Found here.
Archive for the ‘Humor’ Category
Kennethamy in response to something about certainty:
I did not say there was such a thing as objective certainty. I said objective certainty was what Descartes was aiming at, not subjective or psychological certainty. He did not care about that. People feel certain about all sorts of things, about which they later turn out to be wrong. And people feel certain about contrary things. Subjective certainty is of no epistemological interest. Descartes presented as his prime example of objective certainty, “I exist”. So, if you are going to deny there is such a thing as objective certainty, you have to deny you are objectively certain that you (yourself) exist. That is, that it would be possible for you to be mistaken about whether you exist. Do you think it would be possible for you to believe that you exist, and still not exist? For that is what it would be for you to be mistaken that you exist.
None of your pronouncements about certainty being a useful fiction really matter. You may think what you like. But you still have Descartes argument to wrestle with, and simply saying that objective certainty is a useful fiction, or the truth with a capital T is a fiction, will really not cut it. It is the argument that is the thing, and as Socrates said, “we must follow the argument wherever she leads us”. How do you handle Descartes’s argument that it is impossible to be mistaken about whether one exists, for in order to be mistaken, one must exist? Have you a reply?
Emil in response to the above:
Not quite sure that subjective certainty is of no epistemic interest, but otherwise I agree.
Kennethamy in response to the above:
Yes. I have been told over a trillion times not to exaggerate.
Emil in response to the above:
Hahahahaha. Priceless!
“There will always be a conflict between the sexes because men and women want different things. Men want women and women want men.”
(Quoted in David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology, 1999, p. 311)
Hahaha!
Discussing logic at PhilosophyForum.com (my new forum of choice soon to be):
“My only other observation at this point is the degree of difficulty associated with the notion of ‘objectivity’. It is a genuinely difficult issue in contemporary philosophy which could be parodied by the suggestion that perhaps everyone has their own idea of what ‘objectivity’ constitutes.”
Hahaha!
Source.
“Falling in love is not at all the most stupid thing that people do — but gravitation cannot be held responsible for it.”
Jotted (in German) on the margins of a letter to him (1933). As quoted in Albert Einstein, The Human Side : New Glimpses From His Archives (1981) ISBN 0691023689 Wikiquote link.
“Jacqueline Isobel (Jacqui) Dean (born 13 May 1957 in Palmerston North) is a New Zealand politician and the current Member of Parliament for the Waitaki electorate.”
(skip)
“Party pills
Jacqui Dean campaigned for the banning of the sale of “party pills”, namely Benzylpiperazine (BZP), over which Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton (Progressive party) has accused her of indulging in political grandstanding, saying – “Perhaps Mrs Dean doesn’t subscribe to the idea that any Government must balance the need to act promptly with its responsibilities to act fairly and follow due process, particularly where its actions affect those who are currently acting within existing legal constraints.”[4] Dean’s press releases refer to BZP as either “cattle drench” or a “worming agent”[5][6]. BZP was developed for this use, but has never been commercially used as a wormer or drench.[7][1] Evidence that Dean has used to promote the BZP ban (such as the MRINZ report on BZP) has been criticized as consisting of flawed research which does not meet peer review requirements.[8]
Salvia divinorum
In November 2007 Jacqui Dean called for the government to take action against Salvia divinorum, saying – “Salvia divinorum is a hallucinogenic drug, which has been banned in Australia, and yet here in New Zealand it continues to be sold freely.” and “We’re dealing with a dangerous drug here, with the minister’s wait and see approach like playing Russian Roulette with young people’s lives.”[9] In March 2008 she was reportedly pleased on hearing about plans for action against salvia, but saying she was not hopeful it would be fast, given that it had taken the Government two and a-half years to move on BZP. Her concern about salvia was that people were self-medicating with it and combining it with other drugs including alcohol. “I don’t think we understand the long-term effects of Salvia divinorum.” she said.[10]
Opponents of prohibitive Salvia restrictions argue that such reactions are largely due to an inherent prejudice and a particular cultural bias rather than any actual balance of evidence, pointing out inconsistencies in attitudes toward other more toxic and addictive drugs such as alcohol and nicotine.[i][11] While not objecting to some form of regulatory legal control, in particular with regard to the sale to minors or sale of enhanced high-strength extracts, most Salvia proponents otherwise argue against stricter legislation.[ii][12]
Alcohol and tobacco
When questioned by Maori Party MP Tariana Turia, on why she was unwilling to take the same prohibitory line on smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol as she took on BZP. Ms Dean said – “Alcohol and tobacco have been with our society for many, many years.”[13] It is estimated that alcohol-related conditions account for 3.1% of all male deaths and 1.41% of all female deaths in New Zealand.[14]
Dean’s Otago electorate is also home to approximately 5% of New Zealand’s wine production, described by the New Zealand Wine Growers Association as a new but aggressively expanding wine area, which is now New Zealand’s seventh largest wine region.[15]
Water
In August 2007, as a result of emails from ACT on Campus members based loosely around the well known Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, she sent a letter to Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton, asking if there were any plans to ban “Dihydrogen Monoxide”, apparently not realizing that this is water.[16][17]
In September 2007, the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand (STANZ) called for Jacqui Dean to step down from speaking on drug issues after she demonstrated – “a lack of credibility in calling for the ban of dihydrogen monoxide (water.)” STANZ Chairman Matt Bowden said – “The DHMO hoax played on the member this week is not a joke, it highlights a serious issue at the heart of drug policy making. Ms Dean demonstrated a ‘ban anything moderately harmful’ reflex. This approach is just downright dangerous.” – “Jacqui Dean has clearly demonstrated a lack of credibility in her requests to the Minister to consider banning water; She has also seriously embarrassed her National Party colleagues who can no longer have confidence in her petitions to ban BZP or anything else.”[18]
When interviewed on the radio by Marcus Lush on 14 September 2007, she referred to the members of ACT on Campus as “left wingers”. She also suggested that there were no lessons to be learned from her attempts to call for a ban on water.[19]”
This has to be one of the dumbest fucking politicians that I’ve ever seen.
Emil:
There is an infinite number of possible Gods. Without evidence every guess is as good as the others or nearly so. The chance of guessing the right God is zero. Might as well not believe at all, same chances and you save the energy.
McCannFan:
Do you think that it is just as likely that the sidewalk god (who makes cracks in the sidewalk when angry) exists as that the christian god exists? I would want to say that, though the evidence for the christian god is slight, the sidewalk god is just silly, and more implausible than the christian god.
rizdek:
But the evidence for a sidewalk god is more concrete. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
McCannFan:
LOL
Emil:
LOL!
‘Nuff said.
This is absolutely hilarious!
http://rinkworks.com/said/courtroom.shtml
Quoting:
“The following quotations are taken from official court records across the nation, showing how funny and embarrassing it is that recorders operate at all times in courts of law, so that even the slightest inadvertence is preserved for posterity.”
Some examples:
- Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
- Witness: “By death.”
- Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
.
- Lawyer: “This myasthenia gravis — does it affect your memory at all?”
- Witness: “Yes.”
- Lawyer: “And in what ways does it affect your memory?”
- Witness: “I forget.”
- Lawyer: “You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you’ve forgotten?”
.
- Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”
- Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”
- Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”
- Witness: “Forty-five years.”