Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Denigrating science to inflate the religious ego

Crow, I may be more inclined to agree with you, but I recommend avoiding perturbation.

Wild, I'm equally irritated with pop-apologetic: I don't have a problem with science in itself, except when it's used as an ideological method for manipulation. But I think your conclusions are impractical. You take issue with those who denigrate science because you believe they do so in order to think highly of themselves, which implies that what most bothers you is that someone who doesn't agree with your pet-ideology thinks they're cooler than you.

Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

This is the problem with modernity: it's more obsessed with abstract status-symbols than results. But don't misunderstand me - if you thought that the conservatism that this website espouses is a fear that liberalism doesn't run a materialistic economy well-enough to allow people to masturbate safely within the confines of their private property without fear that mismanagement will force them into danger, then you came to the wrong website. You'd be better off reading Ayn Rand than the material here.

ANUS, and later Amerika, always spoke out against that brand of thinly disguised liberalism called neo-conservatism. They have supported an efficient use of our resources, but for the purposes of manifesting a vision of greatness. I'd like to ask everyone to remember the years of material upon which this current edifice is founded, because that old maxim that reality lacks inherent meaning renders this struggle of the ego a moot-point. We can decide that life is beautiful enough to construct a microcosm of it, and be pleased with it; or we can choose to carefully preserve our delusions until we're too old and feeble to carry on. There's a lot of different paths to this goal, and some fit the description of being 'religious' while others don't.

Crow, I may be more inclined to agree with you, but I recommend avoiding perturbation.

Good comment.
I had to look up 'peturbation', it being a word I've never used in my life.
It's a state difficult to avoid when one is charged with maintaining/enforcing order, whether one feels like doing it, or not. I am a human, after all, and a decidedly sensitive one.
I get upset, sometimes, at the utter chaos of people's behaviour, but not to the point where it renders me incapable of measured decision making.
I dislike engaging in unpleasantness, but once engaged, am prone to kick ass, rather than run away.
Seems a manly trait to me. So I endure it.

Aggression is manly, just as long as it has an end in encouraging the growth of the good, the beautiful - whatever you call it. Passions are tools, they can be used for effective and ineffective purposes; good and bad ends.

Wild is doing the same thing, which is when challenged, attacking with ferocity.

His point bears consideration, or rather the sub-point he is making: the politicization of science is not the fault of the process known (once) as "science" itself.

I defer to the Greeks of course, who between little boys would have referred to both science and Crow's Dharma-based thinking as "science."

I hope Wild can come back. Luckily this and other internet drama is out of my hands and in more capable hands, so I'll trust that to resolve the situation.

To the first, science is actually the most humble discourse humans have ever attempted to understand "reality" - and certainly far more so than religion.

If science were practiced this way, it would be great.

It is, but there's also a lot of solipsism. The same thing happened to the Greeks and after hitting critical mass, it collapsed and was absorbed, refined and integrated into another method of Human investigation, the one we are discussing now. It's a matter of time before Empiricism is brought back down to earth. The only thing that would prevent this action is the barbarism noted in this thread, since all things are contingency.

Before we dramatize this... let's consider context and how to make something positive out of it.

This would be great, if it were possible.

It's been communicated on multiple occasions that the one rule of your house was that your guests had to be kind to one another and could not attack or insult each other. If they did break that rule, you'd sick your dog on them. That's not really true though, is it? If a guest shares a thought that the dog doesn't like, the dog bites. Like his first reply to this thread which is one among NUMEROUS examples of the dog attacking your guests when they didn't break your cardinal rule. We've also learned from this thread that two guests conducting civil and charitable conversation can provoke your dog if the dog doesn't like the manner or content of that conversation.

We know you like your dog, but nobody is going to want to come over to your house anymore if they have to walk on eggshells. Especially if the "do as I say not as I do" principle remains with regards to behavior.

Balogna: I never engage in aggression for the sake of it. I've always hated that characteristic in bullies.
I am, as all my studies inform me, a defender of the right.
Not my right. The Right.

Which, when you consider it, dispassionately, is ideal admin material.
It is rarely appreciated, or welcomed, but it is demonstrably necessary.

Wild is doing the same thing, which is when challenged, attacking with ferocity.

Right, which isn't a problem in itself. It becomes one when it's only end is asserting the ego.

Vigilance, there is no point your remaining here. Your intellect will never back down from your unassailable conviction that you are right, will always be right, and that's that.
Who, in their right mind, would continue to attack and denigrate the one person who will defeat them, no matter what?
Digest that for a moment or two, while I hover over the forever-ban button.
See if you can rise above your whatever-it is.
But be quick.

Wild is doing the same thing, which is when challenged, attacking with ferocity.

Right, which isn't a problem in itself. It becomes one when it's only end is asserting the ego.

Absolutely. The problem is that ego-filled people are unable to recognize ego-less behaviour.

Must be nice to be the one doing the banning for once, instead of being banned or outright ignored elsewhere. Having control over a dwindling online community as opposed to be outted of all the rest. ANUS spent its life cycle in total hostility towards other online communities, its dissidents, its contributors and its host civilization. A deconstructionist, reactionary pseudo-conservative, dystopia. You are the perfect heir to the throne. I shouldn't have been hostile to you. You aren't dragging this forum down, you are an almost perfect embodiment of it and its ideals. Good bye Crow.

Good bye. I should have listened more closely to my instincts long ago, and many times since.
I shall do exactly that, from now on, and that is your major contribution to this site.