cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 11:42:19 GMT -5
Oy. Alcoholics and Theology Doctorates.. ask them what time it is and they give you verbal instructions on how to build a fucking clock.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:45:45 GMT -5
Then liberals and conservatives, and by extension the Democratic and Republican Parties that express relatively liberal and conservative agenda respectively, should be agreed on the need for reform.
And yet we have this sort of thing:
www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
Here, the fact that the RNC was raising challenges to voters whose registrations might be invalid was opposed by the DNC on the partisan basis that those voters were overwhelmingly DNC-friendly. It is, of course, very difficult to separate the partisan political motive on either side, but it's hard to see how perceptions of voter integrity are enhanced by an embrace of what amounts to the honor system for voter registration.
That isn't what dj was saying, and that isn't what dj was saying liberals are saying. I was addressing dj, though, so you can disagree with both of us in your little world and that's A-Okay. And on what basis were these liberals saying it, one idly wonders? Does liberalism entail economic expertise, or were they accepting and parroting received wisdom (not a partisan crack - exactly the same point can be made of any secular-religious group, including conservatives)?
I didn't mean to imply liberals were Godless; merely that, in a paradigm where creationism is (unnecessarily, in my view) presented as a binary alternative to evolutionary theory, liberal adherence to the latter is necessarily at the expense of the former.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:46:31 GMT -5
Oy. Alcoholics and Theology Doctorates.. ask them what time it is and they give you verbal instructions on how to build a fucking clock. That's casuistry for you.
But why should you accept somebody else's answer when the means for deriving your own are available?
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 11:56:24 GMT -5
Oy. Alcoholics and Theology Doctorates.. ask them what time it is and they give you verbal instructions on how to build a fucking clock. That's casuistry for you.
But why should you accept somebody else's answer when the means for deriving your own are available?
Seriously, I am not trying to be difficult here. I am not at my best, I am trying to recover from a serious bout of pneumonia and my body is currently full of drugs I would prefer not to take if I had a choice. Add to that, I'm more or less a "give me the bullet" kind of information seeker rather than a philosophical discussion kind of person. Not that I dislike philosophical discussion, I just need to be in the right space for it. Today, not the right space. I will bow out. Thanks though, appreciate it.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 11:59:05 GMT -5
I didn't think you were being difficult at all, and I wish you a speedy recovery. I'm more rather than less grateful for your contribution under the circumstances.
I know I seem like a dog with a bone, but I only respond because people give me material deserving response. It's a perverse sort of compliment, really. Despite appearances, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,556
|
Post by happyhoix on Feb 6, 2014 12:04:55 GMT -5
For the matter of that, most Christians fall short of stoning women found in adultery, Biblical exhortations to the contrary.
The point that most people in practice don't adhere strongly to the religion doesn't undermine the characterization of it as a religion - and people in my experience are just as apt to invoke the authority of a secular religion in the defense of a personal prejudice as they are something we'd all recognize as a traditional religion.
Most Christians don't consider the Bible the literal word of God - it was transcribed by men who included in the text some of the political and social viewpoints of their day, because men, unlike God, are fallible. So I wouldn't make my daughter marry her rapist because the Bible says I should. However I have faith in God. I have never had that kind of faith in anyone else, not a politician, not a minister at my church, not even my husband. Unfortunately, we're all human. Humans can fail, they can be wrong, sometimes in pretty spectacular ways, so no human merits absolute faith and trust like God does. Any person who believes that a liberal or a conservative politician deserves that kind of trust and faith has got to be mentally diminished in some way. I'm not saying there are no people who do, but I think they are very rare.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 12:06:13 GMT -5
LOL! Skuze me? You don't tell me what I can, or cannot do in my "little world". I'd wager my "little world" is a good deal larger than your "little world"; however, that's an unprovable assertion, so pretty useless for the long haul. Of more use would be a large truck to haul off the verbal garbage.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 12:06:54 GMT -5
All ZFC does is underpin mathematics.
i read about it for a few mins this morning, but i am out of time.... They should also be known as the "Axioms of Obviousness". They're one of several formal axiomatic descriptions of how sets behave. The axioms themselves are highly intuitive (read: obvious) rules that all of us have known since preschool. They're mainly of use for proving the consistency of esoteric sets, like the set of all sets that have no proper subsets, etc. Invoking them in a philosophical or religious debate is not unlike arguing whether 2 + 2 = 4, but I see that you two have already covered that ground as well. And Hegel. And Popper. As for liberalism and progressivism as "religion", you seem to have hit the usual impasse. Before you can argue whether it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, you have to agree on what "looks", "quacks", and "walks" all mean, and which ones are relevant to establishing equivalence. You're never going to do that, so might as well give up now.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 12:09:10 GMT -5
What a nihilistic way of looking at things.
Why do you think mathematics has alternatives to ZFC, the "Axioms of Obviousness?"
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 12:18:20 GMT -5
Well, of course you would, mmhmm.
When have I ever suggested otherwise?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 12:21:30 GMT -5
So humans are fallible, and err in presuming to know God; but God as you understand Him can be trusted absolutely in ways no human can. Specifically, no priest of your faith, being human, can be trusted as absolutely as the God you and he endorse.
A liberal or conservative politician is simply a priest of his or her secular religion. Faith in liberal or conservative principles is rather strengthened than otherwise by relative lack of faith in the mouthpieces of the movement.
I do take your point, despite the foregoing.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 12:23:49 GMT -5
What a nihilistic way of looking at things.
Why do you think mathematics has alternatives to ZFC, the "Axioms of Obviousness?"
For one, because it's an infinite set of axioms. Other constructions introduce objects like "families" and "classes" and express the same set of rules differently (e.g. inductively) to obtain a finite set. Still others attempt to find an equivalent but unequal set of rules to explore the relationships and determine how tightly knit they are. Like seeing which threads can be pulled before a spider web falls apart. And I'd imagine there's a fair bit of math looking at the kinds of weird and wacky paradoxes that one can obtain by omitting some of the axioms. When I say "obvious", I mean that each axiom is obvious in its own right. The fact that this particular set of axioms is both necessary and sufficient to ensure well-defined sets is not an obvious result.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Feb 6, 2014 12:36:58 GMT -5
I didn't think you were being difficult at all, and I wish you a speedy recovery. I'm more rather than less grateful for your contribution under the circumstances.
I know I seem like a dog with a bone, but I only respond because people give me material deserving response. It's a perverse sort of compliment, really. Despite appearances, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. Thanks, I appreciate it.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 6, 2014 12:44:59 GMT -5
Well, Rush does have half his brain tied behind his back. Seriously though, the only one talking about Rush in this thread is you. I'm not sure what he has to do with anything. Nothing- I used him as an example. Is the 77% figure correct- plenty of room to debate on it. My point was when faced with some study or statistic that doesn't fit the narrative- then they casually dismiss it with some simple, yet 'overlooked' reason and claim that-as the OP did- that therefore it was just 100% BS. Just because we're debating the 77 cent figure doesn't mean it's wrong. What prompted this was the president using this figure in his state of the union speech. The question isn't necessarily is the figure right or wrong, but was it used in the correct context. From what I've seen, the 77 cent figure is actually from a Bureau of labor Statistics study in 2007 that said full time female workers earn 77% of full time male workers. They did NOT control for things like experience, industry, hours worked ect. That doesn't mean the study was wrong or the statisticians are stupid, but that it wasn't the correct stat for the president to make his point. Other studies that HAVE controlled for these factors put the gender wage gap close to 91 cents on the dollar. The same study notes that 10 cent gap is unexplained, and may very well be due to gender bias. Furthermore, what many of us are saying is the problem runs much deeper than numbers on a paycheck. Not that the studies are wrong, but simply that some things are hard to quantify, like why are women not represented more in higher paying fields, or why aren't women more agggressive in negotiating salary and bonuses.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 13:57:19 GMT -5
If one modifies the social question of "widespread voter fraud" to the more pertinent "lack of integrity in voter registration" - which removes the emotive question of intent, but retains the overarching state interest in preserving the integrity of the vote - do liberals openly debate that voter registration is badly flawed, to the extent of justifying a lack of confidence from voters in the integrity of the system?
www.truethevote.org/news/how-widespread-is-voter-fraud-2012-facts-figures
"voter fraud" and "invalid voter registration" are two different things. if the GOP were ONLY focused on the latter, i would not be even slightly bothered. i can explain why, if you wish.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 14:03:13 GMT -5
So humans are fallible, and err in presuming to know God; but God as you understand Him can be trusted absolutely in ways no human can. Specifically, no priest of your faith, being human, can be trusted as absolutely as the God you and he endorse.
A liberal or conservative politician is simply a priest of his or her secular religion.
bzzzzzzt. oxymoron alert.
Faith in liberal or conservative principles is rather strengthened than otherwise by relative lack of faith in the mouthpieces of the movement.
I do take your point, despite the foregoing.
reason requires no faith, imo. and faith requires no reason. the degree to which either uses the other is for each of us to sort out.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 14:52:01 GMT -5
Close to being true, but the assertion fails at a fundamental level.
We believe in the immutability and infallibility of logical axioms such as true = not false, but there is no known proof of this axiom. And in fact, all mathematics, science, logic, philosophy, etc. inductively reduce to a set of rules too fundamental to be proven. We must simply accept them as fact.
You might say "Oh well, for certain basic logic propositions, I suppose." but I contend that any one individual's knowledge is vastly more predicated on faith than on observation. Moreover, the more profound and far-reaching a discussion becomes, the more faith is required. The whole AGW debate, for example, arises because Earth's climate is a vast, complicated system, and a good many people lack faith in the competence, objectivity, and/or goodwill of the people and institutions who claim to understand it.
The broader and more exploratory one's search for knowledge becomes, the more faith is required. There's simply too much knowledge to validate it all (or even the tiniest fraction of it, for that matter). The best we can hope to accomplish is to pick those few subjects that stimulate us and supplement our faith by reason.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 14:55:12 GMT -5
... A liberal or conservative politician is simply a priest of his or her secular religion.
bzzzzzzt. oxymoron alert. Secular cult, if you prefer.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 15:46:36 GMT -5
Phrase of the day for you, dj. "Secular religion" has currency as a term, even if you don't recognize or accept it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religionIt's only apparently oxymoronic because people distinguish between overtly anthropomorphized deities and entities which merely function as Gods - and such entities necessarily inform the thinking even of atheists. In almost all cases, people practically revere the God-in-themselves, which is an adaptive characteristic of self-aware consciousness.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 15:56:42 GMT -5
Phrase of the day for you, dj. "Secular religion" has currency as a term, even if you don't recognize or accept it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religionIt's only apparently oxymoronic because people distinguish between overtly anthropomorphized deities and entities which merely function as Gods - and such entities necessarily inform the thinking even of atheists. In almost all cases, people practically revere the God-in-themselves, which is an adaptive characteristic of self-aware consciousness. You forgot the sound effects and all-caps. bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG, DJ!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 16:01:45 GMT -5
Secular cult, if you prefer. only to the extent that cults are not religious.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 6, 2014 16:03:18 GMT -5
"Secular religion" has currency as a term for some people. Others consider it an oxymoron. Still others consider it hogwash. Rational Wiki
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 16:06:46 GMT -5
Phrase of the day for you, dj. "Secular religion" has currency as a term, even if you don't recognize or accept it: oh, i recognize it....as oxymoronic. whether it is widely accepted oxymoronic language is immaterial.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_religionIt's only apparently oxymoronic because people distinguish between overtly anthropomorphized deities and entities which merely function as Gods - and such entities necessarily inform the thinking even of atheists. no, it is oxymoronic because of the definition of secular.In almost all cases, people practically revere the God-in-themselves, which is an adaptive characteristic of self-aware consciousness. You forgot the sound effects and all-caps. bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! WRONG, DJ!
wrong? define "secular", Virgil. by the way: it is really quite juvinile to live for the "gotcha moment". if i am wrong i openly admit it. you know that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Feb 6, 2014 16:08:03 GMT -5
"Secular religion" has currency as a term for some people. Others consider it an oxymoron. Still others consider it hogwash. Rational WikiAre you pinning your colors to a mast here, mmhmm? How... decisive of you that would be. I'll be on tenterhooks to find out.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 16:13:04 GMT -5
"Secular religion" has currency as a term for some people. Others consider it an oxymoron. Still others consider it hogwash. Rational WikiAre you pinning your colors to a mast here, mmhmm? How... decisive of you that would be. I'll be on tenterhooks to find out. using oxymoronic language doesn't make you a moron, bro. lighten up.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 16:15:36 GMT -5
"Secular religion" has currency as a term for some people. Others consider it an oxymoron. Still others consider it hogwash. Rational WikiAre you pinning your colors to a mast here, mmhmm? How... decisive of you that would be. I'll be on tenterhooks to find out. You poke where I dare not, sir.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 16:21:40 GMT -5
Some people consider snow leopards cute. Others consider them horrid and abominable. Some people think they spew acid. Still others believe they choke small children with their tails. www.someyahooswiki.org/Why_Snow_Leopards_Suck_LemonsI submit that we cannot know the truth.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 6, 2014 16:23:20 GMT -5
Incidentally, am I the only one wondering why we're talking about the definition of "secular" in a thread about gender pay inequality?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 22:29:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 16:29:51 GMT -5
Furthermore, what many of us are saying is the problem runs much deeper than numbers on a paycheck. Not that the studies are wrong, but simply that some things are hard to quantify, like why are women not represented more in higher paying fields, or why aren't women more aggressive in negotiating salary and bonuses.
men dont like confrontations, but they will deal with them when necessary
women will go out of their way to AVOID the possibility of a confrontation
negotiations, and discussions about raises are confrontational
both sides argue or present a point, and a resolution happens, usually immediately
for me personally, this was always a fairly easy conversation
from watching my employees over the years, it is very very hard for some people....the majority of them, women
how do we change this......we instill confidence in our sisters, and our daughters
we make them understand their value, and how they need to express that to their managers
and finally, we tell them the one absolute basic rule
"you cant receive, if you never ask"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,487
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 6, 2014 16:32:27 GMT -5
Incidentally, am I the only one wondering why we're talking about the definition of "secular" in a thread about gender pay inequality? as soon as you put it down, i will.
|
|