Funny. I just saw such an ad. Advising that you use their deodorant spray everywhere, yea everywhere. (Lady in commercial proceeds to spray her crotch)

Hmmm. Maybe just to sell more product. Or maybe it’s a mindfuck.

In the 50s they sold Lysol to deodorize sinks, toilets, rugs etc. Then advised to ladies to spray their crotch with it too. Basically saying that a woman is just another home appliance. Which is mindfucky

I prefer a bit of funk on a girl. With a touch of floral perfume.

So, yes, unless.

Does the plain fact that somebody said it carry any weight?

Observe, model, propose policies… run simulations even

Plain ol science

It’s a dumb point. Basically fanfic/dogmatism processed through a child’s brain. I’d really rather spend my attention on something better

It’s amazing how small the 99% is. Narrow and shallow. I am re-astonished every time I come here. It’s like the zombie apocalypse happened and nobody noticed.

That is a very good question.

Check out mr moneybags here with dirt next to his door.

We can but the solver won’t come from the mainstream, it’ll come from the edge. One of those insane weirdos that everybody knows is badwrong.

So be kind to weirdos.

The normies you can safely pound to paste tho.

So “yes, unless”.

Well there you go.

What many?

Is simply being a living breathing person sufficient to garner your respect?

Yeah those guys are the worst.

It isn’t a fallacy. It works pretty good most of the time, it’s easier than doing your own research and it’s how we get 99% of the information in our society.

But does it have a voting system?

Because I don’t recall seeing any voting booths in the Enterprise.

You had me at dystopian

It’s called science fiction you gibbering philistine.

I don’t think I did. Good and relevant?

Jeez, soapbox much?

Yes, I think that a sane, self-aware, scientifically-rigorous system would choose public health over that bad stuff you mentioned.

Like The Federation in Star Trek.

You remind me of a religious fundamentalist encountering his first plate of spaghetti.

Assume that we’ve got self-evident goals. Maximization of health, happiness, security…

Well you’d just have to convince the upper class that science is their friend. Which is arguably what we have.

They’re also spelled differently, aha!

Well somebody’s got to.

Well first we would change beans into peas.

The rest is trivial.

That doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, strangely enough.

I read a short story where they took a humane approach to population reduction.

An engineered disease. A short fever and then your uterus stops working. 95% effective.

Rioting. All scientists hung. But the world was better.

Or, maybe we already do 100% science. It’s just that the agenda isn’t precisely popular. And the voting is just for show.

99% of the voters wouldn’t know science if it bit them on the butt

Well that’s the question.

Voting means lots of dummies, a sea of propaganda… Bad stuff there too.

We have good models that offer up good decisions, so why put it to the vote?

Base our policy on tested models. Audit our reasoning thoroughly. Be rational.

Vs consult the masses, 99% of whom don’t even understand the question.

Seems like a no brainer

Ooh look the monkeys like that one. Funny bees!

Think of them as 2 methods for determining policy. Sorry for the confusion.

Two methods for determining policy.

We vote.

We do science.

Should we switch to the latter?

I was thinking straight up science.

Given these observations, these firmly established scientific models and this bit of sound reasoning, we conclude that these policies should be implemented.

No voting required.

The you are agreement with others here. It depends on the threat level.

Would you like to take “the right to vote” away from those who’s opinions you do not respect?

What if I want the right to vote?

Some opinions cannot be explained. For example “chocolate is better than vanilla”.

There are a lot of those. It’s the earth upon which all argumentation stands.

So at some point the question arises, “do I respect the individual?”

But for us, on the internet, the individual doesn’t really exist?

But language cannot convey perspective. It can only refer to it. Language only works when perspective is shared.

If perspective is not shared then, tho we use the same words, the meaning we assign to them differs. We may appear to be communicating but we really aren’t quite, there’s something broken there, and that brokenness generally gets translated as “this guy is just stupid”.

This is a problem with language and the internet.

It isn’t a worldview devoid of reason. It’s perfectly good reason based upon a set of assumptions that differ from yours.

Reason is the house. The assumptions is the ground upon which the house is built.

Some ground is rock, some swamp, some flat, sloped… all require different house designs. Dig?

How does authority figure in?

I don’t understand his reasoning but he’s got a good reputation. Or cites such.

What if they simply see things differently?

Chocolate is better than vanilla. Argument? Of course not.

Argument requires shared assumptions. If the assumptions are not shared then you can’t argue.

And then what’s left? Respect for the individual?