Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Opposition to a Sate will quickly evolve from individual to shared concept, into organised hierarchical opposition.
This does not substantiate the reason for equating "State" with "hierarchy." This is mere presumption.
Though it was you who dropped "opposition to a state" into the discussion.
It was you who sought to challenge and counterargue the argument I had set forth.
So unless you are going to be more specific, then State and opposition are going to remain hypothetical.
Go back and read that which I wrote about the State; as for "opposition," seeking removal would suffice in giving it description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Actually it doesn't. Which part of the below statement explains why I don't have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? I'm not looking for an itemized list of what rights we have, but there should be guidance on how to determine if something qualifies.
Because you're requesting description as to the reason you bear an entitlement to a specific action. You have no more a "right" to place your baby in a dumpster than I do to eating chocolate ice cream. We do have a right to our person and to behave said person as we see fit. It's about the fundamental; not any one extension of it. So let me repeat myself: Can you place your baby in a dumpster? Yes. Would it be deemed immoral by individualist moralism? No.
Why don't I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster? The only reason I wouldn't is if that somehow overrides the baby's rights, correct? Otherwise I would have the right to do anything I want to the baby just like I can to a stuffed animal or farm animal.
Let's analyze your statement using the description I offered. Does placing a baby in a dumpster infract on the inalienable right it has to live its life as it sees fit, to act in its own judgement, to keep and use the product of its effort, and to pursue the values of its choosing?
Really? Why wouldn't you for the sake of dialog make your position more clear by referring to an example you have in mind?
Because you and I are having this dialogue. A proxy for my position is unnecessary. If there's anything that you don't quite grasp in my explanation, then I will do my best to make it more clear. Furthermore, I typically hold myself responsible for the things I state and argue, not that of anyone else.
Sure, but I'm not really asking about moral culpability; just the existence of rights. You've been saying rights do not exist outside the scope of human understanding. What about human agreement then? Wouldn't humans not only have to analyze and understand what rights are, but also come to an agreement on what those rights are (how to determine if we have right to do X)?
The practice requires some form of consensus; the analysis/rationalization does not, given that arguments are neither validated nor invalidated by consensus--unless specifically referencing a consensus. One's participation in any moral system ought to be determined by his or her agreement. Can a group of people come together and form some agreement as to that which constitutes a right (e.g. Democracy?) Yes. That doesn't necessarily make it logically consistent.
You said rights come from human interpretation.
I said rights are moral concepts informed by an analysis of the human condition. But semantics...
I'm wondering if being human is a condition you have for rights (and if so, why that is).
Humans are moral agents and rational actors. Robots and non-human animals aren't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You've stated that Individualism is the one logically consistent interpretation of rights from human analyses. This description does not explain what the Individualist view on rights is.
Actually it does. It's the premise for all individualist moral arguments. There's no "Bill of Individualist Rights"; if you intend to present a laundry list of actions which we would then comb through to determine whether or not they're deemed moral under individualist moralism, then I'm game.
For instance do I have the right to put my baby in a dumpster?
No, you do not have a right to put your baby in a dumpster. Can you put your baby in a dumpster? Yes. Would it be deemed immoral to do so? No. You do not owe the baby your labor ("...to keep and use the product of his effort...")
Is there anyone you can defer to who does espouse the logically consistent Individualist interpretation of rights?
I can; but I won't.
So if you have not yet concluded you are doing something immoral, it does not qualify as immoral?
This is a contrast between "mens rea" and "actus reus." "Not having yet concluded" which I'm going to presume is synonymous with "ignorance" determines moral liability of a moral agent.
Not yet ;) Robots may be capable of 'thinking' pretty soon.
How is bringing them up relevant, then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Define the one logical interpretation of individualism.
This description suffices:
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern.-- Craig Biddle
So now you're saying that humans did have rights before they could interpret them? Why?
No, only the analysis can apply in retrospect. The rights themselves can neither be exercised nor precede the analysis.
Neither do I. I was asking about other species (like animals) or non-living (like robots). Why wouldn't they have rights if they could interpret them?
Can they "interpret" them? Robots and animals aren't moral agents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Voting in a democracy is fundamentally immoral; it's merely a mechanism in which to coerce dissenters into submitting their resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is there to substantiate?State in any form is hierarchical....It's how a state is able to function.
That a contention against the State is one necessarily against "hierachy." That is, State = hierarchy; hierachy = State.
Any human co-operative no matter how liberal, relies upon A being able to tell B what to do, and B accepting that A will tell them what to do. Failure of this system will either lead to separation or temporary chaos, though in either instance resolution will be the establishment of new hierarchical structures.
What does any of that have to do with the opposition to the State?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
But the cells aren't specialized at 3 weeks into pregnency, so it would be like a cancer cell.
But they aren't cancer cells; they're zygotes. Every person goes or has gone through a zygotic phase in their development. If one were to describe "human development (biology)" the process would be noted to start at fertilization. The only value in selecting "cell-specialization" as a clearly arbitrary division in constituting "personhood/humanity" is the mere citing of cell-specialization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Explain how, human interaction and/or cooperation doesn't always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction
I don't have to. You are the one asserting that interaction and/or cooperation always rely on some level of hierarchical distinction. And my contention isn't necessarily against "hierarchy;" It's against the State. You are equating the two without substantiating your reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A state is a hierarchical system....And a state will encompass a nuclear family....You ultimately cannot separate the two.
Not all hierarchies are "States." Hence, the two are not biconditionally equivalent. If you are asserting as much, then you have to substantiate how the two are inseparable.
And absence of state, either means replacement of state or not, and I contend that, no hierarchical structure, is not a human option.
I extend my contention above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Ask whosoever defined the word.
There are a few definitions of the word, anarchy. Since in this discussion's context, my use of the term refers to the absence of a state, how does your application of the term serve as a counterargument to my position?
B. A real government is a real government and a philosophical concept is a philosophical concept.
What are the mass, volume, and density of government?
C. Giving rise to the management of a state/hierarchical system is the inevitability of human social nature, therefore true socialism is only a concept....Y. What shall we do now?....Z. You do this and I will do this.....X. Will always ask the question and Y. will seize the opportunity to control.
States and hierarchical systems are not biconditionally equivalent. In order to make sense of your contention, you'd have to first substantiate that premise. (An example of hierachy that is not a State: a nuclear family.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Can you be more specific? Both Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek champion individualism. Karl Popper is pro democracy (pro government) and Hayek, a favorite among "anarchists," believes in the utility of government regulations to curb negative externalities. Hayek also believes the government has a role in preventing fraud and in providing a social safety net. By your standards that makes him a socialist. What type of individualism are you referring to?
Hence, I did not make reference to any one alleged "champion" of individualism. Individualism is not defined by any one public figure, but by its tenets, principles, and precepts. There's no "type" of individualism. Only individualism. And Hayek and Popper are as individualist as the Pauls (both Ron and Rand) are Libertarian.
At what point in human history did we start to have rights?
Hard to pin-point. The human condition has accompanied us since our own origins. Even if the analysis is made some time later, that doesn't mean that it can't apply in retrospect.
Is it possible for any other species/non-living entity to have rights?
I do not equate "other species" with "non-living." The answer to both is no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Which interpretation of rights is the only one that's logically consistent?
Individualism.
Did humans have rights before they were able to interpret them?
Based on my previous response about the origin of rights, the answer to this question would be an apparent, no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Yes...A state of disorder...Absolute freedom of the individual.
How does freedom of the individual result in a "state of disorder"?
B. Governments are real enough.
Never said they weren't real. I said they were philosophical concepts.
C. "Give rise to the management of a State"......Exactly....True socialism is only a philosophical concept.
This makes little sense. Is true socialism anarchy? Is true socialism's giving rise to a State mean that by proxy the State, too, is "only a philosophical concept"?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Vigorous reasoning is as vigorous reasoning does.....One can reason vigorously with nonsense.And the comparison you made between open mindedness and cherry picking, is just that.
The comparison I made between open-mindedness and cherry picking was neither vigorous nor nonsensical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Was there ever a society without hierarchy and therefore some sort of order.
Is anarchy the absence of order?
Anarchy is like true socialism....A philosophical concept only....Both rendered impractical by the inherent nature of the beast.
Redundant. Governments are philosophical concepts.
True socialism would be anarchy.
No it wouldn't. The commutative aspect of property socialism proposes would inevitably give rise to the management of a State.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you saying that you are open minded on the issue of the existence of a god?
"open-mindedness" is not the antithesis to "cherry pick." I'm receptive to arguments that are informed with vigorous reasoning.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So you don't want to have a discussion at all.
