Obligatory link to relevant sequence post.
Azathoth123
Hey hallucinations are totally a thing.
Otherkin (or transgenderism, as discussed in previous posts) is an identity. It refers to who you are. Homosexuality is an orientation. It refers to whom you desire.
And this distinction is relevant because?
What’s the alternative. Site what’s currently going on in other countries (people generally aren’t to familiar with that either)? Generalize from one example (where people don’t necessarily now all the details either)?
which makes progressivism the stream itself, rather than a dead thing floating down some other stream.
Well progressivism self-identifies as “being on the right side of history”.
This assumes the different black swans are uncorrelated.
I’m inclined to think that non-ideological autocracy (we’re in charge because we’re us and you’re you) is the human default.
I’m not sure about that. In fact, I can’t think of any actually non-ideologically autocratic society in history. Are you sure you’re not confusing “non-ideological” with “having an ideology I don’t find at all convincing”?
I was just amused by the distinction between what we think of when thinking “grammar nerd”.
I was thinking of the people involved in things like lojban. Who were you thinking of?
I couldn’t care less whether sexual orientation is innate or a choice. If it’s innate, the debate is over. If it’s a choice, you’re free. In both cases, nothing wrong has happened.
s/homosexuality/other-kinness in that paragraph. Do you still agree with it? If not, what’s the difference?
Even in 200 years we went from homosexuality being legal
Citation please.
A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.
G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man
When men have come to the edge of a precipice, it is the lover of life who has the spirit to leap backwards, and only the pessimist who continues to believe in progress.
Is, or was, anyone actually saying anything that amounted to “we are safe, therefore precautions are unnecessary”? What I’ve heard people saying is more like “we are safe enough with our current level of precautions, therefore such-and-such an extra precaution is unnecessary”.
This has the Chesterton’s post problem. What do you mean by “our current level of precautions”? Do they include the existing provisions for quarantine in case of emergencies?
We have remarked that one reason offered for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow better. But the only real reason for being a progressive is that things naturally tend to grow worse. The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative. The conservative theory would really be quite sweeping and unanswerable if it were not for this one fact. But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post.
G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
- Dec 3, 2014, 1:31 AM; 0 points) 's comment on Rationality Quotes November 2014 by (
OTOH there is a single point of failure
There is something worse than having a single point of failure, that’s having multiple points of failure in “series”, for lack of a better term.
Um, NRx’s aren’t arguing for totalitarian countries.
Hint: Monarchy =/= Totalitarianism.
In fact one of the main neoreactionary arguments for monarchy is that historical absolute monarchies have been less totalitarian, in terms of government intrusion into citizens day-to-day life or control of the economy, then modern “liberal democracies”.
People who sleep with their same sex do not necessarily identify as homosexuals
Just noticed this clause. Then which of the two is the thing that is supposedly 100% innate?
How about the Black-Scholes model with a more realistic distribution?
Or does BS make annoying assumptions about its distribution, like that it has a well-defined variance and mean?
Thanks, fixed.
Nyan Sandwich