Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I like to think I'm a cyborg every time I drive. Like it's my Exoskeleton.

Interesting conceptualization. So if I am driving and talking someone else on bluetooth while using GPS guidance (completely common scenario now), I'm an exocyborg.

Marshall McLuhan wrote about this conceptualization in a book, Understanding Media: the Extensions of Man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understanding_Media

 

[Dak]

More controversially, he postulated that content had little effect on society — in other words, it did not matter if television broadcasts children's shows or violent programming, to illustrate one example — the effect of television on society would be identical.

Now that's an interesting postulation. I have to disagree, because ideas can enact radical changes. But the point is still there that we cannot underestimate the effect of the medium itself.

 

[Einherjar86]

I've never read the entire book, only excerpts; and I have a super old copy that I bought used for two dollars, so it doesn't have much supplementary material. But I agree that it's a radical claim and I can't bring myself to agree with it entirely either; if an entire population was fed violent imagery via television monitors, I believe the consequences would be drastically different than if they were shown images of flowers.

The really influential, and interesting, component of his argument is that technology provides access to information in innovative ways, and these avenues are just as important as the information itself. McLuhan's ultimate assertion, of course, is that all the "information" we're fed is actually nothing more than other codified mediums (the most basic medium being language itself). Information as essence is an illusion; all information is material substance. McLuhan basically intends that there are no ideas communicated through mediating instruments. It's a bold claim for sure.

 

[Dak]

I could buy that more readily than the other claim.

 

[Dak]

So, I figure along with HuffPost, Mort and others of similar ilk are probably regular readers of the DailyKos. One of the most infuriating and facepalmingly contradictory statements commonly made is that the "pro gun crowd" is paranoid and mentally unstable for thinking that the government might take their guns, which is why their guns need to be taken.

Anyway, another less obviously ridiculous charge is that the pro gun crowd is sandbagging any "rational and practical" attempts at regulating gun purchases for the same reason, and cries of the "slippery slope fallacy" are heard when pro-gunners reply that national registration is the first and most important step towards confiscation. Well, from a leading "liberal" mouthpiece:

DailyKos: First Register Guns, then we can do whatever we want

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will.

I also spent some time reading down into the comments, and at least even a number of the other readers pointed out that articles like this just feed the other side. At least it's being honest. I was also amused to see one commenter call the 5 SCOTUS judges who voted a private gun ownership interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in DC vs Heller "fascists". I think this guy needs to look up the definition and history of fascists.

 

[Einherjar86]

Pretty typical argument I think. Unfortunately, his use of the term "fascist" is firmly established among popular leftist talking heads, and has become essentially synonymous with "conservative" (I'm not defending this equivocation, simply stating its frequency). While I, personally, believe that certain conservatives harbor fascist tendencies (in fact, I think most people do), calling someone "fascist" carries too many serious connotations to actually be taken seriously, if that makes sense.

My issue with the entire gun control debate centers on the appeal to natural/human rights. I think it's backwards, irrational, and ultimately contradictory and unhelpful. People say they have a right to bear arms, and that they feel safer with guns in their hands; others claim they have a right to feel safe in their own neighborhood, and guns make them feel unsafe. Neither party's claim is more firmly founded on empirical data or experience; the anxiety/trauma that one party would feel if deprived of its supposed "rights" is no less real than that of its opponent. The argument derived from a theory of "right" suffers by its very supposition, and remains irreconcilable without a regulating third party (i.e. politics). At that point, "rights" have actually done away with themselves and become nothing more than vapid appeals to an obsolete, and imaginary, authority. If we choose to submit to the jurisdiction and oversight of political institutions, then we need to seriously reexamine those elusive little ideals we call "rights."

The same issue surfaces in religious debates constantly: "I have a right to practice my religion"; "Well, your religion offends me, and I have a right to go about my life un-offended." People can just fuck off with their rights.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

6 Things You Won't Believe That Are In The Fiscal Cliff Bill That The Senate Passed At 2 AM While Most Americans Were Drunk

http://www.businessinsider.com/whats-in-the-fiscal-cliff-bill-2013-1

 

[Dak]

Pretty typical argument I think. Unfortunately, his use of the term "fascist" is firmly established among popular leftist talking heads, and has become essentially synonymous with "conservative" (I'm not defending this equivocation, simply stating its frequency). While I, personally, believe that certain conservatives harbor fascist tendencies (in fact, I think most people do), calling someone "fascist" carries too many serious connotations to actually be taken seriously, if that makes sense.

I think both sides of the aisle look more or less fascist, policy wise in a historical sense. However private gun ownership is the exact opposite of a historically fascist policy.

My issue with the entire gun control debate centers on the appeal to natural/human rights. I think it's backwards, irrational, and ultimately contradictory and unhelpful. People say they have a right to bear arms, and that they feel safer with guns in their hands; others claim they have a right to feel safe in their own neighborhood, and guns make them feel unsafe. Neither party's claim is more firmly founded on empirical data or experience; the anxiety/trauma that one party would feel if deprived of its supposed "rights" is no less real than that of its opponent. The argument derived from a theory of "right" suffers by its very supposition, and remains irreconcilable without a regulating third party (i.e. politics). At that point, "rights" have actually done away with themselves and become nothing more than vapid appeals to an obsolete, and imaginary, authority. If we choose to submit to the jurisdiction and oversight of political institutions, then we need to seriously reexamine those elusive little ideals we call "rights."

The same issue surfaces in religious debates constantly: "I have a right to practice my religion"; "Well, your religion offends me, and I have a right to go about my life un-offended." People can just fuck off with their rights.

So you don't distinguish between positive and negative rights?

 

[Einherjar86]

I really haven't read much on positive and negative rights, positive and negative liberties, or much philosophy of law for that matter. The little understanding I do have leads me to suggest that they consist of arbitrary distinctions that attempt to delineate between action and inaction; i.e. certain rights require action, and certain rights require inaction. From what I've read (which, again, is very little), I can't see any strong rationality to these distinctions. They look more like arbitrary identifications for the purpose of facilitating legislative/judicial processes.

I'm not arguing that human individuals have no ethical responsibilities toward others due to this fantasy of rights; rather, I would suggest that any ethical system has to account for empathy. We don't do certain things to others because we can empathize with them, i.e. we can intimate what it would feel like to have the same thing done to us. Empathy, of course, doesn't get us to a perfect ethical system; an individual instance of murder might not conjure empathy in the perpetrator. However, we can begin to conceptualize some kind of organized ethics (I believe) by intellectually working through empathetic tendencies. This would also require a rigorous study of empathetic origins, or at least as rigorous a genealogy as we could conceive.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I've really been enjoying lectures by Robert Sapolsky.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NNnIGh9g6fA

 

[Dak]

Watched the one on depression. Haven't had a chance to watch the others. School is started back blah blah.

Patrick won't like the depression one, since he doesn't believe we can know cause and effect (if it even exists)

 

[Einherjar86]

I like the guy! I don't know his work well enough to really comment, but I'm fascinated by neuroscience in general. I mean, he's making an argument in the video on depression, so his language has to be persuasive; but I mostly just see him drawing correlations between symptoms and patients. If medical science has any future we're going to have to make assumptions; that's just how it is. We just feel better about those assumptions if we call them acts of "probabilistic reasoning."

I'm also watching his lecture on emergence and complexity. This stuff is truly fascinating, and I think he really pushes against causality in this lecture. Specifically, he claims that in vastly complex systems, where large numbers of organisms/entities have evolved and converged over time, it's impossible to know what one started out as or will end up as. Organisms can appear almost exactly the same and yet be taxonomically entirely different.

EDIT: I'm not a fan of Piers Morgan, but he's a saint for not punching this idiot in the face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA&feature=em-uploademail[/ame]

 

[Dak]

EDIT: I'm not a fan of Piers Morgan, but he's a saint for not punching this idiot in the face:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tsHlDviuA

Yeah I would say Alex finished off whatever credibility he might have had with any rational thinker through that interview. However, according to Jones (and I would guess he's correct on this), website hits and related google searches have exploded. You don't get exposure and interest from the "unwashed masses" by being ho-hum. Gotta go WWE on them. Objectively though, Piers Morgan is on the same level as Alex Jones. They are both actors appealing to a different subset of the population, using bits of truth and distorted facts to drum up controversy.

 

[Dak]

@ PS: I quit watching Molyneux a while back when I realized he's mostly a broken record. His public speeches and illustrated videos are much better than his random rantings and interviews. The forum community at FDR is unfortunately full of "internet libertarian" stereotypes looking for someone exuding Molyneux's style of charisma and confidence to be their mental leader.

 

[Matt]

Yeah I would say Alex finished off whatever credibility he might have had with any rational thinker through that interview. However, according to Jones (and I would guess he's correct on this), website hits and related google searches have exploded. You don't get exposure and interest from the "unwashed masses" by being ho-hum. Gotta go WWE on them. Objectively though, Piers Morgan is on the same level as Alex Jones. They are both actors appealing to a different subset of the population, using bits of truth and distorted facts to drum up controversy.

I really disliked Morgan at first, but I think he's a fairly respectable journalist now. He's obviously a leftist but he doesn't bullshit that often, unlike like a lot of other talking heads on fox or msnbc.

 

[Dak]

I really disliked Morgan at first, but I think he's a fairly respectable journalist now. He's obviously a leftist but he doesn't bullshit that often, unlike like a lot of other talking heads on fox or msnbc.

I've watched clips from him at times on CNN, and he's 100% bullshit. Like a British Labour Bill O'Reilly.

Ben Swann touches on some of the falsity in the statistics and claims Piers wants to cite here:

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

@ PS: I quit watching Molyneux a while back when I realized he's mostly a broken record. His public speeches and illustrated videos are much better than his random rantings and interviews. The forum community at FDR is unfortunately full of "internet libertarian" stereotypes looking for someone exuding Molyneux's style of charisma and confidence to be their mental leader.

It's a mixed bag over there, just like here, or anywhere else. You just get mainly libertarians who have either shed minarchy or are struggling to. What I like about it is that practically everyone on there is atheist, so that's one of the two killer G's already out of the way(God and the other being Government of course) so that narrows it down to the state. Stef can be crafty with language but you have to remember that he gives statistics that no one else does; which is why I posted the above video.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I like Stefan Molyneux. I don't agree with all his opinions but I find a lot of his podcasts entertaining. Some times I just have to turn them off though. Especially when he is giving relationship advice. I also don't think he has much to say about the economic system of anarcho-capitalism, he is merely using it as a vehicle for his cult of nonaggression.

He's a big name with a large audience and strong opinions. Those strong opinions occasionally result in either dogmatic followers or
radical opponents.

The only abysmal failure in his philosophical debating is when it comes to determinism, and his complete misrepresentation of it. Other than that, he's can be solid.

 

[Dak]

Yeah his relationship and parenting advice is pretty ridiculous. The rest of it becomes very redundant.