Can you touch on the Hammurapi (however you spell it) and its lack of animal food prohibition (or as far as I can remember, pork at least was not prohibited)?
> It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
>Can you touch on the Hammurapi (however you spell it) and its lack of animal food prohibition (or as far as I can remember, pork at least was not prohibited)?
I love wikipedia for the links to related subjects. I have read a ton of the various codes and have written papers on the similarities and differences. To keep it short the main idea for the eating is "unclean" and in Mosaic Law it had a good rational on keeping people separated that were "unclean and for health reasons probably saved a ton of people.
In our society we know what is bad for us and most of us including me still do eat the bad things. They made it a law even though the general population enjoyed pork, like I do.
> Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
To really hack to death "Platos Theory of Form" TL:DR The more you know something the more abstract you know it.
My theory: Most people struggle with abstract thought i.e. math beyond business math. When they struggle with the abstract thought what happens to their concept of their faith? Do they lose God like they believe others.
My wife and I share our belief very dear and close and it is the driving force of our lives. We never talk theology. Her idea is that since I have 2 years of ancient Hebrew and 2 years of Greek and even taught 2nd year Greek in college that I have answers. I would read anywhere between 5,000 to 20,000 pages per class in seminary, that would be around 400-500 pages a week minimum. I usually go, "It seems ...." or "It depends ..." and than she walks out frustrated.
I embrace the unknown and the mystery. I hold to the idea that if God was to be provable He would have made Himself a concrete object. This came from reading a lot of Soren Kierkegaard and in fact I named my son Soren after him. Kierkegaard came up with the "Leap of Faith" well after studying that the popular belief in that is wrong. It is a leap of despair and dread into the unknown and land upon faith. So it wasn't a Leap of Faith but a Leap to Faith.
Sorry I am use to writing 20 page papers on subject like this all the time.
And it's weird how people bring up the idea of an elevator to the moon more often than they bring up putting cars to run on rails. They could be 100% self-driving that way, and accidents would probably be nil.
> How does it hurt men, hurt competition, for women to have their own prize?
This has already been answered and I'd like to hear your rebuttal.
It hurts men and competition by devaluing the prizes. To quote jstanley again:
"She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing".
Do you see how this hurts competition directly? Like it or not people compete for the recognition which is embodied by the prize. If the prize can now be given out without full attainment of the skill being tested for, then it loses its meaning and its signaling value.
> For whatever reasons, women aren't competitive with men (in chess, at this point in time)
I'd also be curious to hear from you why you think the reasons for this are "whatever reasons" - I'm presuming by that you mean, that the reasons are inconsequential or they don't matter or they are not important. Why do you believe that to be the case, without first knowing what the reasons actually are?
EDIT: all players have their own ELO score but they are still competing for the prize, which is the embodiment of the attainment of certain skills. If women can win this prize without attaining the same skills then this is devaluing the prize. Please address this directly, if you will. Again, to make this clear, players compete for the prize, not for the ELO score. If players did not compete for the prize, there would not be a prize.
> > It hurts men and competition by devaluing the prizes.
> To quote jstanley again:
"She's no better than me, but she is a WGM and I am nothing"
Well, don't they still have their score? I mean, I'm not into competitive chess, but everyone has their own ELO, no?
> > For whatever reasons, women aren't competitive with men (in chess, at this point in time)
> I'd also be curious to hear from you why you think the reasons for this are "whatever reasons" - I'm presuming by that you mean, that the reasons are inconsequential or they don't matter or they are not important. Why do you believe that to be the case, without first knowing what the reasons actually are?
I'm not the author, but what I would have meant by that phrase is "regardless of what the reasons are". I would have used it because the reasons are essentially unknowable, probably have many different overlapping reasons, and any discussion of those reasons is extremely likely to get bogged down in useless arguments given our collective scientific understanding of this issue at this time.
How is it derailing the conversation? Are we keeping you from having your arguments in other branches of the comment section?
Why should there be a section for people who want to talk about the aspects you want to talk about, but not a section for stuff I and others want to talk about?
I understand you might not like to click on a chess article to find something else being discussed. Well, that happens to all of us in different ways. The way I deal with it is, I simply skip the comment branches that I don't care for.
On the other hand, there's a consensus in the scientific community that IQ is the best predictor of outcome in life, despite the factors you've mentioned.
In other words, all being taken into consideration, it turns out IQ has an incredible predicting power regarding the lives of individuals. It's actually better at predicting life outcome than any other factor.
> And, of course, nurture over nature [...] matters way more than genetics.
That is the opposite of what current research into IQ has shown so far. If you go on YouTube, you can find interviews with Charles Murray, and that will help you understand this better.
> A good musician can become a good sharpshooter, a good programmer can excel at architectural engineering.
Yes, but it's not likely to happen (or you'd have oodles of examples). Predicting is all about what's more likely, and in this capacity, IQ has proven over and over again to be the single best predictor.
IQ is only a good predictor when you compare low average and borderline (who indeed are at a disadvantage no matter their conditions) with average and higher.
Average, above average and higher scoring persons' outcome in life will depend more heavily on upbringing and surroundings than anything else.
In fact, those scoring the highest may actually end up worse - addiction, depression, anxiety, loneliness, etc. - all because they live well below their potential because of their circumstances...
I know many would disagree, but I don't consider rival gang behavior mass shootings. for some reason in my mind the come from a different perspective and rather than mental illness, they are more driven by turf wars and issues of "respect" or revenge. So yeah the shooting at the neighborhood block party committed by one or more gang members or the area drive-by just aren't the same kind of thing.
What did you expect from making schools Gun-Free Zones? Staff, students, and visitors would not be bring guns on the grounds.
Did you expect criminals to obey the sign? No, the sign it not meant for criminals.
How many school shootings do you think we would have per year if schools were full of security guards? A lot of schools do have security guards. Most schools DON'T have the funds to employ small armies.
How many bank shootings have we had this year? Do banks employ lots of security guards? I didn't look it up but know there are a lot of armed robberies in the US. I suspect there is not a lot of shootings because they are there to rob the place not kill people.
How ridiculous is it that we protect cash so well but we don't think kids should be protected? You have a point but there are a lot more bank robberies then school shootings.
> How ridiculous is it that we protect cash so well but we don't think kids should be protected?
You've touched on one of the problems with that argument, but the rest are even easier to address. Money is more easily corralled (it doesn't need to have daily recess). When banks are targeted, the goal is to leave with a bunch of cash; when children are targeted, the goal is to cause as much shock as possible. Banks have a much longer history of robberies (a la wild west and earlier), that stimulated them to have security guards. Those guards are a cost that hasn't historically been necessary for schools.
The movement for the better brain started much before half a century ago.
If you study Jewish history you will find out they have been doing this all along. For instance, as a very literate culture, they would encourage the less capable of learning to leave the faith, much like a Rumspringa without end. This had the effect of culling the less intelligent, which was an effect they understood and seeked purposefully. On the other side of the coin, as opposed to Christianity which discourages its representatives (priests) from reproducing, Rabbis were encouraged to have prolific offspring on account of their being the most educated people, and the community engineering so that there will be more intelligent Jews (sons of cultured Rabbis) than unintelligent ones (those who are encouraged to give up on faith studies).
But yes, evil Germans and their eugenics, carry on.
Who is the group X that started the routine of saying "we are group X and we are special and isolated from the rest of human kind because of our unique suffering and/or significance"?
> Who is the group X that started the routine of saying "we are group X and we are special and isolated from the rest of human kind because of our unique suffering and/or significance"?
No one knows -- that pattern is evidenced as far back as recorded history goes pretty much everywhere in the world; its definitely older than writing, and quite possibly as old as the ability to communicate sophisticated enough concepts to express it.
