I play this on my laptop on full screen while i lay in bed. I place my laptop next to me so it's like and this wonderful bearded man and I are laying in bed next to eachother
@F1ghtclub2k11 Did you get the PM I just sent? I'm not sure if there's a glitch preventing that. I get messages but nothing seems to stick in the sentbox afterward.
You raise some interesting points. About media, it might be true that atheists own and exploit media...but doesn't that pale in comparison to what someone who wants to promote religion can do if he has monopolist media holdings --- Think Rupert Murdoch.
About science and atheism. Isn't the problem there often who is paying for the research? Just take a look at a recent article in New Scientist "Non-Consenting Adults
The Nuremberg Code, set up to protect the human subjects of research...)
@2bsirius I was thinking exactly about Rupert Murdoch! :)
As far as who pays for research; Yeah that has a huge influence on results but I also don't see how advanced science and advanced technology could have developed without authoritarianism.
Science is not authoritarian (in theory at least) because peer review confirms or falsifies experimental data. The problem is that it can be so easily circumvented. Scientists are often rewarded financially for cutting corners and even for producing bogus date to support a pet hypothesis. It's can enhance their professional advancement. Science is often practised within hierarchical bureaucracies. and it leads to problems. Marc Hauser at Harvard is a recent example.
@2bsirius Again, I'm not talking about the scientific method as being inherently authoritarian. It's in the system that is required for advanced technologies and the advanced science the requires it to continue. I don't know how authoritative fictions could be eliminated (such as exaggerated amounts of property and wealth) without eliminating the social organization necessary to get resources, etc.
I can't deny i do not like authority. I also take no fake authority and half our laws are made like that. We all know bad scientist exist. I see some on TV out to make money, or they work for a scumbag corps. I also noticed they are pushed into the same system we are.
Science was an authority when the church was in charge. They killed people. I would like acceptence for all people. I only know good kind believers in my family.
Forgive my spelling and my fake english writing. I know nothing.
@krapptacular I'd rather not talk about 'good' or 'bad' scientists, per se. It's more about what is necessary in order to achieve and maintain a high tech system.
@Barklord Science in america is not funded by people because we don't care. If people funded it, they would not need to suck up to the powers that be.
I would say "no" to the "inherent" statement. I think the fundamental problem is with how we deal with *anything* that gives us power. On the one hand we are inspired to use such power to benefit us. On the other, we want to have more power than the next guy, just in case he gets notions... and so the problems start.
@rozeboosje I still don't see how advanced technologies can operate without these authoritarian fictions. To me, it's not just about how we *use the power but what systems lead to power.
@Barklord Yes, but the technologies themselves *could* operate without any authoritarian fiction. Give anybody who has the ability a nuke and a set of instructions and they can set it off. That doesn't require the authoritarian fiction to function. But apparently we, humans, have the predisposition to *need* authoritarian fiction in order to deal with the power and the responsibility that comes with it. It's not inherent in the technology, it's inherent in us.
@rozeboosje Well, I didn't mean that it's 'in' the technologies (in the metal or wire etc). lol. I meant that it's inherent in the process of making and sustaining their use which perpetuates more hierarchies, property, legal fictions, etc.
@Barklord No, of course not, but I also think it's in the process of scientific discovery or technological advancement either. Rather, I think it's in the human tendency to try and leverage any possible advantage of any description in order to stay ahead of the posse.
When I was a kid atheist I rejected the authority of God based on the lack of competence when it would come to those serving such a god achieving little. Yet, I wasn't rejecting authority, as such, I was looking for those who could teach me things where I could learn how to do things that would provide benefits. It is similar now in a work setting as I can help boost the authority or power of a competent person while working to take down a fool in control.
@gedgetips Now, in terms of authoritarianism I haven't really experienced this as much of a problem in a school or work sitting, or in a very personal way, but only in the larger context of the state with its endless laws and agencies making it difficult for me and others to enter into and follow out productive agreements. Capital can be critical in order to get the funding and relationships developed in order to have a good job and build a productive community w/ technological innovations.
@gedgetips Yeah, I see that we naturally respect competence and that lends some type of limited authority but it's only granted by those who want to benefit from that expertise. But at what point is fictitious authority rejected altogether?
I think E.F. Schumacher's idea of "appropriate technology" is an instructive idea here. Not high-tech or low-tech, but technology scaled to human needs.
i'd say science can be an authoritaraian tool. i'm sure the church group that funded reefer madness could have "persuaded (ca-ching)" a great number of scientists to prop up their propaganda with facts and figures to bolster credibility had they chosen to.
Your videos always contain such a huge amount of things I want to talk about!
Tiwaking 4 weeks ago
@Tiwaking Hi Tiwa! Make a response. :)
I replied to your PM but it's not listed as sent in my sentbox. Do I have a glitch or did you receive it?
Barklord 4 weeks ago
@Barklord I got your PM! Thank you Barklord :D
Tiwaking 4 weeks ago
I play this on my laptop on full screen while i lay in bed. I place my laptop next to me so it's like and this wonderful bearded man and I are laying in bed next to eachother
2pbig 1 month ago
@2pbig That is beautiful
theRoseofmyheart 4 weeks ago
wow great vid Jim!...way more concise and precise than what I was trying to do ...lol
F1ghtclub2k11 1 month ago
@F1ghtclub2k11 Did you get the PM I just sent? I'm not sure if there's a glitch preventing that. I get messages but nothing seems to stick in the sentbox afterward.
Barklord 4 weeks ago
You raise some interesting points. About media, it might be true that atheists own and exploit media...but doesn't that pale in comparison to what someone who wants to promote religion can do if he has monopolist media holdings --- Think Rupert Murdoch.
About science and atheism. Isn't the problem there often who is paying for the research? Just take a look at a recent article in New Scientist "Non-Consenting Adults
The Nuremberg Code, set up to protect the human subjects of research...)
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius I was thinking exactly about Rupert Murdoch! :)
As far as who pays for research; Yeah that has a huge influence on results but I also don't see how advanced science and advanced technology could have developed without authoritarianism.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord
Science is not authoritarian (in theory at least) because peer review confirms or falsifies experimental data. The problem is that it can be so easily circumvented. Scientists are often rewarded financially for cutting corners and even for producing bogus date to support a pet hypothesis. It's can enhance their professional advancement. Science is often practised within hierarchical bureaucracies. and it leads to problems. Marc Hauser at Harvard is a recent example.
2bsirius 1 month ago
@2bsirius Again, I'm not talking about the scientific method as being inherently authoritarian. It's in the system that is required for advanced technologies and the advanced science the requires it to continue. I don't know how authoritative fictions could be eliminated (such as exaggerated amounts of property and wealth) without eliminating the social organization necessary to get resources, etc.
Barklord 1 month ago
"Out of the frying pan and into the fire" state of affairs with regard to fictitious authority.
amabodei 1 month ago
I can't deny i do not like authority. I also take no fake authority and half our laws are made like that. We all know bad scientist exist. I see some on TV out to make money, or they work for a scumbag corps. I also noticed they are pushed into the same system we are.
Science was an authority when the church was in charge. They killed people. I would like acceptence for all people. I only know good kind believers in my family.
Forgive my spelling and my fake english writing. I know nothing.
krapptacular 1 month ago
@krapptacular I'd rather not talk about 'good' or 'bad' scientists, per se. It's more about what is necessary in order to achieve and maintain a high tech system.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord Science in america is not funded by people because we don't care. If people funded it, they would not need to suck up to the powers that be.
krapptacular 1 month ago
I would say "no" to the "inherent" statement. I think the fundamental problem is with how we deal with *anything* that gives us power. On the one hand we are inspired to use such power to benefit us. On the other, we want to have more power than the next guy, just in case he gets notions... and so the problems start.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje I still don't see how advanced technologies can operate without these authoritarian fictions. To me, it's not just about how we *use the power but what systems lead to power.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord Yes, but the technologies themselves *could* operate without any authoritarian fiction. Give anybody who has the ability a nuke and a set of instructions and they can set it off. That doesn't require the authoritarian fiction to function. But apparently we, humans, have the predisposition to *need* authoritarian fiction in order to deal with the power and the responsibility that comes with it. It's not inherent in the technology, it's inherent in us.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
@rozeboosje Well, I didn't mean that it's 'in' the technologies (in the metal or wire etc). lol. I meant that it's inherent in the process of making and sustaining their use which perpetuates more hierarchies, property, legal fictions, etc.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord No, of course not, but I also think it's in the process of scientific discovery or technological advancement either. Rather, I think it's in the human tendency to try and leverage any possible advantage of any description in order to stay ahead of the posse.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
When I was a kid atheist I rejected the authority of God based on the lack of competence when it would come to those serving such a god achieving little. Yet, I wasn't rejecting authority, as such, I was looking for those who could teach me things where I could learn how to do things that would provide benefits. It is similar now in a work setting as I can help boost the authority or power of a competent person while working to take down a fool in control.
gedgetips 1 month ago
@gedgetips Now, in terms of authoritarianism I haven't really experienced this as much of a problem in a school or work sitting, or in a very personal way, but only in the larger context of the state with its endless laws and agencies making it difficult for me and others to enter into and follow out productive agreements. Capital can be critical in order to get the funding and relationships developed in order to have a good job and build a productive community w/ technological innovations.
gedgetips 1 month ago
@gedgetips Yeah, I see that we naturally respect competence and that lends some type of limited authority but it's only granted by those who want to benefit from that expertise. But at what point is fictitious authority rejected altogether?
Barklord 1 month ago
Also very high tech things can be made to look old and non functional. The pyramids and the pentagon are 2 examples.
captcaveman4201 1 month ago
all athiests go to hell because they dont beleive in themselves.
captcaveman4201 1 month ago
I think E.F. Schumacher's idea of "appropriate technology" is an instructive idea here. Not high-tech or low-tech, but technology scaled to human needs.
silversoul7 1 month ago
@silversoul7 amabodie recently read from that book 'Small is Beautiful' on a video but I think he took it down.
Barklord 1 month ago
i'd say science can be an authoritaraian tool. i'm sure the church group that funded reefer madness could have "persuaded (ca-ching)" a great number of scientists to prop up their propaganda with facts and figures to bolster credibility had they chosen to.
Sherwulff 1 month ago
@Sherwulff I want to smoke a big joint now. Really bad.
Barklord 1 month ago
@Barklord save me a hit!
Sherwulff 1 month ago
@Sherwulff
Good comment.
popebenadict16 1 month ago
@popebenadict16 thank you, pope - i'm always trying to do you proud, you know :)
Sherwulff 1 month ago