Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Hardy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 919
1
General discussion / Re: Manchester Arena
« on: Today at 10:23:32 AM »
It takes some serious brainwashing to make a young British lad strap a load of homemade explosives to himself and walk into a crowd of youngsters coming out of a concert and I'm not sure I could ever comprehend what sort of religious indoctrination could achieve that, but somehow it has to horrendous effect now in Manchester and various other European cities.
I'm not sure how you could possibly defend against the likes of that now or in the future and I think a different approach may need to be taken.
Things don't happen in a vacuum, so what are the triggers for these young receptive lads willing to get involved in such things, disaffection with their own lives in Europe, a bond with their Muslim brothers in other war zones or whatever, the questions need to be asked as churning out the same shite of interning all Muslim extremists and so forth is more than likely counterproductive.

It must also be put in context where we in the West are rightfully aghast by this, but stuff like this is happening day and daily in Syria, Libya, Yemen and we in the West can ignore it, but its every bit as bad, just out of eyesight. Libya in particular is a mess of European making.
We watch Trump, Cameron and Co traipsing round the Middle East selling billions of dollars of arms to governments with less than exemplary human rights records and with the Saudi's having close links to ISIS/Daesh/ISIL it sometimes beggars belief, are we making a rod for our own backs?


Careful there, Johnny, or you'll be had up for whataboutery and/or lectured that one form of killing with a bomb is more worthy than another, the morality level of the carnage being decided by the particular strain of bousy that perpetrated it.

Don't think he is implying that at all and you are missing the context of the post
In simplistic terms he trying to ascertain what makes the perpetrators so imbalanced in the first place
I think he articulates his points well and I got it anyway

Why was Esmarelda attacked for making essentially the same point in another thread?

2
General discussion / Re: Manchester Arena
« on: Today at 10:22:46 AM »
Funny how the only people who draw parallels with Irish republicanism are the likes of Jim Allister, Willie Frazer and a couple of west brits on here...

Nobody here has drawn a parallel with Irish republicanism. Nobody. What some people have pointed out is that (a) a person killed by an IRA bomb or a British machine gun is just as dead as one killed by an Islamic jihadist bomb and (b) anyone who blows up another human being with a bomb cannot be included in any definition of the word "republican". I'd suggest also that the huge majority of muslims apply the same thinking to attempts to include the like of the Manchester murderer under the banner of Islam.

3
General discussion / Re: Manchester Arena
« on: Today at 10:07:06 AM »
It takes some serious brainwashing to make a young British lad strap a load of homemade explosives to himself and walk into a crowd of youngsters coming out of a concert and I'm not sure I could ever comprehend what sort of religious indoctrination could achieve that, but somehow it has to horrendous effect now in Manchester and various other European cities.
I'm not sure how you could possibly defend against the likes of that now or in the future and I think a different approach may need to be taken.
Things don't happen in a vacuum, so what are the triggers for these young receptive lads willing to get involved in such things, disaffection with their own lives in Europe, a bond with their Muslim brothers in other war zones or whatever, the questions need to be asked as churning out the same shite of interning all Muslim extremists and so forth is more than likely counterproductive.

It must also be put in context where we in the West are rightfully aghast by this, but stuff like this is happening day and daily in Syria, Libya, Yemen and we in the West can ignore it, but its every bit as bad, just out of eyesight. Libya in particular is a mess of European making.
We watch Trump, Cameron and Co traipsing round the Middle East selling billions of dollars of arms to governments with less than exemplary human rights records and with the Saudi's having close links to ISIS/Daesh/ISIL it sometimes beggars belief, are we making a rod for our own backs?


Careful there, Johnny, or you'll be had up for whataboutery and/or lectured that one form of killing with a bomb is more worthy than another, the morality level of the carnage being decided by the particular strain of bousy that perpetrated it.

4
General discussion / Re: Manchester Arena
« on: Today at 12:03:59 AM »
Omagh!!!!!
The Murder Gang apologists on here reckon that Omagh was another great blow for Irish freedom like Birmingham and Warrington

If only all the Irish had rolled over like the Pale.

You might want to reconsider that post. It reads as if you're saying Omagh, Birminghan and Warrington were heroic acts of resistance. I'm sure that's not what you mean.
Orion is permanently confused. I wouldnt send him to the shop for bananas

I'm just a proud Irishman, who likes to point out that the IRA didn't start the troubles. In fact, the troubles started in the 16th century.

Am I understanding correctly that your response to the question about whether you meant to portray Omagh as an example of not "rolling over" is that you're a proud Irishman?

5
General discussion / Re: Manchester Arena
« on: May 23, 2017, 07:46:56 PM »
Omagh!!!!!
The Murder Gang apologists on here reckon that Omagh was another great blow for Irish freedom like Birmingham and Warrington

If only all the Irish had rolled over like the Pale.

You might want to reconsider that post. It reads as if you're saying Omagh, Birminghan and Warrington were heroic acts of resistance. I'm sure that's not what you mean.

6
General discussion / Re: D.I.Y
« on: May 23, 2017, 09:24:51 AM »
You wouldn't believe some of the things I've seen and the chances people have taken with electricity.

My favourite is the old free juice method used by some farmers back in the day. The would drive two 4-inch nails into the incoming supply cables, live and neutral, before the meter. Attach a pair of jump leads and all outdoor machinery and equipment was powered by the ESB free of charge.

7
General discussion / Re: Guess who's gay!
« on: May 22, 2017, 10:38:52 AM »
*shakes head*
Yous do know it's all made up?


Just an example of how you get to have 4500+ and 2900+ (and catching) posts respectively :P

 :D

8
General discussion / Re: Android Boxes
« on: May 15, 2017, 09:04:00 PM »
I'm struggling with this Kodi Android stuff. The whole setup is whatever is the opposite of intuitive and whether it works or not seems to depend on the direction of the wind or something.

As I was saying the neighbour gave me his new Android box to set up. I spent most of yesterday f*king about with it and finally settled on Phoenix, for two reasons - (1) it seems to have loads of everything he wants - UK and Satellite TV, Sky Sports and a whole lot of other sports, and loads of movies. (2) It worked  great. Watched any TV I wanted. Watched the Players golf on Sky. Gave him a ring, said I'd drop in this evening and set it up for him.

Came home tonight - checked again - all TV channels working grand but no sport to be had anywhere. All of the places I could get Sky Sports last night, I just get a whirring wheel for a minute and it comes back to the menu. Then I go back to Live TV - nothing. No BBC. No UK channels. Now I have to ring him and tell him I'm not coming and I have no answer when he asks me what's wrong, because I have no f*king idea.

What do people do in a situation like this? (After the throwing stuff at the wall, etc.) Reinstall? Is there a vital bit of info that I don't have/understand? Is this what I can expect all the time with IPTV? on Android.

Help!

9
General discussion / Re: The Many Faces of US Politics...
« on: May 14, 2017, 08:49:09 AM »
I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

J70, why do you dignify this troll with a response. He spouts nonsense ... just read the last paragraph and it makes no sense.. It's Charlie Brown Wha,Wha, Wha, Wha.....
He is always demanding answers and never answers a question. You are a kind man to devote time to trying to talk sense to a "Birther" who is so invested in belittling democracy, decency and facts.

+1. I've been surprised that J70 keeps engaging with that character. In my opinion, to respond to the moronic but vicious nonsense he spouts seems to lend it some kind of legitimacy. When you use the ignore button the temptation to respond is non-existent. There's nothing to respond to. If everyone had him and his ilk on ignore, their narrow-minded ranting would be just shouting at the mirror.

Then again, who am I to talk? I've been known to respond to Tony Fearon.

10
General discussion / Re: The Rebels
« on: May 14, 2017, 08:35:35 AM »
  :D  And this thread is about reactions to something a Corkman said by people from the opposite end of the country.

11
what does what county Managers wanting him on their team have to do with whether he was a thug or not as though they are arbiters of Morals within the GAA. Its pretty obvious that many managers would be willing to do almost anything in order for their team to win and the Failure of some posters to be able to differentiate between a football foul and a cynical head stamp, knee drop  , finger break etc only encourages this behaviour

Well exactly, you are expanding on the point I was making, managers are not moral guardians of the game which is why every single one of them would pick a player of Ricey's potential every time for their team. You say 'managers would be willing to do almost anything in order for their team to win' as if that's a bad thing lol.

And this board isn't the moral guardian of the game either despite the massively overly inflated opinion some posters have of it's importance in the whole Gaa scheme of things.
not over inflated, this is a forum to express our opinions on the state of the game and performances. A lot of people here would share your view but then have a breaking point such as the Cavanagh incident and every goes moral all of a sudden .
when something  is wrong it should be called wrong. but equally not all wrong carry the same weight and they are some nasty dangerous players out there who need to be Called out.
]
 you do have a point all cynical fouls are the same really BUT  Cavanagh's tackle was just so blatant with absolutely no other possible outcome other than a foul and free kick ,whereas with a body check the ref may see it as part of the rough and tumble of the game even a punch often ends up in a 'HOP Ball'
Connolly in the league final thought he could get away with an off the ball haul down but  Cavanagh' showed a complete disrespect for the laws and spirit of the game and I think that's why it sticks in the craw more than some other incidents .
and of course the bollix brolly histrionics made it seem like he had shot someone

Watch the last 5mins of any tight championship game and you will see any number of tackles like Sean's or sometimes worse.

Easy to shoot down a big name

I don't believe you. But I could be wrong, so throw up a few samples there.

12
General discussion / Re: The Rebels
« on: May 12, 2017, 03:09:47 PM »
Fair enough, if you're happy with that man's opinion then so be it.
But if that is the stance, you've very little grounds for defending the people of the 26 against the assertion by many northern nationalists that they were pretty much abandoned by their southern 'comrades' post partition.

How does his view represent "abandoning" northern nationalists? He doesn't say whether he's for or against it. He simply says that a change to a united Ireland would not have much effect on the daily lives of people in Cork. That's more than likely true. Even reasonable people in the North would agree that that's the case by comparison with the effect it would have on the daily lives of people in the North.

He could be a fervent proponent of a united Ireland and still hold that view.

13
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?


What are you talking about?

Apologies for the abrupt response earlier.

I really don't have time to engage in the sort of lengthy discourse you're conducting with J70 and I don't see the point of it anyway.

I'll try to answer your question. Shermer does not suggest that the colour red is an illusion and so does not approach taking such a suggestion to its logical conclusion that everything (in what you call the material universe) is an illusion. I haven't read all of your ruminations here, but I get the impression that that's the conclusion you're heading towards.

Shermer is presenting the case that the results of neurological research are leading us further and further towards the confirmation of monism (mind and brain are synonymous - mind is the outworking of physiological activity in the brain) as opposed to dualism (mind and brain are separate).

He would say that red is just the name we give to the neuronal activity that takes place when the brain reacts to light of a certain frequency impinging on the retina.

The brain evolved to run the body. It's easy to understand how our low-level physical functions breathing, beating of the heart, scratching an itch, standing upright without falling over are managed by the chemical action of neurons in response to input stimuli, these actions in turn controlling muscles in a fairly classical feedback loop arrangement.

At a higher functional level, the same sorts of processes take place. An external stimulus (light of the "red" frequency striking the retina) occurs. Those neurons fire whose job it is to interpret the frequency of light hitting the retina. Depending on the requirements of the particular situation, other neurons in the brain will fire in response. They may just passively notice, "look, there's something red"; they may stimulate a response in the part of the brain that manages feelings and emotions "that's a beautiful shade of red"; or they may send a signal to your muscles to hit the brake pedal in response to a red traffic light.

(None of this is quoting directly from the book, as Shermer doesn't so far discuss the particular question of colour perception. I'm attempting to answer your question about how his conclusions, as I understand them, would apply to how the brain reacts to the colour red.)

So, to answer your questions as per Shermer's conclusions:
Quote
So where does that leave the colour red residing then?
The colour red "resides" in the actions of neurons in response to certain stimuli.

Quote
I imagine your author probably says its an illusion?
He doesn't. Quite the opposite. He would describe the colour red in detailed physical terms.  It is far from an illusion.

Quote
If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion
That does not follow from anything he says.

Quote
can you see the problem?
Nope. If you think everything material is based on an illusion try checking what happens if you decide to ignore the instructions of the neurons telling you to hit the brake at the red light. On a cosmic level it may be insignificant, but it's still not an illusion that the atoms and molecules of you, your Ferrari and that big truck are scrambled into a pattern different to the one that existed a moment before.

14
General discussion / Re: The Rebels
« on: May 12, 2017, 12:15:41 PM »
Far be it from me to defend the langers, but what did he say that was untrue? And what is reprehensible in his opinion that a united Ireland probably wouldn't have that much effect of the lives of people in Cork? He's certainly correct in relative terms in comparison to the effect unification would have on the lives  of people in the North.

15
Michael Shermer's "The Believing Mind" is a good read (so far - I'm halfway through it) about the neurological basis of belief. It's far too early in the progress of neurological research to have a coherent theory of the mind, but Shermer outlines a lot of fascinating research that builds the case for the physical basis of the workings of the human mind - i.e. the case that what we call the mind resides physically in the brain and is essentially the manifestation of the firing of neurons.

The book's main subject is belief - justified or otherwise. It's interesting in explaining the light research throws on how our brains work in dealing with religious, political, ideological and other beliefs.

I try to cut to the chase Hardy and make a few assumptions about where this guy is going with his book...
So when we experience the colour red (for example) its neurons firing in a certain pattern? correct?
So where does that leave the colour red residing then? I imagine your author probably says its an illusion? If so then he is saying that everything he is studying and indeed all of science is based of an illusion.... can you see the problem?
Its a problem as old as the hills, most recently called the hard problem.
So where does that tie into the materialist universe? Any luck with it yet?


What are you talking about?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 919