature. My opinion.
Yes but they're exceptions to the rule, it seems. Hard to say without studies on the exceptions.
Well, your best guess? Or do exceptions mean nothing to you?
...there are no studies that have 'found the gene' in regards to religiosity, but there has certainly been a truckload of inductive research that can measure the impact of genetics on religiosity (and vice versa because environment and genes play into each other). This article discusses the genetic impact the Catholic Church had on Western Civilization: The Catholic Church and Western Genetics | Ideas and Data (wordpress.com) . It also mentions Eastern Church and Islamic faith, too.
I think thats a spurious correlation. Granted, there's an argument that arab nationalists draw a lot from islam in their hatred of western values. I think they consider nationalism as interchangeable with islam. So, If I'm an arab, the best argument in favor of this is that over time, i develop some form of genetic disposition that allows me to associate Islam and nationalism. That disposition then becomes hereditary, but is still probably open to manipulation. Well, okay not sure what to make of that other than to say that I have very little faith in spurious correlations. I'll check your source when I get home.
So this "situational disposition", over time, becomes a "genetic disposition" because the environment (which is influenced by religion) starts selecting for people who have more 'religious genes', and thus more religious genes are creat
Fine. I'm generally pessimistic so I don't suppose I can disagree with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
I saw your (3RU7AL) vids. I still think empathy requires more energy than sympathy. After all, you are trying to experience what another person is feeling. I'm assuming you (3RU7AL) and zedvictor agree with how empathy arises: personal connection. As Aristotle puts it, personal relationships/connections take time. unfortunately, I dont have infinite time. Granted, I am more likely to develop long-lasting connections with empathy. But I believe that's called friendship, not charity.
I believe sympathy bypasses this. Moreover, sympathy need not requires the devotion of "quality time" and "words of affirmations" to another person. For example, I think I understand what flood victims are going through. Next week, I will donate a hefty sum from my bank account without the need to empathize their suffering. In other words, I don't need a ticket to fly, meet and "feel" (empathize) with them.
I think sympathy saves time. It also generates more help than empathy. Empathy is overrated, imo.
Personally? I value empathy more (obviously, I wrote earlier that it forms "long-lasting connections") but I just dont think it's a good idea to rely on it as a go-to response when encountering suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A HINDU is literally born into a CASTE based on your SKIN-TONE.
I think that sounds like the Hindus have long been discriminating against each other since pre-colonial eras. Third world trash. That said, exceptions exist. I'm pretty sure at least 1% of the population are closeted hindu apostates.
ANTI-PEER PRESSURE = ANTI-SOCIAL
I accept your first point but I reject your second point (quoted above). As a start, I think most of my ideas are not discussed in the local public. I don't discuss whether it's ethical to kill Jews (and this is something that is actually normal to talk about in Indonesia). I think it is completely inappropriate to talk about those kind of ideas in restaurants, bars and malls. We rely on rhetoric to cement ideas. Rhetoric comes from politicians and religious leaders. Peer-pressure originates (partly) from authority. As I understand your post, I assume you're talking about peer-pressure between normal blue-collar individuals. I think this relies on small talk, where relationships may foster without the need to discuss ideas. That kind of relationships may sound superficial but whatever.
Isn't an "enemy" simply a "rule breaker" at its core?
Of course. For example, Id suggest that Romanians should worry about their neighboring rule breakers especially if they're muslim fundamentalists.
I mean, if you encountered a group of people who were technically strangers to you, but followed nearly all of your same beliefs and laws, would they be "friends" or "enemies"?
Friends. I'd note that there are ideas that are impossible to compromise. You could post a vehement critique of God and no one could do anything about it (assuming you live in the west). Try doing the same thing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Indonesia and you'll get harassed by a mob.
It seems obvious that strangers we disagree with are automatically going to be labeled as "enemies".
Not to me if they endorse freedom of speech. My opinion. Plus, my problem isn't about their ideas. My problem (about them) stems from the fact that their ideas were created by the sense of community that they are subjected to at a given place. For example, an irreligious muslim turned jihadist for no apparent reason other than societal and cultural expectations.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I just said okay and left
Lol. I think I pictured that differently in my head. Whatever, I did laugh though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Donating is easy if one has spare money to donate, and remote from any real need to empathise.
Perhaps, but if my donation is long-term, I think it's harder to justify its existence for the simple fact that i don't empathize with the victims that im currently donating to. Empathy has its use insofar as the group is part of our inner circle.
By definition we empathise with those we empathise with.And so empathy is inevitably subject to some level of internal discrimination.
Imho, a sense of community will always subject itself to some level of internal discrimination. That said, I think it's important to seperate empathy from rather well-known ideas. For example, I think sympathy is a better alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Great thread. I wish to interrupt your conversation with Ragnar with some of my opinions
Isn't killing or imprisoning or denying someone a job because of their religion and or political belief just as "evil" as "racism" ?
They're not the same thing. Belief is an association of different ideas. You connect ideas like an umbrella. If you believe in religious dustbins like Saudi Arabia, there's a high chance that you believe that anything outside of its life values is barbaric. I think treating enemies kindly is naive; the west often makes this simple mistake of trying to act ethically with rather suspicious and morally questionable individuals.
Where you are born is highly correlated with your religion and politics.And even if it wasn't, I'm still not sure it's in any way "better" to discriminate against someone for a sincerely held belief.
A sincerely held belief of mine is still my responsibility. It is my responsibility to believe in the right things. I think people have a responsibility to their beliefs. If peer pressure is a problem for them, then the fault is on them. If a sense of community gives some sort of justification for a long-held belief that you should stone adulterers, then perhaps you have failed as a human being. I think a long-held belief justified by a community sense of the virtue of tradition means nothing to me. My opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
While it is not "impossible" for any particular human to feel empathy for any other particular human, THE OVERWHELMING TENDENCY is for humans to feel MORE empathy for humans who are perceived to be "more similar".
Well, I think empathy concerns itself with feelings. The study makes no mention of the will to act, which is itself completely seperate from empathy. I can feel profound forms of empathy and yet I can do nothing about it if I'm overwhelmed with empathy. Empathy hampers an individual from doing desirable actions. That said, exceptions to well-established rules mean something to me. One out of 50 people will offer an extending hand; I want to know why that one person decides to do things differently. I think it's better to look at it this way. Here is a list of cases:
CASE 1: X decides to donate with an expectation of reward
CASE 2: Y decides to donate with an expectation of reward.
CASE 3: Z decides to donate with NO expectation of reward.
I want to know why good samaritans like Z exist, if indeed selfishness is coded in our genes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
My argument in short: Research shows that people who like others who have closer similarity to themselves. Furthermore, as a trait becomes more heritable, the more important it becomes for friends/spouses/social groups etc. Therefore, people prefer the company of those people who are genetically more similar to them.
I'm curious. In your argument, where would you place exceptions to such a generalized claim? I believe attraction is contingent on time and place. I want to know where the exceptions lie in your argument. If I met a stranger in an unfamiliar environment, I am more likely to develop feelings of attraction toward him. Similarly, 2 travelling individuals have a better chance of developing a do-or-die romance together than 2 teachers living under the same school. I argue that this will happen irrespective of the target sample's genetic similarity (as you've mentioned).
Plus, I think infatuation is love and love requires a steady dose of pleasure. What you're talking about in your reply to me sounds a lot like marriage. I believe that's completely different than infatuation.
We consistently see that friends and spouses are more similar in many ways. Berscheid and Hatfield's (1969) performed social experiments with people to find that people are "more likely to desire a relationship with those that were seen to share attitudes. They found that the more important a shared attitude, the higher the attraction rating. For example, two people who both...
I think my learned values could very well originate from my genes as is my decision to remain an apostate. But, I'm not an evolutionary psychologist. Again, you're talking about marriage. Marriage requires careful compromise and calm, small doses of romance to keep it afloat. It merely requires small embers of happiness to survive its grueling and punishing outbursts of disagreements. Again, I appreciate the source, but I want you to include what happens when an armenian fell in love with a turk? I'm pretty sure they have nothing in common and their parents would probably threaten them at gunpoint if they choose to love one another.
I think that counter-examples still run contrary to the study's results.
Bryne (1971) later steelmans this idea with his work, which unfortunately is behind a paywall The Attraction Paradigm - Donn Erwin Byrne - Google Books . However, we get glimpses at his work with a key result from one of his earlier works: the attraction paradigm byrne - Bing images , and a defence...
Hmm... I'll read this when I have time.
Specifically for spouses, Luo and Klohen (2005) showed that newlyweds had substantial similarity in attitudes (although, interestingly, only a "little" on personality). Moreover, this similarity mattered greatly in more important things like religion (which echoes Bercheid and Hatfield's claim) psp-882304.pdf (apa.org) . Caspi and Herbener (1990) also found that, "Consistent with other research, the results point to homogamy as a basic norm in marriage," but this study also seems to be locked behind a paywall Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. - PsycNET (apa.org) .We can attribute at least some of these preferences for beliefs to genes, and then argue that people like other people with similar genes to them.
Im confused. What are those genes you speak of? Is there an actual gene that correlates to religiousness?
As far as I know, the studies themselves assume a situational disposition, not a genetic disposition.
Christakis and Fowler (2013) produced a jargon-heavy, somewhat mathematically dense read (at least I found it difficult to read) that says: "More than any other species, humans form social ties to individuals who are neither kin nor mates, and these ties tend to be with similar people. Here, we show that this similarity extends to genotypes." Microsoft Word - FANS v3.4.docx (arxiv.org) . It should be noted that this study suggests genomic homophily only correlates to likeability (i.e. isn't causation). A specific example involves the fact that "friends tend to have genotypes that yield similar senses of smell", in that in "the 174 most homophilic genes (top 1% [of what they tested]), olfactory transduction pathway [was] significantly overrepresented". In plain English: your sense of smell is quite important in the friends you select (something I would have disagreed with before reading this paper).
For the record, I don't intend to disagree with how we're genetically built. What I want to know is where mathematicians or whatever you call them include extremely complicated phenomena like infatuation, altruism and trauma. Are they coded in our genes? Or are we built to have some sort of psychological resilience in which flexibility in attraction,friendship is encouraged?
As for spouses being genetically similar, we have Domingue et al (2014) which found that......We can then show that human races are genetically different, and therefore conclude that, at best, people who are more genetically different won't like each other as much (i.e. becoming indifferent)
Refer my above replies.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
...N.B. The above comments are designed only to represent current and observable Western trends.....But could be applied globally to represent all instances where discrimination based upon perceivable difference occurs.
humans should work on their respective internal prejudices (perceivable differences) as much as they should work on refraining from mentioning racist opinions out loud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Do you think more exposure always leads to a more positive view of said demographic
If you're on the fence about this, I'd suggest avoiding them. Humans are rarely logical, it's understandable if you wish to avoid more exposure to foster parents. In fact, I would recommend blocking/ignoring them. Do what you like and move on. They're (foster parents) not worth your time. Don't know the full story but this is my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
So by "racists", I'm going to assume you mean 'people who dislike/hate people with different skin colors'.
Yes.
...that's why countries, such as Jordan, are by one metric (not wanting a neighbor of a different race) quite disliking of other races despite being 98% Arab Jordan - Wikipedia MAP of the Most and Least Racist Countries - Notice Anything STRANGE? (thefederalistpapers.org) However, you have other countries, such as Australia and Canada, whilst being ethnically diverse, have a lot of tolerance for other races (implying they will interact with other races far more frequently). Of course, this is only one metric, but I could garner others in a dedicated thread to this topic.
I think those "others" include factors which are region-specific. The source you mentioned is using a useful metric, enough to know the general trend of racism but not the specific reasons for it. I think one of the specific reasons why an arab would act racist towards a non-arab has more to do with islam and its close ties to the arab culture. For example, Qatar had provoked the international community about its abusive treatment of muslim labor workers from non-arab countries. I think these factors are ultimately region-specific. I don't know much about the west's racial tolerance. I do maintain that experience has more influence on any kind of racism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...that says nothing about latent intelligence.
Good point. Never thought of that before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Well, if my instructor likes to talk about irrelevant life stories, then I'd call that lazy. Imho, effective teaching requires that they prepare for their classes and although instructors don't have infinite time, you'd be surprised by how much preparation helps. My professor never plans things in his entire life but he prepares well for his classes by adding outside sources. He'll joke about how North Korea plans to bomb Singapore while demonstrating the ethics of self-control. Is it the most effective? Probably not because the illustration he made bears little relevance to the topic. But does it retain class attention? Yes it does.
