All of Dar_Veter's Comments + Replies

If i wanted to find a way to prolong WW2 as much as possible and maximize the body count (including American one), it would be hard to find better strategy than McCarthy's proposed one. This synopsis managed to get put my opinion about him even lower. Why shall i care about political opinions of someone who never even bothered to look at map (physical map showing mountains, rivers, roads and railroads, not political one)?

4[anonymous]
When doing a body count you really should consider the several dozen million deaths in China under Mao. This was no freak occurrence. Not only had millions already died from famine and in labour camps, but the USSR was arguably just as aggressively expansionist as Germany before nuclear weapons made this direct approach impractical. Anyone who knew anything about the prewar history of the Soviet Union should have realized that some costs are worth paying. If such goals where not on peoples minds and the Western Allies simply wanted to minimize casualties and ensure future peace, they should have signed an armistice with Axis powers once they had been clearly defeated in 1944 instead of demanding unconditional surrender.

Thanks for the link to that interesting essay.

Would be more interesting had author defined what he means by "highly evolved tradition" and added some real world examples.

Most small deviations, and practically all "radical" deviations [in cultural beliefs], result in the equivalent of death for the organism: a mass breakdown of civilization which can include genocide, mass poverty, starvation, plagues, and, perhaps most commonly and importantly, highly unsatisying, painful, or self-destructive individual life choices.

Genocide is ... (read more)

As Nick Szabo points out in this essay, tradition often contains wisdom

The problem is that there is no such thing as "tradition". In every society bigger than village there are numerous, mostly incompatible traditions. Even in one family often happens that, if you follow grandmother's way, you anger the other one.

You all are overanalyzing it, the issue is simple. Romney's own church position on gambling is clear:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling. Gambling is motivated by a desire to get something for nothing. This desire is spiritually destructive. It leads participants away from the Savior's teachings of love and service and toward the se... (read more)

0thomblake
I don't know if the Mormon position on gambling outlaws making bets. Some definitions of gambling require it to involve a 'game' - others require that the bet is made with the primary intent of winning more money.
4Luke_A_Somers
Somehow, I don't think this is the aspect of the affair that does the most damage.

In theory, Christians can go one up on non-believers in the self-sacrificing stakes, which is to act in such a way as to condemn themselves to Hell, a fate which I would consider worse than non-existence. If they do it for the greater benefit of mankind this might be seen as a supreme act of virtue.

In theory, deed that would damn your soul is never a good deed, per definition.

Does anyone know of a real-life analogue of Kenny McCormick in this context? (Not in terms of whether they actually went to Hell, but in terms of what they thought the consequen

... (read more)

I would not agree even with the second statement. Do Holocaust survivors fear Holocaust deniers are telling the truth? (or insert some even more offensive and unpopular belief)

-1[anonymous]
Good point. Better?

Simply check for which of my posts have been downvoted into oblivion?

Ones where you forget you are in an international forum and insist on discussing parochial American political issues?

Want to discuss who originated the idea of common descent

Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis in 1745

You won't be able to. If I should quote the relevant passages from the earliest who proposed this idea, I suspect my post would not merely be downvoted, but deleted.

Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be ... (read more)

9komponisto
No, that's not it. The problem is being in a rational* forum and insisting on discussing political issues (tout court). (...and just being a troll.) * word chosen because it rhymes with "international", allowing a rhetorical parallelism with the wording of the parent. Comments on how the word is too self-congratulatory are not invited.

sam0345 is referring to the Condemnation of 1277

The full text is here

I'm not sure which of the propositions he believes are true but disbelieved by the typical Less Wronger.

He probably wanted to point out that in the propositions that can be verified, the philosophers were wrong and the Church was proven right (the universe is not eternal, mankind is not eternal, astrology is bunk etc...)

Aliens are generally benevolent

How would malevolent aliens behave? :-P

I suspect that (at least in a Western world) "Pope" and "Dalai Lama" would be the most frequent answers.

"Western world" is small portion of mankind and, in this scenario, all mankind counts. I cannot see even one Western person out of hundred remember Dalai Lama when facing death and for the rest of the world, the few who heard about him (excepting Tibetan Buddhists) would not appreciate his morality in the slightest.

My vote goes to the Pope - Roman C... (read more)

0[anonymous]
In the thought experiment I would also likely vote pope since he seems by far the most likely candidate to win and also would not be a moral leader so bad that I wouldn't want to live in that world. Not actually true, I'm sure lots of educated people would make the guess that the pope is likely to win the election and vote the same way. I'm also pretty sure many non-Catholic Christians might decide he is the best pick likely to win. I'm also pretty sure almost instantly after the calamity lots of humans would start worshipping the aliens. Unlikely to happen because of how suicidal that would be and that most Popes being intelligent people would realize this and would I think encourage the "turn the other cheek" memes to deal with the grief and outrage. However a few billion deaths might animate mankind aware of the cost in powerful and difficult to control ways.
0Viliam_Bur
They would kill us, or worse, without giving us any chance. Just like a super-human AI without design for friendliness will probably kill us, or worse. An AI designed for friendliness will need some choices from us -- for example whether to use CEV of humankind, and how to approximate it if we can't measure literally every person on the planet -- and a bad choice could have horrible consequences.
4steven0461
It's extrapolated volition that matters, not current volition. If the Pope had the same beliefs about facts that we do, his most important difference with most of us might well be something like old age.

I cannot see how can anyone see 2001 as "inspiring hope".

Set in crapsack world of overpopulation, famine and imminent nuclear war, where human race was from the beginning a toy of omnipotent aliens. What hope? Our world in 2001 was not like in "2001", it was much better.

One man's bitter cynicism is another man's gritty realism and one man's hope is another man's delusionary dream. Looking at another literary genre, did the emergence of hardboiled school "collapsed" crime fiction?