IoHL Community Coffee Shop

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3501
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride, RU58841, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17905

Post by Rudiger » 6 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
"The only reason that X would stand up for Y is to have sex with Y" -- that is so fucked up on so many levels.
It is indeed, and the precursor to "x likes y so therefore x should automatically intervene when y is insulted"

It's just so transparent that this is the thought process, someone being insulted is another person's opportunity to come to aid. For a truly selfish minded person, the insult and upset is actually great thing (which is why the person's feelings don't actually matter), because it presented the opportunity for themselves to defend, and elevate their status above others (or at least this is how they think it's perceived).
Look, fat...

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1971
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4998
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17906

Post by Admin » 6 months ago

Rudiger wrote:
6 months ago
It is indeed, and the precursor to "x likes y so therefore x should automatically intervene when y is insulted"

It's just so transparent that this is the thought process, someone being insulted is another person's opportunity to come to aid. For a truly selfish minded person, the insult and upset is actually great thing (which is why the person's feelings don't actually matter), because it presented the opportunity for themselves to defend, and elevate their status above others (or at least this is how they think it's perceived).
Resentment can easily become a drug, I think we've all experienced that feeling from time to time, like you're just waiting, you're hoping really bad that the person you're talking to is going to upset you or someone you love. You're thinking "just give me a reason", and there comes the anger pouring out. You've found your monster and an occasion to be the hero who's going to slay it.

Now like in every situation, there is a positive side and a negative one. Sometimes your anger is misplaced, but sometimes it is not. In some situations, you had to get in there for your own good, the good of the other person and the greater good at the same time. If at least two of those conditions aren't met, I'm afraid you're often just doing it to get that good feeling you get when you "destroy" someone and your whole being/ego is convinced that they deserved it.

The key is to know when to strike and let the anger out and when to keep your sword sheathed.
"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. - Matthew 6:22 :christian-cross:

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1897
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5229
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17908

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 months ago

Admin wrote:
6 months ago
Resentment can easily become a drug, I think we've all experienced that feeling from time to time, like you're just waiting, you're hoping really bad that the person you're talking to is going to upset you or someone you love. You're thinking "just give me a reason", and there comes the anger pouring out. You've found your monster and an occasion to be the hero who's going to slay it.

Now like in every situation, there is a positive side and a negative one. Sometimes your anger is misplaced, but sometimes it is not. In some situations, you had to get in there for your own good, the good of the other person and the greater good at the same time. If at least two of those conditions aren't met, I'm afraid you're often just doing it to get that good feeling you get when you "destroy" someone and your whole being/ego is convinced that they deserved it.

The key is to know when to strike and let the anger out and when to keep your sword sheathed.
Yeah pretty much. He's been sniping at me for a few weeks, so it was bound to come out eventually. I've added him on ignore for the time being. Eventually he'll move on to a new target, whatever.

I only see the part of his post that you quoted, and it's truly depraved and narrow-minded in its outlook.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
Rudiger
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1217
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 3501
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Finasteride, RU58841, minoxidil, Biotin, Dermarolling, Nizoral

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17910

Post by Rudiger » 6 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
Yeah pretty much. He's been sniping at me for a few weeks, so it was bound to come out eventually. I've added him on ignore for the time being. Eventually he'll move on to a new target, whatever.

I only see the part of his post that you quoted, and it's truly depraved and narrow-minded in its outlook.
Hahaha, so self assured that he couldn't be talking about you? That's great.

You interjected in my debate with another forum member and you had nothing of value to add you just wanted to "be there" for her, I pointed out that you do this pointless good guy interjection again a few weeks later with That Guy and you do this regularly (and this wasn't a "snipe", it was polite and genuine constructive criticism) and today you write something about how another member should interject for someone he likes, regardless of the circumstance, because that's your mindset.

It's not "sniping at you" and you are giving the impression it's like a regular thing, you'd have to be so self-absorbed to think that there's no point to it, but after seeing how you interpreted Fred's post, I really think that's how you've become.

As for Fred's post, you were the one "looking for a reason", and had to establish that EL is not dumb (which I didn't say she was) yet you couldn't defend her post that I actually had a problem with, so why the fuck get involved in the first place? Just because you were waiting for a reason to get involved.
Look, fat...

