|
E4C85D38 posted:Did he ever get admitted to the bar, though? Without a bar card, you're not a lawyer, just some schmuck with a degree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pvZ8N1qvcA e: Rationalwiki says New York State. kissekatt fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 15, 2014 |
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Seems Andy forgot what happens when you see beer and alcohol in general as evil in the US I saw something a few years ago where a member of the Womens Temperance League (yea they still exist) claimed that Prohibition didn't fail because it was unenforceable, or a violation of peoples rights, or that it was so inflexible, or any of that, but because there were too many non-christian in power at the time, and if the US had a proper, christian goverment, it would have worked, and all other sinful endevors such as drugs, pornography, gays and abortion would also go away. Andy probably believes something akin to that. We know that he believes that 100% of the current problems are because there's not enough olde tyme Christians in power, so his historical reading would probably be akin to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:He has a BS in electrical engineering from Princeton (though he does not believe in imaginary numbers)... As someone who spent five years studying electrical engineering, this makes my head hurt so bad. How!? Electrical theory loving relies on j (or i if you're a non-EE)! You either have to perform the most convoluted calculus ever to express stuff or you simply can't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:You either have to perform the most convoluted calculus ever to express stuff or you simply can't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:Yes, although I have no idea what state. What is this guy's loving problem?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:As someone who spent five years studying electrical engineering, this makes my head hurt so bad. But you see, imaginary numbers are just that. Imaginary. Else why would they be called that? Your move, libtard. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
That's how it went with my radiator. My father in law, who is a retired plumber, thought it needed to bled, but then I just got some Christians over and it heated right back up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I saw something a few years ago where a member of the Womens Temperance League (yea they still exist) claimed that Prohibition didn't fail because it was unenforceable, or a violation of peoples rights, or that it was so inflexible, or any of that, but because there were too many non-christian in power at the time, and if the US had a proper, christian goverment, it would have worked, and all other sinful endevors such as drugs, pornography, gays and abortion would also go away. So basically take the whole Constitution and such and shove them all in a blender? Sounds about on par with crazy Christian nutters. I wonder sometimes if this whole "Christian nation" bullshit is just them winging because "them dirty Arabs have some and we need to outdo them"
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:What is this guy's loving problem? Being a rich white Evangelical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Everything will be better if we just give the Supreme Court absolute power and only elect Christian leaders that are approved by the Chief
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:So what? Are you arguing that Europeans thought the world was flat? Or that discovering the round Earth was a uniquely Greek achievement? He's arguing that rigorous scientific investigation was occurring long before Newton formed his ideas on motion and in entirely non-Christian settings. There were countless scientific advances and discoveries made in the centuries (and millenia) before the Age of Enlightenment. The suggestion that Europe during the Age of Enlightenment was the birthplace of science is farcical, and the argument about Christianity being a necessary piece for the development of scientific reasoning is based on the assumption that "real" science only occurred in Christian places. This assumption is false. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:02 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Andy's basically protestant, right? They drink grape juice at communion instead of wine. As a Catholic he doesn't drink alcohol or grape juice at communion, but the literal blood of Christ.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:What is this guy's loving problem? Where do we begin? As for his beliefs, he's like a lot of hardcore Christians without a lot of experience in the world. They see the world in a very simple manner, and they stick with that story. There's nothing unique about a lot of the things he believes on morality. It's just your standard sheltered-conservative viewpoint of the world. "Gays are evil because the Bible says so." Moving on: I think in general, he believes his own bullshit. He comes into arguments knowing that he's right in totality, and that the other side is wrong. And he will stop at nothing to convince you that you are wrong and that he is right, and if you would only listen to him, it could be so nice. He's not interested in what you have to say, nor will he listen to a single thing you will say beyond just trying to contradict or refute it. You can see it there. He KNOWS he's right and that the judge is wrong, and nothing that the judge says is valuable to him. Andy is probably like a lot of smart people we know. You know the type: they're smart and they know it, and so they approach life with a holier-than-thou attitude. And what happens is they start to form beliefs and opinions on subjects, and because they're smart, they create an internal logic that is pretty strong in their mind. And they consider themselves intellectuals. So they go and start talking about it, and they encounter people who disagree with them because they're probably wrong. But no! They're smart. They have this logic. And so they just keep pontificating, never listening to what the other side has to say. I had a friend just like that. He was a smart guy who was too smart for his own good. He became a die-hard libertarian, and I remember him saying that we didn't need the FCC for any reason. And I explained how radio stations work and that it can't be controlled by the states since radio signals don't conveniently stop at the state lines, but he wouldn't listen to any of it. He was convinced that the states could control it all. Edit: For evidence of this mindset, here's Andy talking about the importance of logic, and how apparently the movie Trainspotting supports drug use because it shows cool people doing it... quote:Philip, I comment on things all the time that I have not personally experienced, ranging from smoking to Hell. It doesn't require "a good source" to do so, but merely logic. That's what logic is for. ... And yes, he links to the conservapedia page for Trainspotting, which includes an edit he made about the film's content even though he never seen the film because logic... What the gently caress is wrong with his brain? Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:He's arguing that rigorous scientific investigation was occurring long before Newton formed his ideas on motion and in entirely non-Christian settings. What's your definition of 'rigorous'? quote:There were countless scientific advances and discoveries made in the centuries (and millenia) before the Age of Enlightenment. The suggestion that Europe during the Age of Enlightenment was the birthplace of science is farcical, and the argument about Christianity being a necessary piece for the development of scientific reasoning is based on the assumption that "real" science only occurred in Christian places. This assumption is false. This depends on what your definition of science, obviously, but in terms of seeking formalistic and universal laws that are based on empirical observations that are verified through 'the scientific method' I'd be curious to know what pre-modern examples you can cite. I can think of one or two Greek and Arab figures who might qualify but its a very short list.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Alhazen to begin with, as I said earlier he basically had the scientific method down in 1000 AD. It's not like Newton invented the scientific method from whole cloth. People like Alhazen were definitely represented in the canon of ideas Newton was exposed to. Even if you place the beginning of true "science" as the age of Enlightenment. Assuming all of these ideas hadn't preceded him, do you believe that Newton would have been as successful as he was? If not, how can you point to Christianity as the deciding factor that led to the "birth" of science? Why privilege it over other factors, such as historical processes that created the economic and social conditions necessary for men like Kepler or Newton to be left to their research? Why shoudl NEwton be credited for it, beyond simply being the one to write it down in English?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What's your definition of 'rigorous'? If you can think of one or two Greek and Arab figures that satisfy your criteria, then my point is already proven. There are more than one or two, but disproving the idea that science only existed from the Age of Enlightenment onward, specifically with Newton for some reason, only needed one counterexample. (To start, the field of Aristotelian physics and its countless practitioners/contributors nicely satisfies your criteria, being a set of laws based on empirical observations that was developed millenia ago. If you want to look at non-European cultures specifically, you could go look at China's Scientific Revolution, lasting from 600-900AD) QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
The history-of-science derail is interesting, but still a derail. Here's something else I found:http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_In_Name_Only posted:They also hold beliefs contrary to what Jesus did and taught. Such beliefs include considering such things as abortions, special rights for homosexuals, social justice, gun control, and cohabitation between unmarried people to be morally acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
quote:List of XINOs drat looks like even Conservapedia has fallen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
They'll be adding Jesus and the apostles to that list before long.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
List of XENOs:
Suffer not the XENO to live.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:List of XENOs: Thought for the day: Do not ask "why kill the Xeno;" rather ask, "why not?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Fred Phelps hates homosexuals more than he hates Muslims. Thus he is a Liberal. The proper Conservative Hierarchy of Hatred is: 1. Muslims 2. Homosexuals 3. Russians This is why a True Conservative fantasizes about Putin conquering America and murdering our gays, but a liberal like Phelps fantasizes about Muslims conquering America and murdering our gays. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
I think the real #1 on that list is Atheists. And I'd probably put Women above Russians. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I think the real #1 on that list is Atheists. And I'd probably put Women above Russians. I don't think conservatives hate women, really. They just believe that a woman's rightful place is as a subordinate baby and dinner factory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I don't think conservatives hate women, really. They just believe that a woman's rightful place is as a subordinate baby and dinner factory. Those sentences are contradictory. e: "I don't think conservatives hate black people, really. They just believe that a black person's rightful place is as a piece of property held by a white man."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
There's no sense in hating what we all know to be inferior anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
So what Bible verses do they take out of context to try and claim the Bible has any opinion on guns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:So what Bible verses do they take out of context to try and claim the Bible has any opinion on guns? I think that's Luke 22:36 quote:36 [Jesus] said to [the disciples], "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com RoyKeen fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
The Ape of Naples posted:I think that's Luke 22:36 Luke 22:38. quote:The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. We only need exactly two guns. Or perhaps it is one gun for every six people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
There's also that "I came not to bring peace, but the sword" quote. But ultimately they don't need to proof-text from the Bible, these are people who think God wrote the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment is thus sufficient to show that god supports guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fred Phelps hates homosexuals more than he hates Muslims. Thus he is a Liberal. Conservapedia shows there is no hierarchy. When trying to approach true pathos exterminate all rational thought.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Also Russians aren't anywhere on the hierarchy sine Russia is a bastion of pro-hetero conservatism.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Yeah Russia got off the shitlist in the past couple of years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Those sentences are contradictory. I actually think there is an important distinction to be made here. To use the case of a black person, hatred, to me, is the perspective of, "If that darkie gets near me or my family or my property, I am going to kill him." It is viewing the class as an existential threat. While it certainly isn't easy to dissuade someone from this viewpoint, it is rather simple. You must only convince them that they are not, in fact, an existential threat. On the other hand, someone who sees a black person and says, "Oh, that person is my lesser. I know this because everyone else knows this. I personally wish no harm on that individual, and don't believe they wish any harm on me, but because of their inferiority, [slavery, apartheid, segregation]" is someone you would have to take a different approach with. in this situation, the stakes for that person maintaining their viewpoint are still very high, but for a very different reason. In the first case, if the person was considering changing their mind on the subject, all they have to think about is the one time a black person killed someone to realize that, "If I start treating them normally, and I'm wrong, they are going to destroy my whole world." In the second case, in order for the person to change their mind, they have to admit that everything their culture has taught them throughout their entire life about black people is wrong, and that kind of realization is uncomfortable and most people will actively avoid it. It should also be pointed out that the first case usual contains elements of the second case, because who told that person that black people are coming to kill him and rape his wife and steal his property? Everyone in his life that he holds to be a good source of information. While both viewpoints are clearly wrong, and both viewpoints lead to negative consequences for the class in question, to make no distinction between the two, lumping them both in as hatred, is I think misleading and can make it more difficult to solve the problem. A final clarification: this is not meant to be apologia for the second group. I am not saying they are poor misguided people who only need our love and understanding to come around to not having reprehensible viewpoints. I am simply saying there are important distinctions between the two groups. EDIT: Chauvinism is exactly the word for describing the second case, within the parallel situation of describing gender relations, I agree. Is there such a word for the second case within the context of race relations? Eridine fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
Chauvinism
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
Except the moment that a member of a group that they treat with "benevolent paternalism" expresses dissatisfaction with their position as social inferiors, conservatives start lynching. You cannot treat another human being as inferior without hating them. It is not possible, no matter how much a slaveowner tells himself that it's in the best interest of those poor, benighted savages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Except the moment that a member of a group that they treat with "benevolent paternalism" expresses dissatisfaction with their position as social inferiors, conservatives start lynching. Benevolent Paternalism, while still obviously have gendered overtones, does seem applicable as a general term for the second case. The issue seems to be that we simply have different definitions of hatred, that yours in more inclusive and that mine is more exclusive. I can see the appeal for it being inclusive, thus being able to label many different kinds of undesirable behavior as "hatred" but I think a more exclusive approach can lead to better results when it comes to dealing with people in the different categories. Sidenote: It occurs to me that I might end up with redtext because of this 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
I really do think Chauvinism is the right word. The word itself doesn't actually relate to gender relations, but is actually a reference to a French Napoleonic soldier (possibly apocryphal) who was excessively proud about his French heritage and belligerent about it to everyone around him. Hannah Arendt posted:Chauvinism is an almost natural product of the national concept in so far as it springs directly from the old idea of the "national mission." ... [A] nation's mission might be interpreted precisely as bringing its light to other, less fortunate peoples that, for whatever reason, have miraculously been left by history without a national mission. As long as this concept did not develop into the ideology of chauvinism and remained in the rather vague realm of national or even nationalistic pride, it frequently resulted in a high sense of responsibility for the welfare of backward people.[4] Chauvinism has since been applied to other forms of identity valorization, where the dynamic is largely the same (see male chauvinism). The key is that the devaluation of the other group doesn't come from directly hating them, the way an MRA does, but from the valorization and aggrandization of one's own identity in comparison to others, devaluing them in the process. It's not the same thing as misogyny, it operates on a different logic and pulls from different sources. Chauvinism can often turn into hatred if the person in question feels their identity or self-concept as a superior being is threatened by the lesser group. In many ways it is more insidious than outright hatred, because it can easily be cloaked in apparently benevolent intentions. Just look at the way the rich value helping the poor through charity or tips. That' sat least as much a chauvinistic assertion of social power, and it justifies the rich feeling superior to the poor, and hence not feeling that their own privilege is unearned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Eridine posted:Benevolent Paternalism, while still obviously have gendered overtones, does seem applicable as a general term for the second case. quote:The issue seems to be that we simply have different definitions of hatred, that yours in more inclusive and that mine is more exclusive. quote:I can see the appeal for it being inclusive, thus being able to label many different kinds of undesirable behavior as "hatred" but I think a more exclusive approach can lead to better results when it comes to dealing with people in the different categories. quote:Sidenote: It occurs to me that I might end up with redtext because of this  worth of funny 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
How about children? Most people probably consider them socially inferior, but I donīt think that most people necessarily hates them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 19:05
|
|