1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 05, 2020, 02:56:15 PM »

Have you tried it? I am certain I wouldn't succeed at publishing those papers if I hadn't studied the subject for years.

I have (after doing research at my university), and know a few people who have published papers of their own. Wasn't that hard really. I can't imagine how easy it must be where you're from.

Generally, they are rational but have incomplete information (due to the Economic Calculation problem).

Governments are rational? Really?


Governments more often than not rely on ideology rather than evidence.

No. In the case of Holocaust, irrationality of the individuals who are willing to kill people of other nations can't be canceled out by irrationality of other people, so this doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social science.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'll get to the 'basic principle of social science' now; 'Rationality' in economics takes on a different meaning than in colloquial usage, something you obviously fail to understand.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-macroeconomics/chapter/reading-rationality-and-self-interest/#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20economics,in%20the%20face%20of%20scarcity.&text=Economists%20assume%20that%20people%20will,in%20their%20own%20self%2Dinterest.

The basic principle of social science applies to economics and political decision making, where irrationality of some individuals can cancel out the irrationality of other individuals. And, obviously, the vast majority of social scientists believe in the Holocaust (so much so that it's illegal to deny the Holocaust), so I am not going to deny it.

Do the vast majority of social scientists deny the existence of prisons or agree with you that murder should be legal?

Most? Well, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, with a burden of proof I am quite sure you can't meet.

...I posted a link, idiot, one you conveniently edited out.
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

A rational person can believe in Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism doesn't appear to be logically inconsistent (making it impossible for a rational person to believe in it), it's just inconsistent with the empirical evidence.

Was the government rational in believing it? It was supported due to ideology, not evidence. Doesn't sound very rational to me.

Mostly. I eat fish from time to time. Fish is rather different from other meat, most arguments for vegetarianism don't apply to them. Most neuroscientists agree fish don't feel pain.

Wow, do you just forget all of the debates you've had? Or are you expecting for me not to know?
https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=5208&p=43927

TL:DR Fish very likely feel pain.

And fish contains little saturated fat and basically no heme iron, which makes meat unhealthy. Environmental vegetarianism also doesn't really apply to fish, since fish aren't given antibiotics.

Antibiotics isn't the only environmental argument for veganism.

Well, that doesn't appear to contradict the basic principle of social sciences.

You seem to arbitrarily draw the line on this issue whenever it suits you.

There is no way for the irrationality of some farmers who mistreat animals to be canceled out by irrationality of farmers who treat animals exceedingly well.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Well, then, how do you explain why politicians exist? By the Marxist theory of society (which nearly no social scientist of today accepts)?

Politicians each have their own motives. Rationality has little to do with it for many of them.

And many other places.

Again, you misunderstood the context. They're talking about rationality from an *economic* perspective. Either way, you have no idea what you're talking about when you use the terms (No one should take you as an authority on anything. I'm sure if you are to ask a professional about it they'd say you've got it all wrong).

Plus, the video was just in regards to economics, not social sciences as a whole.

I'm done here. I've already wasted far too much of my time. Anyone wanna take this guy on feel free.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 05, 2020, 07:55:01 AM »

His threads always get derailed because he tosses the bait out and people gobble it up.

That isn't too uncommon with him, I've seen it happen many times on other forums.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 05, 2020, 07:14:49 AM »

BTW, this thread is starting to get derailed, if a mod thinks so too, can he or she split it into another thread?

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 05, 2020, 07:14:01 AM »

What do you mean "thinks he knows"? I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals about linguistics. I have a very good reason to think I know linguistics. Not all of linguistics, of course (nobody knows all of linguistics), but enough to understand the basic principles of social sciences.

People on other forums have explained to you how it's easy to publish, and also given your location, publishing papers (especially in the social-sciences) is even easier, and means very little.

And you're also falling for the Dunning-Kruger effect; As far as I can tell, you haven't even finished University yet. I'll consider that you 'know linguistics' if you have at least a Bachelor's degree in the subject. As it stands, no one should take you as a significant authority on this subject.

Well, think of it this way: for prisons to exist, people on power have to think it's a good thing that prisons exist. But how can a rational person think that?

I thought you were an anarchist? You think governments act rationally 100% of the time? I don't think anyone would agree with that.

Don't you think murder should be legal? Going by your logic, you should assume laws against murder don't exist.

I'm sure Hitler and other Nazi officers thought the Holocaust was a good idea too. Or are you going to deny that now as well?

A prison is not a place in which an insane person, who has murdered (or something like that) because of his or her insanity, will become sane, it's a place from which he or she will return with even more psychological problems (which made them a criminal in the first place).

Someone on another forum has already explained to you that most people who murder are not mentally ill. According to this study, only about 5% of murderers in the US have some history of mental illness: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html

There are some bungles, but more often than not insane people who murder are found innocent on the grounds on insanity and are put into mental hospitals.

 

Obviously, a rational person can't believe prisons are a good thing.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Obviously, a rational person can't believe-
that the Holocaust was a good thing.
that Lysenkoism was a good thing.
that Slavery was a good thing.

Does that stop them from being true?
Aren't you also a vegetarian? You are aware about what goes on in slaughterhouses, right? You don't consider that very rational do you?

 

Also, people on power need to be rational enough to get on power. Would you know how to become a successful politician in the country you live in? I wouldn't.

That isn't about being rational. Many politicians aren't very rational either. Even granting your statement (which is dubious in and of itself), it's being *just* rational enough. You could still be quite irrational.

 

But even I understand how the society works well enough to understand prisons shouldn't exist. Therefore, prisons probably don't exist. They are very hard to explain from the perspective of social sciences.

I don't think anyone argues that prisons shouldn't exist; Many argue that they should be reformed to focus less on punishment.

 

Well, not much. But, yeah, the basic principle of social sciences (including linguistics) is that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational, because irrationality of individuals tends to cancel each other out. Prisons clearly contradict that principle.

Where did you hear that from? Or did you come to that conclusion yourself?

Either way, it's wrong. Do you really not think people like psychologists consider cognitive biases?

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 04, 2020, 05:08:43 PM »

FlatAssembler has posted many weird threads here at the FES, and identical threads on other forums. Anyway, you should stick around.

I may stick around, though I'll mostly just lurk if I do. I just wanted to pop in to let you all know about Mr. FlatAssembler. I'm not sure which forums you saw his posts on, but I've noticed he's posted his Vukovar thread on several.

 

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 04, 2020, 08:59:54 AM »

Participating in any other part of this forum would still be more productive than responding to Assembler (although maybe not as entertaining).

You clearly haven't read some of the other threads here. He's got some stiff competition.

I'm willing to bet Assembler is up there though. What other things has he posted here? Did he tell you about his position on murder?

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 04, 2020, 08:41:39 AM »

We are all on the Flat Earth forums, I think we know we are not contributing much to human progress.

To be fair, you can still learn a few things here and there, especially given how a lot of users come from a variety of backgrounds. But with FlatAssembler, you're more likely to lose brain cells in the process; Participating in any other part of this forum would still be more productive than responding to Assembler (although maybe not as entertaining).

Still, thanks for the info, I'm pretty intrigued by the "prisons don't exist" thing though - is this something to do with linguistics as well?

I don't think so (even though I could see him using that to help substantiate his position), if I'm not mistaken I think he says they can't exist because he doesn't understand why people think they're a good idea.

I don't want to get too much into it, don't wanna derail, but I'm sure he'll love to tell you all about it.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Does Vladimir Putin exist?

« on: September 04, 2020, 08:29:21 AM »

Everyone following along, I have created this throwaway to let you all know that FlatAssembler is not trolling; I've been hearing his nonsense for years, and recently he's made clams about how prisons don't exist. At first, I thought he was trolling, but as time went on, I regret to inform you that isn't the case.
As for the topic, I'm sure this is the next ridiculous thing he's going to believe. Since he thinks he knows linguistics, he's gonna use it to support nutty conspiracy theories, even when in actuality it means nothing at all.

Keep responding to him, it's entertaining anyways, but just know your time could be better spent elsewhere. He almost never changes his mind, and when you present him with a compelling argument, he keeps moving the goalposts. It's a fruitless endeavor to try to change his mind.