Gaining Function

[Glenn]

“Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to
suspend
funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext

2017:
"Despite this agreement, they strongly disagree on the balance of risks and rewards in doing this research"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5474814/

"The NIH has said 18 studies were affected by the moratorium."

"On 19 December 2017, the NIH lifted the aforementioned moratorium because it was deemed "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research

" In 1984, he became director of the NIAID, a position he still holds.[6] Fauci has been offered the position of director of the NIH several times, but has declined each time"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

"NIAID has on-campus laboratories in Maryland and Hamilton, Montana, and funds research conducted by scientists at institutions in the United States and throughout the world. NIAID also works closely with partners in academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations in multifaceted and multidisciplinary efforts to address emerging health challenges such as the H1N1/09 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Allergy_and_Infectious_Diseases

So all kinds of weird shit happening in China in the past that has caused deaths and potential world-wide massive deaths, and Fauci denies money was given to gain-of-function research, while millions were dying.

It appears that years ago Fauci claimed that gain-of-function research was historically the most common method of relevant research.

What to think. What to think. Hmm.

[Glenn]

I wonder what Fauci thought of this (he was director of NIAID at the time). Actually Francis Collins was the director of the NIH at the time:

"The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV)."

I wonder what Collins thinks of Fauci testifying that no money was spent on gain of function research.

Although China may not have purposefully created COVID, and although China could have done what they did without any help from the US, if the virus escaped the Wuhan lab, the US is complicit in killing 3 million people.

[Glenn]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:28:18 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>

Your last sentences above are a far cry from your previous posts, of
full-throated support for FoxNews and Rand Paul conspiracy hysteria,
that Fauci authorized funding for gain-of-function research at Wuhan
labs on Sars-Cov-2 which led to Covid-19 pandemic.

The U.S. is as complicit as any of the dozens of nations which support
WHO. The evidence is the strain which originated the Covid-19
pandemic was not one of the viruses cultured at the Wuhan lab:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxwrDSYrhjU>
******************************
@14:51
So what would you say at that point were your main pieces of evidence
that it [Sars-CoV-2] didn't escape from a lab?

Okay so I mean you can look at the sequence, and if you're a
virologist you know that even if you're doing the most sophisticated
gain of function research that you could possibly be doing, you have
to start with a virus that's at least close. And we would estimate 99
percent, not even higher than that 99.9. And those viruses just were
not known.
*******************************

So no close-enough virus at Wuhan, no gain-of-function research on it,
no funding for said research, no lies by Fauci. Is there any
conspiracy theory you and FoxNews and Rand Paul won't push?

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Glenn]

Oh shut up with your lies.

[jillery]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 22:43:02 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <glenn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Oh shut up with your lies.

You first.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

From the scientific point of view, the balance is overwhelmingly on the side of a lab origin.

But it is kind of weird that from a legal point of view, you can accuse bats of originating the virus, without a problem, but if you accuse a human being of cultivating it in a lab, then you must have sufficient evidence for the court. Otherwise you get into libel.

In any case, you are very seriously lacking in judgement Jillery. You don't know how to prime your emotions for honesty, and anything you say is therefore just biased and lying.

The same why evolutionists invariably lie about the history of the holocaust.

Also why evolutionists lie about the potential relevance of choice / intelligent design, in forming DNA.

Also why evolutionists lie about the creationist conceptual scheme, the importance of distinghuishing between matters of opinion, and matters of fact.

Evolutionists are always liars, because they lack these kinds of subjective skills, such as priming emotions for honesty.

And probably the same thing is going on with Fauci.

Now the Lancet, who lies about hydroxychloroquine, says it will investigate the virus origins. They make as their head of research the scientist whose main job was to do gain of function research on coronaviruses.

So you see, this is just widespread lying. Not just a few rotten apples, but general widespread rot in the scientific community, universities, because they forgot about how to deal with subjective issues.





Op dinsdag 8 juni 2021 om 05:46:05 UTC+2 schreef jillery:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:34:00 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Also why evolutionists lie about the creationist conceptual scheme

You mean the creationist conceptual scheme that you made up, and which
literally no one but you advocates.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The point is you lie about the creationist conceptual scheme. You say I put love on the side of chosen things. That is the point, you just lie, because you are an evolutionist, and evolutionists can't deal with subjective issues, like priming emotions for honesty.


Op dinsdag 8 juni 2021 om 17:16:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:21:35 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The point is you lie about the creationist conceptual scheme.

Nope.

> You say I put love on the side of chosen things.

You've already contradicted yourself on that point several times, so
there's no actual way for me to lie about it.

>That is the point, you just lie,

I have not done so at any time in any conversation we have had. If I
am mistaken about your position on something or other, that's almost
certainly a result of your inability to express your thoughts in a
coherent manner.

>because you are an evolutionist, and evolutionists can't deal with subjective issues, like priming emotions for honesty.

And that's a perfect example of your inability to express your
thoughts coherently. What the hell is "priming emotions for honesty"
even supposed to mean?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It is just lying, by a lying, liar, who lies.

Yes ofcourse, you have no idea about what it might mean to prime your emotions for honesty.

Honesty is a challenge, it's an effort, it is dealing with pain, shame, laziness. It requires some emotional sophistication. You have to make the emotions ready, to deal with the possible shame, pain, laziness, and whatever, that may be on the road to the truth.

But these kind of fact obsessed people, they have no idea about that.


Op dinsdag 8 juni 2021 om 19:26:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 10:58:02 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is just lying, by a lying, liar, who lies.

What have I lied about? Be specific.

>Yes ofcourse, you have no idea about what it might mean to prime your emotions for honesty.

Of course I don't: it's gibberish.

>Honesty is a challenge,

To you, perhaps.

> it's an effort, it is dealing with pain, shame, laziness.

What a bizarre thing to say. You certainly have a unique way of
looking at things. (That's not a compliment.)

> It requires some emotional sophistication.
>You have to make the emotions ready, to deal with the possible shame, pain, laziness, and whatever, that may be on the road to the truth.

Again, that's just downright weird. Is that really what goes on inside
your head?

>But these kind of fact obsessed people, they have no idea about that.

Why would they? It's nuts.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

So it is absolutely sure that any truth accepting which would cause you shame, extra effort, pain, as beyond your reach to acknowledge.

I guess we're getting to the bottom of why you are a totally obnoxious person.

If evolution is wrong, intelligent design is right, then that would cause you shame that you were so wrong all the time. So it is impossible for you to find the truth, because you aren't emotionally prepared for it. You don't really investigate the reality of choice in the universe, in relation to forming the DNA.

This kind of glibness, that you have, which is obnoxious, is because you don't put up any emotion for the truth.


Op dinsdag 8 juni 2021 om 20:56:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:09:53 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So it is absolutely sure that any truth accepting which would cause you shame, extra effort, pain, as beyond your reach to acknowledge.

Can you give an example or two? I still have no idea what you're
getting at.

>I guess we're getting to the bottom of why you are a totally obnoxious person.

Says the guy who goes around calling everyone else a Nazi.

>If evolution is wrong, intelligent design is right

Non Sequitur. Disproving one does not prove the other.

>, then that would cause you shame that you were so wrong all the time.

Why would finding out that I was wrong about something cause me shame?
That's not a normal reaction, nor is it a healthy one.

> So it is impossible for you to find the truth, because you aren't emotionally prepared for it. You don't really investigate the reality of choice in the universe, in relation to forming the DNA.

And we're back to gibberish.

>This kind of glibness, that you have, which is obnoxious, is because you don't put up any emotion for the truth.

Why should I be emotional over, say, 2+2=4? You're really making no
sense.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It would be a normal emotional response to be embarassed when you are found wrong.

Evolution theory is found wrong, and intelligent design theory is found right. What would you feel then?

Do you have emotions?


Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 15:56:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 07:04:49 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It would be a normal emotional response to be embarassed when you are found wrong.

Not to the degree that you seem to think it would, which appears to be
on the level of an existential catastrophe the way you describe it.

>Evolution theory is found wrong, and intelligent design theory is found right. What would you feel then?

The same as I would feel if it were shown that the sky is plaid, that
apples fall upward, or that water has a chemical formula of H2SO4:
puzzled at what bizarre, counterfactual world I had somehow stumbled
into.

>Do you have emotions?

Certainly. For example, I'm pretty pissed off that you keep calling me
a Nazi.

[Abner Mintz]

Harry Krishna wrote:
> Non Sequitur. Disproving one does not prove the other.

It does explain why the creationists spend so much of their time trying to disprove the theory of evolution ... they don't realize that there are more than just those two options (i.e. a new scientific theory that is improved to replace whatever errors were found in the theory of evolution) and they can't find anything to support creationism, so they keep flailing away at the theory of evolution like a blind person armed with a wet noodle trying to smash an adamantium pinata. Most of them don't even understand the theory of evolution well enough to state it validly, much less find any flaws in it.

> Why would finding out that I was wrong about something cause me shame?

Another common characteristic of creationists is that they are incapable of admitting when they are wrong about almost anything ... sometimes they are utterly incapable of doing so, as if they had somehow achieved infallibility-by-proxy by speaking the words of their religion. Whereas for a normal person, admitting they are wrong is not as bad - and for a mainstream scientist, it's part of the training. You can't be a good scientist without being able to admit your errors - indeed, that's not a matter of shame, it's often a matter of pride.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The point at which intelligent design theory becomes directly proven, would be about the same point that we can directly look inside of people's imagination. We would be looking inside the supposed DNA world of possible DNA configurations, being decided upon. So it is just difficult to prove directly. But the indirect evidence is already sufficient, except for people who are ideologically opposed against the whole concept of choice. Simply all who accept choice is real, also support some form of intelligent design theory.

It's not normal to feel pride on being totally wrong. You ommitted the first step in the emotional process, of being embarassed for being wrong. And for honesty it is obviously more the point to deal with the nasty feelings, than to deal with pride and glory. So that is why it is totally lame that you ommit the nasty feelings.

You are very honest because you can accept pride and glory? No you are only honest if you can accept embarassment.

You have to put up emotion up front, in order to deal with the eventualities of having to deal with nasty judgements.

I have the total glory of the truth of the creationist conceptual scheme, the precise distinction between matters of opinion and matters of fact. An unassailable position. I only deal with glory ofcourse.

I don't put up a lot of emotions up front anymore for my main positions, because my position is well crafted, very safe.



Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 17:41:04 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The point at which intelligent design theory becomes directly proven,

ID is not even a theory. It's Creationism dressed in a lab coat
pretending to be science.

>would be about the same point that we can directly look inside of people's imagination.
>We would be looking inside the supposed DNA world of possible DNA configurations, being decided upon.

Wow, that ran off the rails into the crazy swamp pretty fast. You seem
to be stringing together ideas completely at random.

> So it is just difficult to prove directly.

It's impossible to prove at all.

>But the indirect evidence

Such as?

>is already sufficient, except for people who are ideologically opposed against the whole concept of choice.

How on Earth does choice come into this?

> Simply all who accept choice is real, also support some form of intelligent design theory.

That's like saying that everyone who wears hats also enjoys hot dogs.
It's not even wrong: it's a downright bizarre non sequitur.

>It's not normal to feel pride on being totally wrong.

Who ever said it was? One should be proud of the ability to *admit*
one's mistakes.

>You ommitted the first step in the emotional process, of being embarassed for being wrong.

Which is not normally the catastrophe that you describe it as.

>And for honesty it is obviously more the point to deal with the nasty feelings, than to deal with pride and glory. So that is why it is totally lame that you ommit the nasty feelings.
>You are very honest because you can accept pride and glory? No you are only honest if you can accept embarassment.

Did you even read what you're responding to?

>You have to put up emotion up front, in order to deal with the eventualities of having to deal with nasty judgements.

Indecipherable. What does "put emotion up front" even mean, and why
would you do so on the basis that you might be shown to be wrong about
some random thing at some time in the future?

>I have the total glory of the truth of the creationist conceptual scheme,

Which you made up yourself, and which is espoused by no one besides
you, since it is incoherent.

>the precise distinction between matters of opinion and matters of fact.

May I ask why you think anyone at all is unclear about the difference?

>An unassailable position.

You mean "indecipherable".

> I only deal with glory ofcourse.

>I don't put up a lot of emotions up front anymore for my main positions, because my position is well crafted, very safe.

It's certainly safe from anyone else understanding it.

[Abner Mintz]

Harry Krishna wrote:
> ID is not even a theory. It's Creationism dressed in a lab coat
> pretending to be science.

Very much agreed. Intelligent design doesn't even come close to being a theory by science's standards.

> Who ever said it was? One should be proud of the ability to *admit*
> one's mistakes.

Nando has never gotten my position on anything right ... he consistently warps them, sometimes in some pretty severe ways, and then can't ever admit that he got them wrong. He frequently does the same to others as well. It's hard to tell if it's a matter of poor reading comprehension or of changing their positions to fit what he wants them to have said ... or possibly both. But if that is what the Nando comprehension scheme does to someone, it's a pretty good argument against adopting it.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You made the mistake in overlooking nasty emotions like embarassment. You presented a joke morality of skipping over the embarassment part, and being happy when you are found to be wrong.

Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 21:31:04 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Well your intellectual life is totally about being an obnoxious cunt, isn't it?

Your rejection of intelligent design theory is all just moronic emotivisms. You obviously cannot deal with emotions. You obviously get into an emotional turmoil upon considering the reality of choice in the universe.

And the outstanding truth about you is, that you reject the idea of choosing an opinion on what the personal character of someone is, courageous, cowardly, or whatever, and you make personal character into a matter of scientific fact instead, same as a nazi.

Just another trite fucking nazi.


Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 19:41:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Abner Mintz]

Nando wrote:
> You made the mistake in overlooking nasty emotions like embarassment.

I have never claimed to overlook nasty emotions like embarrassment. I just don't find admitting being wrong to be particularly embarrassing. Everyone is wrong occasionally. The person who cannot admit that about themselves is a fool, because being unable to admit being wrong means that you cannot correct yourself, you cannot learn, you cannot grow.

> You presented a joke morality of skipping over the embarassment part, and being happy when you are found to be wrong.

The best scientists are - because that means that scientists now can improve what we have, because we now know one of the ways it was wrong. There's a reason why the scientists who work in a field search so diligently for errors in the theories they have so far. The standard model of particle physics, for example, is an incredibly successful theory - and the scientists in that field are continually trying to find ways to break it! And so on with the other fields of science. It's not a joke morality, it's a realization that ideas have to be tested over and over to be strengthened. It may be foreign to you, but it's a basic part of the training to us.

To give you an example: in my classes, I will occasionally misspeak or miscalculate or the like. And I make it clear to the students on the first day that each and every time they point out an error to me, they will get an extra credit point. I reward them for finding errors! It's not the least bit embarrassing to be caught in an error in class, because that means the students have learned enough to spot that error ... and that is a victory for all of us! The more errors we spot, the better we fix those errors, the better we learn to avoid making errors. Spotting errors is a good thing!

I think the common creationist belief that their ideas are error-free is one of the main reasons they can't progress, they can't learn and improve their ideas. How can you improve something that is already thought to be perfect?

[Glenn]

You've just shot yourself in the head.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It does not add up. There is no emotional challenge in accepting pride and happiness. To take care of biases, you have to deal with the nasty things.

Yes you are correct that there is penchant to always be right by intelligent design theorists, but that is just the same as evolutionists. It is because simply everyone is fact obsessed, including creationists. Only I provide for the straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity. But still the creationists are closer to the truth, and have some significant allowance for faith.


Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 22:21:04 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[Abner Mintz]

Nando wrote:
> It does not add up. There is no emotional challenge in accepting pride and happiness.

> Only I provide for the straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the validity of subjectivity.

There is considerable irony in someone who claims to be the only person in the world to truly accept subjectivity ... being unable to accept the possibility that not everyone thinks the same way he does. Which is why he can't learn even what my positions are - they just don't fit into his Nando conceptual scheme, and he can't learn about anything which doesn't. I've explained this particular position to him repeatedly over the years, and he *never* learns from it. Indeed, I've never seen him learn from any conversation ... He just states his positions repeatedly, with no improvement.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Why bother with an obvious nutter?


--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

[Abner Mintz]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Why bother with an obvious nutter?

He has an amazing talent for getting under my skin ... and, alas, a set of three creationists are so prolific here that they're basically the only game in town. If you don't like discussing things with Nando, Glenn, or Peter, you're basically out of luck.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

True. I'd come here more often if the sane people were more active.

Apart from the three you mention, I'm not all that keen on Bill and Ron
Dean? either.

[Abner Mintz]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> Apart from the three you mention, I'm not all that keen on Bill and Ron
> Dean? either.

Agreed on Bill ... I haven't noticed anything truly an issue from Ron Dean. I'll keep an eye out!

I tend to go through intermittent periods of lurking, longer periods of giving up and not reading at all, and then short periods of giving it another try. Alas, any serious attempts to discuss origins usually die by post 4 or 5 in any given thread.

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:50:54 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well your intellectual life is totally about being an obnoxious cunt, isn't it?

No sense of irony, I guess...

>Your rejection of intelligent design theory is all just moronic emotivisms.

ID is not even a theory, as I noted before, which is why I ignore it.
Get back to me if there's ever an actual science of ID to teach:
Michael Behe had to admit under oath at the Dover trial that there
isn't.

>You obviously cannot deal with emotions. You obviously get into an emotional turmoil upon considering the reality of choice in the universe.

I'm sitting here calmly responding to you. You're spewing obscenities
and insulting me. That doesn't sound like I'm the one who has problems
dealing with emotions.

>And the outstanding truth about you is, that you reject the idea of choosing an opinion on what the personal character of someone is, courageous, cowardly, or whatever, and you make personal character into a matter of scientific fact instead, same as a nazi.

I have never done any such thing. Why do you keep claiming I have?

>Just another trite fucking nazi.

Just curious: have you ever been diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome?

[jillery]

Since you asked, there is value in refuting nutter-tude, especially
since same is obviously not obvious to everybody. Large parts of the
population, and the majority of the Republican Party, actually agree
with some of their pseudo-skepticism.

In the meantime, there have been OPs unrelated to the posters you
mention. Based on your non-responses to them, neither you nor Mintz
have an interest in things cosmological or species conservation or
genetic engineering, to name a few non-troll topics.

Of course, you are entitled to just sit back and watch the posts go by
if that's your preference. There's notthing wrong with that, except
it provides no basis to complain about the lack of content. In order
to not sound like a mindless whiner, you have to get involved, at
least to the degree of identifying what does interest you, or better
yet, actually posting something you find interesting. Just sayin'.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You are just wrong. Your strategy is to make being found wrong an enjoyable experience. My strategy is to accept embarassment with being found wrong. You don't need to prime your emotions for dealing with joy, your emotions are generally ready to deal with joy, you need to prime your emotions for dealing with embarassment, laziness, etc.

I just drop any argument about the creationist conceptual scheme, that does not address specifically the logic of subjectivity etc., as it is in common discourse, in the garbage.

I've won this whole debate thing. I came up with the perfect solution. You just don't deal with the embarassment of losing, that is obvious. You think that it is a joy to be found wrong. Sure.... not really. For you to admit the truth that I've won, it basically means you have to step in hell.


Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 10:56:05 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The cursing is working, now you haven't even said that choosing an opinion is unintelligble and wrong.


Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 14:21:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Abner Mintz]

Nando wrote:
> You are just wrong.

> I've won this whole debate thing. I came up with the perfect solution.

As I have said before, you're a legend in your own mind. IMO your opinions are worthless, the products of a lost soul incapable of thinking straight.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 06:39:53 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The cursing is working,

In making you look deranged? Sure.

>now you haven't even said that choosing an opinion is unintelligble and wrong.

As I have mentioned before, people don't normally choose their
opinions, so yes, the phrase "choosing an opinion" is decidedly odd,
to say the least. Would you care to explain why you think that people
choose their opinions?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Afflicted with opinions? Aryan opinions, Jewish opinions?

Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 16:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

I double checked it, the creationist conceptual scheme is correct. And it's great, great to have the 2 boxes in the mind, 1 for subjective, and 1 for objective. As the physical brain also has 2 halves. Superefficient. A delight to have straightforward and unequivocal acceptance of the the validity of subjectivity, at the intellectual level. None of that ugly meanspirited stuff, of questioning if there is something else besides material. That wholesale oppression of subjectivity, that is so normal in academics.

I won, I am the champion. A clear winner. Not some kind of thing that everyone scored their own points in debate, everyone won some points. No, I have the total victory.



Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 15:51:05 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:48:03 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I double checked it, the creationist conceptual scheme is correct.

The creationist conceptual scheme is your own invention, and you are
its sole proponent, because it is incoherent.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:50:23 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Afflicted with opinions? Aryan opinions, Jewish opinions?

What are you babbling about? Why can't you answer a straightforward
question?

Again: people don't normally choose their opinions. Why do you think
they do?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

But then you also say it is unintelligble to choose an opinion on what the personal character of someone is, like courageous, or cowardly.

Which just means everything to do with choice, emotions, personal character, subjectivity, is unintelligble to you.

Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 17:11:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Abner Mintz]

Nando wrote:
> I double checked it, the creationist conceptual scheme is correct.

Having the same opinion over and over again does not mean you are correct. That's called precision, not accuracy. If someone with a flawed ruler checks my height as being 9.218 feet tall, over and over, that doesn't mean I am actually 9.218 feet tall - it just means using the same flawed ruler means repeatedly obtaining the same wrong answer. The difference between precision and accuracy is something I teach my students in chapter 1; pity you can't learn it.

> I won, I am the champion. A clear winner. Not some kind of thing that everyone scored their own
> points in debate, everyone won some points. No, I have the total victory.

While you're at it, why not declare yourself the rightful emperor of America, the smartest human on the planet, and the left hand of God? :)

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But then you also say it is unintelligble to choose an opinion on what the personal character of someone is, like courageous, or cowardly.

Because one does not normally choose one's opinion. If I see someone
rescue a baby from a fire, I don't sit around and choose between "are
they courageous?" or "are they cowardly?, my mind automatically
arrives at the former. How the hell is this still unclear to you? And
again, why can't you answer a straightforward question: why do you
think that people choose their opinions in the first place?

>Which just means everything to do with choice, emotions, personal character, subjectivity, is unintelligble to you.

I understand all those concepts quite well. It's your bizarre ideas
about them that are largely unintelligible.

[Harry Krishna]

Sandy Koufax still has claim to being the left arm of God, and he'd
probably like to keep the hand... ;)

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The reputation of universities is taking a nosedive. Schools already have a horrible reputation.

It makes perfect sense that universities and schools would be the source of bad judgement, given that judgement is an inherently creationist concept, and creationism is disregarded there.

You obviously should teach the creationist conceptual scheme to your students. Turn things around reputationwise.

Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 17:46:05 UTC+2 schreef Abner Mintz:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Automatic, like a machine, got it.

Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 18:06:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/10/21 6:37 AM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I've won this whole debate thing. [...]

One thing I'm trying to get across to my grandson is that winning isn't
as important as (1) enjoying the playing and (2) letting others enjoy
the playing. Without #2, you'll rarely have the opportunity to play,
much less win.

I think I'll have a better chance teaching that to my grandson than to
you, though. Loser.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You lie about the history of the holocaust. Saying the nazi's in general rejected Darwinism, while in truth the Hitler Youth were taught selection and evolution, in explicit reference to Charles Darwin.

And you are actively opposed to breaking up nazi ideology, by teaching that it is a matter of chosen opinion what the personal character of someone is, not a matter of scientific fact, the creationist conceptual scheme.

You're just a liar, a bad guy.



Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 18:21:04 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

[Abner Mintz]

Nando wrote:
> You obviously should teach the creationist conceptual scheme to your students. Turn things around reputationwise.

Bwahahahahhahahahaha!

Thanks, Nando, I needed that laugh. :)

[Abner Mintz]

Harry Krishna wrote:
> Sandy Koufax still has claim to being the left arm of God, and he'd
> probably like to keep the hand... ;)

Perhaps Nando could lay claim to being the left kidney of God instead? :)

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Automatic, like a machine, got it.

Like a normal human being. Do YOU have to choose between "is this
person courageous?" or "is this person cowardly?" if you see them
rescue a baby from a fire? Yes, or no?

[jillery]

Be careful, he'll bite your legs off.

[Abner Mintz]

jillery wrote:
> Be careful, he'll bite your legs off.

*laughs again* Very apropos!

[Harry Krishna]

Well, it is shaped like a nut, so it's appropriate... ;)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:55:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Harry Krishna
<op...@pearpimples.com>:

But what Nando is full of isn't normally found in kidneys.
God's colon, perhaps...?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

I did once see some firemen going inside a burning building, with their woolen coats on. It was very impressive.

And obviously first there is the feeling of what personal character these firemen have, without words, and then yes, I chose a word, actually daring I found very satisfactory, but also courage.

The variety in expressions like these proves beyond any doubt that personal character is identified with a chosen opinion, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. Your continuous lying to deny freedom, spontaneity, choice, is totally pathological. It's just food for psychology research. It is not that you have any hope in hell of making a coherent conceptual scheme with your automated courage expression.

Your idea that it is absurd to choose an opinion, is itself absurd. It's also very obviously logically incoherent.

Which political party is better, the Democrats or the Republicans? Choose an opinion.

You just have to look at the concept of choice, that is all creationism is, choice.

You have the part in the concept of what's doing the deciding. Then you have the alternative possible ways the decision can turn out. Then you have the possibility that is decided on, and the possibility that was negated.

And it is very obvious from common discourse, that the possibilities are in the future. Either Trump or Biden becomes president, in the future. Either I make the salad, or not, in the future. And the decision is what makes either of the alternative possible futures, the present.

Then you still have the part of the concept of choice, of what is doing the deciding. And bleedingly obviously, that can only be identified with a chosen opinion. Bleedingly obvious, that is where all the subjective things are at.

If you accept choice is real, then why wouldn't there be a way of making chosen statements?

So then:
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinoin
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

Efficiently naming the substance of what is subjective, spiritual, and the substance of what is objective material.

So the substance of courage is spiritual, and what courage does, what any spiritual thing does, is to make some decision turn out the way it does. And courage can only be identified, with a chosen opinion.

Perfect logic without error, completely consistent with common discourse. It works.





Op donderdag 10 juni 2021 om 18:51:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Glenn]

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:31:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:26:04 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 12:46:05 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > > “Gain-of-function experiments allow us to understand how pandemic viruses evolve, so that we can make predictions, develop countermeasures, and do disease surveillance”. Although none of the widely publicised mishaps of 2014 involved such work, the NIH decided to
> > > suspend
> > > funding for gain-of-function studies involving influenza, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV."
> > >
> > > https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(18)30006-9/fulltext
> > >
> > > 2017:
> > > "Despite this agreement, they strongly disagree on the balance of risks and rewards in doing this research"
> > >
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5474814/
> > >
> > > "The NIH has said 18 studies were affected by the moratorium."
> > >
> > > "On 19 December 2017, the NIH lifted the aforementioned moratorium because it was deemed "important in helping us identify, understand, and develop strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving pathogens that pose a threat to public health."
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_of_function_research
> > >
> > > " In 1984, he became director of the NIAID, a position he still holds.[6] Fauci has been offered the position of director of the NIH several times, but has declined each time"
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci
> > >
> > > "NIAID has on-campus laboratories in Maryland and Hamilton, Montana, and funds research conducted by scientists at institutions in the United States and throughout the world. NIAID also works closely with partners in academia, industry, government, and non-governmental organizations in multifaceted and multidisciplinary efforts to address emerging health challenges such as the H1N1/09 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic"
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Allergy_and_Infectious_Diseases
> > >
> > > So all kinds of weird shit happening in China in the past that has caused deaths and potential world-wide massive deaths, and Fauci denies money was given to gain-of-function research, while millions were dying.
> > >
> > > It appears that years ago Fauci claimed that gain-of-function research was historically the most common method of relevant research.
> > >
> > > What to think. What to think. Hmm.
> > I wonder what Fauci thought of this (he was director of NIAID at the time). Actually Francis Collins was the director of the NIH at the time:
> >
> > "The field of virology, and to some extent the broader field of microbiology, widely relies on studies that involve gain or loss of function. In order to understand the role of such studies in virology, Dr. Kanta Subbarao from the Laboratory of Infectious Disease at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave an overview of the current scientific and technical approaches to the research on pandemic strains of influenza and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronaviruses (CoV)."
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
> >
> > I wonder what Collins thinks of Fauci testifying that no money was spent on gain of function research.
> >
> > Although China may not have purposefully created COVID, and although China could have done what they did without any help from the US, if the virus escaped the Wuhan lab, the US is complicit in killing 3 million people.

Fauci and Facebook:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6258239966001#sp=show-clips

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 10 June 2021 at 19:51:04 UTC+3, Harry Krishna wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 09:15:16 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Automatic, like a machine, got it.
> Like a normal human being. Do YOU have to choose between "is this
> person courageous?" or "is this person cowardly?" if you see them
> rescue a baby from a fire? Yes, or no?

No. You misunderstand how Nando thinks. The "choices" of Nando
are basically if to lie or not about his opinion and with how lot of
profanities added. I was also surprised when I figured it out as
for me whatever choice of words people air is only somewhat
correlated with their opinion and does not actually alter their real
opinion.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 12:56:04 PM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well your intellectual life is totally about being an obnoxious cunt, isn't it?
>

> Your rejection of intelligent design theory is all just moronic emotivisms. You obviously cannot deal with emotions. You obviously get into an emotional turmoil upon considering the reality of choice in the universe.
>

Rejection of ID is not based on emotions, it's based on the facts. There are no facts
that support the ID "theory," which AFAIK has never been
explained.

There will never be any proof of ID because it is not testable.
It's not really a theory at all. Theories make predictions.
They require testing. It is not possible to recognize something
designed if you don't have a way to compare it to something
KNOWN to be designed.

After a century and a half no Evidence of any kind
has been able to demonstrate any evidence that natural
selection and ToE are wrong. The impact across so many
scientific disciplines has men enormous.
The better understanding provided by Darwin has
been shown through the new treatments and medications
now available, which would not have been possible
without Darwin's theory. The simple fact is ToE
works. Aside from minor adjustments it is still what works.
It doesn't matter how you, I, or anyone feels about
it, it works and does all the things theories are supposed to do.

ID does nothing, because it is nothing.

> And the outstanding truth about you is, that you reject the idea of choosing an opinion on what the personal character of someone is, courageous, cowardly, or whatever, and you make personal character into a matter of scientific fact instead, same as a nazi.
>

> Just another trite fucking nazi.
>
>

Seems like an accurate description of you.
You keep pushing the idea that subjectivity is
somehow important, when aside from personal preference
Is useless in science.. Science relies on what can be proven, it matters
not at all how one feels about it.

> Op woensdag 9 juni 2021 om 19:41:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

Indeed, you can't be a decent person IMO if you are not able to
admit your errors and most importantly, learn from them.

There are no gods unless we create them.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

I wonder if God has a colon? That's where Nando seems
to be getting his nonsensical crap from.
Of course a real god would have vaporized him long ago.

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I did once see some firemen going inside a burning building, with their woolen coats on. It was very impressive.

That almost made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. I really don't
think that "woolen" is the word you're looking for here. It would be
suicidal to run into a burning building dressed like that.

>And obviously first there is the feeling of what personal character these firemen have, without words, and then yes, I chose a word, actually daring I found very satisfactory, but also courage.

When you observed this, did you have to choose between whether they
were courageous or cowardly? Yes or no? Why the hell can't you just
give a straight answer to a straightforward question?

>The variety in expressions like these proves beyond any doubt that personal character is identified with a chosen opinion, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

That's word salad. Try again.

> Your continuous lying to deny freedom, spontaneity, choice, is totally pathological.

No one in their right mind would watch firefighters run into a burning
building and spontaneously choose to think that they were cowardly: a
normal human would know they were courageous without having to choose
between the two. You're making no sense at all.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Harry Krishna <op...@pearpimples.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did once see some firemen going inside a burning building, with their
>> woolen coats on. It was very impressive.
>
> That almost made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. I really don't
> think that "woolen" is the word you're looking for here. It would be
> suicidal to run into a burning building dressed like that.
>

And that’s a vicious form of courage as is the sort someone in a bar gets
from alcohol causing them to brawl.

>
>> And obviously first there is the feeling of what personal character
>> these firemen have, without words, and then yes, I chose a word,
>> actually daring I found very satisfactory, but also courage.
>
> When you observed this, did you have to choose between whether they
> were courageous or cowardly? Yes or no? Why the hell can't you just
> give a straight answer to a straightforward question?
>

Is not rushing into an excessively dangerous or untenable situation
cowardice? What sort of courage is it for a cop with a handgun and a couple
clips to rush alone into a building full of gang members with heavy
artillery?

>
>> The variety in expressions like these proves beyond any doubt that
>> personal character is identified with a chosen opinion, by spontaneous
>> expression of emotion with free will.
>
> That's word salad. Try again.
>

I think Nando is confusing his evaluative opinion of a person’s actions
with the unconscious character traits and long established habits that went
into influencing those actions. Firefighters running into a building are
highly trained professionals. Much of what they do is procedural and
outside momentary awareness. You don’t want them paralyzed by overanalysis
and deliberating choices when burning beams are falling.

Plus characterology is biased toward presumed dispositional factors, but
may overlook situational factors. That’s why people tend to blame the
victim and blame homelessness on inherent vices and ignore situational
problems putting society itself at fault.

>
>> Your continuous lying to deny freedom, spontaneity, choice, is totally pathological.
>
> No one in their right mind would watch firefighters run into a burning
> building and spontaneously choose to think that they were cowardly: a
> normal human would know they were courageous without having to choose
> between the two. You're making no sense at all.
>

There’s a downside to courage in recklessness or foolhardiness. If the
situation in a building is untenable does a fire chief allow their people
to go in anyway and add deaths to the inevitable victims inside? Hard
calls.

[*Hemidactylus*]

People who taste cilantro as soapy have little control over their opinion
of cilantro as a food ingredient. People afraid of snakes and spiders have
little control over their opinions on these animals. Nando has little
capacity to alter his opinions on opinions given factual input. He is an
ideologically trapped hate machine.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You're just another crook. The creationist conceptual scheme is just logic. It supports both the idea of hate and love, in category 1. The creationist conceptual scheme is not hatespeech.

Op vrijdag 11 juni 2021 om 15:41:04 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Before the modern fibers, the standard was woolen coats.

I guess you don't realize that you're a total evil sonofabitch. And again, these words express what your personal character is, the personal character out of which you make your decisions, and these words are chosen by me, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. Very simple, working logic.

So why don't you do some consideration of the morality of your position. Noting that nazi's objectifying personal character, was a real thing. And other kinds of socialists disregarding subjectivity with materialism, is a real thing.

Whatever how you want to work out your position, in the end you must have straightforward and unequivocal accpetance of the validity of subjectivity, as categorically distinct from objectivity. Supporting the logic in ordinary phrases, like I find this painting beautiful.



Op vrijdag 11 juni 2021 om 15:01:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Glenn]

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 6:01:04 AM UTC-7, Harry Krishna wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 14:16:27 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I did once see some firemen going inside a burning building, with their woolen coats on. It was very impressive.

> That almost made me spit coffee all over my keyboard. I really don't
> think that "woolen" is the word you're looking for here. It would be
> suicidal to run into a burning building dressed like that.

Wool is flame resistant, fool. You're right, you don't think. Your arrogance taints any credibility you might muster.
And a helpful tip, don't listen to the other fool Hemi. Neither of you have the slightest idea about firefighting or character.

[*Hemidactylus*]

mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Before the modern fibers, the standard was woolen coats.
>
> I guess you don't realize that you're a total evil sonofabitch. And
> again, these words express what your personal character is, the personal
> character out of which you make your decisions, and these words are
> chosen by me, in spontaneous expression of emotion with free will. Very
> simple, working logic.
>
> So why don't you do some consideration of the morality of your position.
> Noting that nazi's objectifying personal character, was a real thing. And
> other kinds of socialists disregarding subjectivity with materialism, is a real thing.
>
> Whatever how you want to work out your position, in the end you must have
> straightforward and unequivocal accpetance of the validity of
> subjectivity, as categorically distinct from objectivity. Supporting the
> logic in ordinary phrases, like I find this painting beautiful.
>

Some find Piss Christ beautiful. Or Serrano’s Metallica cover art.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_(album)#/media/File%3AMetallica_-_Load_cover.jpg

“The cover of Load is an original artwork titled "Semen and Blood III". It
is one of three photographic studies that Andres Serrano created in 1990 by
mingling bovine blood and his own semen between two sheets of Plexiglas.”

I find Tool’s music most beautiful. The rather disturbing imagery used in
some of Nine Inch Nails not so much. Your opinion of stop motion rotting
corpses?:

https://vimeo.com/3617272

Is it beautiful? Revolting?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Sounds like seriously oppressed subjectivity.

Op zaterdag 12 juni 2021 om 00:01:04 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[Glenn]

On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 3:46:04 PM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sounds like seriously oppressed subjectivity.

Sure you don't mean suppressed?

[*Hemidactylus*]

mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like seriously oppressed subjectivity.
>

Nah you don’t get punk/metal/techno sensibilities. You don’t get my 1st
person lived experience. I could throw Kraftwerk, Bambaataa, Sepultura,
Rush, Smashing Pumpkins, Tool etc at you but it would be pearls before
swine because you don’t get subjectivity at all. You try to systematize it
under a silly forcefit creationist schema and you wind up doing great harm
to the subjectively disparate people everywhere. You are an authoritarian
systematizer who throws subjectivity under a bus to see the splats.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Probably the fans of those things have some idea about oppressive government, parents, religion, economy.

Could just be that the oppression they feel is just because at the intellectual level they really only accept material things are real. So then they surpress subjectivity themselves, and then project it as oppression from economy etc.

I mean, that is simply the truth, that materialism is the dominant atmosphere in academics. Also within religion, there is an obsession with objectivity and fact, which is harder to pin down. With materialism it is just straightforward, materialism validates fact, and does not provide any accommodation for subjectivity.

I debate with some intelligent design theorists. There is no distinction made between matters of opinion and matters of fact, but it is all thrown together under the header "knowledge". Morality is then objective. And then only God is 100 percent objective.

It is so bleedingly obvious all just fact obsession. Subjectivity is always the loser.

Op zaterdag 12 juni 2021 om 01:21:04 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[*Hemidactylus*]

mohammad...@gmail.com <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Probably the fans of those things have some idea about oppressive
> government, parents, religion, economy.
>
> Could just be that the oppression they feel is just because at the
> intellectual level they really only accept material things are real. So
> then they surpress subjectivity themselves, and then project it as
> oppression from economy etc.
>
> I mean, that is simply the truth, that materialism is the dominant
> atmosphere in academics. Also within religion, there is an obsession with
> objectivity and fact, which is harder to pin down. With materialism it is
> just straightforward, materialism validates fact, and does not provide
> any accommodation for subjectivity.
>
> I debate with some intelligent design theorists. There is no distinction
> made between matters of opinion and matters of fact, but it is all thrown
> together under the header "knowledge". Morality is then objective. And
> then only God is 100 percent objective.
>
> It is so bleedingly obvious all just fact obsession. Subjectivity is always the loser.
>

How much subjectivity does it require to avoid the fact that someone Other
than you in your silly bubble is from a material perspective impoverished,
malnourished, and underpaid making textiles for social media influencers in
more affluent countries?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's obvious that the problems that produce poverty are local. The main problem being people against free speech.


Op zaterdag 12 juni 2021 om 02:16:04 UTC+2 schreef *Hemidactylus*:

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/11/21 6:37 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's obvious that the problems that produce poverty are local. The main problem being people against free speech.

Nando, you will not want to read the following, since it contradicts the
wishful-thinking bubble you live in.

Wars produce poverty, and many wars are not local; wars of of
empire-building are never local.

Discrimination produces poverty, and discrimination is culture-wide, not
local.

Suppression of free speech, which contributes to all sorts of problems
including poverty, is usually national.

It's obvious that the problems that produce poverty are large, varied,
complex, and often systemic.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Harry Krishna]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:16:09 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I guess you don't realize that you're a total evil sonofabitch.
>And again, these words express what your personal character is

I'm curious: what do you think your words above express about your own
personal character?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

That's right, the opinion also expresses something about what my personal character is, because I chose it.

It probably says that I am viscious in enforcing basic rules.

Straightforward, unequivocal, acceptance of the validity of subjectivity, the creationist conceptual scheme. The perfect explanation of the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact. It works, it must be taught.

Op dinsdag 15 juni 2021 om 19:06:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:20:55 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's right, the opinion also expresses something about what my personal character is, because I chose it.

That you choose to call people who disagree with you "evil", "Nazis",
et al, indeed expresses something about your character, and it isn't
flattering in the least.

>It probably says that I am viscious in enforcing basic rules.

What "basic rules" might those be?

>Straightforward, unequivocal, acceptance of the validity of subjectivity,

Your ideas on the topic are incoherent as expressed. This is why you
don't find anyone else accepting them.

> the creationist conceptual scheme.

Which is your own invention, and of which you are the sole proponent.

> The perfect explanation of the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact. It works, it must be taught.

Then try presenting it coherently if you think it's so important.
(Although why you think people need to have the difference explained
at all is known only to you.)

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It is perfectly reasonable judgement to call someone who throws out subjectivity, an evil sonafabitch. One could also call such a person, tragic, mad.

And when a group throws it out, it is basically some kind of a conspiracy, or collusion.

It is the truth that in universities today, and on facebook, there is widespread lack of acknowledgement of the human spirit, on a properly subjective basis.

Again and again the argument is given, that for which there is no evidence, should be thrown out. Which means throw out all what is inherently subjective, meaning to throw out the human spirit, people's emotions and personal character.

Naturally then, because reference to emotions and personal character is unavoidable in common discourse, people then construe that emotions and personal character can be measured as scientific fact.

And obviously, this makes subjectivity generally dysfunction. Especially at the more intellectual level, subjectivity dysfunctions. Only some lower level instinctive subjectivity is left.

They make bad relationships, bad personal opinions. It all becomes very difficult when subjectivity is not allowed. And at anytime they can become infected with an ideology in which what is good and bad is held to be a matter of fact, like social darwinism.

Your view on love, or any other emotion, it's a total piece of crap. You're a total moron, you don't know love, really. You're a total monster, and all the rest of the evolutionists. All going out of their way to destroy subjectivity, because subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept. All fact obsessed people, throwing out subjectivity entirely.

That's the real story behind the news, what is really happening in society. The way modern people, scientists, are, total monsters.





Op dinsdag 15 juni 2021 om 19:56:04 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/15/21 2:30 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is perfectly reasonable judgement to call someone who throws out subjectivity, an evil sonafabitch. One could also call such a person, tragic, mad.
>
> And when a group throws it out, it is basically some kind of a conspiracy, or collusion.
>
> It is the truth that in universities today, and on facebook, there is widespread lack of acknowledgement of the human spirit, on a properly subjective basis.
>

> Again and again the argument is given, that for which there is no evidence, should be thrown out. Which means throw out all what is inherently subjective, meaning to throw out the human spirit, people's emotions and personal character. [...]

That for which there *is* evidence should *not* be thrown out. Do you
agree with that?

Because there is overwhelming evidence that scientists in general do
*not* throw out subjectivity in general. Most scientists say that
subjectivity should be kept out of certain objective analyses, but I
have never met anybody who supports throwing out all subjectivity.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On 6/15/21 2:30 PM, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It is perfectly reasonable judgement to call someone who throws out
>> subjectivity, an evil sonafabitch. One could also call such a person, tragic, mad.
>>
>> And when a group throws it out, it is basically some kind of a conspiracy, or collusion.
>>
>> It is the truth that in universities today, and on facebook, there is
>> widespread lack of acknowledgement of the human spirit, on a properly subjective basis.
>>
>> Again and again the argument is given, that for which there is no
>> evidence, should be thrown out. Which means throw out all what is
>> inherently subjective, meaning to throw out the human spirit, people's
>> emotions and personal character. [...]
>
> That for which there *is* evidence should *not* be thrown out. Do you
> agree with that?
>
> Because there is overwhelming evidence that scientists in general do
> *not* throw out subjectivity in general. Most scientists say that
> subjectivity should be kept out of certain objective analyses, but I
> have never met anybody who supports throwing out all subjectivity.
>

Kinda going on Popper, from *Myth of the Framework*, each scientist in
themselves brings subjective biases to an argument of critical rationality.
Objectivity *emerges* from the dynamic of biased individuals interacting
while bringing their biased perspectives to the table. Our biases give us
the motivation to argue strongly for our views but ideally we realize
amongst ourselves in intersubjective tit for tat what may be “closer to
truth”.

I actually read the book for color commentary on the infamous “positivism
dispute”, deep-seated perspectives on sociology not interacting well
intersubjectively and talking past each other.

Our resident but absent emergentist brings a radically subjective
perspective that is too smitten with itself and is thus insurmountable and
goes nowhere per critical rationality. Popper was an optimist.

Post-Trump critical rationality has been deep sixed and his ideal of an
open society closed off, especially given the hands it’s currently residing
in are those of a bogey Svengali.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Moron, throwing out creationism = throwing out subjectivity, because subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept.

And it is the actual meaningful truth, because I have focused on and debated this issue for years, and it is shown to me in debate that people's views on subjectivity are generally ignorant and warped.

- confusion of subjectivity with fantasy
- categorizing subjectivity as a subcategory of objectivity
- holding objectivity as superior to subjectivity, and subjectivity as generally wrong
- denying of free will, redefining of free will, on which subjectivity depends

The absolute root cause of rejection of subjectivity, is to define making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option. Which may seem odd, because talking about "the best" seems to be affirming subjectivity. But actually it reconfigures the meaning of choice as it being like a chesscomputer calculating a move, and the link to subjective emotions is lost.

There is just enormous psychological pressure and temptation to think of choice in terms of what is best, and forget about the more fundamental idea of choice as meaning the spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.


Op woensdag 16 juni 2021 om 08:11:05 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

[Harry Krishna]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:30:10 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is perfectly reasonable judgement to call someone who throws out subjectivity

No one does any such thing. What is that even supposed to mean?

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 04:21:21 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Moron, throwing out creationism = throwing out subjectivity, because subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept.

You are the only person anywhere who holds such a position,

[Mark Isaak]

To summarize Nando's position, then: Neither reality nor anything in it
have any meaning to him, excepting only the thoughts in his own head.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

What is it then that the nazi's did, when they made personal character to be a matter of biological fact?

So you think that is ok to do, to state as fact what the personal character of someone is?


Op woensdag 16 juni 2021 om 15:01:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Well, you are just pure evil in your denial of the obvious truth, that there is widespread rejection of subjectivity, and that you are throwing it out as well. You are just a liar. As you also lie about the history of the holocaust.

By your standards, nazi's didn't reject subjectivity. Because they said that they accepted subjectivity.

But in their "factual outlook on life" they made personal character to be a matter of biological fact. They made worth to be a matter of an objective law of selection.

Nothing going on here, that is what you say about the nazi's, it's got nothing to do with rejection of subjectivity. As well as the communists, with their materialism. Also no problems with subjectivity, according to you. It is demonstrably untrue, you are a liar.

I have already mentioned that all people have instinctive understanding of subjectivity. So you can pretend that there is no problem with it, because everyone still has the instinctive understanding of it, in common discourse.

But there can be no doubt about it, that at the intellectual level, there is widespread rejection of subjectivity. And the theory of natural selection is a powerful catalyst in this process to throw out subjectivity.




Op woensdag 16 juni 2021 om 16:36:05 UTC+2 schreef Mark Isaak:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:06:55 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Well, you are just pure evil in your denial of the obvious truth, that there is widespread rejection of subjectivity,

How so? Can you give a specific example, hopefully explaining in the
process what the hell you even mean by a rejection of subjectivity?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 07:33:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

<snip>

>
>To summarize Nando's position, then: Neither reality nor anything in it
>have any meaning to him, excepting only the thoughts in his own head.
>

Your implicit declaration that anything in Nando's head has
any relation to reality ("...excepting only the
thoughts...") is unsupported by objective evidence. Just
sayin'... ;-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What is it then that the nazi's did, when they made personal character to be a matter of biological fact?

Engaging in pseudo-science. What is it that you think they did?

>So you think that is ok to do, to state as fact what the personal character of someone is?

Wow. Serious question: do you really not grasp that there is a HUGE
difference between saying "all members of a particular
race/religion/ethnicity/etc. possess the same character" based on
their belonging to that group, and saying "one individual person has
this particular character" based on observation of their personal
words and actions?

[Glenn]

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 9:06:05 AM UTC-7, Harry Krishna wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
> <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >What is it then that the nazi's did, when they made personal character to be a matter of biological fact?
> Engaging in pseudo-science. What is it that you think they did?
> >So you think that is ok to do, to state as fact what the personal character of someone is?
> Wow. Serious question: do you really not grasp that there is a HUGE
> difference between saying "all members of a particular
> race/religion/ethnicity/etc. possess the same character" based on
> their belonging to that group, and saying "one individual person has
> this particular character" based on observation of their personal
> words and actions?

Yea, creationists are all like that.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

When you say it is a matter of fact that someone has personal characteristic A, then same material, would be same fact, so then all who are materially same, would in fact have the same personal character.

So that is racism, because all who are materially same, have the same personal character. It doesn't matter that it doesn't correspond with traditional races, it is still racism of a sort.

And even if it doesn't correspond with the traditional races, we can then still calculate various personal characters among different traditional races. So we can say black people have 32 percent with personality characteristic A, while white people have 12 percent with personality characteristic A.

Then there is also environmental racism, as in people from this neighbourhood, or from this country, have personality characteristic A.

So it is obviously true that when personal character is identified as fact, it is inherently racist.

For some reason you object to identifiying personal character with a chosen opinion. Which is really the only way that you can acknowledge the individual that is making choices.

So really, you are plainly demonstrably wrong that nobody throws out subjectivity. It is thrown out on a wide scale.









Op woensdag 16 juni 2021 om 18:06:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:48:12 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>When you say it is a matter of fact that someone has personal characteristic A, then same material, would be same fact, so then all who are materially same, would in fact have the same personal character.

That does not follow at all. That (for example) Hitler and Stalin were
ruthless murderers does not imply that "all people with mustaches are
ruthless murderers", and no one in their right mind would think it
did.

>So that is racism, because all who are materially same, have the same personal character.

No one here believes any such thing. Are you really completely unable
to tell the difference between saying that an individual has a
particular character, and saying that all members of a group share the
same character?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You deliberately misconstrue my argument. We are talking about personal character such as courage, not moustaches. You say courage can be identified as a matter of fact. I say courage can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

I established that identifying courage as a matter of fact, is inevitably racist, because same material would then mean same personal character of courage.

You lie that people do not throw out subjectivity. I have given loads of examples of people throwing out subjectivity, including yourself. Creationism is an exclusively creationist concept, as proven by the creationist conceptual scheme. You throw creationism out, means you have thrown subjectivity out.

You contintue to be just another trite fucking nazi, who uses science to throw out subjectivity in general. This very typical modern attitude to throw out all what is subjective, and claim the superiority of objectivity, science, over all issues.




Op donderdag 17 juni 2021 om 15:41:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:13:08 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You deliberately misconstrue my argument.

If I have misconstrued your argument, it is almost inevitably because
you presented it in your usual semi-coherent fashion, making it
impossible to decipher, but we shall see...

>We are talking about personal character such as courage, not moustaches.

You really are hopelessly confused. You literally just said the
following: "When you say it is a matter of fact that someone has

personal characteristic A, then same material, would be same fact, so
then all who are materially same, would in fact have the same personal
character."

If I am reading that word salad correctly, you are stating that if I
say that an individual has a particular character, then it follows
that all members of a group that individual belongs to - in this
particular case, men with mustaches would be such a group - possess
the same character. That's nuts. Am I misreading you? If so, what the
hell are you actually trying to say?

> You say courage can be identified as a matter of fact.

One can reasonably infer that an individual is courageous by observing
their actions.

> I say courage can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

And I say that you're stringing words together into sentences that
don't actually mean anything in English, or at least don't mean what
you think they mean.

>I established

No, you claimed, illogically...

>that identifying courage as a matter of fact, is inevitably racist, because same material would then mean same personal character of courage.

Which is ridiculous. No reasonable person would observe "Muhammad Ali
was courageous", and conclude "therefore, all African-Americans are
courageous". That simply does not follow logically, in fact, there are
at least three fallacies involved (off the top of my head: non
sequitur, excluded middle, and generalization fallacies; other readers
are welcome to add to the list).

>You lie that people do not throw out subjectivity.

What does throwing out subjectivity even mean? You keep repeating the
same phrases, but that makes it no clearer what semantic content you
erroneously think they contain.

> I have given loads of examples of people throwing out subjectivity, including yourself

Then why is it no clearer what you think you mean by the phrase?

>. Creationism is an exclusively creationist concept, as proven by the creationist conceptual scheme.

As I have observed somewhere around a dozen times already, the
"creationist conceptual scheme" is your personal invention, and you
are the only person who espouses it, because it is incoherent.

>You throw creationism out, means you have thrown subjectivity out.

Utter nonsense. Again, what do you even mean by that?

>You contintue to be just another trite fucking nazi, who uses science to throw out subjectivity in general. This very typical modern attitude to throw out all what is subjective, and claim the superiority of objectivity, science, over all issues.

When have I done any such thing?

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You say courage can be identified as fact, then it means courage is material of some sort, and then same material would mean same courage.

Obviously you lie that people do not throw out subjectivity. Obviously you lie that choosing an opinion is not proper English. Obviously you lie about everything.

Obviously you are just a trite fucking nazi, because you identify personal character as a matter of fact, same as nazi's do.




Op donderdag 17 juni 2021 om 17:56:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:37:05 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You say courage can be identified as fact,

What I actually said is "one can reasonably infer that an individual

is courageous by observing their actions".

> then it means courage is material of some sort,

That does not follow logically.

> and then same material would mean same courage.

That does not follow logically either.

>Obviously you lie that people do not throw out subjectivity. Obviously you lie that choosing an opinion is not proper English. Obviously you lie about everything.
>
>Obviously you are just a trite fucking nazi, because you identify personal character as a matter of fact, same as nazi's do.

Obviously you didn't actually read what you're responding to.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

To infer is the language of fact. It is saying there exists courage as fact, and by circumstantial evidence, their observed actions, one can infer the fact of whether it exists or not.

When evolution scientists came to Hitler with the news about how heritable factors are independent, and are spread throughout the population, Hitler instructed to just look at the actions to find the heritable factors determining personal character.

You also blatantly reject the method to choose a judgement on whether someone is courageous. You reject the basic logic of subjectivity. The only conclusion that can follow is that you are a trite fucking nazi.







Op donderdag 17 juni 2021 om 18:56:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna:

[Harry Krishna]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 10:40:59 -0700 (PDT), "mohammad...@gmail.com"
<mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>To infer is the language of fact. It is saying there exists courage as fact,
>and by circumstantial evidence, their observed actions, one can infer the
>fact of whether it exists or not.

Congratulations, that was actually coherent, although it misses the
mark a bit: I'd say "whether a person possesses it or not", rather
than "it exists", since no one disputes that courage is an actual
thing.

>When evolution scientists came to Hitler with the news about how heritable
> factors are independent, and are spread throughout the population, Hitler instructed
>to just look at the actions to find the heritable factors determining personal character.

Who in their right mind thinks that character is a heritable trait?
When has anyone here claimed any such thing? You're arguing against a
position that no one here has espoused.

>You also blatantly reject the method to choose a judgement on whether someone is courageous.

What "method" is that? I've stated how one can judge whether or not a
person is courageous: by observing their actions. What did you have in
mind as an alternative? Flipping a coin, perhaps?

>You reject the basic logic of subjectivity.

I still have no idea what you mean by "the basic logic of
subjectivity".

>The only conclusion that can follow is that you are a trite fucking nazi.

Or that you badly need remedial courses in English and Logic.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2021 09:39:31 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Harry Krishna
<op...@pearpimples.com>:

Well, to be fair (and not to indicate any sort of agreement
with Nando-the-Clown), that *does* seem to be a fairly
common claim today.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Decisions can be made out of courage. The word courage expresses what the personal character was, out of which a decision was made.

And courage can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

Therefore the logic of subjectivity, is that an opinion is chosen, and an opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

You lie that people don't throw out subjectivity.
You lie that evolution scientists accept subjectivity.
You lie that subjectivity is not an inherently creationist concept.
You lie that evolution scientists do not support the idea that personal character is heritable.
You lie that choosing an opinion is improper english and incomprehensible.

Evolution scientists have redefined all subjective terminology, including courage, in terms of reproductive success. And so evolution scientists will use a term like courage with some technical meaning, and sure they do state that things like courage, are alike heritable software programs. Heritable ways of behaviour.

You don't present any understandable logic of how courage is identified. By observing actions. Ok, how is that different from observing any other material thing? It doesn't seem to be different. You observe actions, and then you just automatically state it is courage, not choosing an opinion. It seems to be the same as, when I look at water, then I just automatically come to the conclusion that it is water. It basically all looks like the logic of fact, and all subjectivity is explicitly rejected. What am I to make of that other than basic nazi ideas of factual personal character?

So now you say, unlike nazi's, that it is not heritable, ok. But that is just because you don't like to be called a nazi, that you say it is not heritable. It doesn't logically follow from your ideas.

In any case, heritable or not, doesn't make much of any difference. The payload of nazi ideology, what makes it nefarious, is in encroaching on the proper domain of subjectivity, and replacing it with objectivity. And that is obviously what you also do.



Op donderdag 17 juni 2021 om 20:06:05 UTC+2 schreef Harry Krishna: