Login now

Not your profile? Login and get free access to your reports and analysis.

Tags

Sign in

No tag added here yet.
You can login on CircleCount to add some tags here.

Are you missing a tag in the list of available tags? You can suggest new tags here.

Login now

Do you want to see a more detailed chart? Check your settings and define your favorite chart type.

Or click here to get the detailed chart only once.

Daniel Voisin has been at 1 events

HostFollowersTitleDateGuestsLinks
Google+10,577,717The Google+ team will be sharing a few updates. RSVP to this event to watch the broadcast live.A Morning with Google+2013-10-29 17:30:0033847  

Shared Circles including Daniel Voisin

Shared Circles are not available on Google+ anymore, but you can find them still here.

Activity

Average numbers for the latest posts (max. 50 posts, posted within the last 4 weeks)

4
comments per post
1
reshares per post
2
+1's per post

929
characters per posting

Top posts in the last 50 posts

Most comments: 107

posted image

2015-06-07 12:59:16 (107 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

I just finished reading something on slashdot (I know, that phrase never leads anywhere good) that 'explained' why mankind has not colonized the solar system and indeed the stars themselves.

Because the governments of the world have to keep the Libertarian supermen down in order to keep society running. Without these amazing men of vision and virtue and the savage oppression they withstand on a daily basis (like paying their taxes or not shooting their neighbors for not being white), the 'statists' would all die.

But if they were allowed to, all the Libertarians would rocket off to space to enjoy unlimited self-sovereignty. Until the air ran out.


I have to admit, in my less humane moments, I would be pretty much okay with them getting their wish. But it would just mean that somebody, a few generations down the line, would have to tow a lot of space junk... more »

Most reshares: 5

posted image

2015-05-29 15:33:55 (29 comments, 5 reshares, 32 +1s)Open 

Yep, trickling hasn't worked. Trickling will never work.
Ty +Katie H.​

Most plusones: 32

posted image

2015-05-29 15:33:55 (29 comments, 5 reshares, 32 +1s)Open 

Yep, trickling hasn't worked. Trickling will never work.
Ty +Katie H.​

Latest 50 posts

posted image

2015-07-27 23:35:19 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 8 +1s)Open 

Owl in the wind. 

Owl in the wind. ___

posted image

2015-07-27 18:32:05 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

"Reading Ta-Nehisi Coates woke me up from a groggy state, a kind of semi-lucid haze I did not realize I was in..."

"Reading Ta-Nehisi Coates woke me up from a groggy state, a kind of semi-lucid haze I did not realize I was in..."___

posted image

2015-07-27 16:33:18 (2 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

While I totally support their right to ride around without tops, I don't support the reason they said they were doing it: to speak out against the sexualization of women's chests.

Now from the perspective of a woman, yes, breast would need to be sexualized. Fair enough. But from a male perspective breasts are inherently sexualized and arousing. Maybe if females going topless was the norm this wouldn't be so pronounced, but the issue I have here is male arousal is seen as dirty or bad. As if we are choosing to be aroused.

I have this same issue when dress codes come into question and the answer is for men to better control their urges. Maybe so, but I don't think people acknowledge how hard that is for men and how visual our arousal is compared to a woman's. 

While I totally support their right to ride around without tops, I don't support the reason they said they were doing it: to speak out against the sexualization of women's chests.

Now from the perspective of a woman, yes, breast would need to be sexualized. Fair enough. But from a male perspective breasts are inherently sexualized and arousing. Maybe if females going topless was the norm this wouldn't be so pronounced, but the issue I have here is male arousal is seen as dirty or bad. As if we are choosing to be aroused.

I have this same issue when dress codes come into question and the answer is for men to better control their urges. Maybe so, but I don't think people acknowledge how hard that is for men and how visual our arousal is compared to a woman's. ___

posted image

2015-07-19 13:36:47 (4 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

It's funnier because it's not supposed to be funny.

R u ready ....___It's funnier because it's not supposed to be funny.

posted image

2015-07-17 20:21:15 (0 comments, 4 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is to build alternatives within the system; to use governmental power in a radical and disruptive way; and to direct all actions towards the transition – not the defence of random elements of the old system. We have to learn what’s urgent, and what’s important, and that sometimes they do not coincide.

If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is to build alternatives within the system; to use governmental power in a radical and disruptive way; and to direct all actions towards the transition – not the defence of random elements of the old system. We have to learn what’s urgent, and what’s important, and that sometimes they do not coincide.___

posted image

2015-07-17 13:54:07 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

So how common is it for blacks to be shot up here in Canada? Am I just naive in thinking the issue isn't quite as systemic as it is south of the border or am I right to think this is an example of Canadians projecting American politics onto Canadian politics? 

Activists demand public apology over recent shooting death of black Toronto man: The list of demands include a public apology from Mr. Tory, Police Chief Mark Saunders and the police force___So how common is it for blacks to be shot up here in Canada? Am I just naive in thinking the issue isn't quite as systemic as it is south of the border or am I right to think this is an example of Canadians projecting American politics onto Canadian politics? 

posted image

2015-07-17 13:38:59 (2 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

I've noticed a few Jesus stole from Horus and similar posts popping up lately so I figured I would raise the biggest roadblock I face accepting Jesus didn't exist as a person. The dozens of texts written about him.

What I've noticed is most of the arguments for a mythical Jesus are focused on the lack of official sources citing Jesus. They'll argue against the authenticity of the mentions from Josephus and point out none of the active Roman historians at the time said anything about Jesus.

What's important here is to ask what types of things would Roman historians be interested in recording in the first place. Logically if all of the things in the Bible are true they would be very interested in recording the miracles and grand entrance intro Jerusalem. These were very big events according to the Bible and without a doubt if any of them happened today it would be... more »

I've noticed a few Jesus stole from Horus and similar posts popping up lately so I figured I would raise the biggest roadblock I face accepting Jesus didn't exist as a person. The dozens of texts written about him.

What I've noticed is most of the arguments for a mythical Jesus are focused on the lack of official sources citing Jesus. They'll argue against the authenticity of the mentions from Josephus and point out none of the active Roman historians at the time said anything about Jesus.

What's important here is to ask what types of things would Roman historians be interested in recording in the first place. Logically if all of the things in the Bible are true they would be very interested in recording the miracles and grand entrance intro Jerusalem. These were very big events according to the Bible and without a doubt if any of them happened today it would be front page news.

But the problem with using the lack of records for these amazing events is that none of them happened. We can say with confidence none of them happened because as rational modern people we know miracles like this have never and will never happen. The only way the lack of records for these events prove Jesus wasn't a real person is if events like this would be possible in the first place. Since they're not it's not a strong argument.

Now even though we don't have official sources to say Jesus was a person we do have dozens of Gospels written about Jesus by almost as many authors. How they portray Jesus isn't the same, but there are enough similarities between them to suggest they are drawing inspiration from a single source. The question here is who wrote all these texts and for what purpose.

And this is where I apply occam's razor and look for the simplest explanation. Which to me would be that they are all inspired by a single person most likely named Jesus. Alternatives, like these being written by Roman officials undertaking a three century long plot to eventually use Christianity as an alternative state religion to control the population after first using it to cause dissent in the population, just seem too complicated to be rational.

To me it makes much more sense that the thoughts and ideas of a single person inspired these texts, and this single person was mythologized, rather than the opposite which has a mythological person being created by either a single person or group of people, which in turn was used as inspiration for dozens of texts.___

posted image

2015-07-17 13:38:25 (40 comments, 2 reshares, 5 +1s)Open 

I've noticed a few Jesus stole from Horus and similar posts popping up lately so I figured I would raise the biggest roadblock I face accepting Jesus didn't exist as a person. The dozens of texts written about him.

What I've noticed is most of the arguments for a mythical Jesus are focused on the lack of official sources citing Jesus. They'll argue against the authenticity of the mentions from Josephus and point out none of the active Roman historians at the time said anything about Jesus.

What's important here is to ask what types of things would Roman historians be interested in recording in the first place. Logically if all of the things in the Bible are true they would be very interested in recording the miracles and grand entrance intro Jerusalem. These were very big events according to the Bible and without a doubt if any of them happened today it would be... more »

I've noticed a few Jesus stole from Horus and similar posts popping up lately so I figured I would raise the biggest roadblock I face accepting Jesus didn't exist as a person. The dozens of texts written about him.

What I've noticed is most of the arguments for a mythical Jesus are focused on the lack of official sources citing Jesus. They'll argue against the authenticity of the mentions from Josephus and point out none of the active Roman historians at the time said anything about Jesus.

What's important here is to ask what types of things would Roman historians be interested in recording in the first place. Logically if all of the things in the Bible are true they would be very interested in recording the miracles and grand entrance intro Jerusalem. These were very big events according to the Bible and without a doubt if any of them happened today it would be front page news.

But the problem with using the lack of records for these amazing events is that none of them happened. We can say with confidence none of them happened because as rational modern people we know miracles like this have never and will never happen. The only way the lack of records for these events prove Jesus wasn't a real person is if events like this would be possible in the first place. Since they're not it's not a strong argument.

Now even though we don't have official sources to say Jesus was a person we do have dozens of Gospels written about Jesus by almost as many authors. How they portray Jesus isn't the same, but there are enough similarities between them to suggest they are drawing inspiration from a single source. The question here is who wrote all these texts and for what purpose.

And this is where I apply occam's razor and look for the simplest explanation. Which to me would be that they are all inspired by a single person most likely named Jesus. Alternatives, like these being written by Roman officials undertaking a three century long plot to eventually use Christianity as an alternative state religion to control the population after first using it to cause dissent in the population, just seem too complicated to be rational.

To me it makes much more sense that the thoughts and ideas of a single person inspired these texts, and this single person was mythologized, rather than the opposite which has a mythological person being created by either a single person or group of people, which in turn was used as inspiration for dozens of texts.___

posted image

2015-07-16 13:19:55 (0 comments, 1 reshares, 7 +1s)Open 

Sometimes science fiction bleeds into regular fiction. George Orwell's novel 1984 is a great example of this. He lead the way for Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, and Neil Gaiman.

To my great embarrassment, I've not read 1984.

I have read "Brave New World" which is fascinating because where "Brave New World" is the post World War I era, filled with capitalists who were enthralled with the idea of violent revolution which inspired the generation that pushed us into World War II. (Seriously, check out FT Marinetti's "Manifesto of Futurism" written in 1909, "We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman." He later became a big supporter of Mussolini, the founder of fascism, merging his party with the Italian... more »

Sometimes science fiction bleeds into regular fiction. George Orwell's novel 1984 is a great example of this. He lead the way for Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, and Neil Gaiman.

To my great embarrassment, I've not read 1984.

I have read "Brave New World" which is fascinating because where "Brave New World" is the post World War I era, filled with capitalists who were enthralled with the idea of violent revolution which inspired the generation that pushed us into World War II. (Seriously, check out FT Marinetti's "Manifesto of Futurism" written in 1909, "We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman." He later became a big supporter of Mussolini, the founder of fascism, merging his party with the Italian Fascist party.)

Aldous Huxley wrote a book satirizing this world of violent revolution by what he imagined as the end result of the fascists, before World War II.

After World War II came George Orwell. He saw what fascism was going to lead to.

Fascism was described by Mussolini as the merger of the state and private industry. This is why Stalin's state capitalism, or Stalinism, has more in common with fascism than communism. This is also why people can't tell the difference between them.

Also, this is why I like to tell at people who claim victory of capitalism over communism that they are wrong. Communism is where the people control the means of production and Stalinism is where an oligarchy does.

George Orwell came out of World War II as a libertarian. Another word that has become corrupted. Orwell was much closer to socialist then a modern libertarian. (Those are closer to a fascist or a confederate. Depending what kind of libertarian they are. I feel more confident writing about an author I never read than the types of libertarians there are.)

Fascism is extreme capitalism. Ronald Reagan and Warren G. Harding were much closer to fascists than people like to admit. Explains why they were both corrupt Presidents) Harding's famous saying was "less government in business and more business in government.”

Aldus Huxley wrote about the monster rising and so did George Orwell. Orwell also understood the idea that Philip K. Dick put the best, "To fight the Empire is to be infected by its derangement... Whoever defeats the Empire becomes the Empire; it proliferates like a virus..."

We turned into a fascist state when traitor Ronald Reagan cheated his way into office. Neoliberalism has only continued this goose step rightward. This is why we need a progressive, when I say that I mean not someone like Hillary who is nothing but a tool for fascists, in the pockets of Wall Street and Walmart. Because with her as the "opposition" there is no real choice. That is the "Mildest democracy, so-called."

Share if you agree.

If you like this, support this. (http://www.right-about-now.com)___

2015-07-14 13:38:05 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

Been reading Kevin Passmore's very short introduction to fascism. Below is the definition he gives:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to
place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural,
and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty,
and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist
nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable
hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as
prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why
fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a
movement of the radical right because the defeat of social-
ism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation
are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite
acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic
leader, and embodied in a mass,... more »

Been reading Kevin Passmore's very short introduction to fascism. Below is the definition he gives:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to
place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural,
and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty,
and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist
nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable
hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as
prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why
fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a
movement of the radical right because the defeat of social-
ism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation
are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite
acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic
leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists
are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of
socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override
conservative interests – family, property, religion, the uni-
versities, the civil service – where the interests of the nation
are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives
from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific
demands of the labour and women’s movements, so long as
these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists
seek to ensure the harmonization of workers’ and women’s
interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within
special sections of the party and/or within a corporate
system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they
confer upon members depends on the individual’s national,
political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist
policy are suffused with ultranationalism.___

posted image

2015-07-10 21:55:16 (3 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

Unfettered socialism in America. Who knew!

Surely he can't be talking about the United States? We have "unfettered" Big government socialism going on. Actually, I can't think of any countries on the planet that have "unfettered capitalism" at the moment. We have plenty of examples of oppressive socialism, facsism, and dictatorships that are destroying humanity to the core though. How about we expend some of our spiritual energy condemning those? Just an idea...___Unfettered socialism in America. Who knew!

posted image

2015-07-10 13:30:25 (4 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

If the principles of your ideology are unsuitable for managing a group of three to five people why would they be fine for managing millions?

Honestly if you start to apply libertarian principles to the family you'll quickly find it quite insane. Wouldn't making kids do chores for meals and then withholding the meals if they can't pay up perfectly libertarian?

What about trashing toys they've been given by you to drill home the point nothing belongs to you unless you pay for it. Maybe it would be good to stop taking care of them all together if they happen to become homosexual or Atheist or Christian or a statist and therefore violate your own freedom of religion or thought.

If #libertarianism is so natural and right then why does applying the principles to a family unit seem so tyrannical and insane?

One of the dangers of modern libertarianism is that some people want to apply the ethical rules and insights that make complete sense in the market to micro-orders such as the family and the firm.___If the principles of your ideology are unsuitable for managing a group of three to five people why would they be fine for managing millions?

Honestly if you start to apply libertarian principles to the family you'll quickly find it quite insane. Wouldn't making kids do chores for meals and then withholding the meals if they can't pay up perfectly libertarian?

What about trashing toys they've been given by you to drill home the point nothing belongs to you unless you pay for it. Maybe it would be good to stop taking care of them all together if they happen to become homosexual or Atheist or Christian or a statist and therefore violate your own freedom of religion or thought.

If #libertarianism is so natural and right then why does applying the principles to a family unit seem so tyrannical and insane?

posted image

2015-07-09 13:36:55 (2 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

The definition of ethnic cleansing is removing a specific ethnic group from society by either forcefully expelling or killing them.

This is not what building more diverse communities through immigration is at all.

In fact this specific manipulation of language is the same used in the rhetoric that drove Dylan Roof to kill. A key concern in racist groups is genocide us being covertly undertaken against white by means of immigration. Whites are being bred to extinction.

https://youtu.be/2zMzeKBEvaQ

Politico bemoans conservative, religious white Southerners whom the magazine accuses of preventing the U.S. from being more like Britain, Canada and other liberal, English speaking democracies.

The article concludes with the hope that the South will be ethnically and culturally cleansed by immigrants from other countries and liberals relocating from other parts of the U.S.

___The definition of ethnic cleansing is removing a specific ethnic group from society by either forcefully expelling or killing them.

This is not what building more diverse communities through immigration is at all.

In fact this specific manipulation of language is the same used in the rhetoric that drove Dylan Roof to kill. A key concern in racist groups is genocide us being covertly undertaken against white by means of immigration. Whites are being bred to extinction.

https://youtu.be/2zMzeKBEvaQ

posted image

2015-07-03 20:49:18 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

Was The Soviet Union Really a Socialist Country? Noam Chomsky Dispels This Propaganda In 1 Minute

Was The Soviet Union Really a Socialist Country? Noam Chomsky Dispels This Propaganda In 1 Minute___

posted image

2015-06-30 14:05:12 (5 comments, 1 reshares, 15 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2015-06-30 03:17:57 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

Dj Josef and The Homo-Commies are coming to get you!

Dj Josef and The Homo-Commies are coming to get you!___

posted image

2015-06-27 16:18:18 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 7 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2015-06-25 16:55:03 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

Here's a creationist video slamming my kids' book, Grandmother Fish. They even splice in PZ Myers for a guest spot! They show lots of cute footage of kids having the book read to them, and I think the message speaks for itself. I hope lots of creationists see this video!

Grandmother Fish is the first book to teach evolution to preschoolers. I raised money for it on Kickstarter last year, and now it's at the printer.

Here's a creationist video slamming my kids' book, Grandmother Fish. They even splice in PZ Myers for a guest spot! They show lots of cute footage of kids having the book read to them, and I think the message speaks for itself. I hope lots of creationists see this video!

Grandmother Fish is the first book to teach evolution to preschoolers. I raised money for it on Kickstarter last year, and now it's at the printer.___

posted image

2015-06-22 16:24:48 (7 comments, 1 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

Great article. Essentially the problem with capitalism isn't capitalism, it's the culture it's built on.

Which in America has increasingly become individualistic and wealth focused to the point of immorality.

It's also worth mentioning many people believe they are rich folk in waiting. The way they talk about the wealthy and the desire to defend them points to a misplaced confidence on their own potential. It seems to them the poor are, even if they themselves fit into that group, failed people barely worthy of pity. 

Great article. Essentially the problem with capitalism isn't capitalism, it's the culture it's built on.

Which in America has increasingly become individualistic and wealth focused to the point of immorality.

It's also worth mentioning many people believe they are rich folk in waiting. The way they talk about the wealthy and the desire to defend them points to a misplaced confidence on their own potential. It seems to them the poor are, even if they themselves fit into that group, failed people barely worthy of pity. ___

posted image

2015-06-19 11:06:22 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

I think Google has just proved that computers can have religious visions. This image is identical to what a Chinese Pure Land Buddhist sees on LSD.

Image source: http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html

I think Google has just proved that computers can have religious visions. This image is identical to what a Chinese Pure Land Buddhist sees on LSD.

Image source: http://googleresearch.blogspot.ch/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html___

posted image

2015-06-18 22:35:26 (3 comments, 1 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

Found this in Jesus Christ daily. I adore troll posts like this. So many people don't catch on.

https://youtu.be/V0lja1ll-Yc ___Found this in Jesus Christ daily. I adore troll posts like this. So many people don't catch on.

posted image

2015-06-15 16:02:07 (3 comments, 0 reshares, 6 +1s)Open 

___

posted image

2015-06-15 12:02:12 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

"Each year, Alberta averages 30 earthquakes. Since December 2013 there have been 200 in the Fox Creek area alone."

The counterpoint to this from the pro-fracking side of things is: Well, this isn't from fracking, this is from how wastewater was disposed of. And that process is now changing.

The counterpoint to that THAT is that it IS from fracking, because it was done by the fracking industry. And it's a practice which was adopted across the board by every fracking site that could o so without fully understanding the potential consequences of the action. And those consequences were "MORE EARTHQUAKES*.

That could have been discovered. The industry could have been like "Hey. We're about to do a major geological thing that's never been done before, and we're going to do it damn near everywhere we do this one thing,... more »

"Each year, Alberta averages 30 earthquakes. Since December 2013 there have been 200 in the Fox Creek area alone."

The counterpoint to this from the pro-fracking side of things is: Well, this isn't from fracking, this is from how wastewater was disposed of. And that process is now changing.

The counterpoint to that THAT is that it IS from fracking, because it was done by the fracking industry. And it's a practice which was adopted across the board by every fracking site that could o so without fully understanding the potential consequences of the action. And those consequences were "MORE EARTHQUAKES*.

That could have been discovered. The industry could have been like "Hey. We're about to do a major geological thing that's never been done before, and we're going to do it damn near everywhere we do this one thing, and we want to do this one thing wherever we can. So we're going to dedicate a bunch of time and money beforehand to making sure there aren't any unintended consequences."

Except they didn't. And why would they? That's not how the business world works.

The real takeaway from this is that we need to shackle these industries with further regulations and ensure that any potentially catastrophic outcomes are assessed and planned for.

And that's what an earthquake is. It's a an actual catastrophe.___

posted image

2015-06-14 15:49:23 (1 comments, 1 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30719-us-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine

US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30719-us-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine

US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine.___

posted image

2015-06-13 00:14:28 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

"Q: I’m sure that the term “Socialism” tends to bring out a lot of negativity from those whom you talk to about it. Though your book doesn’t emphasize socialism per se– there are plenty of terms in which people use to help them understand what our next socio-economic journey will be. How we term this next step – does it really matter whether we call it Socialism, or the Age of Abundance, or the Technium? Isn’t it more important that we simply get there, as opposed to argue what name we’ll give it?

A: I agree, the word “socialism” today is pejorative and sales of my book I feel are suffering because I put it in the title. So if I had titled my book something more appealing such as, “The Coming Economic Singularity,” it would probably be selling much better. We get caught up in names and we start fighting over texts and interpretations and authors and various otherintellectuals’ interpre... more »

"Q: I’m sure that the term “Socialism” tends to bring out a lot of negativity from those whom you talk to about it. Though your book doesn’t emphasize socialism per se– there are plenty of terms in which people use to help them understand what our next socio-economic journey will be. How we term this next step – does it really matter whether we call it Socialism, or the Age of Abundance, or the Technium? Isn’t it more important that we simply get there, as opposed to argue what name we’ll give it?

A: I agree, the word “socialism” today is pejorative and sales of my book I feel are suffering because I put it in the title. So if I had titled my book something more appealing such as, “The Coming Economic Singularity,” it would probably be selling much better. We get caught up in names and we start fighting over texts and interpretations and authors and various other intellectuals’ interpretations, much like protestant sects fighting over bible interpretations. But what we, the human race, are facing as we race toward the event horizon of the coming economic and technological singularity is something that no human society or culture has ever experienced before. So our past ideologies are like the Zen story of the blind monks all trying to figure out what an elephant is. One grabs its leg and thinks it’s like a sturdy tree, one its side and he thinks it’s like a wall. Another finds its ear and thinks it’s like a fan and the last discovers its trunk and thinks it’s like a rope. Yet none can see the entirety, the whole elephant in one glance. We are a lot like the blind Zen monks presently. Ideological blindness keeps us arguing about the parts of the elephant that we have grasped. Very few have traveled above the ideological fog that surrounds us to see things as they are in the light of coming future developments, which in itself is almost impossible as the future is fluid and constantly changing, but the patterns developing are discernable. I think that as we evolve and ideas begin to converge, through an almost dialectical process, the resultant transcendent will have elements of what we call socialism and capitalism, but it will be entirely different from what we have known those terms to mean, or what we have imagined them to be.  We are facing the unprecedented, the unknown, we will have to invent a new terminology in Later Futurity as we move from the era of Early Futurity that we are presently in, but I find it heartening that libertarians, techno-libertarians, and techno-progressives (techno-Marxist’s like yourself BJ) love my book. A techno-libertarian I know messaged me on FB and thanked me for writing the book as she had always felt “torn down the middle.” she told me that emotionally she had socialist humanitarian sympathies coupled with libertarian economics that always seemed to war within her and that as she read my book it revealed to her how this dialectical delusion is easily transcended and that both halves can actually be seamlessly wedded together.  That to me is truly encouraging and satisfying as I really wrote the book for individuals, like her, who are tired of today’s constant ideological battles that get us nowhere.  To truly have real change, we have to come together and work as a team and what I have discovered and laid out in my book can easily be seen as a way to bring such divergent and combative groups as The Tea Party and the Occupy Movement together."___

posted image

2015-06-08 00:34:11 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

Watching the NDTV (think of it like India's CNN) evening debate segment. Topic is "Spirituality in Modern India". Pretty civil discussion, much less acrimonious than, say, Bill Maher's program in the USA. (Although that's not a fair comparison, since one is evening news analysis and the other is a late night talk show.)

Pleasantly surprised that Javed Akhtar, outspoken anti-religion atheist (of Muslim background) is a featured panelist. Not because I agree with him (I don't, at least not on some of the points that define his position vis-a-vis the other panelists), but simply because that end of the spectrum is often not represented in these panels, due to its being a demographic minority.

I think they covered all the common positions on all the major points of contention: 
* the relationship of science and religion (they need each other; they are... more »

Watching the NDTV (think of it like India's CNN) evening debate segment. Topic is "Spirituality in Modern India". Pretty civil discussion, much less acrimonious than, say, Bill Maher's program in the USA. (Although that's not a fair comparison, since one is evening news analysis and the other is a late night talk show.)

Pleasantly surprised that Javed Akhtar, outspoken anti-religion atheist (of Muslim background) is a featured panelist. Not because I agree with him (I don't, at least not on some of the points that define his position vis-a-vis the other panelists), but simply because that end of the spectrum is often not represented in these panels, due to its being a demographic minority.

I think they covered all the common positions on all the major points of contention: 
* the relationship of science and religion (they need each other; they are orthogonal; it depends on the particular form of religion; they are always in conflict), 
* the compatibility of religion with modernity (religions are necessarily for civilisation; religions adapt according to social, economic, and political pressures, and can develop both beneficial and pathological forms; religions hold back society), 
* religion and morality (morality is necessarily based on God-given laws; morality is a matter of human experience, which in the past has been codified into sacred law, but no longer need be the case; religious belief actually encourages immorality because it allows people to excuse immoral actions by claiming a higher power),
* whether there is such a thing as spirituality apart from religion (yes, spiritual experiences are real, but institutional religions are about power; no, spirituality and religion are intertwined, even if religions sometimes drift away from their original purpose; no, all talk of spirituality is nonsense),
* whether religions should be respected (yes, they should; no, you should question beliefs privately but respect others' feelings in public; no, beliefs must be criticised even if other people's feelings are hurt),
* whether Islamists represent Islam,
* whether India is a Hindu country.

It's not simple to summarise the spread of opinions on those last points, because there's a considerable difference from the typical opinions expressed on those topics in American media (substituting Christian for Hindu in that last question, of course). In brief, the panelists didn't treat Islam as a monolithic entity the way it's often treated in American media, due, I think, to the fact that Muslims have been a significant presence in India for centuries. So Indian media (at least this set of panelists) treats (Indian) Islam as the religion that's actually practised by (Indian) Muslims (which includes good and bad things depending on the particular believer), whereas American media tends to construct Islam as a particular reading of texts which is not actually read that way by any actual body of Muslims.

On the question of religious identity of the country, the difference between Christianity and Hinduism in how they typically regard other religions really affects how that question is answered in each country. Christianity tends to be exclusive, so that people who regard the USA as a Christian country are proclaiming that there is no place for atheists there. In contrast, Hinduism is more inclusive, and I think one of the panelists even said that one can be an atheist and a Hindu. So even if the country is Hindu, there is still room for atheists, and an Indian form of Islam. I think this is problematic in a different way, because Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and atheists may not want to be counted as Hindus.

It was a pretty healthy discussion. Considering that India is the world's most populous democracy, it's a sign for optimism that this sort of discussion is happening. Of course, this is on an English channel, and probably channels in local languages or targeted towards less educated groups would not be as progressive.

(After the segment is over, I change the channel, and of course, it's an infomercial for "call this premium-rate number for a Hindu astrologer and receive this magic charm". That's not that different from the USA or Canada either.)

[written in India]___

posted image

2015-06-07 12:59:16 (107 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

The last time a political movement was talking like this was before the second world war. The idea that government is holding down the libertarian supermen is quite literally the same idea fascists held to with the idea of the ubermench being held down by the dregs of society.

In fact the more I learn about the American libertarian movement the more pronounced the similarities between it and the fascism of the thirties become. To be a libertarian is to be one of the super men with the only requirement being accepting libertarian thought as true. 

I just finished reading something on slashdot (I know, that phrase never leads anywhere good) that 'explained' why mankind has not colonized the solar system and indeed the stars themselves.

Because the governments of the world have to keep the Libertarian supermen down in order to keep society running. Without these amazing men of vision and virtue and the savage oppression they withstand on a daily basis (like paying their taxes or not shooting their neighbors for not being white), the 'statists' would all die.

But if they were allowed to, all the Libertarians would rocket off to space to enjoy unlimited self-sovereignty. Until the air ran out.


I have to admit, in my less humane moments, I would be pretty much okay with them getting their wish. But it would just mean that somebody, a few generations down the line, would have to tow a lot of space junk full of corpses out of traffic lanes in the asteroid belt.___The last time a political movement was talking like this was before the second world war. The idea that government is holding down the libertarian supermen is quite literally the same idea fascists held to with the idea of the ubermench being held down by the dregs of society.

In fact the more I learn about the American libertarian movement the more pronounced the similarities between it and the fascism of the thirties become. To be a libertarian is to be one of the super men with the only requirement being accepting libertarian thought as true. 

posted image

2015-06-04 02:38:22 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

Thought-provoking analysis. "I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.  That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either." https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

Thought-provoking analysis. "I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate.  That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either." https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid___

posted image

2015-06-02 12:15:52 (2 comments, 1 reshares, 8 +1s)Open 

To me it's pretty obvious there is an atheist movement. With conventions and meetups happening all over the world it requires ignoring reality to argue there isn't.

But if there is a movement that also means the ideas being espoused by thought leaders in the movement need scrutinized and criticized as people will, be virtue of our nature, latch onto those ideas. Often from an emotional stand point instead of a rational one.

Because there is nothing politicians like more than co-opting movements to suit their own agendas. It wasn't so long ago the evangelical movement was an anti war, pro rights, love your neighbour bunch of hippies that slowly evolved into the right wing Christian movement we all know today. 

To me it's pretty obvious there is an atheist movement. With conventions and meetups happening all over the world it requires ignoring reality to argue there isn't.

But if there is a movement that also means the ideas being espoused by thought leaders in the movement need scrutinized and criticized as people will, be virtue of our nature, latch onto those ideas. Often from an emotional stand point instead of a rational one.

Because there is nothing politicians like more than co-opting movements to suit their own agendas. It wasn't so long ago the evangelical movement was an anti war, pro rights, love your neighbour bunch of hippies that slowly evolved into the right wing Christian movement we all know today. ___

posted image

2015-06-02 12:11:20 (4 comments, 2 reshares, 5 +1s)Open 

To me it's pretty obvious there is an atheist movement. With conventions and meetups happening all over the world it requires ignoring reality to argue there isn't.

But if there is a movement that also means the ideas being espoused by thought leaders in the movement need scrutinized and criticized as people will, be virtue of our nature, latch onto those ideas. Often from an emotional stand point instead of a rational one.

Because there is nothing politicians like more than co-opting movements to suit their own agendas. It wasn't so long ago the evangelical movement was an anti war, pro rights, love your neighbour bunch of hippies that slowly evolved into the right wing Christian movement we all know today. 

To me it's pretty obvious there is an atheist movement. With conventions and meetups happening all over the world it requires ignoring reality to argue there isn't.

But if there is a movement that also means the ideas being espoused by thought leaders in the movement need scrutinized and criticized as people will, be virtue of our nature, latch onto those ideas. Often from an emotional stand point instead of a rational one.

Because there is nothing politicians like more than co-opting movements to suit their own agendas. It wasn't so long ago the evangelical movement was an anti war, pro rights, love your neighbour bunch of hippies that slowly evolved into the right wing Christian movement we all know today. ___

posted image

2015-05-30 17:16:27 (9 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitlermay have ... more »

___I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitler may have been, citing Mein Kampf as a good source to prove he was a Catholic isn't a valid argument. Because it requires doing exactly what we're being asked to do by Harris: focus on the professed intent in one case while ignoring it in others.

Showing this clearly with Hitler can be hard. He wasn't an exactly an intellectual. However his southern ally Mussolini it's much easier. He was a professed atheist for most of his life, he wrote about atheism frequently, but became a Roman Catholic when assuming power because he wasn't a fool. We've known about the critical importance of professed piety since at least the Romans. As Seneca the younger said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" 

What I wonder is if perhaps the quote also encapsulates the problem itself. The common people regard religion as true because they trust the professed intent of the speaker fully. They don't think critically about it because what's being said is exactly what they want to hear: the suffering of this world has a cause and a purpose.

It let's them feel like innocent victims even when they are the aggressors.

posted image

2015-05-30 17:15:51 (75 comments, 1 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitlermay have ... more »

___I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitler may have been, citing Mein Kampf as a good source to prove he was a Catholic isn't a valid argument. Because it requires doing exactly what we're being asked to do by Harris: focus on the professed intent in one case while ignoring it in others.

Showing this clearly with Hitler can be hard. He wasn't an exactly an intellectual. However his southern ally Mussolini it's much easier. He was a professed atheist for most of his life, he wrote about atheism frequently, but became a Roman Catholic when assuming power because he wasn't a fool. We've known about the critical importance of professed piety since at least the Romans. As Seneca the younger said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" 

What I wonder is if perhaps the quote also encapsulates the problem itself. The common people regard religion as true because they trust the professed intent of the speaker fully. They don't think critically about it because what's being said is exactly what they want to hear: the suffering of this world has a cause and a purpose.

It let's them feel like innocent victims even when they are the aggressors.

posted image

2015-05-30 17:13:09 (2 comments, 1 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitlermay have ... more »

___I think this really gets to the heart of the problem:

Accepting a person’s professed intent as a pure manifestation of their will is so blatantly unscientific that it shouldn’t even require any further discussion. Does Harris suggest we take all of Adolf Hitler’s professed intentions at their face value? Since Harris accepts everything ISIS and Al Qaeda are saying about their intentions, we should logically do the same with Hitler and other figures as well. Hence: George W. Bush was a democracy sprinkler, Stalin was simply cleansing the state from a “fifth column of wreckers, terrorists and spies”, and the Interahamwe in Rwanda were simply doing sanitary work. And further down the rabbit hole of silliness we go.

I see this behavior come up during one of the most enjoyable Internet arguments possible: what religion was Hitler?

Regardless of what religion Hitler may have been, citing Mein Kampf as a good source to prove he was a Catholic isn't a valid argument. Because it requires doing exactly what we're being asked to do by Harris: focus on the professed intent in one case while ignoring it in others.

Showing this clearly with Hitler can be hard. He wasn't an exactly an intellectual. However his southern ally Mussolini it's much easier. He was a professed atheist for most of his life, he wrote about atheism frequently, but became a Roman Catholic when assuming power because he wasn't a fool. We've known about the critical importance of professed piety since at least the Romans. As Seneca the younger said:

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" 

What I wonder is if perhaps the quote also encapsulates the problem itself. The common people regard religion as true because they trust the professed intent of the speaker fully. They don't think critically about it because what's being said is exactly what they want to hear: the suffering of this world has a cause and a purpose.

It let's them feel like innocent victims even when they are the aggressors.

posted image

2015-05-29 15:33:55 (29 comments, 5 reshares, 32 +1s)Open 

My question here is should atheism address myths without God being directly involved? Is the principle behind atheism that myths without evidence should be rejected or is it more specifically just myths that involve a deity?

Yep, trickling hasn't worked. Trickling will never work.
Ty +Katie H.​___My question here is should atheism address myths without God being directly involved? Is the principle behind atheism that myths without evidence should be rejected or is it more specifically just myths that involve a deity?

posted image

2015-05-29 13:19:23 (2 comments, 2 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

Yep, trickling hasn't worked. Trickling will never work.
Ty +Katie H.​

Yep, trickling hasn't worked. Trickling will never work.
Ty +Katie H.​___

posted image

2015-05-28 22:00:11 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.

The GOP is a Koch organized and funded operation. The Kochs set the agenda, and if Republicans take back the Senate, the American people will have given control of the Congress to the Koch brothers.___

posted image

2015-05-25 21:08:41 (7 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

All that supposed brain power spent in the fight against marginalized young earth creationists with room temperature IQs, when there is a real 'prime-mover' dogma to be battled.

Shooting fish in a barrel, like promoting (ideals that promote) wars that someone else will fight for you, might be ego building, but it's hardly praise worthy.

All that supposed brain power spent in the fight against marginalized young earth creationists with room temperature IQs, when there is a real 'prime-mover' dogma to be battled.

Shooting fish in a barrel, like promoting (ideals that promote) wars that someone else will fight for you, might be ego building, but it's hardly praise worthy.___

posted image

2015-05-23 02:09:28 (3 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

The importance of punctuation.

I think there should be a question mark after "bankrupt."

The importance of punctuation.

I think there should be a question mark after "bankrupt."___

posted image

2015-05-22 14:13:49 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

Nice tool. No homo

Nice tool. No homo___

posted image

2015-05-22 14:09:33 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

Limited-time $30 deal: subscription to CanGeo AND @walrusmagazine (16 issues + 4 bonus issues) http://canadiangeographic.ca/walrus

Limited-time $30 deal: subscription to CanGeo AND @walrusmagazine (16 issues + 4 bonus issues) http://canadiangeographic.ca/walrus___

posted image

2015-05-21 01:19:39 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 

My wife started watching this recently and I cake to conclusion: pure propaganda.

I watch it in my peripheral while I play my video games and have noticed a good many episodes deal with situations follow the same narrative pattern and lead to the same outcomes. When I pointed it out to my wife she was a little pissed because it kind of ruined the show.

One example. Protagonist is offered help of some sort. Most often a cheque. They struggle the whole episode with if they should take it or not. It's usually a matter of pride. After pulling up their boot straps or owning up to their responsibilities they reject the help. Everything turns out golden and we learn a lesson. 

My wife started watching this recently and I cake to conclusion: pure propaganda.

I watch it in my peripheral while I play my video games and have noticed a good many episodes deal with situations follow the same narrative pattern and lead to the same outcomes. When I pointed it out to my wife she was a little pissed because it kind of ruined the show.

One example. Protagonist is offered help of some sort. Most often a cheque. They struggle the whole episode with if they should take it or not. It's usually a matter of pride. After pulling up their boot straps or owning up to their responsibilities they reject the help. Everything turns out golden and we learn a lesson. ___

posted image

2015-05-19 14:17:36 (14 comments, 0 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

Another article by Salon slinging criticism at three new atheist celebrities. This time the charge is that they ignore history and support policies that make the situation worse.

I agree. As someone not raised to think America is the greatest thing since apple and can do no wrong the way they approach the subject is indistinguishable from how a Muslim takes criticism of Islam. No amount of evidence or logic will sway allow them to accept any premise that might make America and its policies culpable in the violence around the world.

Here's a link to a lecture on the myth of American exceptionalism that these speakers are peddling:
Myths of the American Mind: Exceptionalism: https://youtu.be/eb9yJ52sB84

Watching it shows just how true it is these folk are holding onto a cultural myth and goes further to show this myth was born in religion. It's ironic how a... more »

This. One can agree with Maher and Ali that Islamic extremism is wholly and totally an assault on liberal values, but so are totalitarianism and imperialism. To support the latter as a cure for the former is getting it tragically wrong. ___Another article by Salon slinging criticism at three new atheist celebrities. This time the charge is that they ignore history and support policies that make the situation worse.

I agree. As someone not raised to think America is the greatest thing since apple and can do no wrong the way they approach the subject is indistinguishable from how a Muslim takes criticism of Islam. No amount of evidence or logic will sway allow them to accept any premise that might make America and its policies culpable in the violence around the world.

Here's a link to a lecture on the myth of American exceptionalism that these speakers are peddling:
Myths of the American Mind: Exceptionalism: https://youtu.be/eb9yJ52sB84

Watching it shows just how true it is these folk are holding onto a cultural myth and goes further to show this myth was born in religion. It's ironic how a religious idea can be scrubbed of religious trappings and then taken up by atheists as a dogmatic truth.

posted image

2015-05-19 01:50:47 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

Of course he doesn't mention in his case a good Christian creation based education is what he has in mind.

I love it when Ron Paul takes off the kid gloves. The message: we're probably doomed.

"There has been a steady erosion of confidence over the past 100 years as the American people as a whole have accepted the so-called need for big government to provide safety and security for its citizens. In the process they have readily accepted the personal income tax and the abuse of the IRS along with the illegal power of the money manipulators at the Federal Reserve to pay the bills by simply printing money. Unfortunately they have also convinced themselves of our “righteousness” by supporting force to spread American “greatness” throughout the world. This of course is a fantasy and is self-deceptive. This trend has been ongoing since the Woodrow Wilson era up to and including the policies designed by the current crop of neoconservatives.

Hardly has the educational system been enhanced by $1.3 trillion in student debt which is now currently being defaulted on -- all we have to show for it is a large number of graduates not well trained and without jobs available.

Something different is required than depending on government controlled education. Thankfully it’s available in the growing interest in home and private schooling. The Internet provides the vehicle for spreading the answer to the mess created by the authoritarian’s false promises to provide safety and security by sacrificing liberty."
#RonPaul  ___Of course he doesn't mention in his case a good Christian creation based education is what he has in mind.

posted image

2015-05-17 22:38:38 (2 comments, 2 reshares, 3 +1s)Open 

Stevie is just following the advice of his mentors and idols
 
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it,
and eventually they will believe it!
                               Adolph Hitler – Der Fuehrer
 
“Naturally the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Reichs-Marshall Herman Goering
 
 

Stevie is just following the advice of his mentors and idols
 
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it,
and eventually they will believe it!
                               Adolph Hitler – Der Fuehrer
 
“Naturally the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Reichs-Marshall Herman Goering
 
 ___

posted image

2015-05-17 12:44:41 (1 comments, 0 reshares, 2 +1s)Open 



Harris is in my opinion an American apologist and propagandist. His popularity stems from having been able to deliver his rhetoric at exactly a time when it was what people wanted and needed to hear.

Two things did Harris in for me. One was a defense of Israel that preemptively addresses some of his previous comments about Islam and religion that could be applied to Judaism with arguments that he's claimed invalid when people used them to criticize his arguments against Islam. In this case arguments that socio economic conditions and levels of education have a large impact on how intensely religion holds sway and how literally the source is followed, therefore primarily blaming Islam for terrorist actions isn't a valid argument. Just like primarily blaming Judaism for what Israel does isn't valid. It's so shallow many people would rightly start to worry it's... more »

I'm not sure what to think about this exchange between Harris and Chomsky. It reminds me of some crappy, unsatisfactory arguments on G+. I did find interesting Chomsky's apparent ranking: disinterest in deaths caused by an act is worse than intending to bring about the deaths though an act. Also I wonder how Chomsky knew what Clinton's motivations were
and how Clinton felt (or didn't feel) about the consequences.

I also think that sometimes Harris' statements and views leave me cold. I'm also still trying to figure him out.

Ironically, I think both are well intentioned! :-)

What do you think?___

Harris is in my opinion an American apologist and propagandist. His popularity stems from having been able to deliver his rhetoric at exactly a time when it was what people wanted and needed to hear.

Two things did Harris in for me. One was a defense of Israel that preemptively addresses some of his previous comments about Islam and religion that could be applied to Judaism with arguments that he's claimed invalid when people used them to criticize his arguments against Islam. In this case arguments that socio economic conditions and levels of education have a large impact on how intensely religion holds sway and how literally the source is followed, therefore primarily blaming Islam for terrorist actions isn't a valid argument. Just like primarily blaming Judaism for what Israel does isn't valid. It's so shallow many people would rightly start to worry it's veiled anti semetism.

The second is what he said his idea of a good life was. I find this of greater importance because contemplation of the good life is an ancient tradition in philosophy. I don't think anyone who thinks about the big questions can avoid defining for themselves what an ideal existence for humanity would be.

For Harris this is a good job, a nice house, and a nice little family. It is in essence the American dream, the white picket fence, the suburban life. Harris thinks the best life for all people on earth is the American life. An idea that also implies a life lived outside this American standard is somehow less than ideal. Flawed.

It's interesting that most philosophers define their ideal good life in less definitive terms. They express it more as a feeling or state of being. Something universal.

I think it could also be said if the American life is the good life then killing a few people is excusable if the intention is to bring them that life. In other words as long as America keeps saying they are just trying to spread democracy and freedom any war they engage in should be morally sound.



posted image

2015-05-15 14:20:21 (2 comments, 0 reshares, 1 +1s)Open 

"Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate: Self Observation.

The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."

"Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate: Self Observation.

The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."___

posted image

2015-05-14 14:17:29 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

The Humanist’s Paradox http://trib.al/NixiXR4

The Humanist’s Paradox http://trib.al/NixiXR4___

posted image

2015-05-12 17:13:07 (0 comments, 0 reshares, 0 +1s)Open 

Dragons Beware: Claudette's back in the sequel to Giants Beware!

Dragons Beware: Claudette's back in the sequel to Giants Beware!___

posted image

2015-05-12 15:19:06 (8 comments, 1 reshares, 4 +1s)Open 

The evidence presented in the article points to this: higher levels of income inequality lead to higher levels of religion. Basically our societies require the narratives of religion to make sense of the social order when that social order is unfair.

If this is the case shouldn't atheists therefore be as interested in finding ways to reduce inequality and fight not just against religion but also against any system of thought that would increase those levels?

Consider Bangladesh where inequality is rampant. Families are so poor they need to send their children to work full-time making our clothing just to survive. They are also so religious when people dare challenge their religion groups of people hack the heathens to death. Because in a place like that religion is the only thing giving enough meaning to keep on living. The idea the religion might be false is equal to saying... more »

The evidence presented in the article points to this: higher levels of income inequality lead to higher levels of religion. Basically our societies require the narratives of religion to make sense of the social order when that social order is unfair.

If this is the case shouldn't atheists therefore be as interested in finding ways to reduce inequality and fight not just against religion but also against any system of thought that would increase those levels?

Consider Bangladesh where inequality is rampant. Families are so poor they need to send their children to work full-time making our clothing just to survive. They are also so religious when people dare challenge their religion groups of people hack the heathens to death. Because in a place like that religion is the only thing giving enough meaning to keep on living. The idea the religion might be false is equal to saying these people's lives are utterly hopeless and meaningless. Which, honestly, in their current system they are.

So instead of attacking the symptoms shouldn't we be focused on the cause? ___

Buttons

A special service of CircleCount.com is the following button.

The button shows the number of followers you have directly in a small button. You can add this button to your website, like the +1-Button of Google or the Like-Button of Facebook.






You can add this button directly in your website. For more information about the CircleCount Buttons and the description how to add them to another page click here.

Daniel VoisinTwitterFacebookCircloscope