Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Any angel or spirit would just be to add to the complexity to the question, without carrying real value for most people.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The length of a piece of string isn’t an internally constructed concept.
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
You might imagine this is a statement of FACT.
HOWEeveR, my statement is UNFALSIFIABLE.
You have no way of verifying my statement.
This makes it INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Shorter still...Stuff is out there and fact is in here.
FACT must be rigorously defined and or empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
(IFF) your description of an OBJECT (or event) contains any implicitly AXIOLOGICAL statements, like "good" or "bad" (THEN) your description is OPINION
(IFF) your description of an OBJECT (or event) is unfalsifiable and or unverifiable (THEN) your description is indistinguishable from OPINION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Facts stems from truth and opinions stem from emotional appeal.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So, who or what created the first human mind?
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
I'm not sure I follow, motivates Him to do what?
Does "YHWH" act by necessity in accordance with its essential nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If there were no starving kids anywhere in the world, I’d be against abortion.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
It's tough to represent a three-dimensional world in a two-dimensional map. The most common way of getting around this problem is to use a Mercator projection. This method of map-drawing, invented by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569, found favor because it preserved local angular relationships, making navigation easier. However, it also massively distorts size and distances as you get closer to the two poles.
Given how popular the Mercator projection is, it's wise to question how it makes us view the world. Many have noted, for example, how the distortion around the poles makes Africa look smaller than Greenland, when in reality Africa is about 14.5 times as big. In 2010, graphic artist Kai Krause made a map to illustrate just how big the African continent is. He found that he was able to fit the United States, India and much of Europe inside the outline of the African continent. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.
Ad hominem arguments can take many forms, from basic name-calling to more complex rhetoric. For example, an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.
Ad hominem arguments are common in both formal and informal discussions on various topics, so it’s important to understand them. As such, in the following article you will learn more about ad hominem arguments, see what types of them exist, and understand what you can do to respond to them properly. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The sun rising in the east and setting in the west has nothing to do with our minds, just objective reality.
THE SUN NEVER "RISES".
THE "EAST" AND THE "WEST" ARE CONCEPTS FABRICATED BY HUMAN MINDS AND DO NOT "EXIST" WITHOUT HUMAN MINDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
An ad hominem, definitionally, necessarily, requires a link to the argument the person is making.
THE CONTEXT OF THE CONVERSATION ITSELF IS AN UNAMBIGUOUS IMPLICIT LINK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
This is about what the definition of a term is.
Please link to your personally preferred "authoritative definition".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know this dialogue and exchange is hard to follow, but try to understand the sweeping opportunity costs when the government denies the free consent of 2 parties to engage in a private contract of trade that harms nobody outside of those 2 parties.
I found it interesting that Milton Friedman was in FAVOR of environmental regulations.
Also, Milton Friedman's argument against mandatory AIR BAGS seemed to be missing the point about the societal cost of "individual risk".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I know this dialogue and exchange is hard to follow, but try to understand the sweeping opportunity costs when the government denies the free consent of 2 parties to engage in a private contract of trade that harms nobody outside of those 2 parties.
Ok, most FEDERAL REGULATIONS are over "the line".
The Constitution only allows "inter-state" (FEDERAL) regulation.
STATE REGULATIONS are perfectly legitimate.
HOweVER, both in theory and in practice they favor BIG FISH.
Strangely, ZERO REGULATION also favors BIG FISH.
So, in reality, it's a WIN-WIN for the BIG FISH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
@Barney
@Ramshutu
So, if someone said, "you're a gorgeous movie-star, therefore your political arguments and or views are invalid" this statement would NOT qualify as either a personal-attack or as an ad hominem in-your-opinion?
From my position as a voting mod my opinion is that this would qualify as a personal attack and an as hominem - as it is specifically implying that there is a material problem with the person (dumb due to being a movie star)
While I said the word explicit about 8 times in two sentences; your example illustrates I should probably have included strong inferred negative statements too as long as they’re material. [LINK]
@Ragnar,
Can I get a second opinion on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When the argument is about a person.