We are having a discussion at the moment.
You only desire to shut the conversation down.
If that were true, I would simply not respond at all. Furthermore, my "desires" are irrelevant.
You would like to muddy the waters till conversation is pointless.
No. I intend to hold materialists accountable for their pointless distinctions.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Obviously, Malthus was wrong before and he may still be wrong today.
That's a name I haven't seen in a while, the reasons for which I now understand are informed by his views on this very subject.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I've already argued the reason the distinction between material and immaterial is insignificant (i.e. the immaterial is applied to and informs the standards of the material.) And the distinction between existent and nonexistent already imputes error given that "nonexistence" is incoherent. What distinction is there left to be made?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe or maybe not, but the perceptions are the triggers that spur our evolutionary DNA instincts.
There is a concerted effort, at least in the U.S. media to propel this notion of "overpopulation," as recently as these past couple of years in the hit films Avengers Infinity War and Avengers End Game. For those who read the comic, the story line had little to do, if any, with population control.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am distinguishing between any historical character and the imaginary figure of santa claus (here defined as a jolly magic fat man who delivers presents all over the world on Christmas eve) if you are not making this distinction then that is your choice but it makes the words real and exist more or less meaningless since their function is specifically make the distinction between reality and fiction.
No, that is your impression. Exist makes no such distinction. A short search of the definition of "imaginary" would result in "existing only in the imagination." Why would the term "existing" be present in the description of imaginary, if the two are discrete? Because "exist" and "material" are not one and the same.
If belief = perception = reality or even if you replace = with informs then there is no distinction between a thing which actually exists and a thing which any given human believes exists. Without this distinction the words real and exist are largely meaningless as they pertain to the physical reality of as separate from any given incorrect perception.
Once again, you're attempting to manipulate the description of existence. Existence does not exclusively pertain to physical reality. Everything is. Everything we perceive is. Everything perceived exists. You may disagree, but it's not difficult to grasp.
If the words reality and exist can be applied to anything and every fanciful notion we come up with exists and is real thenA we do not mean the same thing when we use the wordsandB then any discussion of things which are provably part of physical reality in the way I mean it as opposed to fictional becomes completely impossible.
I know what you mean when you apply the term "exist" but remember it is you who challenged my argument and my applied description of the term. When your challenge is reduced, all you're stating is that you don't accept the application of the description I offered. That is not the same as my argument being logically inconsistent or logically unsound. Or even "false."
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To a degree notable enough not to dismiss out of hand, many of our morals stem from our innate instincts to survive as a fit species; the same instincts written into the DNA of all life on the planet.Promoting the moral advocating ownership and removal of cancer makes the Human species fitter for survival.Promoting the moral advocating ownership and removal of fetuses may or may not make the Human species fitter for survival. Do we need more babies in the world? Or is 7 billion people (4 million a year in the USA) barely enough to ensure the continued existence of the human species?Our Darwinian instincts may actually be working against what we might perceive to be "moral" if the end result is that the species becomes less fit due to overpopulation.
Is "overpopulation" really a concern when the Earth's populace can fit in Texas? Or in the advent of synthetic foods?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you believe that santa claus is an actual being rather than an imaginary one or if you do not make a distinction between actual and imaginary then no I don't suppose I do.
Well if one subscribes to history that the legend of Santa Klaus stemmed from "Saint" Nicholas, then Santa Klaus would have actual being even by your materialist standards. But as I've continued to argue, as far as existence is concerned, there's no significant distinction between material and immaterial.
I however make a distinction between actual and imagined.
That's fine so long as the distinction concerns the distinction itself. When applied to existence or ontological analysis, your reasoning will warrant the substantiation of logical consistency.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh I think the real problem is that we are defining reality and existence differently but it is impossible to know without some clarification on your part. If you really don't care to do that then it is true that this conversation is not going to be fruitful.
Now, you're lying. I have clarified.
Athias:
1. Exist: to have actual being whether material or spiritual.
secularmerlin:
What does it mean to exist spiritually? What even is spirit? Also the whole point is that we are examining your argument to see if I was correct or incorrect in my assessment of it so don't get to hung up on my assessment before we have thusly examined said argument.
Athias:
There's no need to modify the term exist with the adverb, "spiritually," especially since the description I've provided already includes for it. And by applying simple logic, it's rather simple to discern the meaning you seek. If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.
secularmerlin:
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"? What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
Athias:
Why does it need to be tested?
secularmerlin:
How else would we know it exists?
The "problem" arises from your attempt to gerrymander the description of existence to that which requires a test, not my "not caring" to provide clarity. No such description of existence has been listed.
Also I do not understand the distinction you are making between believing in and believing to be real.
Yes you do. We already went over it:
secularmerlin:
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
Athias:
Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
secularmerlin:
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
Athias:
One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
secularmerlin:
Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims. Fascinating. Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
You see, secularmerlin, I have "kept up" with every point made at least as far as it concerns your challenge. No more redundancies; no more shifts of onuses; no more futile attempts to qualify my character; no more feelings; do you have a valid counterargument? If not, have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Because a fetus with specialized cells is a human being.
Why does the specialization of its cells make it any more human than carrying a human genome?
Because it resembles cancer if the cells aren't specialized.
But it's not cancer. It's a zygote. Its phase denotes a reproducible phenomena in all human development. Is it a property of cancer to develop a brain, limbs, organs, and sentience? Does a zygote become metastatic? No? Then they are not the same.
Because cell specialization isn't arbitrary. It's when you become a human.
So you've asserted. Can a zygote and cancer cell(s) be differentiated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Sometimes.
Mind elaborating on the times it doesn't?
Here is your sentence: She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government.I'm curious: what was the grammatical or rhetorical purpose of bringing up whether or not she participated in government? Why is that relevant to the conversation? Why not mention that she never participated in cow tipping or pie eating contests?
Easy. It because of this:
As far as Obama goes, if your metric is that all politicians are socialist then it doesn't really provide much utility to what I was getting at. That means Trump's a socialist, Rand Paul's a socialist, Ron Paul's a socialist, Ted Cruz is a socialist, Ayn Rand is a socialist.
Was Ayn Rand a politician?
Then what exactly is the prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism?
Your definition suffices.
Sure. As one example, Ayn Rand believed "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." Police, military and courts require taxation. And even if they didn't (they do) she explicitly said these government actions were proper, not voluntary arbitration.
So you've conceded to the characterization of socialism I proffered? Fair enough, Ayn Rand, as an advocate of government practice, would by proxy be a socialist.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
And a good day to you also. It was certainly interesting talking to an adult who still believes in santa claus.
I don't "believe in" Santa Klaus. But your attempt to qualify my "adulthood" by a clear non sequitur, in place of a valid challenge or contention, speaks more to your--I guess the word for it would be "maturity" than mine. Move along and have nice day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
There are innumerable interpretations of rights stemming from human analysis. Do you believe only one of those analyses is correct?
No. Only one is logically consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
In post #44 you said that Ayn Rand does not qualify as a socialist specifically because she was a philosopher who did not participate as a member of government. You specified that the other people mentioned in that posts did qualify because they were part of government. You did not provide any other criterion.
Do you believe that grammar plays an important role in communication? The statement which followed my contention that Ayn Rand was not a socialist was an nonessential appositive phrase. It would specify nothing. It is normally indicated by a comma, and in my case the relative pronoun, "who."
She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government.
Good. So we agree that the definition of socialist includes, but is not limited to: a person who practices or advocates socialism. By that logic, explain how Ayn Rand is not a socialist if she both practiced socialism and advocated socialism in her ideology.
Please provide examples of her socialist ideologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Where do rights come from?
Rights are moral concepts. So they come from an analysis of the human condition. The subjective prescriptions for that which "ought" or "ought not" be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
My point is that Obama is a socialist merely by virtue of being a member of government. I'm not arguing that being a member of government is a prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism.
Do you agree that dictionaries are useful for defining words?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Do you believe rights come from government?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Do you believe rights come from God?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
So by your logic, Karl Marx was not a socialist because he did not hold public office.The definition of socialist is:noun
Hence the qualifying statement, "as far as this discussion is concerned." My focus is on members of government; your focus is on Errbody, the mention of which makes little sense since the subject was Obama.
So it seems both Karl Marx (and Ayn Rand in your view) are socialists.
Karl Marx was socialist (the irony being he freeloaded off of his "Capitalist" friends and liasons.) Ayn Rand, as I mentioned, was not.
It clearly was. Republicans or other Democrats.
