Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  2. There’s been a development on this site that’s been good for me.

    We have acquired quite a few experts in various fields, and I no longer have much to say.

    I would like to be something more than a cheerleader, but alas, that’s what I have become.

    At times I post something just to see if i have understood the argument. I’d like the big guys to know that they are being read.

  4. petrushka: We have acquired quite a few experts in various fields, and I no longer have much to say.

    I regret having ever argued on details of evolutionary biology (and have refrained from doing so in the past six or seven years). Anything that leads the general public to believe that there is a “scientific controversy” regarding evolution, and that mathematicians and engineers are qualified to speak on the matter, is a boon to the “intelligent design” movement.

  6. Tom English:
    I regret having ever argued on details of evolutionary biology (and have refrained from doing so in the past six or seven years). Anything that leads the general public to believe that there is a “scientific controversy” regarding evolution, and that mathematicians and engineers are qualified to speak on the matter, is a boon to the “intelligent design” movement.

    I agree that any attention the intelligent design creationists get tends to benefit them. If they didn’t try to push that nonsense into public schools there would be no reason to give them the oxygen of attention. Unfortunately, in the U.S. at least they infect local school boards far too often.

    I’m less concerned about non-biologists being involved in the debate. While it’s always preferable to have an expert, many of the claims made by the IDCists are easily refuted by anyone with a modicum of science education.

  8. I don’t see how people asking interesting questions and getting answers from various experts is a negative. I don’t think it should cause onlookers to conclude that evolutionary biology, or computer science, or protein chemistry, is in a state of confusion. (Of course creationist debaters can try to spin things that way — see Denyse O’Leary’s endless attempts at UD to interpret unexpected results in science as showing that scientists do not know anything).

    One might wonder whether those of us who have a lot of experience and technical knowledge in our fields should label ourselves experts. I tend not to do that (though I do brag a bit about scientists I knew and things I have done — I doubt anyone else here can say that they had lunch with C.H. Waddington, dinner with Barbara McClintock, went hiking with John Maynard Smith, and heard both a small seminar talk by J.B.S. Haldane and a large lecture by him too).

    If, in a disagreement, I pull rank and say “I’m an expert in this field and am recognized as such in ways A, B, and C” that most likely will backfire, with the other party painting me as a pompous and arrogant ass.

  9. I doubt anyone else here can say that they had lunch with C.H. Waddington, dinner with Barbara McClintock, went hiking with John Maynard Smith, and heard both a small seminar talk by J.B.S. Haldane and a large lecture by him too

    Oh, I say all of that and more.

    It’s not that hard…

    Glen Davidson

  10. Joe Felsenstein: I don’t see how people asking interesting questions and getting answers from various experts is a negative.

    As I have noted, the amount of personal animosity in a post seems to be inversely correlated with the amount of specific education and training possessed by the poster.

    We all have lapses, but I but there is a strong correlation.

    Anyway, I appreciate the free education. I even appreciate having creationists drag in questions. Sometimes the repetition is irritating, but sometimes repetition inspires someone to bring in new evidence or a new line of argument.

  11. keiths: Mung’s $10,000 bluster starts here.

    It’s only a bluster if you meet it and I back out. You haven’t met it.

  13. It’s always interesting how immoral a bullying jerk like Murray is when “arguing” for the “necessity” (but not the objective existence) of “objective morality.”

    I think that almost everyone in the past did indeed want to believe in objective morality, and most did, and it is precisely the fact that a-holes like Murray never managed to comply with such a thing as objective morality–by acting like the perfect word-gaming malicious bully that he is–plus the fact that no one could really say (not objectively, anyway) why Christian morality beat Buddhist or Muslim morality, that people realized that morality could hardly be considered objective. Yes, it would be nice if there were a God who would hold Murray responsible for his dishonesty and attempts to define others as unworthy of consideration, but I’m rather unpersuaded that there is. Because, Murray, and well, most of his ilk arguing on the web (many who you won’t hear from are much better theists, but that’s why they’re not trying to shit on people like Murray does), if even more so because of the general lack of any evidence for the proclaimed gods.

    So yeah, Murray’s a great example of why “objective morality” doesn’t exist. There’s no conscience, honesty, or decency to be had from him.

    Glen Davidson

  15. Well, Glen, I’m not a Christian. I don’t advocate that any particular religious doctrine of moral rules is better than any other.

    I’m not really sure what it is that I did that provoked such ire. I also don’t understand why you think I’m being an asshole. At worst, I’m arguing that a belief you have is irrational and holding that belief makes you a de facto hypocrite – acting one way while believing something else. So what? I have irrational beliefs and there are things I’m a hypocrite about.

    I would bet you’re a more moral person than I am. In fact I’d bet just about everyone here AND at UD behaves more morally than I do. IMO, if we were to meet in the afterlife and realize who each other was, we’d have a big laugh about it.

  16. William J. Murray:
    Well, Glen, I’m not a Christian. I don’t advocate that any particular religious doctrine of moral rules is better than any other.

    What of it, dumbass?

    I was just mentioning why it was that people gave up belief in objective morality, the scummy way you and your ilk deal with people and ideas, as well as the fact that there’s really nothing objective to argue for “objective morality.” Who cares if you’re a Christian or not with respect to that? That you’re playing word games yet again is what counts.

    I’m not really sure what it is that I did that provoked such ire. I also don’t understand why you think I’m being an asshole.

    That’s the problem, you lack any moral sense in these matters–in any matters that I have seen you discuss. That you’re despicably dishonest about making an forthright case for things is plain disgusting.

    At worst, I’m arguing that a belief you have is irrational and holding that belief makes you a de facto hypocrite – acting one way while believing something else.

    Yes, you stupid fuck, you can make no legitimate case, hence you smear people with your addled ought makes is “argument.” Maybe you’re too stupid to do better, but I suspect that it’s more than that.

    So what? I have irrational beliefs and there are things I’m a hypocrite about.

    Yeah? Pretty obvious. Just because you’re scum doesn’t mean others are. Another serious lapse in judgment. Christ, can you think decently at all?

    I would bet you’re a more moral person than I am. In fact I’d bet just about everyone here AND at UD behaves more morally than I do.IMO, if we were to meet in the afterlife and realize who each other was, we’d have a big laugh about it.

    The trouble is that this is a place for discussions in good faith, while your “point” is that people are “hypocrites” for not saying something’s objectively true when you’re too spineless and mendacious even to make a case that it is objectively true. It’s hypocritical in the extreme, yet somehow you think it’s just fine because you’re a slimy word-gaming a-hole who pretends that evidence doesn’t matter because of that. At issue is something that is said by you to be “objective,” which in general means something with solid empiric evidence for it. You have none.

    If you weren’t a hypocrite you’d see the problem, as well as the fact that your disclaimer that you’re not arguing for objective morality is just a dishonest dodge from the actual issue. One can’t legitimately derive “is” from “ought,” which is why everything you stupidly blather on the issue is dissimulation of what matters. It’s disgusting, if all too common.

    Glen Davidson

  17. Btw, I do think one could easily enough make the case that your upper classes and their enablers really do use their morality as if it were indubitable and objective and, more importantly, use it as if it were absolute truth, in order to denigrate and “other” those who hold different moral ideas.

    But that’s quite another case indeed, not one that can be served by claiming that people should believe that their morality is objective. Indeed, the argument would go the opposite way, that clearly their morality is not objective and thus has no greater legitimacy than that of those who are treated as morally beyond the pale for daring to differ from the powerful.

    One can’t argue from ought to is, but one can argue that there is no ought that is objectively better than any others’, hence the intolerance of those who are not “right” is certainly not in keeping with the dominant morality. Murray’s arguing as if those who mostly do not claim objectivity for their morality should actually claim objectivity for their morality, when one would think pointing out their subjectivity is what should be emphasized–if morality is not to be used to keep the “immoral believers” down.

    Glen Davidson

  18. Nothing quite like a supposed moral subjectivist throwing up a big heaping dose of moral outrage and judgement as if his personal, subjective moral views should be held or abided by anyone else.

    Might as well go on an expletive-laced tirade that my favorite TV show is not the same as yours. Categorically, it would have the same significance.

  21. You see, I’m using my mind powers to force you guys to respond as if there was something objectively morally wrong with things I or Mr. A or others at UD do or say, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me. I can make everyone here act hypocritically any time I want.

    I can also make you act as if acausal free will exists, even though you deny it does! Just watch me. I can do it from any distance and we don’t even have to be on the forum for me to do it.

    muahahahahaha

  22. William J. Murray: You see, I’m using my mind powers to force you guys to respond as if there was something objectively morally wrong with things I or Mr. A or others at UD do or say, and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.

    What you are doing is not objectively wrong, and that you accuse people who do not believe in objective morality of saying that you are behaving objectively wrong is simply lying.

    Rather, according to the shared moral sense many people at TSZ seem to have, you are acting like a shitheel. In the grand scheme of things that is neither here nor there, wrong or right, immoral or moral. But in this context, with this group of people, you are a shitheel.

    William J. Murray: I can also make you act as if acausal free will exists, even though you deny it does!

    In your tiny mind, yes.

  23. William J. Murray: Why would I want to change what is a perfect example of the irrational nature of moral subjectivism?

    What, you can get a group of people to despise you and then turn around and say that your point has been proven? And that by despising you they are admitting that objective morality actually does exist?

    You may want to see a doctor…

  25. William J. Murray:
    Nothing quite like a supposed moral subjectivist throwing up a big heaping dose of moral outrage and judgement as if his personal, subjective moral views should be held or abided by anyone else.

    Might as well go on an expletive-laced tirade that my favorite TV show is not the same as yours. Categorically, it would have the same significance.

    Dumbass can’t make a case for his stupid lies, so he whines about the meanie.

    Nothing new with Mr. Murray, is there?

    Glen Davidson

  26. William J. Murray: ou see, I’m using my mind powers to force you guys to respond as if there was something objectively morally wrong

    It’s pathetic really. Sad and pathetic.

  27. William J. Murray: Nothing quite like a supposed moral subjectivist throwing up a big heaping dose of moral outrage and judgement as if his personal, subjective moral views should be held or abided by anyone else.

    If those views are shared by a sufficiently large proportion of the group then they become the standard and others not holding those views may be treated differently to those that do. All moral views are subjective. The last human that exists will define human morality as exactly what that sole person thinks is moral. And when they are gone human morality ceases to exist.

  28. These two comments by William J. Murray should be preserved for posterity (in my subjective opinion, of course):

    Atheism, Truth, Morals

    William J. Murray August 7, 2016 at 12:38 am

    GlenDavidson: Well, he’s certainly threatened people that he would.

    I didn’t bother enough to find out if he did ban any comments, it was just clear that he wanted people to think that he would.

    Glen Davidson

    I censored many comments out of my threads there. I hope that clears things up.

    Atheism, Truth, Morals

    William J. Murray August 7, 2016 at 1:15 am

    Acartia: Which is not the same as claiming that you have never had someone banned from UD by asking Barry to ban them. Very clever choice of words.

    While I never privately asked, I think I publicly (on a thread) asked Mr. Arrington to ban all obnoxious dissenters, and I think I have – several times – publically asked him to ban specific individuals.

  29. William J. Murray: I’m not really sure what it is that I did that provoked such ire.

    Glen’s daddy beat his ass. Not that Glen thinks there is anything objectively morally wrong about child abuse. God forbid.

  30. FMM orginally said that physical objects may appear to be discreet things to or human perceptions, but that is only because we are looking at them from an obscured distance, rather then up very close, where their existence is no longer separated from the rest of the world around it. And he is perfectly correct. It is you and Allan and John who have tried to argue this as if he is not right-which he clearly is.

    No, you mindless fuckwit, we argued that elements are discrete. FMM and you are stupid gits trying to word-game everything, moving goalposts, and lying profusely, but that doesn’t change anything about our points. It’s just an indication that you’re both ignorant dumbshits.

    Furthermore, have you ever noticed that FMM continues to be generally quite polite to you,

    Bullshit, you ridiculously idiotic moron. He’s very rude in ignoring the actual facts of the matter, shifting goalposts, and generally lying. You’re too stupid and vile to care about truth, I know, but that’s because you’re a disgusting asshole.

    despite your childish little rants towards him at every turn-as if by not believing in YOUR worldview, he is stealing your dinner from you are something?

    Look, I know that you and he are too stupid and evil to deal with anybody competently or decently, hence you strike out with lies and hatred. There’s really no reason for me to meander through the endless stupidity and dishonesty that both you and he vomit forth continually. You’re an endless asshole, btw, so a complete hypocrite about this, but then you seem not even to know what honesty or decency are.

    When someone is as unabashedly as rude and intellectually petty as you, I am the type to likely respond in kind. You shuld probably appreciate the fact that FMM is a bit more gracious than I and doesn’t tell you to go fuck yourself, and suck back some of your diaper whining.

    OK, so you don’t understand the assholery of a shithead like yourself, nor do you care in the slightest about truth or honesty, hence you’re just attacking in your ignorance and stupidity. That’s the best you can do, I realize, but that’s why you’re a perverted bullying fuckhead. Vile stupidity and dishonest name-calling is the best you can do, and it’s the best we’ll ever get out of you.

    BTW, you’re going on ignore, since hate and viciousness is all that you can manage. I’ve mostly ignored your pathetic, hateful whining and dumbfuckery without putting you on ignore, but there’s no reason to read your putrid, dishonest hatefests. The fact is that I wrote an informative, helpful comment this morning, and all I ever got from the mindfuck you are, and your asshole stupid compatriot, are lies, hate, and the stupidity of the horrifyingly ignorant. Fuck yourself and keep on lying, it’s all you’ve ever done here, it’s all you know to do.

    Glen Davidson

  31. Take it easy, Glen. Those guys aren’t worth the emotional energy you’re investing in them.

  33. keiths:
    Take it easy, Glen.Those guys aren’t worth the emotional energy you’re investing in them.

    I haven’t put them on ignore, but I don’t read their posts unless someone else has responded to them.

    If everyone had that policy, we would have fewer flame wars.

  34. Mung: Glen’s daddy beat his ass. Not that Glen thinks there is anything objectively morally wrong about child abuse. God forbid.

    spare the rod ,spoil the child.

  35. The awesome immutable, transcendent, consistent wisdom of WJM:

    Abortion & Euthanasia: Why I’m All For Both

    “Simply put, liberals/progressives are the ones who, IMO, are going to utilize these services the most. So, yeah, the fewer babies they get to raise, and the earlier we can stop them from voting, the better….So, as a pragmatic political matter, I say let ’em abort their young and kill themselves off to their heart’s content.”

    The Benefit of Arguments at UD

    “A few weeks ago my family and I were sitting in my living room talking one day when my adult granddaughter (mother of my great-granddaughter), who was either agnostic or an atheist, out of the blue asked me why I believed in god. I presented evidence and argument concerning cosmological fine-tuning, bio-semiotics and cellular nano-technology, and also first-cause and moral arguments. She was really interested, but didn’t say much at the time. Some time later my daughter informed me that she overheard my granddaughter telling her boyfriend that since that talk she now totally believes in god because of the information and argument I was able to provide due to many years of participation here.

    Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person.”

    And Barry approves:

    “Wonderful story WJM. And of course the phenomenon of which you speak is a two-way street. Iron sharpens iron. And as UB says, you are one of our very best steels.”

    I agree, WJM is one of their sharpest steels (which isn’t just iron). But that’s more a statement on how dull the tools at UD collectively are.

  36. Richardthughes,

    I liked this part:

    It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors

    Well, they certainly try a lot of logic, just not very good logic. Evidence, well, “it’s really complex, thus the Designer” is about all they manage to achieve. I like that his “even reasonable discourse” seemingly is the highest valued, as if being swayed by his “reasonable discourse” should trump mere the evidence that they lack, in fact.

    Murray’s even admitted at UD that he used to make claims on the web that he couldn’t actually back up. Used to. Self-awareness at its most limited.

    Glen Davidson

  37. GlenDavidson: Murray’s even admitted at UD that he used to make claims on the web that he couldn’t actually back up. Used to. Self-awareness at its most limited.

    Spent his life writing shit ideas down and then back-peddling. Future generations will use “Murrays” as units of ineptness.

  38. keiths: Take it easy, Glen. Those guys aren’t worth the emotional energy you’re investing in them.

    Emotion is all he has to work with.

  39. I seems to me Mung is going all JAD in his old age.

    Hey, Mung, are you writing stuff down?

  40. bio-semiotics

    Must be another thing WJM ‘knows’ about like spoon bending, PSI, cancer cures and the like.

    William, did the greys implant that knowledge directly in your mind?

  41. OMagain: Hey, Mung, are you writing stuff down?

    Pretty much every single day. I call it my to do list. It helps me focus on things that I need to get done. Short term goals.

  42. Has keiths retired yet? Personally, I can’t wait. He ought to be able to find time to defend his claims. As things stand right now it looks like he’s just running away.

  43. I am at a pub, relaxing after work and checking out some blogs on their WiFi. I checked out AtBC and found out that it was blocked. So I then went to UD. Not blocked.

    Am I in enemy territory? Should I take off my “Atheists Rule” tie?

  45. Mung:
    Try after the pub closes.

    Damn. Some IDists actually do have a sense humour. Do you think you can give some training to Barry Arrogant and the paranoid, conspiracy theorist from Monserrat? They need some help. They need a lot of help.

    Batshitcrazy77, on the other hand, is too far gone.

  46. Acartia,

    Am I in enemy territory? Should I take off my “Atheists Rule” tie?

    Try ordering a Jesus Juice and see what happens.

Leave a Reply