81–90 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
irc isn't dead, come join us on Libera! (and there's tons of other networks too, i just feel disingenuous inviting you to ones im not on)
Last time I checked it was just idle bots (or idle clients). Is it still this way nowadays?
This approach seems to presume you're not trying to talk to a programmed bot whose job is to amplify a prepared set of talking points (an approach pioneered by I believe the Edelman PR firm in the 1990s internet era, when all the bots were human). If someone's willing to pay a PR firm to run a bot farm of any kind, this has to be taken into account. Such issues include fossil-fueled global warming, the efficacy of th…
Any argument has some aim I think, and it's often implicit. It may be to achieve some aim that depends on the other person, or it may be to repair a relationship, or it might be to inflict some outcome in an organizational setting, it may be to work out something in your head, or it may be to convince bystanders of a position.
Sometimes you end up with bots, sometimes you end up with PR people, sometimes you end up with highly politically motivated people, sometimes you end up with people who are trying to sell their own book or paper or whatever. You just don't know and even though I do think a lot of people — maybe most — are acting in very good faith, some of them are not, and it varies in degree.
I also think social media systems are fundamentally broken at the moment, and ideally we should be moving to highly decentralized and/or federated platforms. That's a slightly different issue probably but maybe not — I think the subtle aims of platforms tend to trickle down into this too, and nudge different types of behaviors. In any given case it might be a tiny effect, but it accumulates I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm somewhat confused; I thought there were many self-professed Christians who also believed in evolution. Also, given that the Bible is read in a very different cultural context today from the ones it was authored in, I assume one also needs faith in which interpretive lens (not quite the same as denomination, but not unrelated) to use? I see what you are saying about needing to take something as axiomatic, I just d…
First, God describes creation like He did it personally in Genesis. He describes everything up to the Fall of humanity in Gen. 1-3. It’s here because I’ll reference it a few times:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201-3&v...
First, in Gen. 1:11-13, God creates the plants on Earth before creating the stars and moon. They aren’t getting energy from the Sun in photosynthesis. That contradicts the scientific model of how life formed.
Second, God doesn’t create us from the animals. He describes it like He made us from scratch. Were the most important thing to Him, made in His image. He describes it elsewhere like a Potter shaping a piece of clay into what He imagines. He does it for each of us through natural processes He directs but originally sculpted the entire person.
Third, He says it was six days with resting on the seventh day. The way the word is used in Hebrew is how they usually do a 24-hour day. In the New Testament, writers aided by the Holy Spirit reference it like it was a 24-day day.
Fourth, there is no death on Earth at this point. God made us to love Him, love each other, and enjoy this world. He blessed them with life. Humanity’s betrayal of God, where every human ever born chooses to commit evil acts, results in God punishing us with the curses in Genesis 3 (and 4). Death itself, with a lifespan of 120 years, is a curse He introduces into a deathless world. He’ll later counter death by giving us life by faith in Jesus Christ our God. This contradicts evolution where death creates people from other animals. If anything, evolution glorifies death because evolutionists believe it’s one of the main drivers of biological progress.
Fifth, God’s Word indicates there’s different “kinds,” or categories, of creatures that He may have fixed. It’s a bit higher than a species in current taxonomy. While creatures adapt, we’ve actually not seen these categories of animals change into other animals despite billions of animals in captivity. God’s Word is holding up while evolution is refuted by billions of data points.
Sixth, we see what we’d call an explosion of life where fully-formed creatures show up with no parents. Later, there’s a global Flood, which built up over time, which would cause other catastrophes if driven by or paired with geological events. That would cause mass extinctions while dropping fossils in layers on the Earth. Evolution instead predicted continuous streams of small adaptations from the tiniest animals to the most complex. We saw virtually no transitional fossils despite evolution requiring piles of them everywhere for the multitude of observed species. Supporting God’s Word, we do see life disappearing in mass extinctions, life appearing out of nowhere in mass (eg Cambrian explosion), evidence of catastrophes, and rapid shifts in geography of some areas.
Lastly, God’s Word describes our creation as a story of how He made us for Himself, we all chose evil, rejected Him, and He pursued us to redeem us. That He loved us so much He gave His Son, Jesus Christ, for us who died and rose again to set free all who repent and believe in Him. This helps us empirically. Human creators rapidly design their artificial universes or movie sets using their own technology to get to the point of the story they’re trying to tell. They don’t evolve them over billions of years within the laws and timeline of their creation. God rapidly creating His movie set in six days, but then letting it play out within its own laws, is exactly how most human creations operate. Empirically, God’s Word shows a Creator that uses principles like all observed creators with good, logical reason for a quick creation, too.
So, there’s some ways God’s Word contradicts macro-evolution as origin of life. It doesn’t contradict diversification within categories. We’ve observed that.
God’s Word also tells us to protect all individual lives, loving each as ourselves. Each individual’s life has purpose. Godless, amoral evolution encourages things like eugenics or genocide to “improve” our species or accomplish the selfish goals of those in power. Nothing really matters either. So, evolution combined with other beliefs contradict both the truths in and righteous goals of God’s Word.
I've found different attitudes to truth. a distant nebulous ideal to orient and navigate with and hand to mouth political survival each create cognitive species so separate we wouldn't really miss each other if we were gone.
I don't really care about someone's specific opinions enough to make them "wrong," I'm usually only talking to them to find out if they have any interesting axioms of existence.
So much negativity in the comments. I think this concept of how to have a conversation on the internet, and how to understand someone’s point, and how to maybe even convince someone successfully is extremely important. Much more important than what ever is in vogue right now as the hot topic politically issues of today. I have a minor gripe though, there’s a contradiction in the writing. “ There’s a misconception tha…
So much negativity in the comments. I think this concept of how to have a conversation on the internet, and how to understand someone’s point, and how to maybe even convince someone successfully is extremely important. Much more important than what ever is in vogue right now as the hot topic politically issues of today. I have a minor gripe though, there’s a contradiction in the writing. “ There’s a misconception tha…
Back in my Reddit days, I learned it was also hard to have an honest discussion because people are suspicious of your motives. I would comment something like "I'd like to understand more about why you think X," and ask for clarification. These were met either with radio silence or very caged answers that just reiterated their point instead of explaining it further. IRL, people tend to become extremely guarded when so…
That's a pretty negative view of something I think is much simpler: Most people, on most topics, remember the conclusions (opinions) formed when learning about the topic, but either don't remember how they got there or only vaguely remember the details.
i thought it was - INSULT - RETORT - COUNTER-RETORT - RIPOSTE - COUNTER-RIPOSTE - NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON - RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES - WORDS OF PRAISE FOR FISHFOOD - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS
I miss bash.org so much
I think the approach the author is suggesting is the right one but for abdifferent reason. The most important person in an internet argument is the uninvolved passer-by, at least in those cases that make me argue publicly at length with strangers. I might never be able to convince the person I am discussing with, but I might convince the audience.
Interesting. In that case offering a submissive message may mollify the interlocutor in exchange for a response, but at the cost of signalling to other readers that their position is sensible. My grandma used to say that arguing something is the greatest concession. Consider A: -Earth is flat - it is not, earth is round - ya it is, john doe proved it - ok sorry for not understanding could you please explain what john…
When considered in its entirety? No. Not at all. Within the curated segment of Twitter I have established? Yes! It is probably the most rational place on the internet that I know of. Those within that curated circle seem to genuinely want to share information in a productive manner without the silly vitriol.
That's the beauty of "the algorithm", I suppose. You can tune it to leave the garbage out.