191–200 of 380 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing new about this. Some people stopped associating with you because they didn't like your opinions, a story as old as humanity itself.
No. The new part is that even people I didn't offend with my sensibilities are not associating with me on an automated basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Is there some kind of large, documented body of evidence proving what the OP says is true? [ Hint: We have that for racism but we don't for what the OP is stating as far as I'm aware. ] > Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking t…
> Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard? Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our e…
Empirical research by enough different researchers that reasonable people can assume it to be true and not the product of statistical manipulation.
Hell, I won't even hold you to that standard.
Provide lots of things like this:
http://blog.linkedin.com/2015/06/17/measuring-gender-diversi...
I don't care if they are real academics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This kind of argument is verboten when it's a white person talking to a black person, say, because it's not OK to tell someone their experience isn't valid. Is there some kind of large, documented body of evidence proving what the OP says is true? [ Hint: We have that for racism but we don't for what the OP is stating as far as I'm aware. ] > Strangely, that rule seems not to apply when it's a progressive talking t…
> Please, explain why this is an unreasonable standard? Because you haven't described a standard, you've asked for "broad, systematic evidence." What exactly constitutes "broad, systematic evidence"? If we were to provide you with, say, 20 instances of left wing discrimination against the right, would you admit you're wrong? How these conversations usually go is you demand evidence, we provide evidence, you say our e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application If you apply this fairly, it would exclude a lot of people. For example, I meet a lot of people folks here on HN that believe in "human rights" or "natural rights" that don't arise out of legal documents. But if you cut someone open, you can't find any "natural rights" in there, nor has anyone provided experimental evidenc…
Yup. These same people find these rights somehow engraved in their minds (from education in the civic religion and other socialization) and consider them to be eternal and obvious truths, which were nevertheless somehow not apparent to anyone for approximately two million years of human history, which is full of people murdering, raping, and enslaving without the slightest consideration that it might be violating peo…
I don't believe in god or natural rights, so examples raised so far are out.
Maybe markets. I believe that forces like supply and demand are fundamental and essential in all sorts of human interactions. But maybe that's just because I can't transcend some sort of deeply engrained thinking.
Hrmmmmmmmm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
being forced to pray at school events is pretty simple, the teacher asks "why aren't you praying?" and sends you to the principals office. nobody within a 200mi radius of you thinks that there is anything wrong with this because "it's the way it's always been" and there's no higher power to appeal to, so... how can you "have an honest dialogue" with someone that thinks that you are going to burn in Hell and tells you…
No, that's a mild punishment for not praying at a school event. That is not forcing you to pray, you can continue to refuse to pray in that case. Were you somehow forced to pray once you got to the principal's office? There is always a higher power to appeal to unless the head of your country's government and legal system agrees with the sentiment. I agree it's a hard path to take, but the option is there. I guess in…
That's, ah, unconvincing, to put it lightly.
I was blocked by a large mass of people with a shared Twitter block list including a number of comedy feeds I used to like to follow, because one of them disliked my political affiliation I had listed on my Twitter page. The person told me as much before blocking me. I've since removed it to prevent future discrimination, but I shouldn't have to and I don't much care for this brave new world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly? I've worked with so many absolutely brilliant people who had beliefs in other areas of life that I found baffling and confusing that I would just shrug and file that away as an eccentricity.
Being brilliant doesn't necessarily make you a good scientist. Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. Thus, believing in god or Elvis are anti-scientific beliefs.
Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist.
Anyway, I just got done reading [1] and found it interesting that Galileo's biggest advantages as a scientist were that he could grind a lens and being trained as an artist (so he had a good idea what he was looking at when he looked at the moon). [And probably also being really witty so he could make friends at parties and impress his financial backers.]
Also:
Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical.
I took several history of science and technology courses at university and the impression I got was that the most important aspects of being a scientist was messing around with technology, taking notes, and having a lot of time to sit around and think. [Having some sort of rival who was also doing teh science whom you really wanted to show up seems to be a bonus.]
Being willing to be disappointed when you're proved wrong seems a lot more useful than only believing things you have proof for. In fact believing something without proof seems like a great way to get started on something very important as long as you're willing to do a lot of additional work.
[1] - http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
Personally, I look down on people who are members of any political party. I truly try not to be biased, but it's pretty hard not to generalize. People who seek out association with amorphous groups just seem intellectually weak, lazy, or worse.
The irony is that I'll probably be down-voted for stating my opinion (the way things are these days).
Edit: Actually you guys are even cooler than that. You're down-voting my old posts, too. I admire your commitment to group-think!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really want me to start going through the list of Democrat cunts I want out of office such as Dianne Feinstein despite the fact I usually vote for Democrats? Just because people are in a given group doesn't mean you want them around with the ability to exercise power.
"Cunts"? Really? And you expect to be taken seriously by grownups? I mean, I was going to ask you why it's not okay to invalidate the experiences of women talking about sexism in tech, but totally okay to invalidate the experiences of people with unpopular beliefs talking about how they've been mistreated on that basis. I don't think I'm going to bother, because I don't see that argument getting anywhere with you --…
I bear a very strong hatred to a handful of specific politicians for very specific reasons I can cite. Would you like a list of people and reasons I'd call them cunt/asshole?
Similarly, the fact you took the bait convinces me you honestly are unable to provide evidence of your conclusions on any reasonable scale and are simply unwilling to admit it. It was a test to see if you would do exactly what I expected and you did. Good job.
> I mean, I was going to ask you why it's not okay to invalidate the experiences of women talking about sexism in tech, but totally okay to invalidate the experiences of people with unpopular beliefs talking about how they've been mistreated on that basis. I don't think I'm going to bother, because I don't see that argument getting anywhere with you -- but, you know, that's really not because it's the argument that's flawed.
1) You've provided no evidence that is the case and I'm taking this an admission you are unable to do so.
2) There is evidence of sexism in tech. It may not be as widely and deeply researched as your previous attempt to link your failed argument to racism...but yeah. This is basic an admission you can't tell the difference between evidence of bigotry and a lack thereof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> point blank denial of facts such as that of human-caused climate change Science can't prove/disprove AGW because there's no control, which means that it isn't and can't be a fact. (I believe we should assume AGW to be safe.)
By that standard, science also can't confirm human's shared ancestry with apes, or the Big Bang. Science doesn't fit in a test tube.
Karl Popper begs to disagree. (By the way, I also believe we evolved from apes. I am not so sure about the Big Bang just because it's so strange and hard to comprehend, but okay, I'm not like against it or anything.)