Even in a TRIAL, OPINIONS are ad hominem attacks. FACTUAL STATEMENTS specifically related to the case itself are NOT ad hominem attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Oh so now its back to protesters and not terrorists. Which is it? Mind you ALL actions by ANTIFA AND BLM were labeled "peaceful protests" even though they burned hundreds of businesses to the ground and beat hundreds of people and killed dozens.
When you can call "protesters" "terrorists" then you can deny everyone the right to protest.
When you can deny everyone the right to protest you live in a POLICE STATE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
unless a member has a damn good reason to be absent
Yep. They should be removed from office for dereliction of duty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.No it isn't.
Please provide an example of a personal insult that is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My ad hom was more directed at your expertise rather than your character. Regardless, it was an indirect appeal to authority or lack thereof rather than addressing the flaws in your assessment.
Bookmark this page so you can reference this conversation the next time you hear someone accusing another member of being a "racist" (which is obviously an ad hominem attack).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm genuinely impressed.
An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack.
Yes it is. EVERY SINGLE PERSONAL INSULT IS AN IMPLICIT ATTACK ON THAT PERSON'S GENERAL CREDIBILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS, RELIABILITY, AND OR SANITY.
Not every ad hominem is an OBVIOUS insult, HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.
It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.
If I called you a "stinky, uneducated toad", and I didn't happen to include the critically explicit phrasing, "and therefore your argument is wrong specifically because you happen to be a stinky, uneducated toad", that missing phrase doesn't make the PERSONAL COMMENT magically VALID.
Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem,
The INSULT ITSELF is an attempt to circumvent any stated argument (by disqualifying the speaker), thereby implicitly circumventing any need to formally "refute" the actual argument.
nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.
I agree. ANY RUSH TO DISQUALIFY AN INTERLOCUTOR BASED ON ANY PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OR CHARACTERIZATIONS (both "positive" and "negative") qualify as an ad hominem attack.
For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.
Not every ad hominem is an OBVIOUS insult, HOWevER, every personal insult is an ad hominem attack.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
The only difference between the original and this parody is the first premise. It is clear that a necessary chair is impossible because we know what a chair is. Since we don't know what an MGB is supposed to be, it is harder to come up reasons why it cannot exist.Hence the reasoning is : We don't know what we are talking about. Therefore, we can't find any reason why it would be impossible. Therefore, it must be possible.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
The argument in principle applies to any necessary being, including those with loathsome properties. However, since the actual number of necessary beings appears to be low, somehow most set of properties make such beings impossible.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Only OBJECTS can be (hypothetically) "independent" of a mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
concept independent of the mind
A CONCEPT REQUIRES A MIND.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Helping [protesters] makes you a [protesters], the capitol police are [protesters].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I have before, and you don’t learn.
Citation please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Any statement and or question that is directed at the SPEAKER (personally) and not the ARGUMENT [WITH THE AIM TO DISQUALIFY THE SPEAKER] is an ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Consensus decision-making or consensus politics (often abbreviated to consensus) is group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the aim, or requirement, of acceptance by all. The focus on avoiding negative opinion differentiates consensus from unanimity, which requires all participants to positively support a decision. Consensus comes from Latin meaning "agreement, accord," which in turn comes from consentire, meaning "feel together".[1] Both the process and outcome of consensus decision-making are referred to as consensus (e.g. "by consensus" and "a consensus" respectively). [LINK]
A consensus government is one in which the cabinet is appointed by the legislature without reference to political parties. Consensus government chiefly arises in non-partisan democracies and similar systems in which a majority of politicians are independent. Many former British territories with large indigenous populations use consensus government to fuse traditional tribal leadership with the Westminster system.[1] Consensus government in Canada is used in Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Nunatsiavut, and similar systems have arisen in the Pacific island nations of Fiji, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, as well as the ancient Tynwald of the Isle of Man.[1] [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
But currently, it acts as a blockade on any serious legislation
It's used as an EXCUSE.
One of the main problems with legislation is that the bills are too big.
ALSO,
From a legal theory perspective, we shouldn't have to be constantly changing our laws.
Our system of laws should be based on logically-coherent principles that apply universally.
JUSTICE MUST BE BLIND.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
There's nothing in maximal greatness that would be logically or metaphysically incoherent or contradictory,
The term itself "maximal greatness" and the corresponding term "being" are extremely poorly defined in the context provided.
Would the NOUMENON fulfil the logical requirements for your non-contingent, self-sustaining, eternal, "MGB" perhaps?
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
I'm arguing for a non physical conscious entity. The statement "a being by definition has a back and legs" not only assumes the only beings that exist are bipeds with a torso (sorry caterpillars) but is simply not what I'm arguing
Thank you for clearing that up.
(1) What do you mean by "non physical"?
(2) What do you mean by "conscious"?
(3) What do you mean by "entity"?
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
But no, it isn't. The telos of a chair is to seat things. The telos of being is to be.
Ok, so a "maximally great being" doesn't necessarily DO anything?
This actually solves an entire raft of potential "problems".
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
My point originally stated was that the idea of beingness is unintelligible without the corresponding concept of "sitting". And sitting is unintelligible without a being to sit.
We all know that beings can sit.
And a "maximally great being" should (would) be able to sit better than any sitter that ever sat in the long and illustrious history of sitting.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
In all seriousness, this is QUITE a leap. This wouldn't even apply to humans. Would you fail to exist, or have your existence rendered unintelligible if you were the only being on the planet and nobody else existed to admire you? That just doesn't make sense. God's existence is not contigent on or sustained by our adoration. Really nobody's existence is.
Look.
(IFF) you wanted "aseity" to be part of your definition of "MGB" (THEN) you should have included it in your argument
I'm just pointing out that NO-"THING" (and or "chair" and or "being") can be (properly described as) "maximally" "great" if there is no-"thing" to compare it to.
What is it "greater" than?
If "MGB" is the only thing that has ever "existed" then it is not "greater" than any-"thing" else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though David would seem to be in favour of this.
I'm quite certain they were responding to the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Because the majority do not want to share restrooms with the opposite gender.
Well, I have it on good authority that non-binary and or tranzies are super-rare and it really shouldn't matter unless they try to grope you (and there are plenty of well established existing laws that prohibit groping).
So it seems you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The appreciable narrative itself is objective, though the internally organized data content contained therein, is wholly abstract or subjective.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?I don’t know, again let me return a question back at you where is your science?
IN HUMAN MINDS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope..... Americans seemingly can never get enough of Oil and Israel.....Democrat or republican doesn't make any difference.....Why is that, Doc?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though that was the aim of the Republican mob
Don't you mean "Republican protesters"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It should be set just high enough to disenfranchise the low skilled labor competing for union jobs so that Labor Unions can set artificial monopoly prices on labor, which will hasten the robot takeover of society while reducing job creation and productivity, all in one fell swoop.Business as usual in Crony America.
You forgot to mention, "forcing corporations to move operations off-shore in order to exploit unregulated labor markets".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Any statement and or question that is directed at the SPEAKER (personally) and not the ARGUMENT is an ad hominem attack.No it isn't.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Please accept my apology and continue.
We already know what a "regulation free" zone looks like.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City, on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history.[1] The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers – 123 women and girls and 23 men[2] – who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling/jumping to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Italian and Jewish immigrant women and girls aged 14 to 23;[3][4] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was 43-year-old Providenza Panno, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and Rosaria "Sara" Maltese.[5]
The factory was located on the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the Asch Building, at 23–29 Washington Place, near Washington Square Park. The 1901 building still stands today and is now known as the Brown Building. It is part of and owned by New York University.[6]
The factory was located on the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the Asch Building, at 23–29 Washington Place, near Washington Square Park. The 1901 building still stands today and is now known as the Brown Building. It is part of and owned by New York University.[6]
Because the doors to the stairwells and exits were locked[1][7] (a then-common practice to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and to reduce theft),[8] many of the workers could not escape from the burning building and jumped from the high windows. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union (ILGWU), which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I actually fully agree with you. We should do that. And do you know what the minimum wage would be today if we had done that in 1968? It would be over $21 per hour. That is how badly the minimum wage has eroded over the last 50 years. Even if we managed to get the minimum wage being fought for, it would still be $6 per hour less than if it had been pinned to inflation.
Well stated.
INFLATION = THEFT
Created: