In the News

Post questions or suggestions here.

What are the odds?

Postby Tomas » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:01 am

What are the odds that you exist, as you, today?

Author Ali Binazir attempts to quantify the probability that you came about and exist as you today, and reveals that the odds of you existing are almost zero.

Great moments in pedantry: The odds of your existence
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/09/great- ... y-the.html

.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Occupy News

Postby Tomas » Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:19 am

Occupy Nerds Building Their Own Facebook Alternative

"We don't trust Facebook with private messages among activists," he said.

-MORE-
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398141,00.asp
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Vilified by Big Pharma

Postby Tomas » Fri Jan 27, 2012 9:27 am

New evidence validates anti-vaccine hero Andrew Wakefield, says Joseph Mercola

http://lewrockwell.com/mercola/mercola173.html
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: In the News

Postby Jamesh » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:44 am

Brazil now teaching philosophy

"And they study philosophy two hours each week because of a 2008 law that mandates philosophy instruction in all Brazilian high schools. Nine million teenagers now take philosophy classes for three years."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/carlos_fraenkel_brazil_teaching_philosophy.php

Be interesting to see how this turns out.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:06 am

Very good. But Iran is known to be unmatched worldwide for the amount of philosophy in their schools, book publishing and communities. But which kinds and how broad one might wonder? Perhaps any kind is better than no kind and crass entertainment instead.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Patent Troll

Postby Tomas » Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:36 am

Patent Troll Claims Ownership of Interactive Web - And Might Win

The mother of all patent troll trials unfolds in Texas where Google, Amazon and Adobe are fighting a patent claiming ownership over online video, image rotation and search auto-complete.

A succession of pioneers of the early web - including the web's father, Tim Berners-Lee himself, have flown in from around the world to denounce two software patents they believe threaten the future of web innovation.

How did all the trouble start?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... roll-trial
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: In the News

Postby cousinbasil » Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:32 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Very good. But Iran is known to be unmatched worldwide for the amount of philosophy in their schools, book publishing and communities. But which kinds and how broad one might wonder? Perhaps any kind is better than no kind and crass entertainment instead.

Perhaps you could back that up with a link or two - even a Wikipedia article? Which kinds, indeed. The US fights wars - starts them - over oil and money - no philosophy there. Great Britain always follows like a lap dog, despite the renowned public school system and the secular governing bodies. So let the Bertrand Russel's have their say, it is all about the Sacred Hunger (see Barry Unsworth.) But there's Iran with its world-class philosophy. So bleeding what? One can imagine the first nuclear war over religious matters, whether a Koran was burned or disposed of improperly. The philosophy appears centered around which flavor of Islam is the true one. Iran - one of the world's great natural repositories of fossil fuels - must be developing nuclear technology for peaceful energy production. Right. And people wonder why Israel is making military plans to set back this philisophical nation's WMD program. And they are worried why? Because they are Jews, no other reason. Because the Koran vilifies those other sons of Abraham, the Jews. Before long, nations, especially those in the EU, will be imploring Germany to shake itself from its self-imposed military passivity and rein in Iran, the same way they are looking to Germany to save the Euro. And Germany, in its torturous recent history of trying to atone what the entire world knows it did to the Jews, will cave in and assert its natural warlike character.

Fucking philosophy.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:31 am

The point is that any philosophical attempt - essentially thinking about thinking - will be beneficial. My school didn't have any philosophy classes beyond learning about names and summaries of the points made by others. That's more history lesson of some kind. I don't think it's much different in most of the Western world right now.

This research article addresses some of the potential benefits of such education (and the program was actually tried in Iran). Some wikipedia then: here and here is mentioned that at least on level of publications they are world leaders. Now before anyone remarks this is no proper way of measuring it, let me tell you this is exactly how academic activity and excellence is measured around the world especially in these disciplines, as long as it's somewhat reputable of course. Other statistics I only know from hearsay and as I said, I've no way of determining what kind of philosophy this is all about.

