dwy000
-
Posts
2,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dwy000
-
-
14 hours ago, stahleyp said:
I don't think so. I looked at the world's biggest ones and selected the one that I thought was most plausible.
Mohammed, the standard of all humanity per Islam, thought it was okay to marry a 6 year old girl at 50. Is that a "good moral"?
You selected the one you thought the most plausible. And now for you that one becomes the absolute one and only truth? That's not how it works.
Your selection has no bearing on which, if any, religion is correct. And the plausibility of it also has zero bearing in whether it's true. They all seem pretty implausible, so you have to suspend all rationality just to believe any of them in the first place. Picking the most plausible is just laziness because it means you don't have to stretch as far to get behind the crazy stories.
-
41 minutes ago, james22 said:
No question.
Doesn't sound like the UK CRO did.
It may come out that she knew the UK executives knew the risks taken by the parent and were just hoping like hell for the best. So no reason to do her job.
It's somewhat moot. The CRO reports to the CEO. So if they didn't do their job or got overridden by CEO or committee it's ultimately CEO responsibility. And she was CRO for the UK which for SIVB was a tiny sub (and first to get acquired). Its not her responsibility to manage the risk of the parent (thats why you have a CRO at the parent). She is many levels removed. You really can't blame that person for the failure of the parent. That is really scraping the bottom of the wokeness barrel.
-
50 minutes ago, james22 said:
The gay/minority/female UK CRO was the most capable person for the job?
What are the odds?
Pro-diversity initiatives are part of the CRO role?
I don't believe being woke is to blame for/excuses SVB's strategy. They were simply greedy.
But it might explain why the CRO didn't check the strategy (that wasn't really their job).
Being the CRO is a somewhat thankless and useless job. It satisfies regulators but has no real function. Real risk management happens at the entire exec level. Jamie Dimon is the best, most effective risk manager at JPM.
You want to get fired as a CEO or business head, just underperformed all your peers. As Chuck Prince said, as long as the music is playing, you have to keep dancing. The CRO likely raised multiple red flags that would have hurt profitability to deal with so the CEO/Risk Committee would acknowledge it and override them. I've never ever once heard on a quarterly call "we missed our numbers because our risk managers pulled us back because we were taking too much risk for the payoff"
If you're a CRO, you generally raise issues, collect a big paycheck as the sacrificial lamb and hope like hell for the best.
-
10 hours ago, stahleyp said:
I was agnostic and then researched the major ones before committing. I actually liked Islam at first. I think I said this but I believe, to my core, that moral truth exists and there are things we "ought" and "ought not" do beyond personal or social opinion. That is impossible with atheism so theism it was for me.
This completely contradicts your own argument. If god decides what we "ought" and "ought not" to do how can you just decide to go religion shopping and pick which one you feel like following? How do you know you picked the right one? And how do you know the morals of that one are right but the others are wrong?
Sounds like you're picking and choosing your morals more than the atheists here.
-
23 hours ago, stahleyp said:
I do think morality can be known by focusing on God and not our own desires. God is the source of moral goodness (ie what is moral and not). Or as Jesus said:
"“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19
Ancient Rome allowed for war rape and Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece were very open about all types of sexual relationships. That isn't far different?
No. God is not the source of moral goodness because its a made up premise. And "god" hasn't really opined on the subject in thousands of years. It's only people in robes telling you their version.
If god had one version of right/wrong and allah had a different version and budda had another version, which one gets to be correct?
-
23 hours ago, stahleyp said:
I mean, he got his PhD from Cornell and is the Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences at University of Virginia. Both very solid educational centers, wouldn't you agree?
The quality of his background and educational centers neither make him correct nor prove anything about consciousness surviving the body or death. It's all science and neurons firing. In fact, that seems to be what he measures - neurons firing.
-
23 hours ago, stahleyp said:
Glad you can be honest. Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece allowed for some, let's say very "immoral" sexual acts with people of various degrees of maturity. Since each society creates their own "rules of the game" that was okay in that time? There is no "magic morality" that individual or society "ought" to conform to, right?
Um, that's been our point the whole time. There's no "magic morality", no definitive black and white version of right vs wrong, just what society and our moral compass tells us (although things like murder are very far at the end of the bell curve and generally agreed by all). And "god" doesn't dictate what's right or wrong.
-
7 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
So saying how saying how "bad" the South was or Nazis were is basically just propaganda? A future society may look back at us in horror about "dumb" we were for believing in human rights and not allowing slaves? And they would be correct?
they would be as correct in their time and society as we are today in ours.
-
Just now, stahleyp said:
You might want to check out the book After that I posted.
Yeah, I'm not reading a random book that describes itself as offering an alternative theory as evidence of something that, if it had any credibility, would not be buried deep in the annals of the Amazon religious section.
-
19 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
This doesn't suggest life after death. This suggests our medical definition of death (the heart stopping) may be too early and the brain still has synapses firing. A chicken with it's head cut off will run around for a while but nobody suggests its still alive.
And what this certainly doesn't do is suggest there is consciousness outside of the brain and body that moves on to other places.
-
25 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
By "is that fair?" I didn't mean it be fair/equal type of thing; I meant it as more of a "am I condensing your thought accurately?" type of fair.
Right but just because people think Nazis are "bad' doesn't mean they are, right? It's an opinion. Or back to the Ancient Rome and rape, if we believe rape to be good, it's good, correct?
Again, you making a huge leap that there is a definitive "good" and "bad" independent of opinions and society. We are saying that good and bad IS what society and opinions at the time and in that place dictate. We may look back on past generations actions and say "that's bad" but we are doing it in the context of today's opinions and today's society. 200 years from now society (and opinions) might have morphed to say that what we consider good today might not be so good tomorrow.
-
29 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
So can an broader society ever be incorrect about what's right and wrong?
Good cannot prevail over evil...because each of those things are based on opinion, right? If the Taliban died off would evil had prevailed over good?
For the "it's all over at death". The science is not 100% with you on that one. There is evidence that a part of lives beyond death.
No, once again. No there's not. There's a hope and desire because people are scared and don't want death to be the end game so they make up all kinds of ideas about what goes on after because it makes them feel better. But there is absolutely zero evidence or proof that there is anything after death.
-
31 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
Your upbringing, teaching is just kind of arbitrary though? If you were brought up as Nazi would you values somehow be less "true"?
So if Nazis think they were correct and morally good and we do not, who's right? Neither?
Both. Everyone thinks they are morally correct - or they wouldn't have those views. It's just a matter of what broader society thinks relative to your views. And that changes over time.
-
Just now, Ross812 said:
I think you get it now. Morality is a social construct. There is some biological hardwiring passed down through evolution like empathy that are advantageous to a group as a whole helping the group work together more efficiently. The concept of god and religion is a social construct to enforce the morality of a group and enhance cooperation.
+1 that's really well put
-
22 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
Free will could be an illusion, I'll admit that. I don't think so but could be wrong.
I wouldn't say God is "ignoring" them. I mean, He became flesh and died on a cross for everyone. I'm saying if God is omnipotent, why couldn't He make people whole (and then some)? Isn't that the definition of omnipotent?
If we take on the atheistic view point, we are simply sacks of skin and bones - only are opinions of something make it wrong. Nothing less, nothing more. Anything can be "good" if we believe it to be so as well as anything "bad." Agree?
Ask the dead kids' parents if god was ignoring them. I find it disturbing that people rationalize and allow god to ignore the massacre of innocent children and then sit at the dinner table and ask god to help cure their minor ailment or let their football team win. Cuz that's important but dead kids will just even out in the end.
We are sacks of skin and bones that think and have opinions. That's it, and there's nothing wrong with that. When we die, it's all over - there's no part of us that carries on. Just kapoot. The views on what is "good" or "wrong" are personal but overall reflect what broader society thinks is right or wrong. The Taliban thinks what they are doing is absolutely right in the eyes of god. We don't. The Inquisition thought they were absolutely right at the time. I'm sure in both cases there were people who thought "this can't be the right thing to do" but still did it because broader society allowed it. Over time good seems to always prevail over evil.
-
16 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
Why do you trust your thoughts since they're based on randomness? Why even assume you are capable of "reason"?
So Nazis would be "correct" or "morally good" as long as they were in power, right?
No. Just....no. I trust my thoughts because that is all anyone has. Nothing else. While there is an element of randomness there is also experience, upbringing, teaching etc.
Nazis are not correct and not morally good. But I'm sure they thought they were correct when they did what they did. Or many did. Others followed along because the consequences of standing up to it would have been worse than going along. Just ask the women standing up to the Taliban.
-
1 hour ago, stahleyp said:
I believe that we have free will. Essentially, we can override those brain chemicals since we have souls.
The Uvalde shooter did want he did because he wanted to. We have free will after all.
Hypothetically, if God's love is infinite and our time and suffering here is finite, wouldn't God love erases all wounds? Not to minimize anyone suffering but a couple years ago my daughter (then 3 or 4) fell and scrapped her knee. She screamed and cried like it was the worst thing ever. I knew she would heal and forget all about it. The difference between my daughter and I is far, far less than the difference between God and man.
This is just plain wrong. You do not have free will that can override the synapse firing. Those synapse firing ARE your free will.
Are you actually arguing that it's okay for a god with infinite love to ignore the massacre of innocent children because "hey, it will all even out in the end"? Seriously, is that your argument?
-
30 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:
People can also be coerced into doing things they would ordinarily not do as per the Milgram Shock and Stanford Prison experiments.
This is true. Just look at religion. There aren't a lot of atheist suicide bombers.
-
46 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
Yeah, but atheist values have zero standing in reality and cannot be correct. Theirs can only be an opinion of what is "correct." If we really are, ultimately, just sacks of skin and bones flying sitting on a rock flying through space, how could any values be "correct"?
They are correct because we believe them to be correct! There is no definitive "correct" view. Yours are just opinions as well. The difference is I came about mine through independent thought and yours were dictated to you by followers of an imaginary thing.
-
16 minutes ago, stahleyp said:
You said "We demand evidence of god because religious people want us to adhere to their rules based on something we don't believe in. "
Well, certain groups feel that their values are the "right" ones and want to force others to follow. Is that not what's happening in this case? There is no evidence that there is a "right" way to live or a "wrong" way, correct? But non-religious people want us to adhere to their (arbitrary) rules.
Everyone feels their values are the right ones. They wouldn't be your values otherwise.
Are you serious? You look at abortion, gay marriage, drag shows, divorce, etc etc etc and it is the religious ones trying to get people to adhere to their arbitrary rules!!! Tell the women in Iran that religion doesn't impact their freedom. Pot meet the world's biggest kettle!
-
7 hours ago, stahleyp said:
Well, that is sort of true. If God doesn't exist, it's by sheer chance evolution didn't wire me (or you) to get a high off of murder or rape. We wouldn't have any free will. Ultimately, we'd just be tap dancing to whatever the chemicals in our brains made us do. That's what those "evil" rapists do, right?
Ultimately everyone IS tap dancing to chemicals in our brains. That's how our brains work. It's science - synapses firing. That's it. There's no independent consciousness separate from the synapses.
If it was god-created why are there people who do get high off of murder? He could just make everyone think exactly what he wants. Why did the Uvalde shooter do what he did while god sat by and either couldn't stop or (worse) could but chose not to? Is that a moral god?
-
7 hours ago, stahleyp said:
Do you think someone should be forced to make a cake against their conscience?
I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion, but no, absolutely not - as long as they own the business it's their right to make that decision. If you're an employee, you do lots of things you don't necessarily agree with all the time because that's part of the job.
-
1 hour ago, stahleyp said:
That's why I think it's funny when atheists think there is a "right thing to do" in any way outside of arbitrary opinion even they, in some cases want obedience. They demand definitve evidence for God but demand no evidence whatsoever for their "magical morality" that we "ought" to follow.
"the right thing to do" is obviously an opinion - regardless of whether it comes from an atheist or religion. Replace it by saying it's the "nice thing to do" which is how it's intended almost every time. We demand evidence of god because religious people want us to adhere to their rules based on something we don't believe in.
-
8 hours ago, Spekulatius said:
Starters in both $AAP and $BRO.
I added to $CNC as well.
Edit: starter in $CABO as well.
Why did you pick $BRO over AJG or AON or Marsh?
Phenomenal businesses that don't require any capital
in General Discussion
Posted
Negative working capital companies like Dell, HP, and Amazon retail could be deemed to have little to no capital requirements if the negative WC offsets capex