Why can't we just stop using the word "objective" to describe OPINIONS?
JUST CALL A TAUTOLOGY A TAUTOLOGY AND AN OPINION AN OPINION.
The word itself seems to hold some almost magical implicit religious concept and leads to the worst aspects of scientism.
What? That seems a tad too conspiratory for me, whenever somebody says objective in regards to being it, it is understood that they mean to mitigate biases or to make a decision in spite of it, it is simply easier and more succinct to say "objective", and because most people aren't this pedantic, they understand what the mods mean.
The misuse of this word demonstrates a foundational misunderstanding of science itself.
The goal of a "neutral 3rd party" is to adopt the shared biases of BOTH interested parties.
Bias is not a quantifiable, one dimensional scale with a gigantic "MORE" painted on one end and "LESS" on the other end.
EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS BIASED.
SOME ARE SIMILARLY BIASED AND OTHERS ARE DISSIMILARLY BIASED.
It's just like an accent. Nobody thinks they have one. And they think other people who have their same accent also don't have an accent.
A TRULY "NEUTRAL 3RD PARTY" WOULD NEVER GET INVOLVED IN 1ST AND 2ND PARTY DISPUTES.
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random
WILL cannot be random
FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences
FREE is incompatible with WILL
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights.
It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods of survival.
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH LBRY.TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "GROKALL"
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
A few years ago, I stumbled upon an amazing jewel.
I was astounded.
I showed the amazing jewel to my closest friends and loved ones.
They thought it was a rock.
Some of them thought it was pig shit.
I tried to explain to them how it glimmered and refracted in endless and fascinating ways.
They told me I was insane.
And they were dead serious.
Not the fun type of crazy.
So when you tell me you found something amazing,
I believe you.
I just can't see it.
But I still believe you.
Yes.
HUME'S GUILLOTINE.
Sort of. I have always had a problem with Hume's usage as it gets used to describe something that was proposed as 'more efficient', rather than 'feelings', too often.
I am trying to figure out how it is not. The one who quantifies it, sure thinks it is, even if estimating, or assuming. I am not saying it is a good thing to do, just that, humans do it.
BIAS IS QUALITATIVE.
BIAS IS EASILY DETECTABLE TO A PERSON WHO DOESN'T HAPPEN TO SHARE THAT SPECIFIC ONE (or, more commonly, holds an opposing bias).
Are you familiar with Jury Nullification?
It seems to be, that most court cases are won/lost during the 'Jury Selection' process. The Jury is supposed to be 'unbiased' 'neutral' etc, however that is pretty much impossible to accomplish. So it is, that the case can be won/lost during selection of BIASED Jurors who pretend to be non-biased.
Jury nullification is the most powerful weapon of 'the people' and one of the most hidden(obfuscated) things there is in the realm of 'Law'. One could simply ignore all facts, bias, opinion, etc, and just claim "This Law/Statute is Bullshit, not guilty"...
Just thought I'd throw that out there. I may do a post on nullification.
Two things your comment reminds me of:
1.) Yes, we have known for quite a long time that there is no such thing as unprejudiced people. ... in the interesting and less popular areas of psychology, people have refrained from recommending a mediator who would be "unbiased" to disputing parties, but have made this particular mediation a discipline that sails with the wind and not against it. The mediator never speaks of himself or herself as "objective" and "impartial" or "neutral"; on the contrary, the mediator admits that he will listen very subjectively and sympathetically to each party, take the statements in perspective, and do so in exactly the same way for the other party. Systemic mediation - a term by which this form is known - says of itself "I am all-party".
2.) A mother observes her two children arguing over a piece of bread. She silently goes to them, takes the bread, divides it into two pieces and hands these two pieces to the older child.
A so-called western, modern parent would not leave it to one of the children to distribute the bread fairly, one would hand out one piece to each of the children oneself, thus wasting a good chance to let the children cope with the rest of the task in a self-efficient way.
Well, isn't "teaching wisdom" technically "protection from folly"?
hmm ... actually ... no. Wisdom is not something I learn from being protected from a folly but from having the chance to practice my mistakes. Once I practice, I gain in experience - when things go wrong, I've learned, when things go right, I've learned, too.
I don't think that wisdom can be taught, but it can develop the more experienced one becomes in risking mistakes :)
Every beginner is a fool.
Very much so. Great quote.
This is my favorite commentary on the subject.
Yes. He describes exactly why I said:
He has some good advise about the judge too, but you kind of want to 'play that by ear' when the time comes. As in, counter obfuscate..
It's basically fully functional ANARCHY.
On 'BIAS'
Phenomenal example.
How? Isn't the 'neutral' party, 'ASSUMING' that they 'detect' bias without 'proof'?
INDIVIDUALS ALWAYS BELIEVE THEIR OWN BIASES ARE JUSTIFIED (NOT BIASES).
Right. So the 'neutral' observer is only as 'neutral' as their own bias allows..
BIAS BLIND-SPOT.
EVEN I HAVE ONE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I NEED YOU.
Same here!
I often tell my self "Look how neutral I am".... "oops"...
By thinking such, it kind of nullifies the 'neutrality' if you know what I mean.....I was biased, towards being 'neutral', which can be, not good.
This came across my desk today.......thought I'd add it to the room..
Marxist 'Critical Race Theory', pushed by the Injector in Chief Bill Gates.
ZOIKS.
Excellent analysis.
Thank you very much for sharing a great post, have a good weekend and a great mood
thank you very much for the post,have a great day
This is true. However if both parties in a conversation have an understanding of the way chemicals affect the brain and both parties speak with the intention of the same goal (eg. finding the ego-less truth of something) - then a level of 'objectivity' can be attained.
True objectivity is not possible, no.
The spirit of inquiry is paramount in discerning informations.
I do not have 'debates' with people, I am not putting forth 'arguments' I am having discussions with shared goals.
My mind's capacities shutdown when I am in a debate. My faculties of reason are clouded by a need to be 'right'.
I especially appreciate discourses by David Bohm.
The mind is a tool - and sure, some products come from competition but there is another way to create excellence: through deliberate will to know, to be, to become - not as a reaction to an attacking stimulus but as a choice to grow.
I used to think that every conversation was a poker game - like this meme portrays. But then I had some really good conversations with some very open minded people and it helped me make the distinction.
Conversations with people that allowed you to speak on a meta level when it helped keep things on an 'objective' level. Understanding our tendencies and working around them makes for sometimes exhausting discourse but once all that crap is out the way, it sets the ground work for some really awesome discourse - communication you feel you've achieved something at the end of.
I admire your optimism.
I think I know what you're talking about and in those "good conversations" the dominance is sublimated (or forfeit by one of the players).
EVERYTHING YOU DO IS MOTIVATED BY E-MOTION.
I luckily had my E- moved after I took some shrapnal in the war.
... i'm that kinda guy...
the New Mexico mob... as 'splained by the Hollywood element : /
ABQ is a whole lot different in the Reels
I think I agree with you, but just to be perfectly clear,
When we started this conversation I was using "logic" in the colloquial sense, meaning "conscious (human) planning (intellectual reasoning) to achieve a specific goal".
And now, we're talking about "logic" in a more technical (not specifically human intellect related) sense, like, when a volcano erupts or a star suddenly goes supernova.
Chomsky on Kropotkin in 2 minutes and 11 seconds,
NEW PROTEST SONG DEMANDING PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY
CENSORSHIP
A model police officer is exactly like a model soldier, they are functionally a PUPPET of the chain of command.
The person who follows orders to the best of their ability is NEVER RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS.
An individual is only responsible for their individual actions if they "go off script" or "act in bad faith" or "start thinking for themselves" (in other words, "break the chain of command").
BREAKING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CRIME.
I agree with all of that, except for perhaps the insinuation that police are overly biased and that the bias they have is a real issue.
A model police officer is exactly like a model soldier, they are functionally a PUPPET of the chain of command.
The person who follows orders to the best of their ability is NEVER RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS.
An individual is only responsible for their individual actions if they "go off script" or "act in bad faith" or "start thinking for themselves" (in other words, "break the chain of command").
BREAKING THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CRIME.
Violence has a relationship with very specifically BLACK MARKETS.
POLICE ARE FUNCTIONALLY SECURITY GUARDS FOR THE RICH.
THE ONLY "BIAS" IS THINKING THAT CERTAIN SKIN-TONES INDICATE POVERTY.
Never presume malice when (bias blindspot) is sufficient.
This part puts me in stitches.
100% THIS.
IDEAS FOR FUTURE POST TITLES
MY INTERVIEW WITH JOE ROGUE'N
DO NOT TRUST ME
ISTJ RESPONSE - OK, NO PROBLEM [PRESSES MUTE ACCOUNT]
THINGS I MISS
THE FEELING OF WIND ON MY FACE
PLEASE DEPROGRAM ME
If you told the MOBSTERS of the 1920s that UNREGULATED BLACK MARKETS meant a few small businesses would control everything, they would laugh at you and point to the wild west nature of the UNREGULATED BLACK markets.
Are you perhaps familiar with the historical figure known as AL CAPONE?
Do you happen to believe that INHERITANCE should be abolished?
REGIONAL MONOPOLIES ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIL.
OPEN SOURCED NOTES
FOUR CHILDREN DISCOVER ALIEN FUTURE TECH-SUITS THAT MAKE THEM INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM AVERAGE ADULTS. THESE SUITS GIVE THEM THE POWERS AND ABILITIES OF COMPLETELY UNREMARKABLE ADULTS, BUT FROM THE CHILDREN'S PERSPECTIVE THEY'RE TANTAMOUNT TO SUPERPOWERS.
IN THE FUTURE, ALL MOVIES, BOTH NEW AND OLD WILL HAVE THE OPTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL VIEWER TO REPLACE THE FACE, BODY TYPE, GENDER IDENTITY, AND VOICE OF ANY OF THE PRINCIPLE CHARACTERS WITH EITHER THEIR OWN FACE, BODY TYPE, GENDER IDENTITY, AND VOICE OR THE FACE, BODY TYPE, GENDER IDENTITY, AND VOICE OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL PREFERENCE.
I AM "A" LOGICZOMBIE. I AM NOT "THE" LOGICZOMBIE. MY PREFERRED PRONOUN IS LOGICZOMBIE. A PRONOUN IS A PLACE-HOLDER FOR SOMEONE'S NAME. INTENTIONALLY MISPRONOUNCING SOMEONE'S PRONOUN IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS INTENTIONALLY MISPRONOUNCING THEIR NAME AND IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED RUDE BUT IS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF AN ACTUAL CRIME, NOR SHOULD IT EVER BE CONSIDERED AN ACTUAL CRIME.
A FEW HIGH-QUALITY, SCATHING RESPONSES ARE VASTLY PREFERABLE TO MOUNTAINS OF SYCOPHANTS.
Are you in favor of ABOLISHING CORPORATIONS?
AND, more significantly, are you in favor of ABOLISHING THE USE OF FINES AS PENALTIES?
(IFF) a corporation violates a law (THEN) real, actual EXECUTIVES (not just their disposable underlings) must be physically placed in an actual prison cell (and not "house arrest").
IDEAS FOR FUTURE POST TITLES
RESISTANCE IS FEUDAL
GO INTO YOUR BARN AND GRAB YOUR FUCKING PITCHFORK
HIPSTERISM IS THE ANTIDOTE TO MONOPOLY AND MINDLESS "FUTURISM" AND PLANNED-OBSOLESCENCE
GODDAMN THOSE HIPSTERS MADE ANTI-MONOPOLISTIC IDEALS LOOK SOMEHOW SNOBISH
JUST BECAUSE GOOGLE AND AMAZON AND NETFLIX STARTED OUT RAGING AGAINST THE MACHINE DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT THE NEW MACHINE NOW. FUCK THEM UP.
ATTENTION IS THE ONLY CURRENCY.
YOU CAN'T WIN THE GAME IF YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE FUCKING FNORDS.
Also, anyone below the age of 25 is considered a soft-target.
Tag @practicalthought
Blurt.world is very glitchy for me.
Probably when you (indirectly) suggested the only alternative to your table is NIHILISM.
And everybody knows NIHILISM killed a bunch of people and makes babies cry.
in order for our lives to have morality/punishment/reward/meaning we need morality/punished/rewarded/meaning.
Please explain the difference between these two statements and how either of them is not a circular reasoning fallacy?
I accept your tautology and continue to be completely disinterested in some god(s) moral dictates and unconvinced that they are useful in understanding WHY something is moral or immoral whether any god(s) exists or not. I feel this is a structural issue with your argument. Please repair this leg.
My argument (table)
IF there exists any morality/punishment/reward/meaning (leg one) and IF we have no way of demonstrating it or assessing it other than through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg two) THEN we are forced to assess morality/punishment/reward/meaning through our own subjective viewpoint of the universe (leg three)
IF and ONLY IF the premesis are true THEN the conclusion is a logical necessity.
IF you see any structural issues with my premises THEN please explain exactly what the structural flaw is.
100% THIS.
So, are you suggesting that only crimes that produce an ACTUAL REAL-LIFE VICTIM should be enforced?
No more "driving while intoxicated" infractions?
EVERYTHING CREATED BY LOGICZOMBIE IS 100% PUBLIC DOMAIN, CREATIVE COMMONS ZERO, FREE-TO-USE FOR ANY PURPOSE BY ANYONE, ROYALTY-FREE, PLAGIARISM AND IMPERSONATION IS REQUESTED.
We can't really begin building a bridge until we have a solid place to set the cornerstone.
Perhaps in the future we'll develop forensics capable of determining the trajectory of the bullet, and then the same "credible threat of enforcement" would make a "no shooting into the air" ordinance fully redundant (ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT STILL BE A NOISE VIOLATION).
MINORITY REPORT.
I'M A POST-LEFT ANARCHIST.
BE MORE ECCENTRIC.