Total posts: 8,696
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Again. Kevin McCarthy, as the leader of the Republican Caucus in the HoR, has the right to place any member of his caucus on the committee, whether that individual is a “partisan” or “moderate.”
That's false. "Rights" don't come into it but McCarthy had zero power to appoint who he likes to the Select Committee because Republicans refused to participate in the creation of the committee. Pelosi had the power to appoint who she wanted to the Benghazi committee because she negotiated that power before the committee was ever assembled. Democrats wanted an impartial 50/50 Commission like 9/11 and Warren Commission but McCarthy stupidly filibustered hoping that Americans would just forget about the first coup attempt on America. Pelosi offered to negotiate appointment power in exchange for bipartisan support for a Select Committee but McCarthy, fearing Trump's wrath, stupidly refused.
Even during Benghazi, Democrats were allowed to have their picks. You can’t say you want to avoid partisanship…by being partisan.
This is false. Democrats weren't "allowed" anything. Pelosi negotiated her picks as a part of her decision to participate at all. Boehner didn't want any committee chairpersons but Pelosi got him to agree to Cummings. As it was, Pelosi lost most of the negotiation but we know now that was because Hillary wanted the hearings and a chance to testify on live TV (which she correctly understood would make the Republicans look foolish and put an end to GOP hounding).
The fact that Pelosi as the Speaker denied Jordan and Banks from the committee sets a bad precedent.
Jordan and Banks were active participants in the coup. Jordan, in particular, was texting Mark Meadows with legal arguments about how to toss a wrench into the the certification. We know now that both coup plotters were 100% aware that there was no election fraud and were simply trying find plausible excuses for making Trump President for life.
The "bad precedent" would be allowing members of the conspiracy to sit in on the investigation. For the same reason we didn't allow Derek Chauvin to investigate the George Floyd's murder, we don't allow Banks and Jordan to investigate their crimes against Democracy.
If Pelosi had allowed Jordan and Banks on the committee, there wouldn’t be people crying out about the lack of proper cross-ex or illegitimacy.
That's only happening in Trump world. There is no minimum proper level of legislative procedure or rule of order that would satisfy Trumpets. Trump has never called any civil procedure that he didn't like legitimate. If God himself was sitting in judgement of Trump, you would be howling about process and jurisdiction because Trump tells you to and you obey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
It looks like no one changes their mind much. I the think it's rare, but I also suspect folks just don't vocalize much when they r swayed.I change my mind more than I do a good job expressing
I change my mind pretty often. Not so much on big picture ideology so much but I change my mind often about the strength or logic of some approach. The change comes more often during research than from opponent's arguments- I assume some claim is true, look it up and am disappointed to discover it is debunked or not as hard a fact as I thought. But I'm not likely to express any wavering within the context of a debate since that would be terrible tactics.
Created:
Posted in:
Why Isn't There a May 29th Committee Holding Hearings?
Because May 29th, 2020 was a spontaneous reaction to government oppression and malfeasance, the people demanding that government tell the truth, comply with the US constitution, and re-align its values to better accord with American principles of liberty and equality for all.
Jan 6th was a lie told by the highest level officials in the Federal government for the purpose of taking immediate and permanent control of American government in treasonous violation of those officials' oaths of office to uphold the US Constitution and as a direct assault on American values and liberties. Jan 6th sought to take power away from the American people and give it to a handful of self-serving despots.
The founding fathers understood that there would be antigovernmental protests and strongly restricted government's capacity to intervene in such. The founding father also understood that that tyrants would try to take over from time and strongly encouraged the visitation of swift justice on those traitors.
May 29th was pro-American protest against tyranny . Jan 6th was an anti-American tyrant's incompetent coup. Loyal Americans have a duty to protect the former and destroy the latter utterly.
Created:
Posted in:
"Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
-George Orwell
Created:
Is there popular support for a new forum category CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
If this idea seems popular I propose we have a vote on it from Aug 1st to Aug 15th
I will also be separately proposing a new forum category HISTORY to be voted on during the same period if such an idea seems popular.
Created:
Is there popular support for a new forum category HISTORY?
If this idea seems popular I propose we have a vote on it from Aug 1st to Aug 15th
I will also be separately proposing a new forum category CONSPIRACY THEORIES to be voted on during the same period if such an idea seems popular.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
>@oromagiDo you actually believe in that there will be fewer cars in 20 years than now?
Not so much a belief as a fervent appeal to common sense
Created:
- a seat
- a means of locomotion
- a cup holder
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Does anyone deny that we have a constitutional right to bodily autonomy, or does anyone feel that we shouldn't have this right?
I absolutely do feel that bodily autonomy is and ought to be an inalienable human right and understand that right to be codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I am not convinced that the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated" guarantees that Right to Privacy that the Supreme Court upheld in cases like Griswold, Lawrence, Eisenstadt, and until Jun 24th Roe. I am glad the Supreme Court made those findings and discovered a Right to Privacy, I'm just skeptical that the language of the Fourth Amendment really implies bodily autonomy or a Right to Privacy in a modern sense.
My read of history is that the founders naturally accorded themselves and their fellow patriarchs an expectation of family and sexual privacy that they did not extend to the women, servants, slaves, children subject to their patriarchy and, as exclusive beneficiaries, probably felt no necessity to protect constitutionally a security the founders already possessed socially. It is not clear to me that preventing the Federal govt from violating my personal security means the same thing as our modern expectation of a Right to Privacy. We can say with confidence that the Founders considered abortion and family planning the jurisdiction of the patriarch and the midwife and certainly not a public concern.
I also believe We the People are charged by the founders and the Constitution with forming a more perfect Union in every generation and amending our Constitution to address our more perfect understanding of human equality and enfranchisement.
I think that there should be an Amendment to the Constitution that explicates a Right to Privacy to an extent that makes Federal restrictions on family planning, health decisions, euthanasia, drug use, etc. impossible as well as corporate intrusions now commonplace such as phone tracking, all visual and audio monitoring like Echo devices and iPhone image collating. To the extent that our day to day business has become a valuable commodity to commerce, we possess a self-evident right to sell or refuse to sell that data as we see fit and need to claw this right away from Amazon, Google, Apple, etc. post haste.
