Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Or do we see the animal kingdom punishing for acts we would consider undoubtedly virtuous?
A mother lion that tries to protect her cubs from a new pride leader will be attacked by the pride leader (de facto king).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
To that end, I ought to refrain from murdering someone.
Yes. Killing another human is traumatic. Even when it's clearly self-defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Presently, but life can't sustain itself that way on its own. There needs to be the reproduction of life to continue that way of sustaining. It isn't by feeding on dead things then that life sustains itself, but by reproduction.
Please explain how "reproduction" doesn't require dead things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
When you strip another person of their will you are robbing them of their choice to choose.
What if your respective "wills" are in conflict?
What if someone is trying to (or even just apparently trying to) rob you of your choice to choose?
How is "self-defense" (or pre-emptive self-defense) quantitatively distinct from "murder"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
If life is in itself a good thing, then the taking of life must be by nature contrary to what is good.
Doesn't all life sustain itself by feeding on dead things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
Imagine a world where we are as we currently are but with one caveat: we can't speak.
Even apes punish liars.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
The **OFFICIAL Christian Heaven™** is actually a gigantic cube made of jasper and pure gold, approximately 2,414 kilometers (twelve thousand furlongs) per side.
Most people seem to think it's a little more like,
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
I notice that you are again systematically omitting to mention the reference standard for almost all your qualitative claims and questions,
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think it would be a good idea to give mods the ability to vote on debates that end in a no vote tie
I agree.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Calling someone a "racist" (especially in the context of a debate website) strongly suggests their opinions and by extension their arguments (generally) are invalid.
Wouldn't it be somewhat more accurate to frame the conclusion within a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT?
For example,
(IFF) racism is defined as (_______) (THEN) someone who fulfills the aforementioned definition would necessarily be considered a racist
Also, what possible utility would the information "individual (X) is a racist" have OTHER than to attempt invalidate them personally (wholesale).
In other words, why would anyone comment on personal details (character and or belief) of another EXCEPT to either raise or lower their perceived social standing (also known as "credibility")?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I mean, I hate to ask this, but does posting that you think a specific member is a "racist" qualify as "name-calling" (ad hominem attack)?
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
In stead you are complaning about reality.Yet again.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
Creating threads to call-out specific users qualifies as targeted harassment, as does obsessive attempts to derail unrelated topics with impertinent grudges. [**]
Do you think this specific thread qualifies as a "call-out"?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The second we start censoring people for views contrary to ours we lose our identity.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Vader
And even that, he wasn't calling you a dick, but your attitude in that thread of relation to being a dick, which is a fair criticism to make.
This seems like hair-splitting to me.
Calling someone a name (name-calling) is clearly "to the speaker" and not "to the argument" which is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
The problem with this is that it essentially eradicates the idea of morality as a whole.
I'm not sure how that could be considered a "problem".
There is no detectable utility in ascribing a label of "evil" to a rabid dog.
There is no reason to attempt to determine if the rabid dog is "acting according to its own personal will and autonomous agency".
None of that is necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
Here's a video detailing the "GOOD ADVICE" story,
In 2 minutes and 15 seconds,
(IFF) you're wondering "what's the point of this story" (THEN) watch the following,
In 23 minutes and 2 seconds,
Created:
-->
@Castin
I will not trust an article casting doubt on the negative health impacts of smoking if the source was funded by Big Tobacco with a history of spreading misinformation about the scientific consensus on smoking.
Although the sponsor of a study might call for increased scrutiny, the sponsor (source) itself does not automatically invalidate the data.
I remember watching a documentary where an expert witness was cross examined by a prosecutor.
Every question the prosecutor asked was about how much money the expert witness typically gets paid (in order to attempt to discredit them in the eyes of the working-class jury).
Created:
-->
@Mopac
...having potentially sinister applications in the case of social engineering.
It's actually WAY EASIER to manipulate (socially engineer) people who believe in "freewill".
When the puppets can see the strings, they start asking about the puppeteer.
When the puppets CAN'T see the strings, they just blame themselves and the puppeteer can act with impunity.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I remember when I first heard, "randomness does not equal freewill".
I couldn't even comprehend it.
It made absolutely no sense.
My whole mindset was "unpredictable means free".
There are a million things that are "unpredictable" but that does not mean they all have "freewill".
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Besides that it is a harmful belief.
This is a naked appeal to consequence.
Description: Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. [**]
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then it seems to me that the opinion that we do not exercise choice is illogical, as it contradicts reality.
It does NOT contradict "reality".
It only contradicts your EMOTION.
Your internal emotional state is not "reality".
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
To continue on, my argument of determinism could be summed up as thus:P1: The only two reasons to do anything is because you are forced or because you want to
I'd restate P1 as,
Every action is (EITHER) the result of a previous event (or combination of events) (OR) NOT the result of a previous event (or combination of events) in other words, the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (OR) some combination of BOTH caused and uncaused events (some percentage that is caused and some percentage that is uncaused (indistinguishable from random noise), the exact ratios are immaterial because any combination results in the same logical outcome, some part determined and some part indistinguishable from random, resulting in ZERO "freewill").
P2: You do not choose what you want and don't want
I'd restate P2 as,
(IFF) you choose to NOT act according to a particular desire (THEN) you are STILL acting on a DESIRE to NOT act on a particular desire. You are (EITHER) automatically deferring to a hierarchy of personal desires (OR) acting as the result of an uncaused, perfectly spontaneous, unique causa-sui or uncaused-cause (indistinguishable from random noise, completely outside of your ability to control).
C: Therefore you do not choose your actions, [your actions are the result of an automatic desire hierarchy and or some combination of desire hierarchy and uncaused, uncontrollable random noise] Free Will doesn't exist.
I'd restate C as,
Any action you take that is "WILLFUL" (intentional) is the direct result of some DESIRE which is the result of the causal chain (NOT isolated from "external-causes"). A "WILLFUL" action is a caused action. A "WILLFUL" action cannot ever be considered "FREE".
Any action you take that is "FREE" cannot ever be intentional. In order for it to be "FREE" it must be free from all previous events. Any action you take that is "FREE" from all previous events is, by definition, indistinguishable from random noise.
NO COMBINATION OF "FREE" AND "WILLFUL" CAUSES CAN EVER GENERATE A "MORAL" "CHOICE".
My argument for science could be summed up as follows:P1: Scientists are capable of predicting behavior before a decision is madeP2: Scientists make this prediction solely on the basis of subconscious brain activityCon: Therefore the person does not choose their actions, Free will doesn't exist
This is a very seductive argument that I avoid like the plague.
The "freewillers" always take refuge in an "appeal to ignorance".
They love to claim that since humans are "unpredictable", that means they have "freewill" (quantum mechanics).
You can never "win" this battle because there are (probably) always going to be "unpredictable" human actions.
It's a lot like the familiar "gods in the gaps" argument (you don't know what happened "before" the "big-bang"???? therefore god$).
Of course they DON'T argue that since dogs and spiders (and automobiles and tornados for that matter) are not "perfectly predictable" that they must ALSO possess the magic-fairy-dust of "freewill".
Anyway, arguing that humans ARE predictable simply plays to their (perceived) "strengths".
Your best argument isn't for DETERMINISM, it's for INDETERMINISM.
DETERMINISM precludes the existence of "freewill".
INDETERMINISM ALSO precludes the existence of "freewill".
And if they say they know for certain that they have "freewill" because they FEEL like they have a "real" "choice", then try and gently point out to them that what they call "freewill" is simply an emotion.
If you can FEEL something, but can't logically justify it, then what you are experiencing is an EMOTION.
If you can FEEL god($) love, that in-and-of-itself is NOT evidence for the existence of god($).
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.
When you become intellectually aware of your own mental framework and moral instincts.
That is the moment from which you can build outwards.
The point I'm trying to highlight here is that we do not need to know, "the origin of the cosmos" BEFORE we can figure out what to eat for lunch.
Our internal models are built from inside us.
Epistemologically, imagine you are an orphan growing up on a distant planet.
You don't need to know who your parents were and or what they believed or what they thought of you in order for you to find lunch.
We all start with OURSELVES.
You (your earliest flicker of self-awareness) is the origin of you.
Now, you may hear some stories about some god($) or whatever and decide that those are "true" and relegate yourself to "worm" status.
But YOU did that to YOURSELF.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
[52] You are mistaken. Atheists can invent a fixed standard. That is what Christians do : they invent agod that comes equipped with a fixed moral standard, which Christians choose to rely to construct their own moral standard.
I am unable to detect or logically distill a "fixed moral standard" (deontological ethics) from Christians (or anyone else for that matter).
Here's my best offer,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF.
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY.