Guest-3
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 792
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2465

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17918

Post by Guest-3 » 6 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
Shapiro, however, discusses social and political issues at a very broad level, and so he does in fact touch on many issues where feelings inevitably manner
I don't follow Shapiro closely but the instances where I have seen him use his quote about facts, he was on point. For example, he is correct when he says that a person’s biological gender isn't contingent on his/her feelings. A 45 years old man suddenly can't claim that he is a 12 years old girl and should be treated as such.
Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
As an example, he is pro life, which is possibly his most famous position. There's no way to arrive at a purely dispassionate conclusion to the abortion issue, it necessarily has to draw on a person's values.The same is true of the vast majority of policy issues. Feelings are fundamental.
Feelings may be fundamental in many instances but so are facts. In fact, I would argue that even in instances where feelings seem fundamental, they operate under the framework of beliefs that rest on some facts. For example, one of the facts that the argument proffered by pro-choice folk’s rests on is that people have right to decide what to do with their own body. This fact is not a result of someone’s feelings. It's part of our moral framework. Similarly, the argument offered by pro-life people rests on other facts such as sanctity of life. I don’t really see how can anyone make a coherent argument about anything without referring to some facts. It’s not always obvious though what facts are people basing their arguments on, even to people framing the argument. But a deeper analysis can reveal the underlying facts.

Take the example of the baker who refused to make cake for a gay wedding due to his religious beliefs. Wash his refusal purely based on feelings? What about those who trenchantly criticized the baker and called him homophobe? Was their strong reaction just based on feelings? Superficially, it may appear so. However, I believe that’s not the full picture. Yes, the baker refused to bake the cake due to his feelings towards gay marriage. However, those feelings were shaped by the fact that his God prohibits him. Now this fact itself may be incorrect. But to the baker it’s correct hence he is influenced by it. Similarly, the opposition to baker’s refusal by his critics is based on feelings. But those feelings are shaped by their belief in equality of all humans irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Now I am not saying that feelings are always based on facts. For example, a baker may really be a homophobe and refused to bake the cake for gay weddings. However, I was strictly talking about feelings that are taken into account in policy issues. They are not irrational.

Added in 1 hour 28 minutes 50 seconds:
I will like to add one thing to my post above. Some may object that I am treating moral values as facts. The reason I am doing so is because I do consider morality to be objective. But that's a different discussion entirely.
Trump 2020

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1971
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4998
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17919

Post by Admin » 6 months ago

pjhair wrote:
6 months ago
The reason I am doing so is because I do consider morality to be objective.
That's Sam Harris main error, sadly. Ultimately, it is not, it is... simply given to us, from where, by who? God knows ;).

The Founding Fathers knew this, which is why they wrote:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Ah shit they even mention God, it's OK Sam, don't pass out, don't get angry, they were just delusional white men suffering from collective psychosis!
"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. - Matthew 6:22 :christian-cross:

Guest-3
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 792
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2465

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17928

Post by Guest-3 » 6 months ago

Admin wrote:
6 months ago
That's Sam Harris main error, sadly. Ultimately, it is not, it is... simply given to us, from where, by who? God knows ;).
But my claim was about the nature of morality, not the source of it's origin.
Trump 2020

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1897
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5229
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17933

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 months ago

pjhair wrote:
6 months ago
I don't follow Shapiro closely but the instances where I have seen him use his quote about facts, he was on point. For example, he is correct when he says that a person’s biological gender isn't contingent on his/her feelings. A 45 years old man suddenly can't claim that he is a 12 years old girl and should be treated as such.



Feelings may be fundamental in many instances but so are facts. In fact, I would argue that even in instances where feelings seem fundamental, they operate under the framework of beliefs that rest on some facts. For example, one of the facts that the argument proffered by pro-choice folk’s rests on is that people have right to decide what to do with their own body. This fact is not a result of someone’s feelings. It's part of our moral framework. Similarly, the argument offered by pro-life people rests on other facts such as sanctity of life. I don’t really see how can anyone make a coherent argument about anything without referring to some facts. It’s not always obvious though what facts are people basing their arguments on, even to people framing the argument. But a deeper analysis can reveal the underlying facts.

Take the example of the baker who refused to make cake for a gay wedding due to his religious beliefs. Wash his refusal purely based on feelings? What about those who trenchantly criticized the baker and called him homophobe? Was their strong reaction just based on feelings? Superficially, it may appear so. However, I believe that’s not the full picture. Yes, the baker refused to bake the cake due to his feelings towards gay marriage. However, those feelings were shaped by the fact that his God prohibits him. Now this fact itself may be incorrect. But to the baker it’s correct hence he is influenced by it. Similarly, the opposition to baker’s refusal by his critics is based on feelings. But those feelings are shaped by their belief in equality of all humans irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Now I am not saying that feelings are always based on facts. For example, a baker may really be a homophobe and refused to bake the cake for gay weddings. However, I was strictly talking about feelings that are taken into account in policy issues. They are not irrational.

Added in 1 hour 28 minutes 50 seconds:
I will like to add one thing to my post above. Some may object that I am treating moral values as facts. The reason I am doing so is because I do consider morality to be objective. But that's a different discussion entirely.
It's just very difficult to argue with you. Your posts are very well-written, very focused, and very thoughtful. Even when I find myself disagreeing with you, as I do here, I don't see an obvious plan for counterattack. You force me to try harder and to think harder. Thank you. I wish that we had twenty posters like you.

I'll try anyway.

I'll start off by saying where I agree. A legitimate argument in a social or policy discussion needs to have some grounding in facts, rather than fiction. Global warming policy discussions, for example, depend on several factors. These are whether or not temperatures will rise if CO2 emissions are not curtailed (they will), by how much (hard to say, but likely a few degrees), and the opportunity costs of action versus inaction (hard to estimate). These are facts with uncertainty, but close enough for the point to stand, and ideally the discussion should stand on these grounds rather than points about "CO2 being an inert, transparent gas" that I've seen in a few places.

However, feelings matter as well and they also set our morality. In the case of the baker, he is almost certainly not respecting 100% of the Bible, nobody does, he is making a selection, and there's inevitably some emotional input into this. I think that the most convincing way to understand that feelings are fundamental is to study the behavior of people with impaired emotion. Even if their rational faculties are intact, they end up making poor and often immoral decisions, as the human brain relies on emotion for decision making. I recommend Descartes Error by Antonio Damasio, a neurologist and philosopher, where he goes over some case studies of people who had brain damage.

Circling back to the baker, it's a great example as it's impossible for everybody to win. If he has to bake the cake, then his religious freedom is infringed upon. If he can boycott the gay wedding, then he is engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both are illegal, so there's no way for everybody to win, and the win will ultimately come down, or has ultimately come down, to the subjective choices of judges, who will rule based on ideology.

A similar example would be that of Jehova's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusion. So given religious freedom, they should be able to tell a doctor to not give a blood transfusion to their sick child. On the other hand, that imperils the child's right to life. There's no way for everybody to win.

Added in 13 minutes 21 seconds:
JLBB wrote:
6 months ago
There’s likely something to be learned from nazi economics, but overall there’s nothing extraordinary enough about them to bother for those other than history buffs. Marginal increases in wages, drastic increases in working hours, limiting cheap imports and shortages of various goods, mandatory conscription, war, and GDP increases propped up by military spending are in no world some sort of miracle of economics. To suggest some great lesson here is laughable.

In my response to Nameless, it was definitely responsible to think specifically in terms of the economy before the war because that is what That Guy consistently heralds as some great marvel of economics, the specificity matters because that’s what was being discussed and if you ignore that you cease being able to communicate honestly, but whether before or after the war it was never some sort of great marvel like he pretends anyway. On top of that trying to compare an economic system in a very specific context from the 30s and 40s like That Guy does to the modern day in any sense is for the most part fucking ridiculous.
The US economy in 2019 is on thin ice but looks a hundred times better than that of Nazi Germany’s ever did. Modern Australia’s, Denmark’s etc etc and countless others offer more relevant information to economics in 2019.

I wasn’t paying much attention to the Pas situation when she came back as I had my mind on other things but was especially upset she left so quickly especially as I wanted to PM her. I didn’t see specifically anything That Guy said towards her at the time.

You’re also right that “naughty” was a terrible and reductive way of referring to a lot of what he says. They are often horrific and should be viewed seriously because of that but at the same time I think you often have a reductive way of refuting his arguments. He sounded like an embarrassing pseudo intellectual when talking about music for example but I don’t think you were accurately addressing what he was actually saying either. They certainly weren’t the dumbest thing you’d find on the internet and much of it was accurate, however as per usual he has a tendency to rewrite history in some regards.
First, thanks for the response, but ...I just really don't appreciate you suggesting or implying, in this post and I think previous ones too, that I was failing to address good points and that this is some sort of flaw. I have the right to ignore low-quality posts, and if a post makes one good point and twenty bad ones, I should not be expected to dig into the noise to find the good point.

As an example, you yourself did not respond to the 5th post from the bottom of page 50, here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82&start=750
I suppose that one could accuse you of running away from some good points, or whatever. I wouldn't be able to do so with a straight face, to be honest. I genuinely think that you simply skimmed or saw this post, and you did not deem responding to it to be a priority. You had better things that you could do, and you had enough emotional acuity to actually go do those better things.

I am sure, without having checked, that you have not responded to every point that I've ever written to you. I am also somewhat confident that I've never critiqued you for it, and if I have, I was being an asshole for doing so. You have your own life to live, I'd rather appreciate the interesting points that you do contribute, than resent you for not spending all of your time and investing all of your energy here.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 928
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1918
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17937

Post by JLBB » 6 months ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
It's just very difficult to argue with you. Your posts are very well-written, very focused, and very thoughtful. Even when I find myself disagreeing with you, as I do here, I don't see an obvious plan for counterattack. You force me to try harder and to think harder. Thank you. I wish that we had twenty posters like you.

I'll try anyway.

I'll start off by saying where I agree. A legitimate argument in a social or policy discussion needs to have some grounding in facts, rather than fiction. Global warming policy discussions, for example, depend on several factors. These are whether or not temperatures will rise if CO2 emissions are not curtailed (they will), by how much (hard to say, but likely a few degrees), and the opportunity costs of action versus inaction (hard to estimate). These are facts with uncertainty, but close enough for the point to stand, and ideally the discussion should stand on these grounds rather than points about "CO2 being an inert, transparent gas" that I've seen in a few places.

However, feelings matter as well and they also set our morality. In the case of the baker, he is almost certainly not respecting 100% of the Bible, nobody does, he is making a selection, and there's inevitably some emotional input into this. I think that the most convincing way to understand that feelings are fundamental is to study the behavior of people with impaired emotion. Even if their rational faculties are intact, they end up making poor and often immoral decisions, as the human brain relies on emotion for decision making. I recommend Descartes Error by Antonio Damasio, a neurologist and philosopher, where he goes over some case studies of people who had brain damage.

Circling back to the baker, it's a great example as it's impossible for everybody to win. If he has to bake the cake, then his religious freedom is infringed upon. If he can boycott the gay wedding, then he is engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both are illegal, so there's no way for everybody to win, and the win will ultimately come down, or has ultimately come down, to the subjective choices of judges, who will rule based on ideology.

A similar example would be that of Jehova's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusion. So given religious freedom, they should be able to tell a doctor to not give a blood transfusion to their sick child. On the other hand, that imperils the child's right to life. There's no way for everybody to win.

Added in 13 minutes 21 seconds:


First, thanks for the response, but ...I just really don't appreciate you suggesting or implying, in this post and I think previous ones too, that I was failing to address good points and that this is some sort of flaw. I have the right to ignore low-quality posts, and if a post makes one good point and twenty bad ones, I should not be expected to dig into the noise to find the good point.

As an example, you yourself did not respond to the 5th post from the bottom of page 50, here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82&start=750
I suppose that one could accuse you of running away from some good points, or whatever. I wouldn't be able to do so with a straight face, to be honest. I genuinely think that you simply skimmed or saw this post, and you did not deem responding to it to be a priority. You had better things that you could do, and you had enough emotional acuity to actually go do those better things.

I am sure, without having checked, that you have not responded to every point that I've ever written to you. I am also somewhat confident that I've never critiqued you for it, and if I have, I was being an asshole for doing so. You have your own life to live, I'd rather appreciate the interesting points that you do contribute, than resent you for not spending all of your time and investing all of your energy here.
There's a big difference between not responding to something, and responding to something but not addressing the point made, as I was referencing in terms of what I see you do towards That Guy. in my opinion its significantly better to not respond to something than respond to it with a strawman. You respond to That Guy significantly more than I ever did, because I typically don't think counters will get through to him, and the more ridiculous things he says I think most people here see the problems and don't need an essay on why they're wrong. Another example was when you said he couldn't do basic maths in one instance where you totally characterised what he was referring to, I can't remember the exact post unfortunately. On top of that you kept repeating that he can't do basic maths because it over, and over, and over despite you misinterpreting it.

When you said his points on black music influence were some of the dumbest posts you've seen on the internet it just sounds like you clearly didn't read what he wrote, because a lot of it was factually and indisputably based in fact even if the conclusions were faulty and omitting other important information. The discussion of racial impacts and creations in music, and relating this to racial features is obviously dirty and a little ugly to talk about, but its genuinely interesting too.

I think I try to and successfully respond to 90% of your posts, however on occasion I feel like the explanation is complicated and isn't going to be appreciated by the universe enough to bother with. One example I can think of was when you brought up Trump making "billions" off his office, I pointed out actual numbers showing how utterly ridiculous this notion is with detail and sources, however it was ignored and no one really cares. I don't mind to some degree because writing helps synthesise my own thoughts and gather information, but I'm not you or anyone on either side of the political spectrum here actually cares. You're probably going to keep repeating he's made substantial amounts of money off his office and so will everyone else that dislikes Trump, facts be damned. Post-truth world, post-modernists, competing narratives over facts and all that jazz.

And I don't blame you for not offering pinpoint accuracy in arguments for everything That Guy says because to some degree he's just another white nationalist on some random forum, repeating garbage that most 4channers are only larping or shitposting about. But for your sake I would at least say
that on that you are far less precise in your discussions with him than anyone or anything else. On top of that when he's calling you a dirty kike and seems over time to try to cause more of a stir and get more offensive I get that there's a feeling to just tell the guy to fuck off and ignore everything he says. He strongly implied I should be hanged in his fantasy land after saying I eat ass once and my emotional reaction was somewhere around "Boy, I'd really love to cut that dudes fingers off with a rusty knife right about now".

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1897
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5229
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17938

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 months ago

JLBB wrote:
6 months ago
There's a big difference between not responding to something, and responding to something but not addressing the point made, as I was referencing in terms of what I see you do towards That Guy. in my opinion its significantly better to not respond to something than respond to it with a strawman. You respond to That Guy significantly more than I ever did, because I typically don't think counters will get through to him, and the more ridiculous things he says I think most people here see the problems and don't need an essay on why they're wrong. Another example was when you said he couldn't do basic maths in one instance where you totally characterised what he was referring to, I can't remember the exact post unfortunately. On top of that you kept repeating that he can't do basic maths because it over, and over, and over despite you misinterpreting it.

When you said his points on black music influence were some of the dumbest posts you've seen on the internet it just sounds like you clearly didn't read what he wrote, because a lot of it was factually and indisputably based in fact even if the conclusions were faulty and omitting other important information. The discussion of racial impacts and creations in music, and relating this to racial features is obviously dirty and a little ugly to talk about, but its genuinely interesting too.

I think I try to and successfully respond to 90% of your posts, however on occasion I feel like the explanation is complicated and isn't going to be appreciated by the universe enough to bother with. One example I can think of was when you brought up Trump making "billions" off his office, I pointed out actual numbers showing how utterly ridiculous this notion is with detail and sources, however it was ignored and no one really cares. I don't mind to some degree because writing helps synthesise my own thoughts and gather information, but I'm not you or anyone on either side of the political spectrum here actually cares. You're probably going to keep repeating he's made substantial amounts of money off his office and so will everyone else that dislikes Trump, facts be damned. Post-truth world, post-modernists, competing narratives over facts and all that jazz.

And I don't blame you for not offering pinpoint accuracy in arguments for everything That Guy says because to some degree he's just another white nationalist on some random forum, repeating garbage that most 4channers are only larping or shitposting about. But for your sake I would at least say
that on that you are far less precise in your discussions with him than anyone or anything else. On top of that when he's calling you a dirty kike and seems over time to try to cause more of a stir and get more offensive I get that there's a feeling to just tell the guy to fuck off and ignore everything he says. He strongly implied I should be hanged in his fantasy land after saying I eat ass once and my emotional reaction was somewhere around "Boy, I'd really love to cut that dudes fingers off with a rusty knife right about now".
I'll acknowledge that it's true that past a certain point, it's best to ignore an asshole. I'm going to have to assume here that you only skimmed our arguments (which is fine, and not surprising) as you are grossly mis-characterizing what happened.

I did, in fact, provide a lot of very detailed, focused, and substantive counterarguments to a lot of his points. This happened at first as I was previously estimating his intelligence as elevated. The first thing that I did when I first saw him post a link of anti-Jewish deeds was to look them up. I implicitly trusted him on that point and ... it turned out that the first few in the list were completely fabricated. He was blaming Jews for events that had never even taken place. So I stopped there in that argument. It was valid to point out that the events had never taken place.

I have, in my too-many-posts on the topic, provided a lot of detailed rebuttals, including references to various historical sources, books, testimonies, and documentaries. You say that I'm less precise, but actually I provided the most precise rebuttals, along with @yettee.