I'd choose an entertaining instructor over a strict, ruthless instructor. I don't want to listen to 'fear-me' words like "Class, you have one week to study german. Otherwise, you'll fail the module on Kant". Granted, that sounds like the most effective way to teach because her word is now law and any future exercise she gives to the class will likely fulfill the student-centric impacts you just mentioned. However, I'd still go with my ineffective, entertaining instructor. My opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
I think this is the first time I'm seeing this kind of discussion. I don't mean to veer off-topic but I think racists don't follow a contest of ideas. In other words, I think they don't adequatly participate in reasoning their belief from a list of possible racial differences. I believe they are more likely to be affected by experience. For example, if a pair of terrorists blew up someone's house, I believe the victim has a greater chance of being a vengeful racist than a person who spends his free time by contesting the different ideas of race.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
After reading that whole article, I think cockroaches that thrive as a group requires some elements of peer pressure. I think they do experience them. Sad that peer pressure leaves no room for independent thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I think a good instructor lives in the language of the learner. She knows what skills are required to adequately stimulate the class at any given moment. She equally prioritizes both research and teaching. For example, I had a philosophy professor who often teaches with a strong passion. None in the class dared to mention to him that class was supposed to end 5-10 minutes ago because the class really wants to hear more from him.
I think a terrible instructor is the exact opposite of what I just said. I still believe it takes a lot of effort to stimulate my attention adequately. I appreciate those that do so effectively. However, I've had terrible instructors where they make no effort at all. Some even played podcasts. My go-to interaction as a student is to leave the class right away. If you don't care to teach properly, then I don't care to leave politely. I'll leave in the middle of the class session without caring whether it's rude or disruptive.
I think a terrible instructor is the exact opposite of what I just said. I still believe it takes a lot of effort to stimulate my attention adequately. I appreciate those that do so effectively. However, I've had terrible instructors where they make no effort at all. Some even played podcasts. My go-to interaction as a student is to leave the class right away. If you don't care to teach properly, then I don't care to leave politely. I'll leave in the middle of the class session without caring whether it's rude or disruptive.
Created:
His work looks like a lot of word salad. Is there a quick terminology for this mess?
Created:
Posted in:
Funny, there's an equivalent narrative in asia: that mainland china infiltrated the high offices of minor asian nations and that spouses from mainland china should be tried for treason. I don't have an opinion either way. Thought it was amusing how society works along similar lines.
Created:
Posted in:
Nope. I'm guessing you're still a student currently enrolled with an instructor? I have a problem with terrible instructors. Terrible instructors exist. Grades are irrelevant so long as they exist. The class is only as good as the instructor makes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, I guess the syntax structure of the rule is different than other religions. It is syntactically unique. Though, your only illustration for its uniqueness is that negative golden rules affirm constraint over construction. That's the only assumption you have for the negative vs positive golden rule. Why should it not include a more expansive set of properties? Is there a reason why you're believing in such a narrow distinction?
I'll be a devil's advocate. An optimist could include the fact that negative sentences lack clarity. The sentence "it isn't raining" tells me nothing about the weather. I won't know whether it's sunny or foggy beyond the mere fact that the sentence affirms that the weather isn't raining.
Whats wrong with adding more properties to both the positive and negative rule?
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Good luck with your discourse. Feel free to roam the forums, I don't really care what you do. Freedom to speech to reply to any of my posts and others and whatever. I believe the usual stuff with this site applies. you should conversee with other like-minded philosophers, plenty of them seem immune to your kind of stuff. Good I guess, but I don't have to follow them or you.
I'm usually good as an observer of two debaters insulting one another because some of them can be pretty insightful. I really like reading their views and they're the reason why I frequent this site. However I have my own rules that I apply arbitrarily to myself. I dont want to throw insults because I have dignity and I don't have infinite time. I have control over participation so I will limit myself where appropriate.
T'is a simple philosophy to learn in the best way possible. Am I being Irrational and illogical? Perhaps. But I'm a sentimentalist philosopher, and I will follow emotions before reasons. Of course, you don't have to (freedom of speech and choice) but I will follow mine because I think my feelings are right.
Bangsa apa yang paling gobo dalam dunia in? bangsa yang suka menipu dalam hal perbahasan
Created:
-->
@Yassine
I think that next post is trash to me. All I could read from that is the typical classic condescension from the ulama: that I'm incapable of deep thought. You sure you don't live in Indonesia and actually oversee the office to turn apostates back to reverted status? Be a jerk and get treated like a jerk. I think you need to stop viewing me less or Ill voluntarily leave this conversation. Youre free to post anything you want of course (freedom of speech) but don't expect me to reply if insults persist. Go ahead, continue.
I'd rather live in a melting pot of various western perspectives than to live under the constant condescension of Muslims for simply choosing a different lifestyle. No thanks.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Enough with the accusation that I lied. I did none of those things; I'm not a snake who promises a contract only to bail a few weeks later. I could go with this local stereotype that Arabs/Indians/Whites are aggressive and unbearably loud in asia. But I didn't; I gave you my honest opinions as an apostate. Aside from that, this is good resource.
So... Kripke's modal logic came from the greco-arab translation movement. And Kant's synthetic a priori probably came from...another Arab. No doubt, you'll probably say analytic and rationalist philosophers took their own inspiration from reading Ghazali. Ok, I understand your perspective
Might be interested in a debate. No promises though. But currently, I'm on Hobbes. So was his profound influence on pleasure and law an Arab idea? Feel free to say something about him too. As to Hume, well, he placed his faith in his supervisor, not of Locke or Burkeley. Plus, it was him who contested the majority of Newton's work, not Berkeley. You're wrong to suggest that Berkeley's essays had an influence on the Anti-Newtonian movement. Plus, Hume's lasting legacy is his work on sentimentalism. His letters concerning natural sciences are pretty much defunct. I don't defer to him on natural sciences for the same reason why mathematicians don't defer to Kant on mathematics. they're both outdated. There are clearly false misrepresentations you made about western literature there. I'm not sure if they're sloppy writing or that you've carelessly written them from memory. Either way, i'll leave this on a positive note.
I haven't checked on all of the other theological claims though. Do I plan to? At the moment, no. I'll see about what I can do about your post in the near future.
So... Kripke's modal logic came from the greco-arab translation movement. And Kant's synthetic a priori probably came from...another Arab. No doubt, you'll probably say analytic and rationalist philosophers took their own inspiration from reading Ghazali. Ok, I understand your perspective
Might be interested in a debate. No promises though. But currently, I'm on Hobbes. So was his profound influence on pleasure and law an Arab idea? Feel free to say something about him too. As to Hume, well, he placed his faith in his supervisor, not of Locke or Burkeley. Plus, it was him who contested the majority of Newton's work, not Berkeley. You're wrong to suggest that Berkeley's essays had an influence on the Anti-Newtonian movement. Plus, Hume's lasting legacy is his work on sentimentalism. His letters concerning natural sciences are pretty much defunct. I don't defer to him on natural sciences for the same reason why mathematicians don't defer to Kant on mathematics. they're both outdated. There are clearly false misrepresentations you made about western literature there. I'm not sure if they're sloppy writing or that you've carelessly written them from memory. Either way, i'll leave this on a positive note.
I haven't checked on all of the other theological claims though. Do I plan to? At the moment, no. I'll see about what I can do about your post in the near future.
Created:
Posted in:
Do cockroaches experience peer pressure? They seem to go in single directions whenever I approach them.
Created:
Posted in:
Muslims have pretty much slapped "Palestine" as a brand. My parents were arguing about how Rohingya refugees are acting as parasites to their host countries. Wow, I guess it's really despicable of muslims to seek shelter in muslim-majority countries. Is that why palestinians can't move to other arab countries? Unlikely, i think muslims' fascination with Palestine is just a way for them to express their anti-semitism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I did see the distinction. It's far too narrow for my preference. I'm choosing to disagree with that distinction. I think you said negativity is about refraining to punch someone and I believe you've missed the persistent influence of pessimism in my life.
I think there's a new way in which you can harness negativity in your life. One, that you can use the "hopeless" aspect of it as a motivation. Two, that you can cherish your loved ones knowing full-well that they might permanently disappear the next second. On the other hand, positivity merely inflates the illusion of life and masks the inadequacies of it. I'm not convinced, I still think all religions have essentially the same golden rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think you have insightful generalizations. I think that's rare, given my strong aversion to them.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
When you look at how predominantly muslim societies will often stone queers to death and do honor killings, I think they mean punished by death in those statistics.
Well, if you're talking about stoning, I think it require a huge preponderance of evidence. And if one condition fails,at least in islam, you won't be stoned. For example, there's a reason why it's rare to see muslims stone adulterers to death. For the most part, a sharia court will dismiss the accused if his case has unfulfilled conditions. These conditions are massive and the accused is supposed to fulfill all of the major and minor requirements in court.
...freedom of association. I just wonder if maybe I am incorrect and the Muslims polled, have maybe a different view on how to pu is apostasy. I'm trying to learn a bit about Islam though and Yasmine is a valuable resource in that regard.
Go ahead, Im an apostate. I'm hardly a reliable source. Yassine knows a lot about Ahlus Sunnah Will Jamaah. That is, he knows a lot about the followers of the Prophet Muhammad and His Companions. You'll learn why 80% of all muslims stubbornly remain fundamentalist.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
Forgot to tag you in the post above.
Created:
-->
@Yassine
... is the issue with having access to a scholar to discuss with about one's doubts? That's the whole point. If an apostate is seeking the truth & has sincere objections about the faith then it's natural they should be accorded a scholar to engage with, to unveil truth wherever that might be. People are easily gullible, as Ibn Khaldun says: 'the dominated are forever infatuated with emulating the dominant'. Untruth may come disguised as truth in many ways: 'successful therefore true', 'new therefore true', 'popular therefore true'...etc. It is only in leveling the plain & removing these factors that Truth may prevail. Most apostate Muslims today don't apostasies from love of truth, they do from infatuation with dominance (the West), that's why they all adopt western lifestyle & ideas, & not African or Indian or whatever lifestyle. In a world where say China is dominance, they would adopt Chinese ideas, the same way most Muslim apostates in the 70s & 80s adopted communist ideas.
Is this your opinion or is this in accordance with Islam's view of human nature? That people are generally gullible? That I've subscribed to a falsehood masquerading as truth that is '1+1=3' rather than '1+1=2'?
Sounds a lot like the books that proliferate Saudi Arabia.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I'm interested in his response too. Although, he did respond in part, much in the same way if you're admitted to a religious office if word travelled that they found out that you're an apostate.
- In the spirit of education again, there are three legal perspectives on apostasy among the Fuqaha:i. The fuqaha's (jurists) views (the more familiar to most) on apostasy are concerned more about how to deal with apostates in practice to maintain social integrity, generally by exercising persuasion, confinement or punishment. The general & majority view on this is that an apostate who has explicitly, willingly & publicly left Islam after explicitly, willingly & publicly coming into it, is to be indefinitely persuaded as long as he is willing, else punished (unless a woman). In practice this means that truth seeking law abiding apostates are not punishable.ii. The usulis (jurisprudents) look at apostasy as a question of Taklif (accountability), the legal dilemma of reconciling apostasy punishment (which looks like coercion) with the principle of non-coercion in faith. That is, true freedom of religion can only be accomplished by removing deceptive factors & guaranteeing access to truth seeking -which is why public preaching is also prohibited in Sharia, for that is deemed propagandism. Therefore, coercion by deception & dominance is alleviated, upholding thus the principle of non-coercion.iii. The sasas (political theorists) perspective on apostasy is in reality the most relevant, for it relates to the actual governance of the state. To them apostasy is a political offense -as opposed to a criminal one, thus they only view apostasy in light of Manaa: the intent with means to undermine the integrity of the state. Thus, they don't care about individual apostates. This is why looking back into Islamic history, all those famous apostates have never been punished, for they stayed loyal to the state.
Is death a punishment for apostates (I'm referring to your statement "else punished") above?
Created:
-->
@Yassine
- Again, what the flying f are you talking about?! We live in the age of internet, there is no such thing as banning literature.
False. Even the Muhammadiyah's consensus is consistent with Islam on this. For fear of having muslims led astray, you'd rather avoid the mass-circulation of literature that you deem unislamic. Sure, if it's physical science, it's harmless. Everything else however is banned because according to Islam, truth is on their side. Again, this nauseating pre-arranged idea of truth in the inquiry of knowledge is the most annoying part of islam. Practically, it leaves absolutely no breathing room for alternatives.
Created: