Editing User talk:Nebuchadnezzar
- [Edit↑]
- [Fossil record↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Because I enjoy watching you squirm | 7 | 22:29, 13 May 2013 |
| Brain man | 4 | 17:44, 3 May 2013 |
| Shermer and Pigliucci debate morality. | 3 | 03:05, 28 April 2013 |
| Re: Marxism | 4 | 06:35, 14 April 2013 |
| Thanks for the fix | 4 | 05:06, 23 March 2013 |
| Facebook - the new horoscope | 6 | 22:34, 12 March 2013 |
| From your autodidact website | 2 | 00:24, 27 January 2013 |
| AA | 1 | 17:28, 16 December 2012 |
| Nomination attempt #4999393 | 0 | 16:53, 14 December 2012 |
| neuroscientist proves heaven | 2 | 21:36, 12 November 2012 |
| Please come back | 1 | 21:45, 7 November 2012 |
| deaf brains. | 0 | 15:21, 18 September 2012 |
| bilingualism and the brain | 1 | 00:19, 18 September 2012 |
| Why did you revert my edits of the Bitcoin article? | 5 | 23:08, 17 September 2012 |
| Absurdism | 17 | 11:25, 11 September 2012 |
| Nevermind | 1 | 23:10, 10 September 2012 |
| Gold Standard page work. | 4 | 20:26, 27 August 2012 |
| Help (i.e. expertise) needed | 4 | 19:19, 26 August 2012 |
| Borlaug's ghost is pleased | 1 | 18:16, 26 August 2012 |
| menapause | 1 | 06:11, 26 August 2012 |
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |
Because I enjoy watching you squirm
Speculation built on speculation built on speculation. I wonder what results they would get if they changed the instrument to something less "cool," like a tuba or accordion. It would probably be less amenable to Kanazawa-esque pronouncements.
So, people old enough to do shit, but not old enough to realise shit is a bad idea, do more shit? Shocker.
Huh?
That just seems to be what the article is saying. That the young, but not too young, do things. I just don't quite see how that comes back to sexual selection....
Oh, I was referring to the title -- the idea that (art/science/civilization/whatever) is the product of dudes trying to get laid. It's sexual selection taken to ridiculous extremes. (You have to read further into the series to get to that part, I guess.)
Brain man
Don't post in this thread.
Shermer and Pigliucci debate morality.
I think you'd enjoy this debate between Shermer and Pigliucci. I give it to Pigliucci 10 to 0.
Having read the blog debate, I wouldn't be too surprised. Shermer's entire argument seems to rely on shifting between trivially true and non-trivially false versions of his claim and then shouting "Because science!"
Having listened to the debate twice and read the comments I must agree.
"It seems you want science to validate your libertarian principles." Pwned, as the kids these days say.
Re: Marxism
That would be the ideal (i.e. a utopic society whereupon the lucky spread the wealth voluntarily). The fact that they don't is the basis for class conflict and the need for a revolution. :P
But wouldn't there be no money in a true utopia?
If we had a form of life wherein we solved major social problems like hunger, poverty, access to healthcare, education, and other ills, I wouldn't give two shits if we used a currency. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a pragmatist first and foremost.
What if the way of solving those problems is by eliminating money?
...Again, I would think my whole "pragmatism trumping ideology" would answer that question. Again, my idea of basically more extreme noblesse oblige has to do with the idea that, in a utopia, we would redistribute wealth in a manner that is both egalitarian and voluntary. Because this does not happen, we have a class conflict. It might transpire that abolishing capital is the best way to solve social problems, though this would obviously lead to friction amongst those who drew power from capital. But that's neither here nor there.
Thanks for the fix
I feel that's twice now you've had to correct my edits, thanks for the catch!
I did? You're welcome, I guess.
While Adam Smith may be questionable, the influence of Benthem's Utilitarianism on the Poor Laws and the subsequent institution of Work Houses definitely has Malthusian overtones to it. I disagree with the removal.
If you rewrite that with Bentham in place of utilitarianism, it's fine. Edit: That rewrite is much better. The way it was worded before made it sound like utilitarianism was merely a justification for social Darwinism.
Facebook - the new horoscope
Setting aside the fact that COMMENTS people make are actually revealing, I gotta love this: here. You too can tell by the mix of my loving of hedgehogs, along with my liking of stories about michelle Obama, and my liking of my friend's comment about getting her new puppy potty trained, that I am a liberal commie activist who isn't at all likely to vote for anyone, but will buy Christian Dating Now magiznes!
Next up, how setting your Facebook status to "I really don't know what else I could have done to make people like me" indicates that you may be slightly upset.
Solution. Don't click the Like button for anything. Anything commercial, Facebook'll turn into an ad involving your face, advocating a product on your behalf to your friends.
the ad stuff amuses me. it must generate lists based on what words you say, cause i'm always getting ads for christian stuff.
I get adverts for a ton of New Age woo and self-help crap that I just click on to read and laugh. It's remarkably useful.
From your autodidact website
Anywhere in particular I should start after the intro?
That's a Sophie's Choice question for me, and James wrote about so many different things over the course of his career. Poke around the first section of this and see if any of the titles grab you. *Notes on Dialectics* for an analysis of Hegel/Marx/Lenin; *Beyond a Boundary* for colonial culture and identity (and cricket); *The Black Jacobins* to understand how to do good Afrocentric history; his book on the Comintern for international Marxism....
The scary thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if that actually existed.
neuroscientist proves heaven
any "there", there? Why would a coma keep a person from dreaming? just curious.
It wouldn't, AFAIK. Looks like the media looking for a soundbite and a neuroscientist willing to supply it. They love that --especially when the topic is free will.
deaf brains.
Finished those articles last night, thanks! i had no idea that fluency in ASL would activate an area of the brain related to spacial distances. I googled, and it's an area of teh brain used (or thought to be used, really) in things like judging distances, jumping from one place to another, as well as putting together shapes to form new shapes. not sure what's all going on there, but it's so cool to think about. so again, thanks.
bilingualism and the brain
Oh - "several studies provide a preliminary theory that bilingualism happens in a separate part of the brain from monlingualism". I think that part's broked on me!
Nah, just atrophied. Quick, to the Brain Gym!
Why did you revert my edits of the Bitcoin article?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard#So.2C_facts_have_no_place_in_RationalWiki_now.3F All I'm trying to do is make it more factual. Isn't the name of this site RationalWiki, after all?
Bring it up on the relevant talk page where people with interest in the article will see it, rather than smearing it all over everyone's userpages.
(also, it's too early in the morning to drink, I'll just do double next time)
That's no excuse: make it double plus interest.
There's a bottle of Bells in my office for reasons that are completely alien to me. Don't tempt me.
All right, it's late enough now: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
Absurdism
I would start with The Myth of Sisyphus for Absurdism in its raw form, then move onto Camus' fiction like The Stranger (novel). Actually, if you have nothing to do one day, you can get through a good bit of Camus' body of work in that time -- his stuff is pretty short. Absurdism is an offshoot of existentialism, so you can move into stuff like Sartre if you want to go even deeper down the rabbit-hole. And then the "proto-existentialists" like Nietzsche and Kierkegaard (Warning: The latter may contain theistic ingredients).
Then when you're done with that, he'll hit you over the head with Wittgenstein.
True. And then after that I might recommend some of the more recent philosophers of mind (Hofstadter, Dennett, etc.) if only because some of the existentialists' take on consciousness was a bit loopy in places. Check out Sartre's late-career attempt at psychotherapy -- actually, no, just don't bother with that quackery.
Gives me something to do other than watch some low budget Canadian horror movie about something that steals vacationing professor's shoes.
Nevermind
Thank you for the block sir may I haz another? Must be nice to fuck with people who cannot defend themselves! Your compatriot done the deed, it's like old times when I get a boot up my arse! Good times....good times.
3 seconds is an eternity, I know.
Gold Standard page work.
I don't want to step on your toes while your working on that page, but it might be worth something to put in the fact that European currency was inflated to hell and back in the 1600s when Spanish ships filled with New World Gold and Silver flooded the European market?
Good idea.
What's wrong with this Intro? it says more precisely to the point in layman's language than much of your pre-packaged partisan rumblings which can be easily picked apart.
What's wrong with this Intro? it says more precisely to the point in layman's language than much of your pre-packaged partisan rumblings which can be easily picked apart.
It must have gotten erased when I switched around the segments. The part about the elasticity of fiat currency says basically the same thing, though the erased bit is a more concise way of putting it.
Help (i.e. expertise) needed
Heads up if you haven't noticed: our friendly libertarian ex-con has managed to provoke a... discussion around the Child sexual abuse article. At the moment, several people have tried to do something, but I'm afraid that it is a demonstration of the "prepared crank vs laymen" effect. I have some ideas, but I'm not that well-read and it's bedtime in my time zone. :(
Sorry, I'm afraid I can't help all that much. I don't have any expertise in that, er, "area."
To me, it reads as standard "WHY DO YOU CALL IT RATIONAL WIKI" stuff, alongside the sort of shit you'd expect from NAMbLA. Basically the argument seems to run along the lines of "it's consensual so it's fine", neglecting the major aspect of informed consent. Basically, if you're taking advantage of someone under a level of maturity we deem incapable of making such an informed decision, it's abusive. It's not loaded terminology in that respect. No more so than saying "creationism is wrong" is loaded.
Interesting point you raise with reference to informed consent; I address it here. Please note that I will not be able to respond to any arguments you make on this wiki concerning this subject, other than to link off-wiki.
Borlaug's ghost is pleased
Nice edits you made to the Norman Borlaug article. Cheers - looks purdy.
'Tweren't nothin', I guess? All I did was clean up one footnote a little bit.
menapause
here. I didn't read the actual study, but i'm bothered by one primary aspect of this article. It says women who start menopause around 51, do so "just at the time their children start families". Ok, there is something higly problematic about this. 1) the average life span at the time of the evolution of menopause is shorter than most women will ever hit menopause. (40 years, generally). 2) most people started sexual lives at or near the time they started being a woman, so 15ish as a late date. that makes a woman likely to be a grand parent at 30, and a great grand parent at 45. What the fuck am i missing? it seems to me highly problamatic to use modern norms for your study... just saying.
"it seems to me highly problamatic to use modern norms for your study... just saying." Welcome to evo-speculation. Here's a bunch of WAGs if you want to read it.
![]() First page |
![]() Previous page |
![]() Next page |
![]() Last page |



