SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David Knowles reports at Bloomberg that former Hewlett-Packard CEO and potential 2016 presidential candidate Carly Fiorina called out Apple CEO Tim Cook as a hypocrite for criticizing Indiana and Arkansas over their Religious Freedom Restoration Acts while at the same time doing business in countries where gay rights are non-existent. “When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina said. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”
In similar criticism of Hillary Clinton on the Fox News program Hannity, Fiorina argued that Clinton's advocacy on behalf of women was tarnished by donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments where women's rights are not on par with those in America. ""I must say as a woman, I find it offensive that Hillary Clinton travels the Silicon Valley, a place where I worked for a long time, and lectures Silicon Valley companies on women's rights in technology, and yet sees nothing wrong with taking money from the Algerian government, which really denies women the most basic human rights. This is called, Sean, hypocrisy." While Hillary Clinton hasn't directly addressed Fiorina's criticisms, her husband has. “You’ve got to decide, when you do this work, whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country,” former president Bill Clinton said in March. “And I believe we have done a lot more good than harm. And I believe this is a good thing.”
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:09PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
so the practical application of religion is irrational? meditating, seeking personal enlightenment, taking care of the needy, bonding with others, etc, thats all irrational? surely you mean "in theory" since the practice of religion, what people do because of it, has very little to do with anything supernatural. their reasons for doing it might be an irrational fear of supernatural punishment or whatever, but the actions themselves are rooted in reality. only they know their reasons, everyone else only knows their actions, so the reasons shouldn't matter to anyone but the individual.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational. thats a strange notion. you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since, again, there's very little that can actually be proven, and science works by not believing in anything that has been proven wrong, rather than only believing in things which have been proven 100%.
no argument there. if people in general are hardwired to be spiritual or religious, i'd much rather their belief system demand rationality and to not believe in supernatural nonsense like magic sky fairies.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:28PM
well your argument is "even though the founder specifically said anything not supported by reason is not to be believed, i refuse to accept that he actually said it", so i find the idea that your premise is correct as a bit absurd. you can disagree with what he said all you want, but your argument that he didn't say it at all is pure denialism, the height of irrationality.
I'm going by the article that you yourself linked to. Anyone can claim to love science and rationality, even people who accept nonsense like homeopathy. So the mere fact that the founder said one thing or another is literally meaningless, as they could also then go on to say something else that is nonsense.
And, also, that's a straw man. I never said that he didn't say it. Why do you feel the need to use straw men every two seconds? Where did I say anything about denying the founder said something? You seem to think you can just tell other people what they believe and make up arguments and say they're the ones who put those arguments forth.
so the practical application of religion is irrational?
A grand majority of religions are irrational, yes.
meditating
Also known as prayer for many religions, which also happens to involve deities for many of them.
seeking personal enlightenment
"Goddidit" is not seeking personal enlightenment. If they wanted enlightenment, they should rely on science. In practice, most religions don't encourage enlightenment.
The other ones are not exclusive to religion and have little to do with it.
surely you mean "in theory"
No, in practice. In theory, a majority of religions could have no supernatural elements at all. In practice, a majority of them do advocate the supernatural. They are, therefore, irrational.
so believing in mathematics and anything abstract is irrational.
Straw man argument. I never once said, "Anything abstract is unprovable and it is therefore irrational to believe it is true." Read my post again if you don't believe me.
you're also raising the barrier for science impossibly high since
No, I fucking didn't. I didn't say anything about proving something 100%. Try again. All I mentioned was believing something without evidence. There is such a thing as "good enough", and science typically meets those standards.
And then you go on to repeat the same "But very little can actually be proven 100% true!" argument that I already fucking responded to. Stop responding to my points in little snippets and ignoring everything else I had to say.
Here: "It hasn't been proven that there isn't a magical pink unicorn living on Mars. There's all sorts of nonsense that has not been and cannot be disproven, but that doesn't mean you're not irrational for believing in it.
Look, question the existence of the universe if you like, but don't compare that to people who refuse to believe in fairy tales or beings outside the universe without evidence. I care about results, and science has a history of nice results. And, from what I see, it's more productive to assume the universe is real than to assume it isn't without evidence. The situations simply aren't comparable to me."
I'll just start copying and pasting my previous replies as appropriate, because typing it all against would be too tedious. Notice how I didn't say anything about requiring absolute proof? Yeah.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:11PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:08PM
that people don't always follow it perfectly is beside the point. the point is, rationality is hard-coded in to that religion, and you are saying it is not, because for you, "religion" is by definition "irrational" and "rational religion" is an oxymoron and no evidence anywhere will change your mind.
No, that's not what I've been saying. Try again.
do tell me, how do you prove something that doesn't exist?
You must have a very deep understanding of mathematics indeed. Mathematicians are just people who make up nonsense out of nowhere and none of their ideas actually make sense in reality or have practical purposes.
Hint: You're equivocating.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:24PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible. all of mathematics is built on faith - faith that, because these abstract ideas correlate to reality in a limited number of instances, that they always will do so; they believe in something which does not exist and cannot be proven, only correlated, and for which their is no evidence (except for that which is built upon faith) and this is not a problem until it has been proven wrong. if it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, no proof, then believing in anything abstract, including math and anything involving math (like science), is irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:48PM
a dodge, so you must be admitting that its impossible.
I said no such thing. Your dishonest tactic of putting words in my mouth and spewing forth straw men is something you use often, but no matter the frequency, I will call you out on your logical fallacies.
Mathematical proofs make use of logic and reason. They are not just mere faith. You seem to be saying, "There are few things you can know with 100% certainty; therefore, a complete nutter who believes in random nonsense is just as good as a scientist or mathematician who uses logic, evidence, and reason to arrive at conclusions, because we can't prove that the universe exists with 100% certainty." It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Mathematics deals with the theoretical, but that does not mean there are no proofs or standards.
The name of your logical fallacy is: Equivocation.
You say you think the supernatural is nonsense, but the arguments you're putting forth are much like the ones a theist nutter would put forth. Is this merely a coincidence?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:06PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:13PM
and you are defining "logic" and "reason" as something other than their definitions just to specifically preclude anything you do not already agree with.
Nope.
there is no evidence for anything abstract, except other abstractions (which also don't exist), so by your own words it is irrational to believe in anything abstract.
What part of "equivocation" do you not understand? You really need to work on your logic.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:40PM
the part that you're saying i'm equivocating. what, exactly, is ambiguous in my argument thats being used to conceal the truth?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:16PM
It's a fallacy. You're confusing two things, intentionally or not. Asking for evidence that some physical being or theory is true, and using abstract concepts like mathematics or logic to prove that something is true/untrue to the best of our ability. You are saying someone who advocates evidence before belief must also believe that the abstract is useless and irrational, when the topic is really about proving the existence of some being or providing evidence of some theory. Something doesn't need to be a real-life phenomenon in order for it to be useful or logical.
Do you think it is irrational to believe in a magical pink unicorn living on Mars when there is no evidence of such a thing? Why do you think it's irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, given all you've said to me? You can't prove that magical sky daddies don't exist. I hope I just don't understand what the hell you're arguing here, because it's not making any sense and seems to contradict what you said previously about magical sky daddies being irrational.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:06PM
you must not, because my argument is still just what i started with:
a religion which demands rationality must be rational. you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion" and refuse to ever budge on it because it would require changing your idea that religion requires worshiping supernatural magic sky fairies, which i said at the start it doesn't always (to which you said, "why would this be a religion?", because you're stuck on the idea that "religion = sky fairies", when it doesn't)
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them. this is how science works - things are disproven, and its only then that continuing to believe in them makes one irrational. people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false; its only now that there's evidence showing the earth is not flat and not the center of the universe that such beliefs are irrational. the same with the solid state universe, it wasn't irrational to believe in it until it was proven wrong. there doesn't necessarily need to be evidence supporting a hypothesis for it to be rational, it just needs to not contradict the available facts and evidence.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:27PM
you're stuck with "religion is irrational because its religion"
Then you haven't been following the conversation. Do you have trouble comprehending English? Correcting all of your misunderstandings of my arguments could be done just be telling you to read my previous posts again until you understand what I am saying.
My observations are all based on how a grand majority of religions work in practice, and the sort of things they encourage people to believe. Do not mistake that for "Absolutely all religions are irrational and it cannot be any other way, regardless of what the religions do or do not promote." I do not, however, see the point in joining a religion, as I think they can be replaced by more normal and secular organizations, or they are just not needed. It's a personal preference in that case.
abstraction only came into it because of your insistence that its irrational to believe in anything with evidence, and abstract things do not exist so there cannot be evidence for them, thus by your definition it is irrational to believe in them. the problem is that there's nothing irrational in believing in abstract things, so long as they haven't been disproven. once they've been disproven, then its irrational to continue believing in them.
I said that it is irrational to believe in anything without evidence, not with evidence. Second of all, abstract things are just ideas, and ideas do exist. Unless you're a solipsist, maybe? I don't know.
But using this logic, how could you ever call something irrational? *Why* do you believe it is irrational to believe in magical sky daddies, if not for the fact that there is no evidence that such things exist? Obviously you can't require evidence, because then you'd apparently (by what you've told me) have to reject abstract things like mathematics and reason. So there must be something else. Fill me in, would you?
people used to believe the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe, and there was nothing irrational at the time because there was no evidence proving them false
This is a cute idea, but absurd. If you don't know one way or the other, the only rational response is to admit that you do not know. Using this logic, believing in magical pink unicorns living on Mars is perfectly rational simply because we haven't proven that they don't exist. Also, how do you know the Earth isn't flat? Maybe our observations that the Earth is not flat were merely illusions and we live in a virtual reality world, unbeknownst to us all. Hey, you haven't proven this to be false, so it's not irrational to believe in it.
this has gotten boring. like i said at the beginning, there's no point in continuing discussion because the conclusion you started with will never change.
Will the conclusion you started with ever change?
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @04:25PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational", and when you say "all", all it takes is a single counterexample to prove you wrong, but even if i were to point out a religion that doesn't involve anything [wikipedia.org] that could even be interpreted [wikipedia.org] as supernatural, you'd just say its not a religion, because for you, religion requires magic sky fairies, else its not religion (otherwise you must admit that rational religion can make sense, even if it is only a tiny number of them; i agree with you that most religions are irrational nonsense, i disagree that all of them are).
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation. unless we find a way outside of the universe, simulation or not, we can only use the metrics from within it to measure things.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does. i'd be irrational if i were to believe something contrary to the evidence.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @05:00PM
"a grand majority" is not "all". "Rational religion? That doesn't even make any sense." is equivalent to "all religions are irrational"
Ah, I see. So your entire position is just you being a pedantic asshole. Alright, then. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Even if you are a pedantic asshole, though, I think I've gone into enough detail about my actual position (i.e. not the straw men you keep putting forth) for you to understand it by now, so there's really no excuse. You really do just seem to be bad at comprehending English. Work on that, will you?
you'd just say its not a religion
Nope.
But I find all theism and supernatural garbage to be irrational, not just gods like the Christian god.
even if our reality is just a simulation, the earth has been proven to be a sphere within the confines of our simulation.
Really? It has? Maybe everyone was just given false memories by a magical sky daddy. Maybe we have yet to explore anything about this supposed illusion. You can't win this; you'll never have enough evidence to satisfy anything.
my conclusion will change when the evidence does.
Wow! That sounds a lot like me.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday April 10 2015, @05:57PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
i've presented you two [wikipedia.org] religions [wikipedia.org] which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists, that religion can be rational. you are holding a belief that goes against the facts, the same belief you started with, and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 10 2015, @06:49PM
no, this admission of irrationality sounds like you:
Doesn't look like an admission of irrationality to me. I ask again: Do you have trouble comprehending English?
i've presented you two religions which don't have anything that could even be interpreted as supernatural plus another that demands rationality, yet you still refuse to accept that such evidence exists
Why are you telling me what I refuse? You don't get to decide what I think, you moron. If you had been paying attention to the conversation at all, or even the statement that you just now quoted, maybe you'd understand my position better. As it is, you're just putting forth straw man after straw man and not even bothering to try to understand my actual position. Or maybe your reading comprehension is just awful. Who knows.
and no matter how much evidence i present you will never accept it or change your beliefs - you are being irrational.
According to what you told me a few replies ago, you can't be irrational just by believing something that hasn't been proven true yet, and that people who believe in beings outside the universe without evidence are a-okay. Therefore, I could maintain that all of your 'evidence' is merely an illusion and that you haven't actually put forth any good evidence. It's not irrational because it hasn't been proven false. Checkmate!
What's sad is that the point I'm making will probably be lost on you.