Mixed Martial Arts: Tucker Carlson vs Amy Peikoff


william.scherk

2,363 views

Peter Taylor left a crumb trail to an entertaining video from FoxNews' ratings juggernaut Tucker Carlson's show.  Featuring the Objectivist lawyer and scholar Amy Peikoff.  Veddy interesting ...

"I must say, you seem like a logical atheist ..." sez the man with the Beatles haircut.

[ ...]

terminationYT.png

[... see below for the video missing above: Atheist and Haircut]

From the "Friendly Atheist" ...

On the other hand ...

No, a New Study Doesn’t Show Atheists Are More Closed-Minded Than Believers

June 29, 2017 by David G. McAfee 148 Comments

A recent study is being touted as proof that atheists are more closed-minded than their theistic counterparts, but a cursory glance at the study and interviews with its authors show a more accurate picture.

shutterstock_178355147.jpg

Conservative website The Daily Caller said yesterday that “science finally” realized what “many conservatives have argued for years,” namely that “religious believers are more tolerant of differing viewpoints than atheists.” But the authors of the study, an online survey of 788 people in Western Europe, say something very different.

The study itself outlines the scientific evidence supporting the notion that, in general, religious people tend to be more dogmatic in their beliefs than non-believers in order to set the scene.

religiosity is, to a modest degree, characterized by dogmatism, defined as an inflexibility of ideas, unjustified certainty or denial of evidence contrary to one’s own beliefs… the need for closure, i.e. the need for structure, order, and answers… Not surprisingly thus, religiosity, though to a lesser extent and less consistently than fundamentalism, is often found to predict prejudice. This is certainly the case against moral (e.g., gay persons) and religious outgroups and atheists, but also against ethnic or racial outgroups, at least in monotheistic religious context.

The study’s authors go on to say it is “premature” to conclude that atheists are “undogmatic and flexible,” which is fair since we all know fellow non-believers who believe irrational things and nothing, it seems, can change their minds.

But is all of that really true? That’s what the researchers wanted to know. And from the looks of it, the preliminary findings only suggest that religious people may not always be more closed-minded (in every sense) than non-religious people.

 

collegeOftheOzarksNIKEfoxnews.jpg

43 Comments


Recommended Comments



5 hours ago, merjet said:

What data shenanigans?

Merlin,

Why none whatsoever.

It's all free market capitalism just the way Rand wanted it in Atlas Shrugged.

:evil: 

Michael

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

If so, Amazon didn't invent this.

Dennis,

I keep hearing that as if it's supposed to be a good thing.

If you think it's good and moral, I'm fine with it.

I think it stinks and is immoral as all hell.

Bezos has a great side to him (Amazon is a wonderful market invention), but let's say he's got a James Taggart side, too.

Michael

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

I keep hearing that as if it's supposed to be a good thing.

If you think it's good and moral, I'm fine with it.

I think it stinks and is immoral as all hell.

Bezos has a great side to him (Amazon is a wonderful market invention), but let's say he's got a James Taggart side, too.

Michael

I don't say it's a good thing.  But HR departments aren't run by Objectivists.  They probably put this in the same moral category as smoking cessation programs. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

And this (presumably) makes them more productive and even loyal? 

Dennis?

Where do you get this conclusion?

Not from anything I wrote. Nor from anything I presume.

My words are clear.

So I literally don't understand what you are getting at since I do presume you write in good faith.

Michael

Link to comment
1 minute ago, 9thdoctor said:

But HR departments aren't run by Objectivists.

Dennis,

And neither is Bezos an Objectivist.

He's a market genius and a crony elitist corporatist of the worst sort all rolled up into one.

Michael

Link to comment
4 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

(Quoting NYT article): But the Postal Service says all such deals it makes are profitable — and must be by law.

Korben,

Of course these deals are profitable.

The government pays to make sure they are.

Pure Randian capitalism, I tell ya.

:) 

And, of course, we all know President Trump knows nothing about money whereas the NYT does. Right? :evil: 

Michael

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis?

Where do you get this conclusion?

Not from anything I wrote. Nor from anything I presume.

My words are clear.

So I literally don't understand what you are getting at since I do presume you write in good faith.

Michael

Where do I get the conclusion that having your employer counsel you on how to get government assistance will lead to employees being more productive and loyal?  If these things (food stamps, subsidized housing) make the employee's life more stable, they'll be able to concentrate on work better.  Single mothers  worried about being evicted aren't reliable, good chance they'll miss their next shift. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

Where do I get the conclusion that having your employer counsel you on how to get government assistance will lead to employees being more productive and loyal?  If these things (food stamps, subsidized housing) make the employee's life more stable, they'll be able to concentrate on work better.  Single mothers  worried about being evicted aren't reliable, good chance they'll miss their next shift. 

Dennis,

Sorry.

That didn't help.

What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

Not to mention this flies in the face of human nature.

Making something bearable for an employee so you can get away with sleaze is not the same as inspiring employee productivity and loyalty. 

Michael

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Making something bearable for an employee so you can get away with sleaze is not the same as inspiring employee productivity and loyalty.

Sleaze?  What's sleazy about providing entry level pay for entry level work?  And what if, instead of providing info about government programs they only provided info about private charities?  Churches and such?  Would that still point to some nefarious motive?  That they're trying to hold people down, pay them subsistence at a subsistence rate, to keep them in wage slavery? 

There's nothing Amazon-specific about any of this.  It's standard Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren material.  And Marx before them.

Link to comment

Bernie Sanders introduces ‘Stop BEZOS’ bill to tax Amazon for underpaying workers

https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/5/17819450/bernie-sanders-stop-bezos-amazon-worker-pay-corporate-welfare-tax-bill

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) have introduced a bill that would tax companies like Amazon and Walmart for the cost of employees’ food stamps and other public assistance. Sanders’ Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act (abbreviated “Stop BEZOS”) — along with Khanna’s House of Representatives counterpart, the Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act — would institute a 100 percent tax on government benefits that are granted to workers at large companies.

The bill’s text characterizes this as a “corporate welfare tax,” and it would apply to corporations with 500 or more employees. If workers are receiving government aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps), national school lunch and breakfast programs, Section 8 housing subsidies, or Medicaid, employers will be taxed for the total cost of those benefits. The bill applies to full-time and part-time employees, as well as independent contractors that are de facto company employees.

[...]

Amazon likely isn’t the company that would be hit hardest by this rule. McDonald’s and Walmart, for instance, had the most SNAP-reliant employees in every state New Food Economy analyzed.

[...]

______________________________________________

Bernie 2020!!!

Link to comment

Bernie Sanders Would Defeat Donald Trump in 2020, New Poll Shows

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/bernie-sanders-would-defeat-donald-trump-in-2020-new-poll-shows-1.6409421

Aug 22, 2018 5:38 PM

[...]

The poll, conducted by Politico/Morning Consult showed that as of Wednesday, Trump was lagging behind Joe Biden, the former vice president, and Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders. He lagged behind them by 12 points each.

Trump also lagged four points behind Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren.

The poll contacted 1,974 registered voters between the 16th and 18th of August. There poll claims a margin of error of two points.

[...]

Spoiler

1.6409441.3834434307.jpg

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Sleaze?  What's sleazy about...

Dennis,

And off you go making up stuff I don't believe.

Apparently, I don't think like you do. And I don't think like Bernie or Warren or Marx or any other such demon.

To me, honest dealing is more than a legal technicality to get unearned government money. In fact, I claim that using unearned government money as part of a business model is sleazy.

(And don't get me started on cozying up to the government to gain unearned power and influence.)

Underneath, all this is caste system thinking. Elitist. Crony corporatism.

I prefer the merit system.

Honest work. Honest pay.

To me, unearned government money is dishonest pay even when the government does it, much less when an allegedly private company does it to pay employees through loopholes. No amount of rationalizations will ever make government welfare become honest pay for honest work at a private company. Think that if you like, but I never will.

In fact, I'm glad we are having this conversation. It never occurred to me before, but I consider elitists sleazy as a fundamental characteristic. They are moral sleazes--moral used car salesmen passing off clunkers of their own innate superiority (as opposed to individual merit) and calling it a great ride.

Superiority has to be earned in my world. Even then, no amount of earned superiority entitles a person to unearned money. And on a personal note, I find wealthy people looting--legally or otherwise--the coffers of charity repugnant, even when it's government charity, which should not exist to begin with.

Michael

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Dennis,

And off you go making up stuff I don't believe.

Apparently, I don't think like you do. And I don't think like Bernie or Warren or Marx or any other such demon.

Recall that the corollary of "Check your premises" was "Watch your implications".  If I'm ascribing to you views you don't hold, consider whether they are implied by the views you have stated.

I've already pointed out that Amazon (as well as Walmart and McDonalds) are legally forbidden to ask the questions (in the hiring process) that would make it possible for them to not employ people receiving government assistance.  So they're between a rock and hard place already.  And I wouldn't favor it if they did put such a policy in place anyway.  It would require the kind of system that led to the tragedy of Fantine in Les Miserables

Entry level pay for entry level work is the merit system.  Honest work, honest pay, as you say.  If that's not enough for a given employee's needs, it's not the employer's fault.  And if an employer adds a "social worker" function to its HR department, I don't see that changing the fundamental moral positive that they've provided a job. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Recall that the corollary of "Check your premises" was "Watch your implications".  If I'm ascribing to you views you don't hold, consider whether they are implied by the views you have stated.

Dennis,

I have checked.

They don't imply what you claim.

Not without massive blank-outs on facts and context. But then, when you blank-out reality, you can find implications in whatever you wish to mean whatever you wish.

I call this process "deducing reality from principles." You're supposed to look at reality, then generate the principle, not the contrary. And once you have a principle, checking a premise means checking it against observed reality.

The way deducing reality from principles works is if something in reality contradicts a principle, you stop looking at that part of reality. And you go about making inferences as if that never existed in the first place.

This can even lead one to start throwing around words like Bernie, Warren, Marx, etc., to misidentify people.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Link to comment

Off topic observation: Tucker Carlson repeatedly refers to Amy Peikoff as a libertarian, and not only does she not bristle at it, she nods in agreement.  What a change from even, say, 10 years ago.  I've seen the same with Yaron Brook, during his appearances on Dave Rubin's show. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

Off topic observation: Tucker Carlson repeatedly refers to Amy Peikoff as a libertarian, and not only does she not bristle at it, she nods in agreement.  What a change from even, say, 10 years ago.  I've seen the same with Yaron Brook, during his appearances on Dave Rubin's show. 

Evidence of the fading effects of the Wrath of Lenny? Gramps and his condemnations are no longer relevant?

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Evidence of the fading effects of the Wrath of Lenny? Gramps and his condemnations are no longer relevant?

 

Schwartz and Binswanger too.  I'm starting to like ARI people.  Yaron Brook did a great job in this interview:

Current weather conditions in hell: Heavy snow.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now