Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
he doesn't get to decide how much that $100 is worth.
That's merely tautological.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Based on your responses thus far including this one I'll take that as; (A)
I thought it was more than obvious I was selecting your option "(C)".
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Catholicism is the one true faith, theres plently of evidence and general reasoning on my side
Well, it's certainly the most popular flavor of Christianity.
Do you believe all the protestants are going to hell?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Some consequences may be involved and you might define those consequences as punishment but to focus on punishment is in my opinion counterproductive.
Great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If you teach people that, historically, rich land-owners extracted value from their land-ownership by exploiting captive labor, wouldn't that promote resentment of people (and institutions) who have inherited that extracted value via familial (and institutional) happenstance?Yes. So what is the fix for this problem? Do we;A) pretend it didn’t happenB) attempt to make amendsC) other
We make sure to pin the blame on people who aren't responsible for the situation and are powerless to fix it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, yes it is. If you steal $100 out of a cash register, and the store owner decides not to report the event, the police don’t ask any questions at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think you will prefer these results and the 'axes' involved. :)
Thank you for the notification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I just don't think the tests' label is quite accurate.
I agree, but at least it seems somewhat "less-wrong" than the standard one-dimensional "LEFT-RIGHT".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I also think that 3RU7AL sees himself as a 'libertarian centrist'
Nope.
even though he's actually very Socialist.
ONLY if by "socialist" you mean I believe families should cooperate with their neighbors out of pure pragmatic necessity (and not forced to by some "authority").
The problem is that he sees the 'wings' as a fake invention to enable the 2-party system nations have in place.
You are 100% correct on that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why do both tests identify so many liberals?
Because so many people who vote republican think politics is ONLY about abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Right-Wing Populism
Would you say that's generally accurate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I find these results do not adequately reflect my radical anti-globalist and radical anti-corporation views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You asked for a superior alternative to political compass, I think RM just found one. The way the questions are worded is much better, PC felt like it was targeted specifically to people living in the early 21st century and heavily biased towards certain specific viewpoints.
Thanks for the notification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
OBJECTIVE MORALITY = WE MUST ALWAYS DO WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHTWhat if we think different things are right?
Well, we both pray and meditate about it and the most sincere and good hearted person is correct!
So, I guess we'd have to stage some sort of pure hearted "sincere-off" battle royale or something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
OBJECTIVE MORALITY = WE MUST ALWAYS DO WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So I don't need [to know the specific details of] any [hypothetical] objective morality to self actualize or to determine what is morally correct for myself in exactly the same way that you are forced to. This is true whether there is some god(s) or no god(s) and whether it is a "moral" god or an "antimoral" god.
I hate to press my luck, but, perhaps,
(IFF) OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXISTS (THEN) IT IS EITHER CURRENTLY UNKNOWN OR UNKNOWABLE (THEREFORE) WE MUST ALWAYS DO WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT
Created:
-->
@Death23
I don't think any of the laws prohibit speaking publicly about people one hates.
Aren't there any laws restricting hate speech?
Created:
-->
@Death23
Are you able to explain why?It isn't relevant.
Perhaps you could speculate generally about good reasons to hate?
Created:
-->
@Death23
The best way I think it’s probably to foster a culture of truth seeking, fact-checking, incredulity and skepticism to prevent rumors from spreading through the population like viruses.
I agree.
And we don't need any speech laws to implement this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
GME currently at 52.
We need to keep GME above 30 for the next three months to continue to squeeze out the shorts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes but that doesn’t mean it’s subjective if the latter two don’t exist.
Ok.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Does the practical application of your ontology still boil down to, "always do what you think is morally correct"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You’ve yet to prove subjective morality.
Without a perfectly unambiguous set of moral rules to follow, we must make our best subjective guess at what is morally correct (de facto subjective morality).
An unrevealed and or secret and or inscrutable and or undefined and or unknown and or unknowable "objective moral code" is functionally indistinguishable from subjective morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How can "objective meaning" be conditional?It’s not if it’s true.
But weren't you suggesting that "objective meaning" only exists (IFF) divine punishment and divine reward exists?
Created:
-->
@janesix
No never heard of it, what is it? I am too lazy to google it right now
(IFF) GOD EXISTS (AND) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (THEN) EVERYTHING IS NECESSARILY GOD [**]
Created:
-->
@ronjs
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of Gods existence and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject, because, i think, they really don't want an answer.
Have you ever met a Deist, a Taoist, a Gnostic, a Pantheist, a Monist or a Noetic? [**]
Created:
-->
@Death23
Is there ever a good reason to hate?I think so. I hate lots of people.
Are you able to explain why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
OBJECTIVE = UNCONDITIONALOBJECTIVE = ALWAYS THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE SITUATIONSUBJECTIVE = CONDITIONALSUBJECTIVE = ALMOST NEVER THE SAME BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE SPECIFIC SITUATIONWhere’d you get that definition?
Logical deduction.
OBJECTIVE = GENERAL, UNIVERSAL, UNCHANGING
SUBJECTIVE = SPECIFIC, INDIVIDUAL, AMORPHOUS
Created:
-->
@Death23
That goes too far because people who are hated for good reasons
Is there ever a good reason to hate?
Created:
-->
@Death23
That goes too far because people who are hated for good reasons
How will we protect the millions of people who are hated for bad reasons?
Created:
-->
@Athias
And would any of these custom-tailored responses include reprisals and violence?
Of course not, what, do you think the police are just like mobsters or something?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ad hominems? I'm guessing you don't care whether those criticisms are true?
Specifically your claim that I am somehow vaguely "dishonest".
Created:
-->
@Athias
And how would non-compliance render a result that is against their best-interests?
It would necessarily be custom tailored to each individual based on the complicated specifics of the peculiarities of their unique situation.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
One of the most tragic things that can happen in a person's life is an unwillingness to pursue and seek out their Creator.
What if they found a "god" that doesn't happen to match your personally preferred description?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This interaction is purely voluntary.
And I am not being dishonest.
Please try to keep your ad hominem attacks to a minimum.
Created:
-->
@Athias
And if they refuse to pay?
Convince them compliance is in their own personal best interests.
Created:
-->
@janesix
I am starting from the other end. I believe there is a God, but I don't know "which" God it is. As I explore the creation, I get to know about God, in bits and pieces. For one, God is a mathematician. There's a start.
Are you familiar with Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if matter does not "exist" in a really real for reallzies way that precludes the problems of soft solipsism and the clans of certain spiritualists it still observable interacts with other (not) "existing" matter so your proposed experiment has zero effect on the unfalsifiable nature of Jane's claim. That the possibly (not) "existing" tornado interacts with the possibly (not) "existing" Jane as we have observed possibly (not) "existing" matter interact before doesn't necessitate that it is for reallzies real.
Well stated.
In other words, [**]
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Instead of pretending you can read minds, how about you just ask, hm? This is why I don't like FLRW's whole "theists are mentally damaged" because no they aren't they're people with different assumptions and justifications than you and I, nothing more and nothing less. If you want to pretend to have the moral high ground fine, but don't assume and generalize an entire group that's only similarity is an agreement that there are no gods, nothing else.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
It seems that most skeptics are unwilling to see the proof (evidence) of Gods existence
I am perfectly willing to accept Ethica, Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata as perfectly logical and indisputable evidence of some logically necessary GOD.
and mainly ask questions that are not relevant to the subject,
What do you believe are the "relevant" questions?
because, i think, they really don't want an answer.
Speculation about motive is considered an ad hominem attack.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Present hard data to demonstrate the Liar's Dividend
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Privacy is important, I see no reason why it is so important to justify incriminating somebody for revealing [POTENTIALLY] true information. You are assuming that every claim that somebody is a criminal is [POTENTIALLY] untrue, you are also assuming they have intentions to make their reputation fall (ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMEONE MIGHT ACCUSE ANOTHER OF A CRIME IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THE REPUTATION OF THE ACCUSED? THIS SEEMS UNLIKELY). It does not matter if their reputation does lower, only if they meant it to (WHY WOULD SOMEONE ACCUSE ANOTHER OF A CRIME? PLEASE ENUMERATE THE POSSIBLE MOTIVES). That is the nature of crimes of words.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Second, it... actually does. If you read it. ;)
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you mean, like leverage to actually pay his taxes? Or not be a moral monster? Sure.
Or it might be leverage to influence someone to commit further crimes (or merely embarrassing non-crimes), depending on who exactly has access to the data in question.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First - if you claim a video is doctored, it is your burden to prove, you have simply been assuming it to be the case.
Not exactly.
A doctored video is NOT evidence of innocence.
Your claim appears to be that the hypothetical video constitutes an indisputable FACT (which is not the case).
Your hypothetical video MIGHT BE evidence of a FACT, but the hypothetical video itself is not PROOF.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
https://observers.france24.com/en/20180402-how-detect-video-been-manipulated
This does absolutely nothing to solve a potential case of mistaken identity and or a staged video.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So? Again, how is that linked to autonomy, does knowing the balance somehow give you access to their credit cards? For example - Donald Trump's Tax returns. IT was an overwhelmingly good thing that it was reported.
It is leverage (for potential blackmail and or extortion) that could be used to compromise an official or even a lowly citizen into acting in a way they would not otherwise voluntarily choose.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not more than it is to report something is immoral to the population - ESPECIALLY if the thing is harmful.
What principle is this based on?
What do you believe qualifies as "harmful" enough to justify violating the privacy of your neighbors?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Liar's Dividend
Please explain exactly what this is in reference to.
Created: