|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Sam Harris goggles are lazy goggles and oneofthem has a point, for once  That kind of inorganic, illusionarily categorical way of viewing the world comes out of a flawed humanities education that failed to appropriately qualify the stuff that falls on the edges of rational thinking. It's not that picking out Islam as a figurative factor in radicalized, violent thinking immediately renders the speaker a racist, rather that doing so entirely misses the forest for the trees in terms of appropriately identifying the most important and influential root causes of terror.
Yoav got the theological stuff down pretty pat; this notion that you can peer into the world of "irrationality" through a lens as necessarily self-limiting as Sam Harris' and then come to viable comparative conclusions as to the authenticity of Islam is utter nonsense.
|
Sam Harris definitely have a point.
If people obey a certain book and that certain book contains unreasonable demands, then those group of people definitely need to be watched out for.
|
On March 04 2016 23:24 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 22:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Relevant to U.S. politics:
Everyone everyone everyone: go to loser.com right now.
You're welcome.
Frivolous lawsuit incoming? it used to direct to the whitehouse.gov page when we had dubya, that was waaaay back in the day though. nettles, why dont you dump your life savings in the russian markets (bonds or equities, idc)? ought to make a killing if theyre doing so well
I'm doing very well with gold shares right now.Just cashed out with a 10% profit in two weeks.I wouldn't be touching anything else apart from gun manufacturer shares.If Clinton gets in they're going to spike.
|
On March 04 2016 22:42 Plansix wrote:
And Russia is set to implode if oil prices don’t go up.
Have you done any research into how much money was lent to US shale and fracking firms? Many are calling it the next subprime (auto and student loans also pop up in that discussion)
Believe me, Russia can pull it out of the ground far cheaper than the frackers 
|
On March 05 2016 10:16 ErectedZenith wrote:
Sam Harris definitely have a point.
If people obey a certain book and that certain book contains unreasonable demands, then those group of people definitely need to be watched out for.
I am pretty sure that obeying any book exactly to the letter will lead to a lot of problems.
|
WASHINGTON -- Democrats think the GOP blockade of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee will hurt Republicans at the ballot box -- and liberal polling published Friday suggests it may be a factor.
The Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling's four new surveys for the group Americans United for Change point to four swing states that most observers have ranked as likely to stay in Republican hands: Arizona, Iowa, North Carolina and Missouri.
In all of them, the polls find voters do not think their senators should leave the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia vacant for more than a year. Asked if they think it should be filled this year, convincing majorities in all four say it should.
According to the PPP:
It’s a 56/40 spread in favor of filling the seat in Iowa, 56/41 in Arizona and Missouri, and 55/41 in North Carolina. What’s particularly important in the numbers is the strong support for filling the seat among independents- it’s 60/38 in Missouri, 59/37 in Arizona, 58/38 in Iowa, and 55/38 in North Carolina. Independent voters will be key to determining whether these incumbents sink or swim this fall, and they want the vacancy filled.
In all the cases, at least two-thirds of respondents think Republicans are wrong to reject a nominee before the person has even been named.
While the PPP works with Democrats, their research is generally in line with non-partisan surveys, such as a recent Quinnipiac University poll in Ohio that found voters don't like the decision of Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to back the court blockade.
Exactly how much such feelings will impact the elections is unclear. A recent HuffPost/YouGov survey found people want the seat filled soon, but that the issue ranked near the bottom in importance to them.
Source
|
I never really understood why the President was allowed to pick Supreme Court judges in the first place. Always felt like a recipe for disaster. Although I guess there's no perfect way to do it.
|
On March 05 2016 10:16 ErectedZenith wrote:
Sam Harris definitely have a point.
If people obey a certain book and that certain book contains unreasonable demands, then those group of people definitely need to be watched out for.
Let's watch any person that wants to prevent people from exercising what should be a fundamental right. Not just "a book". It's many books. Including koran (which i assume you were talking about) - and the bible.
|
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ tax plan would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis released Friday by the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
The plan would raise another $25.1 trillion in the subsequent 10 years, TPC said. The estimates do not consider macroeconomic effects.
Sanders has proposed a number of tax increases on individuals and businesses to pay for his spending plans, which include single-payer healthcare, paid family leave and infrastructure investment.
“Sanders is clearly betting that people are willing to pay for his expansive welfare state, and he’s very explicit about how the burden is going to be shared,” TPC director Len Burman told reporters.
TPC estimates that Sanders’ tax plan would raise far more revenue than rival Hillary Clinton's plan. The group estimates that Clinton’s proposals would only raise $1.1 trillion over the next decade.
While Clinton’s proposals are “incremental,” Sanders’s wants to make radical changes, Burman said.
“There’s a very, very clear choice,” he said.
The tax plans of the top Republican presidential candidates — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — would all cost trillions of dollars, according to TPC. Trump’s plan is the most expensive of the three, and Sanders’ plan would raise revenue by more than what Trump’s plan costs.
About 40 percent of the revenue increase from Sanders’ plan would come from a new 6.2 percent payroll tax and a 2.2 percent across-the-board increase in income taxes, which are part of Sanders’ plan to pay for his healthcare proposal. Another quarter of the increase comes from net hikes in the income, payroll and estate taxes paid by the wealthy, according to TPC’s report.
Taxpayers across the income spectrum would see tax increases, with the wealthy seeing the biggest tax hikes. In 2017, households in the middle fifth of income would see their taxes increase on average by almost $4,700, while people in the top 0.1 percent of income would on average have their taxes go up by more than $3 million, TPC said.
Source
|
your Country52798 Posts
On March 05 2016 11:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ tax plan would raise $15.3 trillion over the next decade, according to an analysis released Friday by the non-partisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC).
The plan would raise another $25.1 trillion in the subsequent 10 years, TPC said. The estimates do not consider macroeconomic effects.
Sanders has proposed a number of tax increases on individuals and businesses to pay for his spending plans, which include single-payer healthcare, paid family leave and infrastructure investment.
“Sanders is clearly betting that people are willing to pay for his expansive welfare state, and he’s very explicit about how the burden is going to be shared,” TPC director Len Burman told reporters.
TPC estimates that Sanders’ tax plan would raise far more revenue than rival Hillary Clinton's plan. The group estimates that Clinton’s proposals would only raise $1.1 trillion over the next decade.
While Clinton’s proposals are “incremental,” Sanders’s wants to make radical changes, Burman said.
“There’s a very, very clear choice,” he said.
The tax plans of the top Republican presidential candidates — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio — would all cost trillions of dollars, according to TPC. Trump’s plan is the most expensive of the three, and Sanders’ plan would raise revenue by more than what Trump’s plan costs.
About 40 percent of the revenue increase from Sanders’ plan would come from a new 6.2 percent payroll tax and a 2.2 percent across-the-board increase in income taxes, which are part of Sanders’ plan to pay for his healthcare proposal. Another quarter of the increase comes from net hikes in the income, payroll and estate taxes paid by the wealthy, according to TPC’s report.
Taxpayers across the income spectrum would see tax increases, with the wealthy seeing the biggest tax hikes. In 2017, households in the middle fifth of income would see their taxes increase on average by almost $4,700, while people in the top 0.1 percent of income would on average have their taxes go up by more than $3 million, TPC said. Source
How is the difference that huge?
|
On March 05 2016 09:50 Yoav wrote:
So we cannot be making judgements, from a sociological point of view, about what constitutes “true” Islam, or Christianity, or anything else. It is bizarre for one such as Sam Harris to argue that Al-Baghdadi is the “true” version of Islam, given that his atheism obviously disqualifies him from saying who is and is not truly doing the will of a god he doesn’t believe in… never mind his obvious lack of scholarly chops in doing so.
Has Sam Harris done that before? As far as I know, he's responding to people who insist any branch of a religion which they don't like isn't really part of the religion. For example, saying Wahabbism or jihad aren't "real" Islam but Shi'a Islam is.
|
Clinton to be at the Fox News townhall on Monday. Scheduling conflict miraculously fixed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
don't want to write at length about the religious stuff, but basically harris is a noob even though he is not wrong about the science.
there is no reason to not take advantage of the range of cognitive resources found in religious traditions in order to develop more of a human touch. but two things must accompany such a use of religion:
1. understand it's just self tuning, and physicalism is true.
2. have a proper metaethics about it, and be able to reflect upon your moral beliefs.
i think it's more elegant to think about this issue in terms of resources (how much 'give a shit') and information (what is true). taking max of both virtues you can have some space for religion, but without hte god part of it.
frankly you can just read some of the religious moral philosphers like levinas and be serious about it to get the good stuff. or just go outside and play with some cute animals.
|
Good news on the Environmental front:
Oregon has become the first US state to pass laws to rid itself of coal, committing to eliminate the use of coal-fired power by 2035 and to double the amount of renewable energy in the state by 2040.
Legislation passed by the state’s assembly, which will need to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown, will transition Oregon away from coal, which currently provides around a third of the state’s electricity supply.
At the same time, the state will also require its two largest utilities to increase their share of clean energy, such as solar and wind, to 50% by 2040. Combined with Oregon’s current hydroelectric output, the state will be overwhelmingly powered by low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.
Climate campaigners said the legislation was a landmark moment and showed that the US was moving rapidly towards renewables, despite the temporary block placed by the supreme court on the Obama administration’s clean power plan.
“This historic step forward is the most significant legislative action the US has taken since the Paris climate agreement,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Oregon’s climate leadership is an example for states across the country.”
State Republicans claimed the bill would drive up energy bills for households while resulting in a negligible impact upon the environment. “You don’t have to be a climate denier to dislike this bill,” said state senator Ted Ferrioli.
Pacific Power, one of the largest utilities in Oregon, said the shift would raise costs by less than 1% a year until 2030 and would reduce carbon pollution by 30m metric tons.
Source
and finally...
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration on Thursday in rebuffing a bid by 20 states to halt an Environmental Protection Agency rule to curb emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plants.
The action came about a month after the high court put on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's strategy to combat climate change.
Chief Justice John Roberts denied a petition made last week by the states, led by Michigan, to put the rule on hold after a federal appeals court decided in December to leave it intact while the EPA reassessed costs of implementing the regulation.
Source
|
On March 05 2016 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Clinton to be at the Fox News townhall on Monday. Scheduling conflict miraculously fixed.
It was a fundraiser for some socialites in England I think.
Source
Optics wouldn't have been too good with Bernie going into the belly of the beast and her overseas fundraiser with finance folks and their wives.
That's how Bernie outraised her by over $11,000,000 last month. She had to cancel a bunch of fundraisers or put them off until later. As if taking them later changes that she can't pull herself from Wall St.'s tit.
|
On March 05 2016 11:47 oneofthem wrote:
don't want to write at length about the religious stuff, but basically harris is a noob even though he is not wrong about the science.
there is no reason to not take advantage of the range of cognitive resources found in religious traditions in order to develop more of a human touch. but two things must accompany such a use of religion:
1. understand it's just self tuning, and physicalism is true.
2. have a proper metaethics about it, and be able to reflect upon your moral beliefs.
i think it's more elegant to think about this issue in terms of resources (how much 'give a shit') and information (what is true). taking max of both virtues you can have some space for religion, but without hte god part of it.
frankly you can just read some of the religious moral philosphers like levinas and be serious about it to get the good stuff. or just go outside and play with some cute animals.
Really?
Calling people noob is the first response you came up with?
Come on.
|
He is completely unqualified to talk about he subject. That is the main reason why people don't take him and New Atheists seriously. They are so far outside their fields of expertise is comical. The best they can muster is a BA philosophy, which is like a undergrad history student trying to arguing with a PHD is a specific branch of history.
|
On March 05 2016 12:03 Plansix wrote:
He is completely unqualified to talk about he subject. That is the main reason why people don't take him and New Atheists seriously. They are so far outside their fields of expertise is comical.
Yet, somehow Chomsky is the brilliant political mind of the left. I'll remove Harris off the field if the left remove Chomsky from the field.
|
On March 05 2016 12:06 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 12:03 Plansix wrote:
He is completely unqualified to talk about he subject. That is the main reason why people don't take him and New Atheists seriously. They are so far outside their fields of expertise is comical. Yet, somehow Chomsky is the brilliant political mind of the left. I'll remove Harris off the field if the left remove Chomsky from the field.
Sure, whatever makes you feel better.
|
On March 05 2016 12:06 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 12:03 Plansix wrote:
He is completely unqualified to talk about he subject. That is the main reason why people don't take him and New Atheists seriously. They are so far outside their fields of expertise is comical. Yet, somehow Chomsky is the brilliant political mind of the left. I'll remove Harris off the field if the left remove Chomsky from the field.
I would be for all people realizing that because you are an expert in one field that doesn't mean you can apply your expertise to something vastly outside of your area and be on equal footing with those who are actual experts in those fields.
Though it seems like Chomsky is kind of a bad parallel because isn't most of his training in the social sciences? I don't pay attention to what he is an activist for and what he sticks his opinions into but if its mostly social/cultural issues then I wouldn't say he is totally unqualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
