Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[piscator]

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

Do you mean the RDF of old?

Rationalia, of course, was formed from the weirdest segment of RDF after it imploded...

Yeah, but XamXam is the only bitter angry cheesist cuntwipe actively moderating on a punitive basis here, and we all know he's too damn dim to catch much in the way of shenanigans. On the whole, it's tolerable if you put Seth and Samsa on ignore.

[Seth]

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

Do you mean the RDF of old?

Rationalia, of course, was formed from the weirdest segment of RDF after it imploded...

Yeah, but XamXam is the only bitter angry cheesist cuntwipe actively moderating on a punitive basis here, and we all know he's too damn dim to catch much in the way of shenanigans. On the whole, it's tolerable if you put Seth and Samsa on ignore.

Wha...?? Did somebody invoke me? Fuck. Anybody ever think of what a pain in the ass it is for the genie every time some jackass rubs his lamp?

[pErvinalia]

XC "rubs his lamp" quite a lot, I hear...

[DaveDodo007]

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

True enough, some people took exception to teh rulz of the site, a Mr Strange for one, (what ever happened to him.) I was too focused on new atheism to realize that evangelical new atheism would simply rip people from religion too soon and make them grab at the first blanket erm ideology that come their way. The mods that they have a ratskep are the symptom not the cause.

[piscator]

XC "rubs his lamp" quite a lot, I hear...

He should try wanking.

[piscator]

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

True enough, some people took exception to teh rulz of the site, a Mr Strange for one, (what ever happened to him.) I was too focused on new atheism to realize that evangelical new atheism would simply rip people from religion too soon and make them grab at the first blanket erm ideology that come their way. The mods that they have a ratskep are the symptom not the cause.

Well Dave, if you tear the veils off Truth you may just not like what you see laid bare, but that shouldn't necessarily be a concern for someone who tells you the truth.

[DaveDodo007]

Well, that site was formed from the culture clique of a noted firebrand and public figure of a contentious intellectual stance, so it doesn't take much effort to foresee it's going to attract people who want to contend. They knew they were bound to ban a lot of assholes.
Certain of the fora there are dominated by a clique of bitter people with too much time on their hands. This happens in forums. But at Ratskep there are a lot of mods and former mods in this crew, which doesn't speak well of the site's culture.

True enough, some people took exception to teh rulz of the site, a Mr Strange for one, (what ever happened to him.) I was too focused on new atheism to realize that evangelical new atheism would simply rip people from religion too soon and make them grab at the first blanket erm ideology that come their way. The mods that they have a ratskep are the symptom not the cause.

Well Dave, if you tear the veils off Truth you may just not like what you see laid bare, but that shouldn't necessarily be a concern for someone who tells you the truth.

Yeah, I get this but it did hit me like a hammer in the face. Oh the follies of youth.

[Mr.Samsa]

There are so many odd assumptions here that I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me as it seems to have little relevance to what I wrote. In case you did mean to respond to me, I'll try to clarify some points:

1) I haven't denied that biology plays a role. My claim is that it doesn't play the specific role that Eliezer needs it to. In other words, general biological functions or predispositions might lead us to a particular conclusion or behavior but that's not the same as saying that something is an evolutionary adaptation, which is a more restricted type of behavior.

I think it does, both evolution and human evolution still play a part in human tribalistic thinking or motivational thinking if you will. I can't say you and rEv are stupid because that would be false. I can say that to move beyond your tribalistic parameters makes you uncomfortable and therefore you come to the conclusion that it is wrong. You both rationalize feeling and then think you are rational.

But tribalistic or motivated thinking isn't necessary innate or biological, which becomes even more true when you make more specific claims like "politics evolved to deal with warfare".

I'm not sure what the comment directed at me is supposed to mean, my political beliefs and affiliations switch quite dramatically so I don't think any evolutionary explanation will be able to fully account for them.

2) even if my claim made implications about the existence of free will (it doesn't), that's not a problem. There are a number of good arguments in favour of free will and the acceptance or rejection of determinism doesn't necessarily have any relevance at all.

Non sequitur is a non sequitur, my apologies and ignore it.

Fair enough.

3) where did the distinction between analytic and emotional reasoning come from? You seem to be conflating analytic with "non-biological" and emotional with "biological" when there's no reason to think that. Rejecting that there is a specific evolutionary adaptation towards political stances does not mean political stances are carefully reasoned out.

People can have analytic thought processes and critical thinking ability when it comes to politics. I'm simply pointing out that they decide to follow their feeling instead and then try rationalize their emotions. This works when it comes to politics so there is no need to change it except if you want an honest debate, which unfortunately most people don't. This is why politicians are not held in high esteem because they exploit this and are then blamed for the people's own gullibility.

Sort of. Firstly, you seem to be agreeing with me now that the evolutionary angle is a misunderstanding and instead that it's better to view it as an emotional vs rational distinction.

Secondly, you're right that often we start with emotional motivations and these create a framework that dictates what kinds of evidence we expose ourselves to and what we don't, but it's not true that reasons and rational arguments are unnecessary or don't change minds.

On the whole, it's tolerable if you put Seth and Samsa on ignore.

Aw poor baby. Are you still upset that I made you look like an idiot for denying the existence of mental disorders?

[pErvinalia]

There are so many odd assumptions here that I'm not entirely sure you meant to respond to me as it seems to have little relevance to what I wrote. In case you did mean to respond to me, I'll try to clarify some points:

1) I haven't denied that biology plays a role. My claim is that it doesn't play the specific role that Eliezer needs it to. In other words, general biological functions or predispositions might lead us to a particular conclusion or behavior but that's not the same as saying that something is an evolutionary adaptation, which is a more restricted type of behavior.

I think it does, both evolution and human evolution still play a part in human tribalistic thinking or motivational thinking if you will. I can't say you and rEv are stupid because that would be false. I can say that to move beyond your tribalistic parameters makes you uncomfortable and therefore you come to the conclusion that it is wrong. You both rationalize feeling and then think you are rational.

But tribalistic or motivated thinking isn't necessary innate or biological, which becomes even more true when you make more specific claims like "politics evolved to deal with warfare".

I'm not sure what the comment directed at me is supposed to mean, my political beliefs and affiliations switch quite dramatically so I don't think any evolutionary explanation will be able to fully account for them.

Bullshit, Samsa!1 You're a white knight mangina boy hating communist!! It doesn't matter what your views actually are. You respect women, therefore you are evil in DaveDodo's esteemed opinion.

[Mr.Samsa]

Bullshit, Samsa!1 You're a white knight mangina boy hating communist!! It doesn't matter what your views actually are. You respect women, therefore you are evil in DaveDodo's esteemed opinion.

Haha I love the idea of a "white knight". As if anyone is defending women's rights online in hopes that an anonymous woman would track them down in real life and fuck them.

[pErvinalia]

I don't even know what half these terms are that DD accuses us all of. He's become like Seth for me. I just skim read every second or third sentence, as it's mostly just wild ranting or the same shit on endless repeat.

[piscator]

Aw poor baby. Are you still upset that I made you look like an idiot for denying the existence of mental disorders?

Don't flatter yourself.
If I want atonalism, I know where to go.

srvaughanabea.jpg (64.8 KiB) Viewed 2774 times

[Seth]

I don't even know what half these terms are that DD accuses us all of. He's become like Seth for me. I just skim read every second or third sentence, as it's mostly just wild ranting or the same shit on endless repeat.

Your ignorance and inability to be rational doesn't speak to the quality of the arguments you disparage I'm afraid. Now go to your room and play with your dolls while the adults have a civilized conversation.

[Mr.Samsa]

Aw poor baby. Are you still upset that I made you look like an idiot for denying the existence of mental disorders?

Don't flatter yourself.
If I want atonalism, I know where to go.

Where's that? Some crank community where they deny all sorts of sciences? A scientology meeting?

[piscator]

bo-wombat.jpg (88.56 KiB) Viewed 2751 times