Fair enough.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Either santa claus exists or your argument is flawed. Please try to keep up.
It is you who haven't kept up:
The rationale of my argument would certainly support the proposition of Santa Klaus's existence, that however does not mean that I'm the one who proposed, claimed, or posited it.
I'm not in the business of frequently repeating myself. If you have nothing more to add than redundancy and emotional expression, then enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Are you an atheist too?
No.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your argument is the belief = perception = existence. Some (small) humans believe in santa claus ergo your argument is that santa claus exists.If you see a problem with my argument please point put the specific logical flaw or offer a (specific defined well defined or logically necessary) counterfactual.
My argument is belief informs perception, and perception informs existence. The rationale of my argument would certainly support the proposition of Santa Klaus's existence, that however does not mean that I'm the one who proposed, claimed, or posited it. Ergo, your statement that Santa Klaus exists is my argument is not supported. (It wasn't mentioned until you brought it up.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
So your take is that if we utilize or implement something socialist (such as the MTA) the government is therefore socialist. Does that mean when we practice a hands-off or market based approach or prioritize private property, we are simultaneously capitalist?
The government is as the government does. By mere virtue of its participation in any transaction, the government is practicing socialism because the government by definition is not private (not to mention its self-imposed right to exercise imposition and enforce law.) In what transaction or interaction does the government practice a hands off or "market-based" approach?
Do you think it's possible to have a government that is not socialist? Do you like the socialist aspects of government?
The answer to both: no. Though I don't usually entertain the emotional aspect since its entirely irrelevant.
As far as Obama goes, if your metric is that all politicians are socialist then it doesn't really provide much utility to what I was getting at.
If your intent was to contrast the narrative surrounding Obama in juxtaposition to the Republican opposition, then I suppose it doesn't.
That means Trump's a socialist, Rand Paul's a socialist, Ron Paul's a socialist, Ted Cruz is a socialist, Ayn Rand is a socialist. Errbody a socialist up in here.
Trump is a socialist, Ron & Rand Paul--a.k.a. "fake" libertarians--are socialists, Ted Cruz is a socialist, but Ayn Rand was not (nice try.) She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government. And no not "Errbody" is a socialist up in herrrrr. Just the 541 members of government as far as this discussion is concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You may be interested in this.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of this forum's resident anarchist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Let’s say the government is fine, then why seek “freedom” if nothing is supporting you?
How is the government "fine"?
If the government is corrupt, then I think you want people to govern itself, in this case, is it still an “anarchy”?
Yes. Anarchy is the opposition to a State, i.e. centralized government.
There is no authority to suppress them in anarchy but there is also nothing to support them.
Too many ambiguous references. Let me ask: would you murder in the absence of law? How about rape a child?
Every man for himself.
If he chooses...
In an anarchy one could get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc.
In the dominion of government, people get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc. Government doesn't offer a solution to that.
Why would anything want that?
Why would anyone want to be assaulted, murdered, or raided? Low self-esteem, perhaps? But that has nothing to do with anarchy.
More than that, why do some “anarchists” support something that isn’t even anarchy?
You haven't yet demonstrated an understanding of anarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
We're not communist lol.
We're not communists. The U.S. government very much is.
Things like the minimum wage and MTA do not prove we are socialist either.
We're not socialist; the U.S. government is. And yes, the minimum wage and MTA do prove that. The minimum wage is government exercising perpetual usufruct in the labor market by imposing price controls, which affect the available employment and the supply of labor. The MTA is a state sanctioned monopoly on transportation.
But what does any of this have to do with Obama?
Obama was president.
Are you saying his support for publicly funded endeavors makes him a socialist?
Yes.
You seem to be arguing that the very fact we have a government at all means capitalism is not possible.
Seem is not an argument; but yes, that is the implication.
In that case every politician is a socialist.
More or less, yes.
Republicans support ALL of the things you mentioned (public transportation, social security, social safety nets, etc.) so by that logic they're socialists too.
Yes.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly.We all cherry pick.Therefore the same contention can be equally applied to theists.So stalemate as ever, though we are never keen to agree that this is the case.
Where have I cherry picked?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have put forth the argument that santa claus exists.
No. I've put forth the argument that God exists.
Logical consistency does not always lead to truth.
Logical consistency reflects logical necessity, the affirmation of "truth" or "falsehood" notwithstanding.
It depends on how supportable the premises you are building on actually are.
Redundant. Despite your "challenge," you haven't demonstrated that my premises aren't supported. You just disagree with my application of the definitions. And your "agreement" is irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
We will all tend to limit the scope of evidence, or perhaps more correctly, cherry pick suitable evidence and disregard evidence that doesn't suit our mindset.....As conditioned individuals, we have strongly established ideas that we protect, often zealously.I think that I have a pretty flexible mindset when it comes to creation hypotheses, in so much as I readily accept a GOD principle as logical. The hyperbole of accompanying religious myth is somewhat harder to take seriously, but I nonetheless acknowledge that myth will incorporate fact based data, though with a tendency to be somewhat exaggerated and fantastically embellished.Your particular use of the word "God" is very pertinent for some reason.... It somehow sums things up in nutshell....The accompanying rhetoric, though undoubtedly erudite, is rendered somewhat superfluous.
"We all do it" doesn't convey much of a contention. Because even it were true, it does not escape the criticism I offered. The notion that "we are conditioned individuals who have strongly established ideas which we protect" would also be characterized as cherry picked evidence suitable to one's mindset if we subscribe to your rationale.
My contention to atheist reasoning arises from the suggestion they subscribe to either "impartial" or "objective" set of rules and principles. They don't, a concession to which you've tacitly admitted.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't owe me any explanation for your time frame
I know. I told you as much. I brought it up because you clearly sought to qualify my response by my absence.
but I am still somewhat underwhelmed by your argument.
How you feel is irrelevant; as is anyone's feelings. I'm not trying to impress you. I'm submitting logically consistent arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Another falsehood touted by ignorant talking heads is that Obama was a socialist. Of course every Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 was to the left of Obama which is a little funny/sad. But what's interesting to me is what while the fear mongering behind He'S CoMinG tO tAkE yOuR gUnS eventually subsided once realized that was entirely untrue, people still refer to Obama as a socialist to this day. Does anyone here believe that or deny that Obama was relatively moderate according to pre Liberty Caucus standards? After all the Liberty Caucus died the second Ted Cruz and Rand Paul started calling Trump "daddy." So I'm curious - by what metric is Obama a socialist? Unlike claims of him being a race baiter or cop hater, this one I'm seriously willing to entertain. I'm only 2% trolling here. I'd like to know why he is considered the antithesis of American values and capitalism by flag waving MAGA tools. I dunno if any of them can read or think very well but who knows maybe I'll get an interesting response from someone, anyone.
Time is an illusion. All presidents, especially post World War II have been serving an agenda of creating a communist state in which, for the most part, they've succeeded. You want an example? The minimum wage; social security; public health insurance; the MTA. It isn't that people bear a misunderstanding of socialism; it's that people bear a misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is a system in which the means of production and their dissemination are controlled by private parties. The government by definition is NOT private. Whenever the government imposes a price control (e.g. minimum wage, rent-control, subsidizing pharmaceutical R&D, etc.) it is controlling the dissemination of production. Whenever the government charges a tax, it is controlling the means of production. The government's participation in the economic system necessarily characterizes that economy as "socialist."
"Moderate" is merely a rhetorical device to perpetuate cognitive dissonance. The U.S. political system in effect is a binary. "Moderate" has no practical application.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You see a computer screen. This is definitely "something" (not "no-thing").Now, we know the "computer" "screen" is almost certainly not, fundamentally, only what it appears to be to us as individuals.Our best analysis seems to strongly suggest it "is" a temporarily cohesive mass of quarks.
The difference between "something" and "no-thing" is that we state there's a difference. Of course, I'm not suggesting that this statement of "difference" is made injudiciously. We've applied logic and developed a standard of observation (sensation) where we index reproducible phenomena. That is, the computer I see in front of me bears conceived characteristics which can be reproduced in accordance to a given standard. It allows us to elide the arbitrary capacity of our (mental) faculties. Essentially, as you would put it, the standard produces "efficacy" (reliable predictability.) So what is the significance in "efficacy"? Why does it matter that phenomena and sensations are reliably predictable other than avoiding the influence of "con-artists"? And what role does this efficacy play in determining that which exists and that which doesn't? It's the value for order and the avoidance of chaos (QUALIA.) And there's no other quintessential manifestation of this value than logic.
So then the question I would pose is, does something lying outside of this order, necessarily produce the absence of existence? Can it be a reflection of, for lack of a better term, "chaotic" thinking, and still be, even if our efficacious standard does not apply?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, if that judge has any familiarity with either of the participants or has any preference at all for a particular style of debate and if that judge is attempting to follow any set of rules then rules wonking will be incentivized.Clever insults are just indirect ad hominem attacks.My job is to convince a judge that my opponent is "wrong" because they've made "mistakes" in either the framing or some of the specific details of their argument (my opponent is unreliable and or stupid and I am more reliable and or more intelligent for pointing this out).
I suppose that could be the case. It could also be the case that the Judge respects logical consistency and soundness, and analyzes each argument based on their integrity. Perhaps, your experience here, which I won't deny having experienced some of it myself, has left a somewhat of a, lack of a better term, "skeptical" perspective as far as the the integrity of certain members are concerned, but does that necessarily reflect poorly the mechanism itself--i.e. Judge voting? If I were debating someone and we agreed to have a judge decide the "winner," you'd be on the top of my list since my experience here has shown that you respect logic. Nevertheless, your proposition merits consideration (nothing wrong with more options, right?)
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is a good example.We agree a claim is not necessarily a REAL-TRUE-FACT.So, perhaps I must specify, a claim of REAL-TRUE-FACT demands empirical demonstration and or logical necessity.A claim of OPINION and or GNOSIS merely demands the credulity of the audience.
I don't necessarily disagree. I'd say that your suggestions are "true" by definition. But what is "true" by definition if not GNOSIS?
There are no "facts", only factual claims and non-factual claims.A "fact" may be (abstractly) "independent" from any claim (statement of claim) (the map is not the territory), however, nobody can discuss (entertain) a "fact" without making a statement (claim) of implicit "fact", for example "god($) is real".
In other words, the statement doesn't necessarily equate to the observation of, or existence itself?
What is "useful" if not qualia?Usefulness can be QUANTIFIED.What is reliability if not qualia?Reliability can be QUANTIFIED.Three-sigma limits is a statistical calculation where the data are within three standard deviations from a mean. In business applications, three-sigma refers to processes that operate efficiently and produce items of the highest quality.Three-sigma limits are used to set the upper and lower control limits in statistical quality control charts. Control charts are used to establish limits for a manufacturing or business process that is in a state of statistical control. [LINK]
And the credibility or even "accuracy" of this quantification is informed by what? How is that any different than judges assigning numbers in dance performances?
Uncertainty cannot be "reduced" because it necessitates certainty of the scope of that which you are uncertain.Uncertainty is QUANTIFIABLE (relative to zero).Can you predict the future state of this device? (Y/N)How reliably can you predict the future state of this device (+/-3 sigma)?Now if you're using uncertainty in a manner synonymous with "unsure" of "not confident," then what is "uncertainty" if not qualia?Uncertainty is QUANTIFIABLE (relative to zero).Can you predict the future state of this device? (Y/N)How reliably can you predict the future state of this device (+/-3 sigma)?
I repeat the above question. And which future state are we talking about? A second? A minute? An hour, etc?
Epistemology is what the boards of our house are made of. What is outside our house is noumenon.Metaphysics is what we stuff into the cracks between the boards in order to keep warm.Quanta (science) is a sub-category of qualia (metaphysics).One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.Freedom and equality are inversely proportional.It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
But acknowledging our epistemological limits requires a "meta-knowledge" which undermines the nature of epistemology. How do we acknowledge that which we can't know? We can argue that this is the case by logical necessity, but subjecting the can't be known to logic makes it a known, or at the very least, something of which we are "aware."
You can test for it, but it's contained within the scope of said perception.
I suppose so.
Can you test for something beyond the scope of your perception?
Not according to the definitions of perception and test.
Efficacy is a measure of reliable prediction.
Or reproducible consistency?
Logic is omnipresent. Our limited ability to anticipate logical conclusions is a human condition.
And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would reflect the school of thought that logic was "discovered" as opposed to "conceived." And if not, would you elaborate on the omnipresence of logic.
Efficacy (QUANTA).
Fair enough.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It took you 15 days to not explain your position any better?
It took me a few minutes to explain my position as I always have. I haven't logged in for 15 days (there's a difference,) the reasons for which are none of your concern.
Created: