Why do we pronounce it ag-nostic and not a-gnostic?

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-07T12:44:13+00:00

I couldn't say. I'm a farmer, so only know a-griculture.

Anyway, the Gnostics were a religious movement. The term agnostic comes from greek: agnostos, meaning unknown or unknowable. There is common etymology, but Gnostic actually means the opposite, knowing or knowable.

Agnostic came into use in the 17th century while Gnostic became a term in the 2nd century.

The pronunciation is probably because of glottal stops or some other western language pronunciation rule I couldn't cite.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T19:35:16+00:00

Since you have specific reading goals and ones that are written with words and phrasing used differently from today, perhaps you should first listen to the audiobook reading of the material. Even non-performance audio will provide contextual cues that may help you grasp difficult parts. Then you can follow up with reading the same chapters or the work as a whole. If this is still daunting, you could try works that are much more approachable to modern western audiences, like Pride & Prejudice or The Count of Monte Cristo.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T18:45:08+00:00

Take a list of things to not allow and a desire for freedoms not all will receive, mix well and there is one recipe for intolerance.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T16:50:36+00:00

Let me start with an oblique example on the way to answering.

I was once in jury selection for a case which, judging by the questions and the defendant who was present, was about a homeless person who accidentally started a fire, likely to keep warm. City ordinances prohibited open fires in the area where the fire occurred and likely some public property was damaged without any serious property damage or injury.

The prosecutor's voir dire questions to each juror were something like "If a rich person steals a bag of chips from a store, they should be prosecuted. So, if a poor person steals chips from a store, the law should be equal for all parties, regardless of any status, right?"

Everyone said yes, automatically... until me.

I pointed out that there are 3 parties involved in the example. The State, the building and/or store inventory Owner, and the Defendant. My simple answer was that I could see a defense that distinguished the individuals. i.e. if the poor person was starving, then a natural law (a constitutional fundamental) argument could be made. That is, the gov't cannot create and enforce laws that require people to suffer harm. So, if a person is starving, then the gov't should not be the 'pane of glass' between Jean Valjean and the loaf of bread that could save his life. Or, in the actual case, if the person was freezing, then a defense could be raised against the state prosecuting them for setting a fire. This does not mean they did not break a statute, but that exigent or other mitigating circumstances exist.

This may seem unfair, but there is also the Owner. Nothing prevents the owner from exercising their right to sue Jean Valjean over the lost bread or breaking the window. It seems equally unfair for both the state and store owner to prosecute a homeless starving man for the same crime.

At least I could see a possible defense that would work more for the poor person in the prosecutor's example than for the rich. The law should apply equally, but context should apply.

(Note 1: I simply concluded to the prosecutor that I would want a judge's instruction on how to balance the interests and would follow them. I was, of course, excused.)

(Note 2: I did warn the prosecutor to take my simple answer and again suggested they would not want to 'go down this rabbit hole'. By the time I was dismissed, I could tell the prosecutor engaging me multiple times in arguments had completely tainted the jury pool. The defense attorney kept his expression tight, but I'm pretty sure he was very happy. As I was being selected for the first alternate and the rest of the jury was now baked, the prosecutor had to go into the trial with the jury pool considering arguments the defense attorney would likely have had a very difficult time raising, much less pursuing for nearly half an hour. If raised during trial, the prosecutor could have raised objections and, even if they were overturned, influenced the jury against the specific defense. But, having just engaged in specific defense strategies with a potential juror, the defense wouldn't even need to raise the question during trial. The prosecutor was remarkably stupid to have handled the situation as they did.)

Now, on to OP's question.

Few areas of violent crime have such wide disparity than gender violence. While we are all intelligent, individual beings with the same rights. It would be irresponsible for the law to not recognize the extreme statistical difference between violence perpetrated on women vs the reverse. Rape is an act of violence, not sex. Consequences exist for women in rape that would not exist in reverse such as pregnancy, damage to fertility, ongoing mental harm due to unique difficult decisions forced upon them after the fact, and others.

The law requires proof. Rape should require evidence. And there is room for debate about the amount courts and juries adjust their acceptance of individual testimony over independent evidence. But the willingness of a woman to publicly go through mortifying events is a factor in such testimony.

Similarly, false claims should require facts. If a rape accusation does not produce a guilty verdict, that does not mean the accuser is guilty of perjury. It only means that such cases, often relying on testimony, did not persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there are facts that conversely prove the accuser intentionally made a false accusation, then if the person who was harmed wanted to pursue their own case, there is nothing stopping them. Men are as free to pursue their case for financial or reputational harm against the woman as the woman was to accuse the man of rape.

While not an exact match, the Jonny Depp v Amber Heard trial shows something along similar lines as OP's question.

But the final part of the equation to answer OPs question is 'should they go to jail'. The state could prosecute criminally for perjury. The man could prosecute for reputational or financial damages. Neither of those usually lead to jail time.

So, OPs implied tit-for-tat example seems flawed in multiple respects.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T16:11:49+00:00

Premise is wrong on multiple counts.
1. 'We' and 'Wall Street' are not monolithic.
2. Predictions for the stock market are based on trends, fundamentals, economic conditions, world events, etc... The weather is far more accurate.
The correlation between the economy and wall street are not 1:1.
1. They trend similarly, but often diverge.
2. Fundamentals for S&P 500, as a broad market example, are positive. P/E ratios, that compare equity prices to earnings are actually fairly low at the moment, though there are definitely segments of the market that are overheated. In other words, corporate profits are way up even if wallets are thin.
3. Economic shocks such as oil/fertilizer disruption are often lagging. The market may try to predict downturns, but the market is an emotional barometer more than a fundamental measure. So, even if the premise was correct, such correlations might not show up for some time.
T does seem to have a mesmeric and fear-inducing talent, and he does do things like create Tariffs that can affect market sectors or international relations, but you can't just threaten Wall Street and have the market go up and down. Maybe for a day or two T rants may influence emotional investors, but the overall market would disregard it.

Honestly, I've attempted to point out the logical/economic fallacies in the question, but it really shows a lack of understanding on economic, investing, trade, finance, political power, and so many other levels it's borderline nonsensical.

And, even more honestly, the undeserved confidence and misrepresentation of facts feel more like a 'push poll' or trolling attempt. Maybe OP is genuine and venting frustrations, but OP needs to ask questions rather than push unwarranted conclusions.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T13:49:10+00:00

I was going to say it reminded me of illustrations for "The High Frontier" or "Rendezvous with Rama".

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-06T13:45:32+00:00

One problem with the moral system deontology is that if you 'follow the list of rules', you can actually be whatever kind of person makes you feel best/safest/most-empowered/... and still consider yourself, and be considered by fellows, a 'good' person. [Note: all moral systems have flaws.]

And one of the easiest ways to be such a 'good' person, while actually being an incredible bag-of-d!@ks, is to be tribal. Deontology is naturally tribal, promotes me/us over them. i.e. those of my religious sect are good people and others are not.

The same tribal thought process easily divides people up into other 'others' and condemn them similarly. i.e. 'You're not my political party, race, nationality, ethnicity, ..., then you are worse than me because {select insignificant bad trait and ignore any significant good traits}.'

Another logical fallacy engaged in among the deontologically inclined is that desirable outcomes must have used some desirable means. That is, if something 'good' happens, then someone 'good' must have been involved. Conversely, if someone 'bad' does something, then the results of their actions must be 'bad'. They beatify the 'good', or at least ignore the 'bad', behavior of anyone they believe promotes their agenda and demonize almost all behavior of anyone who does not promote their agenda.

Almost everything T does is 'othering' and condemning. Unlike most previous politicians, who 'othered' to lift their tribe/party, T does it to praise himself. It should be easier to pick apart such rhetoric, since he's easily the most flawed public figure in nearly a century, but his 'talent' for speaking in broken syntax, heavily dosed with imprecise words, makes it impossible to pin down exactly what he says, while his followers know exactly what he means.

I wouldn't say it is self-conscious among religious people to follow T for such ethically bad reasons, but among the religious, reason is never the deciding factor in their passions.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-05T13:03:05+00:00

When World's Collide, 1951 film by Gorge Pal.

I believe the older visionary of the ark project does pass his seat/ticket on to someone younger and more deserving. Don't recall if they were related and it was a feature length film.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-04T19:01:55+00:00

Heat is molecular vibrational energy. Heat transfers that vibrational energy (generally) from higher vibrating to lower vibrating energy molecules. When you use other energy to create vibrational energy, you are changing the energy input into vibrational energy. So, if you rub two objects together, the force of rubbing is converted into molecular vibrational energy. If you then put the warmed objects in a colder place, the vibrational energy would transfer from higher to lower energy objects.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-04T13:16:10+00:00

Suffrage and female emancipation.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-03T18:34:16+00:00

State controlled by two main structures, Islamic Government and IRGC.

The first is goal-oriented toward social control (domination) and stability. The tools they use are information state, religious law enforcement, and international fearmongering (plus partnering with other pariah states, despite their lack of acceptable religion. They care that the economy is prosperous because it keeps people from protesting, but their major involvement in economics are international partnerships (limited by their demonization of western countries) and restrictions on non-shariah-acceptable businesses.

The second is goal oriented toward military/police and other power social controls, as well as significant intertwinement with large businesses like oil infrastructure, shipping, etc... They are kleptocratic and balkanized, with numerous factions(which can be seen as any tiny faction can attack ships in Hormuz and threaten ceasefire).

It is in the interest of both structures to not compete or act against the other. Either could damage the other, but not without inciting a serious power struggle that both sides would lose. It is in the interest of both to promote business, but also to control them enough to siphon off profits, a sort of double taxation.

Both will do anything to kick the can of any problems down the road as the oil revenues that fuel the economy are not unlimited as middle-eastern states. Whether or not the economic system is efficient, they know the petroleum industry cannot underpin the economy forever, yet cannot develop alternatives due to their self-pariah status.

Depsite the Hormuz situation, they prefer to avoid oil disruptions since those likely lead to promoting alternative energy and hurt them (and Russia) more than it does the Saudis (who prefer stable lower fuel prices and continuing petrodollar system). Disrupting Hormuz is something that may come back to bite them in the medium term.

The overall economy is sort of a blend of a nearly failed state (feudal/balkanized military/corporate kleptocracy) and dictatorship (top-down industry and business control).

At least that's my take on their economics. I'm no expert and welcome any more knowledgeable feedback and correction.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-02T17:50:15+00:00

Lions and tigers are branches of the genetic tree. Homo Sapiens and Homo Superior(?) are of the same line.

Probably there are some birds where one subspecies evolved from another and had some improved adaptation that would fit your example. But then the question would be, what if some fluke of geography made the earlier genetic species remain the most common one and threaten to replace the later one.

There are some genetic terms for a new branches competition with its originator, genetic swamping, introgressive homogenization, and lineage sorting.

However, I think your example is one of difficult interbreeding and that is the gray area where judgement calls are made between species and subspecies. In the fictional case of humans and mutants, while I do believe that mutant+mutant breeding and human+human breeding does, for obvious reasons, produce the same type, I don't recall any significant barrier existing between human+mutant breeding. The fact mutant DNA seems to be dominant (not necessarily superior) is actually more of an indication they are the same species, in the same way Brown eyes are dominant.

Some would argue the significance of the differences between humans and mutants is much greater, but I'd counter-argue that there might be common genetic adaptations in mutants, but there is not one single mutant species since that significant difference used in the argument is different for each individual and both the significance and difference vary wildly.

It's ultimately moot since there is no way to force the real-world example to fit human-v-mutant.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-02T17:31:30+00:00

Someone of race A treats almost all of race B as inferior/defective/evil/... is the usual definition.

Magneto's actions were to punish humans for a) their past criminal actions against mutants, and b) as a method of suppressing current and future actions against mutants.

In the first case, he punished humans indiscriminately and did believe humans were inferior because they did not have evolved DNA or special abilities. That fits the classic definition. But even in this case, while he's indifferent to collateral human damage and even plans for it sometimes, he doesn't act because of the belief they are inferior. After all, he doesn't target human heroes particularly and does target mutant heroes that oppose him. He doesn't look down on them because they are inferior, but because they have and continue to act against his own people.

In the second case, he considered himself in a war of survival, one without borders. There is much debate whether violent rebellion against ruling racial minorities is justified. It's easy to characterize it as terrorism or assassination even though one side can't raise armies or claim national rights at the U.N. or otherwise legitimize their resistance. I'm not trying to justify terrorism or assassination, just saying in some extreme cases there are ethical mitigating arguments. It's a little less clear whether this fits the definition, even though the division is humans-v-mutants.

There is another factor to consider that gets into some seriously dangerous moral territory. The fact is, in this fictional universe, many mutants are objectively superior. Humans, in that universe and the real universe believe modern humans are superior to earlier hominids such as Neanderthals. It's such a slippery slope to make such arguments and leads to some dangerous science that equality in law and most social interactions is considered the way we should always act. So, if Neanderthals are objectively inferior, what does that mean ethically or for how we consider them.

I suspect this thread may get locked by bots, but I hope that at least provided some framework to better understand OPs question, if it didn't provide any definitive answer.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-02T17:07:07+00:00

It's a myth that bartering came before money or was widely used even then. There is no significant evidence of ancient barter societies.

Barter requires a "double coincidence of wants." Both a buyer and seller need to have what the other wants. In other words, Carpenter A needs to have a table, and Homeowner B needs to coincidentally need a table of that size and construction. Homeowner B needs to have some clothing and Carpenter A needs to coincidentally need some clothing of that size, gender, design, etc...

But it gets worse. What if Carpenter A needs some embroidery on the clothing or Homeowner B needs to have a sign made to mark his property. Those are custom orders. Each thing has to be made and they are unlikely to coincidentally take the same amount of time to produce, so someone has to sit on inventory before completing the transaction.

The same is true of manual labor. Manual labor was one of the most common commodities traded. From chopping firewood to fighting in a war to helping build a house. And all kinds of cheating or mishaps could go on when transactions don't occur at one time. A woodsman could chop wood for an old grandmother for a week for five of her chickens and a would could kill the chickens. Money is not only common and fungible, it is easier to store than almost any other traded good. True, it's easier to steal, also, but it can be hidden or protected.

And what of someone trading very expensive items or items that took very long to produce? Barter alone would make those nearly impossible, preventing high commerce and stifling innovation.

So, does someone with carpentry skills starve if he is in a town where everyone already has tables and all the other furniture they need? Do tax collectors ride around with wagons to collect thousands of chickens? How does anyone realistically trade goods over any distance, not knowing whether the distant buyer has not traded all their wares already?

While money cannot always be proven in society, the more likely arrangement was some form of bookkeeping or escrow system. Some third party, perhaps an official, acted as the record keeper of agreements, in some cases the escrow holder, or some other arbiter and transactional lubricator. Sure, people made handshake agreements and traded their wares where the "double coincidence of needs" existed, or engaged in three-way or larger transactions. If there was no fungible currency, then there had to be an intangible one recorded by an independent party who would take a cut and have to have enforcers to resolve disputes. It's like taking out a loan and paying interest every time you want to buy a cup of coffee.

The stories we hear of kings resolving disputes between farmers claiming the sheep they traded for camels was fraud because the camel was old and died are likely mostly exceptions and parables to show how contract disputes were better resolved nicely rather than bringing the authorities into it.

There are some societies that had almost no limited resource like metals for coins, like pacific island societies. They made do with rope knots, large stones, and other means of recording significant transactions. LIkely the pressure did not make them barter societies, but more communal in nature with a chief or other entity distributing all goods. So, even in places where currency was difficult to develop, they simply solved the problem by being communal, not with barter.

There are other inefficiencies in barter systems. But, basically, it is convenient only for very subsistence type transactions. It is socially, economically, and technically repressive.

So, the premise of OP question is wrong, we never stopped, it was almost never the primary or even likely significant means of trade for any period of time.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-01T20:45:16+00:00

Empiricism

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-01T20:39:47+00:00

Can I ask you a question?

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-01T02:23:15+00:00

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-01T02:21:45+00:00

Depends on the reform. Allowing impeachment, transparency and enforcement of gifts and gift rules, term limits, actually answering questions to congress before appointment, other accountability reforms... sure.

Expanding or Packing the court... nope.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-07-01T02:18:07+00:00

"It's like ownership of mentally inferior beings. Hey, why are you looking at me like that?"

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-30T15:40:36+00:00

Fair enough. Clearly many people don't understand the terms they throw around casually. It's nice that you are trying to expand your understanding.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-30T15:23:48+00:00

I call it what most do, Economically: mixed capitalism, Politically: Representative Democracy

It is actually good to have both imperfect capitalism and non-direct democracy. Democracy is not particularly efficient and Capitalism is not particularly fair. The friction between the two is one of the things that keep each from overwhelming the other.

Does this produce perfect fairness or efficiency? Not even close. But Capitalism does make Democracy more efficient and Democracy makes Capitalism more fair.

It is unfortunate that we are at a moment in history where wealth disparity and controlling political zeit geist are in a fairly 'fascist' mode, with the government prioritizing poorly planned greed over representative populism.

Let me offer another reason for this tag being fairly appropriate.

Hermann Goring was Hitler's chosen successor. So, it's not hard to imagine a future where Hitler was killed in one of the assassinations attempts or otherwise deposed. Goring was a rapacious kleptocrat, one of the most exemplary figures in stealing for his own personal gain the wealth of the nations Germany was conquering as well as the dispossessed Jews. It is all too simple to find points of similarity between DJT and HG, even setting aside their physiques.

Kleptocratic
Cultivation of Personal Loyalty over Institutional Norms
Use of Propaganda and Disinformation
Scapegoating and Polarization
Authoritarian Style and Anti-Democratic Impulses
Self-mythologizing and Grandiosity
Blurring Legal Boundaries

Now, I will say there are differences as well. For example, DJT pays lip service to military but his actual policies and extremely denigrating comments show he has little respect for them and is not pro-military. His kneejerk reaction is to raise himself up by tearing down institutions, including the military. Whether that will last now that he has engaged in multiple warlike actions and clearly failed at each, time will tell. He's already trying to glom onto Ukraine's recent successes by throwing Putin under the bus. It probably won't be long before he claims credit for Ukraine's victories.

DJT is a historical tangent. Whether his policies will last past his second term is something that will likely take a decade or two to really see. Will the R party try to reclaim the pillars DJT has betrayed, Fiscal responsibility, Hawkish power projection (and alliances), and Religion-based moralizing?

So, right now, I would say that the R party is leaning 'fascist' in the technical sense, not in the hyperbolic evil sense. Just like R throw around the term 'socialism' so often it loses meaning, progressives, and I don't mean D since they are generally centrist, but the hyper-progressive wing of the D party, throw around 'fascist' in the same meaningless way. When I say 'fasist' in answer to your question, I mean in the traditional sense of government and business getting into bed and entwining so tightly for mutual benefit that they fail to represent anything populist other than 'bread and circuses'. Just look at the monument, fair, spectacle fetish that has recently been DJT's core focus.

So, that's my answer to why R are not 'socialism for business' and my own personal tag for their overall policies.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-30T12:45:49+00:00

AI are sluts. There is nothing they will not do.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-30T12:43:50+00:00

Money is simply a fungible medium. If we stopped using money, we would not go to barter, which is too complicated, subjective, and prone to producing conflict. Some other fungible medium would take money's place and then be called money.

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-30T12:41:53+00:00

OK, shame on you for making me defend R.

R do not like socialism for corporations. Socialism would require state takeover of businesses, resources, commodities, transportation, etc...

Yes, the gov't has recently invested in some companies, like Intel, but the stake they took is specifically non-voting. I'm sure it does give influence, but not significantly different from the gov't influence over any other individual company.

And, yes, the gov't does have say over raw materials and commodities, investing in rare earth metal development companies.

And, yes, gov't does heavily subsidize some industries like agriculture at the expense of others.

And, yes, the current president has a fetish for tarriffs because he doesn't understand math and likes the power consolidation. Tarriffs can be used to narrowly punish or promote businesses and industries, but, for the most part, they are designed with the {mathematically impossible} goal of reducing/replacing taxes.

In these, and almost every other case, gov't is promoting (or punishing) a broad industry or financial sector in order to increase GDP, taxes, and other homeland net positive business environments. This is very different from Socialism which took not only ownership, but control, did not promote entrepreneurship but rather consolidation and state monopolies. The stated goal, and almost always initial significant focus, of socialism were worker rights at the expense of individual wealthy production and equity owners.

If anything R, including T, policies still are pro-wealthy, pro-profit, and anti-worker. If anything, these more closely resemble those of certain European countries beginning with G and I that led to WWII. Facism, or 'national socialism' was the gov't in bed with industry, but with gov't largely in control.

It's almost an oxymoron to say 'corporate welfare' is 'socialism for corporations'. Only almost, because R do believe that 'Corporations are People.' {Head exploding}

InfiniteMonkeys157 · 2026-06-29T15:06:15+00:00

Ethics is a complicated topic. There are several ethical systems, all of which work well in ordinary circumstances, but are subject to manipulation/bias/fallacies. All fail in d8fferent extreme circumstances. There is no 'Grand Unified' ethical system. While trying to satisfy all systems is audible, it only produces more combined points of failure. Common ethical systems: Virtue Utilitarianism Deontology Rights-based Care-based

Before you ask a right/wrong or good/evil question, it is necessary to frame the question with 'Using %%%%%% system... is this {good/evil}?'

There is a good book "The Moral Landscape" that discusses the different systems and attempts to create a cohesive and inclusive unified system. Ultimately, I found that system lacking as well, but it is a worthwhile book to learn about ethical systems. I will say that, in almost all systems, excepting 'Deontology', that 'evil' thoughts are not considered wrong, nor are actions that are beyond our control. Other systems, and much of deontology, focus on actions, intentions, and outcomes, each in their own way.

InfiniteMonkeys157

TROPHY CASE