Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/14/11 05:03 AM, Ravariel wrote: Pretentious, sure.

Cowardly? That you may need to back up a bit.

Also, Bacch, don't try too hard to separate religion and culture. They are historically intimately intertwined and to try and purify either beyond a semantic (or hypothetic) point is treading heavily in easily arguable territory. The Dog and the Cow are still both animals, and share 90% or more of their DNA... to stretch the already thin metaphor.

but considering being an animal or being either a cow or dog are classificatory terms entailing either specific characteristics or differences, its not off the mark.
not to mention that our expanding knowledge of science has allowed us to gain a better understanding of the similarity and differences of animals; while genetics may present animals as more similar today, the distinction between culture and religion seem to present the opposite trend in our modern world.

At 4/11/11 12:10 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Hehehe oh I've been there.Very entertaining stuff.

"They are not semitic like Arabs and their speak is not related to Arab. Arabs simply gave them the Islam."

oh the lulz, thanks for the stormfront ridculousness suggestion boys'n'girls.

but probably just boys; this is the interwebs afterall.

At 4/14/11 04:44 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: Uh, I don't see that in the quote. Link?

really? human nature, issues with the manner we are brought up to accept authority figures....

What he's saying there is that appeal to authority is a fallacy, which is accurate.

...you identified the discussion on authority but couldn't identify the question of child indoctrination into accepting this authority (socialization)?

I doubt the underlying assumption that it's possible for someone to completely logic themselves out of their culture, but it's not exactly denying the existence of society to say that society indoctrinates people.

i hope you don't think my argument is that anarchei's site is denying the existence of society...

ew, i thought the weird spacing was part of a joke...

At 4/13/11 04:49 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:

At 4/13/11 12:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote: its addressing society and human interaction but then claims society and ideology have no power because they are not a physical entity.

loooooooooooooooooool

where does it say that? is this another one of those "people are rational!!!" things (which, curiously, seem never to be taken seriously by people who actually get any amount of social interaction) or what

i enjoy when people question my comprehension of presented material;
"This is the great decep-tion of the last hun-dred years, and is absolutely wrong, totally at odds with basic human nature. As young chil-dren there is no alter-na-tive. We need to learn at first by tak-ing things on trust from the author-ity fig-ures, our par-ents. But as we grow up, more and more our own rea-son-ing can and must replace that so that we do in fact develop as human beings. Author-ity fig-ures hate been ques-tioned, it deflates their mas-sive egos! They want to keep us all like chil-dren, depen-dent upon them. So they use schools and media to spread the fic-tion that 'experts say...' is the only basis for reli-able knowl-edge. That is the exact oppo-site of the truth, and to the extent they suc-ceed, they are dimin-ish-ing the extent to which we are fully human, and sab-o-tag-ing humanity's abil-ity to progress in the future."

it deals with issues of human nature, socialization, and social structures, and some considerable fear of anything conventional, be it social or scientific.

p.s. after "where does it say that?", your response if fairly unintelligible.

At 4/13/11 01:45 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: It doesn't.

That's the problem.

It's just an illusion caused by the subjective nature of an individua. mind experiencing time.

Since human brain requires time to observe and learn, this illusion will never be debunked.

Kemcab has some nice threads discussing relativism for the sake of relativism if you want to join in.
if not, we're too stupid to know we're too stupid to know, but we'll keep arguing because if there's anything we do know, its that proving someone is stupider than oneself is all that matters in life.

At 4/13/11 02:46 AM, anarchei wrote:

At 4/13/11 01:58 AM, SolInvictus wrote: its sounds delightfully pseudo-sociological. i didn't read it all, but i'm assuming anarchy is involved somewhere.

hopefully not, because there's a thread for that.

What does "pseudo-sociological" mean?

its addressing society and human interaction but then claims society and ideology have no power because they are not a physical entity.

At 4/13/11 04:22 AM, WolvenBear wrote: If the claim is that A=/=B, then the example of ONE case the the contrary proves this theory wrong.

i thought we were done with how establishing causation works.

its sounds delightfully pseudo-sociological. i didn't read it all, but i'm assuming anarchy is involved somewhere.

hopefully not, because there's a thread for that.

At 4/11/11 09:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/11/11 08:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote: lets not forget caffeine's well documented health effects.

You mean thick rimmed glasses, turtlenecks, and a strong sense of smugness?

well yes, but that is also dependent on a genetic predisposition to overpay for coffee if it has a ridiculous enough name.

At 4/11/11 12:44 AM, Malachy wrote: Do I think it is cheating? Only so much as having the self discipline to turn off the distractions and hunker down to learn may be. Caffeine has been proven to make you more alert and open to learning.

lets not forget caffeine's well documented health effects.

At 4/11/11 05:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: If humans can determine who will and won't get better, and we can't, then humans are damn near God now.

what the poop?

At 4/10/11 01:38 PM, JoS wrote: I have read some interviews of students who do this and they see nothing wrong with it. I think its the same as athletes taking steroids or HGH, giving them an unfair advantage. In athletics it is taking very seriously, with mandatory drug tests and what not, Athletes know its wrong, even if they do do it. Students and academics though, they often see nothing wrong with it.

but in comparison to athletic enhancements, the knowledge gained through studying/working aren't limited to the period in which the drug is active.

At 4/9/11 02:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 4/9/11 01:24 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/8/11 08:15 PM, JordanD wrote: ...I don't believe you should refuse bodily treatment... Don't exclude your mind and spirit though... It will help you out most definetily.

quick! to the covering-my-ass mobile!

Apparently we should support the evil big pharma now.

speaking of which, i remember seeing Jordan make some nice generalizations about atheists and theists, but i couldn't remember where i saw it so i wasn't able to get my jollies from it, but i found it and now we may laugh at more of his ridiculousness;

:At 3/25/11 06:58 PM, JordanD wrote:

Both are right though. Science needs to look past the sum of the parts and explore the whole as well. But that's not in sciences nature...
I believe both athiests and theists believe 2 halfs to the whole. They are the left brain and the right brain of how the entire universe works...

somehow that allows him to bat for both sides when things don't go his way.

why should those ratty ADD bastards get all the advantages? its just like those amputee sprinters; just cause they're missing a leg or two, they get to become cyborgs.

At 4/8/11 11:50 PM, KemCab wrote:

At 4/8/11 10:07 PM, penis-plant wrote: Need a comfortable middle ground. Just enough to be able to keep the core of your culture as wel as able to adapt new things from other cultures.

This is probably the most sensible reply I have probably heard in this thread.

... i really don't think this is the first time someone has suggested a "middle-ground" in this thread, or pointed to the danger of extremes...
this is an interesting topic but it could really do with some goals or direction because we seem to be stuck on the "these are what research shows" and conjectures of ideal types as opposed to any realistic implication.

At 4/8/11 08:15 PM, JordanD wrote: ...I don't believe you should refuse bodily treatment... Don't exclude your mind and spirit though... It will help you out most definetily.

quick! to the covering-my-ass mobile!

At 4/8/11 09:01 PM, poxpower wrote: There goes another 40-50k of our money down the drain to protect the feelings of adult babies with no concept of the world around them.

who knows, maybe employing people and paying them for useless jobs is the way to go.

At 4/7/11 01:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: For all we know we may actually supressing the very gene that will lead to a stronger better human species.

and allowing nature to take its course is just as likely to do the same.

At 4/6/11 08:32 PM, Ravariel wrote: Eugenics is unfairly associated with an unfortunate part of our history, and is conflated with the massacre of those people considered to be "less human" or "genetically inferior" to those in power.

and apparently still is!!
so many fun moral questions and religious flame-war possibilities and no ones biting?

there is still the question of availability of genetic enhancements; will we be globally benevolent or will profits (or just about anything else i guess; its still the future) influence the lag between populations in so far as genetic improvement?

is anyone planning to help keep Karzai on his meds or are we going to keep ignoring how ridiculous hes getting?

At 4/6/11 05:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I'd rather call the lady a miracle (one that shouldn't even try to be repeated) than have 20 dead on my conscience.

