Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2015, 12:42:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 49
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian Economics on: May 17, 2015, 02:57:03 pm
What I find interesting is the link between "Jeffersonian economics" and westward expansion/Indian removal.
2  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of a Different Kind of Dude Fest on: May 17, 2015, 09:54:29 am
That involves a color. Not gender.

It involves a color that's associated with gender.
3  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of a Different Kind of Dude Fest on: May 16, 2015, 03:37:03 pm
Would any metal band ever challenge concepts of masculinity?

One of Boris' most well-known albums is named "Pink", which also happens to be the most prominent color on that album's cover. How many hardcore bands can say that?

Obviously not hardcore but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Day_Real_Estate_(album)

If I'd brought up Sunbather, that would have been a valid response. However, what I'm asking for is a well-known punk/hardcore/post-hardcore album named "pink".

Come on, man. If you can't beat metal on this, you'd might as well just concede that it's more progressive on the topic of gender.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of a Different Kind of Dude Fest on: May 16, 2015, 03:24:16 pm
Would any metal band ever challenge concepts of masculinity?

One of Boris' most well-known albums is named "Pink", which also happens to be the most prominent color on that album's cover. How many hardcore bands can say that?
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Joe Republic Bureau of Funny Post Archival on: May 11, 2015, 07:25:14 am
Quote
What Mississippi looked like in 2012:

White: 59% of electorate @ 11% Democrat = 6.5
Black: 37% of electorate @ 95% Democrat = 35.1
Other: 4% of electorate @ 60% Democrat = 2.4

Democrats = 44% of the vote

Quote
What a (likely) winning 2024 scenario for Democrats would look like in Mississippi:

White: 55% of electorate @ 20% Democrat = 11
Black: 40% of electorate @ 90% Democrat = 36
Other: 5% of electorate @ 60% Democrat = 3

Democrats = 50% of the vote

Why would whites vote MORE Dem??? When the trend is the other way. If whites in MS fear losing power, they will vote GOP at close to 90% not 80%.

Also in state races and for US Senate the GOP has gotten up to 35% of the black vote.

Even likeable Thad Cochran last year didn't get 35%. And Republicans maxed out with white vote. Very slowly, but more and more whites will adapt to the idea that elected Black (most likely)  Democrat as Senator (or Governor, for that matter) is far from being "apocalypsis". They already adapted to large number of Blacks not only voting, but sitting in Legislature... It will take considerable time (that's why i think about 2040-45), but it WILL happen.. If Thomas Pickens Brady would be resurrected now, only 40 years after death - he would, probably, be so amazed about what happened in his beloved Mississippi, that he wouldn't have any non-profane words for it...))))

Trent Lott use to get 35%. But the GOP doesnt need that much to win every election. 15-20% will do.

Source?

I guess if you dont like the stat you can demand the source. But people quote numbers here all the time and no one asks for a source. So your demand is arbitrary and capricious. Lott use to get 35% of the black vote and if you dont like it tough
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 05, 2015, 10:25:01 am


This is part of a bas-relief sculpture at the US Supreme Court.  The person who created it probably had no idea about the taboo among muslims and it's in the context of other historical figures. 

Is this offensive because it depicts Mohammed?  No.

If all contemporary depictions of Muhammad were as respectful as the one on the Supreme Court, I wouldn't feel inclined to criticize those who were responsible for them.

Quote
What is the purpose of that taboo anyway?  Is it to protect the feelings of Muslims?  No.  It's to prevent people worshiping Mohammed as a God figure or an idol.  That is the purpose behind the taboo, it's a religious purpose, within the Muslim religion.  So, this taboo should only be observed by Muslims and everyone else is free to depict Mohammed as they want. 

Non-Muslims don't need to follow Muslim customs, Non-Jews don't need to follow Jewish customs and non-Christians don't need to follow Christian customs.

I've already stated that it's not the failure to adhere to Islamic standards that offends people, but failing to adhere to Islamic standards in such a way as to deliberately offend Muslims.

Quote
If people stopped caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad just to be offensive, these attacks would go away, too.

This is exactly the attitude I can't get on board with.  What does it say that using violence gets people to be sensitive to your concerns and gets people to censor themselves?

It's rewarding violence, rewarding censorship and chilling free speech. 

What if Muslims just nicely said, "we want everyone to obey our customs about depicting certain religious figures.  Please remove the sculpture of Mohammed from the Supreme Court and don't show pictures of the Sistine Chapel ceiling on TV."  People would ignore them.  But, start setting fire to embassies and assassinating people and people start paying attention. 

That's why people should keep doing these cartoons.  You don't reward violence or attacks on our basic freedoms with obedience.  When someone attacks your freedom of speech or uses violence, that's the last person you should meekly acquiesce to.  Is depicting Mohammed important by itself?  Of course not.  But, freedom to say whatever you want about religion is incredibly important.  Religious bullying of free speech is never acceptable.   

This establishes a precedent, we complain and use violence, you comply.  Today it's depictions of Mohammed, tomorrow it's criticizing the religion of Islam or their religious figures.  And, some people might say, "oh, who cares?  Just don't say anything negative about Islam, is it that hard to be nice to them and observe their customs?"  That's the free speech case for these cartoons.

My claim isn't that we should cave in to terrorists so that they'll stop terrorizing us. My claim is that if certain people showed basic respect for other people's beliefs, there would be less terrorism. Is that trade off really so objectionable?
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 05, 2015, 08:18:59 am
Sure, you don't want to unnecessarily offend someone.  But, the purpose of defending free expression is a just cause for offending people.

Caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad is unnecessarily offensive. There are ways to express solidarity with the murdered Charlie Hebdo artists that don't involve offending people.

Quote
The people Muslims should criticize are the people using violence and threatening people, and the groups like CAIR that try to bully people into accepting Islam's taboos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html

Quote
If Muslims didn't react to these cartoons at all, they would go away because there would be no point.

If people stopped caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad just to be offensive, these attacks would go away, too.

Quote
I don't think that's how public discourse should work.  It easier for everyone to just realize that not everyone has the same favorite team, favorite God or the same customs and taboos.  If people don't observe your taboos, it's not a slap in the face to you, they're just different.  Part of living in a civil society is tolerating free expression, even when you don't like it.  Part of living in a civil society is having a thick skin and tolerating different beliefs and opinions.

By and large, Muslims accept that non-Muslims don't find anything particularly holy about the Prophet Muhammad. The contention here is not over that fact, but over the fact that certain people need to be actively disrespectful to him in order to feel edgy.

Quote
I'm not going to force Muslim women to dress in a western style, even though I find certain things like burquas are demeaning towards women.  I'm not going to be offended if a muslim refuses to try my home-brewed beer or my peach cobbler during Ramadan.  And, they should understand that if a non-Muslim draws Mohammed, it's not an attack on them personally.  It's that they just have different assumptions about religion and they should leave it at that.

The problem is that when non-Muslims draws Muhammad, it almost always is an attack on Muslims personally.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 07:11:20 pm
There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.

Another person's opinion is not an objective standard for what is appropriate.  It's the mutually agreed upon conventions of the community. 

We've agreed that racism is impolite and morally wrong.  We've agreed walking around naked is impolite and offensive.  We haven't agreed that depicting religious figures is offensive.  Simple as that.  The assumptions of specific religions aren't the customs of the entire community.  Muslims can't expect that their assumptions of their religion apply to the entire community.  It's any disrespect if you understand that most people don't care about Mohammed or revere him in any way.
 
I try to let my actions be dictated by my convictions, not by community standards. In this case, my conviction is to avoid unnecessarily offending people, and to urge others to do the same.

Also, your post inadvertently justifies the criminalization of Muhammad depictions in majority-Muslim countries.

Quote
Think of it this way, they sell shirts at Fenway Park that say "Yankees Suck."  I'm a Yankees fan,  but I realize that not everyone else likes my team.  Red Sox fans denigrating Derek Jeter or Micky Mantle might piss me off, but it's only annoying because I like the Yankees.  It's annoying, assuming you like the Yankees.  Just like Mohammed cartoons annoy people, assuming they're Muslim.

So, just as you would avoid denigrating the Red Sox because you dislike it when people do the same to your favored sports team, you should avoid denigrating Islam... except that the impetus in this case is even stronger, as the attachment that people have to religion is (presumably) far higher than the attachment that people have to sports.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Texas: two gunmen shot dead after opening fire at Mohammed cartoon contest on: May 04, 2015, 04:56:42 pm
There is nothing offensive about the mere depiction of Mohammed.  I have to bring this up again.  Why is it offensive?  It clearly is not.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

There are things that offend other people but don't offend you, just as there are things that offend you but don't offend other people. If someone takes offense to something that you find innocuous, the best that you can do is learn why it offends them and attempt to explain why it shouldn't. If, however, you assert that the thing in question is inoffensive, you're implying that nobody actually takes offense to it, as that's the only objective threshold for determining offensiveness.
10  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: How can anyone be sure their religion is correct? on: May 02, 2015, 09:59:53 am
It's not the same to have faith in academic institutions as it is to have faith in religion because, if you wanted, you could actually learn the ideas, formulas, proofs, and alternatives  and, much more importantly, try to prove them wrong. This potential puts it in an altogether different category than faith. You understand that you could understand, therefore you believe those that do understand already.

For the record, religion does have its own proofs.
11  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Buddhist Modernism on: May 01, 2015, 04:22:37 pm
It doesn't sound bad in the abstract, but I'm not familiar enough with its major proponents or with its practical implications to be able to offer an informed vote.
12  General Discussion / History / Re: Argue pointlessly with Al about history and so on on: April 28, 2015, 10:47:24 am
Is it your understanding that the use of metal currency was uncommon in the day-to-day life of Medieval English peasants?
13  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: World Religion Map by National Subdivision on: April 24, 2015, 08:19:37 pm
The brown in Punjab is obviously Sikhism, but what are the brown counties in eastern India?

It looks like Donyi-Polo in Arunachal Pradesh and Sarnaism in Jharkhand. Both indigenous religions.

I suspected that it was either that or Jainism (well, I knew that the latter was unlikely, but Jainism is cool, so I hoped anyway). Thanks!
14  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: World Religion Map by National Subdivision on: April 24, 2015, 05:59:53 pm
The brown in Punjab is obviously Sikhism, but what are the brown counties in eastern India?
15  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Muslims on refugee boat throw Christians overboard for being non-Muslims on: April 18, 2015, 02:44:21 pm
Immigration also comes in different forms. High-skilled labour immigration tends to be pretty beneficial to the host country,

What effect does it have on the "donor" country, though?
16  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Where Do You Rank on the Male Social Hierarchy? on: April 18, 2015, 08:16:02 am
Sorry if the question has been asked, but is this from 4chan?

Naturally. Where else?
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Where Do You Rank on the Male Social Hierarchy? on: April 17, 2015, 06:50:10 pm
The idea that some men are great because they're so confident and think they have no flaws and others are bad because they won't work on their flaws...sigh.

I wouldn't mind the stupidity so much if it wasn't also really toxic.

Beta Negative, then?
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Where Do You Rank on the Male Social Hierarchy? on: April 17, 2015, 03:04:44 pm


Remember: be honest (you're only fooling yourself anyway).
19  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: I'm on Jeopardy! on: April 14, 2015, 05:33:10 pm
Jeopardy! must have known that you posted on the Atlas Forum. I mean, that clue about emo? That was just too perfect.

I can only hope that BRTD was watching.
20  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Einzige or jmfcst on: April 10, 2015, 09:19:52 am
Why did "Einzige" call himself/herself "Einzige"? I guess he's either not German/Austrian/Swiss, or she's a woman?

The word "einzige" appears repeatedly in the writings of German philosopher Max Stirner, who has long been suspected of influencing Friedrich Nietzsche.
21  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of Abstraction on: April 07, 2015, 12:36:24 pm
It's foolhardy to disapprove of abstraction per se, but the elevation of abstraction over its opposite is life-denying. 
22  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: the 4 Gospels or the Pauline Corpus on: April 03, 2015, 07:21:15 am
I read the Gospels as a series of related narratives about the life and times of a back country faith healer who advocated revolutionary social and religious change in a time that many considered to be the end of days. I read Paul's letters as a worldly convert's vigorous attempts to give organizational structure and philosophical sophistication to the sect that sprung up after said faith healer's execution.

I voted for the latter.

Faith healer? That's very negative term and doesn't really apply to Jesus.

Revisiting my post, I can see how it would be interpreted as dismissive of the Gospels (which I'm not), but what is it about that part that you particularly object to?
23  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: All else being equal... on: April 02, 2015, 08:37:23 am
Class differences are the only things separating people.

That is absurd. Gender, culture and religion can be just as influential and personality is a factor as well.

i think he's doing an april fool's day joke :p

Well, it is hard to remember all the new posters, but on second thought I recall he is a right winger.

fair enough. i could definitely see one of our marxist-meninists saying something like this.

Seize the means of broduction!

Then we'll seize the means of reproduction!
24  General Politics / Book Reviews and Discussion / Re: The Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged on: April 01, 2015, 04:47:10 pm
At its core moral egoism doesn't really make sense. And I mean that not in a moralizing way but on pure logical grounds.

Could you expand on this?

Essentially, you can say that people ought to keep their own money even if they want to give it away. But that is pretty dumb.

Yes, nor does it really sound like moral egoism.

Quote
Alternatively you can say that people should just do what they actually do (since people sort of by definition do what they want) but that isn't a prescriptive moral theory. Rand sort of goes back and forth between the two in Atlas Shrugged. You can perhaps argue that people are brainwashed and that this should override what they think they want, but such a line would be the same kind of moralizing Rand is criticizing.

Max Stirner wrote that people always do what's in their interest, but because they often do so without admitting to themselves that that's why they do it (for example, by saying that they donate to charity because it's "the right thing to do", rather than because donating to charity makes them happy, and being happy is in their interest), people's thoughts and actions are confused and contradictory. Those who recognize that self-interest is the be-all and end-all of life, and actually think and act accordingly, are called "voluntary egoists", while everyone else is called an "involuntary egoist".
25  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: the 4 Gospels or the Pauline Corpus on: March 31, 2015, 08:39:03 am
I read the Gospels as a series of related narratives about the life and times of a back country faith healer who advocated revolutionary social and religious change in a time that many considered to be the end of days. I read Paul's letters as a worldly convert's vigorous attempts to give organizational structure and philosophical sophistication to the sect that sprung up after said faith healer's execution.

I voted for the latter.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 49


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines