Za-zen wrote:Holy fuck, i just finished watching the whole vid, and i'm revising ehat i think of it.
Rogan fucking ate him alive, i mean while, and then soat out his clothes. Jamie was empty, and it's a great demonstration of a feminist empty head who has nothing but their dogma.
My favourite bit was after rogan demolished his arguments, with jamie acknowledging his points, jamie said "yeah well we disagree" and rogan tore into him, what the fuck do you disagree about, you just spent the whole fucking time agreeing with me.
It's infuriating dealing with these woo heads, in the same way you soend ages knocking a fucking xtians nonsense out of the ball park, only to find out that the is nothing you could habe done to show them what they believe is bullshit, because they want to believe and so they are convinced of the truth of their belief
A-fucking-men to that - about the Christians, particularly fundamentalists ... programmed minds addled by nonsense. Reminds me of this bit of zoology:
Even apparently sophisticated and intelligent sequences of behaviour can turn out, on closer investigation, to be surprisingly rigid. There is the well-known example of the Sphex wasp who leaves a paralyzed cricket in a burrow with her eggs so that her offspring will have something to feed on when they hatch. When she captures a cricket, she drags it to the entrance of the burrow, then leaves it outside for a moment when she enters, seemingly to check for intruders. However, if an interfering experimenter moves the cricket back a few inches while the wasp is inside, she repeats the sequence: dragging the insect to the burrowâ€™s entrance, then entering once more alone. And this sequence can be made to â€œloopâ€ indefinitely many times over. [The Architecture of the Mind; Peter Carruthers; web review]
But you might be interested in this article by Massimo Pigliucci on The limits of reasonable discourse
. Thereâ€™s a nice graphic showing a â€œfitness landscapeâ€ with several peaks in it such that a narrow-focus search for them could wind up with several different sub-optimal â€œsolutionsâ€ depending on slight differences in starting points. His argument:
Massimo Pigliucci wrote:Consider the hypothetical landscape in the figure accompanying this post. That particular graph is meant to illustrate the idea of multiple adaptive peaks in genotypic space, with natural selection pushing a population of organisms up the closest available peak (high fitness) and away from any valley (low fitness). Similar situations occur in computer science, mathematics, economics, and â€” I maintain â€” in rational discourse more generally.
Think of every peak as a particular, viable solution to whatever the problem happens to be (survival in a given environment, efficiency of a computational algorithm, or the search for a good political or ethical system). In the graphic example above, there are three peaks: one is taller, the other two are of about equal height. The taller peak represents the optimal solution across the landscape, while the other two stand for suboptimal but viable solutions. If we were talking about politics or ethics, this would correspond to saying that one political or ethical system is in fact â€œbestâ€ (under whatever criteria one is using) and therefore rational, while two more are also rational, but not quite as good. So reasonable people could make an argument for one or the other, or the third, of the proposed solutions, particularly when practical considerations may exclude, or make less likely, the implementation of the optimal solution represented by the highest peak.
I think, as he suggests, we all start from quite reasonable premises and hypotheses and argue, quite â€œreasonablyâ€ and â€œlogicallyâ€, to different â€œpeaksâ€, different â€œtruthsâ€, and fail to realize that most people have done the same: we have seen the enemy and he is us. Or, maybe, east is east and west is west ....