...despite the fact that these 20 dead people would be dead from the untreatable cancer anyways? telling people who have no hope of a cure that they should try to believe the cancer out of them would not increase the danger they were in and show us how hard you have to believe/ignore the cancer to be cured.

topic switch; since we can stop saying belief doesn't cure cancer?

At 4/5/11 05:31 PM, Gario wrote: Nope, it's not (unless it is, of course - like I said, my internet's not running video, so I can't watch it until tomorrow, or something). From what I've read on it, he's teaching strictly what the Church's position on the topic is, which is to literally NOT discriminate against homosexuals, and specifically NOT to hate them (I'll look up the good ol' Catechism later for that paragraph specifically, but that's what I've read before).

but hes also advancing the notion that sexual orientation is solely psychological and damaging to the individuals "afflicted" and exposed to it; this goes well beyond simply pointing out how god isn't a fan of homosexual sin.

i didn't see the video either; not too interested in seeing two hours of how homosexuality results in bad parenting.
p.s. i never experienced this sort of presentation while going to a Catholic high school.

At 4/5/11 05:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: I wish I could just write this off as ignorance, but it's not. Peer review is the process of reviewing everything, step by step, from the first process to the last. That means the experiment is recreated.

not at all. it seeks to make sure the research is relevant and properly conducted, and conclusions are not made without reason as appears to be the case here.
usually it is up to the individual conducting the research to duplicate experiments to ensure accuracy, but its fairly clear the incident being discussed wasn't an experiment, nor did the subject take particular precautions so as to limit errors in interpretations of causality.
this is not a discussion about how feeling good will make you take care of yourself better; we know positive thought has a positive impact on most situations, but the-universe is responding to a claim that believing the cancer out of your body is as good as medical treatment.

believing cures cancer =/= staying happy helps cope with disease

Right or wrong, there is no way to review this. If the original test was wrong, under the guidelines you set up above, I have to use that. Unless the doctor's test was obviously deficient, there is no way for me to determine if he lied or mixed up samples or made a mistake. Whatever. The samples are gone. One way or another, she doesn't have cancer now. Unless the doctor made an obvious medical mistake and chronicled it in great detail, there is no way to even TRY to analyze it.

so why aren't we assuming this is divine intervention?

It just kinda boils down to you being stupid.

while its fun and all to hurl insults back and forth, this is hardly the first i've heard of "willed" healing; where if you believe strongly enough it will go away. methods vary (red flag) but all present the same narrative: diagnosis, despair, unsuccessful treatment, meditation/visualization/prayer and cancer is gone. this goes well beyond simply taking care of yourself because you feel good about yourself, which i'm fairly sure you're aware of.
being able to defeat cancer with your mind and without costly and side-effect ridden treatments is one hell of an advancement in medicine if real. if not, its pretty dangerous to encourage people to do something that does little more than make you feel/take care of yourself better, as opposed to seeking proven medical treatment.

considering the fact that there are many cases where cancer treatment is impossible, there is plenty of opportunity for testing of this lady's hypothesis (and if shes on to something, god know how many lives can been saved with little to no monetary or resource input [i'm assuming you don't believe in some big-pharma conspiracy like jordan]).

...I'm sorry if you fail to see how eating while terribly sick can help over not eating...but if you don't get that, you won't get much of anything...which kind seems to be the trend. "Yea, yea. I get it. A person who has a better outlook does more to try to survive. But how does doing what your doctor tells you to...help you survive?"

...but we do know that eating and taking care of yourself help and why, we know the mechanisms behind the treatment procedure for cancers and how they work.
in the case jordan presents, we know she had cancer (barring errors), we know she did not receive medical treatment because she believed she was healed (red mother'ucking flag for someone who has experienced cancer in their loved ones and knows that everything should be done for them; especially prompt and appropriate medical treatment), she suddenly receives word shes healed (there is no mention on the ezine website that she had been returning to the hospital for tests at all and it would seem to go against her whole "ignore the shit out of cancer" approach) and attributes it to the fact that she believed she had been cured (she keeps going on about miracles yet seems to follow the god-free mindset jordan is espousing; so miracle or mind? it seems she isn't too sure what resulted in her cure either but refuses to admit as much).

