Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
As such, I think we might want to defer to el Maestro's word choice here as correct and appropriate.
argumentum ad verecundiam
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They are young for that. The Middle East is certainly not better. Protecting oil interest.
most people don't realize the united states currently controls the largest oil fields in syria
what the good 'ol US of A was trying so hard to do in afghanistan, they actually accomplished in syria
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
do you remember saying this ?
do you stand by this specific claim ?
Created:
To be honest I think Texas should just be allowed to secede as it wanted in the Civil War. The Confederate States should be offered to secede. There should be a time period of free emigration and immigration between the States beforehand and let things pan out. The US will be fine, the Confederate states will realise the problem with their rigid and backwards ways in due course. It is unhealthy to blackmail them into staying as part of US, let them do their own thing and perish, they will realise their error and come knocking and pleading later, then you let them rejoin the US and there will never be a pip again.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the otherthat does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"He never claimed it did, neither has anyone I am aware of.This was literally the point he was making about democrats being held to a higher standard. Falling short of being “objectively good” is not an argument against voting for them or for voting republican.
and i never claimed anyone was making that claim either
the key "problem" here is that some people think we should rally behind "democrats" because they are "less wrong"
and other people
don't see the point in voting for people who continually break their promises and own stocks in the industries they set the rules for
they are technically corrupt
we can do better
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
MOR CHEAP LABOR TO HALT INFLATION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Proposition A: GRALISTROPE IS REAL
Proposition B: GRALISTROPE IS NOT REAL
which do you accept and which do you reject ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
My primary objection is that your suggested re-definition, "a lack of belief" is much weaker and much more confusing than the present state of affairs.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. [WIKI]
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [LEXICO]
Atheism: lack of belief in the existence of God or gods [OXFORD]
Atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods [WEBSTER]
This is "the present state of affairs".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Logical necessity.....Logic clearly varies between individuals, so individually logic is necessary but collectively logic is unnecessary as it cannot be pinned down.
logic is the only thing that can be "pinned down"
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
My brother and his wife are both retired veterans and they would never suggest people don't arm themselves. Their experiences led them to believe the government's capable of anything.
never forget vietnam
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Imagine thinking you actually are a more advanced human being than the number of people on the planet simply because their personal experience has led them to believe there is something after this life whether it's God or an afterlife. Imagine not trusting yourself so much that you think you have the right to say to other people they should not trust what they feel and experience because it's not your experience and that makes you wrong and beneath them. Now imagine that person trying to say they're more moral, more intelligent and more accepting of other people than you because of that belief. It's hypocrisy and it's self-loathing and it's bigotry.
some atheists are good
some atheists are bad
some theists are good
some theists are bad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So show me GOD and I will add it to my list of certainties.
what we need is an explicit definition of "god"
and an explicit definition of "exist"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
and this defies common sense.
"common sense" is rarely if ever a benchmark for "good decision making"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
“[Ford said] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.”
― Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Sure, it’s not great - I’d really prefer them not to it; but are we really not going to talk about the election denying crazies as if they’re the actual problem?
the point here is that when people donate money to the "democrats" i'm sure they never intended that money to be funneled into the coffers of the most extreme lunatics on the "right"
which is clearly amplifying their voices and in some cases, actually getting them elected
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes - I understand why they are doing it; I completely disagree with it. It could easily backfire.
it has already "backfired"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
significant support for QAnon and various other conspiracies, including rejection of the election results.
strangely, i've actually been listening to FOX radio and other "conservative" talk radio stations over the past year
in order to contrast "what they claim" with radio stations such as NPR and BIN
and "the conservatives" are very clearly PRO-VAXX (the radio hosts even brag about how many boosters they've received)
"the conservatives" are very clearly ANTI-J6 PROTEST (saying they "went too far when they entered the capitol building")
"the conservatives" routinely refer to Q as "unhinged crazies" and specifically describe alex jones as "despicable"
"the conservatives" repeatedly make the point that "biden was fairly elected"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I think that pretty solidly spells out many of the clear reasons why one side is objectively far worse than the other.
even iff you "prove" one side is less-wrong than the other
that does not make the less-wrong side "objectively good"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Fact = confirmation of what exists via empirical evidence.
and or logical-necessity
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
that does not exclude belief from the consideration of fact
and at the same time, "belief" does not require "fact"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Truth = what exists without empirical evidence.
truth is defined as "in accordance with facts"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Belief is a state of mind. Specifically, it’s the acceptance of something as true.That is categorically different from the question of whether there is evidence to support a claim or whether something is considered a fact.
well stated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
What part of this are you under the impression contradicts anything I’ve said?
[POST#169] (PAGE 7)
Semantics is using words to distort ideas in order to make it seem like a valid point is being made when it is not.
this claim is not supported by your citation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not need to believe this, because I know this.
the question is HOW
HOW do you "know this" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
"A robot is logical but a robot is not reasonable."
you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
though reason tells us that a circle must have a specific length defined by some real number eventually.
you're conflating "common sense" with "reason"
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
when all else fails resort to ad hominem attack and rush to declare victoryDo you believe this TWS105 guy? He was a Corporal in the Army and then a bounty hunter and he thinks he’s Frasier Crane.I’m guessing he “retired” at 45 either on disability or nobody would hire him.He has a blog that shows how he suffers from White Fragility and status anxiety.
commenting on the speaker themselves (with the aim to discredit and or disqualify) instead of addressing their arguments
is the very definition of an ad hominem attack
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Nope. An observation of fact.
you are conflating fact and opinion
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Clearly your comprehension of understanding each term and their usage is subpar.
another ad hominem attack
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Intellectual coward is NOT an ad hominem.
any comment on the speaker is an ad hominem
and a red herring
Created:
-->
@oromagi
because not all logic is reasonable.
please explain
Infinity is logical but not reasonable.
no, no it is not logical
The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
please explain
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Intellectual coward.
when all else fails, ad hominem attack ad nauseum
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Truth is truth no matter how you try to slice it.Prove him right, and me wrong if you disagree.Otherwise, fuck off.I have ZERO patience for the ignorant.
and with edits
and another ad hominem
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Truth is truth no matter how you try to slice it.Prove him right, and me wrong if you disagree.Otherwise, fuck off.
naked assertions
and now with commands
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Intellectual coward - Dunning Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort.You lose
when all else fails
resort to ad hominem attack
and rush to declare victory
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m all for bringing down the oligarchy - if we can have a valid conversation and agree on specifically who that is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
This is the bright red elephant in the room - until they are normal again and part of a robust political conversation - instead of sitting in threads trying to drive the conversation off the rails to stop other people talking - pretending that there is no appreciable difference between the sides empowers that side and that side alone.
guess who is funneling millions of dollars into the campaigns of the lunatics ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But right now; we appear to have predominantly one side that includes a substantial number of unhinged crazies, that isn’t living in reality, and is becoming increasingly authoritarian and tending towards functionally fascist.
which "side" are you describing here ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The knee jerk of the libertarians and third parties - is that both sides are as bad as each other. It’s not true either.
please explain how obama was substantially "better" than bush jr
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
3rd party is definitely the answer. It's the ONLY SIDE any sane person should be on.
RCV FTW
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
when the townsfolk are grumbling and forming a mob to storm your castle
the best thing to do is to spread rumors
that the pitchfork people want to outlaw torches
and the torch people want to outlaw pitchforks
crisis averted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Equating the two sides in this respect is part of the same underlying attempt at misinformation; to muddy the waters, and drag the conversation into a place where reality and facts don’t actually matter any more.
well, what we really need is a trusted third party
as long as people think one of the TWO SIDES is "good" and the other is "bad"
they're playing right into the hands of the oligarchy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Definitive evidence without belief is definitive evidence.
perhaps you might be kind enough to provide an example
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.Perhaps instead of host posting articles, either of you two can explain why we are still having this conversation? What is your point?
I'M QUOTING YOUR SOURCE
THIS IS YOUR SOURCE
WHICH SEEMS TO CLEARLY CONTRADICT YOUR POINT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Are you conceding that the status quo is sufficiently representative of your personal preference?
Yes.
As I've repeatedly tried to make clear to you, it has never been my intention for "lack of belief" to be used to the exclusion of all other descriptions.
this is not a "concession" of the entire debate
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Who would you consider a superior intellectual? Just curious.
Peterson v. Zizek DEBATE
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
from your own link
“It’s Just Semantics”
So what does the phrase really mean? It’s usually a shorthand way of saying, “That’s trivial or unimportant,” or “Now we’re just arguing about the meaning of words.” It can also be a way of saying that both sides mean the same thing but use different language to express it. In short, you can agree to disagree because the dispute is negligible.
“That’s just semantics” or “You’re just arguing semantics” might pop up when debating controversial topics, but it doesn’t have to be a stopping point. If semantics is all about meaning, then perhaps the speaker should be saying, “We just disagree on meaning.” But questioning what the other person means is what most good debates are about.
If the disagreement is really about word choice, that wouldn’t be covered by semantics. That would be covered by lexicography or diction. But, “You’re just arguing lexicography” doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Created: