"d.d." latin for "today's date"

language tip of the day: "d.d." is the latin term ("de dato") that can be used for "today's date" or "d.d. January 1st, 2014" (on the date of ...)

"d.d." is used in Norwegian ("dagens/dags dato" [today's date]), but i wasn't aware, until now, that it can also be used in English, although it doesn't seem to be used much.

Sources:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O25-dd1.html ("today's date")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28D%29 ("of the date")
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/De+Dato ("this day")

why politicians should be fighting their hardest to legalize recreational use of cannabis

If one of the defining results of cannabis use is the happy, relaxed, care-free mentality of "fuck it", you'd think every politician would b fighting as hard as possible to legalize it--seriously, think how much shit they'd get away with "leading" an entire population of "fuck its"... but really, politicians should be giving it away and even teaching people how to smoke it. or at least setting the age restriction for cannabis use to at least as low as 18--the age requirement for voting in Norway

media cases/stories where parents prayed instead of taking their kids to the doctor and the kids died

here's a non-comprehensive list of cases where parents tried praying instead of taking their kids to the doctor, then the kids died:

Schaible:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html
Neumann:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html
Bellew:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2205306/Russel-Brandi-Bellew-Faith-healer-parents-avoid-jail-Austin-Sprout-16-dies.html
Hickman:
http://global.christianpost.com/news/faith-healing-scandal-parents-prayed-instead-of-seeking-medical-care-as-child-slowly-died-56743/
Raffield (name of the police officer in the case since the parents were unnamed):
http://www.kltv.com/story/18648752/parents-pray-for-15-hours-over-dead-baby-before-calling-911
Swezey:
http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/jun/09/swezey-plea-means-no-appeal-of-faith-healing/

add more if you know of any others :)

stress and insomnia

things that help against stress:
workout
    difficult bc to find the time, but i work out about every other day
masturbation
    helps only a little while, can't do it too often
cannabis
    illegal, can't work while high, danger for developing psychosis
snus
    looks stupid, tastes terrible, possibility for dependency, effect diminishes over time (you need to increase dose more and more)
meditation
    difficult bc to find the time, helps only a little while, i.e. while you're meditating
"fix" what is making you stressed
     takes time
talk to a pyschologist (related to "fix" entry)
    expensive, takes time, long term, difficult to find the time
work/get your mind on something else
    don't always have the opportunity
laughter
    don't always have the opportunity
sleep
    don't always have the opportunity
anti-depressant medication (e.g. cipralex)
    makes me tired


things that help for sleep:
masturbation
    helps only a little bit, doesn't help if i wake up again, can't do it too often
cannabis
    illegal, danger for developing psychosis
melatonin
    2 large pills usually works for me, doesn't help if i wake up again (but then i rarely do bc i seem to sleep harder when using melatonin)
sleep medicine
    if you can get your doctor to prescribe it (mine won't)

1973 lufthansa hijacking - Dieter Uchtdorf, at most, flew a plane back to HQ after the hijackers abandoned it--not newsworthy

"
In an instant, the president of Lufthansa ordered into the air his chief pilot for the 737 fleet. Thirty-three-year-old Dieter F. Uchtdorf was to take a small group of emergency personnel and follow the hijacked plane wherever the guerrillas took it. In every setting possible he was to negotiate for the release of the plane, the pilots, and the hostages. Then, when all of this had been accomplished, he was to fly the hijacked 737 back to headquarters in Frankfurt.

With fortunately no more bloodshed, this mission, like so many others he had been on personally and professionally, was successfully accomplished.
"
http://www.lds.org/liahona/2005/03/elder-dieter-f-uchtdorf-on-to-new-horizons?lang=eng&query=lufthansa

This text doesn't mean Uchtdorf did a damn thing. It is entirely vague. Holland claims that Uchtdorf was scheduled to follow the plane, and if possible, negotiate for the release of the pilots/hostages. Pilots aren't negotiators, they're pilots. Holland doesn't explicitly say Uchtdorf even did any of these things, just that Uchtdorf's mission "was a success".

typical, lds, out-of-context, faith-promoting bullshit story. but i'd love to hear it from the horse's mouth--interesting that Holland tells it and not Uchtdorf, don't you think?

it's also a typical "build the reputation of the person you want your believers to believe in" tactic--establish his credibility. this story by holland was published only a couple of months after uchtdorf was called as an apostle (october 2004 > march 2005).

there's no mention of this event on uchtdorf's wikipedia page either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_F._Uchtdorf

"The commandeered jet next headed for Kuwait, where Kuwaiti authorities refused to allow it to land. Captain Kroese was ordered by the terrorists to land anyway on a secondary runway. An hour of negotiations between the Palestinian gunmen and the Kuwaiti authorities ended with the release of all twelve remaining hostages in exchange for "free passage" to an unknown destination for the hijackers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_110#Lufthansa_hijacking

doesn't seem that Uch did any negotiating. what was his success then, flying back the hijacked plane after the terrorists left? good job ;) how faith-promoting.

Green Party and Libertarian Party are against the Republican/Democrat NDAA legislation

"The indefinite detention of amercans without trial"
Is this what the "democracy" of America wants? "Democratic" President Obama is fighting to keep this Republican-born legislation legal:
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-indefinite-detention-forrest-070/

Republicans and Democrats will fight to keep the NDAA alive. Presidential candidates Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian) want to repeal both the NDAA and the Patriot Act.

Jill Stein on the NDAA and the Patriot Act:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Jill_Stein_Homeland_Security.htm

Gary Johnson on the NDAA and the Patriot Act:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDKR57FEeM

on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/nickleus/posts/365605180181138

hymns: covert indoctrination

emotional music and verbal repetition of a message in a group setting.
what does this sound like?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

Inquiry into Women's Way's Charlotte Ramya Norell and her professional and academic qualifications

Charlotte Norell writes about herself on her Lifecoaching and Personal Development webpage:

Charlotte is a Certified Physiotherapist and Inner Management Coach. As well as being extensively trained in psychotherapy, spirituality, meditation, sexuality, tantra, relationship counseling, co-dependency therapy, healing chock&trauma, body- and dancetherapy.

(emphasis added by me)

Where did she get her certification? I find it odd that she doesn't mention this, and if she has formal education, that she doesn't mention her degree. It leads one to believe that she doesn't have formal education, and that she has simply worked as an assistant to a real physical therapist, and then taken a certification exam. It implies that she does not have a Bachelor's, Masters or Doctorate degree in physical therapy.

How does being certified in physical therapy, in any way, qualify her to be giving people intimate, personal advice about their life, and charging fees equal to or greater than professionally trained psychologists?

If you google "Inner Management Coach" you'll get only 52 results, where most of them mention Charlotte Norell. Inner Management Coach seems to be something she has invented herself. It is not a formal or recognized education.

What does extensively trained mean? Where and how much training? What kind of psychotherapy has she been extensively trained in? There's a long list of different kinds of psychotherapies.

confronting your own mormon faith

a comment from some guy on stevebloor's blog:

It surely is entirely missing the point to suggest the student, (in this case Steve Bloor), is at fault for not paying attention, when the more concerning issue is that the instructor, (“The Church”), has failed to teach the subject matter thoroughly. I cannot recall having read about JS’s eleven polyandrous marriages in any church sponsored publication over the last 40 years, nor anything about his well attested method of procuring plural wives, some as young as 14, by claiming death threats issued by angels with drawn swords, or by promises of unconditional exaltation for whole families. Cherry picking for publication a few instances of JS’s polygamous marriages of which Emma may actually have been aware, and placing them in what amounts to small print, as far as present-day latter-day saints are concerned, hardly justifies claims of openness and honesty, and, may I say, it seems somewhat disingenuous to pretend that it does. Likewise, I have not seen the church producing any explanation which approaches credibility concerning the catastrophic demise of the Book of Abraham, which has been part of LDS canon since the 1880s. A straw poll of sacrament attendees in the UK would I suspect reveal gross ignorance about that particularly vital subject. Is it that they too have not been paying attention, or is it that once more the instructor has defaulted on his moral responsibility to make available the facts? Surely, when the man who is proclaimed to be the prophet of the restoration, translates a regular Egyptian glyph which we now know means “water” as “It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos”, we as latter-day saints really have a serious problem to address. And surely when a book which Joseph Smith assured the world in God’s name was written by Abraham himself, turns out to be a standard Egyptian pagan funerary text post-dating Abraham by eighteen centuries, and doesn’t even mention Abraham, its claimed author, it becomes morally incumbent upon the instructor to relay that information fully in class time to the students, so that they may give that information their prayerful consideration. Or do you disagree, Peter Bleakley? Who is it in the end who needs to be bolstered by lies and cover-ups in your view: the Lord, or a church which claims through Joseph Smith to be the Lord’s?

sean worle on mormon apologetics about the book of abraham

from today on the yahoo exmormon maillist:

> Someone please tell me if Mr. Blowhard has a leg to stand on --
> either the text has NOTHING to do with Abraham, or today's

> scholars are wrong about what's on the scrolls.  

This line of argument is nothing new. In fact, this was Hugh Nibley's
favorite tactic, and he engaged it back in the '60s almost immediately after
the papyri were translated and found to not match.
Essentially, the tactic is this: the text of the Book of Abraham does not
match up with the translated text of the Joseph Smith papyri, so they elect
not to talk about that anymore, since it summarily disproves the Book of
Abraham. Instead, they dig through thousands of sources from all over the
Middle East, regardless of time period, and look for parallels between the
stuff they find and things mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

There's an ancient Assyrian place name similar to a place name in the Book
of Abraham. We found a Jewish text from the 2nd century AD that mentions
that Abraham talked about stars. Here's an old Islamic tradition that says
Abraham escaped being sacrificed by an evil priest. There's an Egyptian
myth associating the deified Pharaoh with a crocodile. We've got an early
Christian tradition that god organized the universe from existing matter.
Doesn't that all sound impressive? Maybe if we throw enough of these things
at you, you'll forget that we've actually translated the text, and it
doesn't match up. We won't even bring that up anymore. We also hope that
you don't notice we're pulling references from vastly different traditions,
cultures, and time periods, and smashing them all together as though they
were a single body of evidence. If we do it fast enough, maybe you'll get
dizzy and give up.

Essentially what they are doing here is changing the question. The original
question was "Did Joseph Smith accurately translate the papyri into the Book
of Abraham?" The way you answer that question is to compare Joseph's
translation with the translations of scholars who know how to read Egyptian
hieroglyphics. The answer, of course, ends up being very simple for anyone
to understand: "No, this is not even remotely an accurate translation of the
text." Because that is such an unassailable conclusion, apologists are
forced to change the question (while trying to convince you it's the same
question, of course). The new question they create is "Why can we find all
these parallels between the Book of Abraham and history?" This is the ideal
question for them, because unlike the previous question, the real answer to
this question is much more complicated, because each claimed parallel must
be answered individually. They, on the other hand, can offer a simple
answer: "Joseph Smith must have had special inspiration when writing the
Book of Abraham."

-Sean

"exmormons aren't credible sources of info about the mormon church"

a thought i had today, answering a claim by what seemed to be a mormon:
"get sources other than people who turned away from the Mormon church or became antagonistic to it."

this is akin to claiming that people who leave the church are most likely untrustworthy and liars. most people i know who have left the church, left because they felt it was the church who was behaving dishonestly.

exmormons are generally critical of "facts" and sources--that's how many of them became exmormons.

ref: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=308462772583122&set=a.105458536216881.11421.100002582062319&type=1&theater&notif_t=photo_reply

"god healed me, how does science explain it?"

some lady on facebook writes:
"God healed me before how does science explain it?"

this is what i came up with as possible answers, off the top of my head:
* coincidence
* your body healed itself
* you weren't really sick
* you were mis-diagnosed (you had a different illness than you thought you did)
* something else "healed you"
* you haven't been healed, your illness has just gone into remission

but first you'd have to get more information about the alleged illness and what was done to "heal" the person, plus other environmental factors during the time of getting ill up to and after the time the person allegedly was "healed".

comments?

http://www.facebook.com/nickleus/posts/10151101075196469

are ex-mormons motivated to tell lies about the mormon church?

here's a nice response by Sue, President of the Exmormon Foundation:

"Some Exmormons have great anger towards the church at first because they feel they made many life decisions based on history and traditions they have found to be false.  Some do write about the church, but the number is a miniscule percentage of the numbers who leave.  Former Mormons get angry also about fabrications that may be said or written about the church.  They would be the first to want accuracy in accounts about the church, and know that no one needs to write fabrications to hurt the church.  The truth in people's stories and in documented history about the church itself is ample evidence of problems with the church and it's history."

I completely agree. If you simply read the mormon church's history, you'll find plenty of problems, lies and contradictions to serve as evidence that its claims are false. If you've grown up in the church, you'll also find loads of scandalous information that you were never taught in church. There is simply no need to make up lies about the mormon church, just read their history.

history of the church:
http://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheChurchhcVolumes1-7original1902EditionPdf

journal of discourses:
http://www.jhuston.com/jod.htm

here's a real-life example of exmormon "leadership" (Sue, President of the Exmormon Foundation) refuting anti-mormon commentary because it contains lies/fabrications:

review of dan dennett's "how to tell if you're an atheist" talk

38:20 We're in a brand new age for religions. For millenia, religions did not have to worry about the flock acquiring lots of information about other religions or about their own religion. These religions evolved culturally in a world of easy-to-maintain ignorance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iVCxx-GkMg&feature=g-vrec

"for god will not be...mocked?"

it's interesting to note how the mormon endowment threatens its members with serious/dangerous consequences for people who reveal its contents, "for god will not be mocked", but ive never heard of any evidence to support the notion that the mormon god is consistently and reliably "not letting himself be mocked".


"i'm ron...burgundy?"

highlights from lawrence torcello's "the trouble with pseudoskepticism"

skeptical inquirer, vol. 36, no. 3 | may/june 2012

"science advances through efforts to disprove hypotheses, even when hope is held for their confirmation. this is described well by philosopher karl popper:
whenever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practice this precept
...
criticism will be fruitful only if we state our problem as clearly as we can and put our solution in a sufficiently definite form--a form in which it can be critically discussed.
"

this makes me think of the mormon doctrine (DC 132:18):
"my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God"

is it? or is it a house of non-testable, unwarranted claims?

"The efforts Popper describes are reflected in standard scientific practices, such as repeated and controlled experimentation, the publication of findings only after peer-reviewed critique, and the requirement that such findings be presented openly so that other researchers may attempt to replicate and independently confirm or reject them under the same rigorous constraints. Indeed, all of this is a necessary prerequisite for any findings to take on a meaningful level of scientific acceptance, let alone consensus. A scientific theory becomes accepted as such only once the laws observed, findings predicted, and facts organized under that proposed theory have been so rigorously tested and confirmed over time that it becomes highly implausible (if nevertheless logically possible) that the stated theory should ever be refuted. Any scientific theory as a whole will represent the accumulated and organized explanatory force of numerous repeatedly tested data points. Thus skeptical critique is necessarily and inextricably part and parcel of the scientific process."

this made me wonder, what is a scientific law then?

"A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observation that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements
...
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation"

back to the article:

"while scientists are busy attempting to disprove a favored hypothesis and guarding themselves against the ever-present danger of confirmation bias, pseudoscientists actively seek confirming evidence for what they have already deemed to be the case.
...
to call oneself a paranormal investigator (as opposed to an investigator of paranormal claims...is to already confess a belief that there is something paranormal to investigate; the pursuit itself begs the essential question"

"truzzi's concern was that skeptics not abandon reasonable agnosticism in favor of a dismissive cynicism. instead, truzzi would have us remain true to the spirit of scientific inquiry by proportioning our beliefs to the strength of evidence available. and when there is no supporting evidence available for a claim, truzzi would have us call that claim unwarranted, rather than disproven."

 "some types of claims, even if true, are beyond the scope of what can be scientifically supported"

"expand upon the concept of pseudoskepticism to include that well-known pseudointellectual performance that involves the rejection of assertions already firmly established through the rigorous scientific process. pseudoskepticism is a form of cynicism posturing as skepticism. it is fatuously premised on the assumption that doubt for doubt's sake is inherently rational--call this the 'cynic's fallacy'. such is obviously not the case when there is strong supporting evidence in favor of a given claim."

this made me think about people who claim things like "well even when X was unanimously accepted by scientists, it was later proven to be false" and wonder when the scientific method really was born, and is there a list of scientific theories supported by a scientific consensus that were later disproved?
yes, this is called superseded scientific theories.

"of course, this is not to argue that one cannot legitimately question scientific consensus; indeed, without constant testing and questioning, science would be in danger of stagnation. scientific inquiry flourishes in the context of open intellectual contest, as evidenced by its skeptical nature."

"pseudoskepticism, alternatively, can be understood in relation to three proppositions put forth by bertrand russell in 'on the value of skepticism':
there are matters about which those who have investigated them are agree; the dates of eclipses may serve as an illustration.
...
even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken.
...
nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. the scepticism that i advocate amounts only to this:
(1) that when the experts are agree, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain;
(2) that when they are not agree, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and
(3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment."

seems rational =)

"russell goes on to argue that if these simple propositions were to be accepted, they would have positive, even revolutionary implications for human life. russell therewith suggests that his skeptical principles have certain moral and social implications."

"[not] every appeal to expertise ought to be considered a fallacious appeal to authority. this is not to say that experts cannot be wrong, but it is always more reasonable to appeal to an expert than a nonexpert when one lacks appropriate expertise. it stands to reason that the more experts agree on a particular topic, the more cause there is for nonexperts to defer to their consensus."

"skepticism is precisely what has established the overwhelming consensus among working climatologists for anthropogenic global warming. to deny the legitimacy of this consensus while claiming to be a skeptic would require an unjustified double standard regarding one's appreciation of the scientific process."

"to call such obdurate denialism 'skepticism' is a gross misnomer that undermines science as well as the potency of genuine skepticism"

"i maintain, with (richard cameron) wilson, that pseudoskepticism is most often a product of ideological motivation rather than of balanced inquiry."

"the burden is upon the researchers to demonstrate their alternative hypothesis within the standard parameters of the scientific process (i.e. empirical research, peer-review, repeated independent replication by other researchers, etc.)"

"a good place to begin learning about anthropogenic global warming is by turning to the intergovernmental panel on climate change
...
realclimate: climate science from climate scientists
...
skeptical science: getting skeptical about global warming (pseudo-)skepticism
...
national center for science education
"

books and magazines i recommend reading

here is reading material i recommend:

the fallacy detective

crimes against logic

doublespeak

pros and cons: a debater's handbook

SAS (British Special Air Service) survival handbook

the latest editions of these magazines:
* scientific american
* skeptic
* skeptical inquirer
* science illustrated
* archeology

my comments on the LDSPublicAffairs' video "political neutrality"

source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnSnQNGMRWU

it is fun to see how carefully the church PR people choose their words.

here's the transcript with my comments (what are yours?):

1.

---
"the COJCOLDS is neutral when it comes to comes to party politics"
---

the keyword is "is", as in "right now". but has the church always been neutral? what about prop8, prop22, ERA, etc?

2.
---
"simply put, its mission is to preach the gospel of jesus christ, not elect candidates"

---

this is a straw man/distraction. no one is saying that the *mission* is to elect candidates. however, this doesn't mean that the church doesn't try to influence its members to vote for mormon-doctrine-friendly candidates.

3.

---

"so just what does political neutrality mean? let's take a closer look. political neutrality means that the church does not engage in party politics, endorse candidates or try to influence them"
---

notice how they only use the word "candidates". it should be "politicians". political neutrality covers more than just *candidates running for office*. does the church try to influence politicians already in office?

4.

---

"also off limits: the use of church buildings for political events, political messages from the pulpit or using membership lists for fundraising and campaigning. that's without exception, whether they're mormon or not, it makes no difference."

---

maybe now, but has it always been like this?

(the last sentence i didn't quite understand what the narrarator was talking about.)

5.

---

"does that mean that mormons don't vote? (partial laughter) hardly! latter-day saints are encouraged to get civically involved. like other citizens, mormons vote during elections, are active in the political process and some may even choose to run (a pavlov's-dog-esque musical triangle ring sound effect) for office. church leader m."

---

this is a straw man/distraction. seriously? did the church make this video in response to people wondering if mormon's vote? is the sound effect a psychological conditioning to get people to think of romney?

6.

---

"russell ballard has said this to church members: 'be involved, but don't look to the church as to how to get involved. the civic duty of any latter-day saint, regardless of where they live, including any country they may live in is to be actively involved in the political process. that meaning that they study the issues, they determine what the needs are, as they see it, that they then use their freedom and their agency to vote according to their own conscience. it's very important that good people everywhere are involved in this process.'"

---

why are church leaders counselling members on civic duties? what does this have to do with their alleged mission, as stated in statement #2? "the civic duty of any latter-day saint...is to be actively involved" uses the language of a commandment: "is".

7.

---

"what about speaking out about community and moral issues if they're not about party politics? of course that's ok. it's a long held right of all religions to have a place in the public square. like many of those faiths, the church may choose from time to time to join the discussion on moral issues that it believes could impact society."

---

what does "not about party politics" mean? gay marriage, technically, isn't about party politics, i.e. the subject of "party politics". it's about equal rights for homosexuals.

8.

---

"so in a nutshell, political neutrality means that the church does not back candidates,"

---

"does not back candidates" doesn't mean they don't speak against candidates. again, there's the usage of "candidates" instead of politicians.

9.

---

"but mormons as individuals are fully encouraged to participate in the political process, back the causes and candidates of their choice that inspires good government, and on election day, vote according to their conscience."

---

i.e. members can choose as long as their choices support what the church deems "good government". that the church even uses that phrase implies that they have a definition of "good government"

list of falsifiable, mormon claims

todo: make this list

e.g.:

* obeying the word of wisdom will give you marrow in your bones

list of psychological concepts relating to mormonism

todo: make this list

e.g.:

* conditioning
* brainwashing
* gaslighting