4 ms·

> Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant... It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" pe

> Are you suggesting this is meaningfully similar to what Stefan Molyneux meant... It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death. >There are many different meanings for that word, could you provide clarity on which meaning you are referring to? >there are many definitions of the word, your link documents one of them. I only know one definition and, as you say, you now have it. If you have other definitions in mind, my guessing them is irrelevant: I am obviously not using them. Beyond that I can not help except with this link[1]. But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening. [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

mistermann 7y ago
I'm going to reply to this a bit later today, would like to hear your thoughts on it....just putting this here in case this flows off your screen due to other discussion.
mistermann 7y ago
Ok, now how to go about this.....let's start with some logical evaluation of what you've said, see if there are any incorrect assertions, logical inconsistencies, that sort of thing. > It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death. "It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally. "...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing. "...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death." So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death". There are a number of problems with this: > "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true: a) all phrases must have only one meaning b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true. I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point. Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part. > But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound. Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said: > Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/ Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no association between that phrase and that article existed in reality, prior to our conversation. The only association that exists in reality is in your personal mental model, and now (after the fact) on this web page now that you've personally written it down. So, despite knowing that objective reality is not changed by the way we describe it, you've unknowingly (I presume) done just that. (Interestingly, now that the imaginary association you've defined here is in Google's cache, at some point in the future it may be used as in a future internet argument by someone who believes it is a fact, when in reality it is only a meme, with a factual rating of 0 or NULL, depending on how you think about such things....which would be kinda cool if you think about it.) > Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening. This is true, it sometimes does happen. I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here. I'd really like to know what you think my "thesis" is. I have a feeling you would describe it as something that cannot be proven by the words I've written on the page, just as you believe you know the very specific intended meaning of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people", even though that phrase has no specific meaning, and the one you have inferred is clearly incorrect, first based on the actual words used in the 5 minute clip (he is clearly referring to the environment he is raising his daughter in), and secondly based on your non-logically sound reasoning. To me, Stefan Molyneux' opinion on the relative merits of eugenics isn't the interesting thing in this and similar conversations. What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it. I'd really like to understand what is going on here at a psychological level, I think it would be interesting if we could talk about it to try to figure out how this particular misunderstanding came to be. An interesting start to that would be knowing what you think my specific beliefs are on this topic, what you think my goal is in this conversation, and what you think I believe is accomplished/proven by demonstrating that your argument/assertion is incorrect (or perhaps more importantly, what conclusions others reading this may come to after reading that). I have a feeling these things have an effect on the discussion, because it changes the dynamics quite a bit.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utterances have no exact meaning had to be so convinced using language. So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic. It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right. What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal. It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted. >Here you have completely manufactured reality This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked. >What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it. I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit. Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man. Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it. At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not too surprising given the extremism sown by wanna be autocrats, commentators maximizing an audience and foreign dictatorships seeking to disrupt democracies with divisions. That topics beyond software are posted is entirely good. Software is made for a purpose, often altruistic, usually by bright people. No doubt this why the most progressive part of the county is the center of it; a place attracting experimentation since before the summer of love. Since, to the thoughtful, software is a tool not an end and, since this site uniquely still embraces that idea, it covers a broad range of reality based issues and problems from business opportunities to social ones like radicalization. I regret, like most of the web with unlimited user contribution, that it is so trivially vandalized. >I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here. I can not speak to the intent of posting, I assume for entertainment. But maybe practice for rhetoric class, maybe a Molyneux acolyte. It's not really relevant, only what is written matters. But as an aside, it does strongly resemble an argument between college students with an emphasis, even over application, of a particular epistemic theory rather than more substantive concrete analysis. Which is fun of course.

mistermann 7y ago

I'm going to reply to this a bit later today, would like to hear your thoughts on it....just putting this here in case this flows off your screen due to other discussion.

mistermann 7y ago

Ok, now how to go about this.....let's start with some logical evaluation of what you've said, see if there are any incorrect assertions, logical inconsistencies, that sort of thing. > It is exactly what Molyneux meant by "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" because, as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death. "It is exactly what Molyneux meant by...." - here you assert that he isn't approximately saying something, he is saying it exactly, unequivocally. "...clear the breeding arena of "crazy"... " - this is the phrase whose meaning we are discussing. "...because,..." (here comes the proof of your assertion/belief) "...as I'm sure you noticed, that is the one and only thing that phrase means: the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death." So to clarify, you are asserting that: usage of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people" unequivocally refers to (and is advocating) eugenics, because(!!!!) the phrase can mean only one thing (it is literally not possible for it to have a different meaning, regardless of the intended meaning or actual context in which it was used), and that meaning is "...the techniques for clearing being exactly two: sterilization or death". There are a number of problems with this: > "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" For this statement to be true, necessarily (always and everywhere, with no exceptions), then either of these must be true: a) all phrases must have only one meaning b) the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning The first is obviously not true, and with a quick Google search you will discover the second is also not true. I suppose I could also point out that in the process you've also implicitly inferred specific meanings for "clear" and "breeding arena" as well, which is part of the mechanics of how the overall incorrect conclusion was formed, but I won't belabor the point. Therefore, one cannot say "that is the one and only thing that phrase means" is a known, indisputable fact. It appears to be pure speculation on your part. > But use another word if you wish, the utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it. Here I'm not sure what you're saying. It seems like you have taken for granted that Molyneux was referring to eugenics, and therefore I can choose whatever word I want, because (if I follow correctly) the fact is indisputably established/proven that his specific meaning is clear. Even though he didn't use the word eugenics (you are the one that injected it into the conversation), and the reasoning you used is not logically sound. Unsurprisingly, there is some irony here as well. "utterances used to denote a fact don't alter it" suggests you are philosophically aware enough to realize that objective reality exists independentlt of the words we use to describe it. However, in your previous comment, you said: > Here's a well documented attempt to clear the gene pool of "crazy" people. Use whatever word you want for it. English speakers call it eugenics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/ Here you have completely manufactured reality (or more accurately, the model of reality in your mind). You independently and arbitrarily declared an association between "clear the gene pool of "crazy" people" and eugenics (as described in that article). But nothing in that article supports the assertion that that phrase refers to that article, and no association between that phrase and that article existed in reality, prior to our conversation. The only association that exists in reality is in your personal mental model, and now (after the fact) on this web page now that you've personally written it down. So, despite knowing that objective reality is not changed by the way we describe it, you've unknowingly (I presume) done just that. (Interestingly, now that the imaginary association you've defined here is in Google's cache, at some point in the future it may be used as in a future internet argument by someone who believes it is a fact, when in reality it is only a meme, with a factual rating of 0 or NULL, depending on how you think about such things....which would be kinda cool if you think about it.) > Alas, sometimes when a thesis is indefensible, rhetoricians derail the topic into nonsensical minutiae rather than address the point. It would be regrettable if that were happening. This is true, it sometimes does happen. I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here. I'd really like to know what you think my "thesis" is. I have a feeling you would describe it as something that cannot be proven by the words I've written on the page, just as you believe you know the very specific intended meaning of the phrase "clear the breeding arena of "crazy" people", even though that phrase has no specific meaning, and the one you have inferred is clearly incorrect, first based on the actual words used in the 5 minute clip (he is clearly referring to the environment he is raising his daughter in), and secondly based on your non-logically sound reasoning. To me, Stefan Molyneux' opinion on the relative merits of eugenics isn't the interesting thing in this and similar conversations. What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it. I'd really like to understand what is going on here at a psychological level, I think it would be interesting if we could talk about it to try to figure out how this particular misunderstanding came to be. An interesting start to that would be knowing what you think my specific beliefs are on this topic, what you think my goal is in this conversation, and what you think I believe is accomplished/proven by demonstrating that your argument/assertion is incorrect (or perhaps more importantly, what conclusions others reading this may come to after reading that). I have a feeling these things have an effect on the discussion, because it changes the dynamics quite a bit.

TomMckenny 7y ago
The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. Ironically, anyone convinced that utterances have no exact meaning had to be so convinced using language. So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. It would be one thing if there were even one plausible counter example of some alternative meaning, but just claiming "no one can know exactly what is meant" is clearly incorrect and just obfuscates the more important topic. It is not a surprise that obfuscation should surround this topic and individual. The intentional obfuscation of language by the autocratically minded has been well know so long that Orwell wrote a book about it. Pseudo intellectuals like De Gobineau have been doing it for generations to cover absurd ideas they want to believe. Molyneux is just another clone among other Youtubers turning a quick buck. Which reminds us that charlatans and scientology-like cultist also do it: A person no one would have heard of can shoot to fame, influence and extra cash when done right. What's remarkable is that people still fall for it. When a face on youtube with the right look and right words gives a facile world theory that claims the listener's problems are someone else's fault and they are better than everyone else, it's accepted by many with cult like zeal. It's amazing the lack of suspicion that an easy solution to the world's problems should come from a few minute stream-of-consciousness diatribe into a web cam, with ludicrous, poorly understood citations if any. I suspect the followers tend to be isolated people of underwhelming accomplishment and without life direction. Historically anyway, this has been the group that gets targeted. >Here you have completely manufactured reality This assumes not only that the phrase might possibly mean something else but now that in in fact definitely means something else. It does not. And indeed the Wikipedia article makes no reference to Molyneux. But Molyneux is certainly referring to the events in the article. Thus the utterance and it's implications are correctly linked. >What's interesting to me is that on a programming focused website, frequented predominantly by people who are well above average not just in general intelligence but specifically logical thinking, when the topic of discussion touches on certain things, it is almost as if the logical reasoning part of the brain is downgraded, and the emotional reasoning part takes over. And not only that, but all indications are that the individual is not only not aware of this, it almost seems like they cannot be made aware of it. I too find this interesting. Possibly they are not all the same people. Possibly only a narrow slice of software requires clarity. There's an API for hackernews one could query and maybe analyze a bit. Possibly some have focused so narrowly on their field they know nothing outside. If everything before 1990 is a blur known only from reruns, high-school history and the very occasional Wikipedia snip-it, it would explain the equanimity with which phrases like "enemy of the people" and "America first" are taken. Why the chant to lock up politic opponents doesn't cause alarm. And why a self made holocaust survivor who aids pro-democracy movements worldwide can be turned into an omnipresent boogie man. Also remarkable are the ever present comments of those who believe a guy in his den with a web cam has the secret truth while all the real journalists in the world have coordinated a left wing conspiracy. The process leading to that mental state must be remarkable. It's nice the Times is drawing attention to it. At any rate, today's blinding emotions are not too surprising given the extremism sown by wanna be autocrats, commentators maximizing an audience and foreign dictatorships seeking to disrupt democracies with divisions. That topics beyond software are posted is entirely good. Software is made for a purpose, often altruistic, usually by bright people. No doubt this why the most progressive part of the county is the center of it; a place attracting experimentation since before the summer of love. Since, to the thoughtful, software is a tool not an end and, since this site uniquely still embraces that idea, it covers a broad range of reality based issues and problems from business opportunities to social ones like radicalization. I regret, like most of the web with unlimited user contribution, that it is so trivially vandalized. >I'm very curious to know if you are able to believe anything else is happening here. I can not speak to the intent of posting, I assume for entertainment. But maybe practice for rhetoric class, maybe a Molyneux acolyte. It's not really relevant, only what is written matters. But as an aside, it does strongly resemble an argument between college students with an emphasis, even over application, of a particular epistemic theory rather than more substantive concrete analysis. Which is fun of course.