Originally Posted by Justin '77

Applause isn't 'proper decorum'. Nor is rising to one's feet. Those are signs of respect and appreciation -- personal feelings which neither can, nor should be mandated from anyone, towards anyone. Your desire to mandate signs of respect and appreciation towards some Authority is what rings of 1T-era sovietism.

No surprise, though. The guys who demanded 'decorum' every time Stalin's name was mentioned were Civic-gen just like you. So it all works out, Generational-Theory-wise.

Well excuse me for having some respect of the office of President of the United States. I would have applauded even it were Dubya, that doesn't mean I like Dubya. I guess that shows that I am a Civic and not a Nomad.

Originally Posted by Odin

Well excuse me for having some respect of the office of President of the United States. I would have applauded even it were Dubya, that doesn't mean I like Dubya. I guess that shows that I am a Civic and not a Nomad.

Have all the respect you want. Just try to resist your Civic impulse to injure people who don't share your respect, and who don't want to fake it, either. If you can do that, even us Nomads won't mind if you weep tears of pious joy at the Ascended Glory of the Presidential Office. To each his own, I say.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Copperfield believes that humans are headed for extinction.

- by way of magic pony land and then Somalia!

Originally Posted by Galen

Yes, this economic model has worked so well that all of these economies are deeply in debt both public and private and are showing signs of systemic failure on a truly grand scale.

We stopped using that model in 1981. The damage you see here is an aggregate consequence of our return, beginning under Reagan, to the earlier plutocratic model. The damage in Europe (which is considerably less than what we see here) is fallout from us.

Also, per capita GDP growth is only one measure by which the mass-economy regime performed better. The years 1940-1980 included fewer recession years as a percentage of the whole and recessions were milder, with unemployment never reaching 10%. So the economy not only grew better, it was more stable. It's simply all around a better-performing regime than either a laissez-faire or a command economy, and history proves this repeatedly. This means that any theory leading to a conclusion in denial of this is an incorrect theory.

Sujatha: I said to myself, as soon as the dustup with Summer got good and hot, "I wonder how long it will take before the Rani dives in on Summer's side?" Because you always do. If I'm on one side, you're on the other. It's totally predictable.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which is necessarily and obviously true. Homo sap isn't an organism that has much long-term viability (when we talk about the cosmological long-term). So it's going to go extinct just like every other type of living thing.

Our hope is that the people who result in part from what we are and what we do are sufficiently more long-term viable than we humans are at the moment. What I believe Copperhead recognizes (and what I like to think that I recognize) is that in questions of long-term viability of localized-entropy-reducers like people, flexibility and adaptability are ultimately the key, and ossification the enemy. Hence the distaste for identifying Superior Systems and the preference for allowing a multitude of systems to develop, grow, and thrive or not as time continue to pass.

*I'm an 'evolution guy', too; as far as I understand the phrase.

Justin wins a cookie.

Originally Posted by playwrite

- by way of magic pony land and then Somalia!

Weak.

Call me Hitler. You know you want to.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Justin wins a cookie.

That cookie was mine to begin with, youngster.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What the hell is an "evolution guy"?

Copperfield believes that humans are headed for extinction.

I see. So the scientific version of a Christian apocalyptic. Kinda like this...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which is necessarily and obviously true. Homo sap isn't an organism that has much long-term viability (when we talk about the cosmological long-term). So it's going to go extinct just like every other type of living thing.

Our hope is that the people who result in part from what we are and what we do are sufficiently more long-term viable than we humans are at the moment...

...which is a evolutionary description of the rapture.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...What I believe Copperhead recognizes (and what I like to think that I recognize) is that in questions of long-term viability of localized-entropy-reducers like people, flexibility and adaptability are ultimately the key, and ossification the enemy. Hence the distaste for identifying Superior Systems and the preference for allowing a multitude of systems to develop, grow, and thrive or not as time continue to pass.

*I'm an 'evolution guy', too; as far as I understand the phrase.

Hmmm...I don't think I like this church.

Originally Posted by Odin

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Applause isn't 'proper decorum'. Nor is rising to one's feet. Those are signs of respect and appreciation -- personal feelings which neither can, nor should be mandated from anyone, towards anyone. Your desire to mandate signs of respect and appreciation towards some Authority is what rings of 1T-era sovietism.

No surprise, though. The guys who demanded 'decorum' every time Stalin's name was mentioned were Civic-gen just like you. So it all works out, Generational-Theory-wise.

Well excuse me for having some respect of the office of President of the United States. I would have applauded even it were Dubya, that doesn't mean I like Dubya. I guess that shows that I am a Civic and not a Nomad.

Actually, I'd prefer you keep the labels out of it. Though I would agree with Justin as a youngster, one trait of Nomads is that they grow out of this. I would absolutely applaud out of respect for the "office".

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What the hell is an "evolution guy"?

Evolution Guy is a new action figure from Hasbro. He has gills and webbed feet, and sort of looks like Kevin Costner...

Originally Posted by Dedalus

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What the hell is an "evolution guy"?

Evolution Guy is a new action figure from Hasbro. He has gills and webbed feet, and sort of looks like Kevin Costner...

But I thought that over-hyped movie bombed. Why would they make an action figure out of it?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Copperfield believes that humans are headed for extinction.

Well, how long a time scale are you looking at? Get up in the billion-year range and it's certainly true, unless you believe in some form of the Rapture or the Singularity (same thing, different faiths). In the next several thousand years? Not hardly likely.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I see. So the scientific version of a Christian apocalyptic. Kinda like this...

...which is a evolutionary description of the rapture.

As Badger already sort of pointed out, recognizing the finite nature of the homo sapiens type of organism is about as far from religious or 'rapture' or whatever Exceptionalism as you can get.

But that's the difference between reading for comprehension (again, Badger is always a good example), and skimming for dickery. Decide for yourself which one you were engaged in...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I see. So the scientific version of a Christian apocalyptic. Kinda like this...



...which is a evolutionary description of the rapture.

As Badger already sort of pointed out, recognizing the finite nature of the homo sapiens type of organism is about as far from religious or 'rapture' or whatever Exceptionalism as you can get.

How?

But that's the difference between reading for comprehension (again, Badger is always a good example), and skimming for dickery. Decide for yourself which one you were engaged in...

I reject the terms of your proposal. But then again, personal attacks veiled as proposals are not arguments. Ad hominem much?

P.S. You don't have to answer the second question, the first one will do fine.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

... Again. Model vs. Process. All behavior can be modeled but not necessarily processed (yet)...

No, not all things can be modeled, even using a stochastic model. Some things are truly random. Model Brownian Motion. For that matter, model the ordering pattern of customers at a hot dog stand. A model requires an underlying process. Typically, we can know enough about processes to model the ones of interest, but anything that injects truly random but defining events into the process being modeled simply can't. The Monte Carlo method was developed with that in mind. It doesn't always work either.

Originally Posted by Uzi

I would characterize Cantor, Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership as what my now middle-aged punk rock friend would call "douchebags." What kind of human being willingly joins the Republican Party? And is not only capable of traversing the backstabbing, lying, thieving, brownnosing, bootlicking, ego-surrendering obstacles to stay in the party, but is actually able to rise through the ranks to lead such a group of soulless individuals? Not the kind of people you want to have deciding anything for you. What you see in that photo of Mr. Cantor is America circling the drain. You know, that kind of dirty runoff rainwater, with the rainbow-like streaks of grease reflected in the gray light? Add fecal matter to taste, and there you go. Don't believe me? Say the following names: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison ... Boehner. No, something is definitely wrong here. From what I have read, America does not believe in Obama's plan. But I have a hunch that Americans won't believe in any plan, or any politician. For some reason I see this crisis as dating back to around May 2003, when it became clear to Americans that they had been sold a war on the premise of weapons that didn't exist. Up until that point, a modicum of belief had been afforded the govs. Since then, and especially since the autumn of 2008, the emperor has worn no clothes. And Ron Paul isn't going to ever have his party's nomination, because its wealthy benefactors won't allow it. From where it stands now, I can see no democratic means to rectify the ills facing the United States. Which is severely troubling, if you think about it ...

Well put, though a bit more poetic than typical for this board.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric Cantor is an immature ***hole, this photo from the president's speech proves it

....

What I don't understand Odin, is why you so consistently fall for, and then promulgate this emotional reaction to political sides. I get that you politically prefer the dems. No problem there. But you fall for every emotional appeal to the democratic base. And then you come here and repeat it.

Why do you let yourself get sucked in? Seriously, you're too smart for that.

Originally Posted by antichrist

What I don't understand Odin, is why you so consistently fall for, and then promulgate this emotional reaction to political sides. I get that you politically prefer the dems. No problem there. But you fall for every emotional appeal to the democratic base.

I don't see that at all. He's called out many of the Democrats as being corporate sellouts. To the extent what you say is true, it's probably because as a group he finds the Dems less objectionable than the GOP. That's not the same thing as being a cheerleader for the Democratic Party.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

How [is "recognizing the finite nature of the homo sapiens type of organism is about as far from religious or 'rapture' or whatever Exceptionalism as you can get"]?

Well.. For starters, the fact that homo sap is a thing fundamentally of and in the same reality as everything else is the very concept denied by both religion (which holds that 'man' is something qualitatively apart from 'not-man') and exceptionalism (the word itself makes that point).

I'm not sure what more there would be to explain...

I reject the terms of your proposal.

Ah. I forgot to mention that as an option. You are of course always and everywhere free to be as non-introspective as is any other among us. Enjoy that.

But then again, personal attacks veiled as proposals are not arguments. Ad hominem much?

If you knew what ad hominem meant, you wouldn't need it pointed out to you that what I was doing, wasn't that. I know fancy words are fun to use, but you don't really help yourself or anyone with whom you aim to communicate if you use them the wrong way.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

How?

Well.. For starters, the fact that homo sap is a thing fundamentally of and in the same reality as everything else is the very concept denied by both religion (which holds that 'man' is something qualitatively apart from 'not-man')...

Again, what basis are you able to make that assumption?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...and exceptionalism (the word itself makes that point).

No, the word does not make the point itself. Please explain further.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I reject the terms of your proposal.

Ah. I forgot to mention that as an option. You are of course always and everywhere free to be as non-introspective as is any other among us. Enjoy that.

No, you do not forget because this too is a third set of terms which very much mirrors the language of the first. So again, rejected.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

But then again, personal attacks veiled as proposals are not arguments. Ad hominem much?

If you knew what ad hominem meant, you wouldn't need it pointed out to you that what I was doing, wasn't that. I know fancy words are fun to use, but you don't really help yourself or anyone with whom you aim to communicate if you use them the wrong way.

If the term ad hominem displeases you, pick another one. Point is you are still using personal attacks to deflect from the argument. Personally, I would prefer you stay on topic.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But I thought that over-hyped movie bombed. Why would they make an action figure out of it?

But they thought it would do well, made several hundred thousand in advance, when it bombed they were left with a warehouse full of action figures, now repackaged as Evolution Guy!

I think I may have to re-watch that soon, a double feature with The Postman...

Originally Posted by Uzi

I would characterize Cantor, Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership as what my now middle-aged punk rock friend would call "douchebags." What kind of human being willingly joins the Republican Party? And is not only capable of traversing the backstabbing, lying, thieving, brownnosing, bootlicking, ego-surrendering obstacles to stay in the party, but is actually able to rise through the ranks to lead such a group of soulless individuals? Not the kind of people you want to have deciding anything for you. What you see in that photo of Mr. Cantor is America circling the drain. You know, that kind of dirty runoff rainwater, with the rainbow-like streaks of grease reflected in the gray light? Add fecal matter to taste, and there you go. Don't believe me? Say the following names: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison ... Boehner. No, something is definitely wrong here. From what I have read, America does not believe in Obama's plan. But I have a hunch that Americans won't believe in any plan, or any politician. For some reason I see this crisis as dating back to around May 2003, when it became clear to Americans that they had been sold a war on the premise of weapons that didn't exist. Up until that point, a modicum of belief had been afforded the govs. Since then, and especially since the autumn of 2008, the emperor has worn no clothes. And Ron Paul isn't going to ever have his party's nomination, because its wealthy benefactors won't allow it. From where it stands now, I can see no democratic means to rectify the ills facing the United States. Which is severely troubling, if you think about it ...

May 2003? Who lasted that long? I don't remember ever trusting the government. My first vague political memories are of Nixon, so I don't think I ever believed that government could solve our problems. This is why I am continually astonished at the faith that some here seem to have that the government can actually solve a problem. And most of them are left leaning boomers, who, I thought, had learned something in the Sixties about trusting the government.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

Originally Posted by Uzi

I would characterize Cantor, Ryan, and the rest of the Republican leadership as what my now middle-aged punk rock friend would call "douchebags." What kind of human being willingly joins the Republican Party? And is not only capable of traversing the backstabbing, lying, thieving, brownnosing, bootlicking, ego-surrendering obstacles to stay in the party, but is actually able to rise through the ranks to lead such a group of soulless individuals? Not the kind of people you want to have deciding anything for you. What you see in that photo of Mr. Cantor is America circling the drain. You know, that kind of dirty runoff rainwater, with the rainbow-like streaks of grease reflected in the gray light? Add fecal matter to taste, and there you go. Don't believe me? Say the following names: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison ... Boehner. No, something is definitely wrong here. From what I have read, America does not believe in Obama's plan. But I have a hunch that Americans won't believe in any plan, or any politician. For some reason I see this crisis as dating back to around May 2003, when it became clear to Americans that they had been sold a war on the premise of weapons that didn't exist. Up until that point, a modicum of belief had been afforded the govs. Since then, and especially since the autumn of 2008, the emperor has worn no clothes. And Ron Paul isn't going to ever have his party's nomination, because its wealthy benefactors won't allow it. From where it stands now, I can see no democratic means to rectify the ills facing the United States. Which is severely troubling, if you think about it ...

May 2003? Who lasted that long? I don't remember ever trusting the government. My first vague political memories are of Nixon, so I don't think I ever believed that government could solve our problems. This is why I am continually astonished at the faith that some here seem to have that the government can actually solve a problem. And most of them are left leaning boomers, who, I thought, had learned something in the Sixties about trusting the government.

I think they "trust" government because it was looking functional to them as children. That's the heart of Boomers, wanting the comfort and security as children. I don't begrudge them this wish even if it makes them crazy.

For me the end-date was 2000 with the president-select. But that may just be because I'm a late wave Xer.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

But they thought it would do well, made several hundred thousand in advance, when it bombed they were left with a warehouse full of action figures, now repackaged as Evolution Guy!

I think I may have to re-watch that soon, a double feature with The Postman...

The Postman? What the hell?!

Cry Havoc...!


Prince

PS: Sorry for the confusion; I guess I had my labels mixed-up. I suppose I can't expect the DVDs to organize themselves, can I?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Again, what basis are you able to make th[e] assumption [that "the fact that homo sap is a thing fundamentally of and in the same reality as everything else is the very concept denied by both religion"]?

Umm.. because that's what religion (at least insofar as we restrict ourselves to the theistic religions) is. A worldview in which man shares some sort of qualitatively unique connection or accord or interest with forces which are themselves outside nature. If we are speaking the english language, then the word 'religion' conveys in itself the denial of the conception of homo sapiens that I mentioned above. If we're not both speaking the english language, then I have made a grave error in trying to accord english-language meanings to the words you are using, and I apologize.

No, the word does not make the point itself. Please explain further.

"Exceptionalism" means (again, assuming communication is occurring in the english language) the view that a particular thing is exceptional -- that is, an exception to a general rule. The view I laid out above -- that homo sap in fact follows the exact same general rules of reality just exactly as much, and in just exactly the same way, as everything non-human in reality -- is the diametric opposite of exceptionalism. It is.. non-exceptionalism, if you want to go that route.

No, you do not forget because this too is a third set of terms which very much mirrors the language of the first. So again, rejected.

Huh? You can't reject an offer to "do whatever the hell you want"...

I mean, you can, but it's a completely incoherent rejection...

If the term ad hominem displeases you, pick another one.

You think it appropriate to pick terms based on what pleases, rather than on what actually means the thing you want to convey? Were you writing poetry? Is that where the confusion comes from?