Thursday, October 27, 2016

First Immigrant Toddler


Stephan said...

Good one!!

yonose said...

You know,

The thing I hate most, is that, still, any honest people who live in any third world country and struggles and tries to thrive and strive for a better quality of life, any honest and hardworking people from these groups: the latino, the hispanic, the muslim, the people other-than-straight sexual orientation, are still the ones who suffer the most, now that:

SJWs, Radical Feminists, Radical Liberal Progressives, are doing a great disservice, to your people, and of course, for the people who they purport to defend, what this means is, in other words:

The deliberate and complete fracture of entire social complexes. Money calls societal fractures of any kind, and we, gullible(this word SHOULD exist! now that allegedly is removed from oxford's dictionary for some stupid reason), naïvely framed people, fall so easily for it.

Thanks to the radical progressive liberals and radical elitst conservatives, neocons, alt-right, etc., the ones who label themselves as such with so much pride belonging to faux think-tanks, are responsible for the stigma of hardworking, honest-to-goodness, latinos, hispanics, muslims, etc.

Lets go all-in for the collapse of developed countries by:

-- Flooding those with incompetent, violent latinos, hispanics, muslims, etc., so that the good ones also suffer from the stigma of the hardcore conservatives, and at the same time from the pseudo-protective, hypocrite, double-standard self-righteousness of SJWs and Progressive Liberals(yeah I wonder when those stupid people are going to stop believing we can't handle ourselves??).

--Subvert any high standard of ethics and fair-judgement.

--Destroy the family core unit, in both developed and third-world countries, so that we, for no reason, begin to fight each other for the slightest and shallowest of the differences.

--and much, much more...

Remember, we are in the middle of a disastrous political agenda, and money calls for something different. With my wholeheartedly good will, ladies and gentlemen, please place your bets for guaranteeing your survival.

What we thought it would make our lives secured, is no longer with us.

Me? I'm latino, and I think this world as a whole, is becoming more disgusted than ever with the history of mankind, and some of the people we falsely believed, were the souls who did SWEAT their grain of sand, as a gift to this world.

Those political radicals from any label, will destroy the remaning few hardworking and honest of us. They are just one and the same. They will make sure we follow the streotype they desire to make our lives miserable every single step we make in this world.

Excuse my pessimism, but we must prepare, things are getting quite rough!!

Kind Regards!!

JBsptfn said...

Well said, Yonose. And, you are right. Lot of garbage going on out there.

Switching gears, though, you guys have to check this out:

Metacrock's Blog: Children of the Lack of Reading the Material They Criticize

It seems that Joe has had a run in with Skeppy, the atheist internet troll.

I called Skep out on his scientism, and his buddy Ryan had this to say about me (get ready to laugh):

As it stands, it just looks like he (IMS) intimidates you and you're lashing out because you have no intellectual way to respond to his points.

Then, after Joe called Ryan out on defending his atheist brother, I brought up how Ryan said that Stan wasn't qualified to talk about Evolution because he wasn't a scientist, and I posted what Stan said about that in the Evolution section of this site.

In response, this is what Ryan said:


Not all scientists have a right to talk about evolution just like not all scientists have a right to talk about classical mechanics. I have advocated the following to you:

1. a person ought not debate a topic they have no expertise in.
2. a person ought not debate a topic (they have expertise in) with a person without expertise in said topic.

You can interpret those maxims in an ethical or epistemic sense. I would restrict my domain of discourse to topics which require many months (Or years) to master. Evolution, and most things to do with physics at the college level (and above) would count as topics which ought not be debated by people without expertise in the subject(s).

I'm not at all sure what Stan is going for in his reply. Two issues:

First, he says that science must be based in the fundamentals of logic. Well, which logic? There are many different types of logics out there, partly to create more expressive semantics (e.g. propositional logic + quantifiers/relations/equality, etc), but also partly because some logicians prefer axioms different from the axioms found in general classical logics. For example, the "fundamentals of logic" assuming that means the basic axioms of logic, differ in intuitionistic logic compared to classical logic. In intuitionistic logic, we lose double negation elimination and the principle of excluded middle. In other non classical logics we also lose the principle of explosion (paraconsistent logics can do this, and dialatheism goes even further), and in others we lose the principle of bivalence (such as three valued logics, fuzzy logics, etc). Since there are many types of logics, it isn't clear which "fundamentals of logic" he is referring to.

Second, unless I am misinterpreting Stan then he seems to be saying this:

Stan's alleged thesis - [Anyone capable of understanding the fundamentals of logic is capable of understanding any science].

I think following Stan's alleged thesis the following argument would be sound:

1. Anyone capable of understanding the fundamentals of logic is capable of understanding any science.
2. Anyone capable of understanding classical propositional logic, contextual logic and intuitionistic logic is capable of understanding the fundamentals of logic.
3. I am capable of understanding classical propositional logic, contextual logic and intuitionistic logic.
4. Therefore, I am capable of understanding the fundamentals of logic.
5. Therefore, I am capable of understanding any science.

Conclusion (5) is false.

Stan said...

Interesting that he admits to his own incapacity. And he does it (apparently) by asserting that his incapacity as a student of science is due to his acceptance of logics which are not used by science, and therefore, science itself is false or at least incomprehesible to him. Or maybe not, it's really not clear how he gets "falseness" out of that argument.

Regardless, logics which do not involve If/Then, and Necessary and Sufficient, and pass the rigors of Aristotelian testing cannot produce truth in any sense of the word.

Intuitionism applies to first principles and other truths which are self-evident, intuitively obviously true, yet not provable, and which ground Aristotelian deduction, among other things.

By understanding these concepts, he declares that he no longer can understand science. That does not follow.

So, that's absurd. Understanding how science is conducted and toward what objective (Context), would determine which logic is useful and which is not. Perhaps, then, he is not capable of that differentiation. So his contextual logic fails him...

JBsptfn said...


Maybe it's because people like him and Skep worship science. For example, IMS bashed the resurrection of Jesus Christ a few years ago on DI because it went against science (in his myopic view).

Stan said...

Neither of them worship science, nor do they comprehend science. That level of operation is purely at the point of using science as a lever for a personal boost of esteem, the same process as that which makes Atheism useful to boosting personal esteem.

Their domain is not amongst scientists, it is amongst those who might be impressed by "scientist phonies". They don't care how many blogs they are removed from due to their false claims of expertise. Their phony stance works well enough to satisfy their emotional needs: they "know" that they are superior because of their blind beliefs and false Scientism. And that's all they need.