So I guess I do deny that there is now an obvious and explicit constitutional right to bodily autonomy. I personally benefitted from the inferences of earlier courts and was fine with enjoying the benefits of that interpretation but now seeing how leaving the question to interpretation exposes us and our descendants to further disenfranchisement, I believe that human right to bodily autonomy is self-evident, necessary, and appropriate to enshrine in our Constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol, a great Hearsay summary of all the hearsay testimony.
Let's note that by design, all of the testimony reported above and nearly all of the testimony under oath before the USHSC comes from Trump loyalists, appointees, insiders, employees, and/or family members- all deep Republican insiders.
It's pretty easy to tell the complicit from the culpable just by noting who is willing to testify under oath and who refuses.
Created:
Schadenfreude
Is that English? You are hard to understand with Trump's dick in your mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
-->@oromagi@#259What new evidence popped up?
- That Donald Trump ordered, planned, and led the first ever coup attempt against the US Govt on Jan 6th, 2020 by first discrediting and then violently disrupting the peaceful transfer of power with malice aforethought and reckless intent.
- That Trump knew for certain that he lost the election within 72 hours of the election and was made to understand that falsifying election claims was a felony.
- Trump's family, inner circle, advisors, White House staff and cabinet all advised Trump that the election was over.
- Attorney General Barr investigated every claim made by Trump and advised Trump that they were all "bullshit."
- That many coup plotters sought pre-emptive pardons for Jan 6th immediately following the coup's collapse. Pardons require acknowledgement of guilt and Mark Meadows' emails confirm at least Meadows, Giuliani, Andy Biggs, Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Scott Perry and John Eastman were prepared to swear under oath they had committed felonies on Jan 6th.
- That, in spite of repeated official claims to the contrary, Trump never ordered the National Guard in or, indeed, made any inquiries of any kind regarding the Nation's security while the Capitol was under attack.
- Vice President Mike Pence illegally in ordered the National Guard and Secretary of Defense Miller complied knowing that Pence had no authority but understanding the imperative of defending the Nation.
- Trump later illegally requested the Pentagon to report that he gave the order in contradiction to the truth.
- That Trump raised more than $250 million for an "election defense fund" that Trump never bothered to create.
- That's more than he raised for the election.
- And unlike election campaign money, few rules govern how Trump may spend that money.
- NONE of that $250 million was spent investigating campaign fraud (more evidence that Trump knew it was a waste of time).
- Congresswoman Lofgren claims they have evidence that at least some of this money was just transferred to Trump family accounts.
(This was not covered in the hearing but we might note that Trump's fundraising had a major detrimental impact on the Georgia Senate races decided on Jan 5th. In spite of sucking up all the available campaign money, Trump gave no money to Perdue or Loeffler's campaigns. That is, there is a good argument to be made that Trump's greed directly cost the GOP Senatorial power.)
- That testimony shows that Eastman and Giuliani, at least, were aware of the false and illegal nature of election claims in private insider conversations while maintaining those false and illegal claims in every public venue.
- That the Dept of Justice reports that confidential informants have sworn under oath that the Proud Boys' instructions were to assassinate Pence and/or Pelosi.
- That J. Michael Luttig, arch-conservative judge and Scalia acolyte testified that Trump directly ordered Pence to violate his oath of office and warned that Republicans already have a plan for a second coup attempt in 2024.
- That Arizona Republican House Speaker Rusty Bowers testified that Trump, Giuliani, Eastman, Andy Biggs and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas illegally pressured Bowers to falsify election results.
- Giuliani confessed to Bowers that he had no evidence of election fraud.
- Trump illegally issued a statement stating that Bowers confirmed election fraud when Bowers had directly reported the opposite to Trump.
- That Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson tried to personally deliver instruction to Pence on how to falsify election results minutes before the certification began but Pence's staff refused.
- Johnson acknowledges possession of those instructions but now claims that he does not know what they contained or who they came from (in spite of asking to hand deliver those papers to Pence). If you were handing a package to the VP of the US wouldn't you want to know what was in it or who it came from?
- That Trump illegally pressured AGs Rosen and Donoghue to falsify election results and appoint Special Counsel investigations into Election Fraud and Hunter Biden.
- After a week of daily refusals, Trump ordered his AG to "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen." Rosen refused.
- Trump then tried to fire Rosen and appoint Jeffrey Clarke acting AG. Trump relented after Rosen advised that the entire top tier of the Justice Department was prepared to resign rather than allow such corruption.
- That testimony under oath suggests that Trump inquired why the crowd at his rally was so small and was advised that large portions of the crowd could not pass through security because they were armed with knives, pistols, rifles, body armor, bear spray, and spears. Trump allegedly requested that security measures be halted because "they're not here to hurt me."
- Trump did plan to lead the armed militia into the Capitol but was prevented by the Secret Service.
- That further testimony suggests that when the crowd started chanting "Hang Mike Pence," White House lawyers demanded that Meadows act to forestall violence. Meadows confirmed that Trump had no problem with the crowd and that Trump felt strongly that the Vice President, "deserves it." That is, the VP deserved to die for keeping his oath to the American People.
Created:
Posted in:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Curious to know what everyone's thoughts are.
I think we have established as fact what we most feared: a President of the United States refused to surrender power, poorly planned and incompetently executed a lame-brained coup with malice aforethought and deliberately homicidal intent and, true that President's legendarily mendacious character, lied to everyone about his purpose and conduct at every possible opportunity.
I'm also curious to know what Trump supporters think about the idea that he should be president again despite the evidence clearly showing his violation of his oath of office.
Trump violated his oath of office harder than any previous President on his third day in office at the very latest, when the acting Attorney General advised the President that he had appointed a secret Russian agent to the top spy job in the American government and Trump fired the AG on the spot, already well aware that he had placed a Russian agent in the job. These weren't well-established facts at the time but they are now: Flynn and Trump acknowledged these facts in order pardon Flynn. There's compelling for hundreds of subsequent violations of the President's oath, most of which far exceed the worst conduct of any previous President. We have long established that Trump supporters don't have opinions that conflict with their dear leader's immediate need. Any derivation from the latest version of Trump's narrative means instant ejection- we have thousands of examples now of loyal Trump followers who told the truth even just once and Trump has held a grudge ever since.
