[mikeh]

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 27 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

On a related topic, there's no need to fucking cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction --

1. Let's not goad the literalists.
2. They're impervious to reason.
3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it.

Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone!

I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

I never claimed not to have a dog in this fight

I am admitting that I am doing precisely what I suggested richard not do. Ok, mea culpa and I will try to stop now.

Edit: Btw, I can certainly see how it is possible to argue that people like me may share some of the very characteristics that I attribute to people like Jimmy. Naturally (inevitably?) I would argue that there are distinctions.. my being (at least apparently) willing to concede that I may be in error being one important characteristic.. but some would argue that my assertion of that possibility is inconsistent with the contents of my posts... and so on. What fun!

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post.

i know... don't you love it? heheh

mikeh, on Mar 27 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Of course, this could be and probably is condescending and meaningless bs on my part, but the feeling was there. The point being, as I belatedly realized after other protracted exchanges with Jimmy, that there is no useful purpose served by provoking him or responding to his posts.

in that case, i appreciate the nonprovacative nature of this post

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 12:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 27 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

On a related topic, there's no need to fucking cuss, either.

If the implication is that when two people disagree strongly and one calls the other unreasonable then the first must also be being unreasonable, I do not agree.

I wasn't trying to imply that. It was just a flippant response to parts of Mike's response that I found really funny, in conjunction --

1. Let's not goad the literalists.
2. They're impervious to reason.
3. Jimmy's like someone who has suffered severe head trauma and is blind without even knowing it.

Well, ok...as long as you don't goad anyone!

I don't think anyone who posts here is particularly thin-skinned or will be offended/hurt etc. Just struck me as funny.

I understood Jimmy's sarcasm in the post right above this one much better than yours. But now I see it. You certainly had a point.

[mikeh]

Yes, both had very valid points One of these days, I will learn to stop tyoing after making (or thinking I have made) my main point.. but, so far, I can't seem to stop babbling thereafter. Oh well.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post.

i know... don't you love it? heheh

Yep! There is plenty of foolishness on both left and the right, because both sides contain true-believer types who get attention by making strongly-worded pronouncements.

Philip Tetlock calls such people "hedgehogs": Outfoxing the Hegehogs

Quote

Tetlock did not find, in his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs, who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes.

We are not surprised.

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 09:33 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 01:02 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 12:48 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 27 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

Using stereotypes as a helpful time-saver, it's a very good bet that those who argue most confidently are wrong.

how stereotypical

And I used your signature as the starting point for my post.

i know... don't you love it? heheh

Yep! There is plenty of foolishness on both left and the right, because both sides contain true-believer types who get attention by making strongly-worded pronouncements.

Philip Tetlock calls such people "hedgehogs": Outfoxing the Hegehogs

Quote

Tetlock did not find, in his sample, any significant correlation between how experts think and what their politics are. His hedgehogs were liberal as well as conservative, and the same with his foxes. (Hedgehogs were, of course, more likely to be extreme politically, whether rightist or leftist.) He also did not find that his foxes scored higher because they were more cautious—that their appreciation of complexity made them less likely to offer firm predictions. Unlike hedgehogs, who actually performed worse in areas in which they specialized, foxes enjoyed a modest benefit from expertise. Hedgehogs routinely over-predicted: twenty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs claimed were impossible or nearly impossible came to pass, versus ten per cent for the foxes. More than thirty per cent of the outcomes that hedgehogs thought were sure or near-sure did not, against twenty per cent for foxes.

We are not surprised.

The reference actually dates back to Archilochus

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2009, 01:44 PM, said:

The reference actually dates back to Archilochus.

Yes, and is popular.

[barmar]

Al_U_Card, on Mar 27 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

Gilgamesh, Noah or whomever, nice story, good moral, happy ending....why not take it for what it is and leave the pontificating to the pontiff?

What IS the moral to the Noah story? If some entity has lots of power, do what they ask you to do or they'll smite you? I guess that's a good way to get kids to obey their parents, although spanking probably works just as well (and I'm sure one doesn't obviate the other).

And the ending was only happy for Noah, his family, and the two of each animal he packed onto the Ark. Not so happy for all other animals and people in the world, though. Was everyone else so evil that they deserved to die?

[Al_U_Card]

The moral is to pay attention to what you see so that you will know what to do.

So many preconceived notions abound (and not just the true believers) that to remain open and receive with neutrality is a triumph in itself. The conditioning that we receive (one way or the other) must be fought off, the yolk that restricts our freedom to deal with things as we see fit must be removed and the ability to share and profit from the synergy of our complicity must be taken advantage of.

The happy ending was that there will always be a "morning after" and you have to be ready for that too.

[luke warm]

barmar, on Mar 27 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

And the ending was only happy for Noah, his family, and the two of each animal he packed onto the Ark. Not so happy for all other animals and people in the world, though. Was everyone else so evil that they deserved to die?

that isn't quite correct, but there is a moral there... no, the rest died because they didn't believe God... christians believe the same thing will happen again one day (without the flood)

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 27 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

barmar, on Mar 27 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

And the ending was only happy for Noah, his family, and the two of each animal he packed onto the Ark.  Not so happy for all other animals and people in the world, though.  Was everyone else so evil that they deserved to die?

that isn't quite correct, but there is a moral there... no, the rest died because they didn't believe God... christians believe the same thing will happen again one day (without the flood)

If most of the population of the world is wiped out, I'm quite sure it will be by someone who believes in god (I don't necessarily mean the christian god of course.)

[helene_t]

Fortunately most Christians don't believe in such nonsense. Oh well, one could argue about what it means to be "Christian". I mean, people who consider themselves Christian.

[Lobowolf]

helene_t, on Mar 27 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Oh well, one could argue about what it means to be "Christian". I mean, people who consider themselves Christian.

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Mar 28 2009, 02:09 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 27 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Oh well, one could argue about what it means to be "Christian". I mean, people who consider themselves Christian.

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God.

You should see some of the fun threads from a couple years back where DrTodd was explaining that Catholics aren't Christians....

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 27 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Oh well, one could argue about what it means to be "Christian". I mean, people who consider themselves Christian.

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God.

I think technically I'm an athiest and that technically I'm jewish. And in a very fortunate stroke of luck, I'm technically apathetic about the whole thing.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Mar 27 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 27 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 27 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Oh well, one could argue about what it means to be "Christian". I mean, people who consider themselves Christian.

I'd imagine it would pertain to that whole "Jesus as the son of God...only way to eternal salvation" kinda thing. But what do I know; I was surprised to find how many self-described atheists believe in God.

I think technically I'm an athiest and that technically I'm jewish. And in a very fortunate stroke of luck, I'm technically apathetic about the whole thing.

There is the whole "religious Judaism" v. "cultural Judaism" (or even the matrilineal "ethnic Judaism") thing. But I have a really hard time imagining what a Christian would be other than one who has a religious belief about eternal salvation through Jesus etc.

Though I was pleasantly reminded by all this of the old Sam Kinison bit... "Rock Against Drugs?! What genius thought that one up. What's next, Christians Against Christ?!"

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

You should see some of the fun threads from a couple years back where DrTodd was explaining that Catholics aren't Christians....

I'm not even going to pretend to be a little bit sorry to have missed THAT.

[Phil]

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

The motivation should be pretty clear cut...

(snip)...

I think that pinning them down and seeing whether they believe in the literal truth of some of the more outlandish pieces of the Bible might have some bearing on the reliability of their analysis in other areas.

Funny.

My maternal grandfather was a raving rascist and anti-semite, although he was very well read and self-taught. But hate just oozed from his pores, you know. Whenever he got the opportunity, he would love to engage people (like my Dad) with questions like,

"Are Jews a race or just a religion"?

Of course he really didn't give a crap one way or another, but questions like this gave him an opportunity to talk about his hatred of the jews. Whatever side the victim would take, he would take the other, and the discussion would just run on into the evening.

This thread kind of reminds me of him.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Mar 28 2009, 08:00 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 27 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

The motivation should be pretty clear cut...

(snip)...

I think that pinning them down and seeing whether they believe in the literal truth of some of the more outlandish pieces of the Bible might have some bearing on the reliability of their analysis in other areas.

Funny.

My maternal grandfather was a raving rascist and anti-semite, although he was very well read and self-taught. But hate just oozed from his pores, you know. Whenever he got the opportunity, he would love to engage people (like my Dad) with questions like,

"Are Jews a race or just a religion"?

Of course he really didn't give a crap one way or another, but questions like this gave him an opportunity to talk about his hatred of the jews. Whatever side the victim would take, he would take the other, and the discussion would just run on into the evening.

This thread kind of reminds me of him.

I'd argue that there is a fundamental difference between confronting people openly and in their face and holding private little bitch sessions behind their back.

Jimmy and DrTodd are quite aware how I feel about their religion and their politics. They are in a position to respond as they see fit. (More over, I'd argue that they instigate an awful lot of what goes on)

I wonder if your bridge clients know that you (subtlety) mock/deprecate their performance on these forums?