Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I haven't attacked you. I just question your sincerity about personal risk.
Any statement and or question that is directed at the SPEAKER (personally) and not the ARGUMENT is an ad hominem attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
science (n.)
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. [LINK]
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...No we don’t agree to that, me asking a question in regards to your belief doesn’t mean I agree to it, are you going to answer or not?
We are not in conflict over the exact time and date of the coining or the word "science".
We seem to be in conflict over whether or not "science" can "exist" without a human mind.
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The big fish will always crush the small fish.
It doesn't matter if government is involved or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm not sure why you insist on the magical validity of your naked ad hominem attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know, maybe I should turn that question back to you considering your making more claims then I am on the matter. Who is the genius human mind that’s responsible for science?
Excellent. At least we can agree that it was a HUMAN MIND.
aND without a HUMAN MIND, "SCIENCE" WOULD NOT "EXIST".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A very real reason for businesses failing is an inability to find buyers for the products of someone else's paid labor.
The "risk" of a business "failing" is not the same type of risk as gross bodily injury.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
And we wouldn't even need to be constantly adjusting the minimum wage if we set it to automatically adjust for inflation.
OR IF WE SIMPLY STOPPED INFLATING THE MONEY SUPPLY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a much higher risk than most would want to take on in addition to the health risks.
I strongly disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...No that’s the point, it’s an abstract concept independent of the mind making it inherently objective.
"SCIENCE" DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT A (HUMAN) MIND.
for example, when was "science" first "invented"?
did dinosaurs invent "science"?
did trilobites invent "science"?
when did the first "science" happen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not at all. You take on NONE of the risks your employer takes on. How do you think the employer gets compensated for that?
Do you really and truly consider coal mining "risk free"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's a mutually beneficial trade that Marxists LOVE to
LITERALLY NOBODY HERE IS A "MARXIST".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The vast majority of Americans choose to take the risk-free option
Now I know your joking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Show me the part where anyone is saying that ALL libertarians and trump supporters are dangerous criminals that don't deserve to speak.
And I'm sure, SOME of them are very nice people...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
morality tells us what we cannot do - not what we must do.
So, does morality tell you to things like "feed and clothe your own children"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Find me a philosophy that prohibits the killing of animals.
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs on the bodies of their animal victims. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They can be but that would be hella risky.
Who issues and distributes "money" in your liberated utopian hellscape?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
...The definition does not say that, just because it includes objects doesn’t mean it’s limited to objects.
CONCEPTS ARE NOT "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
ONLY OBJECTS CAN BE (EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY) "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You take personal loans to get tools you need and you take on all the risks.
Are the banksters also self-employed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
as there are more wage jobs than self-employed people.
Please explain to me how an economy is supposed to function (even hypothetically) with 100% self-employment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't need shit workers that produce less than what the employer invests in them. That's how businesses fail.
EVERYONE AGREES WITH THIS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
The "news" can't stop spreading the word that all "libertarians" and "anarchists" and "trump supporters" are dangerous criminals who don't deserve to speak.No news is saying that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They need people to do jobs for very little money so they can funnel more cash to their CEO and investors.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If few deaths happen, give people liberty.
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatality Data 2018 shows 10,511 deaths. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So which people are the terrorists? I ask because the capitol police shown opening the doors and letting people in not be guilty of aiding and abiding terrorist activity? You did say that some of the police were biased and part of the protest, excuse me I meant terrorist attack.
Nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
reality independent of the mind
MUST BE COMPRISED OF OBJECTS.
OBJECTS.
OBJECTS.
NOT CONCEPTS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
How could you possibly think those things apply to the democrats?
Tell me again which democrat voted against their own automatic pay raises?
Trump bellowed. “Those seeking admission into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years.”
The legislation never materialized, for a simple reason: What Trump proposed is already the law of the land. Thanks to the massive “welfare reform” bill that President Bill Clinton signed two decades ago, new immigrants are ineligible for public assistance during their first five years in America. It’s a mean-spirited policy. But it was the creation not of nationalist demagogues like Trump but of Democrats like Clinton, who pledged in his 1992 campaign to “end welfare as we know it.” [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
invest in yourself
Strangely, highly technical jobs (like microchip fabrication) are performed by native Malaysians (who never went to college) because it's cheaper for businesses to train their own employees than to hire graduates.
The real scam is getting your future employees to spend their own money just for the sliver of a hope that they might get a job.
It's a lot like getting college athletes to perform for FREE (netting the owners tons of cash) while dangling the faint hope of a career in "the majors".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The poor pay little to no [NET] taxes. You already know this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
What "severe consequences" did anyone receive for disputing the results?
Protesters somehow magically turned into "violent insurrectionists".
The "news" can't stop spreading the word that all "libertarians" and "anarchists" and "trump supporters" are dangerous criminals who don't deserve to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
this feels eerily similar to Obama second term- more troops in the mid-east and the swamp is clearly seen,
Perpetual WAR.
1984.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The problem is that the modern Democrat party's only plans are:
1)funnel as much money are possible to wealthy
2) cut as much funding as possible that goes to poor or middle class people
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You might enjoy this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=30&v=PKmmopn7QVY&feature=youtu.be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Can you support the claim that objective means objects?
ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I talk about killing a human as opposed to other animals.
Do you think it's immoral to kill animals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The time and resources I have are not controlled by morality but rather by my interests.
Isn't it immoral to spend time and resources and focus that could be used to save lives on activities that do not save lives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I do not define my morality on the law.
Then you should stop using the word "murder" when you describe your moral position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So DC can have a perpetual fall guy when policies don't work? You're just asking DC to do whatever they want to as long as it gets them votes and they can blame someone else (a filibuster) for policy mistakes. This is why establishment Republicans are so fucked up. Pretend like they are doing something knowing a filibuster will save their ass from being called out for not doing anything productive for Americans while they only care about themselves. It's a game DC has played far too long.
ABOLISH POLITICAL PARTIES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why not simply make a 2/3 majority a requirement for all legislation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I think that all humans are equally valuable
Ok, does this mean that you split your time and resources equally among all humans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Is killing a human always murder?By definition, murder is only the intentional killing of another human being outside of the law.
Some "murder" is unintentional.
For example, "felony murder" is any incidental human death caused as the indirect result of someone committing a felony.
And if you're defining your morality ("murder") by legal standards, doesn't that mean it is impossible for a law to be immoral?
For example, if "abortion" is "legal" then it does not qualify as "murder".
For example, if "execution" is "legal" then it does not qualify as "murder".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I believe murder is immoral.
Is killing a human always murder?
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
I think we start getting into some really squirrelly territory here. So first and foremost as I alluded to before, the idea of maximal being greatness is not really a well defined concept. What one person finds great in a being could be completely opposite to what another person finds great in a being.
Secondly, what you're positing now are immaterial beings. I would argue that's not a very coherent concept.
I mean, what is a being? A being by definition has legs and a back, as well as a place to sit. I don't see how we can keep those definitions in tact while upholding said being is immaterial. Does this being have immaterial legs? A back not extended in space? Is it made of non physical flesh?
Also, perhaps most damagingly to the idea of a maximally great being, is that, the very telos of a being is to appear superior to a human. In the plethora of possible worlds where humans do not exist to give the being its telos, what can the being be called at that point?
In other words, what makes the very concept of "beingness" intelligible in the first place, is quite frankly, human tushies. Without a person to stand in awe before it, the essence of a being becomes unintelligible
When you posit a necessarily existing being you're in effect saying we have an eternal being.
In order for a being to be eternally intelligible it would need an eternal human who needed it and was capable of standing in awe from eternity past.
I would argue the atheist is trying to avoid such a being.
Created:
-->
@Soluminsanis
Imagine two comic book characters... contigent man and Doctor Necessary. Contigent man could easily be killed, he has the potential for non existence. But doctor necessary cannot be destroyed. He never came into being and will never go out of being.I think which is greater in this case is self evident
What if "Doctor Necessary" didn't actually "choose" to "exist"?
What if "Doctor Necessary" is forced to exist and only does what is essential to its nature (what is necessary)?
What if "Doctor Necessary" has no choice?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I am aware of that. But a noumenon necessarily has physical characteristics, which can be observed as phenomenon.
NOUMENON AND PHENOMENON ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
an appreciable narrative does not in itself validate an internal data construct as a representation of an external reality.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I can think of a plethora of abstract objective things such as mathematics,
Please explain HOW "mathematics" qualifies as "OBJECTIVE"?
I mean, only humans use mathematical symbols and systems.
And humans are motivated by e-motion.
Created: