The Deadilest Animal
David V. Loewe, Jr
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
----------
Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to cause
your violent death is: you.
Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
year around one million people � predominantly men � kill themselves.
The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there is
no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
death. For the young, worldwide, it�s in the top five.
----------
Wow. Just wow.
--
"Just think of it as evolution in action."
Tony Rand in Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's
'Oath of Fealty'
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> ...to you *is* you.
>
> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>
> ----------
> Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to cause
> your violent death is: you.
>
> Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
> Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
> homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
> year around one million people � predominantly men � kill themselves.
> The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there is
> no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
> death. For the young, worldwide, it�s in the top five.
A million a year is well under the estimate for average democide over
the 20th century, however--perhaps we're just in a lull at the moment.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> ...to you *is* you.
>>
>> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>>
>> ----------
>> Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to cause
>> your violent death is: you.
>>
>> Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
>> Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
>> homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
>> year around one million people � predominantly men � kill themselves.
>> The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there is
>> no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
>> death. For the young, worldwide, it�s in the top five.
>
>A million a year is well under the estimate for average democide over
>the 20th century, however--perhaps we're just in a lull at the moment.
Do you think that perhaps WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and various communist
purges ran up the score on some of those 20th Century numbers?
--
"Even when uttered by Democrats, middle class often sounds like a
mealymouthed way of saying, Us, and not them, where them includes poor
people, snake handlers and those with pierced tongues."
- Barbara Ehrenreich
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:33 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> ...to you *is* you.
> >>
> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=scie
> >> nce
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to cause
> >> your violent death is: you.
> >>
> >> Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
> >> Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
> >> homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
> >> year around one million people � predominantly men � kill themselves.
> >> The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there is
> >> no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
> >> death. For the young, worldwide, it�s in the top five.
> >
> >A million a year is well under the estimate for average democide over
> >the 20th century, however--perhaps we're just in a lull at the moment.
>
> Do you think that perhaps WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and various communist
> purges ran up the score on some of those 20th Century numbers?
Rummel's democide figures are limited to people killed by their own
government, so most of the WWI and WWII numbers don't count. The Belgian
Congo, on the other hand, does.
That aside, to the extent that there were episodes of very large scale
killing at various points in the past and not at the moment, one might
describe this as a lull.
Karl Johanson
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-6B5901.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <jljcd5hjg4h5gbj9m...@4ax.com>,
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:50:33 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ...to you *is* you.
>> >>
>> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=scie
>> >> nce
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to
>> >> cause
>> >> your violent death is: you.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
>> >> Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
>> >> homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
>> >> The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there
>> >> is
>> >> no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
>> >> death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>> >
>> >A million a year is well under the estimate for average democide over
>> >the 20th century, however--perhaps we're just in a lull at the moment.
>>
>> Do you think that perhaps WWI, WWII, the Holocaust and various communist
>> purges ran up the score on some of those 20th Century numbers?
>
> Rummel's democide figures are limited to people killed by their own
> government, so most of the WWI and WWII numbers don't count. The Belgian
> Congo, on the other hand, does.
>
> That aside, to the extent that there were episodes of very large scale
> killing at various points in the past and not at the moment, one might
> describe this as a lull.
Or hopefully a trend.
Karl Johanson
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>
> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
-- wds
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
--
"When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the
philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes
the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves."
Michelle Minton
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
> >
> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=scie
> >> nce
> >>
> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
> >
> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>
> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
not at birth at some later point, for many people.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>> Starr) wrote:
>> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
>> >
>> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=scie
>> >> nce
>> >>
>> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
>> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
>> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>> >
>> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>>
>> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>
>A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
>expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
>own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
>not at birth at some later point, for many people.
That would be morally wrong.
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> >> Starr) wrote:
> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
> >> >
> >> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=s
> >> >> cie
> >> >> nce
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
> >> >
> >> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
> >>
> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
> >
> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>
> That would be morally wrong.
What would be?
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>> >> Starr) wrote:
>> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
>> >> >
>> >> >> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
>> >> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
>> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>> >> >
>> >> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>> >>
>> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>> >
>> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
>> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
>> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
>> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>>
>> That would be morally wrong.
>
>What would be?
To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
--
"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know
that you would lie if you were in his place."
- Robert Heinlein
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
>> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
>> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
>> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many
>> people.
>
> That would be morally wrong.
If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
-- wds
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
--
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their
intentions rather than their results."
- Milton Friedman
Keith F. Lynch
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> quoted:
>>>> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>>>> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>>>> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
>>>> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
>>>> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>>> Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many people.
You're assuming William was saying suicide is smart. He may have been
saying that murder is stupid. If murder is stupid, then it's good
that the murder rate has dropped below the suicide rate.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Karl Johanson
news:1c7cd5t891aifbnhc...@4ax.com...
> ...to you *is* you.
>
> http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>
> ----------
> Today, in many parts of the world, the human being most likely to cause
> your violent death is: you.
>
> Yes. You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50 years.
> Worldwide, deaths from suicide now outnumber deaths from war and
> homicide together: the World Health Organization estimates that each
> The true number is probably higher, because for many countries there is
> no data. In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten causes of
> death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
"Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld from me
I realize and I can see..."
netcat
dlo...@mindspring.com says...
As long as his beliefs do not influence others, who cares?
rgds,
netcat
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>On 15 Oct 2009 19:01:37 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>Starr) wrote:
>
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
>>>> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
>>>> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
>>>> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>
>>If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>
>Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
But is it factually wrong?
Will in New Haven
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:45:33 -0700, David Friedman
>
>
>
>
>
> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> Starr) wrote:
> >> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
>
> >> >> >>http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?re...
>
> >> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >> >> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> >> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>
> >> >> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>
> >> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>
> >> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
> >> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
> >> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
> >> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>
> >> That would be morally wrong.
>
> >What would be?
>
> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
think it is true? And how could it be morally wrong to think something
is true if that is where the evidence leads you?
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
> >>>>http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?re...
> >>>> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >>>> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >>>> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> >>>> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
> >>> Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
> > A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
> > the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
> > based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
> > it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>
> You're assuming William was saying suicide is smart. He may have been
> saying that murder is stupid. If murder is stupid, then it's good
> that the murder rate has dropped below the suicide rate.
Stupid or smart aren't central, in my opinion. The victim of a suicide
is a volunteer and the victim of a murder isn't. Murder is the greater
tragedy.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 8:17�pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> >>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
>> >>>>http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>> >>>> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> >>>> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
>> >>>> years. �[...] �In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
>> >>>> causes of death. �For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>> >>> Huh. �Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>> > A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
>> > the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
>> > based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
>> > it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>>
>> You're assuming William was saying suicide is smart. �He may have been
>> saying that murder is stupid. �If murder is stupid, then it's good
>> that the murder rate has dropped below the suicide rate.
>
>Stupid or smart aren't central, in my opinion.
"Smart" is absolutely central to my resultant commentary.
>The victim of a suicide is a volunteer
>and the victim of a murder isn't. Murder is the greater tragedy.
You know, you're basing this on a supposition, by a notoriously out of
touch poster, about William's statement that he has neither confirmed
nor denied.
--
"A lady came up to me on the street and pointed to my suede jacket.
"You know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" she sneered. I replied
in a psychotic tone, "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now
I'll have to kill you too."
- Jake Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
David V. Loewe, Jr
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Oct 15, 6:40嚙緘m, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:45:33 -0700, David Friedman
>> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
>> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> >> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
>> >> >> Starr) wrote:
>> >> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
>>
>> >> >> >>http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?ref=science
>>
>> >> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
>> >> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
>> >> >> >> years. 嚙稼...] 嚙瘢n some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
>> >> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>>
>> >> >> >Huh. 嚙瞑roof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>>
>> >> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>>
>> >> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
>> >> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
>> >> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
>> >> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>>
>> >> That would be morally wrong.
>>
>> >What would be?
>>
>> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>
>How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
>think it is true?
I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
>And how could it be morally wrong to think something
>is true if that is where the evidence leads you?
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
David V. Loewe, Jr
You're reaching...
--
"I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and that's just as good."
- D Gary Grady
David Friedman
I didn't assume from Keith's comment that he thought the conjecture he
offered was likely, only that he thought it was logically possible and
pointing it out interesting. Which it was.
And, on the broader subject of your interactions with Keith, note that
you have just gone out of your way to insult him in a discussion of
someone else's comment. The insult, as it happens, is true--but not very
relevant.
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
> >
> >How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
> >think it is true?
>
> I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
Whereas it strikes me as a natural question.
It may be very pessimistic to believe that suicide is often the right
choice--when my friend made her comment about expected utility, it led
me to suspect that she had had a pretty unhappy life. But how is it
morally wrong?
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>> >
>> >How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
>> >think it is true?
>>
>> I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
>
>Whereas it strikes me as a natural question.
>
>It may be very pessimistic to believe that suicide is often the right
>choice--when my friend made her comment about expected utility, it led
>me to suspect that she had had a pretty unhappy life. But how is it
>morally wrong?
Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled with
intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even come close
to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
--
"Doctor, Doctor, help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man."
Raymond Douglas Davies
David Loewe, Jr.
Which would be why I termed it a supposition.
>only that he thought it was logically possible and
>pointing it out interesting. Which it was.
----------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supposition
Main Entry: sup�po�si�tion
Pronunciation: \?s?-p?-?zi-sh?n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supposicioun, from Anglo-French supposicion,
from Late Latin supposition-, suppositio, from Latin, act of placing
beneath, from supponere
Date: 15th century
1 : something that is supposed : hypothesis
2 : the act of supposing
----------
A hypothesis. A possible alternate explanation.
>And, on the broader subject of your interactions with Keith, note that
>you have just gone out of your way to insult him in a discussion of
>someone else's comment.
On the other hand, I don't consider it to be an insult because A) Keith
has acknowledged as much in the past [1] and B) it is, as you indicate
below, true.
>The insult, as it happens, is true--but not very relevant.
It is very relevant. The fact that Keith does not think like most other
people means that his gut reactions and reasoned conclusions as to what
other people are thinking are going to, in general, be less accurate
than those who are more in touch.
[1] And, has in fact, in some instances, held this out as a point of
*pride*.
--
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever
count on having both at once."
-Lazarus Long
David Goldfarb
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:40:47 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>
>>But is it factually wrong?
>
>Does that matter?
Of course it does. What a strange question.
--
David Goldfarb |"Come on, characters with super-strength don't
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | *do* inertia! Or leverage."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Dani Zweig
David Loewe, Jr.
Goldfarb) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:40:47 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>>Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
>>>
>>>But is it factually wrong?
>>
>>Does that matter?
>
>Of course it does. What a strange question.
What is the point here? Do you think that David H. is implying that. if
it were not factually wrong, it couldn't be morally wrong?
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
Keith F. Lynch
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> You know, you're basing this on a supposition, by a notoriously
>> out of touch poster, about William's statement that he has neither
>> confirmed nor denied.
> I didn't assume from Keith's comment that he thought the conjecture
> he offered was likely, only that he thought it was logically
> possible and pointing it out interesting. Which it was.
> And, on the broader subject of your interactions with Keith,
> note that you have just gone out of your way to insult him in
> a discussion of someone else's comment.
And he wonders why I'm not replying to him.
> The insult, as it happens, is true--but not very relevant.
Et tu? I don't think I'm "notoriously out of touch."
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> You know, you're basing this on a supposition, by a notoriously
>>> out of touch poster, about William's statement that he has neither
>>> confirmed nor denied.
>
>> I didn't assume from Keith's comment that he thought the conjecture
>> he offered was likely, only that he thought it was logically
>> possible and pointing it out interesting. Which it was.
>
>> And, on the broader subject of your interactions with Keith,
>> note that you have just gone out of your way to insult him in
>> a discussion of someone else's comment.
>
>And he wonders why I'm not replying to him.
I don't wonder at all. You told me up front. It had to do with you
misrepresenting my words and then having a hissy fit when, after I
pointed it out to you numerous times, you were forced to confront the
fact that you *had* misrepresented my words. My assumption was that you
could no longer trust yourself to accurately portray my arguments, so
you gave yourself a much needed cooling down period to get your head
back together.
It would look far better for you if you had decided not to reply to
after I had done something even slightly objectionable.
>> The insult, as it happens, is true--but not very relevant.
>
>Et tu? I don't think I'm "notoriously out of touch."
You have said semantically equivalent things in the past - mostly trying
to contrast yourself with 'danes.
--
"Are you hiding somewhere behind those eyes?"
Ira Davies and John Oates
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:40:47 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>On 15 Oct 2009 19:01:37 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>>>Starr) wrote:
>>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
>>>>>> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
>>>>>> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
>>>>>> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>>>
>>>>If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>>>
>>>Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
>>
>>But is it factually wrong?
>
>Does that matter?
Yes, muchly. And there are followup questions, depending on your
answer.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > The insult, as it happens, is true--but not very relevant.
>
> Et tu? I don't think I'm "notoriously out of touch."
I think you are less connected to ordinary, current American culture
than most people, more likely to be ignorant of things that most people
know--many of which, although not all, are true.
Keith F. Lynch
> I think you are less connected to ordinary, current American culture
> than most people, more likely to be ignorant of things that most
> people know--many of which, although not all, are true.
I think I know more than most people. More history, more math, more
physics, more literature, more linguistics, more chemistry, more
geography, more law, more medicine, more music, more philosophy, etc.
I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
sports and celebrity gossip.
It's true that I pay little attention to the minutiae of politics,
e.g. who "my" congressman is and when he's up for re-election.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > I think you are less connected to ordinary, current American culture
> > than most people, more likely to be ignorant of things that most
> > people know--many of which, although not all, are true.
>
> I think I know more than most people.
Thus much of what you know is not in the category "things that most
people know."
...
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:40:47 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>>>On 15 Oct 2009 19:01:37 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>>>>Starr) wrote:
>>>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
>>>>>>> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
>>>>>>> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
>>>>>>> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>>>>
>>>>Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
>>>
>>>But is it factually wrong?
>>
>>Does that matter?
>
>Yes, muchly. And there are followup questions, depending on your
>answer.
I don't see how it matters. And, therefore, I'm not going to answer.
--
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind"
Hosea 8:7
Jay E. Morris
On 16-Oct-2009, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
> sports and celebrity gossip.
So you admint you're hopelessly out of touch with the general population?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
This Made Me Laugh
--
"Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me"
- Klaus Meine
Dorothy J Heydt
I'm even further .....
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Kip Williams
Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in neither
class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and irritating.
Kip W
Jay E. Morris
On 17-Oct-2009, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Jay E. Morris wrote:
> > On 16-Oct-2009, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
> >> sports and celebrity gossip.
> >
> > So you admit you're hopelessly out of touch with the general
> > population?
>
> Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
> trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
> population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in neither
> class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and irritating.
WWKD
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> >On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:45:33 -0700, David Friedman
> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
> >> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> >> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 15 Oct 2009 03:57:11 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
> >> >> >> Starr) wrote:
> >> >> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
>
>
> >> >> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> >> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >> >> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>
>
> >> >> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>
> >> >> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
> >> >> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
> >> >> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
> >> >> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>
> >> >> That would be morally wrong.
>
> >> >What would be?
>
> >> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>
> >How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
> >think it is true?
>
> I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
But I asked it. If you don't have an answer, maybe you should find
one. I believe following the evidence as you see it is always morally
correct.
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:19:19 -0700, David Friedman
>
>
>
> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>
> >> >How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
> >> >think it is true?
>
> >> I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
>
> >Whereas it strikes me as a natural question.
>
> >It may be very pessimistic to believe that suicide is often the right
> >choice--when my friend made her comment about expected utility, it led
> >me to suspect that she had had a pretty unhappy life. But how is it
> >morally wrong?
>
> Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled with
> intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even come close
> to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
To believe something is true, or may be true, is a long step from
advocating it. I believe that advocating suicide is wrong. I don't
believe _believing_ it might be the best choice is wrong.
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:44:00 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:23:12 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
> >>On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 06:08:20 -0700, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:40:47 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
> >>>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
> >>>>Starr) wrote:
> >>>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> said:
> >>>>>> David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure
> >>>>>>> the expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably
> >>>>>>> based on her own experience. It sounds as though William believes
> >>>>>>> it's negative, if not at birth at some later point, for many
> >>>>>>> people.
>
> >>>>>> That would be morally wrong.
>
> >>>>>If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>
> >>>>Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
>
> >>>But is it factually wrong?
>
> >>Does that matter?
>
> >Yes, muchly. And there are followup questions, depending on your
> >answer.
>
> I don't see how it matters. And, therefore, I'm not going to answer.
If it is factually true, which is a separate question, than it
_cannot_ be immoral to believe it. Else self-delusion is the only
moral choice.
David Goldfarb
Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
>trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
>population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in neither
>class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and irritating.
This is a bit like Lynne Truss's classification of people into
"wankers" and "barbarians" in _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
--
David Goldfarb |"Never argue with a pedant over nomenclature.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | It wastes your time and annoys the pedant."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Lois McMaster Bujold
David Goldfarb
>_cannot_ be immoral to believe it. Else self-delusion is the only
>moral choice.
This.
--
David Goldfarb |"The only thing better than messing with somebody's
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | sense of reality is messing with a whole LOTTA
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | people's sense of reality...."
| -- J. Michael Straczynski
David V. Loewe, Jr
William's remark, if he meant it the way I'm interpreting (and he's had
ample opportunity to debunk the interpretation), goes way beyond merely
believing it is the best choice - "Proof that people really are getting
smarter over time."
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226
David Loewe, Jr.
Then maybe *you're* morally bankrupt.
>If you don't have an answer, maybe you should find one. I believe following
>the evidence as you see it is always morally correct.
so, in your world, genocide could be morally correct?
--
"Oh a sleeping drunkard up in Central Park
Or the lion hunter in the jungle dark
Or the chinese dentist or the British Queen
They all fit together in the same machine"
-Vonnegut, Pack, Puerta, Drummond & North
David V. Loewe, Jr
I see that you have no moral grounding.
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
Kip Williams
> In article <wprCm.23924$cL1....@newsfe20.iad>,
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
>> trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
>> population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in neither
>> class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and irritating.
>
> This is a bit like Lynne Truss's classification of people into
> "wankers" and "barbarians" in _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
Some people imitate things I haven't even said yet. Darned annoying.
Kip W
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >To believe something is true, or may be true, is a long step from
> >advocating it. I believe that advocating suicide is wrong. I don't
> >believe _believing_ it might be the best choice is wrong.
>
> William's remark, if he meant it the way I'm interpreting (and he's had
> ample opportunity to debunk the interpretation), goes way beyond merely
> believing it is the best choice - "Proof that people really are getting
> smarter over time."
I took it as expressing a pessimistic view of human life, which I don't
think is wicked although it is, I hope, mistaken.
His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide is
often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it is
because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation. If more
people are killing themselves, it's because more people are correctly
perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to do."
> "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
> you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
> shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
> daughters.
I may have asked this before, but do you have a source for that
quote--some evidence that Gengis Khan actually said some version of it?
Daniel R. Reitman
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> I think you are less connected to ordinary, current American culture
>> than most people, more likely to be ignorant of things that most
>> people know--many of which, although not all, are true.
>
>I think I know more than most people. More history, more math, more
>physics, more literature, more linguistics, more chemistry, more
>geography, more law, more medicine, more music, more philosophy, etc.
>I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
>sports and celebrity gossip.
>
>It's true that I pay little attention to the minutiae of politics,
>e.g. who "my" congressman is and when he's up for re-election.
Keith:
I suggest you download a few episodes of Big Bang Theory and watch
Sheldon's interactions. You come across as a mild version of him.
Dan, ad nauseam
Thomas Womack
Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>If it is factually true, which is a separate question, than it
>_cannot_ be immoral to believe it. Else self-delusion is the only
>moral choice.
Is it so obvious that there aren't situations in which self-delusion
is the correct moral choice?
The ones I can think of are mostly medical, because of the marvels of
the placebo effect: people don't get better after strokes or recover
from aggressive cancers anything like as often as one would hope, but
I'm reasonably sure that people who believe firmly that they're not
going to make it make it less often than people who don't.
Tom
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled
> with intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even
> come close to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
This leads to the question: why should people only be permitted (by
morality, not law) to speak one side of an argument?
-- wds
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> William's remark, if he meant it the way I'm interpreting (and
>> he's had ample opportunity to debunk the interpretation), goes
>> way beyond merely believing it is the best choice - "Proof that
>> people really are getting smarter over time."
>
> I took it as expressing a pessimistic view of human life, which I
> don't think is wicked although it is, I hope, mistaken.
>
> His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide
> is often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it
> is because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation.
> If more people are killing themselves, it's because more people
> are correctly perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to
> do."
That seems a good summary, yes. Throw in also a dash of "And
they're smart enough to be able to reject all the pro-life -- in the
literal, not anti-abortion sense -- advocacy that they're immersed
in practically since birth."
-- wds
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
[ dialogue between David V. Loewe, Jr and Will in New Haven ]
>>>>>>>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What would be?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if
>>>>>> you think it is true?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe you're asking such a thing.
>>>>
>>>> But I asked it.
>>>
>>> Then maybe *you're* morally bankrupt.
>>
>> If you don't have an answer, maybe you should find one. I believe
>> following the evidence as you see it is always morally correct.
>
> so, in your world, genocide could be morally correct?
It seems a bit of a leap from "believe it is smart for young people
to kill themselves" to "believe that genocide could be morally
correct."
-- wds
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't
>>>> sure the expected value of utility at birth was
>>>> positive--presumably based on her own experience. It sounds as
>>>> though William believes it's negative, if not at birth at some
>>>> later point, for many people.
>>>
>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>
>> If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>
> Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
I'm curious as to what part of the foundation or basis of your
morality leads you to that belief.
-- wds
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
[ the final three speakers in this quoted dialigue are David
V. Loewe, Jr, Will in New Haven, and David V. Loewe, Jr again ]
>>>>>> But is it factually wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does that matter?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, muchly. And there are followup questions, depending on
>>>> your answer.
>>>
>>> I don't see how it matters. And, therefore, I'm not going to
>>> answer.
>>
>> If it is factually true, which is a separate question, than it
>> _cannot_ be immoral to believe it. Else self-delusion is the only
>> moral choice.
>
> I see that you have no moral grounding.
Do you believe that your moral grounding == *the* moral grounding?
-- wds
William December Starr
"So, how about them $LOCAL_SPORTS_FRANCHISE(PLURAL), eh?"
-- wds
William December Starr
Just tossing out a trivia (hah) point here:
Apparently there was something really big in the news a few
days about a "balloon boy" or something. I missed it entirely.
-- wds
Kip Williams
> Apparently there was something really big in the news a few
> days about a "balloon boy" or something. I missed it entirely.
I looked it up after hearing it referred to. Turns out the family is
from my home town.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >To believe something is true, or may be true, is a long step from
>> >advocating it. I believe that advocating suicide is wrong. I don't
>> >believe _believing_ it might be the best choice is wrong.
>>
>> William's remark, if he meant it the way I'm interpreting (and he's had
>> ample opportunity to debunk the interpretation), goes way beyond merely
>> believing it is the best choice - "Proof that people really are getting
>> smarter over time."
>
>I took it as expressing a pessimistic view of human life, which I don't
>think is wicked although it is, I hope, mistaken.
>
>His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide is
>often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it is
>because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation. If more
>people are killing themselves, it's because more people are correctly
>perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to do."
Which is morally wrong.
>> "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
>> you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
>> shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
>> daughters.
>
>I may have asked this before,
You have...
>but do you have a source for that
>quote--some evidence that Gengis Khan actually said some version of it?
No more so than any other quote from Genghis Khan.
--
"The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I figured out,
I have to learn again"
Don Henley, Mike Campbell & JD Souther
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
Then you are morally bankrupt.
--
"Khan...I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
Admiral James T. Kirk
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>
>> Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled
>> with intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even
>> come close to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
>
>This leads to the question: why should people only be permitted (by
>morality, not law) to speak one side of an argument?
This is the semantic equivalent of asking "Why should people be good?"
--
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all."
- James Graham, Marquis of Montrose
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
That isn't the starting point. The starting point is "How could it
possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you think it is true?"
Say that Tribe A is in direct competition with Tribe B. Someone in
Tribe A can truly believe that getting rid of Tribe B will make their
lives better. If they were to act on this, it would be genocide. And
*that* would be morally wrong.
--
"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
- John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy, 1981-1987
David V. Loewe, Jr
Starr) wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't
>>>>> sure the expected value of utility at birth was
>>>>> positive--presumably based on her own experience. It sounds as
>>>>> though William believes it's negative, if not at birth at some
>>>>> later point, for many people.
>>>>
>>>> That would be morally wrong.
>>>
>>> If one makes (and enforces) the decision for another person, yes.
>>
>> Believing the decision to be "smart" is morally wrong.
>
>I'm curious as to what part of the foundation or basis of your
>morality leads you to that belief.
Wow. Just wow.
--
"It's raining soup and we haven't built any soup bowls."
Dr. Jerry Pournelle
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>
>[ the final three speakers in this quoted dialigue are David
> V. Loewe, Jr, Will in New Haven, and David V. Loewe, Jr again ]
Why not just leave the attribution lines in there? They are clear. In
today's world, they do not take up much bandwidth. If you set them off
from the quoted text, they don't confuse the issue. It is just better
all around.
>>>>>>> But is it factually wrong?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that matter?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, muchly. And there are followup questions, depending on
>>>>> your answer.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how it matters. And, therefore, I'm not going to
>>>> answer.
>>>
>>> If it is factually true, which is a separate question, than it
>>> _cannot_ be immoral to believe it. Else self-delusion is the only
>>> moral choice.
>>
>> I see that you have no moral grounding.
>
>Do you believe that your moral grounding == *the* moral grounding?
I know that on this particular issue - the needless deaths of other
humans - it is.
--
"Killing is not wrong if it's for a purpose, if it's to keep your nation
free or protect your buddy. One of the most noble things you can do is
kill the enemy."
- Major Douglas A. Zembiec
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> said:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
>>> sports and celebrity gossip.
>>
>> So you admint you're hopelessly out of touch with the general
>> population?
>
>"So, how about them $LOCAL_SPORTS_FRANCHISE(PLURAL), eh?"
I'd rather talk about the $NON-LOCAL_SPORTS_FRANCHISE(PLURAL), okay?
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold
David Loewe, Jr.
Starr) wrote:
>"Jay E. Morris" <mor...@epsilon3.com> said:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such
>>> as sports and celebrity gossip.
>>
>> So you admint you're hopelessly out of touch with the general
>> population?
>
>Just tossing out a trivia (hah) point here:
>
>Apparently there was something really big in the news a few
>days about a "balloon boy" or something. I missed it entirely.
But, you *are* up to date on plump, tasty chicken feet. At least you
have that going for you, William.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
I'm not sure anyone can justify such a belief, but I expect pretty much
everyone holds it, whether or not he says he does.
Thus, a little later in the thread, we have:
(David L)
> so, in your world, genocide could be morally correct?
To which you replied:
"It seems a bit of a leap from "believe it is smart for young people
to kill themselves" to "believe that genocide could be morally
correct.""
If you don't believe that your moral grounding is the moral grounding,
what do you mean by the phrase "genocide could be morally correct?" If
there is no common moral grounding, just different ungrounded beliefs,
in what interesting sense is anything morally correct or incorrect?
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> That isn't the starting point. The starting point is "How could it
> possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you think it is true?"
>
> Say that Tribe A is in direct competition with Tribe B. Someone in
> Tribe A can truly believe that getting rid of Tribe B will make their
> lives better. If they were to act on this, it would be genocide. And
> *that* would be morally wrong.
But it's the action, not the belief, that is morally wrong in that case.
David Friedman
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
A good question--I'm curious as to whether you believe that they
shouldn't. Consider arguments on democracy vs dictatorship, pro and con
apartheid in South Africa, on whether or not average IQ varies by race,
on whether or not women are naturally different from men in intellectual
abilities, ... .
Are there none of those cases where you think that arguing one side is
morally wrong? To make it more specific, suppose one believes (as in
fact I do) that women are considerably less likely than men to have the
abilities that make them really first class mathematicians (because the
dispersion of intellectual abilities tends to be higher for males than
for females, and first class mathematicians are far out on the tail of
the relevant distribution). Couldn't one argue that arguing for that
proposition is immoral, at least anywhere where the argument will reach
potential female mathematicians, since it will discourage any who do
have the relevant abilities from pursuing a mathematical career?
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide is
> >often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it is
> >because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation. If more
> >people are killing themselves, it's because more people are correctly
> >perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to do."
>
> Which is morally wrong.
It's morally wrong to have a pessimistic view of human life? Why?
Will in New Haven
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:54:51 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
>
>
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 16, 12:25 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:46:32 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:45:33 -0700, David Friedman
> >> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> >> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:50:40 -0700, David Friedman
> >> >> >> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Starr) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> quoted:
>
> >> >> >> >> >>http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/a-long-melancholy-roar/?re...
>
> >> >> >> >> >> You are the person most likely to kill yourself violently and on
> >> >> >> >> >> purpose. Suicide rates have risen dramatically over the past 50
> >> >> >> >> >> years. [...] In some countries, suicide is now among the top ten
> >> >> >> >> >> causes of death. For the young, worldwide, it's in the top five.
>
> >> >> >> >> >Huh. Proof that people really are getting smarter over time.
>
> >> >> >> >> Just what is *that* supposed to mean?
>
> >> >> >> >A friend and colleague of mine long ago said that she wasn't sure the
> >> >> >> >expected value of utility at birth was positive--presumably based on her
> >> >> >> >own experience. It sounds as though William believes it's negative, if
> >> >> >> >not at birth at some later point, for many people.
>
> >> >> >> That would be morally wrong.
>
>
> >> >> To believe it is smart for young people to kill themselves.
>
> >> >How could it possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you
> >> >think it is true?
>
>
> >But I asked it.
>
> Then maybe *you're* morally bankrupt.
>
> >If you don't have an answer, maybe you should find one. I believe following
> >the evidence as you see it is always morally correct.
>
You're an asshole and I'm pretty sure you are insane. "Thinking"
something is true when the evidence points that way cannot be immoral
or self-delusion is mandatory.
Now go kill yourself.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> In article <m59ld5dlb9umknfeck8qpcvu482ign7...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >To believe something is true, or may be true, is a long step from
> > >advocating it. I believe that advocating suicide is wrong. I don't
> > >believe _believing_ it might be the best choice is wrong.
>
> > William's remark, if he meant it the way I'm interpreting (and he's had
> > ample opportunity to debunk the interpretation), goes way beyond merely
> > believing it is the best choice - "Proof that people really are getting
> > smarter over time."
>
> I took it as expressing a pessimistic view of human life, which I don't
> think is wicked although it is, I hope, mistaken.
>
> His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide is
> often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it is
> because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation. If more
> people are killing themselves, it's because more people are correctly
> perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to do."
>
> > "The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
> > you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
> > shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
> > daughters.
>
> I may have asked this before, but do you have a source for that
> quote--some evidence that Gengis Khan actually said some version of it?
Why would he need any. If he says so, it is morally wrong not to
believe him.
Will in New Haven
> In article <oc9ld5h2goh6f3v1rdooq98cg02okhu...@4ax.com>,
But we must believe it is a _correct_ leap or be morally bankrupt.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2009 05:04:34 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
>
> Starr) wrote:
> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> >> Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled
> >> with intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even
> >> come close to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
>
> >This leads to the question: why should people only be permitted (by
> >morality, not law) to speak one side of an argument?
>
> This is the semantic equivalent of asking "Why should people be good?"
And they have to practice "good-think" as well as "good speak" because
believing that 3*3=9 is morally wrong if our Leader says it is. Pardon
me if that should be Our Leader.
I never said anyone should advocate suicide. Except for telling you to
kill yourself, asshole.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2009 05:13:10 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
But "thinking" it would not. It would probably be insane but that's
different.
Now kill yourself.
Keith F. Lynch
> I never said anyone should advocate suicide. Except for telling you
> to kill yourself, asshole.
When David Loewe gets on your nerves, I suggest you stop replying
to him, as I do, rather than let the level of discourse degenerate
this far.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> > I never said anyone should advocate suicide. Except for telling you
> > to kill yourself, asshole.
>
> When David Loewe gets on your nerves, I suggest you stop replying
> to him, as I do, rather than let the level of discourse degenerate
> this far
That's probably true as his argument by assertion tilts me.
Keith F. Lynch
> Apparently there was something really big in the news a few
> days about a "balloon boy" or something. I missed it entirely.
Not me. There has *never* been a news story that I missed entirely.
That's right, I can't think of a single one, ever!
(I don't really need to put a smiley on that, do I?)
It's just as well that you missed the saga of the poor little boy who
was trapped on a balloon, or who fell from it, since it turns out that
it never happened.
Keith F. Lynch
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I do well on trivia contests, except in a few categories such as
>>> sports and celebrity gossip.
>> So you admint you're hopelessly out of touch with the general
>> population?
> "So, how about them $LOCAL_SPORTS_FRANCHISE(PLURAL), eh?"
I think they have an excellent chance this year at the
$MAJOR_RELEVANT_SPORTING_EVENT. I can't hardly begin tell you
how much I'm looking forward to it! $APPROPRIATE_CHEERING_PHRASE!
"My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball,
but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not
forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >His point as I read it was "human life is bad enough that suicide is
>> >often the rational choice; people fail to take it even when it is
>> >because they aren't willing to face the facts of the situation. If more
>> >people are killing themselves, it's because more people are correctly
>> >perceiving that it's the sensible thing for them to do."
>>
>> Which is morally wrong.
>
>It's morally wrong to have a pessimistic view of human life?
My take on what William said is that it goes well beyond being simply
pessimistic and swerves into outright, if mild, advocacy.
>Why?
--
"There is a move in the Texas legislature to put the words 'The Lone
Star State' in our plain looking car plates. One representative
unsuccessfully tried to ammend it to 'The Savings and Lone Star State'."
- Martin Soques
David Loewe, Jr.
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 11:48�am, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2009 05:04:34 -0400, wdst...@panix.com (William December
>> Starr) wrote:
>> >"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>
>> >> Absent some extenuating circumstance (incurable illness coupled
>> >> with intractable pain, for example), it is morally wrong to even
>> >> come close to advocating suicide - especially to the young.
>>
>> >This leads to the question: why should people only be permitted (by
>> >morality, not law) to speak one side of an argument?
>>
>> This is the semantic equivalent of asking "Why should people be good?"
>
>And they have to practice "good-think" as well as "good speak" because
>believing that 3*3=9 is morally wrong if our Leader says it is. Pardon
>me if that should be Our Leader.
SHINY!
>I never said anyone should advocate suicide.
Are you William December Starr? If not (and I believe you go by
"William Reich"), I haven't accused you of advocating suicide.
>Except for telling you to
>kill yourself, asshole.
Thanks for confirming my impression of you...
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
David Loewe, Jr.
Seeing as we are discussing morals - which are essentially opinions,
what concrete proof would you accept about the subject? What concrete
proof could be offered? What else *can* I do but offer up my opinion -
which would be nothing but an assertion?
That you expect anything else on this subject is, frankly, laughable.
--
"On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> That isn't the starting point. The starting point is "How could it
>> possibly be morally wrong to believe something if you think it is true?"
>>
>> Say that Tribe A is in direct competition with Tribe B. Someone in
>> Tribe A can truly believe that getting rid of Tribe B will make their
>> lives better. If they were to act on this, it would be genocide. And
>> *that* would be morally wrong.
>
>But it's the action, not the belief, that is morally wrong in that case.
I say you're wrong.
--
"My carriers will stay here if we have to row back."
Admiral Vian replying to General Clark's request
for extended support at Salerno
Keith F. Lynch
> Is it so obvious that there aren't situations in which self-delusion
> is the correct moral choice?
> The ones I can think of are mostly medical, because of the marvels
> of the placebo effect: people don't get better after strokes or
> recover from aggressive cancers anything like as often as one would
> hope, but I'm reasonably sure that people who believe firmly that
> they're not going to make it make it less often than people who don't.
It's not obvious whether that's cause and effect. Do people not get
better because they believe they won't? Or do they believe they won't
because they have insight into how serious their condition is?
I wouldn't be surprised if the placebo effect doesn't work on most
people. It's just that those of us on whom it doesn't work don't get
sick very much, so we're underrepresented in medical studies. When we
*do* get sick, it's with something that placebos can't help.
I'm something of a contrarian. Someone in authority saying I'll be
forever unable to do something is likely to motivate me to prove him
wrong. Even if not, I certainly never want to be lied to and told
that I'm going to be just fine if, in fact, the person speaking
believes otherwise.
David Loewe, Jr.
Yes, it would.
>It would probably be insane but that's different.
Now who is arguing by assertion?
>Now kill yourself.
You've descended into parody.
--
"You're free to be as much of an asshole as you wish -- as long as I'm
not paying for it."
- Todd Masco
Will in New Haven
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>
> >On Oct 18, 1:07 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
> >> > I never said anyone should advocate suicide. Except for telling you
> >> > to kill yourself, asshole.
>
> >> When David Loewe gets on your nerves, I suggest you stop replying
> >> to him, as I do, rather than let the level of discourse degenerate
> >> this far
>
> >That's probably true as his argument by assertion tilts me.
>
> Seeing as we are discussing morals - which are essentially opinions,
> what concrete proof would you accept about the subject? What concrete
> proof could be offered? What else *can* I do but offer up my opinion -
> which would be nothing but an assertion?
>
> That you expect anything else on this subject is, frankly, laughable.
There is a science of morality or at least a philosophy of morality.
Since you think that _thinking_ that someone would be better off dead
is immoral, _not _advocating_ it, I think you could at least tell me
the source of this astounding conclusion. If you mean that advocacy of
suicide is immoral that is a fish of a different school
I'm so immoral I'm copying your tagline for later use.
--
Will in New Haven
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y6hVQn-e5Y "On the Border"
Lowell Gilbert
> Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
> trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
> population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in
> neither class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and
> irritating.
We haven't had an instance of rasff award in a while.
This deserves one.
Keith F. Lynch
> To make it more specific, suppose one believes (as in fact I do)
> that women are considerably less likely than men to have the
> abilities that make them really first class mathematicians (because
> the dispersion of intellectual abilities tends to be higher for
> males than for females, and first class mathematicians are far out
> on the tail of the relevant distribution). Couldn't one argue that
> arguing for that proposition is immoral, at least anywhere where the
> argument will reach potential female mathematicians, since it will
> discourage any who do have the relevant abilities from pursuing a
> mathematical career?
Some will be *encouraged*, just to prove the speaker wrong. Would
more be discouraged? I don't know. I think if someone really loves
the field and is good at it, it will be impossible to discourage them.
Similarly with all other fields, not just math.
Keith F. Lynch
> Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Those who are more in touch with the general population than I are
>> trendoid airheads. Those who are less in touch with the general
>> population than I are basement-dwelling geeks. Those who fall in
>> neither class are probably imitating me, which I find creepy and
>> irritating.
> This is a bit like Lynne Truss's classification of people into
> "wankers" and "barbarians" in _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.
I'm reminded of:
Everyone faster than me on the road is insanely reckless; everyone
slower is a moron.
If you're early for your psychiatric appointment, you're anxious. If
you're late, you're passive-agressive. If you're exactly on time,
you're obsessive-compulsive.
Karl Johanson
news:hbfkos$ro2$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Thomas Womack <two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Is it so obvious that there aren't situations in which self-delusion
>> is the correct moral choice?
>
>> The ones I can think of are mostly medical, because of the marvels
>> of the placebo effect: people don't get better after strokes or
>> recover from aggressive cancers anything like as often as one would
>> hope, but I'm reasonably sure that people who believe firmly that
>> they're not going to make it make it less often than people who don't.
>
> It's not obvious whether that's cause and effect. Do people not get
> better because they believe they won't?
I expect some stop doing such things as eating well (or at all) or
exercising, if they think they won't get better.
> Or do they believe they won't
> because they have insight into how serious their condition is?
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the placebo effect doesn't work on most
> people.
Agreed. and some of the "placebo" effect is likely an issue of how people
report theiur condition if they think they're being treated.
It's just that those of us on whom it doesn't work don't get
> sick very much, so we're underrepresented in medical studies. When we
> *do* get sick, it's with something that placebos can't help.
>
> I'm something of a contrarian. Someone in authority saying I'll be
> forever unable to do something is likely to motivate me to prove him
> wrong.
My grade 3 teacher told me that "bookkeeper" was the only word with three
double letters in a row, so I set out to prove her wrong.
Even if not, I certainly never want to be lied to and told
> that I'm going to be just fine if, in fact, the person speaking
> believes otherwise.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> If you're early for your psychiatric appointment, you're anxious. If
> you're late, you're passive-agressive. If you're exactly on time,
> you're obsessive-compulsive.
That's awesome.
Karl Johanson
>> Apparently there was something really big in the news a few
>> days about a "balloon boy" or something. I missed it entirely.
>
> Not me. There has *never* been a news story that I missed entirely.
> That's right, I can't think of a single one, ever!
>
> (I don't really need to put a smiley on that, do I?)
>
> It's just as well that you missed the saga of the poor little boy who
> was trapped on a balloon, or who fell from it, since it turns out that
> it never happened.
And before rock stars could gather to do a benefit concert!
Keith F. Lynch
> My grade 3 teacher told me that "bookkeeper" was the only word with
> three double letters in a row, so I set out to prove her wrong.
And did you?
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> If you're early for your psychiatric appointment, you're anxious.
>> If you're late, you're passive-agressive. If you're exactly on
>> time, you're obsessive-compulsive.
> That's awesome.
Thank you. I wish I could take credit, but it's not original with me.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 1:51锟絧m, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:11:43 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 18, 1:07锟絧m, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >> Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > I never said anyone should advocate suicide. 锟紼xcept for telling you
>> >> > to kill yourself, asshole.
>>
>> >> When David Loewe gets on your nerves, I suggest you stop replying
>> >> to him, as I do, rather than let the level of discourse degenerate
>> >> this far
>>
>> >That's probably true as his argument by assertion tilts me.
>>
>> Seeing as we are discussing morals - which are essentially opinions,
>> what concrete proof would you accept about the subject? 锟絎hat concrete
>> proof could be offered? 锟絎hat else *can* I do but offer up my opinion -
>> which would be nothing but an assertion?
>>
>> That you expect anything else on this subject is, frankly, laughable.
>
>There is a science of morality or at least a philosophy of morality.
>Since you think that _thinking_ that someone would be better off dead
>is immoral, _not _advocating_ it,
Wrong.
If you had actually read the thread, you'd know that I consider what wds
wrote to be advocating it.
>I think you could at least tell me
>the source of this astounding conclusion. If you mean that advocacy of
>suicide is immoral that is a fish of a different school
>
>I'm so immoral I'm copying your tagline for later use.
You're amusingly over the top when you get worked up over nothing at
all.
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that
you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who
misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper
Kip Williams
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>> "So, how about them $LOCAL_SPORTS_FRANCHISE(PLURAL), eh?"
>
> I think they have an excellent chance this year at the
> $MAJOR_RELEVANT_SPORTING_EVENT. I can't hardly begin tell you
> how much I'm looking forward to it! $APPROPRIATE_CHEERING_PHRASE!
Sage advice from my cousin: You can get through pretty much any bar
conversation (he was in Texas when he said it, though I'm not sure the
advice would necessarily be limited to that state) with the judicious
use of the phrases, "No shit!" and "Fuckin' A!"
Kip W
waiting for it
Karl Johanson
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> My grade 3 teacher told me that "bookkeeper" was the only word with
>> three double letters in a row, so I set out to prove her wrong.
>
> And did you?
From the first "Neo-opsis CD-ROM of Amazingly Neat Stuff." (Apologies to
those who've seen these before.)
It was grade three when my teacher told us that there is only one word in
the English language with three double letters in a row. When she asked if
any of us knew what it was, one student spelled out "M I S S I S S I P P I".
That wasn't the word the teacher had in mind. While "Mississippi" has three
double letters, the teacher wanted the word "Bookkeeper" which has three
double letters consecutively. Now this was the teacher that taught me that
commas are for where you breathe when reading a sentence out loud. I figure
that any teacher who can be that wrong about punctuation (inhale) isn't
likely all that reliable an authority on triple-double letter words either.
I took the whole thing as a challenge. Not a good challenge and not a
sensible challenge, but a challenge none-the-less. I ignored the obvious
examples, "bookkeepers" and "bookkeeping".
One route to finding/creating "triple-doubles"* is the compound word method.
Now some might say, for example, that "coffeellama" should be two words
rather than one. Well, arguably that should be true of "bookkeeper" as well.
The term "book keeper" has been in use so long that someone decided that it
would be quicker and easier to make it one word. It'll save several decades
or centuries if we just all agree now to make "coffee llama" one word (lets
skip the hyphen stage as well). Plus, I think the person who first decides
to paste two words together should have some say as to the
hyphenation-compoundedness of the word(s).
(*A compound term which I just came up with and which I arbitrarily decided
to hyphenate.)
Another route to triple-doubles is to get really creative with suffixes. For
example, I think that "occiputed" is a perfectly fine suffix, even if it
drives my proofreader crazy. This technique may even require some
polysuffixializeationness.
The following collection of triple-doubles took years to compile.
Alooffooted: A person who stands or walks with their feet far apart. Often
said of cowboys.
Balloonnozzle: The part of the balloon you blow in to inflate it.
Balloonness: The degree to which something is balloon like. (I actually got
4 hits when I did an Internet search on this word.)
Bassoonness: The degree to which a person's voice resembles a bassoon.
Usage: "James Earl Jones' voice has a certain bassoonness to it."
Beekkeeper: A person who collects beeks. (No I don't know what they'd do
with them.) (Precedents: beekeeper, bookkeeper.)
Boobbook: A pornographic book specializing in pictures of topless women.
(Precedents: bookkeeper, cookbook.)
Boobbookkeepers: People who collect pornographic books. (That's 5 double
letters in a row!)
Boottee: 1: The person kicked by the bootter. 2: A golf ball (should that be
one word?) holder that you stick into your boot instead of the ground, to
save you from having to stick a new tee in the ground at every hole.
Chinookkeeper: 1: A person who runs a salmon aquaculture farm. 2: A
fisherman who doesn't practice 'catch and release.'
Coffeeee: The person given coffee by the coffeeer. (No doubt someone is
going to carp on me about spelling here.)
Coffeellama: 1: A llama shaped coffee dispenser. 2: A pack animal used to
carry coffee beans in the Andes Mountains. 3: A guru who must get thoroughly
caffeined up before he can say anything profound. (For those who might
accuse me of simply making up completely absurd compound words; please note
that I avoided listing "coffeeaardvark" or "coffeeeel".)
Cooppoo or Cooppoop: What you find on the floor of a birdhouse. If "bird"
and "house" form one word, then surely "coop" and "poop" should as well.
(Some say that terms for excrement are never part of compound words, but
that's bullshit.)
Eelloo: Where eels go to the bathroom.
Feeddee: The person fed by the feeder.
Galloonness: The degree to which a person's hair is adorned with ribbons.
Hooffoot or Hooffooted: What horses (and other animals with hoofs) are.
(Precedent: flatfooted.)
Hippoocciputed: Horse headed.
Hippoommatophore: The protruding eyestalks of a hybridization of a horse and
a banana slug. (Wait for it. Genetic engineering is headed straight in that
direction. Mark my words.)
Hooddee: The person (or ostrich) who has had a hood pulled over their head
by the hoodder.
Nookkeepsake: A thingy you keep in a nook, of course. (Maybe a set of
ceramic salt & pepper shakers shaped like ducks. Maybe a framed photo of
some ceramic duck salt & pepper shakers.)
Ostrichhoofful: The amount of anything an ostrich can hold in one hand. (I
don't actually know what an ostrich might carry around, but that isn't the
point.)
Parakeetteeth or Parakeettooth: No wait, parakeets don't have teeth. . .
Never mind.
Poolloo: Where you should urinate while swimming in Britain. (What is it
they say? A 'no smoking' section in a restaurant is like a 'no peeing'
section in a swimming pool.)
Poorroom: A section of the poorhouse. (Easily mistaken to mean the 'washroom'
by those who fail to note the second "r". Precedents: "Poorhouse".)
Prooffeeler: A person who checks the grammar and spelling of things written
in Braille. Precedents: Proofreader.
Prooffooler: A writer who manages to get a non-existent word like
"prooffooler" past their proofreader.
(Precedents: Proofreader & Prooffeeler.)
Raccoonness: Colloquialism (that I just made up): the amount of bruising
around a pugilist's eyes.
Rookkeeper: A chess player who doesn't ever put the castles they've captured
back on the board when they when they manage to get pawns all the way to the
other side.
Roottool: 1: A garden hoe. 2: A dental instrument used for root canals.
Schoolleek: An ingredient in an educational facility's cafeteria potato
soup. (Precedents: schoolbook, schoolyard, etc.)
Schoolloo: The washroom of a British school.
Schoollooby: Derogatory nickname for a clumsy student.
Sloopppoop: The aft deck on a single masted sailboat. Usage: "Aaaarrrr,
young Jim Awrkins. Git on up thar and swab that slooppoop or all be throwen
ya ta Davey Jonese's locker."
Slooppoodle: The sea dog on a French single masted sailboat.
Streetteen: Someone between the ages of 10 and 20 (not inclusive) who hangs
out on the street and who probably wears those pants with the crotch down
around the knees and has their runners untied (or whatever it is kids wear
to annoy their parents now a days). (Precedent: Streetwalker.)
Schnookkeeper: A person who collects idiots.
Schnookkeester: An idiot's bum.
Wheelloosener: 1: A member of a pit crew. 2: A lug wrench.
(Precedents: wheelbarrow)
Wooddoor: A door which is made out of wood, of course.
Yottaammeter: A device for measuring amperage in the septillion amp range.
(Precedents: milliammeter, microammeter, nanoammeter.)
Zettaammeter: A device for measuring amperage in the sextillion amp range.
(I note that no one actually has a zettaammeter or a yottaammeter, as we don't
produce electricity anywhere near the zettaamp or yottaamp range (and we
likely won't for sometime). However, I think there's no point in waiting
till the last minute for naming such things.) (Precedents: milliammeter,
microammeter, nanoammeter & yottaammeter.)
I expect that people whose teachers knew what commas were for and who thus
likely know the language better than I (and who probably don't use as many
brackets as I do) will find reasons why some of these words shouldn't count.
With this many examples in the list though, I expect at least one of them is
valid and I can thus search for a new obsession. (Maybe I can spend some
time figuring out how to use commas, properly.)