Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: *flounce*

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 - Testy Calibrate

Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I am starting to wonder what is going on in foreign policy, particularly the middle East, while the media is entirely focused on the word shithole and the seriously demented shit here.
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.
I don't buy this dichotomy.

If a scientology recruiter takes people from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge on the thoughts of L. Ron Hubbard...
If an evangelist takes people from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge on the writings of St. Paul or of Pat Robertson...
If a snake oil salesman takes people from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge of his claims for his latest diet...

... they're all preaching, imo.

As is your taking people from a state of ignorance to one of knowledge of your beliefs.
E.g. in your numbered list, above.

Dave's already taught me his beliefs. Just a heads up, they're ridiculous.
How did the self-control part evolve?
Like vox said, not a simple explanation, and one you have failed to honestly engage in in the past.
If you really wanted to learn, there are folks here far more qualified than I to explain it and, gosh, they've tried.
I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.
You're wrong, though.
I have learned so much on these threads - not from you, but from all the cool, interesting science posted in rebuttal to you.
It's painfully obvious that you disregard anything that conflicts with what you want to believe, so you will never understand what they have been trying to teach you.
And it's sad, because you really do want to know this stuff. And you would enjoy knowing it!
I hear this off and on from various people here. Let me list some of the things that I think you should have learned from me... Some of the most important things...

1) how to maintain healthy, food-producing farm animals with no medications whatsoever while at the same time improving and restoring your ecosystem.

2) RM + NS is being rejected by more and more scientists within the life sciences as a creative force in nature

3) many indigenous groups around the world had near Perfect Teeth and near-perfect health back in the 1930s.

4) most viruses are not bad, contrary to popular opinion. In fact life on Earth would not be possible without them. One of their key functions is to "pollinate" bacteria with needed genes.

5) Nuking bacteria with antibiotics is a dead end Street and will not result in the long-term health of humanity.

6) vaccinations are only a good thing in very specific, unnatural contexts.

7) the fact of continent-sized sheets of sandstone which are extremely flat and extremely thin Force us to conclude that there must have been a giant cataclysm in the past.

There's more, but that's a start.
Jesus Christ find some new dumbass claims at least.
Wouldn't it be neat if we could go like 10 pages without seeing the word Nazi? That has gotten really stupid.
Until you recognize your role in enabling modern Nazis,  it's a permanent subtext to everything you write.
I would say that some of your posts here make you more of a Nazi than me.
You not only would say that,  you have said that on several occasions.!

Eta: but it's good to see that you recognize your're at least a little bit Nazi.
Wouldn't it be neat if we could go like 10 pages without seeing the word Nazi? That has gotten really stupid.
Until you recognize your role in enabling modern Nazis,  it's a permanent subtext to everything you write.
Borealis I finally agree with you on something... That fundies have worse marriages than most other people. Of course I don't know that to be the case for sure, but I could believe it.

But my larger point is that there are very few really great marriages. I'm convinced of that. I'm not sure why but I suspect that differences in men and women have quite a bit to do with it.
I am married to an extremely strong willed woman who doesn't give 2 shits about gender roles and I am still just as in love as I was the day we married. I think she would say pretty much the same about me.

The only lesson that we seem to agree plays a heavy part in our longevity and happiness is the notion that you can't change the other person. If you want change, you make it yourself for yourself and let the other person make it at their own pace if they choose to. That goes for everything from the dishes schedule to professional choices. Consultation is never an attempt to convince the other person to change. It is for making your own needs clear and for receiving input and feedback. If I was to tell her that I wasn't feeling up to a romantic night, she would say, ok, and vice versa. Life in a real partnership is so much bigger than life in a relationship with an object of desire. I am grateful that I see her as beautiful but I'm pretty sure I will always see her as beautiful regardless of how her appearance changes.

That's one of the really awful things about Trump,  btw, is how he ditches women once they stop fulfilling the least important function of a wife, retaining their youth.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that a 30 year age gap makes relating on any sort of playing field where equality exists difficult to impossible.

The consolation of philosophy eludes many though. I suppose if you want to just be a soldier in an army that gets to rape and pillage, you can enjoy your life while the good times are rolling. But don't mistake objectifying women in a modern context as a totally unrelated mindset.
"displaying her wares"

They aren't wares Dave. 

To many women, they are. And they know how to use them to manipulate and control men.
See, now this is how the issue is paradigmatic. If you learn to accept as a truth that men are slaves to their sex drives, then the natural consequence of that is that women have a weapon to use against men and it makes it almost seem obvious that men shouldn't let women have the power to exercise that weapon. But the fact is that men are not slaves to their sex drives. We do have the power to exercise judgment. But if we accept that we don't need to because we can't, then a whole lot of really fucked up consequences for women follow.
I assume she has no chance in the primary so I only need to view it academically.  In that lens, she was very young when she exercised her bad judgment.  The horrors of the US's lies under bush the lesser were becoming shockingly clear at the time. She was also having a gender identity crisis. I think she exercised good moral judgment but had limited experience in navigating the world and was faced with a particularly difficult situation. Remember the helicopter executions? People needed to know what was really going on. Her difficulty was finding someone she could trust. That is hard no matter how much experience an individual has.

I don't think we need that kind of polarizing figures in government right now and so she would be a bad choice. For the America fuck yeah crowd, she would be a lightning rod and there would be no way to make policy cases for negotiated compromise where she was involved.

But in terms of her choices, she did pretty well given what she had to work with imo.

The pdf can be found at that link. It doesn't focus on feminism but the principles are the same.
Alfonso, Dave has already explained that *in this culture*, girls that age are probably not yet ready to be woo-hooed.

In other cultures they may be fair game. It would help if you could get some woman to approve of the impending woohoo first though.
Personally, I would be very careful about woo hooing anything about a woman's physical appearance to a her face in any culture.  She may be the type that enjoys that sort of thing, but she may not be.

So when you see a 13-year old displaying the wares and like it, being the red-blooded heterosexual that you are, you refrain from woo-hooing because she may not be the type who enjoys that sort of thing? But why wouldn't she? I mean, it is just regular red-blooded hetero stuff. Surely there is nothing at all objectionable to it in any way?
first of all, I don't recall any 13 year olds displaying their wares. Ever.  I'm sure some do, I'm just not around them. The only place I ever go that any women display anything is to restaurants and once in awhile some of the female servers are a bit showy and flirty. In those cases, yeah, I like it. What man wouldn't? Secondly, even if a server is showy and flirty no one would say woohoo. You might be friendly and smile and try to start up a conversation but you wouldn't say woohoo, unless you're from Mars.

So what I'm telling you here is that you are trying very hard to make up a fanciful narrative in which I am some sort of evildoer... And it's not working.
Dave, you are the one that said woo hoo.  While lots of people expressed their disapproval of that, especially in the context you used it, and some have assuredly condemned you for it, the issue is really as simple as the fact that the traditional male/female roles which you learned turned out to be detrimental to an equitable society and people who recognize that society needs to change, that culture needs to change, and it is changing so there's no use lamenting it, have largely developed an entirely new set of norms and your attitudes are from an age that is passing away. You can hold on to them and nothing will change except the young people and progressive older people will condemn you because the norms you acquired from your culture are not compatible with the norms of the new culture.

I agree that shaming you into adopting the new norms isn't particularly productive but I have to say, I am older than you and I find your norms unpleasant even though, 20 or maybe 30 years ago, I probably wouldn't have been as turned off by them since they were more common then and locker room talk often found its way into general discourse.

Somewhere there is an article called "unpacking the invisible knapsack" or something close to that. I'm sure Google can find it. You might have a bit more understanding of the issues that you find incompatible with this crowd if you read it. I'm not saying you need to change your attitudes, just that your values/attitudes are out of step with the new cultural reality and you will find more and more condemnation for your attitudes the farther you get from Odessa and the more time passes. If you are fine with that, fine. If you want to try to understand the new culture which is rapidly replacing the old, it's probably worth reading that article with the understanding that it will seem alien at first because it is so different but that the reason for reading it isn t to argue with it, it's to understand the foundational principles that are the basis of the new world that is coming whether you want it to or not. I mean this in all seriousness.  As soon as systemic prejudice is discovered, it cannot be hidden again without catastrophic war. And even that is temporary. Equity seems to be built into our nature. The alt right is a phenomenon of reaction to the change but it is just resistance to change. It cannot succeed in the long term. And it is inherently a violent ideology.

You clearly understand that you want to respect women. But the cultural values you use to frame your thoughts have a lot of hidden prejudices embedded and, for those who have learned bow those work, they have become exceptionally negative values.

Lol. I don't hate P.Z. I just don't read his blog very often. Thanks for the link though. Bizarre to have such a purpose to one's life.
WTF? Is that real?
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

And you were promptly schooled on what the word 'average' means, so it was a dumb response to begin with. You're so desperate to 'prove borealis is full of shit' that you put yourself in these really awkward situations.

Besides which, most 'old geezers', provided they haven't got a serious medical condition that interferes with their plumbing, are 'sprightly enough' to have sexual intercourse. Have you not heard about the unfortunate prevalence of STDs in senior housing? They aren't catching gonorrhea from toilet seats.

Also the whole concept is disgusting. 'Young hotties' - Jesus Christ Dave, why the hell would you use that term to describe a 15 year old girl?
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I suspect he used the term because it's culturally appropriate in his culture. It's easy to forget sometimes that we are in the middle of a massive cultural upheaval where the old order is being overturned and no one exactly knows what the new order will look like yet. The principle of equity which is the hallmark of the rising tide is intimately tied to the idea of privilege which is a very difficult concept for people to understand if they haven't been exposed to it and if they happen to enjoy that privilege. I have a lot of academic knowledge (and have taught it as part of a curriculum to college students) and significant real-world experience using the concept in the contexts of community engagement and homeless youth and I still have to shut up and let my judgments lie dormant in lots of cases. My defaults are often from the old order. I don't rightly know where the lines are any more in many cases. It's hard to square the massive positive impact that, say, Bill Cosby had on the cause of civil rights, with his behavior towards women. It makes it a little hard for me to be as upset as some people get over his behavior even though his behavior was disturbingly twisted and objectively horrible. It's easier to not be offended at, say Garrison Kiellor or Al Franken because their transgressions weren't, say, 30 or 40 actual rapes. But also because we are all significantly richer for their contributions. I don't know who Weinstein is or what movies he made so I don't know what we would lose if his contributions were erased from the public record, but I do know in Keillor's case and it's a tragedy IMO. Firing someone is one thing but erasing a history that contributes to intellectual and maybe even spiritual growth is quite another. It's easy for some people to go there. Not for all. Even though I am versed in the new ethics, my conditioning happened in a very different time and there are plenty of occasions where I recognize that.

While there are plenty of people who seem to have a very solid grasp of the new ethics, there are also plenty of people who are trying but it still doesn't come naturally. Then there are people who straight up resist. They are loathe to relinquish the power of their privilege especially since it isn't visible to those who are exercising it. It's hard for the out of work poor southern white kkk xian dumbfuck to see that they are willing to use violence only to ensure that someone else is at the actual bottom of the totem pole. They lap up the stupid shit their masters feed them because they are being assured that someone else will never be able to pass them on the economic totem pole. That kind of existence barely qualifies for an example of freewill, IMO. Products of place and time with no concept of how to go about adapting to new circumstances or maybe even no concept that adaptation is useful, believing instead that enough rage will force the world to remain as it was when norms were established.

Norms are incredibly powerful things. Our values determine our behavior to such a massive extent that the most critical skill humans have is the ability to examine and assess our own personal values in the context of decisions we make. The inability to do that is the most cruel of disabilities because always on the horizon is an external social pressure suggesting that the sufferer is missing something but with actually no tools available to even assess the question because the 'thing' the individual is missing has a different 'thing' in its place.

Many, maybe most, men are constantly dealing with conflicting signals from the brain and the balls. How we deal with that conflict has a tremendous amount to do with how we learn to deal with it. It is not the sort of thing that is easy to sit down and think deeply on and arrive at a universal answer completely independently. We have to learn the boundary conditions. It helps if we begin with, it's not appropriate to make another person do anything they don't want to for personal gratification. If that one tries to slip in there very far down the line, it's already missed the point where an individual establishes the priorities and types of personal gratifications and so becomes secondary to what has already been established regarding those priorities. One of the perqs to being a rock star was culturally established to be unlimited sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The ends to which men used to assume power naturally be put include tons of sex with whatever kinks they might have developed over time. It takes an entirely new cultural background to make locker-room talk unacceptable in a locker-room. I do think we are moving that way though. But it's not surprising to see Dave make the formulaic 1970's red-piller type responses because that was the value structure he absorbed and his ability to examine his own values is notoriously nonexistent. He values women as individuals but has a separate box for women as objects for men to enjoy. Of course, he wants to believe that they enjoy it too because otherwise he'd have to examine his beliefs. But fortunately he doesn't have to because he just assumes that women mostly enjoy the role of whore and it's the line that divides right from wrong when women don't want to act the role of whores. Which makes severe complication in a marriage situation I'd guess. It's a defect not to want to put out at whatever your husband commands. That's where those 'at what point did the value get assimilated' situations become clear. Is the husband master? Does that come first?

I wrote this big long post because I have been thinking about the cultural divide a lot lately. A relative  supports Trump just as mindlessly and just as cluelessly as Dave does and I'm having some trouble squaring the fact that the mindset cannot even see that it is derivative of and enabling of actual Nazi ideology with the fact that the mindset is so horrible. I want to smash it like a cockroach, but I also want to leave idiots alone since they already have enough hardship in their worlds. There is no difficulty marginalizing their beliefs and values, it's easy to just say I'm not interested in Nazi propaganda, but it's hard to engage with it in a humane way and I have to remind myself that the changes are so dramatic that it's possible to feel some empathy for those who may enable horrors through pure ignorance. If humanity snuffs itself, it makes no difference if I was pissed off at those who contributed to the specific causes.

Ethics really are situational in some aspects. We may abhor the idea of infanticide and condemn cultural traditions that accepted it as justifiable, but the alternative was doubtlessly worse in some distant time or place. Child brides are horrible things. But starvation is too. Being a Nazi enabler/sympathizer (excuse me, 'the least racist people anyone's ever seen') in the US though, well, where and what is the appropriate response to it?

Worse, it's being promulgated through propaganda pitching it as an existential crisis while Wall Street keeps taking steep rents and laughing at how easy divide and conquer is. That gets easier to do when you control the reins of government and can actually make life an existential crises for the weakest group. That primes the fearful and inoculates them against the tools needed for adaptation. If you can stunt adaptive behavior, you can control the behavior of individuals easily by making the logical case for actions that certain values demand.

Wow. That's my first WoT in years.

ETA2: It's hard for me to be grateful enough for my good fortune of having really strong women for grandmothers, mother, wife, and daughters.
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.
I believe you.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I don't know whether to put this here or in comic relief
We all waited with bated breath for President Donald Trump's physical results --asking how in the world could this rotund, Kentucky-Fried-and-McDonald's-eating 71-year-old be in decent health?
How indeed?

On Friday, the White House released a statement allegedly written by the doctor who administered the exam. It said that the president was "in excellent health."

Except for one niggling thing. The doctor's name was spelled wrong.

White House physician Ronny Jackson spells his name with a "y."

As Rachel Maddow reported on her show Friday night, the statement released by the White House was signed by a "Dr. Ronnie Jackson," who spells his name with an "ie."

I think a man who has gone through medical school and made it all the way to the White House would know how to spell his own name. Unless . . . Unless.

Shareblue reports that it was also odd that this doctor who can't spell his name went against protocol in that he put "Dr." in front of his name, when most medical doctors use their name followed by their degree (for example, "Ronny Jackson, MD, FAAEM"), rather than using their title ("Dr.")

In the past, President Obama's test results--by the very same doctor--have been a bit more detailed.

Although the president reportedly spent more than three hours with a physician, the details--including his current medications, weight, BMI, blood pressure and cholesterol results--like his real tax returns--will most likely never see the light of day.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I don't know what's more unbelievable

That weight and height
His extraordinary capacity for exercise
A resting heart rate of 68bpm

it's kind of amazing they would lie like that. It's so obviously a lie. What the fuck has our country come to.
The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
Wow. This is utter BS.

And you have the nerve to call others liars.
I see I was multiply ninja'd. Not surprising. But not only is it not what anyone else said, it is exactly the abhorrent perspective that people piled on him for.
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.

But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?

ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.

First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
attract? You mean, she was asked and was excited and happy to consent? and:
respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
jesus christ man. That is NOT the issue.
It's easy, in the current climate especially, to forget just how bad Bush the lesser and his fucked up wars were. Especially since we barely even know that we are still at war. But Manning made a decision with basically no options or any idea of how to get the info out there in any kind of vetted format. She was aware of the consequences and accepted them willingly. I'm not sure I have the moral certainty to hate her for that decision.
Thanks to Donald Trump pointing out fake news I've really become more and more aware of the pervasiveness of misrepresentation and spin in much of our Communications in the world today. Now that I've become aware of it, I see it on almost every page at this forum and of course you see it constantly in the news media as well.
Yep, climb in that right-wing echo chamber and seal yourself off from any inconvenient facts.

Have you noticed that all these major Republican programs are wildly unpopular with a significant majority of the American people? No, you haven't, because people who rely on right-wing media for their news are significantly less informed, especially about topics that are inconvenient facts. They actually know less than people who don't follow the news at all, because they believe so much that is false.
What is the Fox News effect? What causes it? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by William Poundstone, Author of Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up, on Quora:

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media--by Fox, not so much--and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

 The first thing to realize is that every news medium has its own audience demographics. It's no secret to advertisers that the average Fox News viewer has less formal education and income than the average New York Times reader.

The Times is urban and urbane; Fox is small-town/suburban and populist. Fox competes directly against hundreds of other cable channels and has established a specialized niche in its media ecology. Fox trades in stories about the venality of big government, liberal overreach and little-guy heroes of the heartland. A large share of Fox stories deftly push emotional buttons (lest the viewer push the buttons on his or her remote...)

This format has been successful, but it has drawbacks. There's a lot that goes on in the world that doesn't easily fit the Fox template. There are important stories that don't make anyone angry, prove liberals are evil or otherwise carry an emotional punch. Fox viewers get less of them. Fox News is like an all-you-can-eat buffet, serving up red meat. A more balanced diet might be healthier in the long run.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Lol.  I'm 6'2" and 215 or so right now but I'd need to be way over 250, maybe closer to 300 to have that physique. When I lose 20 lbs, I go from a 36 to a 34 waist in levis. He's closer to a 44 waist.
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
6'3" 239lbs lmao ok
It's possible if he has zero muscle.
what is this about?
and broken glass iirc.