so while its nice to take care and try to enjoy yourself, this isn't simply a matter of feeling better as you fight a disease, its about doing something extremely dangerous while feeling good about yourself and the fact you are ignoring a complex and very dangerous illness.
not to mention the fact that other accounts of "healing by faith" take very different approaches; visualization of the cancer being destroyed, pilgrimage, herbal remedies, etc...
these are all very much opposed to this woman's ignore the cancer and feel good about yourself approach and are certainly grounds for asking "are we sure her actively willing it out [which she did very little of] is what cured her cancer?".

not too mention that the rarity of these claims seem to fit more convincingly with spontaneous recovery as opposed to stemming from any individual action.

i'm surprised there aren't more people pissing on Karzai; considering most Afghans probably don't have internet access, and what the news report says, hes got some serious 'splaining to do.

not that anyone is going to make him...

At 4/4/11 03:30 AM, The-universe wrote: Yes, you can duplicate it. How? Because you can search for people with the same condition who have refused treatment and are willing to go under the observations and testing in order to monitor the condition and examine the results. And yes most people can be in the position to refuse treatments for certain issues.

not to mention that they tend not to pursue aggressive treatment (or any treatment) on the terminally ill, enfeebled and elderly.

no point killing the patient as well as the cancer with chemo.
p.s. this peer review argument is going batshit.

At 4/2/11 10:23 PM, SouthAsian wrote: You have differences between Northern and Southern Europeans that are deep and divisive at times as well.

damn straight; it wasn't long ago Italians weren't considered "white".

and before that, the Irish weren't white either.

At 4/2/11 12:44 AM, thatswedishguy wrote: ... If we must use nuclear energy, we have to keep it in unpopulated areas where the effects won't be as tragic as 3 Mile Island...

err... what was so tragic about three mile island?

At 3/20/11 05:25 AM, joe9320 wrote: There are several obstacles here. Somewhere in some point there is a vocal minority who will stop contraceptives, deny climate change, or may not like wind farms.

if we're freaking out about life on earth at high population densities, whirling blades of doom all over the country-side are bad news for our flying friends.

they've started picking on bats now too.

At 3/31/11 04:26 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Well, no shit. Immigrants were historically more likely to be members of the elite. Ignore people like Einstein and Sergey Brin and I suspect you'd see a very different picture.

...really? that is something i have never seen that being purported anywhere. and its not like worrying about immigrant education levels is something new.

. Many (though not all) of the scores of studies of collective creativity in work groups (in business, education and so on) find that diversity fosters creativity (Webber & Donahue 2001; O'Reilly et al. 1997; Williams & O'Reilly 1998). Scott Page (2007) has powerfully summarized evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving.

That is intellectual diversity. That is not cultural diversity. That is not ethnic diversity. And workplaces are not societies.

bravo; and he found this diversity increased through what means?

In advanced countries with aging populations, immigration is important to help offset the impending fiscal effects of the retirement of the baby-boom generation (Smith & Edmonston 1997, Chapters 6 and 7)

That is a problem with feminism and Social Security.

that can be eased through what means?

This new research suggests that immigration from the global South to the richer North greatly enhances development in the South

Big fucking deal.

yes, a world better prepared to deal with modern global problems is something of very little relevance or importance.

read your links before making claims (*&@#!

There's a reason I linked to it. You might want to read it again.

didn't see anything new; initial immigration and ethnic heterogeneity creates tension and social problems, generally these problems are overcome and the cycle continues with new immigrants and ethnicity.
the issue advanced by the author of your link is that at the moment we have no real concerted means of guiding integration and encouraging social cohesion.
he then presents and discusses methods, benefits and findings to this end.
at no point does he say "stop the immigrants/blackie/not-whitey because they be ruining our country" or present that they are the source of our problem.
there is absolutely no point where the author presents anything racist/not-pc that would require him to hide his work and findings; they are completely congruent with sociology's purpose and abilities, there is no evidence of scientific misconduct.

personally i would love to know what you guys have been getting out of this guy.