In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even More Rights

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by asgard1024 on Thursday January 08, 2015 @06:46PM (#8859815)

The "mind viruses" should be fought with "mind antibiotics", not by killing the host. The idea that "thought viruses" will somehow spread without limits (in a liberal society) is a very elitist one, and there is no evidence for that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by bdamm on Thursday January 08, 2015 @06:57PM (#8859862)

The trouble is that whenever I have the opportunity to deliver "mind antibiotics", I'm delivering it to someone who doesn't really need it. And the ones who need it aren't likely to listen to me.

So, do you have an example of how these "mind antibiotics" work? I am seriously interested. This is a great idea, but how to execute it is a huge mystery to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by lexcorvus on Friday January 09, 2015 @01:20AM (#8860997)

The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth. Its taste is unmistakeable, but it doesn't always go down easy. For example, learn evolutionary biology, and then evaluate the bipedal ape Homo sapiens as you would any other species. You will immediately find yourself very far off the political map. On the other hand, you will also be inoculated against the absurd shibboleths of all those who deny the truth about human nature—which nowadays is virtually everyone who matters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by ars on Friday January 09, 2015 @05:08AM (#8861544)

> The only mind antibiotic I know of is the undiluted truth.

Please tell me you are aware of the irony in what you say?

How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not? Those people you deride are quite sure that when they know is true, and they think you are the one with the lies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by lexcorvus on Friday January 09, 2015 @10:18PM (#8865762)

How in the world do you plan to be able to figure out what is true and what is not?

Some people have a knack for it, but even then it takes practice. The tools are logic, reason, and evidence. Does that sound trite? It should. But we live in a world where, e.g., a straightforward application of evolutionary biology to H. sapiens immediately yields conclusions which, if you expressed them in an American workplace, would compel your employer to reprimand or fire you. When reporting the results of logic, reason, and evidence can get you fired, the trite becomes the profound.

Those people you deride

I derided no one. Calling absurd beliefs absurd isn't derision.

are quite sure that when they know is true

You assume a false symmetry. They are mistaken. I know this the same way I know that creationists are mistaken. Creationists may sincerely believe they are right, but it's not ironic to observe their error.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by ars on Sunday January 11, 2015 @01:50AM (#8869296)

You are still young I guess. You will mature.

Just a little thought for you: Imagine you were born 300 years ago. Would you be as sure about yourself as you are now?

Of course you would be. You would be wrong, but you would be absolutely certain you were right.

As you mature you will realize the world is not as simple as you think.

Knowing the truth is not possible.

You are acting like a creationist. No real scientist would talk like you do - they would be humbled by knowing just how often they were wrong in the past. They would only strive to learn, they would never be certain they own the truth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Wake of Charlie Hebdo Attack, Let’s Not Sacrifice Even... by lexcorvus on Monday January 12, 2015 @04:21PM (#8876492)

What a rich combination of condescension and sophistry! You write as if having confidence on some subjects is the same as thinking you know the truth about them all. And you guess that those with the temerity to express the belief that, e.g., evolution is true (even when applied to H. sapiens!) are arrogant youths who don't yet understand that 300 years ago people believed lots of things that turned out to be wrong. No "real" scientist would talk that way, but don't worry, "you will mature."

Well. My confidence is born of study and reflection, not youthful arrogance. In fact, I am a middle-aged scientist (a real one!). I weight my degree of confidence according to my understanding of the evidence, reserving judgment when the evidence is insufficient to justify a strong conclusion. I'd guess you strive to do the same. Indeed, I'd bet you're confident that evolution is right, and you'd probably cut creationists even less slack than I would—which makes your "knowing the truth is not possible" pablum utterly disingenuous.

[ Parent | on HN ]