twoknowitalls.com - Latest Comments

Re: Hardening MAMP for easy, secure WordPress hosting on Mac

M Jellyfish — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:13:20 -0000

Very useful, thanks. One thing I found is that if you harden MAMP after installing Wordpress then you need to change the DB_PASSWORD in /Applications/MAMP/htdocs/wordpress/wp-config.php :

define('DB_PASSWORD', 'root');
change root to your password.

Re: New from Activision

Lzydog1 — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:13:23 -0000

Hi Johnathan;

Hope you are well;

Signed;

Frank M. From Nutley

Re: “Worship”? Really?

montessori gold coast — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:53:02 -0000

The non-Christians will be allowed to put their heads down on their desks, during the morning worship. They can contemplate their damnation, for not accepting Jesus. $ex education will consist of abstinence only. Studies have shown it is a worthless ...

Re: Shoe Horns on the Bleeding Edge

johnathanreale — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:20:00 -0000

The shoe horn is attached to a convenient stick by a spring! It truly is an age of wonders.

Re: Hardening MAMP for easy, secure WordPress hosting on Mac

johnathanreale — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:19:20 -0000

Glad it was useful! I just resurrected this site on MAMP 1.9, and one of the first things I thought of was how I should repost this item updated for the new version. There are a few other scripts in bin/ that need the root password modified as well for those who like to work from the command line interface. I'll try to get the new version posted this weekend.

Re: Hardening MAMP for easy, secure WordPress hosting on Mac

Francesco Dipascasio — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:59:12 -0000

Hi, it works like a charme... I've installed MAMP 1.9 and I had to add just one step to avoid MAMP error:

/Applications/MAMP/Library/bin/mysqlcheck: Got error: 1045: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' (using password: YES) when trying to connect

Make the same substitution in the file '/Applications/MAMP/bin/quickCheckMysqlUpgrade.sh' as you describe for ' /Applications/MAMP/bin/stopMysql.sh' .

Re: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

johnathanreale — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:01:20 -0000

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Seeing as comment systems tend to already include opt-in mechanisms for commenters to subscribe to the thread, that seems like something that shouldn't be ignored with an automatic response. Or am misunderstanding what you're trying to accomplish?

Re: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Shannon Entin — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:23:09 -0000

If you know of any great plug-ins that would allow me to respond to a comment and have it post to the blog *and* email the commenter at the same time, let me know.

Re: On again, off again

John — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:47:53 -0000

I disagree heartily.

Re: Hardening MAMP for easy, secure WordPress hosting on Mac

George C — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:30:47 -0000

Hey, this was a really helpful post on securing MAMP. There were a bunch of others but they didn't go through the whole process. Thanks for the post!

Re: Mere Absurdity

LoD — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:38:29 -0000

Sigh.

Why isn't there one single Christian/theist that proposes an ACTUAL GOOD ARGUMENT!?!

It frustrates me to no end. I'm not even going to read that idiocy if it has such an argument in it.

...Sigh.

Re: Short takes

someguynamedsmoothie — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:25:46 -0000

Nice to see you guys posting again. Hope things are well w/ your family (our own recent addition came off without a hitch).

Re: Smart Is Sexy

Rebecca — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:03:49 -0000

Yeah, my allusion to Frank here was total artistic license. :-) I just thought it was funny, as I was contemplating my apparently life-long attraction to the "nerdy", that my one serious crush in high school (well, really EVER) was on a guy named Francis. I think you'll have to admit he could be classified as "nerdy", though his intelligence, I admit, was mostly in my imagination. It's probably why that crush only went so far... I'm sure had my feelings been requited, I would have been disillusioned pretty quickly. As it was, I crushed blissfully on a fantasy Frank... one that wouldn't have repeated the 5th form. ;-)

Thanks for dropping by, Voice From My Past! Look -- your comment has practically started this dead blog a-rollin'. :-)

Re: Smart Is Sexy

Cindy — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:10:32 -0000

I've been learning a lot about logic and argument by reading your posts, and I must say that I think there's got to be some sort of logical flaw to talking about your crush on Frank in the same context as the "smart is sexy" post. He really never liked being called "Francis" as you well know. . . But if it had been Jason -- now that I would understand.
From,
A Voice from your Past ;)

Re: What I’ve Been Up To

Rebecca — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:33:05 -0000

You'll probably beat us... our earliest baby came 8 days late. I expect this one (due April 12) to come no earlier than the 20th. Congrats to you too!

Re: What I’ve Been Up To

smoothie2 — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:57:45 -0000

Congrats. We're expecting in April, too (we'll race you).

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:31:31 -0000

Your site eats my comments made from work (no doubt because I'm the same from work, only different). It's annoying. You should check to see if you have comments pending moderation.

Letâ€™s set aside for the moment the contradiction inherent in claiming that a omnipotent and indestructible entity could be said to â€œvalueâ€ anything.

Yes, using a definition of "value" tied up with the concept of "sustaining life." For most people, "value" means something along the lines of "cares about" and no contradiction exists.

If you think your god really responds non-differentially to those who act as though they value others and those who donâ€™t, why do you declare one â€œshouldâ€ act as though they do? Clearly, your god doesnâ€™t really care if you do or not. He grants no favor, no preference, no greater love or happiness, no reward or differential response of any kind to those who sacrifice self to others.

It's clear that God doesn't care if I am good to other people? Because He doesn't act like you would? Do you favor those of your children who please you (with their achievements, or talents) over those that don't do as well living up to your ideals?

If your god has chosen to leave out such behavior from the list of contractual duties he expects in return for salvation, by what right do you label such behavior an â€œobligationâ€ and demand it from those around you?

Do I demand it of those around me? I hold something up as an ideal, but it's not like I've crossed anyone out of my rolodex for selfishness, or been tallying a list recommending people for damnation.

Why should you respond differently when your fate is assured to be good? Thereâ€™s still nothing to gain.

Well, I suppose there is something to gain, in the sense that I'm acting in a manner consistent with that which I value (other people, the feeling of doing what's right), so your argument that my helpful acts are egoistic is right. So I guess when I criticized your egoistic ethics, I was really criticizing your values.

Re: Why Be Good?

Charity — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:42:56 -0000

Your question doesn't really make sense because hell is really just the absence of God and why would God force someone to be without Him for all eternity after one chose to follow Him during one's life?

Setting that aside, in answer to your question, I actually would. But, the reason is still "self-serving," as you call it.

If I have a 50/50 chance of ending up in hell anyway, which is to say, without God, then I might as well go ahead and be in fellowship with Him while I am on earth. After experiencing the amazing healing and deliverance that I have, I could not imagine never knowing God. I would never choose that. If the only way I could be sure to know God was to be with Him on earth and be without Him in eternity, I would chose that. The alternative is to possibly never know God at all.

Think of someone you love with all your heart. You spouse, your child, whoever. Now imagine that you could live with that person on earth, but spend all of eternity away from that person - or - you could spend your life on earth without that person and take the gamble on the 50/50 chance you have to be with that person for eternity, with the possibility that you would never be with that person at all, ever.

What would you choose?

Following Christ is not about practicing a "self-sacrificing moral code of altruism." It is about being closer to Him. It is about knowing God and being in a fellowship with Him.

I don't expect this to make any sense to you because you really have no frame of reference. If you do not believe that God exists, you do not believe there is any relationship to be had. As a result, you likely will never have your question answered to your satisfaction.

Very thought provoking, though. I hope to get a chance to read your exchange with Smoothie.

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:39:39 -0000

There is no balancing of your self-interest with othersâ€™ interests or aiming to maximize aggregate happiness or any other such nonsense going on.

There isn't? If I believe my eternal happiness is assured -- whether I help others or not -- but help others because I believe they should be valued (as God values them), I'm not balancing my interests and theirs? A Buddhist, who acts to relieve suffering (and who works toward an end to their own suffering, though there isn't a direct, causal connection between the two) is purely egoistic?

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:38:44 -0000

Ugh. Browser mishap. That should have been:

No. Some Christians do believe that their end of the bargain includes those things to some extent. I think I do those things in response to my faith (e.g., my belief that all human beings have value to God, whether or not they have value to me).

In what way can your fulfilling your end of this self-chosen and self-beneficial contract be said to be â€œacting against [your own] interests and in the interests of othersâ€?!

Well, I'll grant you that my interests are diverse. It's certainly contrary to my desires to give away my money or time, or to do things others want me to that I don't want to. Of course, as you point out, I do have other interests (my belief that doing those things have value to God) which I'm serving, so your argument that I'm not completely selfless is coherent. But I'm pretty sure that's what I was arguing myself from the beginning of this thread, so I guess on those points we agree? ;-)

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:31:21 -0000

Your site ate my two previous attempts to respond today, so here's hoping the third time's a charm.

A fickle god who can and has changed his end of the bargain on whim IS your god, so my hypothetical isnâ€™t as far-fetched as you imply.

The old covenant is still in effect; the new covenant is a separate, better deal open to a wider set of parties.

And I think youâ€™d be hard-pressed to explain how youâ€™re not acting on â€œself interest aloneâ€ when you refuse to accept a moral duty to sacrifice your own eternal happiness for the eternal happiness of 3 others.

Who said I have a moral duty to sacrifice my eternal happiness for anyone else's eternal happiness? Certainly not I.

So now youâ€™re bound by this contract, one which you think represents a good trade that provides you net gain (if you didnâ€™t think so, like in my hypothetical covenant, you wouldnâ€™t have entered it, right?).

More or less.

And youâ€™ve got this list of contractual duties (your moral obligations) that you need to fulfill if youâ€™re not to default on your contract.

Sure, though as a Lutheran, it's a short list (faith alone).

You donâ€™t seem to have a clear idea of precisely what you need to accomplish in order to hold up your end of the bargain (after all, youâ€™ve never seen or spoken with god and have only snippets of contradictory info regarding what he expects from you), but you believe it generally has to do with giving away money, time, and happiness to some extent here on Earth.

No. Some Christians do believe that their end of the bargain includes those things to some extent. I think I do those things in response to In what way can your fulfilling your end of this self-chosen and self-beneficial contract be said to be â€œacting against [your own] interests and in the interests of othersâ€?!

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:47:46 -0000

Sorry, due to time constraints this reply will be ridiculously brief:

I think itâ€™s reasonable to assume from your comments that were you faced with my hypothetical, youâ€™d drop your god like a hot potato and work to maximize your self-interest.

Well, no... my question was "how would this god have become my god in the first place?" Why would I have ever decided to follow such a god? Both the Old and New Testament speak of a covenant between God and believers (though the terms of the "old covenant" and the "new covenant" are quite different. The way you've phrased it -- "drop your god" -- seems to imply that this god has suddenly changed his end of the bargain.

Self-interest has always been part of the formation of every Christian's faith. Moreover, self-interest (the "utility function" of game theory) is a part of every human being's belief-formation and decision-making process; that's just the way we operate, whether we're conscious of it or not. I don't have a problem w/ that.

In fact, youâ€™ve damned our egositic morality on this very blog, claiming that it is â€œunworkableâ€ and that self-interest alone canâ€™t lead to virtuous behavior such as honesty and benevolence.

Right: "self-interest alone." I don't really think I've contradicted myself. I don't think I've ever said it's wrong to ever act in one's self-interest. What I have said, and which you reject, is that it's best to balance one's self-interest with the interests of others. Sometimes it's easy (when those interests aren't in conflict). When those interests are in conflict, I believe it is sometimes right to act against one's interests and in the interest of others (e.g., giving up my life to save a busload of kids). There is no egoist rational for saving the busload of kids (I've read Leonard Peikoff argue that while it's moral to risk one's life for someone who is of irreplaceable importance in one's life, it is immoral to sacrifice one's life for that person -- i.e., if I think I might be killed saving my spouse or child, I can try to save them, but the more certain I become that the odds are against my survival, the less moral it is for me to take the risk). There doesn't even seem to be much of a rationale to help others in trivial ways whom you find "worthless."

So, I don't have a problem with self-interest, and I'd submit that any person -- religious or otherwise -- who tells you that their self-interest doesn't factor into their decisions is a liar (even suicide cults have some utility function guiding their decisions, just calibrated very poorly).

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:17:11 -0000

I donâ€™t have to â€œimagineâ€ how such a god would become someoneâ€™s preferred source of moral imperatives; people all around me already claim that such a god is. Iâ€™m only asking them to explain why.

No, as you pointed out -- and again, ignoring for the sake of argument every religion except Christianity -- Chrstians expect a reward, and thus your hypothetical asking why one would follow a god who promised only suffering as a reward for doing good is merely silly.

Your real point is that Christians are hypocrites because they claim to act selflessly. But since Christians seem to admit they expect a reward, and the scope of the claim of selflessness is different than the scope of the claimed reward, I think that is silly too. I mean, would you call someone a hypocrite for calling themselves "thrifty" if you found out that they were only frugal so that they could live extravagantly after they retired?

Re: Why Be Good?

smoothie — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:33:26 -0000

Imagine that your god (or your preferred source of categorical moral imperatives) asks you (as you probably believe he really does) to practice the self-sacrificing moral code of altruism... while you will suffer eternally in hell.

How do you imagine that such a god would become someone's "preferred source of categorical moral imperatives?"

You hear all the elements of this rationale in churches everywhere â€” do or be X and you will enter the kingdom of God; do or be Y and you will burn in hell. But itâ€™s rarely (if ever) put out there in its most naked, egoistic form (i.e., do or be X so that you will enter the kingdom of God) as believers donâ€™t wish to admit openly that self-interest drives their morality.

Well, that's a little simplistic. For example -- using only Christianity -- most denominations to a greater or lesser extent reject the idea that salvation comes from good works (there's a continuum, actually, from Lutherans on one hand who believe that works are entirely irrelevant to salvation to Catholics who believe that faith and good works are both required; then there's the Calvinists who believe that even most people of faith won't be saved -- kind of like the spiritual lottery where faith is just a ticket for a chance at the big prize). I don't think Buddhists believe in any connection between good works and happiness (they don't have a concept of "eternal reward" except that "enlightenment" can lead to an end to earthly suffering).

In short, I don't think your calculus accurately reflects the ways or reasons most religious people believe (even if they report something like your formula above, I believe most of the time that's an attempt to come up w/ what they think is supposed to be the "right" answer). And I know quite a few Christians who would happily admit that they expect a reward for being good, with no embarrassment at your perceived paradox.

Re: Gotta Drink 'Em All!

Shannon — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:43:59 -0000

I'd buy a starter deck. :-)