“It takes a thousand men to invent a telegraph, or a steam engine, or a phonograph, or a photograph, or a telephone or any other important thing—and the last man gets the credit and we forget the others. He added his little mite — that is all he did. These object lessons should teach us that ninety-nine parts of all things that proceed from the intellect are plagiarisms, pure and simple; and the lesson ought to make us modest. But nothing can do that." — Sivad

Precisely why I'm against intellectual property. We had an industrial revolution without intellectual property but all of a sudden it became indispensable to progress. Which is of course a lie.

More generally with respect to this thread, a typical example of pure luck is inherentance inequality. Which is an argument to take away everything and redistribute that wealth among everyone. Good luck with that.

Can't you center somehow with the "code" option? And do other stuff?

EDIT: I just tried but couldn't manage.

And you're proud of that? >:O In either case, I never implied that. You seem to have reading difficulties. Or comprehension difficulties. Either way, just to remind you:
either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it — Agustino

Yes, and my initial answer was an explanation as to why there is no interest but your usual recalcitrant nature interpreted it as an argument. To which I then replied, which you then bring back to your original point to point out you really don't have a point except sharing another useless opinion how things should work according to Agustino.

But hey, of course I'm the one that has a reading disability. :-}

That's the kind of thinking that misses opportunities. Anyone who is interested in philosophy should be hooked in - it's not the healthy that are in need of a doctor, but the sick. — Agustino

What opportunities? This isn't a business, in case you hadn't noticed. We're not looking for converts either as you seem to imply. It's a hobby for a dedicated team of moderators.

In any case, all this second guessing is a typical example of bachelors’ wives and maidens’ children being well taught. Feel free to start your own site and create your own opportunities. But I suspect you'll be around telling everybody else what to do without having any real accomplishments to your own name.

It's a pity, but many of the people running this forum either have no interest to grow it, or if they do, they don't understand how to go about it (hint: give people what they want). — Agustino

This forum doesn't intend to cater to the lowest possible denominator.

Remember "You ain't no Muslim, bro"? — Srap Tasmaner

No, I'm not familiar with that reference. Can you share?

All the people who have committed a certain hideous kind of terrorist act in the last 16 years have a professed belief in Islam. And for some reason it's become important to some people that public leaders (referred to in the article as 'the political left' but including UK Conservatives, for instance) should say this out loud, and they don't. How will doing this improve matters? — mcdoodle

All sorts of people commit all sorts of crimes identifying with one group or another (white on black violence and vice versa, men on women violence, ethnic violence etc. etc.). If there was an inherent issue with Islam, don't you think all Muslims would be stating "Those fucking Manchester kids had it coming?" They don't because it's a rather specific interpretation of Islam which is necessary to get divine dispensation for an atrocity.

The Bible is pretty strict on non-violence, until St. Augustine came along and it became a political necessity to have Christians fight. A single sentence "render unto Cesar... etc." was lifted and, voila, separation of powers and all of sudden Christians could even kill without worrying about their immortal soul. That was a rather particular interpretation (and now widely accepted) interpretation of Christianity as well.

It's such an interpretation of Islam, which is more about the application of Islam for political purpose, that needs to be fought against. That is not done by accepting that interpretation as the correct one and considering it an Islamic problem, that is done by supporting and actively announcing other, peaceful interpretations.

"Don't listen to Al-Qaeda, listen to imam such-and-such". As societies we need to build strong, beneficial relationships with moderate Muslims and proponents of peaceful coexistence. Build trust.

There's also an important role for the media. When's the last time you read a positive article about a Muslim (or a black person for that matter)? Have you ever taken an Implicit Association Test? https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1

The "other" really takes a shit kickin' in most of our heads, doesn't it? What an abusive relationship... — Wosret

Unless the "other" is a bunch of hot girls... oh wait, that still turns abusive due to the objectification involved.

I can recommend Nioh. Just finished it. Pretty tough but not as tough as demon souls or dark souls 1. It's also more fun that I can play together with a friend online (although one of us would have had to have finished the level).