I'm not sure the commenter is engaging the question in good faith. I'm going to suggest disengaging with them until they demonstrate their thesis. It sucks to do that, but this has that troll feel to me.
No group literally starts that way, but their behaviors exhibit as such and oftener there is a reason why terms like Oppression Olympics exist in the social media lexicon. It's not out of humor but that there's a core truth to it.
For example, there's a segment of gender critical feminists that believe that transgender activists are uniformly assaulting them on all fronts when in reality transgender activists have been focused on issues of non-discrimination in law (public accommodation, employment, and healthcare as big issues where activists seek redress). Neither side assumes one is special or better/worse than the other but both attempt grand standing on who is more oppressed/harmed by society. And how unique their position is in terms of said oppression. I've rarely seen either side (being trans myself here) extend a hand in regards to trying to understand the other. It seems the most vocal members of this fracas are doomed to bury each other in terrible memes and virtual shouting matches. Some have gone further like Cathy Brennan who has doxxed a transgender teenager (who had no quarrel with her or other gender critical feminists) for the Pacific Justice Institute (a right wing think tank out of California). So, I hope you can see where I'm coming from here.
Let's put together a bunch of what you said, because you are indeed so close to guessing, and I don't doubt you can, as a fellow anarchist.
Behavior patterns of Group X (that is then passed on to other groups):
- being a special and isolated group from the rest of human kind
- having suffered uniquely
- having unique significance
- pulling the special-group card all the time (say, to stifle criticism)
- believing other groups are assaulting them on all fronts (say, like a paranoia towards an outgroup)
- attempting grand standing on their being the most oppressed by society (say, by discussing on a TV show whether their suffering was the most awful of all)
- never admitting they are wrong on something (say, in History, where if you disagree with their version, it can only be because you might hate them)
I gave you many hints but as you can tell, the hints come from your posts. You are so spot on. But now you must guess, who is Group X who is influencing other groups to adopt this same behavior?
You seem to be playing the role of an obscurer. I'm going to suggest that if you want people to actually engage you that you engage them. Playing this sort of pseudo-socratic inquiry isn't going to get your point across. If you can't make it in less than a paragraph then don't attempt to make the point.
I take issue with your accusing me of trolling on the other comment. I am being playful but I am not trolling. What I am talking about is a concerted effort that began with Psychoanalysis in the beginning of the 20th century and moved on to the Frankfurt School and then the New York Intellectuals and now takes the form of Cultural Marxism. I recommend that you look up these keywords to learn more about the behaviors you have rightfully noticed. If you're interested in information with scholarly citations about this subject I recommend The Culture of Critique, it's a book that will open your eyes. I'd be willing to send you the book for free if you don't want to pay for it. That's because when I find people that seem to be on to the truth (like you), I give them a chance to peer deeper into the darkness.
Like I said, I took all the hints from things you said. It's clear you see it too. I understand people are very leery of pointing fingers especially when the conversation involves certain untouchable groups. However, as a trans person I'm sure you have courage in spades to study this subject without prejudice and preconceived notions you might have acquired during education in school.
If you still think I'm a troll, I'd really appreciate it if you could explain to me how better I could approach this subject with you without coming across as a troll. I can do it easily in person, but online it seems to always come across as trollish, I suppose because mentioning Jews is something usually seen done by shady characters with hidden agendas. However, I believe one can talk about Yakuza without indicting all Japanese, or talk about the Mafia without indicting all Italians.
I'm afraid your comments do come across as trolling, and repeatedly so. If you're serious about not coming across that way, two things you should do at a minimum are:
Thank you, dang, I appreciate the concrete guidelines. I was actually thinking of emailing you over this.
I promise you I will try to behave as you have proposed here. I think those are fair guidelines. In fact I very much appreciate your laying them down clearly like that. If the "no negativity" policy were as well fleshed-out as you just did here I think it would be more helpful.
I will abide by your rules because I want to keep posting here. But if I abide by the rules and you still detach my threads as off-topic, then it will have been an unfair deal in my opinion.
I'd be curious to know, respectfully, if you chided the user to whom I was replying, since what they said can easily be construed as instigation:
> No, it's not. The Eugenic movement started the quest for the "better" brain nearly a century and a half ago, and we all know how that turned out...
"we all know how that turned out" DOT DOT DOT is instigation and we all know he's rubbing the Holocaust on everyone's faces without spelling it out. To me that is a foul silencing tactic and it needs to be called out on. That is what I attempted to do when I made my "carry on" remark, after having substantially and politely fleshed out the topic in that same reply.
So as you can see, from my end your enforcement sometimes looks biased.
Their post amounts to nothing more than "Intelligence research is actually 150 years old and it ended with the Holocaust".
Now what do you call that? Isn't that snarky flamebait? It looks like it to me. Shouldn't that claim be toned down a little? Shouldn't it be substantiated a little more?
I want to respect you but for that you will have to uphold your vetting standards equally amongst all players.
I'm going to be brutally honest and tell you that you are someone I probably wouldn't talk to in real life because you're eluding that Jews are trying to destroy the world. The fact you try to play up the cultural Marxism argument doesn't stand to reason that well before even the term existed that there were people acting like butt-clowns (like TERFs, New Atheism, and etc) without it.
So, you don't need a Frankfurt School. Just look at the Protestant and Catholic leagues which formed during the Reformation. You don't need to concoct some bogey man to prove people are inherently defensive in groups. We just do it by design like all primates of our kind.
So before you go throwing out silly concepts like cultural Marxism just take a moment to actually observe people with as little bias as you can muster. You'll see the patterns I'm talking about. And it doesn't require additional parameters to verify.
Again I must take offense at your misconstruing what I said.
If I actually had said that Jews are trying to destroy the world, you'd be able to quote that. In fact I do not think Jews are trying to destroy the world, and this can be easily verified by the fact that most of them are content to live their lives as normal human beings.
Secondly, if I thought Jews were trying to destroy the world, then I would be incredibly paranoid of talking about this subject, seeing that those who do foolishly believe in such an outrageous idea receive quite a bit of unpleasantries.
Instead, I am trying to civilly talk to you about a book I've read and the knowledge it imparted to me, and I'm even offering you to pay for the book and shipping so that you too can glance at this knowledge which you already basically understand half of, and your reply to my offer is to slander me and say you wouldn't talk to me in person. I would never expect this level of intolerance coming from a trans person who I'd assume has experienced first-hand the pangs of ostracism.
Please, listen to me. You are severely downplaying the influence of the schools of thought we have been talking about. I extend my offer once again to pay for the book and shipping if you promise me you will read it.
Also, being a former forum goer of Graveyard of the Gods, I know for a fact Francois Trembley pulls the whole special group atheist attitude all the time. Dude never seems to admit that maybe he's wrong on something, but then again he was a Randian much like myself. I guess some people never shake off that part of the Randian delirium.
If you're being serious then I'll give you a serious answer.
Exempli gratia, let's pretend I was raped. I should be able to reify my victimhood and sell it to a lawyer, thereby transferring to that lawyer the right to extract compensation from the perpetrator.
Now there's a market for it and the price is whatever a lawyer is willing to pay. You will quickly see a market form around it. This was done in Medieval Iceland for longer than the United States has been a country, so mind your glass ceiling when criticizing this idea.
I really meant reify, as in "turn an abstract thing into a marketable thing". Monetize would mean something else.
> Is this really a workable view of criminality and justice?
It worked for 400 years in Medieval Iceland. If you are interested in debating this I'd like to hear from you why you think that what you say would happen if this was in place, in fact did not happen when this was in place.
> It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?