[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-October-23, 22:16, said:

I would like to make it clear that it is not specifically religion that is my idea of the culprit in these matters but the broader concept of acceptance of narrative-based ideological beliefs without supportive objective evidence.

I agree with this. It is very possible to be closed minded without being religious..

[kenberg]

I think I will say a little more about the search for objective reality. I contend that many of our most fundamental decisions are beyond the reach of this approach. Let's start with Jefferson:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

Self-evident? Hardly. It's not even clear what it means. Of course we all know that Jefferson did not include Navajo or slaves or women in "men" but even of we update "men" to "humans", what does it mean? Interestingly, Jefferson next refers to a Creator for clarification "They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienble rights". As is often noted, Lincoln took a different approach, referring to "a nation so conceived and so dedicated". This is far more along the lines of choice rather than logical necessity. But even if we decide to agree that all humans are created equal, what does it mean? Given the context of Jefferson's times, surely he partly meant that you do not get to be head of state, or a Baron or a Duke, because your father was. But of course some people are very rich because their father was.

I see "All men are created equal" as a choice, not as a logical conclusion, and deciding just what we mean by it is a work in progress. I think this same thing could be said about a great many of our most fundamental views.


I once had a sweatshirt that announced "I have given up the search for truth and am now looking for a good fantasy". The sweatshirt no longer fits, but the sentiment does.

[Winstonm]

Interesting, as I see much supportive objective evidence that "all men are created equal". All his wealth and power did not stop cancer from taking the life of the Shah of Iran. Ebola kills Americans just as effectively as it kills Africans. Of course there is variation within the species - some are brighter; some not so bright. Some stronger; some weaker. There is ample evidence, though, that we are all mutually human.

[mike777]

Winston may be very correct. Americans may die at the same rate as Africans and wealth and power may not matter when it comes to Ebola. I just hope people are open that this may be incorrect.



I only posit that wealth may somehow someway lead to higher educated populations, not the opposite arrow that education leads to wealth. That wealth leads to a higher survival rate ebola.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2014-October-25, 00:00, said:

Winston may be very correct. Americans may die at the same rate as Africans and wealth and power may not matter when it comes to Ebola. I just hope people are open that this may be incorrect.



I only posit that wealth may somehow someway lead to higher educated populations, not the opposite arrow that education leads to wealth. That wealth leads to a higher survival rate ebola.

So you are claiming the wealthy are inherently superior. Got it.

[kenberg]

I don't usually rush to Mike's defense but he said nothing about the rich being inherently superior. If you are seriously ill, say if you have a rare and dangerous heart problem, being rich could be useful. If you wish to have yout kids go to a strong high school, being able to buy a house at the inflated price that they sell for in a neighborhood with good schools could be useful. Saying that wealth can at times be very useful is not at all saying that the wealthy are inherently superior, no matter is meant by inherently superior.

"I've been poor and I've been rich. Rich is better." --- Sophie Tucker.

I can see some truth in that.

I can truthfully say that I have never had the slightest interest in doing what is required to become rich. I have my own sense, set fairly low actually, of what constitutes enough. I can pay my bills, I cannot fly to Paris on a whim, somewhere in between the two it is time to relax. But wealth has its uses. We have probably all had some experience of being in a jam, a stalled car maybe, and giving some kid twenty bucks to help us out of the jam. Well, some people can give 20K. I try hard not to get into jams that require that sort of help.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-October-25, 13:50, said:

I don't usually rush to Mike's defense but he said nothing about the rich being inherently superior. If you are seriously ill, say if you have a rare and dangerous heart problem, being rich could be useful. If you wish to have yout kids go to a strong high school, being able to buy a house at the inflated price that they sell for in a neighborhood with good schools could be useful. Saying that wealth can at times be very useful is not at all saying that the wealthy are inherently superior, no matter is meant by inherently superior.

"I've been poor and I've been rich. Rich is better." --- Sophie Tucker.

I can see some truth in that.

I can truthfully say that I have never had the slightest interest in doing what is required to become rich. I have my own sense, set fairly low actually, of what constitutes enough. I can pay my bills, I cannot fly to Paris on a whim, somewhere in between the two it is time to relax. But wealth has its uses. We have probably all had some experience of being in a jam, a stalled car maybe, and giving some kid twenty bucks to help us out of the jam. Well, some people can give 20K. I try hard not to get into jams that require that sort of help.

Ken,

I knew that is not what he said - but he was making the point that my claim (that we are indeed equal) could be wrong because the rich have a better survival chance. I do not dispute that better medical care improves survival chances. That does not invalidate the notion that all humans are equally susceptible to ebola - and so far there is not cure for that virus.

And being able to afford better care in no way makes one person better than another.

[blackshoe]

I think we have to decide what "equal" means. Does it mean we take from the rich to give to the poor? Does it mean forced bussing? Does it mean job quotas? Does it mean everybody has to join the union? Or does it simply mean that no one is denied an opportunity of which he wants to take advantage for any reason other than lack of ability? On that: I could, for example, say that I want to be an Olympic skier. However, I am 67 years old, overweight, out of shape, and have never skied in my life. If I applied to the US Olympic ski team, it would be ridiculous for me to expect anything other than rejection. Yes, three of those conditions are correctable - up to a point and with more effort than I'm willing to make. The other one isn't - and that one means that I cannot compete with younger skiers. So am I "equal" to them?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-26, 06:41, said:

I think we have to decide what "equal" means. Does it mean we take from the rich to give to the poor? Does it mean forced bussing? Does it mean job quotas? Does it mean everybody has to join the union? Or does it simply mean that no one is denied an opportunity of which he wants to take advantage for any reason other than lack of ability? On that: I could, for example, say that I want to be an Olympic skier. However, I am 67 years old, overweight, out of shape, and have never skied in my life. If I applied to the US Olympic ski team, it would be ridiculous for me to expect anything other than rejection. Yes, three of those conditions are correctable - up to a point and with more effort than I'm willing to make. The other one isn't - and that one means that I cannot compete with younger skiers. So am I "equal" to them?

There is variation within species - but each member of the species is the same fundamentally. You require intake of oxygen; so do union members. You require sleep; so do those children bussed into your school district. You require food as fuel; so do young skiers.

You must evacuate waste material; other choose not to speak.

[kenberg]

For me, "All men are created equal" is an assertion about how we intend to treat people. It is not at all an assertion that people have equal abilities, or that they are could each of us die from ebola, or that we will all die of something. Rather it is some sort of idealistic statement about our intentions. Something like "All equal under the law", but more general. I think it is not a coincidence that before Jefferson finishes this sentence he speaks of a Creator The notion has some relationship to "We are all God's children" (a statement I accept as long as we agree it is a manner of speaking rather than a literal claim). The French went with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. This didn't work out for them, at least not right away, but I think it is the same concept.

Thus I see the assertion as neither true nor false in a direct factual way, but rather as something of a commitment. We can, and we do, argues about what this commits us to, and how well we are doing with it.

At any rate, I chose it as one example of something that I believe happens often. A fundamental view is accepted, but the acceptance cannot be logically justified. It's a choice, a chosen path.

Jefferson may well have seen it the same way since saying it is self-evident really is an announcement that he does not intend to argue the point.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2014-October-26, 10:17, said:

Jefferson may well have seen it the same way since saying it is self-evident really is an announcement that he does not intend to argue the point.

Exactly. If you want to liken it to logic, it's like the postulates in Euclid's geometry. By definition, they're not provable, they have to be taken as given, i.e. self-evident.

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-October-26, 10:17, said:

For me, "All men are created equal" is an assertion about how we intend to treat people. It is not at all an assertion that people have equal abilities, or that they are could each of us die from ebola, or that we will all die of something. Rather it is some sort of idealistic statement about our intentions. Something like "All equal under the law", but more general. I think it is not a coincidence that before Jefferson finishes this sentence he speaks of a Creator The notion has some relationship to "We are all God's children" (a statement I accept as long as we agree it is a manner of speaking rather than a literal claim). The French went with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. This didn't work out for them, at least not right away, but I think it is the same concept.

Thus I see the assertion as neither true nor false in a direct factual way, but rather as something of a commitment. We can, and we do, argues about what this commits us to, and how well we are doing with it.

At any rate, I chose it as one example of something that I believe happens often. A fundamental view is accepted, but the acceptance cannot be logically justified. It's a choice, a chosen path.

Jefferson may well have seen it the same way since saying it is self-evident really is an announcement that he does not intend to argue the point.

Well, he's certainly not around to argue it now.

I think you and I are in agreement, Ken. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I like the Wiccan (I think - one of the neopagan religions, anyway) formulation: "An' it harm none, do what thou wilt." A corollary of that is that you don't prevent, or attempt to prevent, someone else from doing what he wants to do, as long as no one is harmed by it.

[onoway]

this link might be of interest: I don't know why it isn't coming up in blue but copy/paste works
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/millennials-godless-politics-religous-conservatives?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

And getting back to the spying technology etc, someone sent me this, which I found interesting..
https://www.youtube....bed/Q8xz8xKEFvU

[blackshoe]

Onoway's article link.

Possibly it didn't come up "in blue" because you left the http:// off the front of it. FWIW, on my computer, even good links are not in blue, they're just underlined.

How did I hide the actual link behind the text? Copy the link to the clipboard. Type the text. Highlight it. Just to the right of the "emoticons" icon above is one called "insert link". Click on it. Paste the link in the first box (the text you highlighted will be in the second box) and click "insert link". Done.

[onoway]

thank you. Is it obnoxious for people not to do all that? I'll try to remember but computers and I are uneasy companions at the best of times. It's nice of you to explain how, though.

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2014-October-28, 23:57, said:

thank you. Is it obnoxious for people not to do all that? I'll try to remember but computers and I are uneasy companions at the best of times. It's nice of you to explain how, though.

Obnoxious? Not in my opinion since I often just paste the link w/o prettying it up. I often find myself needing a little advice on computer things. I try to stay in toch with the modern age, but there are times when i just say oh screw it, it's more work than it is worth.I do in fact think that all of this computer stuff is interesting and useful, but at times it is also immensely frustrating. I have never really wished to become a cyborg.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-October-29, 06:16, said:

I try to stay in toch with the modern age, but there are times when i just say oh screw it, it's more work than it is worth.

Congratulations, Ken. You are now entitled to entry into Old Fogeydom where you will learn such spiffy phrases as, "These kids today..." and "How can they..." and "Is it me or...".

[helene_t]

Vaguely related to the OP I just came across an Americna company hirering in Europe, using the following warning: you should know that the general level of protection for personal information in the United States may not be the same as that provided in other countries

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-October-29, 10:24, said:

Congratulations, Ken. You are now entitled to entry into Old Fogeydom where you will learn such spiffy phrases as, "These kids today..." and "How can they..." and "Is it me or...".

i know, I know.

[mycroft]

helene_t, on 2014-October-29, 10:32, said:

Vaguely related to the OP I just came across an American company hiring in Europe, using the following warning: you should know that the general level of protection for personal information in the United States may not be the same as that provided in other countries

In other words: "You know that Data Protection Law you have in the UK/EU? Yeah, we ain't following it, and we hope you won't notice you're waiving those rights." Now, to give them credit, they don't really have much of a choice.