Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Turns out our new friend, Nick, here, has yet to change the world, and I’d argue that if world-changing is his goal in earnest, which I suspect is a touch on the unlikely side, he’s chosen an outlet that will guarantee utter failure. So even if we were to impose such an extreme burden of the doubt upon poor Nick for some reason, any effort in the job of fighting against his world-changing effort would be inherently redundant.
Valid point. I guess my concern should be scaled according to the logical coherency of the initial proposition. I’ve yet to acquire that skill though.
Peace,
George.
Turns out our new friend, Nick, here, has yet to change the world, and I’d argue that if world-changing is his goal in earnest, which I suspect is a touch on the unlikely side, he’s chosen an outlet that will guarantee utter failure. So even if we were to impose such an extreme burden of the doubt upon poor Nick for some reason, any effort in the job of fighting against his world-changing effort would be inherently redundant.
Depends on how you mean it. Everyone changes the world every day, with everything they say to anyone they meet. Ultimately, I’m just another person with his own views on things. If I make some people think twice about any important subject, only good can come from it. Being in the middle between two extremes, you get a lot of crossfire. As far as changing peoples minds for peace is concerned, that’s the place to be. That’s not why I joined though. Also, the instant vitriol I received, kind of showed the unimportance of the forum. In any case, I am sure you boys and girls have a nice and tight group here, so I’ll leave you to it.
You do realize, I hope, that I’m defending your participation ... suggesting some in here are being rather hastily harsh with you ... ?
As far as the vitriol, I can’t pretend you shouldn’t expect that in here, but I’d direct your attention to the number of posts and the date joined, and I’d encourage you to try to be conscientious about giving the benefit of the doubt as long as you can reasonably do so. Dennis is a creature of lucid confusion, extremes and moderation—he can be a surly codger if he decides not to trust you, or he can be irrationally devoted to defending you against all detractors. He can be pretty much impervious to reasoning and argumentation in either case, and it’s nigh impossible to find any consistent basis for either. He’s also hard not to like, IMO, but it would appear you drew a pretty bad hand in that regard (a thick hide is perhaps a key element—you can never know for sure when he’s going to suddenly spin around and try take a bite out of you). I don’t know much at all about George because he’s as new as you are.
At any rate you haven’t gotten a very fair or representative “welcome”, unfortunately, but in a way it’s a better introduction to what you can expect here than a proper welcome would be. You have to either weather or ignore this kind of shite in favor of the good side ... if you find that worth your while. The problem in your case is that you got a heavy dose of the Dark Side of that spectrum right off the bat. I recommend giving it a little time, but of course that’s entirely up to you.
It’s all Sx fault! And I’m lucidly confused?! No, I’m clearly just plain confused, so don’t be going and confusing me with those other sorts. Whoever they may be.
Turns out our new friend, Nick, here, has yet to change the world, and I’d argue that if world-changing is his goal in earnest, which I suspect is a touch on the unlikely side, he’s chosen an outlet that will guarantee utter failure. So even if we were to impose such an extreme burden of the doubt upon poor Nick for some reason, any effort in the job of fighting against his world-changing effort would be inherently redundant.
Depends on how you mean it. Everyone changes the world every day, with everything they say to anyone they meet. Ultimately, I’m just another person with his own views on things. If I make some people think twice about any important subject, only good can come from it. Being in the middle between two extremes, you get a lot of crossfire. As far as changing peoples minds for peace is concerned, that’s the place to be. That’s not why I joined though. Also, the instant vitriol I received, kind of showed the unimportance of the forum. In any case, I am sure you boys and girls have a nice and tight group here, so I’ll leave you to it.
You do realize, I hope, that I’m defending your participation ... suggesting some in here are being rather hastily harsh with you ... ?
As far as the vitriol, I can’t pretend you shouldn’t expect that in here, but I’d direct your attention to the number of posts and the date joined, and I’d encourage you to try to be conscientious about giving the benefit of the doubt as long as you can reasonably do so. Dennis is a creature of lucid confusion, extremes and moderation—he can be a surly codger if he decides not to trust you, or he can be irrationally devoted to defending you against all detractors. He can be pretty much impervious to reasoning and argumentation in either case, and it’s nigh impossible to find any consistent basis for either. He’s also hard not to like, IMO, but it would appear you drew a pretty bad hand in that regard (a thick hide is perhaps a key element—you can never know for sure when he’s going to suddenly spin around and try take a bite out of you). I don’t know much at all about George because he’s as new as you are.
At any rate you haven’t gotten a very fair or representative “welcome”, unfortunately, but in a way it’s a better introduction to what you can expect here than a proper welcome would be. You have to either weather or ignore this kind of shite in favor of the good side ... if you find that worth your while. The problem in your case is that you got a heavy dose of the Dark Side of that spectrum right off the bat. I recommend giving it a little time, but of course that’s entirely up to you.
Yep now I see how “hurt feelings” card is powerful stuff, religious people were right to adopt it after all.
however this move isn’t given such legitimacy in any professional discourse I’ll give you an example:
as a 3d artist I’m a member of 34dcafe website it’s a professional forum for guys who use Cinema4d in their line of work.
I just can’t imagine to join this site and start my conversation with something like:
“as a 3d artist and professional I believe that we should ignore the poly-flow integrity as a part of any project involving subdivision surfaces”.
- you don’t have to know what this means exactly, however I’ve just demonstrated unbelievable ignorance not just of using Cinema in particular but any 3d package in general.
Let’s say someone decides to ask “Would you care to provide any reason for your position?”.
- please note that it was done not because the person actually wanted to see the evidence for the proposition but simply trying to make me realize how baseless and ridiculous my position is.in the first place.
So what do I answer? well here’s my evidence for that: “fill with some ridiculous shit” .
The member ask me: “do you realize that your reasoning doesn’t even make sense?”
my answer: “I joined this site as a 3d scientist I thought better of you guys, why am I not given benefit of a doubt? or can’t you at least see that I mean well?”
now substitute 3d, with history, and you get a brief summary of our exchange here.
The guy had demonstrated an ugly set of beliefs rooted in complete historical ignorance, the evidence he presented wouldn’t hold ground in a 2nd grade, then he promoted himself as “atheist and scientist” and as a last resort he played the hurt feelings card and he’s all offended now and shit, he also gently pointed out how he sensed a propaganda in my posts, please make a guess what propaganda that would be?
In my eyes he’s a religious nutcase, please don’t apologize to him for myself, I meet crackpots like him everyday where I live. hopefully more of them feel ridiculed the less popular their views will become.
Also, the instant vitriol I received, kind of showed the unimportance of the forum. In any case, I am sure you boys and girls have a nice and tight group here, so I’ll leave you to it.
Come on, Nick. Apparently, the term fascist theocracy was hot-button for some and invading countries left and right and centre was a bit loose but not unfounded. So, fascist in regard to the U.S. must of done the trick. I found your post to be quite accurate and from your other posts you’re probably a bit of an idealist which will always get jumped-on by somebody or another in some fashion around here. I think we’re dangerously on a path toward theocracy and oligarchy. People are inclined to think that our democracy will withstand it but I’m not so sure either. I don’t trust the people (at least half of them) that much, the nut-bags are out in full force and it’s a relentlessly weary fight. One or two dropped passes and your favorite team may not go home with the trophy especially when the score is close and time runs out.
Never had a chance to get to know Nick, whom I gather has taken his marbles and gone somewhere else in a huff of indignation, but I’ve also no apology for pithy comments on his first short, sarcastic, and condescending declarative posts. This site of full of highly educated and experienced people in multiple scientific and professional fields, none of us are especially in awe of those claims. That said, maybe I fired too quickly, but subsequent interchanges seem to have justified that. Ah, well, we have had many pop in here, make some comments and leave, usually before any relationships can be established. Expect in those cases, the same happens to them in “real life,” but don’t know.
Nick reminded me of myself when I was young and full of righteous indignation. I used to write “Amerika” and talk with my friends about the Revolution. I stormed into a lecture hall with a group of other political hooligans and hurled curses at Nelson Rockefeller. I had a picture of Mao in my dorm room. Full of rage, totally inarticulate, and ignorant of history. I made Jane Fonda look like a Fullbright scholar. However, I never said “Off the pigs” because…well, my best friend’s dad was a cop.
I think Nick is young, and thus given to excess. If he is over thirty, he should be embarrassed. We don’t need more people in the world using hot-button words so carelessly. It’s bad enough our politicians do it.
Nick reminded me of myself when I was young and full of righteous indignation. I used to write “Amerika” and talk with my friends about the Revolution. I stormed into a lecture hall with a group of other political hooligans and hurled curses at Nelson Rockefeller. I had a picture of Mao in my dorm room. Full of rage, totally inarticulate, and ignorant of history. I made Jane Fonda look like a Fullbright scholar. However, I never said “Off the pigs” because…well, my best friend’s dad was a cop.
I think Nick is young, and thus given to excess. If he is over thirty, he should be embarrassed. We don’t need more people in the world using hot-button words so carelessly. It’s bad enough our politicians do it.
Who was it who said, more or less, “If you’re under thirty and not a radical you have no heart; if you’re forty and still a radical you have no head.”
Burt: Who was it who said, more or less, “If you’re under thirty and not a radical you have no heart; if you’re forty and still a radical you have no head.”
I’m not sure. However, my new motto is “Don’t trust anyone under thirty” (The under-thirties posters probably won’t get that reference. Don’t pounce on me…it’s a joke)
The reaction to Nick was the harder to explain situation here. Nick sounded a bit naive, perhaps, but he was also more than likely pushed by knee-jerk reactions into a stronger investment in his position. Besides, as far as we know he may just be young. He was hastily attacked upon presenting his first polemic and given no quarter at all. This kind of response should only be acquired the old fashioned way—it should only happen if it’s been earned. There was far too much room for the benefit of doubt in Nick’s case to warrant the reaction (rather than the response) he got.
Perhaps this is what we get when we fail to treat BM (et al) appropriately and instead of dismissing those who earn it, allow them to wear down our patience. The social climate this seems to be developing certainly isn’t one I’d choose, and I doubt it’s one that will produce or enable any good results—good results would have to be achieved in spite of such a social climate.
The reaction to Nick was the harder to explain situation here. Nick sounded a bit naive, perhaps, but he was also more than likely pushed by knee-jerk reactions into a stronger investment in his position. Besides, as far as we know he may just be young. He was hastily attacked upon presenting his first polemic and given no quarter at all. This kind of response should only be acquired the old fashioned way—it should only happen if it’s been earned. There was far too much room for the benefit of doubt in Nick’s case to warrant the reaction (rather than the response) he got.
Perhaps this is what we get when we fail to treat BM (et al) appropriately and instead of dismissing those who earn it, allow them to wear down our patience. The social climate this seems to be developing certainly isn’t one I’d choose, and I doubt it’s one that will produce or enable any good results—good results would have to be achieved in spite of such a social climate.
There was much that I agreed with Nick but didn’t get the chance to sort out. He needed a little more patience to see how his ideas would be scrutinized or understood by more people.
I’m not sure what you mean about fail to treat BM appropriately.
The reaction to Nick was the harder to explain situation here. Nick sounded a bit naive, perhaps, but he was also more than likely pushed by knee-jerk reactions into a stronger investment in his position. Besides, as far as we know he may just be young. He was hastily attacked upon presenting his first polemic and given no quarter at all. This kind of response should only be acquired the old fashioned way—it should only happen if it’s been earned. There was far too much room for the benefit of doubt in Nick’s case to warrant the reaction (rather than the response) he got.
Perhaps this is what we get when we fail to treat BM (et al) appropriately and instead of dismissing those who earn it, allow them to wear down our patience. The social climate this seems to be developing certainly isn’t one I’d choose, and I doubt it’s one that will produce or enable any good results—good results would have to be achieved in spite of such a social climate.
There was much that I agreed with Nick but didn’t get the chance to sort out. He needed a little more patience to see how his ideas would be scrutinized or understood by more people.
I’m not sure what you mean about fail to treat BM appropriately.
He’s lavished with attention. Most of it’s negative, but it’s a lot of hurling words back and forth—the intellectual equivalent of so many monkeys flinging poo.
Apparently flinging poo is a favorite pass time here (and all over the Interwebs, it would seem).
