tcpip | Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

Spent the weekend at Unicon with

caseopaya. Not a bad event, first gaming con I've been too in several years. Played "Parallel Flight" (Fireborn, not so good), Restoration (Urban Arcana, very good), Get Who (based on Get Smart, death coincidental, fun but severly limited for characters other than agents 99 and 86), Schools Out (Mutants and Masterminds, a d20 superhero game; OK, but combat orientated) and at the top of my enjoyment list "Four Fists of Righteous Fury" (where we had narrative and character development, deadly seriousness and comic relief!). Surprised to see that there were no D&D sessions. Sessions were far too short. Will give a full write-up on experiences on

aus_gamers in the near future. Afterwards went to Mind Games to spend money ;-)

I have been working. Borderlands has shifted offices and their network and all it's wiring needs to be reassembled. This week I start training Prosper Australia on marketing and getting media coverage. I've also picked up a translation job for a set of health clinics in Northern Ireland who apparently need documentation ... in Tetum. Strange but true. CCNA Semester 2 starts on Tuesday. Feeling confident about it.

Schroeder grasps defeat from the jaws of victory and is about to destroy the SPD in the process. Meanwhile, in New Zealand Helen Clark's victory seems assured following the counting of special votes. I will be living in New Zealand by the end of 2006, I swear.

More bombings in Bali. Further evidence to recent suggestions that too much religion is bad for your society. From religious to racial fundamentalism; former US Secretary of Education thinks the way to solve crime is to abort "blacks".

I've banned my rats from the desk drawer and the office. Two keyboard cables and three speakers is too much. They're coping ;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

3) Surely that's like the way the (UWA) UCC used to reckon — because their constitution, based on the Charter of the VOC, claimed the right to make laws about anyone with official status under it — they could make laws governing non-members simply by according them the "Official Status of Non-Member".

There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else). All claims are claims about the Universe, and atheists as a group make no claims relating to things other than the Universe.

I note you don't call the French "property fundamentalists" because they have laws against theft or "fundamentalist pacifists" because they outlaw gladiatorial contests in the streets. I'd suggest it's entirely unreasonable to label them "atheist fundamentalists" (clearly a belligerent terminology, given the way "fundamentalist" has come to mean "extremist nutter") because they seek to promote commonality over distinction. Most people call that "nationalism".

Metaphysics;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

Goddamn it, it's not as if I haven't spent my entire post-school life studying this. Show some respect to the resident expert! ;-)

Fundamentalist Atheists;

It seems you have missed my point entirely. Their laws do promote distinction over commonality. Your examples, to be frank, are actually wrong. The French do allow theft under certain circumstances and they do apparently have legal use of arms.

But to bring this back on topic a secular legal system position wouldn't care about the real or imagined religious symbolism on clothing standards at schools. The French laws do make such a distinction, hence they are atheistic and breach the separation of church and state.

In other words, they're behaving like China or, in a far less violent fashion, Iran. But the principle is the same - that the state may make judgements on religious expression qua religious expression.

Logical Positivism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Get over it. ;)

Seriously, if I invent a philosophical system called "Pastaphysics" which includes Everything in the Universe plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the idea that mathematics might be made of Spam, and then I suggest that your worldview is in fact a Pastaphysical one, I would rightly be accused of being a) silly, and b) annoying. Even if I'm to be a 2,000 year old Greek.

Fundamentalist Atheists:

The French don't ban the belief in, teaching of or (generally) the practice of (most aspects of most) religion(s); to label them "fundamentalists" in this sense is clearly both inaccurate and belligerent. Their secular system cares about and distinguishes religious accoutrement because those you wear it intend that act to mean "by this symbolism I show myself to belong to an ethnic or religious subgroup".

You can't wear nothing but a red rubber nose and a Dirty Sanchez to schools in France either, not because the French dislike nudity or unhygienic sexual practices, but because by doing so in such a public fashion you are clearly attempting to highlight your differences from those around you, rather than attempting just to get along. They used to make me wear a tie and cap at St Louis; if they were Fundamentalists too, the term kinda loses its potency.

(And before anyone calls me on it, I am using the extreme and satirical example above for effect, not to suggest any connection with between theists and shit-eating clowns. I might also note that I am in favour of allowing people to wear just about anything they want to. But then, I'm not in government in France. And neither are you.)

