Total topics: 100
Once upon a time there was a strong tree.
This tree was the largest tree in the area.
One day, an acorn asked the tree how it grew so strong.
Well, little one, the tree replied, I was once a little acorn just like yourself!
I didn't fall in exactly the ideal spot, with the richest soil, there were many rocks around and it was a bit sandy, but I made the best of my situation, kept my chin-up, dug down as deep as I could, sprouted in the spring time, that's important, then I diligently soaked up as much water and minerals and sunshine as I could.
I had a few competitors around that time, other acorns had sprouted, and there was a lot of tall grass and weeds, but I just kept a positive attitude and did what came naturally.
The little acorn asked, what happened to the other saplings?
Well, the tree explained, they were all cut down by the farmer.
The little acorn asked, why were they cut down and why did the farmer spare you?
The tree thought for a second and then replied carefully, they were inferior, they weren't true to themselves, the wise farmer knew that I was the best and spared me because only a sapling with my work ethic and authenticity could grow into such a mighty tree.
The farmer even placed this nice picnic table in the shade of my branches to reward me for being superior.
That's amazing! The little acorn exclaimed, I'll follow your advice because I want to be just like you!
A whole year passed and the little acorn grew into a formidable sapling.
And then, in the spring, the farmer came to clear the brush.
The sapling was unceremoniously uprooted and bundled up and carried away with all the overgrown grass and fallen twigs.
With it's last dying breath it asked the strong tree, what did I do wrong?
The tree shrugged, you just didn't have the talent for it kid. You doubted yourself. You didn't suck up enough water and minerals and sunshine. You weren't true to yourself.
It's your own fault.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
It's a simple question.
(IFF) you don't have a reason (THEN) you are by definition an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
(IFF) you claim to have a reason but refuse to reveal it, claiming it is secret, or unimportant, or "just too complicated to explain" (THEN) your unrevealed reason is functionally-indistinguishable from NO reason (AND) you are therefore functionally-indistinguishable from an un-reasonable person (a person who acts without reasons).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
"If you know not, then you can say not that it's linear." - this is a classic appeal to ignorance.
An appeal to ignorance is commonly used to defend unfalsifiable claims (like bigfootspacealiens).
Here's the problem.
There are only two possible options.
(EITHER)
(1) your thoughts (and actions) are contextual (caused by previous experiences, including your biology).
(OR)
(2) your thoughts (and actions) are random (uncaused by any previous experiences).
If you pick #1, then your thoughts (and actions) relate to your memory and the world around you (contextual). This means your thoughts (and actions) are potentially USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
If you pick #2, then your thoughts (and actions) don't necessarily relate to anything at all. And as a matter of fact, statistically, it would be extremely unlikely that any RANDOM thought or action would be even remotely or incidentally USEFUL TO YOU AND OR OTHERS.
Now you might try to mix the two options, some caused, some uncaused, and that's fine.
Your useful thoughts and actions MUST BE CAUSED.
YOur "free" thoughts and actions are TAUTOLOGICALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE (99.999% of the time).
SOURCE CONVO
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Click to watch 7 minutes, [LINK]
One of my Christian friends shared this high-quality presentation with me.
It basically uses the book of Job to illustrate that humans are ill-equipped to determine what is ultimately "good" or "evil".
Taken at face-value, it basically dismantles Abrahamic Law.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Belief is not a "choice" any more than love is a "choice".
YOu CAN "choose" to follow someone or "choose" to DO or NOT-do some particular thing.
You can't simply "choose" to believe or disbelieve in anything.
I can't stop believing in air.
I can't stop believing in water.
I can't "choose" to believe in Santa Claus.
I can't "choose" to believe in unicorns.
Belief is simply NOT a "choice".
For example,
I can't "choose" to believe in space-aliens.
I don't believe in any particular space-aliens (gods).
I do believe that some, non-specific space-aliens (gods) MIGHT be discovered at some point in the future.
If you ask me "is this or that specific space-alien (gods) logically possible?" - YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
If I told you I knew the secret to the meaning of life and ultimate truth, but I refused to tell you exactly what it was, WOULD YOU BELIEVE ME?
Oh yeah, I know it.
TOTALLY.
Just trust me.
And if you don't believe me, YOU MUST BE A DIRTY COMMIE CANNIBAL!!
You can't go around telling people you "follow supercoolawesome objective eternal principles" and then REFUSE to provide a LIST.
How can you "follow" something if you don't know exactly what it is or exactly where it is?
The whole point of "objective principles" is to provide PRACTICAL REAL-WORLD-GUIDELINES that are NOT subject to OPINION.
Any "objective principle" would necessarily be OBVIOUS and easily identifiable to everyone everywhere. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
(IFF) there is variation in the interpretation of the holy scriptures (multiple Christian denominations) (THEN) the holy scriptures cannot be the true and plain, infallible, perfect, literal word of an all-wise and all-knowing god.
Nobody disputes the existence of a particular copy of the holy scriptures.
I can present the book and any two people, regardless of their preconceptions, can agree the book exists.
The words are also not in dispute. The words exist. We can agree on the words printed on the page.
I can even generously grant that this book and these words are "the one and only true and infallible word of god".
Great. That's great. We agree on that much. We agree up to that point.
The trick is, that even if we agree on everything up to this point, 100%, we still DON'T agree on the APPLICATION of those words.
How does this perfect book and these perfect words INFORM my daily life?
What PRACTICAL VALUE does this perfect book actually have?
That's the bright line.
That's the line between FACT and OPINION.
That's the line that clearly demarcates Catholic from Episcopal, that specific line is what distinguishes between Baptist and Methodist.
In one part it says, LOVE THINE ENEMY, and in another part it says, KILL ALL ENEMY CIVILIANS INCLUDING CHILDREN AND LIVESTOCK (except for the virgin females of course, give them to the Priests as servants for the rest of their lives).
What MEANING am I supposed to glean from this?
I want what the Christians promise. OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Real-world, unambiguous, yes or no answers that are not context-sensitive.
When god says, "kill the child who curses their parent", THEN KILL THEM.
When god says, "one who marries a divorcee commiteth adultery" and "kill adulterers", THEN KILL THEM.
These are unambiguous statements. We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.
SOURCE CONVO
You don't know that.I'm pretty sure I do know that, and you can too, by applying simple logic.
Nobody disputes the existence of a particular copy of the holy scriptures.
I can present the book and any two people, regardless of their preconceptions, can agree the book exists.
The words are also not in dispute. The words exist. We can agree on the words printed on the page.
I can even generously grant that this book and these words are "the one and only true and infallible word of god".
That's the bright line.
That's the line between FACT and OPINION.
That's the line that clearly demarcates Catholic from Episcopal, that specific line is what distinguishes between Baptist and Methodist.
In one part it says, LOVE THINE ENEMY, and in another part it says, KILL ALL ENEMY CIVILIANS INCLUDING CHILDREN AND LIVESTOCK (except for the virgin females of course, give them to the Priests as servants for the rest of their lives).
You are making a claim about something we cannot know. We are using this world's rules to apply to a place we don't even know exists.This is not an intractable problem. These are real-world questions that demand "objective" (not-opinion-based) real-world answers.
I want what the Christians promise. OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Real-world, unambiguous, yes or no answers that are not context-sensitive.
When god says, "kill the child who curses their parent", THEN KILL THEM.
When god says, "one who marries a divorcee commiteth adultery" and "kill adulterers", THEN KILL THEM.
These are unambiguous statements. We know how the ancient Israelites interpreted these laws. This is not up-for-debate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Watch (Rick Sanchez) video explanation here, [LINK]
Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one's self-interest.[1] Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer can be considered ethical in this sense.
Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and "the self" to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one's own interests (as altruism does) to help others' interests, so long as one's own interests (i.e. one's own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others' interests and well-being, but he has the choice to do so.
Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e. subject-focused or subjective). However, utilitarianism is held to be agent-neutral (i.e. objective and impartial): it does not treat the subject's (i.e. the self's, i.e. the moral "agent's") own interests as being more or less important than the interests, desires, or well-being of others. [LINK]
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The flip-side to zero-censorship is
that everyone needs to be able to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION so we don't get herded like sheep by the mass-media (PR = Propaganda = Cambridge Analytica).
For example, we all get suckered when we fall for terms like, "good for consumers".
It sounds nice. It even gives me a warm feeling inside when I hear it mentioned in the news.
But what they're hiding is, that while whatever BS they're pushing may seem "good for consumers" it's definitely not good for small businesses and it's not good for privacy rights and it's not good for individual content creators and it's not good for workers.
Please buy as much as you can, create nothing, and turn your brain off.
Then you'll be the perfect "consumer" and everything will work out just fine.
In order for SCIENCE to work properly, ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES MUST BE PUBLISHED with 100% of their raw data.
If the raw data is "proprietary" or "top-secret" or "lost" then it's PSEUDOSCIENCE and should be treated as such.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
In order for new ideas to thrive and give regular creative people a chance to thrive, COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO 20 YEARS.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
In order for GOVERNMENT TO WORK PROPERLY AND TO INSURE INTEGRITY AND ELIMINATE CORRUPTION all government records must be made PUBLIC. Preferably on a public BLOCKCHAIN.
NO MORE BACK-ROOM DEALS. NO MORE INSIDER TRADING. NO MORE NEPOTISM. NO MORE LIES.
ZERO-CENSORSHIP.
In order for SCIENCE to work properly, ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES MUST BE PUBLISHED with 100% of their raw data.
If the raw data is "proprietary" or "top-secret" or "lost" then it's PSEUDOSCIENCE and should be treated as such.
In order for new ideas to thrive and give regular creative people a chance to thrive, COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS MUST BE LIMITED TO 20 YEARS.
In order for GOVERNMENT TO WORK PROPERLY AND TO INSURE INTEGRITY AND ELIMINATE CORRUPTION all government records must be made PUBLIC. Preferably on a public BLOCKCHAIN.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.
The government should act as a referee.
Now imagine if you had a sports league where the most powerful teams openly advocated eliminating referees.
wHY do you think they would do that??
Or if they promised referee's well paying jobs when they retired from being referees.
wHY do you think they would do that??
Or if they managed to get their former coaches and or other personnel and or their relatives installed as referees to officiate their own games.
wHY do you think they would do that??
Imagine if certain teams sponsored extravagant "educational" seminars for referees that emphasized how great their players were and how much their team contributes to community spirit and local business, especially when they win games. When we win, our whole town wins!
THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T THE REFEREES THEMSELVES, OR EVEN THE IDEA OF REFEREES IN GENERAL.
THE "PROBLEM" IS CORRUPTION.
Government As Referee Framework (GARF)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Steve VS Hogan
starting at 38 seconds
ending at 5 minutes 25 seconds
> Steve: Does the house process make the impeachment process any more fair?
LOGIC: #1 asking about "fairness" is OPINION NOT FACT (CRITICAL ERROR, FLAG ON THE PLAY, BUG IDENTIFIED). #2 It is the same process the republicans used to impeach Clinton so it stands to reason that (IFF) it was fair enough for Clinton (THEN) it must also be fair enough for Trump. It would be categorically UNFAIR to use a different process.
> Hogan: 2 things, 1st thing, I dispute your premise, Trump was primarily concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption. Ukraine was rife with corruption.
LOGIC: ABSOLUTELY 100% DODGES THE QUESTION (ABOUT FAIRNESS). You can dispute a premise, but you then need to explain exactly what you think that premise is and your REASONS for disputing it. Simply saying "i dispute the premise" is not CARTE BLANCHE to just ignore the interviewer and start SPOUTING YOUR TALKING-POINTS.
> Steve: Just to be perfectly clear, you said the premise was incorrect? I've carefully reviewed the transcript, and the president asks about a couple of specific things. #1 a conspiracy theory involving crowdstrike and the DNC server, and #2 involves Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. Those are the ONLY things the president asks about regarding Ukrainian Government Corruption.
LOGIC: Steve mentions "the premise" (still unspecified), and then forgets all about his fairness question (1st interview question!) and instead follows Hogan's RED-HERRING. And then pointedly questions Hogan's bald assertion that Trump is very concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption. Crowdstrike is not part of the Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden is not part of the Ukrainian Government. (IFF) you are concerned about UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION (THEN) you should be investigating UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
> Hogan: What he didn't talk about were his political rivals for 2020. I remember when democrats used to care about what happened in the 2016 election, that's what he was talking about and quite frankly [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT] which is making sure the money we give to our allies is spent wisely. I understand that democrats don't care how we spend taxpayer dollars at home much less abroad, but this president does.
LOGIC: Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING. Trump never mentioned 2020. This is a non-sequitur. Nobody is claiming that "Trump mentioned 2020". The actual implicit claim is that Trump IS THINKING ABOUT 2020 A LOT, SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THE WORDS 2020. The "fact" that Trump never mentioned 2020 on the call is 100% MOOT. Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING.
POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED. Hogan, out of the blue, says he remembers when democrats used to care about 2016. This is a statement of opinion which is stated as fact, conflating opinion with fact. It is also PROVABLY FALSE. Just ask one person, any person who calls themself a democrat, just ask them if they "care about what happened in 2016" and see if their answer contradicts Hogan's opinion stated as fact.
Wildly off-topic, [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT].
Are you sure you want to talk about that? Is this the same president who lost the popular vote by over 2 million? Can you perhaps answer the very first question of this interview mr. "landslide"?
We need to make sure our allies spend the money we give them wisely. That sounds nice, but the problem is it is a statement of PURE 100% OPINION. There is absolutely no way anyone can determine if American allies will spend the money they are given "wisely" or not. There never has been and there never will be. Is it wise to pursue a conspiracy theory about the hacking of a DNC server in 2016? Is that really the wisest way the UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WHO IS BASICALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA AT THE MOMENT, is that really the most important thing for them to be doing?
If Trump is really super concerned about a DNC server hack from 2016, why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION??????????????????????????????????
Hogan closes his statement with another RED-HERRING, POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED, the democrats don't care about how tax money is spent. Same as before, this statement, bald-assertion, opinion stated as fact, IS PROVABLY FALSE.
> Steve: Please wait a second, we've gotta correct a fact here, you said the president did not ask about a 2020 rival, the record shows, the white-house record of the call, the record you released says, Trump asked about Joe Biden, so that is totally false what you just said. Why did you say that false thing?
LOGIC: (1) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
> Hogan: In relation to the 2016 corruption, he wasn't talking 2020 and you and your listeners know that.
LOGIC: (2) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
> Steve: How is Joe Biden involved in the crowdstrike thing exactly?
LOGIC: (3) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Logically! The question is, [where does pure-subjectivity leave us] if there is no objective absolute standard and our beliefs are different regarding the same subject matter?
That is why we have conversations.
Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.
When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates [de facto] mercenaries).
When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates [de facto] cowards).
When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates [de facto] slaves).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let's approach this with pure logic.
The term, Anti-Fascist does not specify what it is FOR, only what it is AGAINST.
The term, Anti-Fascist implicitly endorses any conceivable action (censorship/protest/violence) that impedes perceived Fascism.
(1) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against violence, then you are a PACIFIST.
(2) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against ALL censorship, then you are a HATE-SPEECH-ADVOCATE.
(3) If you object to "Anti-Fascism" because you are against public protests then you are a FASCIST.
IF you call yourself an "Anti-Anti-Fascist" then you must specify which of these 3 options you are supporting.
And just a reminder,
FASCISM IS:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a (de facto) dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. Source
This seems to accurately describe China and Turkey and Russia.
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) abortion = murder
(IFF) abortion = murder (THEN) miscarriage = manslaughter
(IFF) miscarriage = manslaughter (THEN) personal privacy = impossible
(IFF) life begins at conception (THEN) every conception (copulation) must be registered with the state (life-certificates must replace birth-certificates)
And if you think "no way, that'll never happen", think again.
It's already happening.
Police in Pleasant Grove, Alabama, charged Marshae Jones, 27, with manslaughter after she had a miscarriage from a gunshot wound [INFLICTED BY AN ASSAILANT] in the abdomen.
An Alabama woman who reportedly suffered a miscarriage after being shot in the abdomen has been charged with manslaughter in the death of [HER OWN] fetus.
Marshae Jones, 27, of Birmingham, was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury on Wednesday and was ordered jailed on $50,000 bond. She was accused of starting a Dec. 4 fight with another woman who fired the shot, AL.com reported. [LINK]
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I don't believe ideas (Qualia) can be owned like property (Quanta).
Ideas have none of the essential characteristics of property and it is a category error to claim that ideas are property.
Even the term, "intellectual-property" is like a mind-trap that infects your whole world-view.
For example,
Your scathing critique is requested.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.
The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
**But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**
Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.
Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods. Intelligently designed.
Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.
This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.
Basically, we're back to square-one.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This interview featured at the beginning of Terry Gilliam's 1985 masterpiece "Brazil" is the perfect response to any criticism of your favorite government/organization/religion/philosophy.
Why do you think people are protesting in Hong Kong or Occupy Wall Street or the Iraq-Afghanistan war?
Why do you think atheists seem so upset about religious influence in government?
Why do you think the Apache and Comanche and Mahican tribes attacked immigrant villages?
"A ruthless [stupid/savage/gutless/disingenuous] minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old fashioned virtues.They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win.If these people would just play the game, they'd get a lot more out of life."
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Here are two examples of "the greater good" opposed to "individual freedom".
First, vaccination. "the greater good" argues that although some people have violent reactions to vaccines, the cost is vanishingly small, so even if you or someone you love has been harmed by one or more vaccines, your suffering is of little concern to "society at large" because statistically, way more people suffer way less under mandatory vaccinations.
Pro-Vaccine vs Anti-Vaccine: Should Your Kids Get Vaccinated? [LINK]
Second, climate change. "the greater good" argues that although some people have significant negative economic impacts as the result of environmental policies, the cost of doing nothing is catastrophic to all humans, so even if you or someone you love has been harmed by environmental policies, your suffering is of little concern to "society at large" because statistically, way more people will suffer under the status quo.
Climate Change Activists vs Skeptics: Can They See Eye To Eye? [LINK]
Do you believe we should steamroll individuals in pursuit of "the greater good"?
Do you think we should perhaps consider ways to mitigate the suffering of individuals, no matter how "insignificant" it might seem to the enlightened masses?
Do you think we should demonize detractors and paint them as "idiots" who "deserve what they get"?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Many people seem to think that poor people are poor primarily because they are bad people.
Poor people are lazy, fundamentally and incurably stupid and/or evil (criminal), or intellectually deaf and blind.
Case closed. Let's all go back to our bubbles.
For example,
We reason that it's ok for Mario to kill goombas because they're dumb and they're in his way. [LINK]
POOR = BAD IS A MYTH.
It's the same myth that allowed American settlers to massacre scores of "godless heathen savages" because they're dumb and they're in their way.
Let me ask you a question,
(1) Do you believe that every infant has an equally fair shot at becoming a billionaire?
I'm going to guess you would answer "no".
Let me ask you another question,
(2) What do you believe are the primary factors that grant some infants an ADVANTAGE over the others?
Here's an interesting hypothesis, [LINK]
Your scathing critique is requested.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Clearly stated premise:
The average American school gets about $20,000.00 per year per-child.
Conservatives have been pressing for a while now to get that per-child funding converted to a voucher, ostensibly to fund private (often religious) charter schools. They (post-hoc) rationalize this as a "free-market solution".
This seems problematic on its face for a number of reasons, separation of church and state for one, but more significantly because these private schools are not required to have the same oversight as public schools and are not required to make the same accommodations for students with special needs.
However, imagine for a moment that instead of handing these vouchers to private for-profit institutions, the parents had the option to CASH IT IN THEMSELVES.
Imagine how many mothers and fathers could stop working long hours to make ends-meet and could instead spend more time with their kids.
Financial stress is a major contributing factor for divorce and marital strife which both have demonstrable negative, often life-long effects on children (contributing to anti-social behavior, depression, suicide and criminality behavior).
If everyone had the option to get a supplemental income of $60,000.00 per year to home-school their 3 children, don't you think they'd jump at the chance?
It wouldn't affect inflation because it's not NEW money, it's just the same money that's already being spent, it would just be going to different people (trickle-up economics).
Welfare, for people with children anyway, could practically disappear overnight.
Imagine the former public school teachers working as private tutors with (for example) six students and making $120,000.00 a year.
(1) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer criminals?
(2) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer school-shootings?
(3) Do you think this proposal (Fix-US) would generate more or fewer cases of child abuse/neglect?
Your scathing critique is requested.
The dissolution of the core family unit and the associated break-down of social trust is a fundamental contributor to crime.Please speak up if you disagree.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
When does cheating payoff?
When does cooperation payoff?
When does forgiveness payoff?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Ben Shapiro is interviewed by Andrew Neil.
Some people are touting this as "Andrew Neil demolishes Ben Shapiro".
But the more I watch this, the better Ben looks. I think his only "crime" is being unprepared for the interview.
My guess is that Ben is justifiably overconfident.
There are some very fine people on both sides.
Check out this sharp analysis from a fellow journalist's perspective. [LINK]
The rhetorical tactics seem to be typical of what you've likely already encountered on this site.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Should one person's rights be sacrificed for the potential benefit of humanity?
What is a person exactly?
What is the basis of human rights?
Here is an interesting logical dissection of these and other questions viewed through the scope of TNG. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Mississippi’s so-called “religious freedom” law went into effect today, opening up the LGBTQ community to widespread discrimination.
HB 1523 allows anyone citing a religiously motivated reason to deny goods and services to the LGBTQ community, as well as those who have sex outside of marriage, or anything else that might rub their dogmatic sensibilities the wrong way.
It comes on the heels of Attorney General Jeff Sessions issuing guidance memos on behalf of the Trump administration to steer the Justice Department in a similar direction, giving wide protections to those who discriminate in the name of their religious beliefs. [LINK]
Does anyone know what part of "The Bible" makes denial of service to sinners mandatory?
I know it says "gay = bad" in a few places, but it also says "divorce = bad" and "shellfish = bad" and "picking up sticks on a Saturday = bad".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Why do you think that Christians are often the most vocal opponents of immigrant rights and minority rights and homosexual rights and slow to forgive repentant terrorists?
Because we as Christians often do not practice what we preach or obey God and are too quick to judge others instead of giving them grace as we have been shown grace.
The way I see it:
Immigration rights - I do not oppose immigration but it should be legal immigration. Criminals bring problems and immorality to a country.
Jerusalem and many cities in ancient Israel had walls for a purpose, to protect those within the walls from evil for the times, just like ours, had lots of evil.
Minority rights - the minority should have the same rights as the majority, not special rights just because they are in the minority unless they have a disability and need additional care, IMO.
Homosexual rights - the Bible teaches some things are wrong because God created humanity with a union of a male with a female in mind as a reflection of a greater truth. This relationship also produces offspring and God command humanity to go out and multiply. A homosexual relationship does not allow such a natural family unit. I believe the best relationship for a family is one that supplies both a male and female influence and example.
Having said all that, I still recognize that it is not mine to judge whether a person is to be saved or not. My responsibility is to know what is right and wrong. If I meet a homosexual person I still recognize they are made in the image and likeness of God [although marred by the Fall] and deserve dignity and respect from me just like God has shown to me, but I do not see the sexual act between gay people as right per the biblical teaching.
Repentant terrorists - I am all for second chances, just like I have been given one. That does not mean that a society should leave wrongful acts unpunished. Where would the justice be in that? But it is not my job to dispense justice but to show the love of Christ to every person in treating them with love and respect, but also to act justly. Now, I shamefully fall short of these qualities often. That is why I am so thankful for what Jesus has done for me - unmerited grace, something I do not deserve yet God mercifully gave! [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
In 1915, the RMS Lusitania, a British ocean liner en route from New York to Liverpool, was sunk by a German U-boat 11 miles off the coast of Ireland.
A little over two decades later, America’s entry into WWII came when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, killing over 2,400 American servicemen and civilians.
Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, which suggested dividing the country up and putting its administration in the hands of the Allies, including the Soviets. When the newly-founded UN put that plan into action in 1945, Korea was arbitrarily divided along the 38th parallel, with the US administering the South and the Soviet Union administering the North.
August 2nd when the USS Maddox, a destroyer supposedly on a peaceful mission in international waters, reported a surprise attack from North Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Israel attempted to get America involved in the [Six Day] war by attacking the USS Liberty, a US technical research ship collecting electronic intelligence just outside Egypt’s territorial waters at the time of the war.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH: . . . babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor…
Nayirah Al-Sabah, daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States. Her testimony had been written for her by Hill & Knowlton, a PR agency hired by the Kuwaiti government-supported astroturf organization, the “Citizens For A Free Kuwait,” to help sell the Gulf War.
Reports about chemical weapons stashes were reported on before they were confirmed, although headlines boldly asserted their existence as indisputable fact. And any media personality that showed skepticism about the claims being made—even wildly popular ones like Phil Donahue, host of MSNBC’s then highest-rated program—were summarily removed from the air.
But for the would-be controllers of public opinion, a valuable lesson was learned: “Human rights” and “protecting the innocent” is a more effective lie to sell to the public to motivate them for war. So when it came time to sell the war on Libya to the public, the UN-backed, NATO-led aggressors once again donned the cloak of “human rights” by turning to none other than the UN’s Human Rights Council.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The stock market has no business being larger than the economy. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
“If I were to run, I’d run as a Republican. They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific.”
Going on YouTube to find the video now returns zero results. Searching Facebook where it was initially shared returns the same thing. Yet these searches harbor hundreds of comments from other people stating that they too have seen the video which has seemingly gone missing, as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZtfSIgsH1o, and here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NtE8GISBhM , etc.
Which raises the following questions:
- Why aren't all of Trumps full interviews available anywhere? 3 minute clips of Oprah are cute, but not full factual interviews. (copyright arguments would be waived as the information now falls under fair use: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/, however YouTube takes things down at anyones request as their system is so broken it spawned numerous protests that even got the CEOs attention (#WTFU, #MakeYouTubeGreatAgain, etc.))
- If YouTube's claim system is this easily exploitable and copyright was stopping Oprah, Howard Stern and the like from being uploaded, why are selective parts from those interviews that paint Trump in a positive light the only ones allowed to stay? Last time I checked, Fair Use for things like educational purposes didn't just cover the parts of them that make someone look good (see: Coke/Pepsi branding laws in movies.)
- Why is the quote in question suddenly being attributed to People Magazine when the words were spoken on video?
- Why, if the video does hopefully turn up, were Google's search results hiding everything as far back as 1993?
- Why again, if the quote supposedly came from People Magazine, is - "Trump republicans ...'are stupid'" - the number one most-searched autocomplete result on YouTube, the place people go to find videos?
- The idea that a video is being copyright flagged on both YouTube and Facebook the instant it's uploaded is not out of the realm of possibility. There's a reason finding SNL clips is so hard.
- The misattribution of the quote (to People Magazine, instead of the original videos source) is a tactic that has been around for decades used to fool people into thinking something didn't happen/wasn't true and - it's more important purpose - to stop people who actually do their research from researching the given subject further and deter them from finding out what truly happened.
- The obvious argument that Trump calling people names is virtually his campaign slogan at this point so the idea of him saying something that harsh/that way is absolutely within said realm of possibility.
- The peculiar fact that it appears as if no one has even raised the question of whether or not the quote was true on Reddit.
- And arguably the biggest issue, of whether or not the ecosystems involved (YouTube, Google, Facebook...) have become closed enough - and the public has become comfortable enough - to truly let something "disappear" in 2016. (Shoutouts to /r/news.)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In Highlandtown, life changed overnight. Federal agents across the country immediately arrested 98 Italian “aliens,” including ten in Baltimore. The agents identified their targets with the help of the Census Bureau. [LINK]
Italian-Americans had faced prejudice for decades by the time the order was drafted, says Guglielmo. Italians were the biggest group of immigrants to the United States who passed through Ellis Island for much of the late 19th and early 20th century; between 1876 and 1930, 5 million Italians moved to the U.S. Not without backlash: By the 1920s, pseudo-scientists and polemicists in the 1920s popularized the notion that Italians were a separate race from Anglo-Americans. [LINK]
The same chill settled in Connecticut. One morning in spring 1942, federal officers knocked on the door of a New Haven home. The man who opened the door, Pasquale DeCicco, was a pillar of his community and had been a U.S. citizen for more than 30 years. He was taken to a federal detention center in Boston, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and held for three months. Then he was sent to another detention facility on Ellis Island.
Still with no hearing scheduled, he was moved again to an immigration facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. On July 31, he was formally declared an enemy alien of the United States. He remained at Fort Meade until December 1943, months after Italy’s surrender. He was never shown any evidence against him, nor charged with any crime.
EO 9066 not only allowed the government to arrest and imprison “enemy aliens” without charges or trial—it meant their homes and businesses could be summarily seized. On the West Coast, California’s attorney general Earl Warren (later the Chief Justice of the United States) was relentless in registering enemy aliens for detention.
Even Joe DiMaggio’s parents in Sausalito weren’t spared. Though their son, the Yankees slugger, was the toast of New York, General John DeWitt, a leading officer in the Western Defense Command, pressed to arrest Joe’s father, Giuseppe, who had lived in the U.S. for 40 years but never applied for citizenship papers. DeWitt wanted to make a point: “No exceptions.”
2 minute video summary. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The Jesus was a real, historical human being.
The (historically verifiable) prophecies of the Jewish and Christian scriptures are 100% true.
Neither of these things lend the slightest credibility to either the Jewish or Christian religious beliefs.
In the exact same way,
Gilgamesh was a real, historical human being.
The (historically verifiable) events and prophecies of the Epic of Gilgamesh are 100% true.
Neither of these things lend the slightest credibility to the ancient Sumerian religious beliefs.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
"Instant Prison". Kinda like "Total Recall", but instead of an exciting vacation adventure you get the memories of 20 years in a state penitentiary.
Just imagine a nice, mild mannered accountant whose been caught embezzling millions of dollars. "Instant Prison" and send him home to his wife and kiddos. WTF do you think might happen? - sounds like a pretty good episode of black mirror to me.
This is also like "strange days" and that episode of TNG where picard gets zapped and lives a "lifetime" on an alien planet.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The original fighting words doctrine was born out of Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted of disturbing the peace for yelling at a local sheriff, “You are a God damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist” and for further remarking, “the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.” The Supreme Court upheld his conviction, creating a narrow category of speech—“fighting words”—that did not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. The fighting words doctrine, as originally announced in Chaplinsky, found that two types of speech were not protected—words that by their very utterance inflict injury, and speech that incites an immediate breach of the peace. [LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
His cure is relatively simple, or at least relatively simple to acquire – all the ingredients are available in pharmacies, or online.
To prevent the hangover, Bishop-Stall will quaff – after drinking but before sleep – milk thistle, for the liver; the amino acid and immune system aid N-acetylcysteine; vitamins B1, B6 and B12, which boost metabolism; and that famous gift to Jesus, frankincense – an anti-inflammatory.
So no more sickness, no more pain. No more bothering doctors. But one thing Bishop-Stall still hasn’t managed to crack is “the tiredness, lethargy and grouchiness” that has more to do with a lack of deep sleep than the booze itself.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
A logic zombie is someone who blindly follows logic no matter how ridiculous the conclusions may be.
For example, you can't just blindly follow logic into idiotic beliefs like determinism and solipsism. These are obviously intellectual black holes with no utilitarian value whatsoever.
A logic zombie is just a person who can't face reality and who won't be honest with themselves.
A logic zombie is someone who never takes personal responsibility for their actions and instead blames logic for their moronic and misguided attacks on well established and incontrovertible truth.
You can't depend on logic for everything. People know deep down what is right and what is wrong. You know the truth. You just need the courage to face the facts.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Everything that is considered a "mystery" or "sheer opinion" is, in-fact, PERFECTLY LOGICAL.
The "mystery" is simply a consequence of Private Axioms.
Before Democritus, people believed the weather was (fundamentally) unpredictable and reasoned it was subject to the (mysterious and inscrutable) personal whims of the gods (which were also presumed to be fundamentally unpredictable).
Democritus figured out that, with proper data, weather can be predicted.
Democritus identified the Axioms of weather patterns.
Pythagoras observed the natural world, very carefully, and noticed (among other things) that musical notes that "sound right" are comprised of strings that have particular proportions relative to each other.
Pythagoras did not invent music of course, he did not even invent the idea of instruments, but he devised an occult (secret) system that he only shared with his most trusted acolytes (and even murdered those who might share this occult system with the uninitiated or his rivals, the followers of Cylon), this occult (secret) system applied, not only to music, but to nearly all observable natural phenomena. Those lucky few who knew the code were better able to predict outcomes than everyone else.
The code dispelled the precious "mystery".
The physical world always functioned according to logic, but the axioms were unknown and therefore the physical world appeared to be "unpredictable".
Pythagoras identified the Axioms of nature.
It seems insane that so many seem to love and protect the "mystery" (appeal to ignorance) so much.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Because our universe would have been created by a transcendent consciousness (not comprised of the physical universe itself) if deism is true.
This is a logical non-sequitur. "transcendent" and "consciousness" are terms relative to human experience.
The Deism hypothesis adds zero information to "The Big Bang".
It is merely an ontological choice to say, "The Big Bang" / "Noumenon" = god(s).
This implies that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental and is therefore in direct opposition to atheism.
Nobody except nobody believes "matter is fundamental". Noumenon is fundamental.
In genetics, scientists have coined the term "junk DNA" for strands of DNA they believed had no functional role in sustaining the organism because it had been left over from evolving.
Terms like "chaos" "randomness" "dark energy" and "junk DNA" are merely scientific placeholder terms that mean "we have no flipping clue".
If a deity created the universe, this is an avenue for life to have been designed.
This is another logical non-sequitur. We have no idea if the human concept of "designed" either has or does not have any conceivable corollary to something like the Noumenon. This hypothesis is beyond our epistemological limits. And would seem to be a consequence of the anthropomorphic fallacy.
Rather than mindlessly compiled, DNA can be viewed from a design-first approach. And as it turns out, less and less DNA is discovered to be "junk."
Identifying complex patterns and or previously unidentified uses and or "purposes" of "junk DNA" does nothing to "prove" "design".
Such a development would be exactly like the hundreds of years of scientific progress where we discover knowledge that was previously unknown.
Before Democritus, people thought the weather was "fundamentally unpredictable" and when Democritus was able to predict the weather with some modicum of accuracy, the people began to worship him as a god. To his credit, he did his best to explain to everyone that he was just a normal human being, just like the rest of them.
Deism is functionally identical to atheism.
[LINK]
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
(IFF) free-will is proportional to intelligence (animals and infants have less, adult humans have more)
(AND) free-will is proportional to moral culpability (without free-will there is no moral culpability)
(THEN) intelligence is proportional to moral culpability.
Please feel free to modify any of the above statements (axioms) to better fit your "moral intuition".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
So you believe in unfalsifiable theories
No, I accept they are unfalsifiable and as such, may or may not be true pending further data.
I only "believe" in TAUTOLOGY.
For example, "cause and effect" is demonstrable.
Inductively (don't forget Humorous Hume), we can reason that "if cause and effect" is presumed to apply to all possible phenomena, then determinism is true.
TAUTOLOGICALLY "cause and effect" either applies to all phenomena or it does not (applies to some but not all).
Can you or anyone else prove that any particular phenomena has no cause and thus violates "cause and effect"?
Well, some people will point to the unpredictability of the quantum flux as possible evidence of non-causal phenomena.
However, it is currently impossible to know or demonstrate if the unpredictability of the quantum flux is evidence of non-causal phenomena.
Unpredictability itself is only evidence of lack of data (appeal to ignorance).
HOwever, we can compare unfalsifiable claims and logically deduce the ramifications.
For example,
"Cause and effect" may only apply to some things and not other things.
Any phenomena that is non-causal would necessarily be indistinguishable from random.
A mix of causal and non-causal phenomena is unfalsifiable (in-determinism), but also TAUTOLOGICALLY accounts for all possible options and does not conflict with scientific data and is parsimonious.
The concept of in-determinism is superior to determinism because it accounts for all possible variables (TAUTOLOGY).
Although multiple, competing hypotheses may be technically unfalsifiable, they can still be compared based on logical coherence and TAUTOLOGICAL comprehensiveness.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother.
Awesome. So now conservatives are going to pass a bill that gives all women free embryonic extraction at 5 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Finally!! A perfect solution to everyone's favorite political firestorm!!!!!!!!!!!!
This will probably slash abortions in half OVERNIGHT and probably by 75% over the next year!!!!!!!!!!!
IT'S A NEW ERA!!!!!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
WONKAPIERCER!!
Part One - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX52h1TvuA
Part Two - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygYlxTxSaCM
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Please do not post your answers to these questions.
I found this interesting because people who score low on this test seem to be more successful socially.
Self-Deception Questionnaire
Gur, R. C , & Sackeim, H. A. (1979). Self-deception: A concept in search of a
phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37. 147-169.
Questions: (not at all) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much so)
1. Have you ever felt hatred toward either
of your parents?
2. Do you ever feel guilty?
3. Does every attractive person of the
opposite sex turn you on?
4. Have you ever felt like you wanted to
kill somebody?
5. Do you ever get angry?
6. Do you ever have thoughts that you
don’t want other people to know that you
have?
7. Do you ever feel attracted to people of
the same sex?
8. Have you ever made a fool of yourself?
9. Are there things in your life that make
you feel unhappy?
10. Is it important to you that other people
think highly of you?
11. Would you like to know what other
people think of you?
12. Were your parents ever mean to you?
13. Do you have any bad memories?
14. Have you ever thought that your
parents hated you?
15. Do you have sexual fantasies?
16. Have you ever been uncertain as to
whether or not you are homosexual?
17. Have you ever doubted your sexual
adequacy?
18. Have you ever enjoyed your bowel
movements?
19. Have you ever wanted to rape or be
raped by someone?
20. Have you ever thought of committing
suicide in order to get back at someone?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
In my understanding, id is your inner-child (gimme ice-cream), ego is your adult-inner-voice (get out of bed and go to work), and super-ego is your old-wise-grandparent (people tend to act selfishly, try not to take it too personally) who has a detached curiosity and broader, more abstract overview of how the world functions that is less ego-centric.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Plato's Parable of the MMORPG,
Once upon a time there were a number of people who lived in complete darkness and the only thing they could see was their computer screens.
What they saw on their screens was their reality.
The only other people they knew were people in-game with magnificent costumes and weapons.
Sure they had to fumble in the darkness in order to microwave a quick meal, or find their bed when they were exhausted, but those were merely incidental inconveniences.
Only the game was real. Only the game was shared experience. Only in-game places and people and items were quantifiable, able to be observed and verified and shared with other players (quanta).
Sometimes an individual would try to explain what kind of food they ate or describe their room (private/personal/unshared knowledge, gnosis) but since none of this information was directly relevant in-game and was fundamentally unverifiable, it was dismissed out-of-hand as unintelligible nonsense. In fact, even the language they had developed had evolved exclusively for in-game interactions, so there really weren't any proper words for "food" or "room" that were not specifically in-game references, and even more than that, since there was no taste, touch, or smell in-game, there were also no words to properly describe those sensations as well.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Why should I vote?
If I'm happy with my elected officials
I should vote to keep them
If I'm unhappy with my elected officials
I should vote to remove them
If I think it doesn't matter
It will always get worse
Can you identify the logical fallacies?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Warning: Do Not Vote
Voting for a democrat is a waste of time.
Democrats want to steal everything from hard working Americans.
Republicans will cut your taxes.
Democrats want to punish hard working Americans.
Republicans want to reward you for being a good citizen.
America First.
Can you identify the logical fallacies above?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
(2) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."
(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).
(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).
The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).
(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.
However, a surprising number self-described atheists believe in other obviously false concepts without question.
Below are just a few examples of faith based beliefs held by many atheists.
1) Free-Will
This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human happiness" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human happiness".
You will also hear the very common "we can't possibly know therefore I choose to believe". This is exactly the same as the theist that argues for "god in the gaps".
The fact that Free-Will is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.
2) Objective Reality
This is often defended as "an essential prerequisite to human sanity" the exact same way that religious people try say that religion is "an essential prerequisite to human morality".
The fact that Objective Reality is logically unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration is dismissed out-of-hand.
3) Infinity
Phrases get tossed around like, "infinite potential" and "infinite possibilities" and "the infinite cosmos". Max Planck has shown that our reality is NOT infinitely divisible, and we can extrapolate logically that human potential may be "unknown" but it is certainly not "unbounded".
The fact that Infinity is logically impossible and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific explorationis dismissed out-of-hand.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Civil Debate - Rule One: You cannot redefine truth.
Every definition of truth requires facts.
Facts are indisputable.
Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense must agree on the facts.
If you and your opponent disagree about a fact, you must immediately stop the debate and negotiate the point of disputed fact.
Civil Debate - Rule Two: Do not disqualify your opponent.
Just like a boxing champion, you are only as good as your opponent.
Ridicule is below the belt.
Use logic.
Your identity cannot qualify or disqualify sound logic.
Civil Debate - Rule Three: Only your opponent can award points.
When your opponent makes a valid objection, you have the option to award them a point.
Valid objections strengthen your argument.
Help your opponent strengthen their position by presenting a steel man.
The best debates are the ones that force you to learn something new.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy