Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • "il y a une chance que" generally calls for the subjunctive, so could someone please chance "peut" to "puissiez"? Failing that, at least change it to "pouvez" so it doesn't scream  "TalkRational: a republic of illiteracy" to the world.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Saunt Taunga

1
Not this thread title. The saving agriculture thread. It would sure would be nice if you guys would read as well as you think you do.
This is the extra preachy one. But how about "How to drink lost of goats milk for cheap (and dream of saving the world)" for the other one?
Nah
If your priority was: less preachy, it's still better, no?
Part of me feels like we all NEED to be preached at a bit for a topic that's this important.
What if preaching is a total turn-off that correlates strongly with bullshit to your audience?
Quote
I mean think about it ... we're talking about our very existence as a human race ... our very ability to feed ourselves.  Yeah it's that important.
Then why choose a form that your audience will be unreceptive to?
Quote
Why not preach about it a bit?
Because it is counter productive?
Quote
I WANT people to get energized ... Coaches preach to their athletes about far less important matters.  Why?  To stir their emotions so they will wake up and do something useful for the cause.
What works for dumb jocks might not work here. Also for that to work people would have to recognize you as coach.
It might be stirring some emotions. But how useful is "Wow look at this dumb YEC" going to be for the cause?
Time to recognize this approach is not working?

Think of it this way. Do you sometimes feel preached to by octohatters? Does that work? In what direction?
2
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. But some of you guys walk around with this arrogant air about you that you are God's gift to science and that I supposedly suck at science and it's quite revolting.
Think about the effectiveness of this post. Is calling people arrogant going to make them sympathetic to what you are trying to say? You have been trying to talk to this audience for years, should you not have some idea how and why they will discard this post as bullshit?

For example what is the effect of "God's gift to science"?
People will think : projection!

Nobody here (except you?) thinks they are "God's gift to science".
So : Strawman!

You seem to think that to recognize sucking at science one must be really good at science. As if you think there are just 2 levels "sucking" and "God's gift".
People will think : Aha! All/some/none issues!

Should you be making it quite this easy for your audience?

As for sucking at science, it is the natural state for humans, not sucking at science requires some work, doing things that are contrary to human nature.

Octohatters have over the centuries come up with several tricks to mitigate human psychology.
One of them is: You need to look extra hard for, and at, evidence that contradicts your hunches. Find this evidence before your critics do. Know what to say when they do.

You don't do this.
You don't even seem to know you should.
That's bad.
Sucking level bad.



3
Not this thread title. The saving agriculture thread. It would sure would be nice if you guys would read as well as you think you do.
This is the extra preachy one. But how about "How to drink lost of goats milk for cheap (and dream of saving the world)" for the other one?
Nah
If your priority was: less preachy, it's still better, no?
4
Not this thread title. The saving agriculture thread. It would sure would be nice if you guys would read as well as you think you do.
This is the extra preachy one. But how about "How to drink lost of goats milk for cheap (and dream of saving the world)" for the other one?
5
I'm open to suggestions... For a new thread title which is not so preachy. You said this one was too preachy.
I realize that some believe there is an extra hot place in hell for hypocrites, so it might be tricky, but how about
"I'm sorry I said woo-hoo. Complain here."
6
Okay I'm open to suggestions
Maybe just listen for a while. Learn the language of your audience. Find out what words mean to them.  Find out what triggers their bullshit detectors. Then just ask questions (steer away from the bullshit detectors!).
Forget teaching for now.
The thing with teaching is that it only works when the teacher is respected. Or, like in school, respect can be coerced.
Not going to work here.
7
I want to teach you about my beliefs relative to Item 1 on my list.  You don't have to accept them.  And yes of course you can object to anything just like any student sitting in a college classroom.  But by the end of the teaching session (a day? a week?) you will at least know in greater detail what my beliefs actually are regarding Item 1.  And hopefully you will be convinced that I am capable of "teaching" ... not just "preaching."

I'm not that into 'beliefs', I prefer facts and knowledge. So maybe that is the difference - preaching is sharing beliefs, teaching is sharing knowledge.

and ninja'd.
Well I would submit that you ARE in fact "into beliefs" ... everyone is.
I'm certainly not "into it". Believing is making do, when you can't know. Believing is something to avoid if you can manage it.
Quote
Question is ... how much evidence supports your beliefs?
Depends on which evidence you look at. If you look for evidence to support your beliefs, you will find some. Don't do that, it's backwards.
Quote
I would say that my beliefs are well supported by evidence and that most people's beliefs here are NOT well supported by evidence.
When you start from belief, looking for thing that support it, that will happen.
Quote
This may come as a shock to you.
No, sorry.
Quote
But consider the proposition that most people here don't really know what constitutes "evidence."
They know it's not "stuff you find that supports your belief", they think you think it is.
Quote
That is what I have found to be true over my years here. Most people here would say "My beliefs rest on solid evidence" but in fact much of their "evidence" is not in fact evidence.
That will happen when you look to support your belief.
8
To me preaching is more of an oration designed to remind people of things they already know and challenge them to take action based upon these things that they already know.

To me, teaching involves things that people don't know where the teacher takes people from ignorance to knowledge in gradual steps.
Many of your thread titles are very preachy. This one for example.
I'm not sure I agree ... maybe ... but is there anything wrong with a preachy thread title?  One that hopefully challenges people to action for some important thing?  I think that saving agriculture is pretty darn important, don't you?
A preachy title sets the tone. Given the high numbers of atheists here, people who mostly consider preaching offensive, or at least stupid, that's not a good start. It seems to me, if you want to be heard a non-preachy title would work better.
9
Quote from: fredbear
You seem to think that repeating it without addressing the objections is 'teaching'. It's not
This, Dave. This exactly.
I'm happy to entertain objections.  I do it all the time.
It would be nice if you told us about the results of this entertainment, and didn't skip the hard ones.

Or actually addressed them, ya think?
Hmm...
He said entertain:
3. verb
  If you entertain an idea or suggestion, you allow yourself to consider it as possible or as worth thinking about seriously.

Sounds like something certain people would do before stating an intent to pursue, thereby escaping intellectual responsibility.


10
Quote from: fredbear
You seem to think that repeating it without addressing the objections is 'teaching'. It's not
This, Dave. This exactly.
I'm happy to entertain objections.  I do it all the time.
It would be nice if you told us about the results of this entertainment, and didn't skip the hard ones.
11
To me preaching is more of an oration designed to remind people of things they already know and challenge them to take action based upon these things that they already know.

To me, teaching involves things that people don't know where the teacher takes people from ignorance to knowledge in gradual steps.
Many of your thread titles are very preachy. This one for example.
I'd say the difference between teaching and preaching is that teaching is supposed to transfer knowledge or skill, preaching is supposed to coerce or reinforce buy-in to an ideology. To people who went to Sunday school this could easily be confusing.
12
To me preaching is more of an oration designed to remind people of things they already know and challenge them to take action based upon these things that they already know.

To me, teaching involves things that people don't know where the teacher takes people from ignorance to knowledge in gradual steps.
Many of your thread titles are very preachy. This one for example.
13
One form of lying is "control of discourse" because people are getting a false picture of what's being said ... here's what Julian Assange had to say about this today ...


Yes, eventually, sort of, maybe.
Nation-states are an increasingly inadequate system for ordering the world.
Having global corporations in charge is not guaranteed to be worse.

But, first things first.
The Lieutenant Colonel of the KGB that has been dictator to the propaganda ( = control of discourse ) world champion nation-state for close to 20 years needs to have his hold on social media reduced.
Not listening to the dictator's slave Julian Assange would help with that.
14
1) if you want your local laws changed to not allow Nazis to March and say those things, then change your laws ...
Fun fact: The people who, from up close, direct, personal experience, know Nazis best of all, did exactly that.
15
Don't be an idiot, HH. When literal white nationalists are marching in the streets and running people over in their cars, the proper response isn't reasonable rational debate.
Right. The proper response is to arrest those people and prosecute them. And that's exactly what the law enforcement officials did. Do you have any other brilliant observations?
The guy who committed vehicular murder was arrested, and is being prosecuted. (Presumably; I haven't checked for updates).
Literal white nationalists marching in the streets calls for a different response.
what it does not call for is violence against them or against people who defend them, and I'm not saying that I defend them. I absolutely do not defend them in fact. But I do defend their right to speak and March and demonstrate peacefully.
But you will not defend Valor.
Strange.

Could it be you are missing some context, that there is some information you are not privy to, and what you think is peaceful speech is actually not?
16

4) There are better ways to fight abuses like slavery besides starting a war that claims 750,000 lives

Please, oh please do explain more.
Are you kidding me? You really don't know? And yet you guys chastise me for not knowing history? WTF?

Slavery was abolished peacefully throughout the whole British Empire in 1833.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
Sovereign states were acquired into the British Empire through war. Then, afterwards, their slavery was abolished. Like with the American Civil War.
17
Prediction: When heads roll Dave will blame deep state/Obama/Hillary/globalists.
I hope this will turn out to be a self defeating prediction and Dave will do something more interesting.
18
Prediction: When heads roll Dave will blame deep state/Obama/Hillary/globalists.
19
HEADS.

ARE.

GONNA ROLL.

Here's the latest from Sara Carter who is rapidly surging to the top of the journalist heap ... it's looking more and more certain every day that the "salacious and unverified" Steele dossier was in fact used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign ... not sure yet if the FBI paid for the dossier or not ...

Folks, this is way way way way bigger than Watergate ...

HEADS.  Are gonna roll.

Quote
The unverified dossier alleging connections between President Trump's campaign and the Russians was used as evidence by the FBI to gain approval from a secret court to monitor members of Trump's team, this reporter has learned.

A large portion of the evidence presented in the salacious 35-page dossier put together by former British spy Christopher Steele, has either been proven wrong or remains unsubstantiated. However, the FBI gained approval nevertheless to surveil members of Trump's campaign and "it's outrageous and clearly should be thoroughly investigated," said a senior law enforcement source, with knowledge of the process.

Multiple sources told this reporter that the dossier was used along with other evidence to obtain the warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as FISC. The sources also stressed that there will be more information in the coming week regarding systemic "FISA abuse."

"(The dossier) certainly played a role in obtaining the warrant," added another senior U.S. official, with knowledge of the dossier. "Congress needs to look at the FBI officials who were handling this case and see what, if anything, was verified in the dossier. I think an important question is whether the FBI payed anything to the source for the dossier."

https://saraacarter.com/2018/01/10/was-the-dnc-clinton-campaign-funded-dossier-used-to-obtain-trump-fisa-warrant/
Should the FBI not investigate possible treason and try to determine if things that "remain unsubstantiated", can be substantiated?
Why shouldn't surveillance of suspects be one of the things they do to find that out?
Why should possible treasonous activity in a presidential campaign be off-limits?
20
Dave doesn't want Stalin elected as president.

So Dave votes for Trump to prevent this from happening.

Dave is smart.
No, Dave is a fucking idiot because there was no chance of Stalin ever being elected president because Stalin died in 1953. And Hillary Clinton was nothing remotely like Stalin, and Dave has no reason for believing she was except for being brainwashed by right-wing propaganda because, as previously stated, Dave is a fucking idiot.
Just because idiots like Dave want to paint her as the devil, it's probably not a good idea to paint her as an optimal candidate.
I wonder how many people actually voted for Hillary instead of not-Trump.
21
While on this topic you could talk about Nations which don't actually have borders also such as the Nation of Islam. Jesus talked about his kingdom which was not of this Earth.
ow. Right. So, what laws would apply to citizens of such nations?
We already have exemptions for laws for religious reasons.
22
While on this topic you could talk about Nations which don't actually have borders also such as the Nation of Islam. Jesus talked about his kingdom which was not of this Earth.
ow. Right. So, what laws would apply to citizens of such nations?
23
In principle, yes, but it probably takes a certain critical mass to really justify having a separate nation. It is very interesting for me to ponder what a nation-state really is or rather what it should be and what principles it should be based on and how it should interact with its neighbors and so on.
What if lots of people want to be citizens of a new nation-state but don't want it tied to some shape on the map, because they consider physical location an irrelevant detail for everything that matters?
24
Personally I think this discussion will eventually end up asking the following Universal questions...

1. Are all humans truly created equal?
Humans are not created. Equal implies they can be compared like numbers, they cannot. So, no answer to this question, can be true.
Quote
Do we really believe that?
Sort of.
Quote
I do. How about you?
No. Believing the opposite would be worse, I don't believe that either.
Quote
2. What exactly does this mean and how should it be practically applied?
It is nonsense, and should not be practically applied.
Quote
3. What is a nation-state? Should we have nation-states? Or should we have one huge Global government broken up into regions?
Nation-states are organisations that through happenstance got authority over the people and their property and doings inside a shape on the map that came about by coincidence. Nation-states are an increasingly anachronistic and inadequate system for a sensible organization of the world. It is not clear if we have anything better, or if we do how to get there. Maybe we are stuck with it.
Quote
4. If we continue to have nation-states without a global government, which is my personal preference, then what do we do when individual nation-states misbehave?
Depends. Who gets to decide what constitutes "misbehaving", who has the power and inclination to do something about it?
Quote
5. If nation-states misbehave, what kind of  misbehavior requires a response from other nations? Obviously if a nation state threatens its neighbors, that requires a response.
What about threats that are responses to misbehavior?
Quote
But what if it is oppressing its own citizens, like North Korea? Or the Antebellum South? Does this require a response from neighbouring nation-states? Should we go to war?
What if it is not a neighboring nation-state, but a mutineering province? What if there is disagreement which it is?
Quote
Or just shine a big Spotlight on them?
Whatever works.
25
I also find it interesting that Calhoun, like Hitler, believed that certain races were inferior. 

Gee I wonder if he got that idea from the same source as Hitler.

That is ... from Darwin.
Strange
Quote
Among the family heirlooms that Charles Darwin inherited, symbolically speaking, was a china cameo depicting a black slave in chains, asking "Am I not a man and a brother?" The image had been mass-produced as a campaigning device, some 20 years before Charles's birth, by his grandfather, the potter Josiah Wedgwood. An impassioned and active opposition to slavery was at the heart of the Darwin-Wedgwood family's values.
Could it be that Calhoun, like you and Hitler didn't understand Darwin?