Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
when "dealing with reality"
a belief in "the jesus"
or a lack of belief in "the jesus"
appears to be immaterial
from a pragmatic perspective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
to deal with the above issues is unrealistic
and also "unpragmatic"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigmaIt's your position that Bigfoot isn't fact by reason of its not being demonstrated using the scientific method and verified by multiple independent review teams who've rendered their conclusions at ideally a 95% confidence level?
yes, that and my perceived "lack of necessity" of a belief in an absolutely "factual" bigfoot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I understand. And I would be at liberty to ask, "what counts as 'conclusive' evidence?" which is tantamount to having you justify what IS and IS NOT fact.
i need to be able to verify the existence of the item in question myself, personally
or, alternatively receive confirmation from a "trusted-source" that, and this is critical, i personally consider reliable on such matters
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Likely yes, but if I'm going to state that the content of your claims isn't fact, which is more a testament to its not meeting certain evidentiary measures, then it would be incumbent upon me to explicitly state and justify my evidentiary measures to substantiate my case of "not fact."
i disagree
simply because someone presents a claim
that does not magically transfer the burden-of-proof
from the speaker to the recipient
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The whole congress not reading the bills they vote on thing is a total travesty.
they should probably be required to at least pass a 20 question quiz
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Society would be worse off if there were no CPS institutions to keep abusive parents in check.
please explain
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine if your 5 year old child insisted she was a thermometer and wanted to take a teaspoon of mercury every day.Would you die on the "my body my choice" hill?
PARENTS are legally responsible for the welfare of their own children
CHILDREN have some level of autonomy, but do not have full SELF-OWNERSHIP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
There are people who have a mental illness that causes them to want a healthy limb or hand removed. Is it ethical for doctors to go along with this? should such a practice by legal?
self-ownership is the foundation upon which all "rights" are set
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What I still don’t get is why? Why this hill? What is so important about this issue that it rises to the top of the list
exactly
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Vici
if the CDC really cared and really believed they were doing the right thing, we should still be locked down - in terms of public health, we are FAR WORSE OFF than we were 3 years ago - we literally have 4 variants of COVID, monkeypox and a whole host of other virus' yet where are the lockdowns? This is an inherent contradiction in the science mongering liberals.
bingo
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Why the “left” is so much better at institutional capture is a complicated question and one I haven’t cracked yet.
both sides value "loyalty" but are quick to exclude people who step outside the lines (Milo Yiannopoulos)
the "left" is better at institutional capture because they are more logically consistent
it always boils down to "the greater good" for the "left"
the "right" also pursues "the greater good" but they frame it as "jesus says" and also hamstring themselves with purely superficial talk about "personal freedom" and "small government" and "free market" which are very often contrary to "the greater good"
the "right" loves to talk about "states rights" but won't hesitate to expand the power of the federal government when it suits them (PATRIOT ACT)
the "right" loves to talk about "live and let live" and "get government out of your personal life" but also demands to know when you get pregnant and what you look like naked and other "icky" stuff between consenting adults
the "left" doesn't get bogged down with these "talking points" and just says "the greater good" for everything (Wickard v. Filburn)
and of course, this makes it easy to shift policy to anything they wish, because "the greater good" is quite amorphous
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
In a situation where a minor, the minors parents, and their doctor all get together to discuss a possible medical procedure, who do you believe should get to decide what happens next?It shouldn’t be legal to cut off a 13 year olds breasts or genitals for elective reasons. I’ll die on that hill.
medical privacy is sacrosanct
no politician should ever interfere with personal medical decisions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
But soooo many white families missed that boat too. Most of them. I don’t see a reason why any policy has to be race specific. For example one of the things I most fervently support is transitioning the school system to something closer to the German model where the kids who aren’t going to college learn trades and take on apprenticeships instead of prepping for a college career that never comes.
well stated
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The answer would have been obvious to anybody who is pro-democracy: vote the motherfuckers down
ok, it seemed like you were trying to find some other way of disqualifying them
have you considered proposals for fully transparent and fully auditable voting systems that protect individual voter identification data ?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
"by that single attribute universally disqualified for office in any democracy"
how do you propose we exclude these people from the democratic process ?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Not sure what you're confused about.people who don't believe in the success or worth of any project tend to work towards the manifestation of those beliefs.Therefore people who don't believe in the success or worth of any project make objectively poor leaders for that project if success is the ultimate goal
what leads you to the conclusion that "Trump and his supporters are not pro-democracy"
and furthermore,
what leads you to the conclusion that "by that single attribute universally disqualified for office in any democracy"
this claim appears to be "anti-democratic"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logical necessary. What is the criteria in the determination of empirical demonstration and logical necessity? What conditions must a proposed idea, concept, or object meet in order considered empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary?
generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma
NOUMENON is an example of a concept that is logically necessary but not empirically demonstrable
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Trump and his supporters are not pro-democracy and by that single attribute universally disqualified for office in any democracy.
please explain
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
all (positive) claims require a case to be made for themotherwise they are naked claims (bald assertions)No, all affirmations of claims require a case to be made for them--their being "positive" or "negative" notwithstanding--less they be considered bald assertions.
ok, all claims that propose the addition and or subtraction and or modification of one's ONTOLOGY require a case to be made for them
generally one does not ask for evidence either in support of something they already believe or contrary to something they already do not believe
for example, if i made the claim
your mother is NOT your "real biological mother"
you would probably demand some sort of compelling evidence before accepting this type of claim
Case in point: if you and I discovered an unopened box, and before opening it, I stated, "there must be a tennis ball in there," and you stated, "there must not be a tennis ball in there," you are no less obligated to present your case than I am. Now let's change it and consider that I stated, "there must be a tennis in there" and you stated, "a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true." Your case isn't to prove that there ISN'T a tennis ball in there, but to delineate and explicitly state your reasons behind your claim "a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true."
"a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true."
this statement is very nearly indisputable
i guess it could be reframed as,
"i am currently unaware of any conclusive evidence that would justify a positive believe in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box"
and implicitly,
"if you are currently aware of conclusive evidence that would justify a positive belief in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box, please share it with me"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
yes, and this is the case for everyone, whether they realize it or notSo when you state that FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY, that's a personal statement?
every statement made by a person is a personal statement
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Is the determination of fact necessarily contingent on your personal ontological gauge?
yes, and this is the case for everyone, whether they realize it or not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for you claim that Bigfoot IS NOT [provably true/fact/empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary]--proof of falsehood notwithstanding.
all (positive) claims require a case to be made for them
otherwise they are naked claims (bald assertions)
for example,
if i claimed that bigfoot stole my toothbrush
would you believe me ?
the default when confronted with an unfamiliar proposed idea, concept, and or object
the default is to maintain your ONTOLOGY as it was BEFORE such a proposal
that is the default
no change to your ONTOLOGY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
P1: Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessaryP2: Bigfoot IS NOT empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary.C: Therefore, Bigfoot IS NOT a fact.State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for P2.
here's another example
applicants for entry to my ONTOLOGY are like people interviewing for a job
i may or may not give them a chance to present their case, depending on the urgency of vacancy
if i find a "pretty good" applicant, i may decline to interview other applicants whom i may not have yet considered
i do not currently have a position available for "FACTUAL" BIGFOOT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
P1: Facts must be empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessaryP2: Bigfoot IS NOT empirically demonstrable and/or logically necessary.C: Therefore, Bigfoot IS NOT a fact.State explicit reasons which serve as the basis for P2.
that's not how this works
you choose which guests are allowed to enter your home
you do not owe anyone an explanation for NOT allowing them into your home
very few things are provably true
very few things are provably false
most things are NEITHER
by stating that bigfoot is NOT "provably true"
i am NOT suggesting that bigfoot is "provably false"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACTState explicit reasons you claim that Bigfoot is not empirically demonstrable. Bear in mind that I've already ascertained your description of fact. Furthermore, I'm already aware of your suggestion that Bigfoot is fiction. Now, I'm asking for the reasons which serve as the bases for these claims.
imagine that everywhere you go, there is a twenty three foot bubble around your head
this bubble is a smoky gray so you can see through it, but only if you focus
there are representations of the things that are important to you personally inside the bubble
like your home, your close family members, your job, your personal possessions etcetera
the stuff inside your bubble is your ONTOLOGY
sure, you "know of" "other things" "outside" your bubble, but all the critical and interesting stuff is INSIDE
now, every once in a while
someone who is already inside your bubble, proposes that you ADD SOMETHING to your ONTOLOGY
now, you can't just go adding everything you see and hear, because you'd get all cluttered up in a hurry and you'd have trouble organizing things
so there must be some criteria
either conscious, or sub-conscious
some criteria that must be met, BEFORE you add something to your personal ONTOLOGY BUBBLE
for me, that bar is set at "fact"
bigfoot does not clear that bar
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Liz Cheney famously broke with her family in 2013 by opposing gay marriage ahead of a failed Senate bid. Her objections caused a rift with her sister, Mary, a married lesbian. Mary's spouse, Heather Poe, posted on Facebook that year that Cheney's position was offensive and that “I always thought freedom meant freedom for EVERYONE.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Virgin births are rare today because women take contraceptives to prevent that from happening. And when that fails resort to Abortion. This is why Christian men are against abortions. They believe it stops Jesus from return as promised, obviously through another virgin birth.
great point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Its true that this doesn’t really effect my life much (unless God forbid one of my kids falls into this trap and gets taken away from me because I refuse to “affirm” their gender—something that has happened.) But I think systemic child abuse of mentally ill kids is pretty much the epitome of evil.
A months long New York Times investigation has uncovered a digital underworld of child sexual abuse imagery that is hiding in plain sight. In part one of a two-part series, we look at the almost unfathomable scale of the problem — and just how little is being done to stop it. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Simply put, there is no equivalent on the left to Fox News.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, Biden stopped a Trump order to lower insulin costs, but it would not have helped most diabetics
A claim that Biden stopped a Trump executive order to lower insulin costs is true, but that order would have only helped low-income patients at select clinics. [**]
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes, Biden stopped a Trump order to lower insulin costs, but it would not have helped most diabetics
A claim that Biden stopped a Trump executive order to lower insulin costs is true, but that order would have only helped low-income patients at select clinics. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I DON'T ACCEPT THE CLAIMS OF OBSERVING BIGFOOT =/= BIG FOOT CAN'T BE OR IS NOT OBSERVED.My dispute is not with the former, but the latter to which your claim is tantamount.
BIGFOOT IS NOT A FACT
(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So secondary observers exhibiting an incapacity to corroborate or confirm physical evidence informs the negation of fact?
not necessarily the "negation" of fact
but the reasonable "lack of acceptance" of a proposed and not logically impossible "fact"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You stated, "BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY." Why?
hold on a second,
can we agree that there is an important difference between FACT and FICTION ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
THE PROOF OF THIS IS
FACT REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT
THE PROOF OF THIS IS
FACT REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION AND OR LOGICAL NECESSITY
BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION
AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY
(pro tip: you can counter this by providing your personally preferred definitions of "bigfoot" and or "fact")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
a significant portion
have you seen the participation rates for primary elections ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The leftist position, if there is one here, is that these kinds of decisions should be left up to families and their doctors. I couldn’t care less what the statistics say, one day if my daughter is going through this I will go to a doctor with my wife, learn about and understand the issue, then make whatever decision makes the most sense. Til then voting based on this seems ridiculous to me.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARYYes, but that does not speak to your claim that one bears no onus when one affirms that Bigfoot does not qualify as fact. You only provided a description of "fact." Now speak to the claim "BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT" creating no onus.
for example.
if i tell you that x = 343.231
this may or may not be true
and you are not expected to believe me
and you are not expected to DISprove my claim
it is very clearly my burden (as the one making the positive claim)
to show proof
furthermore,
your failure to accept x = 343.231 (on my word alone)
does not, in and of itself
constitute a "counter-claim"
you are not calling me "a liar" simply by not accepting my claim prima facie
and you are not de facto claiming that x != 343.231
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOFWHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACTWhy is that?
BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Atheists have nothing to clarify.Failure to prove "God is fact" =/= Proof that "God ISN'T fact." Any atheist who affirms that "God ISN'T fact," bears an obligation to demonstrate "God ISN'T fact."
I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOF
WHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I'm doing this for THE GREATER good" is the siren song of the collectivist tyrant.
Created:
-->
@CoolApe
Nor do I think most people possess the qualifications to accurately answer the question.
human or not-human is NOT the question here
it's a simple matter of JURISDICTION
just like the recent supreme court case where a border guard shot a mexican kid
it was ruled "not murder"
and also, "not self-defense"
the dead kid's parents were not allowed to seek civil damages, because their courts do not have JURISDICTION over the shooter
Created: