Total posts: 13,303
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
if this is true then Biden can do whatever the hell he wants.
bingo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you believe in "legal standing" but not "qualified immunity" when both are arbitrary inventions of courts.
legal standing is perfectly logical and easily determined
"qualified immunity" is amorphous and idiotic
also, why would west virginia care at all about drone strikes ??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So should West Virginia be allowed to convict Obama or not?
west virginia would have no legal standing unless they were the victims of the drone strikes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If there is no shield, why can't West Virginia go after Obama for drone strikes? Why can't Brian Kemp be put on trial for breach of duty? The mayor of Seattle for sedition?
Decades ago the Supreme Court created the doctrine of qualified immunity to protect government officials when they faced lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights. At the time, the Court wrote that the doctrine was not meant to be a “license to lawless conduct.” But over the years qualified immunity has expanded and, in some states, officials who act outside their authority have even been allowed to escape lawsuits.
In New Mexico, an officer received qualified immunity even though he was off-duty and he was criminally convicted for how he treated an innocent man. In Minnesota, a traffic engineer received qualified immunity after he detained truck drivers for hours even though he had no authority to make arrests. Both decisions are being appealed to higher federal courts. The details of both cases demonstrate clear abuse of power, abuse that should not be ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So in order for that hypothetical to even occur we’re already imagining a corrupt administration, and the remedy for this is to ensure these future corrupt administrations cannot be prosecuted?
phenomenal analysis
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
- didn't know about
any moral framework that actively incentivizes ignorance is clearly on the right track
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
But calling the police to prevent a murder is an example of a situation where none of these criteria apply. You have no excuse for actively chosing to allow a murder.
most people refuse to give police witness statements in murder cases
because they don't like being murdered
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I am talking morally speaking. If you could prevent a murder without incurring yourself harm, but CHOSE to be passive instead, then you are MORALLY CULPABLE in my view.
ok, that's an interesting view
the only problem is that
this moral framework makes YOU personally responsible for every crime you COULD HAVE prevented
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I learn a lot, but my goals didnt really change, ever.
let me guess, is it "world domination" ?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think my mind is too great to be affected by any circumstance,
that is a very interesting self-conception,
does this mean you never learn anything ?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Philosophically, everything depends upon how one looks at it.
except for logic and engineering
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Can humans truly act selflessly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
So if a stranger is getting murdered, and you did not call the police, then you are not morally culpable for the murder being successful? I don't think so. Passivity is also a choice.
In most cases, people are under no legal duty to report a crime. “Failure to report a crime” is generally not a crime in and of itself. This is true even if someone: knew about the criminal activity in advance, witnessed the commission of a crime while it unfolded or took place, and/or; learned of the offense after it took place.
why do you think it's often so difficult for cops to take witness statements ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is no sufficient evidence of any god(s). One cannot say that no god(s) could exist (that is a black swan fallacy) but many god claims can be dismissed as logically contradictory.
bingo
a better question might be "what are the necessary parameters of something that could both exist AND be considered a god(s)"
also,
ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Basically, if your moral code is more compelling, you align with that, but if your personal feelings are more compelling, you acquiesce to those?
PRIMAL ETHICS
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
communism is always systemic oppression
not ALWAYS
Anarcho-communism, also known as anarchist communism, is the belief that hierarchies, money, and social classes should not exist, and that the means of production should be held in common by society.[1][2] Anarcho-communists support direct democracy and a network of voluntary associations, workers' councils, decentralized economic planning and a gift economy in which everyone will be free to satisfy their needs.
Some well-known anarcho-communist writers are Peter Kropotkin, Ricardo Flores Magón and Nestor Makhno. Anarcho-communism is opposed to the more authoritarian forms of communism advocated by Leninists and Maoists. These groups have violently clashed in Russia, Korea and Spain over their beliefs. Some examples of anarcho-communism in practice include the Makhnovshchina, Shinmin Autonomous Region, and the Revolutionary Spain.
Some well-known anarcho-communist writers are Peter Kropotkin, Ricardo Flores Magón and Nestor Makhno. Anarcho-communism is opposed to the more authoritarian forms of communism advocated by Leninists and Maoists. These groups have violently clashed in Russia, Korea and Spain over their beliefs. Some examples of anarcho-communism in practice include the Makhnovshchina, Shinmin Autonomous Region, and the Revolutionary Spain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
If there's a train going at 5 and all u have to do is pull a lever where it changes course and kills only 1... it's immoral not to pull the lever even tho ur action resulted in someone's death
which moral framework are you subscribing to when drawing this conclusion ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
I think they boil down to whether the ends don't justify the means, or whether proportionalism is moral. I think dogmatism goes too far with trolley problems and things like terrorists and torture and abortion etc
the implicit premise here is that all humans value every other individual human equally
and the obvious fact of the matter is that implicit premise is provably false
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I won't choose either one, but hide and do nothing, let the track decide. The survivor should not feel any guilt from knowing that their life came at somebody else's expense.
this is the solution to EVERY "trolley problem"
you are NOT morally culpable for acts that you did not initiate
and you are only obligated to protect individuals you are legally responsible for
Created:
the hypothesis hypothesis
I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about. I've questioned everything I thought I knew about myself and reality. By doing so I constantly became more and more clear about my own conditioning and belief-systems. I saw that every belief I had was just that: a belief that I had taken for granted but that had actually nothing to do with the truth. In fact I've come to see that every belief I had was like a filter in front of truth. Truth isn't something mind can grasp, it's actually the very opposite, everything mind thinks it understands actually takes it that much further from the truth.
So I was questioning everything about reality and saw that eventually even the concept of material universe was just a hypothesis. All we can know for certain is our experience and the phenomenon it contains. Everything outside our experience is hypothesis, even the concrete nature of the universe.
But even more than that I figured out my own ego and belief systems I had about myself as a person. That seemed more relevant at the time. I was always puzzled by the idea that my past life dictates who I am. That would mean that if I were to born in completely different circumstances I would became a completely different person. I could never buy that, I felt that essentially I should be the same regardless of the circumstances. Difference is only in the accumulated beliefs and conditioning and I thought if I could get past those I would find my true core being.
So I continued to go deeper into myself and then in one ordinary day when I was sitting in a car and figuring these things as usual something happened. I suddenly felt total freedom, my issues with self esteem and self-confidence were suddenly gone, it felt instantly like there is no going back. It wasn't like I got suddenly perfect self-esteem and confidence, but experimentally those two words lost their meaning completely. All the subconscious stress about how I have to perform in life etc. were gone instantly, I felt I was free from all the concepts. I see the reason for that to happen was that my mind didn't anymore identify with any of those thoughts that made me a person of certain kind and that also ultimately made me uncertain about myself. My self esteem and feeling about myself was gradually getting better while in the middle of this process but that milestone was something I didn't anticipate.
And what does this story of my life have to do with free will? It is because how I experience it has changed from what it used to be. Before when I fully identified with my past and thought I knew what kind of person I am based on that, I had a sense of "free will" because I identified with the conditioning from which basis the choices are made. I identified myself as the maker of those choices. That event somewhat changed my identity from the doer to the witness, or to be clearer it kind of contains both aspects simultaneously now. So in my experience "I" don't have that identity as a clear cut entity that makes the choices anymore. I am more anchored in the present moment were there are no choices to be made, nor is there a maker of those choices.
Things just flow naturally and events follow each other. Of course there still seems to be this person who "chooses" to write this post, but it is like in the flower example: does a flower choose to bloom or is it just the flow of life that happens naturally?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
professed faith in some higher power
"some higher power" = some unspecified non-specific impersonal force, you know like gravity - - not a "miracle daddy" who "listens to my prayers like santa claus"
a theist believes in a specific god with a specific definition
a deist believes in a NON-specific unknowable god often referred to by the american founding fathers as "the god of nature" also commonly "mother nature" giving rise to the idea of "natural laws" which are not written in a book, but can be extrapolated by communing with and observing "nature" itself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionality as in processing equipment.
i'm not sure how you're missing this
atheist and deist are functionally identical when faced with any aspect of "organized religion"
more specifically, the god of the deist is UNKNOWABLE NOUMENON
and therefore, didn't write a majikal instruction booklet for anyone
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
A Deist would believe in God, though they might disagree on the 'certainty of religious claims.
a DEIST disagrees with ALL POSSIBLE RELIGIOUS CLAIMS
because if they believed in a PARTICULAR god (or any religious claims for that matter)
then they would magically and instantly, in a puff of logic, be turned into a THEIST
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionally, a theist and an atheist are the same.
no, not even close
a THEIST believes in strictly superstitious "rules for society" based on their faith in THE ANGRY SKY DADDY
an ATHEIST believes in no such thing
a DEIST also believes in no such thing
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I would figure that Deists and Atheists might differ in their perspective of existence.Compare an individual who believes the American founding fathers existed,Set the laws of the nation, but now no longer interact with America.. .And an individual who believes the founding fathers never existed,Never set any laws of the nation.
a DEIST has no "faith"
a DEIST has no DOGMA
a DEIST has absolutely no reason to fabricate and project human emotions onto a hypothetical creator
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about them personally
a DEIST does not believe a creator cares about the existence of the human race in the slightest
a DEIST understands that an apparatus capable of creating all things functions on scales that more than dwarf human insignificance
a DEIST understands that such a thing (if it would even properly qualify as a "thing") would be, for all practical intents and purposes, "incomprehensible"
NOUMENON
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim to provide evidence for their claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"if we didn't detect it and find a perpetrator it didn't happen"
bingo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Never mind that everyone heard and saw Trump commit these crimes in plain site for everyone to see
and joe biden is obviously a god damned saint
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Based on this, do you think there is anything beyond the universe?
it is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Ultimately, for there to be an illusion there must both be the real existence of the thing that is perceiving, and a correct view of the circumstances that are being distracted by the illusion.How do you know this?
there must be a "real existence" of a "thing" (depending on your personally preferred definition of "real" and "existence" and "thing" and or "phenomena")
but there is MOST CERTAINLY NOT (necessarily) a "correct view" (of any particular "phenomena")
and i know this by pure logic
NOUMENON
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Define substance.
non-illusion
the "opposite" of "imaginary"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Got stuck on the good old , "Trying to prove" a single fucking thing to be true nonsense .
a pure illusion is impossible
even an illusion must be rooted in substance
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
If something cannot be proven true empirically it doesn't make it true or false but rather an unknown as we cannot validify its correlation to a subjective reference.
that's
why
i
said
logically necessary
otherwise
it has no "truth value"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
even if you are a dream character in a dream world
you have still responded
which is positive
verification
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
you seem to be
conflating
sincerity
with
"truth"
and this is a classic category error
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
but rather dependent on whether it correlates with the reference
and whether or not something correlates with the reference
must be verifiable
either through observation
or by logical necessity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
This is a clear demonstration of how opinions and subjective experiences can both be true and false.
this is impossible to verify
and therefore
there is simply no way to call it
"true"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
The statement "I could have made a better decision yesterday" is an opinion rather than a fact. It's based on your own subjective assessment of the situation and your belief that you had more information, resources or clarity today that would have led to a better decision yesterday.
While it is possible that with new information or hindsight, you may come to realize that there were better options available at the time of making the decision, this realization does not change the fact that you made what was then considered as the best decision based on all available factors and constraints. Therefore, whether or not you could have made a better decision in retrospect remains an opinion rather than a verifiable fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Ignoring whether said choice is true or not,I wonder,Do individuals big on the lack of free will,State to themselves?It 'might be in the skein of fate, that I make X action.
i've been without free will for quite some time now
and i still make mistakes
and i still try to improve my skill
i do the best i can
but the most significant change
is that i don't blame others for their own short-sighted actions
i still react
but i understand they are also
doing the best they are currently capable of
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
once we have established the rudimentary concepts
phenomenal
i suspected as much
and that's why i am rigorously defining REAL-TRUE-FACT
this explains my axioms in exactly one minute and nineteen seconds,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
i just didNo, you did not. You stated that my response is verification without proving that such response exists.
every time you respond
you are providing validation to my claim
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
"To know means to believe with certainty, to be true means to correlate with."
i disagree
only facts are true
opinions cannot be true
also,
opinions cannot be false
opinions hold no truth value
it is a category error
to try and assign a truth value to an opinion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
your will can only be goal seeking in service of desire
desire always CAUSES your intentional action
desire might be uncaused
but your will can never be uncaused
ipso facto
not free
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
REAL TRUE FACT = EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE (WITH A CONFIDENCE OF AT LEAST 2 SIGMA) AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
EVERYTHING ELSE IS OPINION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
objective reality is rather an illusion as it rests upon
you couldn't be more wrong
the logical conclusion of a solipsist axiom
is that even an illusion requires substance
zero substance
zero illusion
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
if you are asserting that nothing is truly random
then free will is reduced to a human emotion
but even if
even if you believe that some things are truly uncaused
like the apparent randomness of the quantum foam
the injection of uncaused, functionally random noise
into an otherwise causal system
still does nothing to salvage the idea of free will
as nothing more than a mere emotion
Created: