tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5080004800469807950..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Are Christians persecuted in the United States?Ronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60697516646450141472014-08-16T10:49:32.966-07:002014-08-16T10:49:32.966-07:00> Have you seen Alan Kay's 1997 OOPSLA talk...> Have you seen Alan Kay's 1997 OOPSLA talk<br /><br />No, and I don't have time to watch it now. Sorry. But...<br /><br />> Am I making any sense?<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />> if you lock down the meanings of words too much, you end up preventing "out of the box" thinking.<br /><br />No, you don't, because you can coin new words. The proper way to introduce a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70174175777003636312014-08-16T10:25:07.058-07:002014-08-16T10:25:07.058-07:00> Indeed. Do you think you could translate it i...> Indeed. Do you think you could translate it into English for me?<br /><br />I'll do it first by asking some questions. Have you seen Alan Kay's 1997 OOPSLA talk <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY" rel="nofollow">The computer revolution hasn't happened yet</a>? I ask because it is a wonderful example of pragmatism winning out over true technical excellence in theLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-40056421611808787142014-08-15T22:49:37.666-07:002014-08-15T22:49:37.666-07:00Oh, you might want to read this.Oh, you might want to read <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2011/08/lottery-economy.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-42348796579829573272014-08-15T22:48:45.746-07:002014-08-15T22:48:45.746-07:00> I think I overreacted
No worries. No offense...> I think I overreacted<br /><br />No worries. No offense taken.<br /><br />> It's really dense<br /><br />Indeed. Do you think you could translate it into English for me?<br /><br />> Based on the excellent<br /><br />I have no idea what the word "excellent" could possibly mean here. (See above about translating MacIntyre into English.)<br /><br />You really need to read Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-84084526911476016422014-08-15T18:56:54.231-07:002014-08-15T18:56:54.231-07:00I think I overreacted and/or conflated you with so...I think I overreacted and/or conflated you with some other folks I was talking to online with my bits about "100% tolerant" and "ideal-driven"; I apologize. Sometimes I get going and I don't stop. :-/<br /><br />I did want to give you a bit more info of where I was going with voluntary societies that are allowed to be discriminatory in certain ways. The motivation comes Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-22478592387748093572014-08-14T15:58:45.903-07:002014-08-14T15:58:45.903-07:00> what I'm mostly criticizing is the idea t...> what I'm mostly criticizing is the idea that anyone is actually 100% tolerant<br /><br />I never claimed to be 100% tolerant. I never even held up 100% tolerance as an ideal.<br /><br />> you are ideal-driven, just like everyone else<br /><br />Yes, of course. I've even told you what my ideals are (science, Popperian epistemology, idea-ism). So?<br /><br />> Have you read Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24868432113963351152014-08-14T10:57:27.994-07:002014-08-14T10:57:27.994-07:00> Good question. I don't know. But I'd ...> Good question. I don't know. But I'd point to the Scientologists as an example of a group that has probably crossed the line.<br /><br />So it seems to me that it would be good to work on a model of discriminatory voluntary societies (to value anything other than a banal version of 'the good', one has to be discriminatory), societies which are allowed to test out ideas over Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76065463814023584832014-08-14T10:57:20.419-07:002014-08-14T10:57:20.419-07:00> The reason it's not a contradiction is th...> The reason it's not a contradiction is that tolerance is a continuum, not a dichotomy.<br /><br />I'm still not sure this helps. It seems that instead of being intolerant of intolerance, what you're really doing is being intolerant of those who violate some ideal. But then you no longer are at the seemingly "nice" spot of being "tolerant"; you are ideal-drivenLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85089798912054802442014-08-11T11:07:58.453-07:002014-08-11T11:07:58.453-07:00> if you are intolerant of those who are intol...> if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant, you ought to be intolerant of yourself.<br /><br />Maybe I am :-)<br /><br />The reason it's not a contradiction is that tolerance is a continuum, not a dichotomy. I'm actually rather tolerant of intolerance. I'm not advocating making bigotry a capital crime. If you really wanted to model it mathematically you'd end up Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-80622799893882298132014-08-10T22:10:39.881-07:002014-08-10T22:10:39.881-07:00> Campbell's law only applies to quantitati...> Campbell's law only applies to quantitative metrics. Quality metrics can be, well, qualitative. Freedom, for example, is very hard to measure.<br /><br />I guess I'm just not sure how this tangent has avoided the problem that if you are intolerant of those who are intolerant, you ought to be intolerant of yourself. Your suggestion to "just ignore it" seems very bad: wiping Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-38441063405277229062014-08-10T19:25:22.460-07:002014-08-10T19:25:22.460-07:00> What is an example of a "quality metric&...> What is an example of a "quality metric" that does not fall prey to Campbell's Law?<br /><br />Campbell's law only applies to quantitative metrics. Quality metrics can be, well, qualitative. Freedom, for example, is very hard to measure.<br /><br />> What meaningful constraints, relevant to this discussion, does 'evolution' provide?<br /><br />Evolution is whatRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-43827632330182012672014-08-10T18:36:17.971-07:002014-08-10T18:36:17.971-07:00> (I honestly have no idea what you meant.)
It...> (I honestly have no idea what you meant.)<br /><br />It is irrational to hold to a principle only when it is convenient, only when it leads to results you like. This is called <i>rationalization</i>, not rationality. You aren't actually adhering to a principle in this case. The only exception I can see is when the principle is supposed to be an approximation of a mutually-agreed-upon Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6125708785855369882014-08-10T15:56:42.281-07:002014-08-10T15:56:42.281-07:00> Is this an acceptable situation, or would yo...<br />> Is this an acceptable situation, or would you rather the Amish be prevented from exerting so much control over each other, and from e.g. indoctrinating their children?<br /><br />One of the tests by which coercion can be assessed is whether or not one can opt out. Hence, legalizing gay marriage is not coercion because no one is required to marry. (Forbidding gay marriage is Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-56678743320956153412014-08-10T15:56:33.918-07:002014-08-10T15:56:33.918-07:00> How do you distinguish between raw irrational...> How do you distinguish between raw irrationalism (holding to principles only when convenient) and the claim that no system of law can be perfect?<br /><br />How do I *distinguish* between them? One is a mental state and the other is a factual claim. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. (I honestly have no idea what you meant.)<br /><br />> As far as I can tell, one needsRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-83484160798212392732014-08-10T14:27:27.135-07:002014-08-10T14:27:27.135-07:00> It does indeed. I have even coined an aphoris...> It does indeed. I have even coined an aphorism that I call Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Of course, Ron's First Law must be wrong because it is itself an extreme position.<br /><br />How do you distinguish between raw irrationalism (holding to principles only when convenient) and the claim that no system of law can be perfect? As far as I can tell, one needs some Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-30708546994129688112014-08-10T13:56:08.357-07:002014-08-10T13:56:08.357-07:00> Russell's Paradox lurks here.
It does in...> Russell's Paradox lurks here.<br /><br />It does indeed. I have even coined an aphorism that I call Ron's First Law: all extreme positions are wrong. Of course, Ron's First Law must be wrong because it is itself an extreme position.<br /><br />But this is not a philosophy class, this is real life, and in real life it's easy to avoid Russell's paradox: you simply ignore Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-12273419014344243312014-08-10T13:08:00.103-07:002014-08-10T13:08:00.103-07:00> No. I'm simply applying the dictionary de...> No. I'm simply applying the dictionary definition of bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."<br /><br />So the person who objects to bigotry, by showing intolerance towards bigots, is himself a bigot. This doesn't make any sense. Russell's Paradox lurks here.<br /><br />> What I won't defend is if you try to ram your views Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-15164423830956958152014-08-10T12:24:55.363-07:002014-08-10T12:24:55.363-07:00> Your conception of bigotry as normative, with...> Your conception of bigotry as normative, with true Christianity as ¬bigotry.<br /><br />No. I'm simply applying the dictionary definition of bigotry: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." I'm not making any value judgements about whether or not bigotry is good or bad (at least not here -- I do believe that bigotry is bad, but that's a Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-6392033935506877482014-08-10T11:17:25.641-07:002014-08-10T11:17:25.641-07:00The bulk of your response to Publicus appears to b...The bulk of your response to Publicus appears to be predicated upon two claims:<br /><br />1. Your conception of bigotry as normative, with <i>true</i> Christianity as ¬bigotry.<br />2. It is ok to suspend religious services in the military during budgetary crisis.<br /><br />As to #1, I note that being intolerant of 'intolerant' people requires either (1) self-hatred, or (2) elimination Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.com