KacyRay

Michael, Racist undertones are there, and here's why... Let's assume for a moment that Gregg has examined all reported cases of the KG. I'm sure he hasn't but let's give him that for now. Do you suppose that the assailants had only one thing in common, and that was their race? Do you think that the crimes were committed by blacks from the ghetto, gangster blacks, nigerian immigrants, suburban black youth, young black athletes, maybe a couple a black chess players, and a black objectivist? Or do you think that maybe those black kids had something more fundamental in common than their race? Maybe they were all ghetto? Maybe they were all gang members? Were they all the product of single mothers from broken homes, raised by their grandmothers and abused by their step-fathers? Were they all raised in the system? Fostered? Maybe they were all trailer trash criminals who had already been arrested multiple times? Maybe they were all high-school dropouts? Maybe they were all church-going christians? I don't know... but I suspect they had more in common than just their race. But the fact that it is RACE that is the one thing Gregg zoned in on immediately indicates an underlying racist attitude. Calling someone racist and pointing out racist undercurrents in their statements are two different things. Obviously any intimidation tactics are to be repudiated, but you're committing a basic logical fallacy if you're going to suggest that if an observation is made illegitimately sometimes (or even most of the time) that it is therefore never a legitimate observation. Assuming that's even true, the problem isn't that he notices only blacks are doing it, it is that he only notices blacks are doing it. Again, there are no doubt many commonalities between those thugs. But he only noticed their race. Sorry man, call me whatever you want, but that is a racist proclivity. Interesting that you exhibit zero tolerance for racist attitudes against Jews that came from SB, but racist attitudes against blacks coming from Gregg are not only permissible, but you are rushing to their defense.

Gregg, I haven't investigated every instance of reported knockouts. I am reasonably certain that not all instances of the KG have made headlines, so I'm reasonably certain that you can't know the race of 100% of the assailants. But don't let that stop you from stating it with certainty. There's a huge spectrum between completely helpless and bulletproof. Our ability to protect ourselves only goes so far, and once we've fortified our position as much as can reasonably expected, we have to hope that no one penetrates. Did you know that safes and vaults are measured by how many man-hours are required to penetrate? The stronger the vault, the more man-hours it takes to penetrate. None are considered impenetrable. I do not believe we are helpless. I believe that all steps taken to fortify ourselves come at a cost, and that a reasonable person makes a reasonable assessment as to what cost they're going to pay and what risk they'll accept. Those who makes the most reasonable assessment assume the least amount of risk necessary in order to enjoy life as much as they can. Your position is that accepting any risk at puts you at fault for any evil that takes advantage of that vulnerability. That is an unreasonable position. And it's hypocritical, since you (whether you admit it or not) assume risk every day you go out into the world. The graves are filled with men like you why thought they had mitigated all possible vulnerabilities.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/us/colorado-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 Another tragically unaware person suffers the consequences of her own foolishness. How dare she expect to be able to go to high school without being shot? Luckily, she survived. Hopefully she knows to be on her toes next time.

Selene, Ah... now I get it. You don't advocate separation either. Silly me for assuming you did. It all makes sense now. Carry on.

Because only liberals play the race card.In my view, this is a matter of moral values. While in your view, it is a matter of racism. And that defines another difference between our two views. Greg By "play the race card" you mean "raise the flag when subtle indicators of racist attitudes are detected"? Really, only liberals do that? Wow... if that's the case, then non-libs ought to be ashamed of themselves. But once again, by making such absolute statements, you're demonstrating a willingness to speak with absolute certainty on things you can't possibly know. "While in your view, it is a matter of racism." No, it's not a matter of racism. Racism is merely a feature of your position, not the essence of it. But I find it amusing that you seem to have this "out" all worked out, so that you never have to answer for your racist attitudes. See, it is so simple, and so effective! It goes like this... 1) State a position, however irrational, and lace it with a racist undertone. 2) Wait for your opponent to point out the racist undertone 3) Label your opponent a liberal And viola, you have a "Get out of a morally questionable statement free" card! [And you'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those pesky liberals!]

Maybe you could call her and thank her for being such a staunch supporter of church/state separation next time she's a guest on the 700 Club. DId you watch the video? She is looking to build an America where people are "free to express their faith" (paraphrased) As though they aren't right now? That doesn't seem right, wait... It makes a lot more sense when you realize she's talking about an America that endorses and expresses her own religious sentiments. What else could she possibly mean, since every citizen is currently free to express their faith all they want?

They are based on her words. And facts can always change my mind. In she were to to begin speaking out in church/state separation argument on the side of separation, that would change my mind. Instead, she does the exact opposite. I wonder what it would take to change yours.

She is actively fighting to keep religion - HER religion - as a fixture of our government. She claims religion - HER religion - is the foundation for our government. If you think this woman would not turn this country into her own personal theocracy if she were in power, I think you're smoking some bat shit. I don't care what she did when she was governor and had no power to crush the constitution- as President she would. I am convinced of that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEqRjJNNaac#t=212

Unimaginable.

What does anything I'm saying have to do with liberalism??? Is that the knee-jerk reflex.... when confronted with uncomfortable aspects of your own argument, to turn around and sling the l-word at the other guy? "You've detected subtle racist attitudes in my dialogue!!! YOU LIBERAL!!!"

No, actually you didn't use the word. Come on greg.... use the word. Tell us all how you feel about those n-words.

(my liberal media) ...

Alright brother... goodnight.

moralist You realize that by saying "n-word" you're not changing the racist nature of your comment, right? I mean, you don't just get to type away racism. I think "nigger" is a horrible concept.... but if you're going to employ the concept, have the balls to use the word.

Greg: You said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault. You didn't say "no such thing as an unprovoked assault on an individual". And in almost all the cases I cited (except 9/1) the crimes were carried out by individuals. It's the aggressors behavior you're claiming we can predict. I especially wanted to address this idea because you had shifted the topic from a personal assault to an assault on a group. I've stated more than once here that it is easy to predict how a group of particles will behave, but impossible to predict what one particle will do. In a like manner, we give up our freedom of personal autonomous action when we choose to become part of a group. For by becoming part of a group we share the same fate as the group. Now this double edged principle can either work in our favor... or it can work against us. Personally, this is why I generally tend to avoid large groups, and live in a rural area instead of in a city. And this is why my comments pertained to personal assaults, because there is where you have the most freedom of individual spontaneous action, as well as the most personal control over the outcome. GregThis is all a bit vague. What constitutes a "group"? Does being out in public mean you're in a group? Does going to your job as a commercial pilot qualify (apparently it does) but walking down the street with a couple of friends doesn't (since you can knocked out)? Technically, any time you're around people, you're in a group (if you zoom out just a little). I think you're playing word salad with this. My issue is with your contention that there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, and I provided several examples in individuals who were doing their own individual thing and got assaulted without provoking it. To wit: The aggressor in each of these cases was an individual. And in the case of Kyle, the target was an individual. You're moving the goalposts and not really justifying your statement. But don't work too hard at it... I don't plan on getting too bogged down in this conversation. You seem to let flow with all kinds of assertions that you can't possibly know. I don't think you're a dangerous person. But I think you're thinking dangerous thoughts. The ideas you're communicating are dangerous indeed. Any acceptance of the idea that a victim is to blame for their own victimization is dangerous. Yes, we all make decisions. Yes, we're all responsible to take reasonable precautions for our own safety and security. Yes, we are responsible to exercise good judgment. But sometimes people do all the above and are still victimized. In fact, that happen quite frequently. And here's where I'm thinking... since you obviously know you're not omniscient, and can't have knowledge of every assault, you are not saying that there simply haven't been any unprovoked assaults... you are saying that an assault, by its very nature, is provoked (I recognize you tried to change it to enabled a few comments ago, but you are the one who said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault). It sounds like you are saying that all assault (from individuals to individuals) are enabled by the victim. Again, this is a big vague. If I lock the doors to my house, have I enabled anyone with a battering ram to get through? If I lock my car door, have I enabled someone to smash the window? I detect a serious virus in this thinking. I get the sense that you are the sort of guy who has a panic room, and is armed to the teeth in preparation for the coming (armageddon/race-war/progressive 2nd Amendment power-grab/<insert fearmonger theory here>). Am I on track?

Does Binswanger's remark really surprise anyone? The only surprise to me is how tame it was. And it wouldn't surprise me to see an official release from ARI celebrating her death. It's not as though modesty and respect for opposing view is the strong point of the orthodoxy. They feel she was one of the most vile people who ever lived (for reasons Jonathan and Brant have nailed on the head), and they dehumanized her to the point where they feel no need to speak of her as though she was a human being. People get that way. I remember when Falwell died, Hitchens pulled no punches.

"Not exactly sad news" Not exactly mocking.

Heh... So, why doesn't the "like this" function work? It always says I exceeded my quota for today. Glitch?

Not a silly question at all. Intriguing thought. I wrote that essay/email a while back, and there is one thing I would probably amend. I don't think belief is volitional. I think the degree to which we "believe" a proposition is automatic, and determined by our accepted epistemology. In other words, if I told you that I am actually a talking donkey, you could no more will yourself to believe it than you could will yourself to fly. You might "accept" it (meaning that you will act as though it is true regardless of what your judgment tells you), but you couldn't will yourself to believe it. dldelancey: Not true at all. One can absolutely accept a verifiable, falsifiable proposition on faith. It's easy. I'll show you. Proposition: MSK has only one leg. This proposition is verifiable and falsifiable. And you, right this moment, have a degree of certainty as to the truth of this proposition. If the degree of certainty you possess is disproportionate to the amount of evidence available, then whatever degree of certainty does not rest on evidence rests on faith. (I sure hope MSK has two legs or I am going to look like quite the jackass.) I'm using the term "faith" in an epistemological context. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

What you're describing is the "arbitrary". Yes, you discard those.

I believe science is reason applied to the process of discovery. Reason must precede science. Science would need to be informed by the process of reason, not the other way around.

It actually started off as an email I wrote to someone...

The following essay is one I wrote a while back and blogged elsewhere. Reposed here for comments and critique. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A proposition is a statement about reality. Propositions can fall into two broad categories: Those that have truth value, and those that don't. A proposition that is verifiable and/or falsifiable has truth value. A proposition that is neither verifiable or falsifiable has no truth value. We call those propositions "arbitrary", and statements arbitrarily made may be arbitrarily discarded. Propositions that have truth value ultimately fall into one of two categories: True or false.The placement of propositions into those categories is done by each individual, to varying degrees based on ones degree of "certainty" that the proposition is true. "Certainty" is a word that describes how fully one accepts the truth of a particular proposition. It is up to each person to judge forthemselves how certain they are of any given proposition. No one can decide this for someone else - the degree of certainty is always up to each persons individual judgment. Certainty always falls on a spectrum from 0% (not at all accepting) to 100% (accepting completely). On this spectrum, we have certain broad "zones" where we classify the certainty of our acceptance of a proposition. For example... If a person feels 0% certain of the truth of a proposition, they may say they "do not believe". If a person feels 1-20% certain, they might call themselves "doubtful" If a person feels 21-40% certain, they might consider themselves open to the possibility that it's true, while not yet accepting it. If a person feels 41-60% certain, they might consider themselves "on the fence" If a person feels 61-80% certain, they might say "it's probably true" If a person feels 81-100% certain, they might call themselves a believer. Note: These percentages are rough estimates and only used as an example. The true degrees of certainty, and the thresholds they trigger, are different for each person and must be decided on by each person. There are no real numbers... but there are real degrees, and each person much decide what the thresholds are for each degree of certainty. There is no law that determines what degree of certainty any person must have about the truth of any proposition. We are all free to be ascertain or as uncertain we want about any given proposition whatsoever. There is no law that demands what we base our degree of certainty upon. We can base our certainty on whatever we choose, or we can arbitrarily choose to be certain. So on exactly what should be base our degree of certainty? The philosophical branch of epistemology concerns itself with exactly this question. Among other things, it endeavors to identify and justify what certainty ought to be based on. (It also speaks about what certainty means, whether it's possible, etc... but that is outside the province of this discussion). When we debate FAITH versus REASON, we are specifically debating WHAT THE BASIS of certainty (and thus belief) OUGHT TO BE. Reason is a PROCESS by which one uses empirically observed fact in order to ascertain facts which are NOT empirically observed. Reason relies of the law of non-contradiction (A=A), in concert with sensory evidence, in order to gain knowledge and understanding of what we do NOT observe, based on what we DO observe. Faith is not a process. It is a direct cognitive leap from "not accepting" straight to "accepting". Do not pass go. Do not bother with scaling belief against evidence. So how does this apply to certainty? Is it possible to believe a proposition on faith and on reason? The answer is yes. In the context of epistemology, REASON demands that the degree of certainty with which one accepts a proposition is congruous with the amount of evidence that supports the truth of that proposition. In other words, if you are presented with a proposition, backed up with evidence that supports it to a degree of 50% (for example), then reason demands that your certainty that the preposition is true should be roughly 50%. If the proposition is backed up with evidence that supports it to adegree of 80%, then your degree of certainty should be 80% (It is important to point out here that supporting evidence of 100% is not possible. Since ALL evidence is subject to further discovery, 100% is never possible. We cannot ever know everything - the potential for future discoveries are an inherent aspect of objective, contextual knowledge.) So, if one is committed to reason, one will always strive to ensure that ones degree of certainty is scaled - to the best degree that oneis capable - to the degree of evidence that supports that proposition. What about faith? In the context of epistemology, faith is the act of *assigning certainty disproportionately* from the amount of evidence supporting acertain proposition. In other words, if a certain proposition is supported only with 25% evidence, yet one accepts the proposition with a a 99% degree of certainty - one has "bridged the gap" with faith. So, to be clear... a person who does this would believe the proposition based on "evidence" (to the degree of 25%), and "faith" (bridging the cognitive gap). In this way, most faith-based beliefs do have supporting, albeit insufficient, evidence. (This "bridging of the gap" is what is commonly referred to as a "leap of faith" - it's a cognitive leap from certainty that is supported by evidence to certainty that is not supported by evidence). It is important to remember... just because one accepts a proposition based on evidence and faith does NOT mean that faith and reason are compatible. They are two separate and mutually exclusive concepts. Evidence generates a specific degree of certainty.... and you are free at that point to stop there, or you are free to exercise faith and assign MORE CERTAINTY to the proposition than justified by the available evidence. To say that faith can be based on evidence is nonsensical. Faith always begins where evidence ends - literally by definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith My position is that such a cognitive bridge is ALWAYS wrong. It is ALWAYS wrong to assign a degree of certainty that is disproportionate to the amount of evidence available. Our degree of certainty ought to ALWAYS be scaled to what we ascertain via empirical evidence, coupled with reason. ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY above and beyond that - or even below that - is cognitively unjustified. This is the definitive statement of my position. So, if you really want to discuss epistemology... this is the place to start. Reason demands that certainty is scaled to evidence. Faith is the act of subverting the scaling process and assigning a degree of certainty that is incongruous with the amount of evidence available. I advocate a policy of strict adherence to the demands of reason. I reject any suggestion that my degree of certainty of any proposition ought to be scaled above (or below) the degree of evidence available.

Heh.. when I posted this last night I was "shalalabagged" (a word my Gunny's made up during the deployment to describe being smashed beyond all recognition). Kyle: Political alliance change? I doubt it, since I have no alliance. Brant: Don't worry... there are enough wingnuts calling me Progressive... I won't add to it! Ba'al: "How would the Obamanation have anything to do with N. Korea's internal affairs?" - The entire post was just funnin'. MSK: Obama can't win with you, can he? If he did "purge" those you speak of, you'd be accusing him of being the typical mafia-style politician, but if he doesn't you say it's because he's basically too inept to know that's what he should be doing. I've heard this line before, and not just here... if Obama does something sinister, then he's evil. If he doesn't, it's because he's too dumb to know that's what he needs to do. Just the other day Glenn Beck was talking about he thinks Obama's life is in danger, not from the right, but from radical lefties who are upset that he isn't pandering enough. Beck's separation from reality notwithstanding, it's just another example of the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game that the right side fringe plays. Apparently, John Boehner is fed up with them too.

@ PDS - LOL! @ Greg - I'm sorry to hear that your posts disappeared. That's so infuriating. That's why, when I write long posts, I always type them onto a Word document until I see them posted. I can't tell you how many times I saw hours of typing vanish away before I developed that habit. Also, as a fail-safe, I always copy the text before I hit the "send" button. That doesn't help if your computer crashes, but doing that simple thing has saved my posts more times than I can count.