It is clear now Trump will have to survive some felony indictments before his next run for President but it is just as clear that Trump views that run as his only path to avoiding punishment.
Created:
In late June, Republicans in Texas published two resolutions emerging from their 2022 party convention.
1. 2020 Election:
We believe that the 2020 election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple ways, including by allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020. We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States.
No evidence supports this claim. Most of Trump's closest advisors have now testified under oath that Trump deliberately manufactured and propagandized this false claim entirely aware of the absence of evidence and entirely aware of the illegal, unconstitutional, unpatriotic and anti-American nature of manufacturing such a claim. That Texas Republicans choose to promote the Big Lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary demonstrates that Texas Republicans remain supplicant to Trump's will and are therefore disqualified from any position of political leadership.
2. Resolution against the Gang of 20 Gun Control bill:
Whereas those under 21 are most likely to be victims of violent crime and thus most likely to need to defend themselves. Whereas “red flag laws” violate one’s right to due process and are a pre-crime punishment of people not adjudicated guilty. Whereas waiting periods on gun purchases harm those who need to acquire the means of self defense in emergencies such as riots. Whereas all gun control is a violation of the Second Amendment and our God given rights. We reject the so called “bipartisan gun agreement”, and we rebuke Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
According to the GOP, Jesus wants us to make sure we are putting machine guns in the hands of those under 21 years of age, especially in the middle of a riot.
Both of these strike me as signaling loyalty to powers entirely unaffiliated with the truth, common sense, or American prosperity.
Created:
Eugenics
After World War I, Sanger increasingly appealed to the societal need to limit births by those least able to afford children. The affluent and educated already limited their child-bearing, while the poor and uneducated lacked access to contraception and information about birth control. Here she found an area of overlap with eugenicists. She believed that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." She distinguished herself from other eugenicists, by writing "eugenists [sic] imply or insist that a woman's first duty is to the state; we contend that her duty to herself is her duty to the state. We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aimed to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.
Sanger's view of eugenics was influenced by Havelock Ellis and other British eugenicists, including H.G. Wells, with whom she formed a close, lasting friendship. She did not speak specifically to the idea of race or ethnicity being determining factors and "although Sanger articulated birth control in terms of racial betterment and, like most old-stock Americans, supported restricted immigration, she always defined fitness in individual rather than racial terms." Instead, she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one's economic ability to raise and support healthy children. This would lead to a betterment of society and the human race.[119] Sanger's view put her at odds with leading American eugenicists, such as Charles Davenport, who took a racist view of inherited traits. In A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, Engelman also noted that "Sanger quite effortlessly looked the other way when others spouted racist speech. She had no reservations about relying on flawed and overtly racist works to serve her own propaganda needs."
In "The Morality of Birth Control", a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the "educated and informed" class that regulated the size of their families, the "intelligent and responsible" who desired to control their families in spite of lacking the means or the knowledge, and the "irresponsible and reckless people" whose religious scruples "prevent their exercising control over their numbers". Sanger concludes, "There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."
Sanger's eugenics policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods, and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, as well as compulsory segregation or sterilization for the "profoundly retarded". Sanger wrote, "we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding." In The Pivot of Civilization she criticized certain charity organizations for providing free obstetric and immediate post-birth care to indigent women without also providing information about birth control nor any assistance in raising or educating the children. By such charities, she wrote, "The poor woman is taught how to have her seventh child, when what she wants to know is how to avoid bringing into the world her eighth."
In personal correspondence she expressed her sadness about the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program, and donated to the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda.
Sanger believed that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment. Initially she advocated that the responsibility for birth control should remain with able-minded individual parents rather than the state. Later, she proposed that "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples," but added that the requirement should be implemented by state advocacy and reward for complying, not enforced by punishing anyone for violating it.
She was supported by one of the most racist authors in America in the 1920s, the Klansman Lothrop Stoddard, who was a founding member of the Board of Directors of Sanger's American Birth Control League. Chesler comments:
Margaret Sanger was never herself a racist, but she lived in a profoundly bigoted society, and her failure to repudiate prejudice—especially when it was manifest among proponents of her cause—has haunted her ever since.
Abortion
Margaret Sanger opposed abortion and sharply distinguished it from birth control. She believed that the latter is a fundamental right of women and the former is a shameful crime. In 1916, when she opened her first birth control clinic, she was employing harsh rhetoric against abortion. Flyers she distributed to women exhorted them in all capitals: "Do not kill, do not take life, but prevent." Sanger's patients at that time were told "that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but it was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun." Sanger consistently distanced herself from any calls for legal access to abortion, arguing that legal access to contraceptives would remove the need for abortion. Ann Hibner Koblitz has argued that Sanger's anti-abortion stance contributed to the further stigmatization of abortion and impeded the growth of the broader reproductive rights movement.
While Margaret Sanger condemned abortion as a method of family limitation, she was not opposed to abortion intended to save a woman's life. Furthermore, in 1932, Margaret Sanger directed the Clinical Research Bureau to start referring patients to hospitals for therapeutic abortions when indicated by an examining physician. She also advocated for birth control so that the pregnancies that led to therapeutic abortions could be prevented in the first place.
Created:
Anyway how will it be enforced?
There's an internet-connected mic and camera in most American bedrooms now, unlike before. I assume Republicans have a plan for monitoring and culling out all unapproved private and political activities.
Just under half of American men self-report trying anal sex with a woman. If we add unreported and same sex estimates we are talking about putting well over the majority of US men and over one of third of US women in jail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@jaishawnemmette5
Indubitably- however our souls must reply only commerce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
how do u pronounce your username in your own mind?
I just pronounce it as kind-of-mumbled "flower" even knowing that not even the right letter order.
Wikipedia suggests it means Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker, which is a metric based on the exact solution of Einstein's field equations of general relativity; it describes a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding (or otherwise, contracting) universe that is path-connected, but not necessarily simply connected
Created:
Dmitry Bliznyk, Kharkiv
There were days and hours when the city was shelled and I told myself, OK, I am about to die. We live in a private house without a basement: my mother, my 82-two-year-old uncle, and me.
How to say, how to unfold the words that I clench inside my fist onto this page? I am re-watching a video (I don’t know who took it, I found it online) of a bomb that exploded on my street, not 300 meters from my home. Sasha, my neighbor, was killed.
Saltivka, the Kharkiv neighborhood, is a scene from a movie about the apocalypse: Russian soldiers bomb everything in this part of the city. They bomb the city center, too: hospitals, schools, shopping malls. If there is a logic to this bombardment it is the logic of a madman who wants to shell everything he sees. But the city refuses to give in.
At night: large stars. Silhouettes of houses. And hours of fear and waiting. All streetlamps are turned off. People are hiding in the basements and metro stations. During the day: this large city is deserted, like an empty sports stadium, no one is there. In the first days of war, people are hunting for food in groceries, crowds in pharmacies. But the war also unites us — neighbors help each other, it is as if we look into these days as into the mirror and see ourselves for who we are. My friend Oleg volunteers by transporting people. He drives under bombs every day. Another friend, a young man named Nikita, and his mother find themselves in the basement of a shopping mall where they cook food for 1,500 people hiding in a nearby metro station. He walks underground for miles bringing people large pots of food. My neighbor Kostya drives people out of town in his ancient, trembling car and comes back and drives more people. Probably, we are all going mad here. Poetry is what saves me, daily; my straw through which I breathe fresh air. One must breathe through terror.
Morning: they are bombing the city. Night: I am editing my poems. Morning: bombardments again. For everything, there is time: bombardments, fear, quiet, loved ones, moments of wonder. Reality fragments.
Those who have seen war understand this.
Created:
Posted in:
- RationalMadman
- Whiteflame
- Barney
- Tejretics
- misterchris
- bsh1
- semperfortis
Created:
-->
@Methusellah
In light of the world events of the last few years one must conclude that there is something rotten in our 'democratic' system of government.
How about some examples?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagiDoes Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?Would love a response to the entire post, but at the very least address this question.
You are only repeating yourself. You don't have a rational expectation of repeated responses.
"Full Resolution: The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"That already explains that we're not just talking about some abstract concept of just "lacking belief". But I went on to explain it even further for those that needed their hand to be held:"The definition contrasts with Con's position that the definition of atheism entails a belief in the non-existence of any gods. The purpose of the debate is to determine which of these two definitions should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize."Perhaps if you read the rules of the debate before judging it you would have known what the debate was about.
I did read the rules and explained my position in the first sentences of my vote. Perhaps if you read my vote you could save the repetition.
"As initiator and maker of extraordinary claims, PRO has the BURDEN of PROOF here.
PRO offers us three fairly different standards to apply:
1) Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
2) The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
3) [A lack of belief] should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
PRO clearly states that #2 is the Full Resolution and so #2 will be used to establish PRO's burden. That is, this VOTER won't apply the much lower standard of "lack of belief is one simple definition for atheism" or the much lower standard of "most reasonable." #2 does appear to be PRO's intent. PRO must prove that atheism has only one acceptable definition. Given that PRO is contradicting the body of Western scholarship regarding this definition, PRO has set himself a nearly impossible task. PRO defines all kinds of terms except for the one relevant term, ATHEISM.
PRO argues that dictionaries should do away with the most strict , precise definition of atheism and only use the more broad definition mostly overlapping with agnosticism."
Does Richard Dawkins hold a belief in the existence in any dieties? Yes or No?
Answered in POST #80
First of all, no one cares to create terms for impartial flatists. This is a debate no one is seriously having, Second, I know of no one who takes the position that they simply lack belief in the shape of the earth, yet nearly every atheist takes the position that they lack belief in the existence of a god. Third, there is only one earth, so whatever position you take on it is your position. Fourth, "anti" means "against", so your term already assumes things that do not apply to the subset of people you are clumping together.
So...you don't understand how metaphors work. That is a shame.
It's not a recategorization, it's broadening the definition to make it more inclusive.
That's a lie. You keep shifting your goalposts.
Here was your own summary of your position:
"Since defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of a god is both useless and logically untenable, the only sensible alternative is to recognize atheism as the lack of belief in a god."
That is not inclusive, that is explicitly exclusive. Because Y and Z are useless and illogical, let's change A=XYZ to just A=X. An active disbelief in the impossibility of gods is not fairly or inclusively or accurately defined as "simply a lack of belief in gods."
Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life. That doesn't mean everyone who is pro life agrees with that position.
Oh, NOW you understand metaphors.
Someone who believes using contraception warrants the death penalty is pro life.
OED records the earliest use of the word Pro-life in 1960 in this sentence:
"No pro-life parent or teacher would ever strike a child. No pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishment of homosexuals, our attitude toward bastardy."
When the word was coined, support for the death penalty was specifically disqualifying. Over time, mis-use of the broad definition became so commonplace that the original intent of the word has been trampled. That's a shame and an essential semantic distinction lost. Let's not do the same to ATHEISM.
Apparently, you think that means we should come up with a new term for that specific subset of pro lifers as to not lump them in with those who just don't think terminating a pregnancy should be legal.
Definitely, since to call a Pro-death penalty protestor PRO-LIFE is deliberately deceptive. Likewise, to say that Richard Dawkins "simply lacks belief in gods" is deliberately deceptive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
lacking a belief in bigfoot....does not imply a belief that bigfoot certainly does NOT exist
Agreed. Therefore, it would be unfair to categorize those people who believe with certainty that bigfoot does not exist as a subset of the people who simply lack belief in bigfoot. A lack of belief in bigfoot does not accurately describe a belief that bigfoot is impossible. A disbelief in bigfoot is not simply a lack of belief in bigfoot, more than that- it is a theory actively proposed and demanding evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiFalse and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief,Richard Dawkins does not have a belief in gods.
And also Dawkins does not simply "lack belief"
Richard Dawkins lacks a belief in gods.
This is false.
LACK is "A deficiency or need (of something desirable or necessary); an absence, want."
Dawkins does not consider gods desirable or necessary. He is not missing or wanting a belief in gods. Dawkins believes that a belief in gods is destructive to human progress. Dawkins disbelief is active and affirmative. To describe that as a lack of something is false.
Richard Dawkins does not worship or profess belief in gods.
True.
Richard Dawkins lacks worship and profession of belief in gods.
This is false. Dawkins does not consider worship or profession of gods desirable or necessary. He is not missing or wanting to worship or profess belief in gods. Dawkins' disbelief is active and affirmative and to describe that belief as a lack of theism is false and demeaning.
Richard Dawkins does not have a tomato for a head.
I am not observing Dawkins so I am agnostic regarding this assertion.
Richard Dawkins lacks a tomato for a head.
To prove this true, you must first establish that Dawkins considers tomatoes a desirable or necessary cephalic substitution. Dawkins can only LACK a tomato for a head if he needed or wanted a tomato head and did not get it.
This is not "an insult".
Look, if I defined a Roman Catholic as a person who "lacked belief in Mohammed as God's messenger" that would be true but exclusionary. If I said a Roman Catholic "simply lacked belief in Mohammed as God's messenger" I would imply that all of Roman Catholicism is accurately described by its absence of Mohammedism. Would that be an accurate description of Roman Catholicism or a re-definition from a Muslim perspective. If I believe the Earth is round, is it fair or accurate to say I am simply anti-Flatist?
Dawkins identifies as a De facto atheist- very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." Dawkins calls any and all religions scientific theories without much supporting evidence. Dawkins is not LACKING those theories, he is dismissing known theists' theories as unproven and asserting scientific theories of his own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
Is this a joke?
Nope.
it literally means the exact same fucking thing.
Don't know why even a kindergartener would argue that "lack of belief" does not mean something different than "lack of belief in gods or deities"
but it is this kind of disconnect from the obvious that loses debates.
Y and X both include a lack of belief, because it is logically impossible for one to believe in the non-existence of any dieties without lacking belief in the existence in any dieties. Therefore X is a subset of Y.
False and demeaning to strict Atheists like Richard Dawkins who don't lack belief, they actively believe that there can be no gods and actively believe that belief in gods is wrong.
I think we're just repeating ourselves here but let's try one more metaphor.
1. Strong flatist = I know the Earth is flat
2. Weak flatist = strongly believes the Earth is flat
3. Flatist agnostic = The Earth looks kind of flat.
4. Impartial agnostic = I don't know- I can't see the Earth
5. Roundist agnostic = The earth looks kind of round
6. Weak Roundist = I believe the Earth is round
7. Strong Roundist = I know for a fact the Earth is round.
Your argument is that since all impartials and roundists are anti-flatists let's re-define all impartials and roundists as simply anti-flatists. Doesn't a strong roundist have the right to say "I know for a fact that the Earth is round and I don't wish to be lumped in with wishy-washy anti-flatists. I don't wish to be redefined and you don't have the authority to make me?" What is the value of re-defining Roundists as Anti-flatists beyond the imposition of one ideology over another?
A belief that no gods can exist is a much more affirmative assertion than "simply lack of belief" and cannot be re-categorized as mere lack of belief without giving insult to those believers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagiLet's get something straight... The current definition of atheism is in fact, a lack of belief.
That's false.
Google the damn word. I just did, here are the results:
1st: "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"Google (taken from Oxford)
That's right. "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.
2nd: "The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"Miriam-Webster
That's right. "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any god" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.
3rd: "This generates the following definition: atheism isPlato.Stanford.
That's right. "the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists." is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.
4. atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.- Britannica
That's right. "the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.
5. Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.Wikipedia
That's right. "the absence of belief in the existence of deities" is way more specific and rational than "simply a lack of belief."
Totally different definition that what you falsely claim.
So four out of the first five definitions that pop up include lack of belief as the definition, and if you actually ask any atheist they will explain to you what the word means.
Let's also note that all of the above have additional, valid definitions of Atheism. Why do you want to change all of these valid definitions?
At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.Nor was I talking about it there. I was explaining why the definition you advocate for does not work according to your own criteria.
I beg your pardon, but I have not advocated for any specific defintion except to argue to leave the current definitions alone as fine and functional.
You claim lack of belief will increase confusion,
False. I claim that if you re-defined ATHEISM
From:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notesThe term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- A lack of belief
confusion would result and legitimate atheists excluded from your radical new definition.
but only those who already don't understand basic critical thinking are the ones who will be confused by it. That's not an increase of confusion, just moving the confusion to a new concept and one which they would all be better off understanding.
I see. So this is just a special new re-definition for the "critical thinkers." Got it. I think most lexicographers would agree that dictionary definitions should be written for the benefit of all readers.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.Your criteria was literally the same as his
How is "language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible" the same criteria as "obviously, language exists for more than one purpose."
I am beginning to think both of you don't understand the meaning of the words ONLY, SIMPLY, MERELY. Simply "lack of belief" means something radically different than "lack of belief in gods or deities" or " disbelief or lack of belief in gods or deities."
Look- you start by arguing A should only equal X when traditionally A=XYZ. You've argued
- Y and Z are ideologically unsound and
- Y and Z are sufficiently similar to X to just be redefined as X
Both of these notions are total non-starters as reasons to redefine A.
Now you're coming back to me and saying, "Let's get something straight, X has always been part of A." I never said it wasn't, I said ""why change A?"
3RU7AL's coming back to me saying "You argued that X was never a part of A!" I never did. I said, "why change A?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I agreed with you, specifically I agreed with you that the dictionary sources I found ALREADY include "lack of belief".That is not the same as "conceded".
-->@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiI showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.A ridiculous red-herring which I chose not to pursue.
Sorry, but you folded.
You argued "if and only if we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible, then...."
But that's so obviously false a child could refute.
Mom: "What do want you for dinner, Jimmy?"
Jimmy: "Poopie-farts!" (See what Jimmy did there? He deliberately perverted clear communication between humans and inserted error and miscommunication for the purpose of humor or attention-getting).
If it was a red-herring type of logical fallacy, then my argument would not have relevantly and directly disproved your argument. Is language sometimes absurd? Does absurdity deliberately overthrow clear communication between humans? Obviously. The statement you used to justify rewriting the dictionary was obviously false on arrival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiand also not "simply a lack of belief."Everyone on earth (except you apparently) understands this is vis-à-vis "theism".
I argue with the words people write, not the words people meant to write or the words some writers assume "everyone on Earth understands." If your intent was to redefine the word ATHEIST
From:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notesThe term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- A lack of belief vis-à-vis theism
You should have said so at least once during the course of your voluminous, ever-shifting argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiChristianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.Nobody has argued that words themselves should be removed.
Well, that's true. I should correct myself by saying "doesn't make a good argument for removing one or more definitions from the word ATHEISM"
Only that confusing and incoherent DEFINITIONS should be removed.
Nobody has made that argument. The only suggested definition that would prove confusing is yours: simply "a lack of belief."
Double_R specifically argued against the coherence of the ideology and NEVER against the coherence of the definition. In fact, Double_R failed to define ATHEISM at any point.
Double_R argued: "Defining atheism as the belief in the non-existence of any gods is at its core logically untenable. In order for atheism to be the belief that no gods exist the atheist must therefore be in the position of having an active belief in the non-existence of every god concept imaginable."
Double_R explicitly argued for the removal of this definition: "Therefore this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."
The definition of ATHEIST in the strictest sense is perfectly clear: "Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs). " and Double_R is clearly arguing that the dictionary must be corrected for exclusively ideological reasons.
You yourself have made this argument.
That the current definition should change? No- that is a lie.
The definition of "christian" as "one who professes belief in the teachings of jesus christ" is not a logically incoherent definition.
Nor is the definition of Atheist as "one who believes no deities exist." That is semantically coherent but Double_R argued for its exclusion from the dictionary on ideological grounds: " this definition cannot possibly provide an accurate picture of the atheist’s position."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You have repeatedly argued to EXCLUDE "lack of belief" (from the definition of "atheism") specifically saying it is, "much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs."
That's quite false. I think if you go back and read my arguments you will find I never argued for any modification to the current definition and the problem is exclusively in your comprehension.
Why would I argue in favor of any change by specifically saying that change "is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs" Does that sound like an argument for modification to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAt no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims.The term "logical-coherence" has been mentioned more than a few times in the course of this discussion.
Which does not refute the claim, "At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims."
It is true that Double_R argued in his debate that strict atheism is logically incoherent but that was not in this forum and that claim was not disputed by me. I asked why logical incoherence should be a just reason to remove a term from the dictionary. Christianity is logical incoherent but that doesn't make a good argument for removing the word from the dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In fact, you've argued since the beginning that "lack of belief" should NOT be included in the dictionary definition.And as it turns out, apparently, the lexicographers agree with me.
Deliberate deception. I have defended the current definition of ATHEISM. At no time have I suggested any modification.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you believe that people tend to adopt general strategies to deal with challenges they encounter ?
I don't pretend to know other people's brains but yes I generally assume most people try to cope.
do you believe these strategies are identifiable ??
Not to any predictive or utilitarian degree, no. Certainly not reducible to a handful of easy dichotomous archetypes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
-->@oromagiFurthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humansComplete nonsense, it does the exact opposite.This is the result of a failure to understand the most basic elements of critical thinking; No claim should be accepted without valid evidence."God exists" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed."No gods exist" is a claim. Valid evidence is needed.No valid evidence exists for either claim, therefore neither claim should be accepted.The overwhelming majority of atheists understand this. If theists understood how this works we would increase communication, not decrease it.
Moving goalposts. At no time have we discussed the validity of atheists'' claims. We are discussing whether the current definition of ATHEISM should be modified
FROM:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notesThe term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
TO:
Nounatheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- A lack of belief.
I call that going from clear and inclusive to fuzzy and exclusive.
3RU7AL defended your argument that ATHEISM should be redefined to only its broadest sense with this proposition:
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself.
I showed that language exists for other purposes, disproving this proposition.
3RU7AL defended your argument that beliefs that are alike in non-worship should be defined identically with this proposition:
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed(THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief"
This, 3RU7AL conceded is already true under the current defintion, therefore no re-definition to "a lack of belief" is necessary or justified.
and as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
3RU7AL never explained the value or consequence of making some definitions PRIMARY, whatever that means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiSo, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all. You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."Atheism is ALWAYS "a lack of belief" which can sometimes be paired with "a strong DISbelief" (among other related and incidental beliefs).Perhaps more precisely, "not a theist".
and also not "simply a lack of belief."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
Thanks.
As I've repeatedly tried to make clear to you, it has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions.
I see. So, when you made your topic read "Atheism is simply a lack of belief" you didn't mean simply at all. You meant "Atheism is sometimes a lack of belief."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Originally, you responded to a remark I made in a debate as follows:
>[Double_R argued that] strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible (THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itselfThere's your conditional statement.Feel free to point out any errors you may find.
I proved to you that "language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible"
- and you have conceded the argument by lack of response.
You argued that we should "remove and modify the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent"
- I pointed out that removing and modifying definitions of ATHEISM to simply read "a lack of belief" would introduce more error and miscommunication.
Now you're quoting a bunch of definitions that demonstrate what we've already known, that "a lack of belief in the existence of gods" is one of several less precise definitions of ATHEISM.
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
- Have you given up on your plan to redefine ATHEISM as "simply a lack of belief?"
- All of the status quo definitions specify "belief in deities/gods" but your definition does not.
- All of the status quo definitions acknowledge multiple uses but your definition wants to "simply" strip those out.
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "an absence of belief in the existence of deities."
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
- Yes or No?
Simply "a lack of belief" is less clear and useful than " a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods."
- Yes or No?
Are you still arguing to modify these definitions or have you conceded your original argument? I can't tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is your primary objection based on your assessment that "atheism" (defined as a mere "lack of belief in any specific theistic god") is synonymous with "agnosticism" (defined as a merely "The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable") ?
My primary objection is that your suggested re-definition, "a lack of belief" is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs.
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans for at least two reasons:
- ATHEISM is a lack of belief in deities but 3RU7AL's definition fails to specificy. That is, ATHEISM is NOT a lack of belief in democracy or gravity but we could not infer as much using 3RU7AL's underdefined definition.
- Unlike ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM is a modern term for which the original intent as coined is preserved "The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word AGNOSTIC in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
- That is, the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM.
- Let's agree that taking a well-established word and meaning and replacing it with some other word that already has other well-established meanings is a deliberate attempt to increase error and miscommunication in the English language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiAre you suggesting we should refer primarily to "original author's intent" for (BOTH) "atheism" (AND) "agnosticism"
Yes.
(and all other words generally or is this a case of "special pleading") ?
I don't have the capacity to consider all one million words in English, much less six thousand other languages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiHold on a minute.
Please choose (EITHER) "Wiktionary" (OR) "original author's intent"
It seems incoherent to hold one word to one standard and another word to a completely different standard.
Wiktionary defines the word as "Coined by Huxley"
agnosticism
Etymology
Coined by Thomas Henry Huxley. From a- + gnostic + -ism (see also agnostic).
Noun
agnosticism (countable and uncountable, plural agnosticisms)
- The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.
- The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable.
- Doubt, uncertainty, or skepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.
- (by extension) Doubt, uncertainty, or skepticism regarding any subject of dispute.
Wiktionary's definition of AGNOSTICISM is entirely inclusive of Huxley's original definition. It is false to say that Wiktionary applies a completely different standard than Huxley's.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
-->@oromagiThanks for that fake-woke rant.
In fact, I offered no original opinion or text so there's no possibility of a "rant" on my part. I have no idea what what people mean when they say "woke." Usage on this site suggests that its just another "doubleplusungood" without any real semantic implication. Therfore, "fake-woke" seems equally null in semantic intent beyond generic insult.
I just cut & paste some reasonable journalism on the subject for people who dislike being duped by phony scientific claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it's part of a conditional statement
I know. That is why falsifying your conditional statement falsified your conclusion.
can we agree that the primary function of a dictionary is to reduce miscommunication between humans ?
No. Some dictionaries actively increase miscommunication for ideological reasons. For example, Webster chose to ignore traditional English spellings and pronunciation in favor of creating a distinctly American dictionary, creating a new American standard which sometimes disagrees with British standards.
I think most lexicographers would prefer to document the miscommunication rather than take sides.
So, for example Wiktionary documents:
#########
atheism (usually uncountable, plural atheisms)
- (strictly) Belief that no deities exist (sometimes including rejection of other religious beliefs).
- (broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
- (very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
- (historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).
Usage notes
The term atheism may refer either to:
- (rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),
- (absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),
- (affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).
########
STRICT means "Rigidly interpreted; exactly limited; confined; restricted." That is, the MOST PRECISE definition of Atheism is the BELIEF that no deities exist. If we were to force a LESS PRECISE interpretation to be PRIMARY (whatever that is supposed to mean), we would be deliberately obscuring the most precisely intended and truthful interpretation in favor of a less precise, less truthful re-definition.
Furthermore, re-defining ATHEISM as "lack of belief" deliberately fuzzies up meaning and increases miscommunications among humans for at least two reasons:
- ATHEISM is a lack of belief in deities but 3RU7AL's definition fails to specificy. That is, ATHEISM is NOT a lack of belief in democracy or gravity but we could not infer as much using 3RU7AL's underdefined definition.
- Unlike ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM is a modern term for which the original intent as coined is preserved "The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word AGNOSTIC in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
- That is, the most precise definition of AGNOSTICISM already occupies the precise semantic grounds that 3RU7AL is trying to redefine as ATHEISM.
- Let's agree that taking a well-established word and meaning and replacing it with some other word that already has other well-established meanings is a deliberate attempt to increase error and miscommunication in the English language.
Created:
The MYERS-BRIGGS PERSONALITY TEST is BULLSHIT
Why is it so popular?
Are you an introvert or an extrovert, a feeler or a thinker? For years, the go-to for this kind of introspective info has been gleaned from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, a lengthy self-report survey established by Katharine Cook Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers in the early-20th century. The mother and daughter duo were not psychologists, but studied the work of psychoanalytical forefather Carl Jung. As such, their MBTI intends to categorize people with questions based on Jung's interpretation of the four core psychological functions—extraversion versus introversion, intuitive versus sensing, feeling versus thinking, and judging versus perceiving. After completion, you're be assigned a four-digit barcode (INFJ, ESTP) with each letter corresponding to what side you fall on each of those aforementioned spectrums, eventually trickling down into 16 distinct personality types.
The MBTI has become a weirdly ubiquitous piece of pop psychology. Businesses have used the Myers-Briggs test to make hiring decisions, there are academic papers published evaluating the correlation between MBTI and employment satisfaction, and there are literally thousands of personality-type clubs on meetup.com, (like "Toronto INFJs,") ostensibly so that a community bound by nothing more than an online quiz can finally find solidarity with one another. (From my anecdotal research, I can also confirm that the diagnoses appear in a good deal of Tinder profiles too.) It's easy to see why. No matter how logical and lucid someone might be, it's always nice to be told you're special by a deterministic authority.
But before you take the test or assign it any weight…
"The research out there says that [the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator] doesn't predict behavior in a consistent way, and psychometrically, the way it's constructed, is pretty odd," says Ronald Riggio, who earned his PhD in Psychology at the University of California, Riverside, and currently teaches at Claremont McKenna College. "My first encounter with the scale was when a student presented it to me, and since it was so poorly constructed, I thought it was the student's work."
Riggio's contempt for the test is echoed by most voices in the professional psychological community. The personality testing specialist, Robert Hogan, famously called Myers-Briggs "little more than a Chinese fortune cookie" in his book Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Adam Grant, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has said "there's just no evidence behind [the test,]" concluding that it carried no "predictive power" whatsoever. And David J. Pittenger, an assistant professor researching the MBTI at the University of Indiana in the early 90s, stated flatly that "there is no obvious evidence that there are 16 unique categories in which all people can be placed."
The primary complaint about the MBTI has to do with the way the scale measures cognitive instinct. Myers-Briggs works in binaries—you're either judging or perceiving, intuitive or sensing—and one or two questions can be the conclusive factor in tipping your results into either of those directions. That doesn't reflect the complicated reality of human personality, which is by no means black or white. Most people are somewhere in the middle, and that's the foundational thing the MBTI fails to understand. "[For introversion and extroversion,] you either get an 'I' or an 'E' score. It's a true/false kind of test. It limits the variance of it," says Riggio. "Most other personality tests measure as a continuum. They can say, 'You're a little bit I,' or, 'You're on the borderline,' or, 'You're a little bit E.'"
Riggio also doesn't put much stock into Carl Jung's research, simply because, well, Carl Jung wasn't a researcher. Jung emerged from the Freudian-era of psychology, which was more about lamenting the human condition than, you know, science. "Jung's theories are not considered to be solid," he says. "He wasn't an empiricist. He didn't collect data." So how to explain the MBTI's popularity? It's probably the soft-focus endearing way in which the personality descriptions are written. There isn't a scrap of negativity in it. Everything is composed optimistically. The Type Indicator will never tell you that you're a bad person.
"When you read the basic descriptions, they're all written in a positive way," says Riggio. "[Psychologists] call that the Barnum Effect. The Barnum Effect says that if you write something that's so general [it can apply to anyone]. They all sound right, they're all so positive and kind of generic, people say, 'Oh my God, this is a miracle—it totally applies to me.'"
Basically, they're like horoscopes.
But to be fair, there are some people in the psychology community who don't dismiss Myers-Briggs wholesale, particularly in the case of employers or anyone having to make a decision. John Johnson is a personality psychologist at Pennsylvania State University who says that while the MBTI does fail to fully convey the full complexity of, say, the introversion/extroversion spectrum, that's a problem that befalls plenty of personality evaluations that are far less scrutinized.
"When it comes to making a decision based on personality scores, that decision is almost always binary or categorical," he says. "For example, does a person have a strong enough disposition on personality traits A, B, and C to be hired? You either hire someone or not—there is nothing in between. In all of these cases of making a decision—whether about someone else, or for yourself—you are forced to treat personality spectra as type categories."
Still, Johnson does acknowledge he's an outlier in the psychological community. That's fine—he's fighting for the rights of laymen to enjoy our diagnosis without feeling stupid. "Academic personality psychologists almost universally criticize the MBTI and similar type indicators for not adhering to their professional standards for psychological assessment," he says. "The controversy is more between academic psychologists on the one hand and, on the other hand, practitioners in other fields who use the MBTI for workshops as well as people who take the MBTI and find value in it."
Riggio concedes the point. "If people do some research, I think it's fine for self-exploration," he says. "If it gets people hooked on psychology, that's a positive side effect."
There's no danger in taking your Myers-Briggs temperature, as long as you don't get too invested in the results. Think of it like you would tarot cards, a palm reading, horoscopes, or a BuzzFeed quiz—a bit of serious fun you shouldn't take too seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible
- This statement is manifestly false. Here is a popular bit of communication in the English language that deliberately obscures any clear notion of semantic intent and uses outright impossible juxtapositions to communicate mood and feeling with maximal error and miscommunication.
I Am The Walrus
By John Lennon
By John Lennon
I am he
As you are he
As you are me
And we are all together
See how they run
Like pigs from a gun
See how they fly
I’m crying
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
Corporation tee shirt
Stupid bloody Tuesday
Man, you been a naughty boy
You let your face grow long
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen, (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Mister city p’liceman sitting pretty
Little p’licemen in a row
See how they fly
Like Lucy in the sky
See how they run
I’m crying
I’m crying, I’m crying, I’m crying
Yellow matter custard
Dripping from a dead dog’s eye
Crabalocker fishwife pornographic priestess
Boy you been a naughty girl
You let your knickers down
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Sitting in an English
Garden waiting for the sun
If the sun don’t come
You get a tan from standing in the English rain
I am the eggman
They are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob g’ goo goo g’ joob
Expert texpert choking smokers
Don’t you think the joker laughs at you?
See how they smile
Like pigs in a sty, see how they snied
I’m crying
Semolina pilchards
Climbing up the Eiffel Tower
Element’ry penguin singing Hare Krishna
Man, you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allan Poe
I am the eggman (Ooh)
They are the eggmen (Ooh)
I am the walrus
Goo goo g’ joob
Goo goo g’ joob
G’ goo goo g’ joob
Goo goo g’ joob, goo goo g’ goo g’ goo goo g’ joob joob
Joob joob…
- Terms of Service agreements deliberately use obscure, redundant, obfuscating language to discourage users from having a clear idea of what they are agreeing to.
- The King James Version of the Bible deliberately rejects the most accurate translations of Koine Greek ins pursuit of maximizing propaganda and poesis.
- If precision is what we're after, can't we eliminate all the words that are spelled the same but mean different things first? bark vs bark, for example.
- Precise communication of monosemous words is NOT the only purpose of language and thank god this is less true of modern English than any other language ever.
(THEN) we can agree that removing and or modifying the definitions of words to make them less logically incoherent serves the core function of language itself
Dangerous stuff, the removal of words (censorship) to serve the mandate of logical coherence. Who will make sure the language police are themselves pure in reason, I wonder, and not ideologically motivated to control our thoughts by paring down polysemy in our language?
(IFF) the broad term "theism" is valid and useful to describe a large category of people who believe extremely different things, many of them mutually exclusive and even diametrically opposed
- If theism can mean many diametrically opposed things and remain valid and useful, then 3RU7AL has disproved his first proposition: "that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible"
(THEN) the broad term "atheism" should be able to accommodate BOTH "lack of belief" AND "active DISbelief" without any problem whatsoever, especially since "lack of belief" does not logically EXCLUDE "active DISbelief" and
- A description of the way things currently stand.
as such it should be considered the more inclusive (broader) definition and therefore PRIMARY
- Why? Why can't we just use the word that best fits our intent?
- Inclusivity is not by itself a virtue in every usage. PRIMATE is more inclusive than HUMAN but people would likely object to being called PRIMATE all the time.
- This notion of ranking words into PRIMARY and non-PRIMARY uses strikes me as thought control- an attempt to manipulate present usage to better suit some ideological agenda. What is that ideological agenda?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
the belief in being senator-like.
....(so, for example, cocaine fueled orgies are one way to be Senatorial, like a Senator. Getting drunk and drowning some young piece of ass you've just picked up is traditionally quite Senatorial. SENATORIALISM could well be "a belief in fucking drunk".)
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism becomes impossible without government to enforcement the law
This is also true without refuting my point.
Created:
Posted in:
A discussion for Pharisees who, had they been in the crowd listening to the Sermon on the Mount, would have called out, "Wait, Rabbi! Before I can take any of this too seriously, we need to discuss your mother's sex life... "
Jesus is not recorded as having made this claim and I am quite confident that he would have considered the question entirely irrelevant to the lessons he was teaching.
Created: