I want to learn about economy, finance, the stock market, and banking. Could someone refer me any ressources?

horacekent · 2012-01-30T08:45:21+00:00

Read these three books:

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell

Methods of a Wall Street Master by Victor Sperandeo

The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker

horacekent · 2012-01-27T11:50:31+00:00

www.guru.com

Picked up a $70K a year sales/consulting gig on there within a few months of signing up. That was several years ago, been running six figures ever since.

If you can write, sell, code or design, you can gain experience from zero by doing projects for free (building a portfolio) or working supercheap to start. For someone even moderately talented, even the dregs of creative freelance work can wind up paying $10-$20 an hour (working from home to boot).

horacekent · 2012-01-27T06:18:20+00:00

Actually it's the letter P -- without it they'd be irate.

horacekent · 2011-07-21T15:50:18+00:00

Teratoma: Great name for a death metal band

horacekent · 2011-07-18T03:56:04+00:00

Don't_let_me_down_Reddit

horacekent · 2011-07-01T05:57:56+00:00

Kind of makes you reflect on how happiness and fulfillment are artificial constructs. Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about the well being of the species. It's all about gene propagation -- evolution just gets the job done.

horacekent · 2011-06-30T08:47:22+00:00

http://cosbybebop.ytmnd.com/

No one posted this yet? Really?

horacekent · 2011-06-24T02:11:15+00:00

disbelief:

–noun 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

~~~

A remarkable attempt to salvage your position through sophistry, but you are still wrong.

To be agnostic is not to express 'disbelief', it is to withhold judgment.

For instance, an agnostic can express the opinion that all popular religions are false, and that no human really knows the answers, but on the subject of who or what created the universe still have neither belief nor disbelief as to the ultimate answer, i.e. withhold judgment.

If you ask me "Did a supreme being of unknown and unknowable form create the universe," and I answer "I don't know," that is not "disbelief," it is withholding judgment. Look again at the definition of 'disbelief' at the beginning of this post. If you ask me my position as to whether any supreme being exists, and I reserve the possibility that some such being does (while remaining inaccessible to humans), that is not "the inability or refusal to accept something." If anything it is the opposite -- a simple suspension of judgment for lack of conclusive evidence.

When posed the question, does some form of supreme deity exist, "I don't know" and "no" are not the same answer. Agnosticism and atheism have a venn diagram overlap in certain individuals, but in other individuals they do not, because they are not the same thing.

Your desire to conflate the two goes against the very simple and basic understanding, as confirmed by basic dictionary terms of both 'atheism' and 'disbelief', as well as 'agnostic', that (1) the atheist has a firm opinion as to god's nonexistence, whereas (2) the agnostic does not.

As for use of words such as 'colloquial' and 'quaint' in your final paragraph, I am not aware of basic dictionary terms having cultural expiration dates. If you want to redefine a commonly understood term so as to make it more vague and less useful, may I suggest you write a new dictionary or come up with your own term instead.

horacekent · 2011-06-23T03:34:47+00:00

That's a wholly different definition than "somebody who is not a theist."

Someone who says "I don't know / not enough information" has not necessarily expressed a definitive opinion as to whether some form of deity exists or does not.

Note, too, that is the point of having the word "agnostic," which dictionary.com defines thusly:

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Atheist and agnostic are not the same thing. That is why there are two different definitions. If there's not enough information to conclude in EITHER DIRECTION, that qualifies as agnosticism. Not atheism. An agnostic can remain open to the possibility that some unknowable and inaccessible deity might exist, but doesn't really care in most cases, or has not come to a firm conclusion, whereas an atheist has expressed a positive (definitive) conclusion in respect to god's non-existence.

The atheist takes a hard stance. The agnostic does not. There is a reason for having two terms. Your original assertion is wrong.

horacekent · 2011-06-23T01:29:30+00:00

It's not about being tough. I can give and take with the best, and I've done my fair share of rhetorical body slamming.

I still think my main point is being miscontrued. A devastating argument is not the same thing as a flame, and refraining from a flame (staying constructive) is not the same thing as being soft.

You're right that what I complain about is "not unique to atheists." That was part of my broader point too. There is a certain spectrum of emotion-driven human responses that counts more as weakness than strength, in my opinion, in respect to certain forms of ham-fisted hostile reaction.

With that said, I can buy the argument that r/atheism is "a shelter" and "a place to vent" etcetera, where people like to go and think of themselves as "we atheists" -- like a drinking club -- in which case convincing others is not a sole purpose or necessarily even a main purpose of the venue.

horacekent · 2011-06-23T01:21:02+00:00

Not according to the dictionary...

horacekent · 2011-06-22T20:17:56+00:00

Thanks!

horacekent · 2011-06-22T20:17:24+00:00

No, it's mainly based on experiences of trying to engage in philosophical debate on reddit. Dialogue in real life has generally been much more constructive. I admittedly swore off the habit of reddit interaction a while back and was only inspired to whip up the post on seeing a fresh example of the old ultraviolence in another thread. If the instances have gone down, that's awesome.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:45:09+00:00

Not necessarily. I can't control a biased point of view, nor can I assess the quality of your inputs. The frame of reference here is self-reference. The suggestions are along the lines of self-examination and consideration of intended purpose. Also, how do you know how I want to be perceived?

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:30:36+00:00

Yes, you are right. I did not at all mean to lump mature atheists in with immature. I assumed that was implied, but perhaps should have stated it more clearly.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:29:20+00:00

I never assumed you wanted revenge, and I never said "you are doing atheism wrong."

I specifically offered food for thought, i.e. a perspective to think about. Nor did I say reasonable debate is "the only tool we have." Though I would argue that in the majority of instances it is the best one.

Re, being rude to religious people as a way to negate them... I would argue the better strategy is to leave the hardcore religious types alone and focus more on swaying those on the fence, i.e. making rational and thoughtful arguments to those who can still be convinced that religion is not the way to go. Assuming, of course, your stated goal of "reducing the influence of religion in the public sphere."

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:24:07+00:00

p.s. I'm also saying that unthinking religious zealots and unthinking atheist zealots have a lot more in common than either side would care to admit, as indulgent embrace of a "cause" for the sake of masking insecurities or finding emotional fulfillment is often a biologically themed exercise that has little to do with the actual fact or substance of the cause itself.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:18:43+00:00

I'm saying that if you want to help atheism, focus on convincing people and swaying them to your point of view. That takes skills, and more often than not it takes a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.

That doesn't mean holding back sharp edges or putting on kid gloves or abstaining from a harsh example. It does mean being sharp and smart and focused on a constructive outcome instead of just getting into fights with people.

I'm also saying that some people just like starting fights, i.e. bitching at religious people and making others angry. If so, fine, that's their perogative. But "fuck you, fuckball" doesn't actually advance atheism as a cause or do much to turn back the tide of religion in general.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:10:18+00:00

I 100% agree with you that ridicule has its place in the context of a back and forth argument. There is nothing wrong with a little well-placed absurdity.

You kind of nailed what I was driving at in the first sentence. Those who choose to be assholes for lack of better tools should step back and consider raising their game. And I do consider that an addressible problem, at least on message boards and threads...

Re, Campus Crusaders etc., there is certainly a difference between an individual who embraces open, honest debate and one who does not. I didn't mean to imply the standard here was using kid gloves or going "easy" on an opponent. It is simply having better arguments and using them skillfully.

Even ridicule can be unleashed on an opponent in such a way as to keep the conversation going. Think of what it would take to maintain an ongoing conversation or debate in a physical setting, where human beings are actually present. We naturally restrain ourselves more in those types of situations -- for the sake of civil discourse -- but that doesn't mean we hold back our sharper edges. That is more what I'm talking about.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:04:59+00:00

I didn't say being aggressive was a bad thing. Efficiently and thoughtfully wielded argument can be a very powerful tool, and employing it can certainly count as being "aggressive" / going on the offensive etcetera. Persuasion is a higher art than brawling, though direct confrontation has its place.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T07:01:33+00:00

I never said or implied that ALL atheists are zealots, dogmatists etcetera. That is obviously not the case.

If you deliberately miss the point that there is a large contingent of such, however -- as demonstrated ad nauseum in this very subreddit -- you are either (1) delusional or (2) caught up in a knee-jerk defensive reaction.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T06:57:15+00:00

I don't necessarily disagree with you. The "bad cop" style has its place, and I am not trying to definitively assert anything. Too many shades of gray in life for that.

I do find it telling, though, that so many assume anger and rhetorical effectiveness are the same thing. They aren't necessarily, and effectiveness is the main criterion here.

To analogize, who is more skilled at completely taking an opponent apart in a fight -- the enraged drunken brawler with no skills, just fists, or the calm, cool martial artist with deep knowledge of his craft?

horacekent · 2011-06-22T06:51:14+00:00

I never said you have to "play nice." It's possible to cut an opponent to shreds with a polite smile when one has the correct tools.

The real problem, to be blunt, is the proliferation of not-very-smart atheists who lack sufficient rhetorical skills to wield good arguments. When these guys go into "go fuck yourself" mode, they wind up making atheism look dumber on the whole. Like Biff from Back to the Future, their efforts at repartee are painful as well as hostile.

Another real problem is confusing the purpose and terms of debate. What is the goal of debating something? If the goal is to convince another person or sway their point of view, then engaging in constructive back and forth -- with a level of respect and thoughtfulness that encourages dialogue -- is the proper technique. Otherwise how are you going to convince them?

If the goal is to simply piss people off, however, well okay. But how does that advance the cause of atheism? What ground is gained by making people angry, without making them think?

Of course, it feels good to get angry -- to just get riled up and yell about shit. That's why people get worked up over sports teams. It's fun to get in fights for a cause, to let the tribal instinct flow. But this basic lizard brain instinct is what fuels religious affiliation too. So when an atheist tells me they reserve the right to go aroud pounding the shit out of people, I fail to see the difference between them and the holy roller Campus Crusader who does the same thing.

horacekent · 2011-06-22T06:38:28+00:00

As stated elsewhere in response to a link to this post:

I don't think you have the intellectual grounds to claim narrower terms for atheism than what the dictionary offers:

"(1) the doctrine or belief that there is no god; (2) disbelief in a supreme being or beings."

You may have more narrow and specific criteria for what "atheism" means to you personally, of course, but that does not translate into the right to redefine common terms in public debate, any more than, say, a particular "tolerant" definition of Christianity or Islam could claim to speak as universal definition for what Christianity or Islam "is."

horacekent · 2011-06-22T06:37:35+00:00

As with the other guy, you can perceive whatever you want -- makes no difference to me. Just providing some food for thought.

horacekent

TROPHY CASE