Options

Remember [Chat]

15658606162

Posts

  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    For service and retail I found complete apathy was much better for my health than seething anger.

    Yeah, or you seethe for a moment and then move on with life. Like "GOD DAMN WHAT A MOTHER FUC...." "Best buy service area how can I assist you in having a best buy day?"
    My friend Dan and I worked at Blockbuster for a few years together. Late fees were always a problem. You'd scan their card and it would show late fees, you'd tell them and they launch into a tirade about how they always have their movies back on time, Blockbuster always screws it up etc etc. Dan would stand there, blank look on his face, listening. When they stopped tirading he'd go, "Well, would you still like to rent these?" to which the customers would of course answer yes, and he'd reply "Then you'll have to pay the late fees on your account." It never got old.

    I'd golf clap that. And I never had a late fee on any of my stupid video rental accounts. I'm honestly perplexed by those who do.

    I got accused of stealing from the video store I worked at in college because I was nice enough to waive late fees for people I recognized as regulars who I saw at least a couple times a week. My boss was auditng the late fees and he calls me in on one of my days off. I show up and he asks "Uh, so what's with the late fees you deleted" so I said "Oh, those are for regulars that rent from us at least 2-3 times a week"

    Apparently he called some of the larger ones (like $15-$20 range) and they said they paid the late fees. So I explained that no, I told them about the late fees (so we'd get credit with the customer for waiving them) and then said since they came in all the time I'd wipe them out for them.

    Thank god I've known him since like 3rd grade. He still had to fire me, to avoid flak from the owner of the chain, but I was pretty ok with that. I kept getting scheduled for closing shifts constantly and every Saturday was close (so off at 1am) and then open (so there by 11:30am) and it was geting old.

    wow that's bullshit

    he didn't obey rule number one:

    1. Fuck the customers. They are always wrong, and always dipshits.

    (seriously that's the first thing I learned and it's served me well.)

    Meh, he did what he had to. If he didn't the owner would have caught it when he went over the audits and he definitely would have called the customers. He viewed us peons as expendible fodder, which we kind of were since there's a list of like 50 people who would've taken a job that comes with unlimited free movie rentals.

    I laugh so fucking hard when I drive by the stores now. He had seven stores before Netflix. Now he has two and they aren't rental stores anymore, they're used DVD stores.

    Aaaaand that's why I love Netflix even though I don't use it.

    still bullshit man

    call the customers?

    man my boss wouldn't even consider the notion of entertaining that thought

    customers are always wrong

    don't ask them shit

    Well I did argue for a bit before just shrugging and going home. I pointed out that the fees in quesiton were waived weeks ago and they paid cash for their movies. I sincerely doubt that they remember a cash transaction from three weeks ago.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    stevemarks44stevemarks44 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tyrannus wrote: »
    wow. the smartest men in the room is a fun movie

    The ENRON doc?

    stevemarks44 on
  • Options
    WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    I know I'm being idealistic when I say this, but regardless of the fact that I will always have bias, I will do whatever I can in my power to minimize my own biases. Which means that if I identify a bias I hold I will attempt to distance myself from it.

    What if a scientist were to say "I am a patriarchialist." Is he being honest and productive? More honest and productive than if he were to attempt to eliminate this bias he holds?

    Winky on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    I just want them to be robots, is that too much to ask?

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    Science that is biased tends to end up flawed. If you run an experiment expecting a result you will change the data sets until you get the result you expect.

    it is impossible not to be biased. especially if what you're researching is at all political, and especially if you're researching something that's high up the chain of complexity - like say the brain, or hormonal systems.

    but i mean, even particle physicists are biased. but their experiments are easier to design in such a way that bias has little effect.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Why is this happening in itunes

    2cpccah.png

    Fuck iTunes.

    I picked up the new Ingrid Michaelson single on tuesday and they still haven't emailed me a fucking receipt.

    Dicks.

    HappylilElf on
  • Options
    stevemarks44stevemarks44 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    I just want them to be robots, is that too much to ask?

    You say that now, but just wait until robots start having ethics. Robot ethics.

    stevemarks44 on
  • Options
    AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It's not realistic to have no biases but one should strive to be aware of them and minimize them, not strengthen them

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • Options
    tyrannustyrannus i am not fat Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tyrannus wrote: »
    wow. the smartest men in the room is a fun movie

    The ENRON doc?

    yes

    tyrannus on
  • Options
    WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    I don't know if you've been around to hear me talk about ethics :P.

    Winky on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    I just want them to be robots, is that too much to ask?

    You say that now, but just wait until robots start having ethics. Robot ethics.

    Look I'm not sarah connor, I'm cool with our robot overlords.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?

    I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I am really annoyed by it, someone tell me how to fix it

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    Science that is biased tends to end up flawed. If you run an experiment expecting a result you will change the data sets until you get the result you expect.

    it is impossible not to be biased. especially if what you're researching is at all political, and especially if you're researching something that's high up the chain of complexity - like say the brain, or hormonal systems.

    but i mean, even particle physicists are biased. but their experiments are easier to design in such a way that bias has little effect.

    But striving to be objective and rational without preconceived expectations is better then going into a situation expecting an outcome.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    stevemarks44stevemarks44 Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tyrannus wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    wow. the smartest men in the room is a fun movie

    The ENRON doc?

    yes

    It's an amazing doc and a brilliant movie. It's one of the few docs that I will and have watched multiple times. You can't even start to make up how fucking evil they all were.

    stevemarks44 on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    awwww fuck yeah

    got through recettear without sperging out or having to reload

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    I know I'm being idealistic when I say this, but regardless of the fact that I will always have bias, I will do whatever I can in my power to minimize my own biases. Which means that if I identify a bias I hold I will attempt to distance myself from it.

    What if a scientist were to say "I am a patriarchialist." Is he being honest and productive? More honest and productive than if he were to attempt to eliminate this bias he holds?

    for someone to admit that they are a patriarchalist is to admit that the patriarchy exists, which would be an odd position to take for someone who's not a feminist.

    if a scientist were to say "i believe men are superior to women, and should have more power and responsibility," and he presented his data on gender, then yes he's definitely being more honest than someone who believes that and doesn't reveal it. when you're dealing with a politically charged scientific study, one that is rife with horrible methodology, poor interpretation, and poor data - from both sides - being aware of the bias is always better than not.

    scientists almost always think they're minimizing their bias, unless they are deliberately falsifying their data.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    winky is like one old castle away from mad scientistdom

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • Options
    NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    a scientist should strive to be aware of all biases

    it is impossible to eliminate biases

    Back off man, I'm a scientist.

    Whatever man, I'm a biasist

    Nocturne on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You know its never brought up in terminator, but you have to think there would be humans who turned on other humans and fought with the machines. Where are those guys?

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Also this

    vg0qz6.png

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?

    I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?

    sexism and fascism are based on more assumptions than "murder is wrong"

    which is based on, well, "murder is wrong"

    little research in that field, I believe

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    a scientist should strive to be aware of all biases

    it is impossible to eliminate biases

    Back off man, I'm a scientist.

    Whatever man, I'm a biasist

    That's true, this man has no dick.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    Science that is biased tends to end up flawed. If you run an experiment expecting a result you will change the data sets until you get the result you expect.

    it is impossible not to be biased. especially if what you're researching is at all political, and especially if you're researching something that's high up the chain of complexity - like say the brain, or hormonal systems.

    but i mean, even particle physicists are biased. but their experiments are easier to design in such a way that bias has little effect.

    But striving to be objective and rational without preconceived expectations is better then going into a situation expecting an outcome.

    and i'm saying it's impossible to do so. you will always have preconceptions that will affect your perception of the outcome. the best you can do is attempt to produce data that is, in itself, free from the effects of your preconceptions, and interpretations that are logically and empirically sound. a guy who thinks women should be rounded up and harvested for their ovaries and then launched into the sun could still be a good scientist, if he's rigorous enough, even though he is clearly a weird and terrible person.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    tyrannustyrannus i am not fat Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    tyrannus wrote: »
    tyrannus wrote: »
    wow. the smartest men in the room is a fun movie

    The ENRON doc?

    yes

    It's an amazing doc and a brilliant movie. It's one of the few docs that I will and have watched multiple times. You can't even start to make up how fucking evil they all were.

    i just got done with the stripper part

    tyrannus on
  • Options
    AbdhyiusAbdhyius Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    You know its never brought up in terminator, but you have to think there would be humans who turned on other humans and fought with the machines. Where are those guys?

    I think the guys who said "hey wait I'm on your side" are in the same mass graves as the guys who said "oh shit I'm being murdered by my toaster"

    Abdhyius on
    ftOqU21.png
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Preacher wrote: »
    You know its never brought up in terminator, but you have to think there would be humans who turned on other humans and fought with the machines. Where are those guys?

    probably dead, or turned into sleeper agent cyborgs who would be more efficient at infiltrating and harming the resistance.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    TarranonTarranon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    this topic seems to be coming up a lot lately

    are we subconsciously groping for new moral leaders or something?

    Tarranon on
    You could be anywhere
    On the black screen
  • Options
    OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited September 2010
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Also this

    vg0qz6.png

    try reinstalling

    Organichu on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Winky wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Basically, Winky, the inevitable logical conclusion of your position is that scientists should have no ethical opinions at all.

    I don't know if you've been around to hear me talk about ethics :P.

    I don't know. I might have blocked it out.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    If scientists can't oppose sexism, can they oppose, say, genocide? How about fascism? Murder? Child abuse?

    I think child abuse is wrong. Does that mean I can't be a scientist unless I endeavor to hold a neutral position on child abuse?

    Only insofar as it pertains to objective facts.

    I mean, say we are in some alternate reality and there was some study that ended up showing that child abuse is great for your children, and makes them grow up strong and healthy. Your reaction to this as a scientist should not be affected by your ethical position, ideally.

    Winky on
  • Options
    YamiNoSenshiYamiNoSenshi A point called Z In the complex planeRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Got it! Probably the latest package delivery I've ever had.

    YamiNoSenshi on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    Science that is biased tends to end up flawed. If you run an experiment expecting a result you will change the data sets until you get the result you expect.

    it is impossible not to be biased. especially if what you're researching is at all political, and especially if you're researching something that's high up the chain of complexity - like say the brain, or hormonal systems.

    but i mean, even particle physicists are biased. but their experiments are easier to design in such a way that bias has little effect.

    But striving to be objective and rational without preconceived expectations is better then going into a situation expecting an outcome.

    and i'm saying it's impossible to do so. you will always have preconceptions that will affect your perception of the outcome. the best you can do is attempt to produce data that is, in itself, free from the effects of your preconceptions, and interpretations that are logically and empirically sound. a guy who thinks women should be rounded up and harvested for their ovaries and then launched into the sun could still be a good scientist, if he's rigorous enough, even though he is clearly a weird and terrible person.

    I disagree.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Abdhyius wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    You know its never brought up in terminator, but you have to think there would be humans who turned on other humans and fought with the machines. Where are those guys?

    I think the guys who said "hey wait I'm on your side" are in the same mass graves as the guys who said "oh shit I'm being murdered by my toaster"

    Nah, eventually skynet would need traitors. I mean once the resistance was fully formed and showing its tenancity. I mean the idea the machines could do it all without a human flipping sides? Nah, I mean there are more then a couple Carter Burkes in our society.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Tarranon wrote: »
    this topic seems to be coming up a lot lately

    are we subconsciously groping for new moral leaders or something?

    Hands where I can see them mister!

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    WinkyWinky rRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    all scientists are biased. a feminist scientist who does work on, say, the neurology of gender, and says "i am a feminist," is being more honest and productive than a scientist who doesn't reveal their biases, or isn't aware of them. also, you know, openly opposes the oppression of women, which is cool.

    the label doesn't matter. what you "self identify" as doesn't really matter; if you believe in those ideals, you'll still have whatever bias you are supposing exists.

    Science that is biased tends to end up flawed. If you run an experiment expecting a result you will change the data sets until you get the result you expect.

    it is impossible not to be biased. especially if what you're researching is at all political, and especially if you're researching something that's high up the chain of complexity - like say the brain, or hormonal systems.

    but i mean, even particle physicists are biased. but their experiments are easier to design in such a way that bias has little effect.

    But striving to be objective and rational without preconceived expectations is better then going into a situation expecting an outcome.

    and i'm saying it's impossible to do so. you will always have preconceptions that will affect your perception of the outcome. the best you can do is attempt to produce data that is, in itself, free from the effects of your preconceptions, and interpretations that are logically and empirically sound. a guy who thinks women should be rounded up and harvested for their ovaries and then launched into the sun could still be a good scientist, if he's rigorous enough, even though he is clearly a weird and terrible person.

    Perhaps.

    Winky on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Got it! Probably the latest package delivery I've ever had.

    That's good then. Running late on a Friday?

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Ugh reinstall

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Got it! Probably the latest package delivery I've ever had.

    That's good then. Running late on a Friday?

    Ups just fucking with him.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
This discussion has been closed.