But let us not moan about war. The Greek did nothing but warring between philosophizing. Anyone who has attempted to seriously think in his life and survived it won't be surprised.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby cousinbasil » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:03 am

Thanks for the links.
DVR wrote:Now before anyone remarks this is no proper way of measuring it, let me tell you this is exactly how academic activity and excellence is measured around the world especially in these disciplines, as long as it's somewhat reputable of course.
You are of course correct about that, no need to be defensive. Academic and peer review is how it's done.
But let us not moan about war. The Greek did nothing but warring between philosophizing. Anyone who has attempted to seriously think in his life and survived it won't be surprised.

Dark humor - it may seem reasonable to sum up the Greeks that way, but naturally they did fantastically more than that. Philosophy and the deeds of war tend to make it into the written record when not that many people can read and write.

And you know, I actually agree with "but let us not moan about war." In my defense, let me point out that if the Greeks indeed were characterized by warring, then philosophizing, then warring, and so on, at least they did not possess nuclear arms. And so far, neither does Iran.

This is something which has haunted me since I learned about nuclear weapons. So far as we know (or I know), nuclear weapons have been deployed exactly twice, and that was ostensibly to win a war that was already all but won. This is an account of the firebombing of Tokyo, which many historians, not to mention people at the time, regard as having made the unleashing of nuclear weapons unnecessary five months later. I have never lived through five months of wartime, so I cannot have a position on this. What has haunted me, though, is the fine print. The decision was made to use them during wartime. Where exactly is the trigger, now that the technology is so much better? It seems taken for granted that humanity has stared in to the abyss and has collectively agreed to back away from it. I was "bemoaning" war, or rather the specter of it, ensuing from Iran's peacetime development of nuclear capability. Iran, perhaps the single least foreign-energy-dependent country in the world. What are its energy requirements such that its own still very considerable domestic resources of fossil fuels are insufficient?

How about this for a suggestion? Suppose Iran understands that its oil reserves are limited. Of course Iran understands that, right? Some day, the lights are going to go out, because of the world's craving for oil. But not their lights! Why should they, since that is still where so much of the oil is? Shouldn't the last flicker of light generated from electricity derived from fossil fuels occur in that country where the fuels are? Iran is driven to develop nuclear capability because it must always consider the end game. Might not the rest of the world just come and take the oil? Since that is what has been happening all along, by paying vast sums to small groups of sheiks and largely ignoring any need for "trickling down," those sheiks must be thinking in their 21st Century office buildings, how should we invest our money? What is our trade? What are we good at?

All sounds rational. In fact, let's suppose the world's concerned negotiators agree. No one wants to see Iran get left behind! Maybe people will all come to realize that Iran was telling the truth all along. It knows the days of fossil-fuels are numbered, and it has lots of dessert where it can bury nuclear waste.

Somewhere, somehow, there will always be Islam and Jews. That's what I am bemoaning. The song that never ends. I can honestly say I do not have a dog in that race. But so many Jews are in one place - and not just any place, our place! If we can't live there, why should they be allowed to? Allowed, yes, becuase now Iran will have nuclear weapons.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Causality in the news

Postby Cahoot » Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:19 am

Global warming causes snow and volcanoes

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/52170
User avatar
Cahoot
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:02 am

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:30 am

cousinbasil wrote:How about this for a suggestion? Suppose Iran understands that its oil reserves are limited. Of course Iran understands that, right? Some day, the lights are going to go out, because of the world's craving for oil. But not their lights! Why should they, since that is still where so much of the oil is? Shouldn't the last flicker of light generated from electricity derived from fossil fuels occur in that country where the fuels are? Iran is driven to develop nuclear capability because it must always consider the end game. Might not the rest of the world just come and take the oil? Since that is what has been happening all along, by paying vast sums to small groups of sheiks and largely ignoring any need for "trickling down," those sheiks must be thinking in their 21st Century office buildings, how should we invest our money? What is our trade? What are we good at?


It could be a factor although the" last flicker of lights" is at least decades away. Politics these days appear to be more short term than that. Also Iran is still importing almost half of their needed gasoline. Not enough refinery capacity. And to expand that they need decades of investments, including foreign. Hiding behind nuclear weapon options as defense will not solve their problems which all rely on very intensive international trade & trust.

Somewhere, somehow, there will always be Islam and Jews. That's what I am bemoaning. The song that never ends. I can honestly say I do not have a dog in that race. But so many Jews are in one place - and not just any place, our place! If we can't live there, why should they be allowed to? Allowed, yes, becuase now Iran will have nuclear weapons.


The problem here is the attempt to make these two equivalent: Islam - Jews. As if both would be religion, nothing could be further from truth! Even seeing Israel as an equal to Iran in terms of unity and Ancienty is just a dream. Israel is nothing but modern construct as it is now. A dream which can only keep on going behind walls, security, nuclear arms and loads of deception. Not so strange you're identifying with them! Heh.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby cousinbasil » Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:24 pm

It could be a factor although the" last flicker of lights" is at least decades away. Politics these days appear to be more short term than that. Also Iran is still importing almost half of their needed gasoline. Not enough refinery capacity. And to expand that they need decades of investments, including foreign. Hiding behind nuclear weapon options as defense will not solve their problems which all rely on very intensive international trade & trust.

Why would they expend decades of investments on refinery capacity - which exists elsewhere - when by the time the infrastructure is built, its raison d'etre has vanished? I think politics is always short term - but I do think that Iran's nuclear development program is an exceptional foray into Realpolitik for them. This is understandably going to conflict with the ubiquitous mullahs. From their (the secular policy-makers) perspective, how can it be wrong? If nuclear energy is used peacefully - and safely - who will argue? If the world starts jonesing for oil in less than "decades," having the infrastructure to produce defensive military nukes might be just the ticket. Which infrastructure should they throw their cash at? Realpolitik tells you that a nuclear arsenal cannot be used in an offensive manner - that's what conventional weapons are for. Nukes are for politics - that's all.
The problem here is the attempt to make these two equivalent: Islam - Jews. As if both would be religion, nothing could be further from truth! Even seeing Israel as an equal to Iran in terms of unity and Ancienty is just a dream. Israel is nothing but modern construct as it is now. A dream which can only keep on going behind walls, security, nuclear arms and loads of deception. Not so strange you're identifying with them! Heh.

You have misunderstood - what a shocker - I was not attempting to make Islam equivalent to the Jews in any manner. You are trying to read what I have written in a way that entirely misinterprets what I am saying. This is an irksome habit of yours. Islam is a faith (and a corresponding culture which includes Muslims) - the Jews are a people (with a corresponding culture which includes the Jewish faith.) I am saying oil and water do not mix - and you say, well, that's because you are trying to make them equivalent. I am trying to propose what may be a legitimate rationale for Iran's nuclear program, and you say I am identifying with the Jews? I am saying simply that Israel is every bit as real as Iran, and Israel already has nukes. With its nuclear policy, Iran is in fact on a mission designed to make themselves politically equivalent to Israel.

The problem is church and state if you will. The same problem that afflicts the U.S.! There might be many legitimate reasons for Iran to develop neclear energy. But again - where is the trigger? Do you want the nuclear codes entrusted to religious fanatics? The difference between the American religious right and the Islamic religious right is that Americans tend to relegate their piety to vulgar public displays - most Americans, at least the politicians, are more concerned with the mansion on the hill than the Mansion in the Sky.

That the Jews - or at least Israel - is secular in comparison to its Islamic neighbors is pretty clear.

So there is as little misunderstanding as possible, I am just extremely wary of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of religious fanatics.
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Are emotions prophetic?

Postby guest_of_logic » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:46 pm

"Every feeling is like a summary of data, a quick encapsulation of all the information processing that we don’t have access to. (As Pham puts it, emotions are like a “privileged window” into the subterranean mind.) When it comes to making predictions about complex events, this extra information is often essential. It represents the difference between an informed guess and random chance."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/are-emotions-prophetic/
User avatar
guest_of_logic
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:03 pm

cousinbasil wrote:You have misunderstood - what a shocker - I was not attempting to make Islam equivalent to the Jews in any manner. You are trying to read what I have written in a way that entirely misinterprets what I am saying. This is an irksome habit of yours. Islam is a faith (and a corresponding culture which includes Muslims) - the Jews are a people (with a corresponding culture which includes the Jewish faith.) I am saying oil and water do not mix - and you say, well, that's because you are trying to make them equivalent. I am trying to propose what may be a legitimate rationale for Iran's nuclear program, and you say I am identifying with the Jews? I am saying simply that Israel is every bit as real as Iran, and Israel already has nukes. With its nuclear policy, Iran is in fact on a mission designed to make themselves politically equivalent to Israel.


Funny is that you're trying to backpedal on what you wrote and end with basically repeating the same sin.

You wrote "Somewhere, somehow, there will always be Islam and Jews. That's what I am bemoaning. The song that never ends. I can honestly say I do not have a dog in that race. But so many Jews are in one place - and not just any place, our place! If we can't live there, why should they be allowed to? "

If with they you mean "Iran" then why introduce Islam in your story at all as if that's the major reason of the conflict?

You are saying "oil and water do not mix" but then suddenly claim you were not mixing (comparing, offsetting) them at all. And yet you brought it up. Something is seriously broken in your argumentation machine, just as with all your characters, being it Sam or Broke. It's like a fingerprint and you cannot hide it no matter how you change everything else.

Anyway you say Israel is "every bit as real" as Iran. My answer was that this claim is false. A country's "reality" is a function of its connections to its neighbors, its history (as a nation) and the way it's being accepted over time and maintained by exchanges with the immediate neighbors. In all these senses Israel has no real existence apart from immense Western financial, political and military support and foreign immigration waves. Israel defies the reality principle and can only really exist by opening up: the one state solution, "the end of the world" and of course many in Israel for this reason feel like they are 'fighting for survival" that is: surviving the myth of their existence as Jewish nation. Iran is crucial in this process because of their material and political support for the Palestian claims for refugee status, Hezbollah and through Syria also Hamas (although this is shifting somewhat with events - this is why Isreal will support the revolution in Syria no matter what, even if it means helping al-Qaeda along the way. AQ is no direct threat being a non-state entity as well).
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby cousinbasil » Sun Mar 04, 2012 2:00 am

Diebert wrote:Funny is that you're trying to backpedal on what you wrote and end with basically repeating the same sin.

It is not my fault you either cannot understand or refuse to. So you are saying I tried to backpedal but failed - meaning I didn't end up back pedaling? So I didn't backpedal? This is my sin?

You wrote "Somewhere, somehow, there will always be Islam and Jews. That's what I am bemoaning. The song that never ends. I can honestly say I do not have a dog in that race. But so many Jews are in one place - and not just any place, our place! If we can't live there, why should they be allowed to? "

If with they you mean "Iran" then why introduce Islam in your story at all as if that's the major reason of the conflict?
Ah! You misread! The they is the Jews. "...-not just any place, our place!" was supposed to be attributed to an Islamic mindset - Islam considers the Jews - Israel - to be interlopers.

You are saying "oil and water do not mix" but then suddenly claim you were not mixing (comparing, offsetting) them at all. And yet you brought it up. Something is seriously broken in your argumentation machine, just as with all your characters, being it Sam or Broke. It's like a fingerprint and you cannot hide it no matter how you change everything else.

I brought up "oil and water" in an attempt to spoon feed you - just you - my point about Israel and Islam - which in case you did not know is a large part of Iranian culture. How the hell can you be so stupid? It has to be an act, it just has to be. Where do I claim I was not mixing or comparing them? You implied I was making the Jews (Israel) and Islam equivalent somehow. Why do I bother responding to you. You are so fucking annoying. I suppose you are still Tomas butt-buddy with the "Broke" thing (well, he says "Brokie" which is a term he himself made up.) And now there is this Sam, whoever that is. Anyone one else while you are at it? No wonder you have trouble understanding me.
Anyway you say Israel is "every bit as real" as Iran. My answer was that this claim is false. A country's "reality" is a function of its connections to its neighbors, its history (as a nation) and the way it's being accepted over time and maintained by exchanges with the immediate neighbors. In all these senses Israel has no real existence apart from immense Western financial, political and military support and foreign immigration waves
At last you make your point. Why don't I deliberately misunderstand it so you could see how irritating your dumb act gets? Why don't I say this proves you are anti-semitic?

A country's reality is a function of many things. You list characteristics of the state of Israel in particular, and then say because it has these characteristics, it is somehow less than real. So in 1800, the U.S. was not real because it was less than 50 years old, warred with native people over land and settlement rights, and had constant quarrels with Mexico as it received foreign investment from both France and England. By your inane criteria, the Netherlands is more real than the United States. But naturally you would think that.
Israel defies the reality principle and can only really exist by opening up: the one state solution, "the end of the world" and of course many in Israel for this reason feel like they are 'fighting for survival" that is: surviving the myth of their existence as Jewish nation. Iran is crucial in this process because of their material and political support for the Palestinian claims for refugee status, Hezbollah and through Syria also Hamas (although this is shifting somewhat with events - this is why Isreal will support the revolution in Syria no matter what, even if it means helping al-Qaeda along the way. AQ is no direct threat being a non-state entity as well).

I maintain that I don't have a dog in the race, but it is clear that you do.

How can you call the existence of a Jewish nation a myth - nation in the sense of a people, like the Cree nation or the Seneca nation? You imply that Israel is less real because it is a mere 70 years old. Since it is so young, it should be easier for you to remember the events that led to its creation - the wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews in Europe during the 15 years just prior. Don't the Dutch schools teach history? Do you not know that Germany - Hitler - first tried deporting Jews but no other nation wanted them? Why was that, I wonder? Because they are Jews, their diaspora is widespread, but they never assimilate, do they? Why? Because they are a nation, in the sense of a people apart.

But you are correct about the heavy-handed mandated manner by which Israel the state was established. You can call their nation mythical and disregard their "survival" mentality; I assure you they disagree. Many people blame the Jews for the way history has persecuted them, but to me this doesn't matter. What does matter is that Israel very much exists as a UN recognized nation (not unrecognized). It has borders - else why the ceaseless quarreling over where those borders lie? For a country that is not real, it has a formidably well-trained army. And it is no big secret it has nuclear weapons.

It is this anti-Israeli viewpoint of yours that is shared by its neighbors. The very first step in any military conflagration is always to somehow dehumanize your enemy, or develop a view that they are unrecognized or in some manner less legitimate. You know, not real as a nation. This "myth" the Israelis seem to share has lasted these past 70 or so years despite the reactions of Israel's neighbors - it is a direct descendant of the "myth" of Jewish nationhood as a people, together despite their diaspora, a myth that has lasted thousands of years.

Again, the entire point of my original post was that perhaps Iran's development of nuclear energy could be viewed as legitimate - they may be taking the long view in their energy-producing capacity. Obama seems to be more vocal every day over Iran: "I don't bluff" was today's quote in the papers. Because even though Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intentions of building nuclear weapons, that nukes are immoral and that no nation should have them, no one seems to buy that.

What about you, Deebs? Do you buy it? A nation's international politics are always informed by its culture - in Iran's case, its culture is largely Islamic. Islam is not something you drive to on Sundays for a hour. I have read enough of a Koran translation to know that vilification of the Jews as Christ-killers is a repeated theme. So the nightmare scenario is: the Iranians are a step or two away from nuclear weapons; if they are allowed to develop them, their Arab neighbors will clamor to do the same; not lost in this is that here is a close by region where all the Jews are, all in one place... not just any place, but a pace stolen from our Palestinian brothers...

Again, I personally have no dog in the Arab-Israeli race: any use of nuclear weapons is a nightmare. But I suppose to an anti-Semite like you, this is not so nightmarish...
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:41 am

cousinbasil wrote:Ah! You misread! The they is the Jews. "...-not just any place, our place!" was supposed to be attributed to an Islamic mindset - Islam considers the Jews - Israel - to be interlopers.


Even worse! It's not the Islam that claims the land apart from the holy site in Jerusalem. The struggle is mostly a local Arab sentiment, deeply linked to the perception of Zionism being just another colonialist project. Mixed in with antisemitic sentiments lingering from the 19th century when the disease of nationalism was always looking for scapegoat.


I suppose you are still Tomas butt-buddy with the "Broke" thing (well, he says "Brokie" which is a term he himself made up.) And now there is this Sam, whoever that is. Anyone one else while you are at it? No wonder you have trouble understanding me.


Man, that's already been proven beyond any doubt. You tell the same shitty stories to the detail and wield the same crappy logic. No need to pretend anymore unless you're really ill.

Why don't I say this proves you are anti-semitic?

Because being anti-semitic has nothing to do with how one thinks about the current multi-ethnic, multi-religious state of Israel or its right to exist as pure Jewish state. Some try to make a link but it's really reaching. It's in fact the state of Israel which is proving to be on the way to full apartheid, fascism en militarism. Then again, the U.S. is following.

So in 1800, the U.S. was not real because it was less than 50 years old

History is not your strongest point. But which one really is? The Treaty of Paris supplied a strong foundation and there was recognition from the formerly disputing parties and the rest of Europe following suit. Colonial powers like France, Spain and the Netherlands were already on the US side. In contrast the UN partition plan for Israel is still waiting.

Maybe Cyprus would have been a smarter example for you. Yeah, lets imagine Cyprus with a nuclear arsenal and a multi-billion dollar lobby in the States.

The very first step in any military conflagration is always to somehow dehumanize your enemy,

Like the Palestinians are declared non-existent as a people or without any potential right of return to any legal property - ever?

This "myth" the Israelis seem to share has lasted these past 70 or so years despite the reactions of Israel's neighbors - it is a direct descendant of the "myth" of Jewish nationhood as a people, together despite their diaspora, a myth that has lasted thousands of years.

That's Zionism, it's not Judaism or a common Jewish dream. You have been confused. A great many Jews are not interested at all in Israel as a Jewish state or anything like it is now.

I have read enough of a Koran translation to know that vilification of the Jews as Christ-killers is a repeated theme.

Jews in the Qur'an.

Again, I personally have no dog in the Arab-Israeli race: any use of nuclear weapons is a nightmare. But I suppose to an anti-Semite like you, this is not so nightmarish...

There is no race between the Arab pan-ethnicity and the Israeli nationality here, you emptyhead. Iran is not even Arab and the Palestinians are not even Shia Islam. As for the anti-Semite slur, it only shows how incredible dishonest and manipulative you are. I'm anti-brokenhead mostly...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby cousinbasil » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:15 pm

Even worse! It's not the Islam that claims the land apart from the holy site in Jerusalem. The struggle is mostly a local Arab sentiment, deeply linked to the perception of Zionism being just another colonialist project. Mixed in with antisemitic sentiments lingering from the 19th century when the disease of nationalism was always looking for scapegoat.
But that's just it - anti-Zionism has been around for well over a hundred years. To call it local and to call it a sentiment is to gloss over the antisemitism which is its very basis. You are excusing it.
Because being anti-semitic has nothing to do with how one thinks about the current multi-ethnic, multi-religious state of Israel or its right to exist as pure Jewish state. Some try to make a link but it's really reaching. It's in fact the state of Israel which is proving to be on the way to full apartheid, fascism en militarism. Then again, the U.S. is following.

Except for the fact that an antisemite would fully agree with your characterization of Israel as fascist, etc. Listen, you goof, I know you bristle at being considered an antisemite because of your views on Israel - I was trying to point out that a person could easily deliberately characterize you as one - you know, deliberately misunderstand the way you usually manage to do.
Man, that's already been proven beyond any doubt. You tell the same shitty stories to the detail and wield the same crappy logic.
Shit and crap. Say, your English is really coming along! Again you are a dolt who knows nothing and I still don't know who Sam is. Uncle Sam? Like Uncle Brokie? Fascinating.
History is not your strongest point. But which one really is? The Treaty of Paris supplied a strong foundation and there was recognition from the formerly disputing parties and the rest of Europe following suit. Colonial powers like France, Spain and the Netherlands were already on the US side. In contrast the UN partition plan for Israel is still waiting.
Yes, after the U.S. had militarily defended itself against a half-hearted British attempt to put down the rebellion.

You have a singular inability to read what you yourself have said. You are making the above points now, only after I indicated the weakness of your assertions about what constitutes a political nation. Besides, you are ignoring the fact that there was no equivalent body to the UN back then - and that Israel is, in fact, recognized by such a body today. But ignoring facts comes so easy to you.
That's Zionism, it's not Judaism or a common Jewish dream. You have been confused. A great many Jews are not interested at all in Israel as a Jewish state or anything like it is now.
What Jews do you know? I have never met a Jew who did not support Israel's right to exist. It is always the non-Jew who uses the term Zionism, and always in a pejorative sense.
There is no race between the Arab pan-ethnicity and the Israeli nationality here, you emptyhead.
You silly man. "A dog in the race" is an expression.

Oh, one more thing, Mr. Fucking Wikipedia. Do your research. Oh that's right, everything is your forte. Maybe some of these Koran (Quran) verse translations might have crossed your path.

The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace , not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).

Know they (Jews) not that Allah knows what they conceal and what they reveal?

And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allah has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them

And verily, you will find them (the Jews) the greediest of mankind for life and (even greedier) than those who - ascribe partners to Allah (and do not believe in Resurrection - Magians, pagans, and idolaters, etc.).

Many of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy from their ownselves

The fools (pagans, hypocrites, and Jews) among the people will say, "What has turned them (Muslims) from their Qiblah [prayer direction (towards Jerusalem)] to which they were used to face in prayer.

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): "Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?"

O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).


There are pages of excerpts after these, but I do have to get to work at some point this morning!
cousinbasil
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: In the News

Postby Jamesh » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:25 pm

Both groups are quite delusional so one should not support either. In any case they aren’t really Jews or Muslims as if they were distinct species of human beings – they are just people lead to dogma by various vested interests over the centuries – it is a learnt attribute*. I find them quite alike, though more Jews have been freed at least to some extent from dogma, than Muslims.

*That is, unless Arabs/Persians are now genetically dumber than Jews, which would appear to be the case (Jews have had more genetic mixing over the last 3000 or so years). Arabs and Muslims generally are like women – women blame men for their own social status shortcomings, and Arabs blame Jews or the west - both are the result of too extensive submission to male predators.

Iran’s rulers are just another vested interest exercising power for the sake of it. Israel Jews are a lesser evil, as far fewer of them are fundamentalists. I see their aggressive actions as mostly being defensive, whereas Muslims (as a gross affect) remain as pure offensive players.

US Jews (if one can still call them Jews) seem to be somewhat more offensive than Israeli Jews. They’ve learnt that attack is often the best defence, but unfortunately now seem to rely on it entirely. Too many jewish neo-cons, Hollowood directors attack too heavily when negative viewpoints are raised against them.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: In the News

Postby Jamesh » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:56 pm

Every feeling is like a summary of data, a quick encapsulation of all the information processing that we don’t have access to. (As Pham puts it, emotions are like a “privileged window” into the subterranean mind.) When it comes to making predictions about complex events, this extra information is often essential. It represents the difference between an informed guess and random chance."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/ ... prophetic/


Consider the results from the American Idol quiz: while high-trust-in-feelings subjects correctly predicted the winner 41 percent of the time, those who distrusted their emotions were only right 24 percent of the time. The same lesson applied to the stock market, that classic example of a random walk: those emotional souls made predictions that were 25 percent more accurate than those who aspired to Spock-like cognition.


Sounds like crappy examples to prove this analysis -though the overall point is valid.

Both these examples entail mob behaviour. So all they are saying is that if you follow your feelings, you too can be one of the mob.

I don't even believe the stock market one - what stocks and over what period of time - though they do say that women make better investors (probably cos they follow the mob better). Nothing random about the stock market anyway - too many common patterns - it is just that these patterns indicate collective human behaviour. With extended success their comes a tipping point where humans become complacent, spoilt, irrational and devious - which leads to rapid declines. We are seeing this now in the reasons behind the GFC. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/mbutler120299a.html

The article might be right overall. It's the old "can't see the forest from the trees" scenario, or philosophical versus scientific theory of reality - the more one delves into detail the more difficult for that person to correctly assess the biggest, most valid, picture.

What explains these paradoxical results? The answer involves processing power. In recent years, it’s become clear that the unconscious brain is able to process vast amounts of information in parallel, thus allowing it to analyze large data sets without getting overwhelmed. (Human reason, in contrast, has a very strict bottleneck and can only process about four bits of data at any given moment.) But this raises the obvious question: how do we gain access to all this analysis, which by definition is taking place outside of conscious awareness?

Here’s where emotions come in handy. Every feeling is like a summary of data, a quick encapsulation of all the information processing that we don’t have access to. (As Pham puts it, emotions are like a “privileged window” into the subterranean mind.) When it comes to making predictions about complex events, this extra information is often essential. It represents the difference between an informed guess and random chance.


Agreed - but be careful as emotional reactions are reliant on memory and "one's ego", and one can be unluckly in that which they have learnt. A kid who was bashed by mum and dad over years, will have a different feeling to an event than someone else.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

'Brokie' begun by Brokenhead

Postby Tomas » Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:56 pm

cousinbasil wrote:I suppose you are still Tomas butt-buddy with the "Broke" thing (well, he says "Brokie" which is a term he himself made up.)

On Genius Forum:

Thread: The Word Of Truth
Page 4: 22nd post
Saturday July 12, 2008 10:25pm

Carl G, who wrote:
Another person with a crush on Amanda! What a moonie-eyed love letter!

Brokenhead replies:
Not just another person, Carl. Alex came in there first, as I recall. Uncle Brokie has been watching you two.

..........................

-Amanda is the 23rd post-

..........................

I'm (tomas) the 24th post on page 4, the second (after Brokenhead) to use the term "Brokie".

..........................

And then, Brokenhead, is the 25th and final post on page 4.
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Giant squid basketball eyes did not evolve

Postby Tomas » Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:39 am

Giant squid basketball eyes did not evolve

Genes, not natural selection, produce biological traits. The real issue is not natural selection but what traits are genetically possible.

Full Story
http://english.pravda.ru/science/myster ... uid_eyes-0
Don't run to your death
User avatar
Tomas
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:15 am
Location: North Dakota

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:14 am

Brokie! Still there and without medication still. Lets try to make the most of it by taking the last bit of your post.

My initial comment was on your statement: "I have read enough of a Koran translation to know that vilification of the Jews as Christ-killers is a repeated theme."

But neither of your dozen examples now mention any Christ-killing at all. They actually attack "Jews and Christians".

Even more so, if you had any intellect or integrity (one would already have been nice) some actual sources would have been listed. But you didn't. Lets just pick #1, a translation by Mohsin Khan, an Afghan scholar from 1927 who as only one has added "jews and Christians" as commentary to the translated words. While popular it's also regarded as the "most extremist translation ever made".

Number #2 is more interesting as it commentary connects it to other verses which specify that you shouldn't have any trust relationships with the ones persecuting and waging war on you. And the main adversaries at the times were Christian and especially Jewish communities all competing for power and influence with complex alliances. This is why these verses live perfectly along side the ones Wikipedia provided for you which addressed the faith while the verses you found addressed actual wars between socio-economical groups on a location. But it needs an actual open and curious mind to explore this dimension.

Gee, I already lost my interest.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:54 am

"The structure of society is driven by women" - BBC news

Prof Dunbar wrote:At root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men. Men's relationships are too casual. They often function at a high level in a political sense, of course; but at the end of the day, the structure of society is driven by women, which is exactly what we see in primates," he explains.


Wow, is he calling women primates just there? Or is the fabric of our modern society then the most ape-like element present in humanity? Others have said it's the cooking/kitchen/eating which centers society, turning any "fast food'' into the biggest enemy of also social health. But lets save that for another discussion.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: In the News

Postby Kunga » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:55 am

User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: In the News

Postby Jamesh » Wed May 02, 2012 11:05 pm

Mullahs and masturbation

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_ayatollah_under_the_bedsheets?page=full

More sad than amusing, but in the end Free Willie will Win.
User avatar
Jamesh
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest

cron