There's nothing preventing people from viewing the world in a wider perspective. The average person is perfectly capable of thinking globally and acting locally. People are aware of these issues, they know that they're all contributing for the good or ill to an outcome. These issues don't escape normal people, their part in the larger process is something that occurs to them. And some part of them knows that when they minimize or dismiss their acts of complicity as 'just a pair of pants' that they're really just bullshitting themselves for the sake of ease and convenience in order to just get on with it. You give people far too little credit, people know better but they just don't want the inconvenience of struggle and sacrifice. They'd rather just go along to get along and not jeopardize their stake in the system by rocking the boat. — Sivad

How is this different from what I said? Struggle and sacrifice now weighed against the abstractions of global warming, pollution and honest wages? Yes we can see the world in a wider perspective and often do and despite that fact when it comes to decision making, we regularly discard that wider perspective.

And you're right, as individuals we have the power to divest and boycott socially irresponsible businesses, but we don't do much of that either. Instead we have human herds trampling themselves on Black Friday to get sweatshop swag at insanely low prices. — Sivad

People can easily deal with the here and now and with concrete events. 3 dollar pants? Yay! The abstractions behind it, all the different steps of causality, the minor and remote impact of a single set of trousers; we're not programmed to integrate all those details in our thinking because they are nearly irrelevant for the here and now. All those irrelevancies add up. And that's not just "normal" people but everybody.

Just as an example, yesterday I threw plastic in the regular garbage can knowingly because I didn't want the smell of raw fish to spread through the house. My house doesn't stink but it's another piece of plastic that could've been recycled (actually, it still will because of how Dutch garbage separation works but that's not the point).

Long story short, you can quote scripture all you like... — StreetlightX

You don't even get that much; only the assertion that this is the case. Meanwhile Muslims disagree on what the Qur'an has to say about this all but luckily we already have an expert that decided on the correct interpretation:

they're exceptions rather than the rule, which are generally as unequivocal as that expressed in the Ahok case. — Wayfarer

The fact that cultures might intersect or contain each other doesn't matter. The relevant granularity depends on what you're interested in. In this case, that's religion, so it's surely then appropriate to speak of Islamic culture, because there are few things more cultural than religion. But it is complicated. The big French survey from a few years ago showed that millions of French people (mostly of North African descent) identify as Muslims but also as secular and non-observant. However, I think this backs up my basic point. — jamalrob

It does matter because it makes clear cultures are not monolithic structures and therefore aren't useful in a discussion about blasphemy laws as these vary country from country. I'm this case it goes further as that problem is subsumed under the umbrella of secularism (incorrectly) then it becomes a problem of Islamic culture, whatever that is - it appeared as short hand for all Muslims, considering "Islam is theocratic" (as opposed to Islamist interpretation of the Qur'an). Details matter because we otherwise get statements that are too easily waylaid by the existence of facts (such as Muslim majority countries with secularism even if that is deteriorating).

I wasn't suggesting dropping the term because I don't agree with the criticism where it concerns certain Indonesian, Islamic, political parties but to get to statements that are verifiable and true. I'm proposing to be more precise and it has nothing to do with my sensibilities.

Second, there are Islamic religions (plural) just as we have Christian religions that have such significant differences that to brush over them also leads to statements becoming meaningless in their generality because they only concern a subset.

To your last point, the rush for social conservatism isn't limited to Muslim majority countries, so why do the Netherlands, France (historically high numbers for Le Pen) and UK have the same happening?

Really? You went into this discussion with a clear position without knowing what you're talking about? :-O

The thread is about 'separation of church and state' and the observation that Islam doesn't really recognise that separation And thiis case is a textbook illustration. If that offends your liberal sensibilities because it singles out Islam, then so be it. — Wayfarer

First, there are two problems. The issue that certain countries do not have a separation of religion and state and the issue of blasphemy (and apostasy) laws.

The reality is that some Muslim majority countries are secular and do not have blasphemy or apostasy laws and some do. I can't distill a common position on what Islamic culture is exactly on this point. I don't see how you can especially not by raising the Indonesian example to a standard.

Fun fact; until 2014 the Netherlands had a blasphemy law in its criminal code.

Nevertheless, I believe that Islamic culture demonstrably exists, in the same way as any other culture. The fact that this is now contested is however interesting. — Wayfarer

My point is that it isn't a useful term for philosophical debate due to the issues I mentioned.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion. What makes you say this?

So far he seems pretty resilient.

I think talk of culture is not very useful. Where does one begin and where does it end? If they are separate, what does it mean people from one culture intact with another? How granular should it be? Are art-loving liberals living in upper Manhattan a separate culture?

I suggest we refrain from using the term.

Baby talk is vocal practise (which is 50% listening!) that babies are capable of imitating (the other 50%). Regular words are often just too hard and regular sentences have too many different sounds following each other, making them impossible to focus on in the beginning. Simple, repetitive sounds is what they can handle. The practice benefits them later on in forming words.

And what's a little embarrassment when you can give them a linguistic headstart? ;)

I'm still trying to figure this out.

One of the main things I already try to teach my 2 year old is to try-and-try again. Any skill takes time and effort to master. So I applaud her effort (even if I also think she's very smart). I don't want her to give up when it gets tough but to relish the challenge. If I can teach her that, she can accomplish anything she sets her mind to.

Also, apparently Dutch people in general are pretty relaxed about raising kids if happiness is anything to go about: Why Dutch Children Are the Happiest in the World

Woops. I accidentally answered yes as I read "are you open to religious conversation"...

As far as I know there are no scientifically verified personality tests, so to that extent I scoff at them all until I see some proof.

Nevertheless, I think life orientation (LIFO) as behavioural descriptions (not personality types!) is very useful when working in teams. Once you can peg a dominant behaviour on someone, it tends to be easier to understand where they're coming from and how they are going to react. That allows me to react or even anticipate in my communication towards them. As a manager, you need to be able to vacilitate between these different behaviours as circumstances require. Ideally, you don't have a dominant behaviour then.

That said, I've been classified an ENTP and a Cancer.

He is perpetually surprised because reality does not comport with his fantasies. — David Brooks

I doubt he is. I think reality conforms to the way he sees it. What he disagree with shall be denoted as fake news. Or he has some alternative facts.

Raised Catholic, now an atheist with appreciation of the divine as a state of being.

The left - right distinction doesn't work. I personally appreciate the ranges social conservatism to social progressivism and economic laissez-faire to socialism.

I'm a progressive and more of a socialist on the economic, because I don't think negative freedom has any worth when there isn't positive freedom.

it might very well be a cultural difference. Most mods are European.

Syphilus smiles when Agustino goes around as everyone's bitch... :( — Benkei

As a reply to someone else when Sapientia or Wosret mentioned you were everyone's bitch - certainly not an interaction with you. I haven't interacted with you until today when I noticed you unfortunately came back and felt it deserved pointing out, since you pride your self on your restraint and control. Which obviously isn't all that.

You'll also note that I never laid claim to any type of exceptional restraint to begin with. So even if I had interacted with you before today it is irrelevant in relation to your own statements.

To me this is the sign of an up-coming wave of totalitarianism unfortunately - clamping down on ideologies which don't fit in whatever is the leftist view around here. And I'm not afraid to say this publicly, it's a fact now, established by the actions. The fact that no understanding is possible on this issue, and a "let the dogs bark" attitude is adopted, is more proof of this.I hate to say this, but I will refrain from any further postings as a sign of protest on Empty's behalf. — Agustino

Can you start refraining again? Mr. self-restraint and self-control?

too subservient and therefore off-putting in her view. Complicated woman...

It includes laws against blasphemy and apostasy. — Mariner

There's nothing in the Qu'ran on "laws" against blasphemy and apostasy, as matters of faith are the provenance of Allah to judge. There are no wordly punishments on these things. In fact, the freedom of belief is repeatedly mentioned in the Qu'ran.

There is some stuff in the hadiths but we should ignore those. Why? Here's some blasphemy for you, the hadiths are the political motivated ramblings of a conservative clergy inventing what Muhammad said centuries after he lived because "Muhammad said..." is a useful tool for oppression.

Apparently though as a non-Muslim and non-clergy my opinion amounts to less than that of a gnat as if having a religious degree and belief are a prerequisite to sound reasoning.

He will appeal. It's interesting to see that someone has purposefully sent out a youtube video that was edited in which he said the Qu'ran was lying. Ahok subsequently uploaded the full video: in reality he said people were lying to voters using the Qu'ran.

I wonder what the judges based their ruling on because the full video doesn't seem damning at all (assuming I can trust the translation).

Well, that was what I was trying to say. — ernestm

Would you agree with my definition then or would you add or change something?

A lot of us 'heady males' like to argue--I certainly do. And if that's our specialty, we probably come up short in the 'emotional intelligence' department--I certainly do, at times. — Bitter Crank

Lucky you, because you can learn these skills although I find them a million times easier to apply in a work environment than at home. It really starts with attentive listening and asking open questions, although even that has a time and place. "Honey, I can see you're pissed but can you explain why exactly?" doesn't go down very well when he/she is still venting.

My wife's user manual is still a work in progress. I hope to get it done before divorce becomes inevitable. :-x

Perhaps in rational communities, you would be right. But with respect to the kind of persuasion Hitler is describing, there is NO PERSUASION. It is an OUTRIGHT STATEMENT OF SIMPLE BINARY FALSITY, repeated sufficiently that no one can escape thinking of the falsehood in association with the target. As Hitler, says, there is no objectivity in it. It's brainwashing. It has nothing to do with argument at all. A lot of people seem to miss that. — ernestm

For starters this discussion really depends on what we mean with persuasion. I think persuasion is about getting others to do what I want them to do in a manner that is respectful and equitable. The difference between persuasion and manipulation/force is that I can repeat persuasion as many times as I want, because I'm not (ab)using the other. That said, I agree that Hitler's propaganda was not about persuasion; once the theater of it becomes clear, you cannot repeat it because your "victims" do not trust you anymore. I don't believe we are in disagreement here.

I offered examples as alternatives to force/manipulation as real examples of persuasion as I see it, as juxtaposition to what the OP offered as forms of persuasion.

And although there is a certain science to persuasion and we can practise these skills, I don't agree with your characterisation that "rationality" is a pre-requisite for persuasion to be effective. Only one of the methods involves directly appealing to a persons rationality by offering arguments. This is mostly used in the West and used almost automatically by anyone with an education and is the worst method of all those available to us. Arguing to get your way is mostly ineffective and we only truly persuade people if we can persuade them on an emotional level. Try a rational argument with your partner when you're having a fight about doing household chores; it isn't going to work. ;)

There are several ways of persuasion available to us that have nothing to do with force or manipulation. The problem with force and manipulation is that they will lead to resentment once people realise what's going on.

Here's some methods to persuade:

We can argue if someone is susceptible to argument (We'd better do A because X, Y and Z)
We can urge if someone is open to it (Give me another push up!)
We can use compliments if someone is receptive to them (You're really good at A, would you do it again?)
We can assert ourselves if someone values their relationship with you (I really want you to do A)
We can emphasis cooperation if someone has a benefit to do so (We both have an interest in X, if we both do A that would be good for X)
We can take the initiave and lead by example if someone is inclined to help or follow
We can paint a (realistic and) bright future if someone shares your vision (I had a dream and in this dream....)

Of course, you cannot do these things if you do not listen, condense and ask follow up questions from those people you're trying to persuade because without doing that you won't be able to ascertain which mode of persuasion works best.

You also need to be able to easily switch between the different forms if you want to become effective and between hard and soft messages, from empathy to your own motives and from accepting to being perservering. And you mustn't forgot your own authenticity, sincerity, daring, trust in others, inspiration and belief in the solutions you're suggesting and have fun doing all this.

I was being puerile. It's not the end of the world when it's the end of mankind. I'm still worried about the latter.

We'll be gone long before the world has ended.

I think he's just one of those old school dudes who has problems expressing emotion. — Mongrel

Nah. He's just old. Well over 40.

Marx's communism was to be successful in the most industrialized of countries, which really never transpired anywhere and does not look to be happening anytime soon in America or Europe- the most industrial of industrialized regions. — schopenhauer1

There's some work on "Young Marx" as opposed to "Mature Marx". The author I read on this simply states there's no such things as "Marxism" as a finished theory with real world application. There is a body of thought and ideas of course.

According to him, at some point Marx abandoned the idea that the communist revolution was to happen in an industrialised country. He also abandoned the idea of revolution in the violent/distorting sense but more of a "coming about". Unfortunately, despite a few attempts at Das Kapital I never finished that and my knowledge of Marx is spotty at best. I just thought it might be interesting to be aware there's a lot of positions that are associated with Marx that he has at some point seem to have abandoned (at least, according to this particular book). I can look up the author if you're interested.

Western Culture is a term people can fill out as they see fit to meet their own expectations of it. Much like the term "freedom".

It's often used to delineate it from other cultures as if it is a monolithic thing but in reality culture is fluid, doesn't have clear boundaries and interacts with other cultures. Any definition of Western Culture is an attempt at a persuasive definition.