Actual Police State

[Yadda]

No, you're in deep.
Your brain is blocking whatever it's been told to block.

It's ok, you'll grow out if it. Try to get out more, spend less time online.

 

[vanillaface]

It's ok, you'll grow out if it. Try to get out more, spend less time online.

Of course.
The more time I spent away from the means to attain information, the less I'd know.

You don't like it that there are people out there courageous enough to risk hurty emotions by finding out uncomfortable facts.
You wish that everyone was like you, because then you could feel better about yourself.

 

[RxR]

It is important not to confuse mere cleverness with intelligence. Any fool can be clever - one only needs to be divisive to qualify.

 

[Yadda]

Of course.
The more time I spent away from the means to attain information, the less I'd know.

You don't like it that there are people out there courageous enough to risk hurty emotions by finding out uncomfortable facts.
You wish that everyone was like you, because then you could feel better about yourself.

There's a whole world outside. Enjoy it.

 

[vanillaface]

There's a whole world outside. Enjoy it.

I do, all the time.
I would like to ensure that future generations can do so too, so hence I learn.

 

[vanillaface]

It is important not to confuse mere cleverness with intelligence. Any fool can be clever - one only needs to be divisive to qualify.

Whether clever or intelligent, neither of these has any value unless the person is honest, but more importantly, is intellectually honest.

This is why blind belief in authority is folly, because a person with many letters after their name can not only be wrong, but they can lie.

"The experts say that we will lose 500,000 jobs as soon as we vote to leave" - were they wrong or were they lying? Why did some people blindly believe them? Was it because of confirmation bias? Intellectual dishonesty on the part of the believer?

 

[RxR]

I do, all the time.
I would like to ensure that future generations can do so too, so hence I learn.

You can rest up. There are well-funded teams of cognitive engineers around the world from California to London, Haifa to Beijing and quite a few places in between racing to provide increased iq as a service.

 

[vanillaface]

You can rest up. There are well-funded teams of cognitive engineers around the world from California to London, Haifa to Beijing and quite a few places in between racing to provide increased iq as a service.

Increased IQ?
We are talking about something outside of IQ.

 

[RxR]

Increased IQ?
We are talking about something outside of IQ.

Not at all. Intellectual honesty is a prerequisite for intelligence. Having a low social-metacognitive IQ is the fundamental basis of most blame-n-shame furphies. Indeed, one measures a person's socio-cognitive IQ in part by the amount of blaming / attribution error they practice.

 

[vanillaface]

Not at all. Intellectual honesty is a prerequisite for intelligence. Having a low social-metacognitive IQ is the fundamental basis of most blame-n-shame furphies. Indeed, one measures a person's socio-cognitive IQ in part by the amount of blaming / attribution error they practice.

I'm working off what I've worked out for myself, but I've always taken intellectual honesty to mean a person's willingness to state something which they believe to be true, which also means that a person can change their mind when presented with a greater truth or a better idea.

Therefore, intelligence would come first, since a person would need that intelligence in order to, for example, understand a complex system in reality, then translate it into a form which can be understood and articulated. Intellectual honesty would then come after, because of the choice whether or not to accept this reality, based upon potential harm to feelings.

So for example, a Jehovah's Witness could know that the Earth is older than 12000 years, but could refuse to admit it, either because to do so would cause emotional harm in admitting that what they profess to believe is pure *****, or because they might lose membership of their club in doing so.
Or a socialist could be presented with the reality of socialism, but still want socialism, either because of feelings, or because of a perceived personal gain from it, even at great cost to almost everyone else.

I used to think of myself as a "lefty", then a "conservative", then at nationalist, because of a belief that each one is better than the one before.
Some people stay "lefties" all their lives and never change, due to intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Yadda]

I do, all the time.
I would like to ensure that future generations can do so too, so hence I learn.

What do your family, work colleagues and the people in your (real world) social circle think of your opinions? Is it something you discuss with them?

 

[vanillaface]

What do your family, work colleagues and the people in your (real world) social circle think of your opinions? Is it something you discuss with them?

Family members with good moral standards are converted to my way. The odd one who is religiously-minded or selfish, don't like what I say because it's a threat to the perceived benefit they get from wanting what they want.
Work colleagues: they like to talk about the state of things. Some are drones; some are not. I'm not going to sack them though if they think that the EU is great; as long as they can do their job it doesn't matter what they think. I do have a policy against employing people who believe that a man who married a six year old girl, is the perfect example of man ever to exist, as such a belief shows a deficiency of the mind, and I don't want such people coming into contact with the kiddies
Social circle: most drones deserted me. Non-drones love it. The remaining drones get angry that the non-drones refuse to think as they do, because it causes them emotional pain that other people can think more efficiently, or have greater courage than they do.
Haha.

 

[Yadda]

Family members with good moral standards are converted to my way. The odd one who is religiously-minded or selfish, don't like what I say because it's a threat to the perceived benefit they get from wanting what they want.
Work colleagues: they like to talk about the state of things. Some are drones; some are not. I'm not going to sack them though if they think that the EU is great; as long as they can do their job it doesn't matter what they think. I do have a policy against employing people who believe that a man who married a six year old girl, is the perfect example of man ever to exist, as such a belief shows a deficiency of the mind, and I don't want such people coming into contact with the kiddies
Social circle: most drones deserted me. Non-drones love it. The remaining drones get angry that the non-drones refuse to think as they do, because it causes them emotional pain that other people can think more efficiently, or have greater courage than they do.
Haha.

Why would an employer sack people for disagreeing with them on something non-work related?

I don't believe you. You're not really an employer, are you?

 

[RxR]

I'm tempted to put the technically sound argument that sufferers of chronic schizophrenia are the most courageous of all mortals, but it would undoubtedly cause those poor folk to be resented, despite being objectively true.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I do have a policy against employing people who believe that a man who married a six year old girl, is the perfect example of man ever to exist, as such a belief shows a deficiency of the mind, and I don't want such people coming into contact with the kiddies

I assume you're referring to Mohammed and therefore discriminating on a protected characteristic? Surely it's a core British value to abide by the law of the land?

 

[vanillaface]

Why would an employer sack people for disagreeing with them on something non-work related?

If you look around at the aftermath of the 2016 election in the USA, and the 2016 referendum in the UK, many people from each losing side said that they would not employ Trump voters or Brexiteers, and there have been various cases of these people being hounded out of jobs.
A family member of mine lost her job as a teacher in the UK because, even though a "liberal", she didn't fit in with the utter insanity which was her school workplace. They wanted her to lie to the kids and she didn't want to, so that was that.
In the USA, some Hilary supporters divorced their Trump-supporting other halves, and various mainstream media sites encouraged this.

I don't believe you. You're not really an employer, are you?

Yeah, and I pay above market as well
It makes me "feel" nice to do so, and a happy employee is one who works hard and contributes to a fun environment.

 

[vanillaface]

I assume you're referring to Mohammed and therefore discriminating on a protected characteristic? Surely it's a core British value to abide by the law of the land?

If a government was to force a person to employ a person who, by way of subscribed-to ideology, thought of his employer as inferior, to be despised, and who idolised a man who abused and raped a young girl, then the laws created by this government would not be valid.
Isn't that reasonable?

 

[vanillaface]

Surely it's a core British value to abide by the law of the land?

No, that's a German characteristic; to blindly obey authority.

A core British value is to rebel against oppressive authority.

If the law says that I must employ a person who thinks it's ok to fiddle with kids because their prophet did it, then I shall not obey that law.
To force me to do that, would be a crime.

I sometimes break the law, but I never commit crimes.

 

[Yadda]

What a load of tosh.

Everything you say is pure fantasy.

 

[vanillaface]

What a load of tosh.

Everything you say is pure fantasy.

A sceptic. Direct that scepticism at the EU, and you're rolling.