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it is voter fraud, this election was stolen
The Problem
In response to the need to upgrade outdated election systems, many states and communities are considering acquiring “Direct Recording Electronic” (DRE) voting machines (such as “touch-screen voting machines” mentioned frequently in the press). Some have already acquired them. Unfortunately, there is insufficient awareness that these machines pose an unacceptable risk that errors or deliberate election-rigging will go undetected, since they do not provide a way for the voters to verify independently that the machine correctly records and counts the votes they have cast. Moreover, if problems are detected after an election, there is no way to determine the correct outcome of the election short of a re-vote. Deployment of new voting machines that do not provide a voter-verifiable audit trail should be halted, and existing machines should be replaced or modified to produce [paper] ballots [receipts] that can be checked independently by the voter before being submitted, and cannot be altered after submission. These ballots would count as the actual votes, taking precedence over any electronic counts.
Election integrity cannot be assured without openness and transparency. But an election without voter-verifiable ballots cannot be open and transparent: The voter cannot know that the vote eventually reported is the same as the vote cast, nor can candidates or others gain confidence in the accuracy of the election by observing the voting and vote counting processes. [**]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Now I am not saying that the meanings cannot change with use if enough people like the new buzzword or new meanings for the word. When that happens, another definition is added to the word meaning in a dictionary.
I'm ever so glad we can agree on this crucial point.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
First thing they say in an introductory stats class. Numbers are never wrong. Whoever uses them will definitely be wrong in some way. P-hacking is a real thing.
Samuel Clemens reminds us there are three types of lies,
(1) Lies.
(2) Damn Lies.
(3) Statistics.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"Smart" people also say a lot of "dumb" things as well...
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
I read till post 175. Then laziness overcame me.
I applaud your ambition.
I usually read the first page of the topic and then skip to the end and read them in reverse order (I use "likes" to keep my place).
If the conversation is productive (and I hope this one is a good example) then the salient points should become compressed towards the tail end of the discussion.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I suspect you're conflating "wrong" and "morally wrong" with "illegal." Keep them distinct as one has nothing to do with the other.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
He claims God's moral preferences are universal and authoritative and therefore he adopts God's moral preferences and in his opinion we should to.
The "YHWH" seems to have some strange "moral preferences".
Specifically when it comes to slaughtering the children of "non-believers" and keeping foreigners and their children and their grandchildren in "perpetual servitude".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Undecided voters are so stupid it is insane. To even think they can't pick from the two before the debates has started shows the lack of understanding of the platforms. A debate won't change that.
This seems to be an indictment of "traditional style" debate, or all forms of debate generally and not specifically an indictment of the proposed "self-moderated" debate framework.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
It's like a fire department quickly and safely extinguishing a house fire in spite of the Fire Marshall's constantly running 5 gallon cans of gasoline into the house while tweeting out that the rafters are aflame.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Remember this quote the next time a politician in Authority tells you to "listen to the science and trust it"
Trust the science (only after rigorous peer review), distrust the scientist.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
We're not arguing with the Dr. Ayyadurai here, we are arguing against your use of such a notoriously bogus source.
And you're doing quite a fine job of it as well.
Look, I don't give a flying flip about who the hell said it.
All I know is that a horde of rabid Trumpists are out for blood and the American election system has no redundant integrity checks.
Telling the horde "you're a bunch of dumb conspiracy nuts" isn't going to calm them down.
In-fact, it's been proven to make them even more rabid.
I appreciate the links you provided that very specifically addressed the apparent statistical anomalies.
I am forever indebted to you.
Created:
-->
@Castin
In a perfect world I would have the time to analyze the content of every source no matter its pedigree. But I just don't have that much time and in the real world I have to take shortcuts like "Okay if Alex Jones is saying it, it's ignorable."
Ignoring a claim is NOT an ad hominem attack.
Please feel free to ignore any claim at any time for any reason.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
the counterargument is not "3RU7AL is a liar and his argument therefore disproved"
Let's take a look at your actual statement from [POST#7]
the counterargument is "3RU7AL's claim lacks any credible evidence in support"
Oh, really?
Is that what you meant when you said,
"I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorists whose false reports have previously led to major retractions of claims from the Washington Post and the Smithsonian Institute (Ayyadurai absurdly claims to have invented email while attending high school in 1979, 8 years after the first documented emails were transmitted) Ayyaduria went to MIT but that doesn't make his analysis an "MIT analysis" MIT does publish a well respected voter analysis 6-8 months after the vote. Hell, Michigan won't even publish an official vote count until Nov 23rd. Do we really think MIT is analyzing data that hasn't been published yet?"
Hmmm, I can't find the part where you say anything at all about the claim itself.
Created:
-->
@Castin
An attack on a person rather than their arguments.
I agree.
In other words, foul play in a debate environment.
How is this "attack on a person rather than their arguments" specific to "a debate environment"?
I mean, if, hypothetically, someone called another member a "conspiracy theorist" or "a complete idiot" in the forums (and not in the "debate" section of this esteemed website) wouldn't that still be considered an ad hominem attack?
Not "a questioning of the credibility of a source of information." In other words, fair play in a journalistic, scholastic, or scientific environment.
Attacking a person, rather than their arguments, would seem to fit the definition of an ad hominem attack in ANY setting.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content.
The idea of "consider the source" is 100% "to the person" and not "to the claim".
This is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".
Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".
Created:
-->
@oromagi
(the % of split-ticket Trump voters MINUS the % of straight-ticket Republican voters)
Excellent point.
You can never add or subtract percentages.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That's not ad hom, that's just how trustworthiness works.
It's the very definition of an ad hominem attack.
Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Thanks for the links!
And, here's a similar analysis of Trump versus Biden in the light of Benford's Law,
Created:
-->
@oromagi
So in the parable of the boy who cried wolf you would accuse the villagers of making ad hom attacks against the boy if they ignored his persistent cries of "wolf" even after the boy was regularly proved to be trolling.
This is a perfect example.
The entire point of that story is to highlight exactly why it's so important to evaluate EACH INDIVIDUAL CLAIM ON ITS OWN MERIT.
If you remember the parable, the villagers were eaten by the wolf at the end because they ignored valid warnings.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Antrim County reports 19,836 active voters as of October 2020 - - [**]
In 2016 in Antrim County, Trump got about 62% support, beating Democrat Hillary Clinton by about 4,000 votes. - - [**]
Political observers had expressed shock early Wednesday when the county transferred numbers to the state showing Biden beating Trump by about 3,000 votes. Antrim is a Republican stronghold where local GOP officials have mostly run unopposed in recent elections. - - [**]
Between 1884 and 2016, Antrim County voters have selected Republican candidates in 32 of the 34 national elections. In 2016, President Donald Trump won the county with about 8,500 votes -- nearly twice as many votes as former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received in the county. - - [**]
So, it appears that the vote count in Antrim County did not go 100% for Trump.
If Biden was ahead by 3,000 and 6,000 Biden votes were switched back to Trump, that leaves Trump with a lead of about 3,000.
This gives Trump with a much narrower lead than the tally in 2016 when Trump reportedly won by 8,500 votes.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't think its an ad hom to point out that Dr Ayyadurai is a famous conspiracy theorist...
Any data presented with the aim to discredit the PERSON (while ignoring the substance of their specific CLAIM) is, quite technically, the very definition of an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I do greatly appreciate the skepticism.
However, simply ad hominem attacking Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai does nothing to address the actual CLAIM.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
They have to construct scenarios they cannot prove but theorize...
THAT'S CALLED, "ACKNOWLEDGING EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS".
Only a fool would claim to know things that they don't have any way of validating.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
What the data shows for Oakland County is that there were actually a sizeable number of democrat voters who diverged from their party to cast a vote for Trump for president, with what looks like an average of about 7% of democrats voting for Trump, with anywhere from 2% to 20% higher than expected Trump support among precincts with 80% or more democratic voters. But then, starting from precincts with populations which are about 20% republican, a linear trend begins, where the more republican voters a precinct has, the more likely a republican candidate is to not vote for Trump. This is an impossibility; the curve is too perfect, proof that a mathematical algorithm is responsible. Because while it is certainly reasonable to suspect that a large number of republicans may choose to vote against Trump - after all, his isn't your typical republican, or even your typical politician for that matter - there is absolutely no way this would naturally occur in such a way to create such a curve. There is no plausible reason whatsoever than can explain why only those republicans in areas more heavily populated with republicans are so much more likely to vote for Biden than republicans living in areas populated with higher numbers of democrats, and not only that, but that this relationship is proportional.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I appreciate the skepticism.
AND, I certainly don't want to believe any of this either.
But I can't seem to find any direct links to Alex Jones.
Citation please.
Created: