Total posts: 3,192
-->
@3RU7AL
The Baldknobbers are a classic, even prototypical example.
You're answering the question with your original assertion. How do they inform the proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being an unaffiliated collective?
A "good" organization of concerned citizens will inevitably run amok (like a homeowner association).
A homeowner's association is not unaffiliated. They're state sanctioned.
It's the same story as "The Godfather 2".
Which collective is that? The Corleone family? The Senate? Hyman Roth's investment club?
Imagine a society where everyone thinks of themselves as BATMAN (self-reliant, punishing "evil").Now imagine if 200 of the (ostensibly well-intentioned) BATMEN formed an organization.
You do know that Bruce Wayne is/was the head of a Military Defense Contractor empire, whose actions were sanctioned by the police, namely through commissioner Gordon? If we're discussing this in the context of a stateless society, what would "Batmen" be would without the State? What would the criminals be like without the State?
True cooperation "should be" based on mutual benefit (usually at a third party's expense).
Why must a mutual benefit come at a third party's expense?
However, both parties are rarely "equals" and if one side (or both) fears consequences (withholding of resources or violence) then they are being coerced.
It is only coercion if a person's placed under duress. Considering the possible consequences and calculating the risk one's willing to take isn't coercion. If we extend your reasoning to its logical conclusion, one could just as well argue that one's stove, for example, coerced one into not cooking because he didn't want to risk getting burned.
The threat doesn't need to be stated plainly. Passive intimidation is the most effective form of persuasion.
Who's threatening? Who's intimidating?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
When people find themselves in an unaffiliated autonomous collective, they form spontaneous groups of "community" enforcers (to enact the "will" of the "community").These (unchallenged) vigilante groups are proto-governments.Please let me know what you think of this sterling example,Click to watch 5 minutes,
How does your example inform on people's alleged proclivity to form vigilante proto-governments as a result of being part of an unaffiliated collective? Were the baldknobbers the standard or a caricature?
COOPERATION =/= RISK AVOIDANCERISK AVOIDANCE = COERCIONCOERCION is COERCION whether it is EXPLICIT or IMPLICIT.
Elaborate.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Is the protection of guaranteed "rights" the responsibility of the state (community) or do you believe the protection of guaranteed "rights" is the responsibility of each individual?
First, the State isn't the same as one's "community." The State is a polity which presumes to govern communities by threat of force. Second, why are you presenting a dichotomy where responsibility of the individual and the responsibility of his or her community are discrete? Is a community not a collection of individuals? If the ideal is to respect individual rights, is that not a concurrent assumption of responsibility by both the individual and his community?
(IFF) you are responsible for protecting your own "rights" (THEN) you effectively have no "rights".
Elaborate, particularly how protection informs the sustenance of rights.
(IFF) ownership is NOT determined by legal status (THEN) all ownership claims are disputes that can ONLY be solved by consensus, coercion, or brute force.
I would argue that by reason of being legal in nature, privileges--not rights--are necessarily informed by consensus, coercion, and/or brute force. In the absence of a state, ownership claims can be disputed and resolved through cooperation--that is, individuals who don't intend to risk escalation or even reprisals.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm suggesting that if you believe in fundamental, inalienable human rights (THEN) you must also believe in some reliable and durable enforcement mechanism that protects those rights.
Not necessarily. One could argue in a pragmatic sense the utility of rights without a durable enforcement mechanism, but sustenance of those rights are primarily based and contingent on the examination of the human condition, not the capacity to prevent or end the violation of said rights. You're conflating "rights" with "effective control" as demonstrated in the response of your counterpart from your blog:
What you're saying is not true. If I steal your thing, it does not become not your thing because you did not enforce the possession of that thing. Something can be wrong, even if it happens.
"inherent" "objective" "morality" is a pervasive myth (brainwashing) that turns our natural instincts (core family dynamic) against our fellow man and twists them in favor of those who hold the levers of power.
How is inherent objective morality a pervasive "myth" but the concept of instinctual behavior not?
It's a con-game that saves them enormous amounts of time and money enforcing their will.When our owners violate "inherent" "objective" "morality" and we are outraged, but powerless, and our screams of protest are silenced by a boot on our neck (the boot of a fellow peasant) we comfort ourselves with this idiotic myth, "THEY WILL SUFFER IN HELL", and our owners laugh all the way to the bank.
This presumes that the governed populace in general subscribes to an inherent objective morality. They, for the most part, do not. Immoral systems are sustained by immoral people. "Democracy" for example, which is categorically immoral, is not sustained by just the "fat cats"at wall street. It's sustained by those who believe that congregating with others justifies controlling their resources.
Click to watch 3 minutes,
I respect the intelligence of comedians--good comedians. And George Carlin is no exception.
Created:
First, "disorder" is not the same as "illness." Having a "disorder" does not make one "unhealthy," despite psychologists' attempts at equating their diagnoses with biochemical findings. A "disorder" is aberrant behavior with respect to one's demographic. "Illness" is a pathological condition. So while Gender Dysphoria, for example, may be a disorder, it is not an illness. One could critique Gender Dysphoria without attempts to insubstantially "pathologize" the behavior.
Second, "discrimination" is by no means "wrong." And to help understand the reason, let's use this hypothetical:
The government passes an anti-discrimination law which prohibits discrimination in any context.
A beautiful 25 year old woman goes to a bar, and gets hit on by several different suitors. One of those suitors happens to be a transgendered "man." The woman catches on and denies "him" the prospect of coitus by rejecting him. Should the woman be punished for violating the anti-discrimination law?
What if we applied the same reasoning using a different context? Suppose one was in the market for a new babysitter, and in the process of screening through numerous prospective babysitters, one comes across said transgendered man (his nightlife is no one's business.) The person rejects the transgendered man for his being transgendered. Should that person be punished? Does the state then compel one to hire the transgendered man even if its to watch over one's children?
Anti-discrimination laws at their core simply dictate that one cannot choose with whom he or she associates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I definitely want to see that argument.
Whenever you're ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
This has to be the most ignorant and nonsensical thing that you've said against the left-wing
When it's against the "left-wing," nothing I argue is ignorant or nonsensical.
and against black rights during your time on the site.
What are "black" rights?
This is literally impossible to justify.
In other words: you don't have a counterargument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Constantine, Charlemagne, the Crusades, etc. And Christianity isn't the most prevalent religion. It's Luciferianism. Most of these Christian denominations are merely derivative and extend practices of Luciferian rituals and customs--namely Catholicism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
And Nessa and NIKE are the ones plugging that battery in his back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I don't think he's a coward. He sacrificed his career for his cause.
"Sacrificed"? That's a generous term considering his actions. His opting out of his contract with the 49ers fails to get mentioned, as well as his offer to join the Baltimore Ravens. He rejected the offer because he wanted a starting position despite his being on the back end of his career. And then, even after being invited to a workout where numerous NFL team scouts would be located, he decided to have a "private" workout which ironically hosted many members of the sports media. He didn't "sacrifice" much. I'm sure he gets paid more by NIKE now than he would have playing football.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
1. First, "African-American" is a government/corporate designation. It is neither a race nor a culture.
2. "White privilege" would infer an advantage so called "whites" have as a corporate demographic over so-called "blacks." Assuming your rhyme is inspired by the recent sensationalizing (*cough* staging *cough*) of these recent events, would you care to know that there was research done that found that so-called "whites" were victimized just as much as so called "blacks" by the police?
3. Lincoln didn't "free" the so-called "slaves." The emancipation proclamation was nothing than a ploy to dwindle the numbers of the already seceded confederate states (the border states, the union, as well as the confederate states under Union control were legally allowed to practice slavery.) Furthermore, the thirteenth amendment wasn't ratified until after Lincoln's death.
4. The "Civil Rights" movement did worse for so-called "blacks" than it did good. It was a means to ingratiate so called blacks into the public entitlements system, specifically the so called "black woman" where she would be indoctrinated and manipulated by the State to accept it as her new Patriarch.
5. Equality is a delusion. A surprising posit from one who argues social hierarchy.
6. No one is owed anything for rap. It's a musical art. It's traded and sold (and pirated) in the market. As Alec stated, "that's Capitalism."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@zedvictor4
Well stated--the both of you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
No you don't. Please prove that rather than just asserting it. This is a ridiculous argument.This is trivial in set theory, it's used all the time in math. I can create a set containing only elements A, B and C, I do not be able to perceive an imaginary element D to state that this set contains only the elements A,B and C. Here is the description of "Set X"Definition:Set X: 1. Contains only A, B, CDefinition: Set Y:Contains DSet Y =/= Set X. Neither does set Y contain set X.So you can assert that something exists (D) in a set containing the elements A, C and C but then you are no longer talking about Set X, you are talking about Set Y, which does not contain set X. You have just created a new set instead.To continue this, we can make another set:Set Z: Contains A, B. C, DWhat can we say about Set Z? Well set Z is a subset of set Y. It is not a subset of set X though.
Once again, you are talking about location/placement. We are discussing existence.
There is no broom in the cupboard... No broom exists in the cupboard.
Repetition doesn't change the subject about which we're discussing.
Really? And in what philosophical journal have you read that?
Why do you presume philosophical journals the barometer for valid philosophical rationalizations? (This is the second time you've insinuated this.)
If the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is to make sense then it must be possible for there to be a universe in which nothing exists.
Because "nothing" is imperceptible; hence, epistemologically irrational. It's a logical placeholder to negate the presence of substance. However, it provides nothing of significance in our analyzing the nature of being.
There is nothing logically inconsistent a priori with that.
Non sequitur.
That's the reason why both theologians and physicists pose that question in the first place.
I'm not concerned with their reasons; only yours. I'm not having this discussion with them. So you can put the appeals to authority to rest (especially considering that this is a philosophical discussion) and provide your own rationalizations.
It certainly is a far more well-accepted state of affairs than a metaphysically possible world containing a metaphysically necessary being in it. The former is largely accepted by atheists and theologians, the latter is only accepted by a small fraction of theologians.
And the number of people inform its veracity/validity, then?
Because you have a complete and consistent description of a logically possible world without a MGB being in it...You would need to show that such a world is inconsistent for it not to be a logically possible world.
You neglect to mention that logic is contained in that very world. If the world consist of that which we know, can know, and have yet to know, then it would stand to reason that anything beyond those parameters would not be subject to logic. You're assuming a metaphysically objective knowledge in which you're fallaciously claiming to have ascertained information you can't obtain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
My argument stated, that in the context of the MGB, a being is greater than another if it can convince more people of its existence. If a being can convince X + 1 people of its existence, then it is greater, by definition. A maximally great being would thus have to be maximally great in this regard, meaning that it is not possible to be any greater than it, by definition. The only way for it to be impossible for another being to convince X + 1 people of its existence is if X already contains the entire set of the population since it is impossible to have an attribute (such as being convinced) apply to more items than there are items entire set.
Then X+1 would be irrelevant. The criteria for being a maximally great being would be to convince X, which contains everyone. But that was NOT your premise. You sought to relate the greatness of beings by stipulating their capacity to convince a number of people with respect to the other. So let's use this as an example: Being 1, Being 2, and Being 3 are part of a universe which contains seven billion people. Being 1 convinces five billion people; Being 2 convinces 1.9 billion people; Being 3 convinces 100 million people. It is impossible for 1.9 billion to be "greater" than five billion; it is impossible for 100 million to be "greater" than five billion. Being 1 according to your premise is the maximally great being. Now, let's use your numbers: Being 1 convinces seven billion people; Being 2 convinces no one; Being 3 convinces no one. Being 1 is still the maximally great being because it is impossible for 0 to be greater than seven billion.
You're backpedaling in an attempt to retroactively revise the parameters of your first premise, so that your second premise won't be invalidated. But your first premise will always invalidate your second premise, because your second premise restricts to absolutes while your first premise is fundamentally comparative. This is just as much an issue of grammar as it is logic.
No. Since the MGB is the "Maximally Great Being", it would have to convince the maximum number of beings of its existence. Unless you can show how it is impossible for the maximum number of beings to mean every being, then it would have to mean every being, since if it doesn't, then there would be more beings that could be convinced.
Non sequitur. And your reasoning makes no sense. Using the numbers in my earlier examples, if there are seven billion people and Being 1 convinces five billion people, Being 2 convinces 1.9 billion people, Being 3 convinces 100 million people, how would it be possible to convince more people than Being 1?
See points 1 and 2 of this post.
Once again, you've not demonstrated anything.
Why does the conceiving of a world where X doesn't exist mean that the beings in that world acknowledge its non-existence?
They can't know it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist. The nonexistent doesn't provide any information on itself. It's imperceptible. But, I'll continue this below.
P5 is faulty. The act of conception happens in the current time (and thus would be in respect to time Y), but the subject that is being conceived isn't in current time. The conception of Z occurs in time Y, but since it has it's own setting, the subject matter itself wouldn't be in respect to time Y. The timeline of the world at time Z would also follow the timeline of Z, not of Y.
No it's not. Because in time Y, you know that cellphones exist. Therefore, any conception even in retrospect will contain this knowledge. Even if the subject is time Z, your conception will be a fabrication of it informed through the accumulation of knowledge in years current and previous. In other words, you'll never be able to conceive anything that isn't affected by that which you know now. Knowledge isn't piecewise, so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
It's causally locked by God's observation of temporal space, not your decision. Your decision would also be locked in, as well as the event preceding it, as He has seen all of the temporal space as soon as time began. Since the events that play out can't contradict what He saw, all events would thus be causally locked.
No, it's not. It's causally locked by its order in the sequence. God's mere observation doesn't affect the sequence at all because God is not the agent in the sequence (omnipotence notwithstanding.) God observes one's making a decision and the event/action produced from that decision. Should the person not make a decision which produces a certain event/action, then it won't be observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
It was a rhetorical question. I used it to show that "the most" people = everyone. Unless you can show how this is impossible, that would be the case.
Non sequitur. I did not argue that it was impossible for most to reflect everyone. Most however does not require everyone. It's a relative superlative. And given that your first premise stipulates that the MGB's greatness is contingent on its capacity to convince more people than the the next being, then it need only convince more people than every other being.
There would only be a being called MGB (as defined in P1 and P2) if it can convince everyone (as demonstrated by above)
You didn't demonstrate anything.
Since I am part of the group called "everyone", and it hasn't convinced me of its existence, the "MGB" fails to be the MGB, because it hasn't met the condition to be the MGB.
Only if the superlative necessarily reflects everyone. And it doesn't. Your second premise is invalid.
I didn't say one could conceive of a world where people knew of the nonexistence of cellphones, I said that one could conceive of a world where they don't exist, period.
How? If the world which they conceive is one in which cellphones don't exist, they cannot know this because they don't exist. So then how can one conceive this world and apply the description, "cellphones don't exist," if they can't know that cellphones don't exist given that they don't exist?
P1: Entity X comes into existence in time Y.P2: Before time Y, X did not exist (restatement of P1). Let's call this time Z.P3: X does not exist in time Z. (restatement of P2)P4: It is possible to conceive of a world as it was during time Z.C1: Therefore, it is possible to conceive of a world where X does not exist.
P1: Entity X is created in time Y.
P2: Before time Y, Entity X wasn't created. This will be called time Z.
P3: Entity X was not created in time Z.
P4: Conception is current.
P5: Conception (retrospective analysis) of a world during time Z will occur in and with respect to time Y (presuming Y constitutes all time since the cellphone was created.)
P6: Conception of the World at time Z, during time Z, is not possible. (Z is past, Conception is current.)
C: Therefore, conception of a world where Entity X did not exist is impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If we know what the outcome will be in advance, then we know for a fact that you chose that outcome. If we know you choose A, then it is impossible for you to choose B, as that would violate the very result we observed. This applies to every single choice that everyone will ever make. You are therefore causally locked in place.
Causally locked by what? My decision. How does that exclude my free-will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Greater in the context of the MGB.
Then by your stipulation, my agreement would be irrelevant.
C1: Since there is at least one person that is not convinced of the MGB's existence (me), it cannot be the MGB.If P2 is valid, then P3 is too. C1 states that since the MGB (as defined in P1 and P2) cannot fulfill its "maximal greatness" (it would be required to in order to be the MGB), it isn't the MGB. Since nothing that exists can fit the definition of MGB (as shown in P3 in contrast to the definitions of P1 and P2), the MGB would not exist.
Yes, but P3 does not allow you to infer that "nothing that exists can fit the definition of MGB." It only stipulates that you be convinced.
The first cellphone came into existence in 1983. Before then, cellphones didn't exist. So, if one can conceive of a world before 1983 (which is entirely possible), then one can conceive of a world where cellphones don't exist.
Before 1983, no one knew cellphones didn't exist because cellphones didn't exist. Any retrospective analysis which seeks to relate experiences before and after the creation of cellphones would not be a conception void of their existence because the analysis itself is fundamentally based on the fact that cellphones do exist.
I have just shown with my example above that it is possible.
No you didn't.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I'm not certain I understand your question, so if this doesn't answer it, please clarify for me. morality is in the eye of the beholder. it is individualistic by nature. Society, by it's nature, is collectivist.
Society is not fundamentally collectivist. Society streamlines the constellation of subjective values through interaction and transaction. Morality sets the standard in which these interactions and transactions serve a mutual benefit. The fundamental basis of society is the individual, since the starting point is building a form of cohesion between two or more subjects. And to do that, analysis of the individual's stake in the arrangement is necessary.
Individualism is the only moral philosophy that both acknowledges and respects the subjective, as well as any subject's function in his or her own experience.
We are all parts of a much greater whole.
Which "whole" is that? And what makes it "greater"?
The only way to prevent this is to destroy society and keep everyone in their own separate bubbles where they don't interact in a meaningful way. since this is obviously impossible, we can only proceed with reality the way it is.
You've inferred "impossibility" because you've imputed a non sequitur. An individualistic society can function on the respect of individual autonomy. Individuals will interact and transact when it serves their benefit.
what alternative is there? either we have communally agreed upon rules of conduct, which will necessarily fail some people, or we don't have any communally agreed rules of conduct and people are free to injure each other at will (which fails virtually everyone).
Or we can let the market handle "rule-setting" and leave it to an individual's discretion to follow them or not. Take this forum for example: each member joins agreeing to a set of stipulated rules. Your participation is contingent on accepting or declining these rules. The site's administrators employ moderators to ensure the maintenance of this site by seeing that the rules are followed. In the event that rules aren't followed, they can extend the administrators' proxy by penalizing and/or ostracizing (banning.) Perhaps you're thinking "how is this different from government?" Participation on this site is willful. One is not tagged with a social security number (a.k.a. bond number) at birth and conscripted. Second, should I decided that I no longer wish to abide by the rules of this site, then I'm free to leave with no less than that with which I came in. In other words, the forum cannot seize my property. Third, the forum's stipulated rules aren't codified with the threat of violence. That is, the forum cannot detain me or kill me. Last, I'm free to roam the internets for forums with rules which suit my tastes without deprivation.
Internet interaction is a microcosm of how anarchy works. And with essential services and even interaction being automated through the internet, that microcosm is increasing in scope. Sure, you'll have your trolls, loons, hackers, hustlers, etc. But there will also be intelligent and thoughtful individuals, "moderators," and security mercenaries (Kapersky, Norton, AVG, Malwarebytes, etc.) sustaining the integrity of interaction and transactions. If one subscribes to this Hobbesian delusion that man cannot be left to his own devices, then no system of government will ever "work" because the practices and ideas sustaining said government are a product of man.
ok, and if lots of people decide they do want to harm their neighbor, what does your hypothetical society do about it? For that matter, what happens if a large group in this society decide to band together to harm a smaller group in this society? Who is going to stop them?
The neighbor can defend himself. He can hire mercenaries to defend him and his land. He will however not be bound by a system which justifies a larger group doing him harm.
you will always be beholden to others because you have indivisible ties to them. you are beholden to your boss because you need money to survive.
I need "money"; I don't need a boss. So then how am I beholden to my boss?
if you piss off your boss you will be punished. You are beholden to your bank. They hold the loan on your house. If you piss them off they take your house or your car.
And in the event that I own both my house and car, to whom am I beholden then?
You are beholden to the other members of your community. You need to be able to live and work together.
I need services; I don't need any particular member of my community.
If you piss them off they may decide to beat the shit out of you.
They can try.
You can't ever be totally sovereign. Other people will always have a say in what you do and how.
That which others do may be taken into consideration when making a decision, but that doesn't change that the decision is mine.
The only way to change that is to cut yourself off from all others so that no one cares what you do.
Or... we can entertain the notion that "caring" about that which I do doesn't give another authority over that which I do.
because governments need to consider the wishes of as many of their citizens as possible in order to win an election. a minority is by definition, not going to be enough to win. But they may certainly be a large enough block to be important in an election. It is dangerous to ignore the suffering of voters. In a society where the people with power don't need to worry about an election, they don't have to give a shit what people think.
A transient indulgence which occurs every four years and six years, after which they are no longer beholden to their campaign promises.
they aren't. but that is why we insist on laws to try to prevent them from abusing this power.
And who enforces these laws? Who sustains them? The same people from the aforementioned evil society?
And if they do abuse it we vote them out of office or arrest them.
But society is evil, what use would that serve?
no, you haven't explained precisely how your hypothetical society would function so it is hard for me to generalize. If your proposed society included any sort of rule making, then people could be bribed.
Look above. And judging by your statements, is it fair to presume that one could infer from your argument that any system of government is prone to abuse?
If there is no formal rule making, then all they have to do is hire thugs and they are now king.
Who is the king of the internet?
using formalized power, ie police, the military.
And it's impossible to pay off cops and soldiers?
i'm still trying to get a firm handle on exactly how you think this society would function. so if this isn't relevant to your idea, then you may need to clarify.
Look above.
ok, and who enforces those contracts or the results of the mediation.
No one does. The contract is sustained by perpetuated participation.
if the mediator says i'm wrong and I say "fuck you" and hire 30 guys to go burn their house down or just threaten his family, who is going to stop me?
Who's to stop you now? Especially if you don't alert your target?
Or for that matter, what if I just bribe the mediator?
What good does bribing the mediator do? The mediator is there to help resolve a dispute. One's agreement or disagreement with the resolution has nothing to do with how much the mediator is getting paid. But let's say I catch wind of this supposed bribe and alert my fellow community members that this mediator takes bribes, what would that then do for his reputation?
One of the common responses to the posit of anarchy is to test its "perfection" with outlandish scenarios. I'm not arguing that life is perfect in anarchy. I'm arguing that accountability, responsibility, and authority are where they should be in anarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
How is perceiving mathematics like perceiving God?
Non sequitur. I'm not stating that perceiving mathematics is like perceiving God. I'm arguing that atheists conflate God with the abstract/immaterial, thereby using that pretext to allege that God does not exist. Alleging that immaterial/abstract = nonexistent undermines the atheist argument, which is premised on a materialist standard, because physical laws are defined by mathematical proof, which is an abstract.
I think what's confusing me is that we can hold the abstraction of math in our heads, but we can also verify its integrity in the real world.
Let's assume that by "real world," you're referring to your experience "outside" of your head, how do you verify its integrity?
It would seem to me that we can't do the same with the concept of God.
Concept of God? Whose discussing the concept of God? Have we rendered God conceptual in our discussion?
Am I missing something?
Yes. But it would be more instructive once you come to that conclusion on your own after further discussion.
What anecdotal evidence exists to support the minor premise?
We know that the minor premise is true given anecdotal evidence. I and God's adherents have informed on our perception of God.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Natural IQ and strength DNA differences combined with luck of being born to powerful and influential families, areas etc.
What informs the power and influence of the families, areas, etc. you referenced?
Abused psychometrics like I.Q.? And does "strength DNA" have as much influence in the advent of anabolic steroids?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I mean subjective in the sense that it is different and unique to every person. That means that no matter what system you come up with, someone will always feel it is immoral. someone will always feel the system is antithetical to what they believe/want.
Then what about the moral philosophy of individualism which preserves your description of subjective?
if it is what the majority of people in the country believe is the right and moral thing to do, then yes. What other possibility is there? You cannot have a system where everyone is happy with it. There will always be people who disagree with the system. The best you can hope for is to do the most good for the most people.
So using my example from before, you're stating that in any and all decisions involving political participation, it is better to submit to the whim of the majority even if that whim involves rape (or any immoral act?) Why should any individual invest in a political process where he or she will fall through the cracks and be excluded? As you said, "the best [one] could hope for is to do the most good for the most people"? What if one is not part of the "most people"?
By the way, what is the "most good" if you argue that morality is subject to someone else feeling it immoral?
then this is extremely unfortunate. The people who being oppressed should either work to convince people that their position is correct. If they cannot and do not wish to live with the consequences, then they would need to try to find a place somewhere more tolerant to their views. But I fail to see how anarchy would prevent the situation you described. Someone is going to have to decide what the rules are for the society, and if there are no rules then they can rape whoever they want whenever they want without consequences.
No consequences? What makes you presume that there are no consequences in anarchy? Take this for example: I live in a society where there is no functioning centralized government. Suppose I intend to rob my neighbor. What are some considerations I ought to make before robbing my neighbor? First, I consider the moral philosophy to which I subscribe. Is it right to rob my neighbor? But should I bear no moral concerns, then maybe I ought to consider practical concerns. Do I consider the ramifications of robbing those who live so close to me? Do I consider the physicality of those who reside in my neighbors' homes? Do I consider their skill, if any, in the martial or pugilistic arts? What about weapons?
Every action one considers, one must consider the consequences "rules" or "no rules."
That is simply not true. No one is ever entirely sovereign. You will always be beholden to others. You will have a boss, a neighbor, a co-worker, etc who will have power over you.
How?
The only way to be truly sovereign would be to have no meaningful interaction with others.
Why?
As long as humans are interdependent (which is always going to be the case) then you can't ever be truly sovereign.
Why would one's being sovereign exclude their depending on others?
If those wishes are evil, then the society is evil and it certainly wouldn't be an improvement to have an evil society without a central government to restrain that evil.
If the society is evil, why would members of government be any less evil?
because money is power. in the absence of another form of power (ie an elected government) that power will go somewhere. It is human nature to want wealth and power over others. It doesn't matter what else you do, you cannot change the underlying fact of human nature.
How are members of government immune from this proclivity?
If you create a system where there is not an organized source of power, then someone will find a method to gain that power.Maybe they use their wealth to bribe whatever body makes rules.
These two statements contradict. You're stating that in a system where there isn't an organized source of power, someone will use their wealth to bribe an organized source of power.
Maybe they will simply pay lots of people to do what they want thus making them self a de facto king.
How does a democratic government prevent this now?
Since you haven't specified how rules would be decided and enforced I can't say how specifically they would gain power, but they would find a way. They always do.
So the imposition of rules are useless because "they'd" always find a way, right?
And in anarchy, resolution of disputes would be handled through mediation and contracts.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because absolutely no rules stop them abusing their social influence, physical power or intellectually gained and guarded secrets.
What informs their social influence? Physical power? And intellectually gained and guarded secrets?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Do you agree that a being that can convince X people is greater than one that can convince X - 1 people?
Greater in which context?
If nothing that exists can possibly fit the criteria of X, then X doesn't exist.
How do you know that nothing that exists can possibly fit the criteria of X? Was your argument not extending the first premise which focused on a single being?
I never said one could conceive of a world where everyone acknowledges the nonexistence of the MGB. I said that one could conceive of a world where the MGB doesn't exist (as P1 states).
Acknowledging nonexistence is paradoxical. How can one then conceive a world in which something does not exist, if it does not exist? That is, in this world you've conceived, how is one able to qualify this world with the description, "MGB does not exist," if one cannot acknowledge its nonexistence? So even in a world you conceive where the MGB is displaced (not nonexistent) you are acknowledging MGB in your posit of its "absence."
It isn't anymore nonsensical to conceive of a world where the MGB doesn't exist then it is to conceive of a world where cellphones don't exist.
You can't conceive a world where cellphones don't exist. You can conceive their displacement and lack of use, using your own experience as information. But you have no experience with the nonexistence of cell phones; therefore, you cannot conceive a world in which they do not exist.
All that my argument says is that it states there is possible to conceive of a world where X doesn't exist, which is completely in line with P1.
And my argument claims that this is impossible because perceiving--even conceiving--nonexistence is epistemologically irrational.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
strongly disagree. Morality is inherently subjective. It is very different to different people. There is no such thing as objective morality.
Experience is subjective. Therefore, morality is subjective as well. However, my claim wasn't that it wasn't subjective; my claim is that it isn't subject to consensus. Now if you're attempting to use the term "subjective" in a manner synonymous to the description "prone to whim," then you are incorrect.
because in a dictatorship you are subject to the whims of 1 individual.
Would it then be "better" to be subject to the whims of multiple individuals?
If they are cruel or choose to do bad things, no one has any recourse to do anything about it. In a democracy if a leader does something cruel or evil, a person can attempt to convince enough people that this was wrong and have that leader replaced or the policy changed.
And if they can't convince enough people? What if most of the group endorses the engagement of cruel act as exampled by my hypothetical above?
You are never going to have a government that can act in the benefit of every single individual in the country because no 2 people agree on exactly what that would be.
In anarchy, one would be able to serve one's benefit because one is one's own sovereign.
A democracy gives people the ability to have their say on the policies of the country to try to have their government represent the wishes of as many people as they can.
How is this the case when you say "no 2 people agree on exactly what that would be." So whose wishes are being represented? And what if that wish is evil?
so.... anarchy? you think that is the closest to perfect we can get?
I think anarchy is ideal.
I did a bit of quick reading on precisely what this entails and it sounds terrible. It sounds like a system that, much like communism, cannot possibly work in the real world.
Why is that?
It would quickly transform into an oligarchy where the rich control all the levers of power with the fun twist of there being no mechanism to vote them out.
An oligarchy is not anarchy. And why would it quickly transform to an oligarchy where the rich control all levels of power?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
Luckily "perception" (whhich I take to be just conjuring mental images) and "interaction" are not prerequisites of conceiving a logically consistent world with something absent.
Yes they are. Because you would have to acknowledge (perceive) the absence of that something with no experience or data to inform its placement or displacement, its form or its being, because as that which is characterized as "absent," it does not exist.
Their non-existence in the cupboard, yes it does.
Once again, you're attempting to inform location, not existence.
1. A world that contains nothing, zilch, zero.
Then it isn't a world if it contains "nothing." Remember you stated, "The latter is closer to what is required for the modal ontological argument to work, which uses metaphysically possible world semantics."
Or more compellingly:2. A world that contains a single particle, that just exists as is, and does nothing. You can even go a step further and have a particle that exists eternally in one spacial dimension that simply evolves over time with De Broglie motion. That way you have a complete world that can be described with a single mathematical equation, perfectly logically consistent, and it's logical consistency isn't broken by the absence of a maximally great being.I can readily conceive mathematically of these self-contained worlds. I can even conjure mental images of each, but again this isn't a requirement for something to be logically or metaphysically possible.
How do you acknowledge the absence of the MBG if it is in fact absent?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
You are conflating "conjuring mental images of a scenario/world" with coming up with a logically consistent scenario/world.
No, I am not. I'm well aware of that which PressF4Respect is attempting to argue.
The latter is closer to what is required for the modal ontological argument to work, which uses metaphysically possible world semantics.
I know.
It might not make sense to you to not be able to conjure mental images of the absence of something, but it makes perfect sense to create a logically consistent scenario where something is absent.
If you're using the term "absent" in a context where its synonymous with nonexistent, then no you have not. You can neither perceive nor interact with the absent.
I can conceive of a cupboard that is empty, and one that contains a broom.
This example doesn't inform existence; this example informs location. Pick a description of absent, and stick to it.
I can even go as far as to conjure mental images of exactly that, too.
Yes, because your experience informs images of displaced objects. That does not mean that their displacement informs their nonexistence.
The statement "Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not" is one of the most absurd things I have ever read, and I have never seen a single philosopher, theist or otherwise that has ever asserted that on any level, and I have ready plenty of their papers.
Elaborate on your claim of absurdity.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what system, in the entire history of mankind, has included a moral economy (and would therefore be better)? What would such a system look like? How would we decide what is moral and what is not? There is some pretty big disagreements about what is moral.
Disagreements on morality doesn't affect morality. Unlike democracy, morality isn't subject to consensus because it's an expression of logic and reason. How would it look like? Anarchy.
democracy has flaws because humans have flaws.
Then why not be the subject of a dictator? What's to stop anyone from justifying the cruel acts of a dictator by claiming, "a dictator has flaws because humans have flaws"?
I don't see any way that any hypothetical system could possibly be perfect.
No one is talking about perfection. Only a system where one is free to and responsible to act his own discretion.
I'm not aware of any system that we could implement that would be better than democracy.
Anarchy (or anarchocapitalism.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@PressF4Respect
Please refute the points I made in #101 and #103
Dr. Franklin, I hope you don't mind that I take this one.
This is my argument:P1: A being that convinces more people that it exists is greater than one that convinces less people of its existence.P2: Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince everyone that it exists.P3: I am not convinced that the MGB exists.C1: Since there is at least one person that is not convinced of the MGB's existence (me), it cannot be the MGB.C2: The MGB does not exist.P1 is the bread and butter of the argument. If you agree with P1, then P2 would naturally follow (from the very definition of the MGB). P3 is true, unless you say that I (somehow) secretly believe in the existence of the MGB, even though I stated that I don't. And the conclusions follow from all three of the premises.Also, it is explicitly written in the Bible that God is the only true deity, and anyone who believes in other deities is destined for eternal damnation. With that in mind, if God had the ability to convince everyone of His existence, then why hasn't he done so, if He doesn't want to send people to eternal damnation? Or does He want to do that?
Your second premise is erroneous. Since your second premise operates on applying superlatives to the qualifiers, "greater," and "more" from the first premise, then the second premise should read as such: "Since the MGB is the greatest being, it would convince the most that it exists." Using your revised premise, your third premise is no longer substantiated since the second premise no longer requires that you be convinced that the MGB exists. Given that your second premise has been revised, and your third premise has been rendered unsubstantiated, your conclusion is nullified.
Furthermore, C2 is also unsubstantiated even if your second premise was valid. The MGB exists as outlined by the parameters of your first premise. You can argue that the subject doesn't meet those parameters, but that does not permit you to posit that the MGB doesn't exist without undermining your first premise.
Another problem with the argument:1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great exists in some possible world.3. If a maximally great exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a maximally great exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.Premise 1 states that it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world. That is, I can think of a possible world that the MGB exists in. Since the MGB is in the realm of possibility, then it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist.But if we go to premise 3, it states that the MGB exists in every possible world. That is, it is impossible to think of a possible world where the MGB doesn't exist, since it exists in every possible world.Premise 1 and premise 3 contradict each other.
There is no contradiction in the argument you reference. The contradiction is actually in your response, "it is also possible to think of a world where the MGB doesn't exist." It begs the question: how do you think about something that doesn't exist if it doesn't exist? How do you conceive a world where you acknowledge the nonexistence of the MGB, when nonexistence cannot be perceived? Existence is epistemologically rational; nonexistence is not.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
how is that a sham? Ruling by the consensus of the majority is what democracy is. Yes that involves pandering. Yes that is messy. But I'm not aware of any system that is better. At least in a democracy the rulers have to try to appeal to the people. In other forms of government there is no such requirement.
There's a group of 20 people. 18 men, and two women. Since the decisions of this group are handled by the democratic process, one member proposes a referendum on whether the 18 men should rape at least one of the women. The one who proposed the referendum makes his appeal, and the two women make their appeals. A vote is taken and 11 out of the 20 people who were party to this process voted on raping at least one of the women. Assuming that the two women voted against the proposition, that also means that not only would the women have to be victimized as a result of being party to that particular democratic process, but also the seven men who voted against it will be forced to victimize at least one of the women.
So what is my point? If a system of political interaction does not reflect a moral economy, then it is by NO MEANS a "better" system.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
@HistoryBuff
VP should be fundamentally selected based on competence and loyalty, any other reason is corrupt unless to reverse another corruption in a subtle way.
how is it corrupt? That is all the position of VP is for. Other than casting a tie breaking vote in the senate, it is doesn't do anything at all. It's almost sole job is to "balance the ticket" to try to get voters that would otherwise dislike the presidential candidate. Since the role of VP has no power and doesn't actually do anything in government, there is no reason for the position to be based on merit. Because they have nothing to do anyway.
All the more reason that democracy is a sham. When ever a system is built on majoritarian consensus, pandering is inevitable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Even if we are to say that God merely observes events as they unfold, we would still have an issue with the compatibility of free will and omniscience. The problem with saying that God knows X because you chose X is that it implies some sort of backwards causality between the cause (your decision) and the effect (God knowing about your decision). The cause would effectively occur after the effect (in the cases where God knows about the future). This would cause issues, such as the ones presented in the bilking argument:Imagine B to be earlier than A, and let B be the alleged effect of A. Thus we assume that A causes B even though A is later than B. The idea behind the bilking argument is that whenever B has occurred, it is possible, in principle, to intervene in the course of events and prohibit A from occurring. But if this is the case, A cannot be the cause of B; hence, we cannot have backward causation.Another problem you would face even if God is merely the observer is that once the result of a choice is known, it is causally impossible for the events leading up to that choice to not result in that choice. If we know that someone makes choice A, then it is impossible for the prior actions to result in them choosing B. This is analogous to Schrödinger’s cat, where once we observe that the cat is dead, we know that there cannot have been a series of events which end up in the cat being alive, and vice versa. Since God observes all of temporal space, this would go for every single event. It would be causally impossible for the events of any choice to not result in that choice, thus resulting in a single chain of events (the ones that do end up happening). This would lock you into a position of hard determinism.
It isn't hard determinism because your delineation hasn't substantiated how making these choices is independent of my will. Once again, you're focusing on that which one will do, rather than that which one can do.
And the causality problem isn't a problem because you have misunderstood cause and effect. The effect isn't God's knowing about my decision. God is omniscient; therefore, his knowing is an unaffected constant. The cause is my decision, and the effect is my action. One can analyze in retrospect the series of decisions of that could have led up to an action or event. But it would still be one's decision, informing free will. Free will doesn't inform a uninhibited elastic future. It informs one's capacity to make a decision or take an action using his or her discretion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Ultimately, this is the statement I'm trying to understand. So, taking a step back, could you explain how this works for you in practice?
I acknowledge God's being. I believe in God's existence. I understand God's significance in one's spirituality and God's effect in shaping the reality of those who both adhere to and fervently reject him. So let's consider my argument:
All which is perceived must exist.
God is perceived.
Therefore, God exists.
We know that the major premise is true because it is impossible to perceive the nonexistent. The nonexistent provides no information on its being or form. So for example, when one claims that God does not exist, one would have to explain how one would know God does not exist, if God in fact does not exist. God's alleged nonexistence would provide no information on itself to be observed or perceived. So then how can one posit the argument, "God does not exist," which by its very statement indicates a perception of nonexistence? It's paradoxical. Many atheists, like yourself, erroneously conflate immaterial/abstract with nonexistence. But the immaterial/abstract can be perceived, ironically as exampled by abstracts like mathematics--the fundamental basis of materialist standards. So then one would also have to explain how the existent (physical laws) can interact with the alleged nonexistent (immaterial/abstracts like mathematics) when the two are ontologically discrete.
We know that the minor premise is true given anecdotal evidence. I and God's adherents have informed on our perception of God.
The conclusion is an extension of the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
P1: A=A. A =/= not A.P2: Free will stipulates that if there are two or more outcomes for a being to choose, then each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening.P3: God is never wrong.P4: God's omniscience means that He knows everything, including all future events. If He already knows the outcome, and He is never wrong, then the probability for that outcome is 1, and the probability for every other outcome is zero.P5: It can't be the case that an outcome has both a zero and a non-zero chance of happening. (from P1)C1: Therefore, free will and God's omniscience are incompatible.
Your first premise is fine. Your second premise is where the syllogism falls apart. "Free will" doesn't stipulate that there are two or more outcomes, where each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening. "Free will" delineates that two or more outcomes are possible (not probable) subject to the decisions of the (moral) agent. Free will is about leaving that which one can do to one's discretion, not that which one will do. God could know which decisions I'm going to make, and it still wouldn't change that I was the one who made them. Very akin to a parent who uses their own past experience to forecast some of their children's decisions. Just because they knew what would happen (which of course would be validated in retrospect) doesn't mean that their children didn't have or make the choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Very akin to schrodinger's cat, but changing the abstraction doesn't change the logic. For example, can you prove that a box exists using your presumably materialist standard? And we need not confine it to locations, just demonstrate that it merely is. Or does the "box" exist as an abstract?
Each question you've asked me has attempted to qualify existence using a preset standard, whether it be the number of candies located (notice that I'm not reciprocating the use of the term exist here) in a jar or a cat located in a box. None inform existence, only the abstract to which you intend to subject it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If, consistently, any group of our species (the 'we') in any terrain, any ethnicity and any IQ level average among them, pushes away from anarchy rapidly as the generations progress, it implies that there is indeed a logical 'gravitating away from anarchy' consistent among even entirely opposite systems.
Once again, why are you presuming the "we" in any group are the ones pushing away from anarchy? What capacity has that group ever had to alter the nature or authority of their government as members of the electorate? Case in point: can "we" vote out democracy? Furthermore, you have yet to inform the trend of government as a logically consistent--and let's not forget morally consistent (since you did allege that anarchy was immoral)--progression.
On top of that, anarchy itself is an illusion
Anarchy is an ideal, not an illusion.
When is everyone free, even of social hierarchy
What is this social hierarchy of which you speak/type?
and norms pressuring conformity?
Non sequitur. No one presumes that one could be "free" of their emotions. This is a political discussion, remember?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If what you are saying is true, why did we begin at anarchy and end up here?
You lack the empirical data to presume that we "begun" at anarchy. But assuming this is the case, why'd we end up here? The fear of death. And this can manifest in the formations of clans and tribes, or the enslavement of a populace by a war lord. The State is here, for example, because it manipulates its populace into feeling dependent, while codifying the force it threatens through law.
If we began with the system that is most logical and which all gravitate towards, how and why did we consistently move away from it in pretty much each and every continent, country etc?
Why are you presuming "we" had anything to do with that which you allege has been a consistent progression away from anarchy? Authority has always been concentrated among a select number of people. So by "we" do you mean the general populace, or members of the State? Second, if time is supposed to serve as a metric to how logically and morally consistent a progression is, then why after millennia do "we" still practice slavery? My point is, RationalMadman, you have to substantiate how political systems gravitate towards the most logical before asking me a question about it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Today we have a diehard anarchist.
Not a "diehard" anarchist. Anarchism is a logical consequence of sustaining individualist philosophy.
Do you find the stigma that almost all other political systems have against Anarchism to be fair?
No, but it comes as no shock. The hegemony preserves its capacity by inculcating the populace over which it presumes authority with notions of dependency on the state. The relationship between an individual citizen and his State virtually reflects that of a child and parent, rather than that of a patron and servant. The state justifies its plenary authority by perpetuating the myth that its proxy extends the interests of a nebulous and unidentifiable collective imperative, all while eliding the building block of any sustainably functional and free society--the moral individual. So, I do not concern myself with the stigma perpetuated by all other political systems because all other political systems are logically and morally inconsistent.
Where do you feel Anarchism is, in relation to the wings and political spectrum?
I do not "feel" that anarchism is anywhere on any political spectrum. Anarchism is the rejection of the State. Political spectrum is merely a placebo offered to a deluded electorate who believe that they have a significant function in how the State operates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I'm so confused that my questions might not even be the right ones to ask, but here I go:What is the difference between a description of existence and quantification?Perhaps to be more direct, how is the jar of candies example different from God belief?
Because you're not asking about existence, you're asking about form using a mathematical standard. So, if I were to say, "yes, there's a 1000 candies in the jar," I would have to accept the number 1000 as 1000, and every other number which relates to the number 1000 as they are. So if there weren't 1000 candies in the jar, it wouldn't qualify its existence, only the metric and abstract used to rationalize that existence. All an incorrect answer would substantiate is that I'm being inconsistent with an accepted standard, not that I'm wrong about the scope of my belief, much less that my belief doesn't inform perception.
In other words, you're merely asking one to gauge a number, which itself is abstract. And that informs my point.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Good leaders choose good people who are well-suited to the task at hand to get the job done right."Also, it seems like you completely dropped my point on vacancies.
Once again, how does the turnover rate (and vacancies) inform dysfunction? How has the turnover rate and vacancies affect adversely the function of his administration?
I maintain that one (namely, the president) should not employ a family member for the sole reason that it is illegal.
Section 3110 prohibits the appointment of certain persons to positions of em-ployment in the federal government. It is therefore a “provision of law regulating the employment . . . of persons in the Government service.”1 Under section 105(a), the President can exercise his authority to appoint and fix the pay of employees in the White House Office “without regard to” such a law. 3 U.S.C. § 105(a)(1). This authority is “[s]ubject” only to the provisions of subsection (a)(2), which limit the number of White House employees the President may appoint at certain pay levels.See id. § 105(a)(2). Thus, according to the most natural and straightforward reading of section 105(a), the President may appoint relatives as employees in the White House Office “without regard to” the anti-nepotism statute.
George Washington:
- Setting the stage for what all future presidencies would look like (pretty significant)
Abraham Lincoln:
- Ratifying the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, as well as outlawing slavery (also pretty significant)
John F. Kennedy:
- Averting all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union, as well as fighting for equal rights for African-Americans and other disenfranchised groups.
Please tell me one thing that Trump has done that is nearly as significant as this.
1. What would presidencies look like after George Washington set the stage?
2. The 14th and 15th amendments were ratified after Lincoln's death. And he only outlawed slavery in the rebellious confederate states. The border states which stayed loyal to the Union were still allowed to practice legal slavery.
3. What were those rights for which he fought among African-Americans and other disenfranchised groups?
And, I'm not trying to boast Trump's presidency. I argue only that he is no worse.
Yes, he still thought he lost.
Yes, but you are extending HistoryBuff's argument that he ran for president thinking he wasn't going to win. Clearly, your cited article does not inform this.
Why else would you pay someone $130,000 to not talk about an affair you had with them if it didn't contain any unsavoury stuff in it?
That is for you to answer and substantiate since you're the one alleging he either sexually assaulted or raped these women.
I said that because the main focus of this discussion is on Trump, not Biden.
So that's a no?
Please tell me of a successful business strategy where you accumulate $1 billion in debt and have multiple brands completely collapse beneath your feet.
How much is he worth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
When an ant's antennae bumps up against the glass, are they bumping up against evidence of there being a higher power that created their environment? Or, does evidence of a higher power depend on whether or not they are mentally capable of pondering the origin of their environment?
When an ant bumps against a glass, the only evidence that demonstrates is there's an ant and a glass. The complexity of the ant's location and the position of the glass doesn't necessarily inform a creator or higher power. It's a conclusion without a substantiated premise.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
True, some of the government's dysfunctionality can be attributed to forces beyond Trump. But it takes a special kind of president to reach an 80+% turnover rate
How does a turnover rate reflect dysfunctionality?
And this also isn't mentioning the number of positions he filled with his family members (blatant nepotism, at best). Good leaders choose good people who are well-suited to the task at hand to get the job done right. Trump has done the opposite of that.
That works both ways. If you maintain that one should not employ a family member for the sole reason his or her being family, then one ought not to reject employing a family member for the sole reason of his or her being family.
Well then, what about his tax figures?
Where are his practices delineated? The tax figures may indicate how much he lost, but do you know why?
True, those figures' histories aren't entirely pristine (Washington's complicated affair with slavery, Lincoln's actions in ex parte Milligan, and Kennedy's questionable love affairs, as examples), but they still have done substantially more for the US than Trump has.
Like what?
Need something directly from the man himself? Here.
Read the article. He thought he lost because his daughter and son-in-law told him so. So he was "surprised" when he found out that he won.
His lawyer admitted to doing so.
Where in that article does it state that the women he paid off were assaulted or raped? In fact, the article alleges that he had affairs with the women who were paid off. Aren't you just grasping at straws at this point?
Ok then.
So can I then presume that you have watched the videos and the evidence is sufficient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Say there was a jar filled to the brim with many little candies. Suppose also that someone firmly believed the jar contained exactly 1,000 candies. Do 1,000 candies exist within the jar?
Nice try. Above I clearly delineate the description of existence, which primarily focuses on state of being. You're clearly asking me to quantify that which is contained in a jar. If I offer you a number--any number--I would then have to accept the mathematical standard upon which your query is premised. Your question doesn't seek to explore the scope of belief, but rather, whether "whim" can invalidate accepted standards.
Perhaps, you might try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I think you're saying that because believers and deniers can perceive god, god exists. To my understanding, your use of the word "perceive" is synonymous with "imagine" or "conceive." In other words, even a denier can conceive of the notion of god, thus, under your framework, they perceive god, thus making him exist.
No. While I do not exclude imagination and conception from the use of the term perceive, I particularly used the words "acknowledged" and "believed." There are several other terms I could use, but I chose "perceived" because it encapsulates many aspects of cognition by relating them. And furthermore, I didn't mention once any "notion" of God.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure.
1. Athias will do just fine.
2. Individualism, Voluntarism, Anarchism.
3. Showing off.
4. Given your list, freedom is the top thing for which society should aim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No. If your premise is an assumption/hypothetical and the conclusion you draw from extending those premises is an assumption/hypothetical, then what exactly would you have ascertained evidence of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
How is he perceived?
God is believed. God is acknowledged by his adherents and even his detractors. Your mere question for example is a demonstration of your perception of God, given that you'd be incapable of acknowledging that which you couldn't perceive. In other words, one couldn't identify nothing. Furthermore, there are those who feel God. That suffices in substantiating that God is perceived.
Why is this so?
This is so by definition. To exist is to have real being whether material or spiritual.
Then it's simply a matter of establishing a logical equivalence using the definition's converse. God has spiritual being; therefore, God by definition exists.
I appreciate your continuing participation and your patience with my questions.
It's no trouble.
As you can see, RM is very displeased with my conduct.
That is RationalMadman's issue to deal with.
If I offend you at any point, feel free to stop responding.
I don't get offended easily, much less express emotion in venues where they're unnecessary. By that very same token, if you've been "holding back," so to speak, please don't. It's like I said before, "Ask whatever you deem necessary."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Sure you may:
1.All which is perceived must exist.God is perceived.Therefore, God exists.The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.2.All material or spiritual beings exist.God is a spiritual being.Therefore, God exists.The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological
Even though you are merely inquiring, feel free to challenge if the inclination strikes you.
Created: