WTF is Happening in Texas? 666 New Laws in Effect Today

[Mihalik]

I wouldn't be too certain about that...

Last I checked, the functioning of a lightbulb has fuckall to do with my belief or lack of belief in electricity.

[Specialka]

It's not just the 6 weeks.

- $10,000 bounties on the heads of anyone helping an abortion and pregnant women.
- Zero exceptions including for rape, incest and others.
- Zero punishments for false accusations.

This is as bad as it gets when it comes to right wing extremism yet people are defending it.

Yes, that law is far too extreme and it sets some kind of precedent in the sense that you can circumvent a lot of existing law by having the citizens doing the suing and such. Unfortunately, it will probably give idea to others states that want that kind of law.

[Endus]

And even in such a scenario it would still make sense to try and figure out what the rules are for the simulation.

Right. It's a philosophical point; it COULD be true, but if it IS true, there's no way to tell, and because there's no way to tell, there's no point in considering the possibility.

Once you dismiss it, "science" as a field proceeds from base notions by observation and analysis alone; there is no "faith" required. Indeed, even that the rules of the universe are consistent is a conclusion drawn from observation, not an assumed principle.

[Santti]

Gonna ignore the rest of your post, @Edge already answered you well enough I feel.

What kind of wisdom are we talking about here? Is it the wisdom of stoning gays or burning witches on pyres? Or is the wisdom to treat the plague with cow dung and bleeding? Or is it the wisdom that teenagers born into the wrong gender shouldn't be allowed to feel different and we shouldn't allow them to practice the "centuries old tradition of field hockey"? Wait...what about the wisdom of not allowing women to play any sport at all anyway? I mean centuries old traditions say women belong in the kitchen after all, what is this underdeveloped idea of "sports"?

Appeal to tradition... such a strange thing to argue, for sure.

If "tradition" is all you have for why you are doing something, anything, it's time look for better reasons, or discard the activity altogether. Maybe forge newer, better practices in it's place.

But as has been noted before, it's not supposed to make sense. Not in politics. It's supposed to tug at the garrote wires they have in place of heart strings.

[Endus]

Appeal to tradition... such a strange thing to argue, for sure.

If "tradition" is all you have for why you are doing something, anything, it's time look for better reasons, or discard the activity altogether. Maybe forge newer, better practices in it's place.

But as has been noted before, it's not supposed to make sense. Not in politics.

Like I said earlier; if the "tradition" has merit, you can argue based on those merits, not that it's "traditional".

Appealing to tradition is essentially an admission that the position is meritless, if not outright abusive and harmful.

[Poopymonster]

Too generalized to mean anything.
To clarify, this link has meaning; Wisdom is found in our heritage, not our cell phones

To quote Tim Minchin about traditions "Just cuz ideas are tenacious doesn't mean they are worthy"

[Zython]

It's very simple:

The acknowledgement that there might be more wisdom in centuries old traditions than there is in under-developed modern day ideas.

Most of the ideas conservatives complain about predate their ideas.

We have after all clearly seen what modern technocratic theories and data has brought us in Afghanistan: complete failure of achieving any lasting or meaningful goals.

Good thing no one else has ever lost a war ever, or this would be dumb as hell.

Which seems to sum up the overall performance of liberalism in the long-term too. A lot of freedom sure, but less and less the ability to make any meaningful use from it

Define "meaningful use".

as mental illness, wealth inequality and infertility goes through the roof

Again, killing the mentally ill, poor, and infertile isn't actually solving those issues.

and the only way to keep sustaining the system is by importing a sub-class of wage slaves, whom in many cases are disconnected from the local culture or show an affinity to ideologies such as the Taliban etc.

Really? Most of the people who I've seen supporting the Taliban here have been rich white people. What's their excuse?

Sometimes the best way forward isn't the one where everything is sunshine and rainbows, but where there is more sacrifice and hardship.

See, the thing is that conservatives don't actually believe this. If they did, they would give all their money to brown people and live in the hinterlands wallowing in their own excrement. They don't, they just cosplay it occasionally.

[Kaleredar]

I wouldn't be too certain about that...

Has Connal been so long that you've decided to take up the reins on posting trite, pseudo-philosophical, circle-jerking blather in his stead?

[Noxx79]

I wouldn't be too certain about that...

Bullshit.

With science I can see every step of the way. It will always come down to math, actually.

Faith always ends with someone saying “because [religious figure/diety] psaid so”.

Don’t project the fact that you’re too lazy onto others.

[Hollycakes]

This is such nonsense posing as knowledge it's laughable.
It feels like reading a 9th graders book report who took one summer college class and thinks they have it all figured out.
I can be very certain about that.

My fav bit is "modern technocratic theories and data"
Then comes "mental illness, wealth inequality and infertility goes through the roof"

I guess they pulled that from their modern technocratic data!

Also re: Correlation and Causation
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3...+and+causation

[Darththeo]

Appeal to tradition... such a strange thing to argue, for sure.

If "tradition" is all you have for why you are doing something, anything, it's time look for better reasons, or discard the activity altogether. Maybe forge newer, better practices in it's place.

But as has been noted before, it's not supposed to make sense. Not in politics. It's supposed to tug at the garrote wires they have in place of heart strings.

What is laughable, is they aren't actually even talking about traditions that are that old. Like they argue marriage is one man and one woman ... that's a relatively recent thing. Marriages often involved extended families, and the traditional thing they cling to isn't that old.

Tradition is whatever they want to claim it as, whether it is the traditional form or not.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't be too certain about that...

Not really. Whether I am a brain in a jar or a monkey that's a little more intelligent or even an advanced computer code, all that matters is that I am experiencing something and that experience is capable of being measured reliably. That's not really faith.

[Endus]

I hate to break it to you, but ever since the neo-mythology created in the aftermath of WW2 there are entire areas of science in which actively researching or measuring anything objectively is highly discouraged or socially not even allowed. I could drop several names of researchers against which the criticism levied never is based on any objective data or anything that was observed and measured, but entirely on the socially acceptable narrative.

This is just bullshit. The only "area" of science that's not permitted is experimentation on humans, and even there, it's just highly restricted and managed. Because the issue with human experimentation is that the subjects are people, and those people have rights which must be protected.

That's why eugenics isn't tolerated. Not because it's ineffective or because the science isn't practically achievable, but because any attempt to do so necessarily requires the subjugation of a human population to use as lab rats.

There is still science done on humans. That's how new medicines are developed, after a certain point; human testing is inevitable. But it's done with volunteers who are well aware of the potential risks of involvement and agree to the process.

Science today is not free or honest. It is controlled by a certain ideological narrative.

Bullshit. You have no basis for this. You're just engaging in science denialism. May as well be ranting about the flat Earth, at this point.

It's pretty clear you're just trying to waffle around and bring up "scientific racism" without coming right out and saying that's what you're talking about. But you're not that subtle. And scientific racism is just naked, hate-fueled racism. The excuses it gives to defend that hatred have the veneer of science, but it's all pseudoscience crackpot nonsense once you scratch the surface; a passel of lies used to conceal the misanthropy and cruelty that motivates the racism itself. I'm comfortable making that statement because you keep talking about "since WWII", and it was after WWII that scientific racism was fully debunked and denounced.

You're pushing empty, blathering racism, and whining that you can't be openly, viciously, sadistically racist to people any more. That's it. That's all you're whining about, really.

[Yetanothernewbie]

I hate to break it to you, but ever since the neo-mythology created in the aftermath of WW2 there are entire areas of science in which actively researching or measuring anything objectively is highly discouraged or socially not even allowed. I could drop several names of researchers against which the criticism levied never is based on any objective data or anything that was observed and measured, but entirely on the socially acceptable narrative.

Science today is not free or honest. It is controlled by a certain ideological narrative. Any scientific findings that go against that narrative are summarily dismissed. There is a new religion that lives in many people's hearts and minds today, they just are very convinced of themselves that it's not a religion but 'true science and facts'... which obviously isn't true. They are faithful worshippers of the post WW2 mythos, most people are.

What a steaming pile of horseshit.

[Endus]

Of course you would be forced to say this, anything else would force you to accept that your own ideology and beliefs are based on... fake bullshit, which they are.

I'm not the one refusing to back up their position with an actual evidence-based argument.

Well, thanks for admitting that the social narrative to you is more important than science and facts at least. It is a good first step.

I made no such admission.

Ironically, you are the one pushing a social narrative, one that favors a misanthropically racist point of view, specifically. Me pointing out that your support of "scientific racism" is bunk pseudoscience with no validity and only a motive of sadism behind it is the position based on science and facts.

You're pushing racism. You're upset you can't subjugate people of other ethnicities that you see as inferior. It's really not any more complicated or deep than that, and it has no basis in science or fact whatsoever. Just pseudoscientific lies used to hide that truth.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask yourself, would you accept the science and facts if they went against your religious faith in things such as equality? Of course not.

I would. They don't. Not remotely, not even a little, not by any stretch of any imagination that isn't coming from a racist's head who has predetermined conclusions they will misrepresent the data to support.

You're pushing bigoted pseudoscience that's been thoroughly debunked for 70+ years.

[Santti]

Well, thanks for admitting that the social narrative to you is more important than science and facts at least. It is a good first step.

Ask yourself, would you accept the science and facts if they went against your religious faith in things such as equality? Of course not.

You say the first part, questioning someone's adherence to science and facts, only to say the second part, openly stating how unfair it is, when science and facts don't align with your core beliefs.

What kind of nonsense is this?

[Endus]

That is where you are wrong.

I'm not 'pushing' anything, I'm engaged in a conversation. A lifelong conversation if you will, where you are welcome to challenge my views in equal measure as I try to challenge others in their views. Perhaps you can provide any reasonable arguments beyond just stating that something is "bullshit" or "pseudo-science" and I might change my mind on those subjects, but as it stands now I've over the past years consumed more evidence on the contrary. Sadly I'm not someone who goes out of their way to save sources in a notepad or such. Not that it matters, most of the time when sources are provided discussions go on a very dull tangent on whether or not the source is reliable or cherry-picked, a tangent in which I'm not interested.

You can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

It's also not my job to convince you of anything. This is a forum. We're performing for an audience. I'm explaining to them how meritless your position is; you being unwilling to accept that truth is simply not my problem in any way whatsoever.

However, in the interest of ensuring this dunk is fully slammed, enjoy;

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ism-180972243/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...693_story.html
https://library.harvard.edu/confront...entific-racism
https://www.theguardian.com/news/201...f-race-science
https://www.americanscientist.org/bl...n-race-science
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs...89268020953622

Your position is pseudoscience that has been repeatedly debunked and demonstrated to be malicious in intent, every time it crops up. It has no validity. You're pushing a racist social agenda and cloaking it under a false claim of scientific validity.

[Xyonai]

That is where you are wrong.

I'm not 'pushing' anything, I'm engaged in a conversation. A lifelong conversation if you will, where you are welcome to challenge my views in equal measure as I try to challenge others in their views.

What views? All you've done since you came into the thread is unload a bunch of platitudes and empty rhetoric and adamantly refuse to elaborate on anything you're talking about beyond 'No, you're wrong because I said so'.

Time would be better spent debating a freshly painted wall in the hopes one can convince it to dry faster.

[Endus]

You would do well to read the quick links you googled.

The first article already points out in it's first paragraph that modern day science is ruled by an ideology, not by objective findings:

That's not what it's saying, at all. It's acknowledging that no one is free of bias. That's simply a fact.

Ironically, pointing to how some racist scientists conduct shoddy science to back their racist views.

Some of the other articles also seem entirely taken by an ideological or even religious conviction rather than basing their opinions on anything measurable as fact.

Nah.

And I'll note you don't have any reputable sources you can cite. Not a one. And you know it, which is why you won't bother, and you keep trying to deflect. You'd think I'd be easy to debunk if you could do it. I'm making pretty unequivocal statements, here. And yet, you don't even try.

[Santti]

You would do well to read the quick links you googled.

The first article already points out in it's first paragraph that modern day science is ruled by an ideology, not by objective findings:

That's not what it says. It says that we humans are biased by nature, and everything we do is colored by said bias. It's not a statement of ideology.

[draynay]

Sadly I'm not someone who goes out of their way to save sources in a notepad or such. Not that it matters, most of the time when sources are provided discussions go on a very dull tangent on whether or not the source is reliable or cherry-picked, a tangent in which I'm not interested.

Gee, thanks for not sending the thread on a very dull tangent.