quote:

---

Originally posted by HighHopes:
Did mAx seem a bit out of place in other forums?

---

Is that rheotorical?

Human beings seem out of place on other forums, lol.

I have never seen such a concentration of truly dysfunctional hyper-sensitive, humorless, over-reactive and squelching control freak behavior than in this burgeoning blog medium. Anyone who's the slightest bit authentic can roll in there and take over in a matter of a couple of posts, and that usually is too much for the rest of the membership, and they spend all half their time complaining about "personal attacks" and the other half attacking personally.

And when you look at what really sets people off, it's so tame. One little turn of phrase... the wrong vocabulary word. A sideways implication, a bias, an inuendo. Any of it can make you a champion feelings hurter or kitten-killer. I hear worse from my four year old nephew. I hear worse from my absolute best friends in informal social settings. We constantly, savagely rip on each other and I can't remember the last time anybody got pouty or offended over it.

And if you go to a real dress-up party where you have to be on your best behavior. Where everyone has studied their miss manners. Who are the people who have the best time? Right, the people who don't take it so seriously. Who are more worried about having a good time than making a faux pas. The lampshade guy. We need more of them.

Is that rheotorical?

No. Not in the least.

And if you go to a real dress-up party where you have to be on your best behavior. Where everyone has studied their miss manners. Who are the people who have the best time? Right, the people who don't take it so seriously. Who are more worried about having a good time than making a faux pas. The lampshade guy. We need more of them.

You know, I think there's a lot of truth in that and unless I'm plowed with alcohol, I'm definitely not the lampshade guy. But not all of us are lampshade people, or we're lampshade people only in certain environs where our comfort level, for whatever reason, is high. A formal party, such as the one thalo described, is going to, by and large, be made up of more non-lampshade people than lampshade people. Without this hidden party talent of lampshadedness, what's left for the non-lampshade people to do but to put some effort into the formal aspect of the formal gathering.

True tolerance (accckkk…I just puked, those words can still do that to me) is for people who aren't lampshade people to come to some type of appreciation for the lampshade people and the service they render at parties to help everyone loosen up a bit. And the lampshade people would do well to not let their lampshade behavior stray into the truly obnoxious and abusive. Not all friction to their lampshadedness can be laughed off as simply "people who can't loosen up and take a joke". Many people can indeed take a joke but many of the things floating around out there in the guise of jokes aren't jokes.

Thus endeth the lesson.

quote:

---

I have never seen such a concentration of truly dysfunctional hyper-sensitive, humorless, over-reactive and squelching control freak behavior than in this burgeoning blog medium. Anyone who's the slightest bit authentic can roll in there and take over in a matter of a couple of posts, and that usually is too much for the rest of the membership, and they spend all half their time complaining about "personal attacks" and the other half attacking personally.

---

Yours truly may be obnoxious, out-spoken, and a smart ass sometimes, but I can assure you that he’s still coming out of his shell. I don’t know what I’ll find when I get there but I can assure you that I’ll give you all fair warning first before coming at you with my axe.

But we’re delving into a very complex area here. Me, I love quick, simple solutions where possible (and they are often possible…all it takes is one egghead to make something harder than it needs to be), but this might be a time we don’t find them. We’ve got to delve into matters of socialization and other patterns and restrictions that we put on our yutes in order that they may grow up to be healthy functional individuals in the society in which they are growing up. Singing "Don’t fence me in" isn’t enough. We do not grow up into being civilized human beings without a whole system of squelching behavior that starts from the time we are infants. It’s a process called "socialization".

Having said that, and assuming that we’re talking about adult forums, there’s also a time in our lives when we absolutely need to break free of our earlier programming. I’m sure it’s one of the stages Jung refers to by name (forget which one), and it’s a stage that is spoken of in many cultures, but it’s a stage we’re having the damndest time discovering (or re-discovering) in our culture. Conformity is probably being brought even deeper into adulthood these days; probably because adolescence too is being extended. Gone are the days when 13 or 14-year-olds were rightly considered to be of marrying age or the age fit to go to war.

Political correctness and liberalism overall adds to this whole process of delayed adulthood and maturity. So, yes, I think a dose of "breaking out", so to speak, is called for. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We would not want to live in a place that was devoid of "squelching" or all the various rules that help to keep us civilized human beings. But if we also don’t push back against these rules we are just as in danger of losing our humanity. It’s a complex and delicate balance indeed. And I'm in agreement that few are truly pushing back and that the patterns of squelching one sees on internet forums might show how unaccustomed we are to this pushing back. We have become a bit too docile...and don't let the PC-type renegade-ism fool you into believe it's the same thing as the Rebel Yell. Hell, conformism is practically the battle cry of the left.

Brad, it's getting harder and harder to know what the hell you are talking about. Whatever the hell it is you said, I agree with it.

Thalo is wrong with his free-for-all idea of how a forum should operate. His reasoning, if I may be so bold, may be that he has had it with authoritarian rule on discussion forums so he rejects it and only other alternative he sees is a no-holds-barred free-for-all. But, to my mind, that conclusion is based in authoritarianism itself. It is exactly the thing we are supposed to believe. It is precisely this result that those in authority say will happen if they do not rule us. It is their justification for keeping their privileged positions of authority. Accepting this premise is agreeing with authoritarianism itself.

I don't view a free and open discussion as having no rules. It isn't a rule-less, brutal animal fight. There are rules. The difference is the rules are made piece-by-piece by the members and not handed down by the authority from above. I think this is what you mean by saying "we’re talking about adult forums." When we meet in person as adults we don't fall into chaos. We don't need referees and moderators to keep us from insulting and attacking each other. We abide by rules of adult social behavior. It's imprecise to be certain and different people have differing ideas of the limits, but we don't automatically fall into chaos because we don't have an authority figure directing our every move. In real life we have a general sense of the rules and we more-or-less keep to them. Why should it be different here? We are adults.

As I said before, there are exceptions. And that's how they should be viewed --as exceptions. In the spirit of letting people be who they are bad behavior may arise from time to time. That doesn't mean we need to embrace it. It isn't the inevitable result of rejecting authoritarianism. That's nonsense. In real life if someone is behaving like a jerk we don't go all hippie and say "Ah, he's just doing his thing, man. No rules, man" Instead we treat and talk to him, or ignore him, like the jerk he is. If we are going to have an adult free and open discussion why would we explicitly encourage selfish childishness? It doesn't make sense and it is not needed. We don't need authoritarianism and we don't need to impose upon ourselves what those in authority promise us will be the result of our rejecting their authoritarianism. Why even do the experiment if one is going to force the conclusion that proves those in authority were right all along?

It won't take much to succeed. All we need is a little pride in thalo.net itself and to feel a bit protective of it. Despite its small membership it is one of the best forum sites on the Internet.

Yute? Did you say "yute?" What's a yute?

quote:

---

Political correctness and liberalism overall adds to this whole process of delayed adulthood and maturity.

---

Brad, you're right (heh, heh), but you're only seeing one side of the coin. If you don't think the right is bringing in its own version of political correctness and orthodoxy, you're not paying attention. Just today I heard a news story about another school board fight to label evolution as "an unproven theory" and require "intelligent design" and "creation science" to be taught in the public schools.

Remember: "We reject the fundamental tenents of science--AND WE VOTE!"


Markle

Just today I heard a news story about another school board fight to label evolution as "an unproven theory" and require "intelligent design" and "creation science" to be taught in the public schools.

Actually, intelligent design is a fascinating subject and a legitimate scientific discipline.

Remember: "We reject the fundamental tenents of science--AND WE VOTE!"

You betray your prejudice, Markle.

Oh, a "yute" means "youths". Ever see "My Cousin Vinny"?

BN you ninny HH was playing the part of Herman Munster after Cousin Vinny mention's the "yutes".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
Oh, a "yute" means "youths". Ever see "My Cousin Vinny"?

---

Yup, sure have. Damn funny movie! I was just playing the part of Judge Haller.

Further musings on God

You know, Markle, I can’t prove a God, nor do I feel particularly compelled to do so. But I do think the most reasonable answer to this question is to just leave it an open question particularly since, at least as far as I’m concerned, there is ample evidence for both points of view, the theist and the atheistic. But frankly, your fire for atheism resembles the same fire in the belly of any fundamentalist. You’re simply on opposite ends of the spectrum.

I find it personally difficult to believe in a benevolent god, but particularly with intelligent design in mind, it’s not much of a stretch to believe in a designer. But the fire I see in the eyes of some atheists, and perhaps this includes you, is that the very notion of a God (and presumably a benevolent God since that’s what we’re usually talking about) is repugnant and insulting. And in a way I understand. To think that this is the best world that a benevolent God could come up with is unsettling to me as well.

But to believe the world is no more than random chance is to believe what actually, and why would people want to believe this? Psychologically it removes a competitor of man. It makes us our own masters and that certainly is aesthetically pleasing to many. But if we are to condemn the supposedly simple-mined for believing in God as some type of psychological crutch, I think it’s only fair to point out that atheists too have their psychological crutches. And once we get over all this emotional stuff, including deeply held prejudices, then we get to facts and evidence and to the best of my understanding there is no better evidence for the atheistic point of view than for the theistic one. It’s the universe’s perverse little joke on us, I know.

Rico, you got there first before I hit the post button. You nailed it!

quote:

---

Originally posted by RicoX:
BN you ninny HH was playing the part of Herman Munster after Cousin Vinny mention's the "yutes".

---

Ah, geez. I gotta rent that movie again sometime.

Brad, have you read works by the philosopher William Paley (1743-1805)? If you do tend to believe in a Designer you may want to familiarize yourself with his work. He is the person that first advanced this line of reasoning. Although Charles Darwin may have disagreed with Paley's arguments, (I don't know if that's true) Paley remained one of Darwin's favorite philosophers. If you want to make a rational defense of Intelligent Design you couldn't do better than Paley's "Natural Theology" He started it all.

Also, you may want to check out David Hume's critique of the design argument in his work "Dialogues on Natural Religion"

Copyright for both works have run out years ago so both are free and available on the web.

Try the Online Books Page.

quote:

---

But to believe the world is no more than random chance is to believe what actually, and why would people want to believe this?

---

When you see the things that go wrong, the design flaws, etc., the only conclusion you can come to (without tying yourselves up in theological knots) is that things either happened and evolved randomly, OR that the designer is incompetent.

In any event, as long as we are a civil society, and not a theocratic one, specific religious beliefs have to be private, and not imposed by the state.

"Intelligent design" IS indeed interesting--just like alchemy, palmistry, astrology, phrenology, voodoo, sorcery, etc., etc., etc.

Markle

Intelligent design proponents will have to find more compelling pieces of evidence for their theory other than the current ones they employ, most notably the flagellar motor. Remember, the whole argument for intelligent design is that the biological machineries are irreducibly complex, Rube Goldberg machines that cannot serve their function without the entirety being intact. The further assumption is that none of the pieces of the machines are used in a reduction for other purposes; they serve no function by themselves. At least in the case of the flagellum, it has recently been shown that a portion of the motor is used as a part of a transport/injection system for toxic compounds.

Regardless of our psychological crutches, the intelligent design logic is exceedingly unsound. Although, it plays well with an audience that wants to believe.

Michael Behe's intelligent design argument redux:

1. A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex"; all of its parts are required to work properly.
2. A mousetrap is a product of intelligent design.
3. The bacterial flagellum  is "irreducibly complex"; all of its parts are required to work properly.
4. Thus, the flagellum is like a mousetrap.
5. Thus, the flagellum is a product of intelligent design.

Except 3 is being proven false. Even if it weren't, 4 does not follow from the first three claims, nor does the extension in 5 follow from 4. Again, very unsound. Unless you use faith. But if you use faith, why apply logic?

So why do the religious want to use scientific principle to support their theory? Unquestioning faith works just fine for religion. Religion never needed scientific principle. Or, are they trying to use pseudo-scientific smoke and mirrors as confusion to support a wavering faith? Is it that they want creationism taught in the same scientific venue as evolution, even though the determinants of the theories differ drastically. Why have creationism taught as part of science? Do they feel that that science threatens the domain of religion? Do they feel that people trust science, but not religion? Why? Science can only probe the observable, not the intangible, so scientific studies will never likely address matters that concern religion. The problem with this approach as I see it is that, eventually, if scientific principle is aptly applied, the smoke and mirrors will be revealed and the religious will be seen as hucksters.

Why is it so important that the theory of creation be correct? If it is wrong, does it nullify a particular religion's other assertions? Is the god theory then dead? Are the righteous then just jerking off? Is the religious world-view so delicate that it hinges on this one particular notion?

Miths, I remember thinking about the Intelligent Design concept some 30 or so years ago. My conclusion was there was intelligence while examining natural phenomena, but the intelligence was that of the observer much like the archers, and bulls, and crabs seen in the zodiac pattern of stars. It is in the minds of those observing and thinking about the pattern. These objects do not actually exist in the stars. There are no archers permanently embossed on the heavens. It is human intelligence that put them there and it is human intelligence that sees them there. It is human intelligence that forces order upon natural phenomena and not the other way around. So, is there intelligence in natural phenomena? Yes. It is human intelligence. It is the effort to make sense of the world for ourselves. But, we are not God.

Does this discussion belong in OS Talk or should it be moved to the Brother'Hood?

.
Man, am * I * ahead of the curve! Tonight on "Nightline" there was a report on ANOTHER school board battle to teach that evolution is not a fact and push for "Intelligent Design." The reporter asked members of the school board to say what that is and what it means. Not one of them would give a straight answer. "It's about teaching different theories." "It's about teaching where things came from." "It's about how things evolved." (!!!!!!) None of them would say who or what the "Intelligent Designer" was. Some of them were wearing cross lapel pins or neckties. One of them was a church pastor. They openly talked about their faith in PUBLIC SCHOOL board meetings. But they were obviously briefed and coached and prepared to avoid saying the G-word in the "Intelligent Design" meetings.

A survey reported that 35% of Americans believe in evolution, 36% believe in biblical creation, and 29% say they don't know. In America! In the 21st Century!

The program showed the school board interviewing candidates for vacancies on the board. The one candidate known to oppose the teaching of the religious belief, excuse me, "Intelligent Design," in public schools was the ONLY interviewee asked, "Have you ever abused children?" Just good Christian people!

You think this isn't creeping theocracy, Brad? You think this isn't spreading superstition and ignorance and religious fanaticism? You think this is just more "liberal" PC propaganda?

Markle