ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I wrote:
Try it and see. Try calling atheists delusional or saying that they're treated with kid gloves. You might be surprised, and then you might not make such silly claims as your original comment.
I don't think you've responded to anything I wrote in the slightest. Tilting at windmills; blinded by your own rage; incapable of even reading when the topic makes you too emotional.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
Mod hat is as mod hat does. Praise be to mod hat!
ControlsFreak
9mo ago
When you try to claim that Christianity gets treated with kid gloves, you get bland shoulder shrugs and some upvotes. When you point out that actually, it's atheism that is treated with kid gloves, you get banned. The modding happens because atheists don't even bother trying to defend their absolute bollocks metaphysics since they know they'll get trounced, so instead they fight with oversensitive interpretations of the rules (declaring that actually responding to people's questions is "obnoxious" and "unnecessarily antagonistic").
If anything in this forum is 'sacred' in the language of Robin Hanson, it is atheism. It shall not mix with the profane things, like arguments about the culture war.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
I see. You seem to have just imagined me saying something about my personal beliefs. Moreover, you have some weird post-modernist idea that your perception of my beliefs/identity has some bearing on the validity of the form of my argument. Also, you struggle with "greater than or equal to".
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
What exactly is it telling of? If you wish to call it hypocrisy, feel free, but I can wholeheartedly assure you that people will leap to the defense of things they care about/prefer more than those they don't.
People will obviously engage more with topics that they care about than topics they don't care about. But you specifically raised a concern with what you perceived as the form of an argument. We can go back to antiquity to find good reason to think that one should consider the form of an argument apart from its particulars.
My objection to you is that you didn't submit anything more than post-modernist nonsense about how, since atheism makes metaphysical claims, it's just as unfounded as religion.
Huge ROFL. I've never said that. Just not even. Double ROFL in thinking that it's anything post-modernist. Instead, it's like, core classical philosophy. I've seen some kind of ridiculous misunderstandings/misaccusations about post-modernist philosophy, but this is a new one. Just comically off the mark.
ControlsFreak
6mo ago
If my concern is genuinely new to you, it's the problem of non sequitur if one wants to use complex terminology for no good reason. But yeah, sorry Ugg. We have developed thousands of years of knowledge in how reasoning works, and your argument simply isn't persuasive. It's hardly even an argument. It's just mood affiliation. Ugg's going to have to catch up with the times and figure out how to make a proper argument.
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
Can one shut up and multiply their way to a problem of evil? Can you, like, multiply a quaternion by an elliptic curve, and it somehow pops out in there somewhere?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I'm here for a discussion where people actually read each other and respond in a way that is, uh, responsive to what they have said. That's kind of the purpose of this place. Ah, I do see that you're new here.
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
This conversation is about E2EE of Facebook messages, not bank transactions. Law enforcement/government can just subpoena your bank to get your bank transactions.
this key is going to have to be accessed by millions of law enforcement officers and government officials
Also BZZZZT. As I said, the only people that ever access this key are a small number of approved Facebook insiders. Law enforcement/government make requests (with warrants) to Facebook, but they never even touch the handle to the door of the vault that contains the computer with the HSM with the key.
But the threat that I'm talking about is from actors who have legitimate access to the vault.
This is why I had said:
Of course, this method would also be subject to the possibility of abuse by the small number of FB insiders who are tasked with this warrant service, but that, by the terms of the argument made above, "does not increase the risk further than the non-E2E case," because in the non-E2E case, FB can also trivially abuse their access to your messages. The question here is to what extent you think FB is, itself, a threat actor, but I think the terms of the argument above stipulated that they weren't. The appropriate criticism (seen elsewhere here) is that they are.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
Any stick'll do.
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
But I don't give Christianity a pass. When people tell me that they are Christian, I have pretty much the same reaction as I have when people try to convince me that a trans woman is a real woman. In both cases, I think that their beliefs are ludicrous and deeply irrational.
ControlsFreak
5mo ago
Phenomenal, pun intended. Where in this nomenclature does atheism fall?
ControlsFreak
6mo ago
I said that your argument was a non sequitur, not someone else's argument. I'm well aware that there are well-formed "problems of evil". You haven't got one here yet. You have:
- Ichthyosis vulgaris exists.
- ??? [something coming from reality]
- Therefore, the person allowing it to exist isn't omnibenevolent or at least not that and capable of doing anything about it.
At the very least, maybe you could check out wikipedia and see if they can help you fill in the question marks. Otherwise, I can only shrug, and say you're potentially being obtuse or simply can't construct a clear argument.
ControlsFreak
7mo ago
My position (half of which I agree is unsupported by the linked article) is that maintaining a caloric deficit OR maintaining a low weight will cause lethargy and therefore reduced energy expenditure in people who are disposed to obesity.
Clearly, the latter half is supported by the linked article, and my contention is clearly with the former half. Do you have any evidence to marshal for this proposition? Any estimate of the magnitude of this effect? What assumptions are you using? Like, "An X Age, Y Sex, Zlb individual has a maintenance calorie requirement of A. They plan for a calorie budget of B, meaning an A-B deficit. At the moment that they start eating at that deficit, before they lose any weight, their body suddenly shifts to having a maintenance requirement of C, where, plausibly, C<=B." What numbers are you using, and where are you getting them from?
EDIT: Moreover, does this work in the other direction, too? If they start eating D calories, where D>A, does their body suddenly adjust to using more energy, so that their new caloric requirement is E, where, plausibly, E>=D?
ControlsFreak
1mo ago
I mean, you're missing alllll sorts of qualifiers that would be needed in order to accommodate your meta-ethical position. Like, you could have easily said, "You think that Catholics and Protestants think that violent terrorism between Catholics and Protestants...." But you didn't. Because you wanted to heavily imply that there was a generic moral truth of the matter. It is only after pressed that you revealed that this was a slight of hand.
Moreover, when SlowBoy clarified that he didn't believe in god, it would be a clear indicator that he was not asking for an answer of the type that your meta-ethical position would allow without specific qualification. Again, I think you just shrugged this aside in order to be able to imply that you were speaking about a generic moral truth of the matter... just playing hide-and-seek, violating the norms of discourse. I just ask that you be on the lookout for this conflation in the future and be more precise to avoid confusion. I'll try to help keep an eye out.
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
I think you missed most of my comment.
Fyfe's attempt pretty much grabbed Marks' descriptive theory, but then pretty inexplicably tried just grafting utilitarianism onto it, and it basically doesn't make any sense. He swears that desires are the only reasons for action, because he thinks he has to have this strong rule to keep any sort of god from floating back into the picture... but then immediately introduces a "Golden Rule" (I don't want to look up his exact wording, but the 'do things that tend to fulfill desires' rule). This "Golden Rule" just comes from magic; moreover, it immediately breaks the idea that the only reasons for action are desires. For if no agent in the system desires the "Golden Rule", where does it come from? He can't take the Marks exit (which is not a "Golden Rule" at all, but instead positioned as simply a piece of practical advice for how one can vet their own desires and then go about achieving them). There really is just nothing to save it; it's self-contradictory, pretty quickly.
ControlsFreak
3mo ago
I think something 'like' Fyfe style, desire utilitarianism is probably the best moral theory out there; and if that isn't true
I might have some bad news for you... this attempt is pretty bad. It gets basically no play in academic works, for good reason. It was a result of peak Internet Atheism, where the trend was that one of the biggest pain spots (places where Internet Atheists felt like they were getting crushed argumentatively) was morality. This led to a bunch of different offshoot directions. Most academically-credible was Joel Marks' desirism, but that version was explicitly anti-realist, TBH not really much of a contribution to the moral question beyond that of Mackie (he was trying to conjure up a slightly different descriptive theory of ethics, attempting to position it apart from morality). Another example would be whatever words you want to use to describe whatever the hell it is that Sam Harris went off to try doing.
Fyfe's attempt pretty much grabbed Marks' descriptive theory, but then pretty inexplicably tried just grafting utilitarianism onto it, and it basically doesn't make any sense. He swears that desires are the only reasons for action, because he thinks he has to have this strong rule to keep any sort of god from floating back into the picture... but then immediately introduces a "Golden Rule" (I don't want to look up his exact wording, but the 'do things that tend to fulfill desires' rule). This "Golden Rule" just comes from magic; moreover, it immediately breaks the idea that the only reasons for action are desires. For if no agent in the system desires the "Golden Rule", where does it come from? He can't take the Marks exit (which is not a "Golden Rule" at all, but instead positioned as simply a piece of practical advice for how one can vet their own desires and then go about achieving them). There really is just nothing to save it; it's self-contradictory, pretty quickly.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
Nope. Not ignoring. Looking at the funnel plot. Weak evidence of weak positive effects. But, ya know, I already very clearly stated how my claim was different from the question that meta-review was analyzing. You seem to have not read it, so you're just sort of talking to yourself.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
the passable positive studies find weak evidence of weak effects
Congrats! We agree!
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
You know that you can search for pre-2019 papers, right? Citing a post-COVID review is likely shot through with motivation, one way or the other. In any event, that funnel plot looks pretty funnel-y, in the direction of a small benefit. Not surprising, given the wide array of different situations/interventions/adherence that they're having to muddle through in this type of meta-review. My position is vastly smaller in scope and cannot be dismissed by simply citing such a large agglomerating meta-review. Masks/quarantining/such can have a small effect of reducing risks in small, discrete settings. That is saying nothing about widespread use, which is rife with all sorts of weird interactions, adherence effects, etc. We don't have to say anything about that mess of a problem to be able to say, "If your sister is sick, do you think you're more likely to catch the disease from her if you both just stay at your respective houses all week, or if she comes over and sleeps in your bed with you all week?" We don't need to say anything about that big mess of a problem to say, "If your sick sister comes over for a few hours, does wearing a mask for the short period of time and washing hands help your probability a little bit over hugging and kissing?"
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
They were not really analyzed at all in that discussion.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
ROFL if you think it was "covered" in that discussion. That thread has no real analysis or meaningful argument that they cancel out. It's just throwing up casual thoughts into basically one-liner comments, likely by non-experts. It's classic shit tier internet forum 'analysis'.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
Wow, I forgot how utterly terrible many translations of that passage are. Huge oof when you look at the Greek, then back to this translation, then back to the Greek. Just amazingly atrocious attempts to squeeze in the translators' preferred beliefs.
ControlsFreak
4mo ago
You're preaching to the choir when it comes to the dangers of that type of censorship power, but censorship powers and the cultural/political dysentery they produce don't really hit on what was claimed:
How can you be richer than other people? You can have more wealth than them, or you can take resources and opportunities from them. Currently the elites are all in on the latter plan, not even secretly, pods/bugs/own nothing is a tired meme.
Unfortunately, your atheism is at least as unbacked by evidence and reason as either. You are personally as irrational as the trans ideologues, but you give yourself a pass out of pure self-serving smugness. From whence comes equality between methodological constraints of science and metaphysical theory of ontology? It's nothing but really old and really popular and so it seems "normal". You probably like the cultural/political connotations, and you may have been raised to believe such irrational things. If you're going to act like anyone is "given a pass", it is you, and every time you pull this schick, it eats away at the detente that the mods claim to believe in/enforce. The result of you continuing to break down the detente is that, unless the mods continue to protect you, your irrationality will no longer be given a pass. It'll be made clear that you're no different than trans ideologues.
More options
Context Copy link