When he wrote that garbage post on the history of the music, I laughed a little bit and decided not to engage further. I did bring up his argument with someone in real life later on, they laughed as well. It might not be the absolute dumbest thing that I've read on the internet, but it's definitely in the bottom of the distribution, and with respect, your writing style employs as much (or more?) hyperbole as mine does. It is true that some of what he wrote was factual, for example, Bach was tremendously influential. But that was also completely irrelevant. That was the point where I stopped putting much effort into his points.

And FYI, I did not mischaracterize his math error, it was quite atrocious. Perhaps I should have simply ignored him from that point on.

****

By the way, I didn't ignore your post on Trump making billions from his time in office. I read it. I recognized that it's true that I don't have a robust estimate at hand of how much money he's made from his time in office. You say that I'm "probably going to keep repeating he's made substantial amounts of money off his office " but the reality is, you presented your counterargument a few months ago, and I have not repeated the point since.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 928
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1918
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17940

Post by JLBB » 6 months ago

pjhair wrote:
6 months ago
I don't follow Shapiro closely but the instances where I have seen him use his quote about facts, he was on point. For example, he is correct when he says that a person’s biological gender isn't contingent on his/her feelings. A 45 years old man suddenly can't claim that he is a 12 years old girl and should be treated as such.

Feelings may be fundamental in many instances but so are facts. In fact, I would argue that even in instances where feelings seem fundamental, they operate under the framework of beliefs that rest on some facts. For example, one of the facts that the argument proffered by pro-choice folk’s rests on is that people have right to decide what to do with their own body. This fact is not a result of someone’s feelings. It's part of our moral framework. Similarly, the argument offered by pro-life people rests on other facts such as sanctity of life. I don’t really see how can anyone make a coherent argument about anything without referring to some facts. It’s not always obvious though what facts are people basing their arguments on, even to people framing the argument. But a deeper analysis can reveal the underlying facts.

Take the example of the baker who refused to make cake for a gay wedding due to his religious beliefs. Wash his refusal purely based on feelings? What about those who trenchantly criticized the baker and called him homophobe? Was their strong reaction just based on feelings? Superficially, it may appear so. However, I believe that’s not the full picture. Yes, the baker refused to bake the cake due to his feelings towards gay marriage. However, those feelings were shaped by the fact that his God prohibits him. Now this fact itself may be incorrect. But to the baker it’s correct hence he is influenced by it. Similarly, the opposition to baker’s refusal by his critics is based on feelings. But those feelings are shaped by their belief in equality of all humans irrespective of their sexual orientation.

Now I am not saying that feelings are always based on facts. For example, a baker may really be a homophobe and refused to bake the cake for gay weddings. However, I was strictly talking about feelings that are taken into account in policy issues. They are not irrational.

Added in 1 hour 28 minutes 50 seconds:
I will like to add one thing to my post above. Some may object that I am treating moral values as facts. The reason I am doing so is because I do consider morality to be objective. But that's a different discussion entirely.
What do you mean when you say you consider morality objective? As a feature of language? In terms of a universal categorical imperative for example?

Guest-3
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 792
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2465

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17942

Post by Guest-3 » 6 months ago

JLBB wrote:
6 months ago
What do you mean when you say you consider morality objective?
I meant that I consider moral values to be independent of opinion. For example, I consider torturing and killing an innocent person to be objectively wrong. It doesn't matter if some psychopath claims that it's the right thing to do. Opinion of the psychopath doesn't change the fact that killing/torturing is wrong.

Added in 39 minutes 49 seconds:
Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
It's just very difficult to argue with you. Your posts are very well-written, very focused, and very thoughtful. Even when I find myself disagreeing with you, as I do here, I don't see an obvious plan for counterattack. You force me to try harder and to think harder. Thank you. I wish that we had twenty posters like you.
Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate your presence on the forum. You significantly elevate the quality of discussions. It’s a pleasure to interact with you.
Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
However, feelings matter as well and they also set our morality. In the case of the baker, he is almost certainly not respecting 100% of the Bible, nobody does, he is making a selection, and there's inevitably some emotional input into this.
There certainly may be some emotional input. But my point is that the emotional input must have some basis on facts to have any sort of weight or relevance when it comes to policy issues. For example, lets assume that the Bible unequivocally and explicitly endorsed gay marriage, just like it endorses belief in God. In the face of such an overwhelming endorsement, if a Christian baker refuses to bake cake, he wouldn’t be taken seriously at all and his feelings wouldn’t matter when it comes to making policies. The reason is that in such a scenario the baker’s objection likely stems from his homophobia, instead of his religious beliefs. That’s why I stated the following in my previous post.

“Now I am not saying that feelings are always based on facts. For example, a baker may really be a homophobe and refused to bake the cake for gay weddings. However, I was strictly talking about feelings that are taken into account in policy issues. They are not irrational.”

I probably should have explained my position in the above paragraph better. I simply meant to say that feelings, to the extent they have any relevance when it comes to policy issues, must have some grounding on facts.

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 months ago
Circling back to the baker, it's a great example as it's impossible for everybody to win. If he has to bake the cake, then his religious freedom is infringed upon. If he can boycott the gay wedding, then he is engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both are illegal, so there's no way for everybody to win, and the win will ultimately come down, or has ultimately come down, to the subjective choices of judges, who will rule based on ideology.
I will argue that the disagreement between the baker and his critics are actually disagreement about facts. The disagreement probably stems from one of the two reasons:

(1) Critics either don’t believe in God at all or don’t believe in the same God as the baker

(2) Critics believe in the same God but don’t believe that Bible is against gay marriage

I will argue that if these disagreements didn’t exist then critics would likely agree with the baker. However, one can ask why do these disagreements exist in the first place? Isn’t it because there is a subjective component to it? I would say there probably is but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively correct answer. For example, if God really did exist and if he really did prohibit gay marriage then the baker will likely have a stronger case (unless we consider morality to be independent of God despite knowing he exists). But if God doesn’t exist, then his critics are right. God either exists or he doesn’t exist. So, it follows that the right answer exists. We are just ignorant of it.
Trump 2020

User avatar
yettee
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 583
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1638
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: Minoxidil

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17943

Post by yettee » 6 months ago

JLBB wrote:
6 months ago
On top of that when he's calling you a dirty kike and seems over time to try to cause more of a stir and get more offensive I get that there's a feeling to just tell the guy to fuck off and ignore everything he says.
Of course, you're right to call this out, its terrible. And it's not "virtue signalling" to say it... it's offensive and deserves to be called out, and I agree with you. But I have a question for you though. You've often called aboriginal people "abos" in this forum. When I asked about it, you called me a virtue signaller and other things, and explained your use of the word this way: "black people and abos be horrible, lazy, and stupid workers (EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE)", "there isn't a single even average intelligence black male I've gone to school or uni with", etc. But you know, this is exactly how TG explains his anti-semitism: in his experience and the experience of his family, Jews deserve the k-ke epithet, and worse, so it's OK for him to say it, and he's factually right.

What's the difference?

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1897
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5229
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17947

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 months ago

Here's an interesting review of Thomas Piketty's new book, Capital and Ideology.

For those who are unfamiliar, Piketty stands out from most economists due to being a lot more empirical, rather than theoretical, in his mindset. He does the hard work of collecting extraordinary amounts of data.

https://promarket.org/thomas-piketty-ne ... s-sources/

Added in 12 hours 58 minutes 39 seconds:
yettee wrote:
6 months ago
Of course, you're right to call this out, its terrible. And it's not "virtue signalling" to say it... it's offensive and deserves to be called out, and I agree with you. But I have a question for you though. You've often called aboriginal people "abos" in this forum. When I asked about it, you called me a virtue signaller and other things, and explained your use of the word this way: "black people and abos be horrible, lazy, and stupid workers (EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE)", "there isn't a single even average intelligence black male I've gone to school or uni with", etc. But you know, this is exactly how TG explains his anti-semitism: in his experience and the experience of his family, Jews deserve the k-ke epithet, and worse, so it's OK for him to say it, and he's factually right.

What's the difference?
A common issue among right-thinking people is the failure to distinguish virtue signaling from genuine virtue. Admittedly, this can be really difficult, and sometimes I have a hard time doing so, but I think that the offset is exaggerated by many conservatives.

There is such a thing as virtue, which in this context simply means empathy, a component of virtue when the term is used more generally. It's very important, among other issues, it's at the root of the evolution of human intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ... telligence
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ns-empathy
Among the many interesting comments written by Desmond Morris in The Naked Ape, there is the statement that the climate change that pushed our ape ancestors out of the forests a few million years ago could have meant extinction. Our ancestors were simply less effective at hunting for food than "dogs and cats". The only advantage that we had was our level of co-operation, and through that, Morris sketched a broad link between the recent evolution of human intelligence, empathy, sexuality, brain size, and meat consumption. Those features go together, synergistically. For example, almost all of the anatomical differences between humans and all other apes can be related to sexuality, which facilitates not just reproduction as some misinformed people think, but also pair bonding, and thus community formation.

A theory of evolutionary psychology that focused only on fucking would go nowhere -- the infant and child mortality rate among our ancestors was extremely high. Communities and groups where the parents formed a pair bond that lasted at least a few years were simply more likely to produce offspring that survived, and that likely applied to the extended family as well. This was an evolutionary driver for empathy, and by extension, other higher-order processes.

To the extent that liberals/leftists/etc are often heard or more likely read discussing issues such as environmental decay, child poverty, police brutality, etc, it is simply because we genuinely care, and we would rather these things stop, or more likely, be reduced via trivial means. Speaking personally, I actually do give time and money to charity, and people tend to see me as a "good citizen", as in I treat others well, I contribute my share to communal BS, etc. That is what I see among many of my peers. So one should be careful with the cynicism, because it obfuscates the reality that many people, by their very nature, actually do care.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1897
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 5229
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

IoHL Community Coffee Shop

#17966

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 months ago

Hey guys, I wonder how many of you can solve this probability problem. Please don't answer the question if you've seen it before.

Charles has two children. You meet one of the children, and it's a boy. What is the probability that the other child is a boy?

For the answer, highlight the text below.

Under the assumption that the sex of children is identically and independently distributed with a probability of 50% for a boy, and 50% for a girl, then the probability is 2/3 (edit, 1/3, lol !). That is because there are four different configurations for two children: boy-boy, boy-girl, girl-boy, and girl-girl. In this question, the fourth configuration is eliminated, which leaves you picking randomly from the first three. Alternatively, you can see that a parent of two children is twice as likely to have a boy and a girl as he is to have two boys.

Added in 44 minutes 38 seconds:
pjhair wrote:
6 months ago
I meant that I consider moral values to be independent of opinion. For example, I consider torturing and killing an innocent person to be objectively wrong. It doesn't matter if some psychopath claims that it's the right thing to do. Opinion of the psychopath doesn't change the fact that killing/torturing is wrong.

Added in 39 minutes 49 seconds:


Thank you for your kind words. I really appreciate your presence on the forum. You significantly elevate the quality of discussions. It’s a pleasure to interact with you.



There certainly may be some emotional input. But my point is that the emotional input must have some basis on facts to have any sort of weight or relevance when it comes to policy issues. For example, lets assume that the Bible unequivocally and explicitly endorsed gay marriage, just like it endorses belief in God. In the face of such an overwhelming endorsement, if a Christian baker refuses to bake cake, he wouldn’t be taken seriously at all and his feelings wouldn’t matter when it comes to making policies. The reason is that in such a scenario the baker’s objection likely stems from his homophobia, instead of his religious beliefs. That’s why I stated the following in my previous post.

“Now I am not saying that feelings are always based on facts. For example, a baker may really be a homophobe and refused to bake the cake for gay weddings. However, I was strictly talking about feelings that are taken into account in policy issues. They are not irrational.”

I probably should have explained my position in the above paragraph better. I simply meant to say that feelings, to the extent they have any relevance when it comes to policy issues, must have some grounding on facts.




I will argue that the disagreement between the baker and his critics are actually disagreement about facts. The disagreement probably stems from one of the two reasons:

(1) Critics either don’t believe in God at all or don’t believe in the same God as the baker

(2) Critics believe in the same God but don’t believe that Bible is against gay marriage

I will argue that if these disagreements didn’t exist then critics would likely agree with the baker. However, one can ask why do these disagreements exist in the first place? Isn’t it because there is a subjective component to it? I would say there probably is but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively correct answer. For example, if God really did exist and if he really did prohibit gay marriage then the baker will likely have a stronger case (unless we consider morality to be independent of God despite knowing he exists). But if God doesn’t exist, then his critics are right. God either exists or he doesn’t exist. So, it follows that the right answer exists. We are just ignorant of it.
Reading this again, I am not sure if we disagree on much on this point. It may be that I misinterpreted Shapiro's famous quote. I don't know. Neither of us made a genuine effort to figure out what he meant.

I think that moral policy will ultimately have a basis on both facts and feelings, and sometimes they will be hard to disentangle. I'm trying to come up with an example that emphasizes a dichotomy, and I am failing. In all of the examples that I am thinking of, there is a combination of both facts and feelings at play.
Last edited by Afro_Vacancy 6 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

I had a hair transplant operation with the clinic of Dr. Emrah Cinik in Istanbul, with 2750 grafts being mostly placed in the front. It was a success both for general aesthetics and general well-being, and I encourage others to do the same.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post