And before anyone calls me on it, I am using the extreme and satirical example above for effect, not to suggest any connection with between theists and shit-eating clowns.

HAHAHAHAH

Logical positivism is a dead-end project and has been for about fifty years. The main reason for it's failure is the inability to provide moral or aesthetic reasoning and, in a metaphysical sense, the inability to account for its own existence!

The metaphysic of logical positivism has been pretty much replaced by linguistic philosophy and universal pragmatics.

Your example of the shit-eating clown merely illustrates my point, and I thank you for it. The problem with the French legislation is that the basis of the decision is not on common grounds of health or standards of decency (as much as I query the latter), but rather on the assumed value of a symbol. Whilst I may be quite happy to drop the term "fundamentalist" (especially when compared to the state-sponsored atheism of China), surely you can see that they are not being secular in their approach to religion, but rather they are establishing atheism as a state religion.

Morals and aesthetics are not legitimately subject to reasoning, based as they are on unreasoned (although not unreasonable) emotion.

Indeed, France's decisions have nothing at all to do with Health or Decency. (Crackle, crackle, man of straw...)

Thanks for relinquishing "fundamentalist", however reluctantly. Unfortunately, I'm no more prepared to accept your "atheism as a state religion" claim (although I readily agree it's true of China, who have some solid historical precedents on which to fear theist insurgency). Like nakedness and sexual activity, France simply believes keeping religion a private matter is better for everyone. And frankly, the facts are with them:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Morals and aesthetics are not legitimately subject to reasoning, based as they are on unreasoned (although not unreasonable) emotion.

That was the logical positivist claim, which has been completely rejected by every school of philosophy in the world for the past fifty years. Indeed, now it held as an object of ridule - a position I find a little unkind because it did provide some useful starting points for Karl Popper's falsification theory.

Universal pragmatics provides a rational basis for moral and aesthetic reasoning.

Thanks for relinquishing "fundamentalist", however reluctantly

It wasn't reluctant at all. Checking the thread it is worth noting that I only applied it in the most tentative sense anyway.

[my] logical positivist claim [...] has been completely rejected by every school of philosophy in the world for the past fifty years. Indeed, now [is?] held as an object of [ridicule...]

Now you're making it sound cool as well as intuitively obvious. Of course, those criticisms are debatable; and universal pragmatics attempts to construe utility in "metaphysical statements", not evaluate their meaningfulness.

This has been fun, but I think my five minutes are up.

universal pragmatics attempts to construe utility in "metaphysical statements", not evaluate their meaningfulness.

This is not the case. Universal pragmatics engages in very precise definitions in what constitutes a meaningful and meaningless statement, along with what constitutes a rational, irrational and irrationalisable statement.

There are no "metaphysical claims"; there are only claims about the Universe (which only metaphysics, somewhat perversely, seeks to subdivide into "the natural world" and something else).

No, no, no. "Mystery is not the absence of meaning, but the presence of more meaning than we can comprehend." -- Dennis Covington

The unknown is not unnatural.

That icon always makes me laugh.

It's the expression on his face I think :) It's like he's saying "what do you think of my cowbell" for ever and ever hehehe

Sure, there's stuff we don't know. Sure, the unknown is not unnatural. Despite your Petrian denial, I'm not sure how we're in disagreement.

There need be no separation. The separation is in our knowledge - known and unknown. The metaphysical is just as much a part of the natural world as apples and pears.

I agree! I agree! Why are we arguing again? :)

Seriously, it was

tcpip who was claiming a special status for the "metaphysical", not me. Thoughts and ideas (no matter how apparently confusing or meaningless) are as much a part of the natural world as apples and pears, and the contents of thoughts/ideas are no different. It's only when one begins to accord the contents of thoughts a special status that "metaphysics" scuttles out from behind the wainscoting to frighten the children.

I don't think he did. Within the context of the accepted meaning of metaphysics he is correct when he says Every worldview has a metaphysical claim, even if that claim is that there is nothing other than the natural world..

But you are making the claim that the accepted definition is moot because there cannot be a separation. You're both correct in that sense.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Unicon, Work, Elections and Racial and Religious Madness, Banned Rats!

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?

Re: Quibblings or quislings?