Ok, so I've been thinking about it recently, and I really think the downvoting feature on this site should be removed. We had a discussion about this a while back (here) and I've been thinking about it ever since.When you downvote, you are commiting the purest form of argument ad hominem. You are discrediting the person's argument without adressing any of their points. This means the argument is not really adressed, but the downvoted is still attempting to weaken the point. This is a clear example of the fallacy. On a debate site in particular, shouldn't we avoid it?And upvote is fine, because when you agree with something you don't need to say why; you agree because of the reasons already stated in the argument. But if you downvote, there is no way for someone other than you to know for sure why you disagree with the argument made.So how bout it Andy? Any chance we can get the downvoting feature removed?
I just don't understand how anyone can follow religion even when they learn how all other religious ideologies originated (through ignorance).
Why don't people who believe the universe was created just hold the belief that some sort of supernatural force created the universe, instead of following religious literature? It bothers me when I see intelligent people following such unnecessary doctrines; if you accept the naturalistic view (the only reasonable view), then such ideology (deism) should be the logical progression... should it not?
I am almost quick to call them intellectually handicapped, but I have met some amazingly intelligent people who follow religious doctrine. My conclusion would be that their must be some psychological dissonance that doesn't effect their intelligence; though, the only problem with this is that with intelligence therein lies reasoning, and a requisite for following religious doctrine is reasoning--which, people who follow religious doctrine have poor reasoning abilities would follow--so where is the psychological disconnect?
One might say, "indoctrination," but I will confess that I was indoctrinated, though the very fact that I have substantial reasoning abilities is what rendered me irreligious; so, what's the problem with the other intelligent religious people, and why cant they disconnect from religion through reasoning the same way I have? I am sincerely curious.
The other day the people of Ireland voted with 61% support to legalize gay marriage. That is in stark contrast to the USA where a little dictator,(federal judge) goes against the will of millions of people to satisfy his own personal agenda.
It is unfortunate that the USA can't have a democracy like Ireland where people vote for what they want. We elect politicians to make our laws based on our beliefs and moral values only to have an unelected for life radical, who won't abide by the constitution, decide what he thinks is best for the people of a state. The common man in this country has little say in what type of country he would like to have.
The Julian calendar is still used today by some Orthodox churches to calculate the dates of moveable feasts. Some people of Africa also use it.
Is it really necessary to keep this calendar alive when it is used by such a small minority? The reform happened for a reason, so surely any use of this calendar should be stopped?
The Gregorian calendar has much more accurate calculations, so perhaps only this calendar should be used.
READ DESCRIPTION PLEASE
With extremes in either of theses cases, the answer is obvious, so I'm going to set up a hypothetical here.
You are hiring a new employee. You already have a bunch of employees working in this space, and people collaborate or work in small teams often. Person A: Is great at what they do. They always produce acceptable work, and usually the work is truly stellar. However, they have a history of not being liked, and they clash easily with others. They aren't particularly nice, and no one really wants to be around them.
Person B: Is a truly lovely human being. They raise the morale of the palces they are in; everyone likes them; and they make the space a nicer place to be in. However, they simply don't have the skill and experience that Person A has, and, while they try their hardest, they will have a few more mistakes or slightly less quality of work than person A. Who do you hire, A, or B?
Feminism was introduced to promote equal rights and opportunities for men AND women where previously the latter had next to none. In that sense inequality between the way both sexes are treated and represented should be non-existent. However, is that really the case? Or has sexism actually become reversed?
There is a large number of religious communities and individuals throughout the world. The question is, what does it do for us in the way of determination and motivation? Do religous people see more goals to the end because they have something to believe in? How?
experts suspect we are on the verge of essentially a new era. developments are being made on AI to the point where they should become as intelligent as a human between 2030 and 2080. from that point the AI (either developed to that point running a self improving mutation code or it will start doing so) will advance to become vastly intelligent in comparison and there is much speculation as to the future of humanity.
experts are suggesting the possibility of either mass extinction or technological wonders and immortality once a machine becomes intelligent at the projected exponential rate.
much more about it here:
wait but why 1
wait but why 2
Nick Bostrom conference
this could potentially dwarf all human achievement in scientific development
what do you think this new AI will be?
Deer management cannot be regulated at the federal level. As early as 1896 the Supreme Court ruled that states have “ownership” of their wildlife. As a result, each state has its own intricate rules. State regulations need not be standardized, but efforts at reform must be made state-by-state. This process will be slow as rules are generally promulgated by processes that ensure adequate evaluation by respective wildlife authorities and to allow for public review. Nevertheless, some states are beginning to do the difficult work of changing policies to stabilize or reduce the number of deer. For example, Indiana recently enacted the first modern firearms season targeting female deer in the state’s history. It will be difficult to overcome traditional hunter concepts of proper deer management as it is counter-intuitive to most hunters that fewer game animals are desirable. Decades of effort, patience, and expense were invested to enhance populations to the point where hunting success is now commonplace. To suggest that populations be reduced and therefore increase the effort needed to harvest a deer understandably generates resistance. Success will take a carefully crafted and sustained public relations effort. Like almost all conservation problems, deer management is a societal issue. If the deer population is to be reduced, it must be reduced slowly. Rules that lower the population drastically will almost certainly spur a backlash from hunters who can appeal to their respective legislatures to overturn regulations they regard as harsh. In an effort to lower the population of deer in Wisconsin the DNR liberalized hunting dramatically.
See [http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/] for full story.
Though I've arrived only yesterday but I've been closely following the leaderboard for long and am quite astonished to see only one guy heading the list what about the rest::: few days ago there was the same thing