Total posts: 14,582
-->
@Danielle
I wasn't talking about subsidies. I was talking about whether or not sellers were responsible for providing things that people could abuse or be harmed from.
(IFF) a drug dealer is "responsible" for the health impacts of their product (THEN) a baker is "responsible" for the health impacts of their product.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I specifically asked about whether or not he's saying it's okay to do things that may cause harm if it is deemed a "necessity."
I'm not making prescriptions.
It may be "permissible" (if not inevitable) to "cause harm" for something you personally consider a "necessity".
But before that question can be answered, certain primary axioms must be made explicit.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
For instance, oil is not the most ideal way to provide heat in terms of environmental concerns, but it is currently the cheapest and easiest way.
You might think so. But the "price" that is paid by you and me does not fully account for the zillions of dollars spent on military equipment and subsidies and tax-breaks and regulatory loop-holes enjoyed by a rather small club of multinational corporations.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.
Does this universal and unchanging principle still apply today?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
How does one measure whether any particular event is "good" or "bad"?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Or as Larson does, view it more philosophically as a desirable attribute and state of what is good for an individual or group.
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
This explains "the brain and the law" as well as anything I've run across so far, https://youtu.be/753cCnAXR6E?t=38
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
That only practical morality need be observed. That "justice" is an artificial construct which lends the understanding that any consequences visited upon someone for wrongdoing has the sole purpose of stopping the wrongdoing rather than "punishment" of the wrongdoer.
This explains "the brain and the law" as well as anything I've run across so far, https://youtu.be/753cCnAXR6E?t=38
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Is reason or a standard an authority?
Well, an appeal to reason is an appeal to LOGOS.
And an appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy (DOGMA).
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
What about your pre-existing desires? Are those independent of your intention?
Every action is in service of some desire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
While I believe God knows all things, including my heart, and whether or not I will abide by His commands, He still allows my agency to choose whether I will be obedient, or not, but He does nothing to force my hand.
OMNISCIENCE + OMNIPOTENCE = 100% CONTROL
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Oil is the cheapest way to provide heat but it's not the only way. Furthermore transportation is arguably a necessity, so if necessities justify oil subsidies you could make a case for why people need to move around.
Do you believe it's more efficient to give subsidies to international mega-corporations (MOBSTER CON-ARTISTS), or would it perhaps be a more efficient use of resources to instead give that exact same subsidy to, let's say, the bottom 50% of income earners?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I asked if bakers were evil for supplying delicious cake. Are you saying it's only evil if government helps the bakers?
We're not talking about "helping bakers".
The government subsidizes the production of sugar (corn syrup).
This really begs the question of what you believe the role of government should be.
Do you believe the production of a luxurious poison should be a primary goal of public funds?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Atheists and agnostics do not behave less morally than religious believers, even if their virtuous acts are mediated by different principles.
I'd say that they are mediated by the exact same principles (human empathy).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
And the difference is, he has the means to do it. Kim Jong Un is an example, so is Xi Jiping and many more dictators around the world.
Your examples should include some biblical references,
15 And Moses said to them, “Have you [a]spared all the women? 16 Behold, these [b]caused the sons of Israel, through the [c]counsel of Balaam, to [d]trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man [e]intimately. 18 But all the [f]girls who have not known man [g]intimately, [h]spare for yourselves. [LINK]
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do subjective standards meet what is necessary? If you think so, explain how.
Each individual is the arbiter of their own moral instinct.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, in hearing the gospel message, I came to believe.
You used your own reasoning and moral instinct to VALIDATE "the gospel message".
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
They can justify what is necessary for morality,
Did morality exist before Abraham?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What is relevant is whether there is a truth that is discernable.
Why can't Christians agree?
What practical value is an abstract "truth" if nobody knows what it is?
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Eh, that's a stretch and a stretch from the original question as well. I wonder: is the government evil for subsidizing Big Oil so poor people can have heat?
Are you conflating luxury with necessity?
Created:
-->
@Lemming
And so the foolish brute hammers away at friends and families, not even considering the idea of himself having control, or will over his own actions. . .
If you blame others for your own misery, you are making them more powerful than yourself.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Understanding apparent choice, can lead to such 'realities, as a person not lashing out physically in anger. But instead taking a moment to calm down, or go for a walk.
Determinism (indeterminism) removes blame from the individual.
This frees you to overlook any "personal" insult or apparent neglect.
There is no "reason" to become angry with "others" when you realize, "they're really and truly already doing the best they possibly can".
Created:
-->
@Danielle
People get heart disease from sugar - are bakers evil for selling you delicious cakes?
It might be "evil" for our tax dollars to be leveraged in order to subsidize the sugar industry.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
Re: oil, it's been found that implementing a lot of Green initiatives often have equal or similarly harmful negative effects on the environment (i.e. mining lithium for electric cars).
WE MUST DEMAND THORIUM REACTORS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I've just figured out why your "logic" is so easy to unravel:
I appreciate your scathing critique.
One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary QUANTA (emotionally meaningless).
OPINIONS must be personal, experiential, unfalsifiable, GNOSIS, private QUALIA (emotionally meaningful).
And then you say:It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
IMPORTANT = OPINION
IMPORTANT =/= FACT
First, you claim importance and reality are mutually exclusive,
More specifically REAL-TRUE-FACTS are necessarily emotionally meaningless.
...then claim that one importance is that we'er aware of epistemological limits.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Since importance, in your logic, is not real, nor are epistemological limits.
I'm sure we can both agree that "importance" is an abstract concept and NOT a concrete noun.
I'm sure we can both agree that "epistemological limits" is an abstract concept and NOT a concrete noun.
In fact, though you are self-conflicted by your own statements, it is true that we have no limits to our ability to acquire infinite knowledge, other than by our own applied limitations. Argue for your own limits; they're yours.
WTF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
He [GOD($)] knows what we will do in a given situation even if we do not.
I'm guessing you're a Calvinist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Probability, being a functional characteristic of knowledge,
There are a great many things that are predictable with more than 95% accuracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore, probability and randomness are not only not the same; they are virtually polar opposites.
Please provide an example of what you personally consider the best possible example of something "truly random".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Therefore if [but not also only if] probability is fundamental, it can reflect choice.
Please explain how "fundamental probability" is compatible with "choice"?
For example, if you can determine that a person has a 5% chance of developing cancer over their lifetime, does that make cancer a "choice"?
Or if a meteorologist determines there is a 95% chance of rain tomorrow, does that make rain a "choice"?
A "probabilistic" universe is an indeterministic universe.
And indeterminism is simply a combination of predictable and unpredictable data.
UNPREDICTABLE is incompatible with WILL.
PREDICTABLE is incompatible with FREE.
Therefore no "FREE" and no "WILL".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Our freewill or lack thereof is immaterial to the findings of science.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
No, but the same percentage will always be reflected depending on the thickness
So, would you say that whether or not each individual photon is reflected or not is functionally indistinguishable from a dice-roll?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't think probability and randomness are always the same. It seems dangerous to use them interchangeably
Would you object to, "functionally-indistinguishable-from-random"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
When we shoot photons at glass, for every 100, between 0 and 16 of them reflect. That's a probability. But it's nonrandom as the percent of reflection is directly proportional to the thickness of the glass.
Are you suggesting that if you know the quality and thickness of the glass, you can predict exactly which individual photons will be reflected?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My favorite is, "treat the foreigner who lives among you like the native-born. Remember that you were captives in Egypt..."
I'm not sure how that squares with "permanent multi-generational ownership".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't think probability and randomness are always the same. It seems dangerous to use them interchangeably
Is a roll-of-the-dice probabilistic?
Do we commonly consider a roll-of-the-dice "random"?
Where's the danger exactly?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"Indentured servitude" was only for fellow Israelites.
"Permanent multi-generational ownership" was "reserved" for the foreign-born-slaves.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The deification of one's will.
Did your will choose to embrace GOD($)?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
A life centered around the indulgence of fleeting passion is the life of a nobody.
Isn't life itself a "fleeting passion"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Higher people hear of the Tao
They diligently practice it
Average people hear of the Tao
They sometimes keep it and sometimes lose it
Lower people hear of the Tao
They laugh loudly at it
If they do not laugh, it would not be the Tao
Therefore a proverb has the following:
The clear Tao appears unclear
The advancing Tao appears to retreat
The smooth Tao appears uneven
High virtue appears like a valley
Great integrity appears like disgrace
Encompassing virtue appears insufficient
Building virtue appears inactive
True substance appears inconstant
The great square has no corners
The great vessel is late in completion
The great music is imperceptible in sound
The great image has no form
The Tao is hidden and nameless
Yet it is only the Tao
That excels in giving and completing everything
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
But is probability an expression of ignorance?
That's currently beyond our epistemological limits.
What we know for certain is,
(IFF) probability (randomness) is fundamental (THEN) it (randomness) is not a "CHOICE"
AND,
(IFF) probability is NOT fundamental (THEN) all interactions are inevitable (also not a "CHOICE")
So, the outcome is the same, EITHER WAY you slice it (TAUTOLOGY).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
Good thing we're such great pals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The primary rebuttal to determinism that I found to be somewhat convincing is the idea that certain things on the quantum level are probabilistic rather than causal. But is probability just an expression of man's ignorance?
The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)
(1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).
(2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).
(3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.
Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
We, as Christians live under a new covenant with God, different in some aspects from the Mosaic laws.
Which specific laws were carried over (unchanged) and which were not?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I can simply say that anything which offends Betty White is immoral but without some way of determining why something would be offensive to her (Betty White's primary moral axioms) this gives us no actionable data and we are right back to having to rely on our own moral intuition to determine what is and is not offensive to Betty White.
Well stated.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Nihilism can quite naturally lead to hedonism.
No it can't.
Nihilism leads to nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Though I do not know your heart, I can at least discern from the fruit that your heart is not pure.
I'd suggest that if your heart was impure, you might easily mistake a pure heart for an impure heart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Conform your will to The Truth.
I've already accomplished this, in-fact, my will and the truth are indistinguishable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
We are not showing love when we harm our neighbours.
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is threatening you and or your family?
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor is storing hazardous material on the edge of your property?
What does your law say is appropriate if your neighbor's dog eats several of your chickens?
Sure, I "love" them, but in a real-world-practical-actionable sense, how does that apply?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How much have they pondered the idea of justice among cats and dogs?
Are you suggesting that moral instinct is only accessible to the intellectually curious and capable?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The people under the ingluence of this spirit are unaware that they are possessed.
Has your account been hacked?
You seem slightly less chipper than I remember.
Created: