Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Excuse me, there are so many problems in the world, and you are choosing to advocate child sacrifice.
I don't advocate "child sacrifice." I've already stated that personally I'm against abortion. But that objection does not inform a pregnant woman's capacity to expel the fetus from her womb. She bears me no obligation because it's neither my child, nor my womb, just as she bears you no obligation. If she's committed a tort, then the parties in dispute are the mother and the fetus. And even if you assume the fetus's proxy, you'd have to justify and identify the arrangement or contract which creates the obligation. And stating that "having sex is a tacit assumption of responsibility" does not suffice. In fact, it's quite lazy. All it does is sophistically argue the reason the mother should be bound to a slave contract.
I don't weigh morals against each other; I wouldn't argue that one right is of higher priority. The mother has a right to her womb; the fetus has a right to its person. And the unfortunate truth is that the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own outside its mother's womb before viability. That's the reason it dies (and note, I'm aware of abortion methods which harm the fetus before expulsion, and I oppose such methods.) This incapacity to survive outside its mother's womb does not justify the fetus's or any wanna be proxy's coercing the mother to carry the pregnancy to term. The mother is still an individual with rights; and just as necessity wouldn't legitimize a person's violating another person's rights, so too must the necessity of the fetus have no relevance in the exercise and defense of one's rights.
Forgive me if no argument you make will convince me that this isn't issue that requires you to be a piece of shit to stand up for.
Neither my convincing you nor your opinion of me is of any consequence. I attempted to have you inform and defend your statement. If you bear no interest in doing so, then by all means, disengage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
"There was a deliberate push by the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council, run by the Koch brothers), to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s, starting with the south — with Florida being the harshest," Light says. The first Stand Your Ground law in American came to pass in Florida in 2005. Beyond offering immunity, it has been expanded with amendments that require the prosecution to prove the individual threatened was not reasonable in defending their property [even if that "property" is walking down a public street]. [LINK]IT BASICALLY LETS YOU SHOOT ANYONE YOU'RE AFRAID OF, AS LONG AS A JURY AGREES THAT YOUR FEAR WAS "REASONABLE".
Did the NRA and ALEC do anything illegal by pushing to expand stand your ground laws in the mid-2000s? And if the State sanctions it, does that not make it legitimate? Is there a standard that should be maintained independent of state arbitration and public participation?
In other words, the biggest scaredy-cat wins!!
Well fear can inform the imperative to defends one's person can't it?
And by the way, if some dude tries to kiss you at a bar, you can kill them too!!
That's public knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wow
I'm attempting to have you explain the obligation. You simply stated "If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex," as if that informs anything substantial. Why does sex create the obligation, and if we were to remove sex from the equation, does the obligation still hold? Once the baby is birthed does the obligation end there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So it's sex which establishes the obligation. Sex doesn't always result in pregnancy, and coitus isn't the only means to conceive. What about In Vitro Fertilization? If she conceives through IVF, would that still constitute an obligation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And I presume you'd argue that its mother bears the obligation to ensure a live birth or at least carry it to term? What would you argue informs this obligation?A live birth certainly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why does that matter?Those "Stand Your Ground" laws are brand new.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Generally speaking, lethal force is permissible when you or other innocent life face an imminent, credible risk of death or grievous bodily harm. [LINK]Credible risk of death.
Why the sophism? You left a substantial amount of that article out of consideration (e.g. the scope of consideration for grievous bodily harm.) Not to mention, the article mentions that self-defense laws vary from state to state. Alabama for example is one of the few remaining states that has "Stand Your Ground" Laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As you are denying a child its birth through abortion
Deny its birth? Do abortions necessarily deny birth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you kill someone by running them over with your car INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.If you kill someone by running them over with your car UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.If you shoot someone to death with a gun INTENTIONALLY it's called MURDER.If you shoot someone to death with a gun UNINTENTIONALLY it's called MANSLAUGHTER.
What about the cases where one shoots another to death in self-defense? What is that called?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you're claiming that the aggressor is somehow more-responsible than the trigger-man
Yes.
By that logic, I am guilty of suicide.
Legally, no. Suicide isn't a crime. Now if you're referring to the act itself (actus reus,) then again no, you did not shoot yourself.
So we should let all those kids out of prison who shot people after being bullied. Ammiright?
If they were defending themselves against aggression, then sure, why not?
You're moving the goalposts. A 3-year-old-trigger-man is not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
There's no moving of the goalposts. The State decrees that any person victimized by aggression is not LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS which effectively end said aggression. This is especially true in cases of affirmative defense. (A notable case on the matter would be the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case.)
If a 20 year-old got into their father's unlocked drawer which contains their firearm and then fatally wounded themself, would that still be considered negligent homicide?
You're still not answering the question. I asked would the state be alleging in the charge that I shot my son, his age notwithstanding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Submit your reasoning.The person firing the gun is 100% guilty of manslaughter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That makes every victim responsible for crimes against them (they should have taken precautions).
No, it doesn't. They're alleging that she's the aggressor. The "victim" in this case (and I'm assuming here given the extent of the information provided) could be the one who shot her. That is, the other one involved could make the case of an affirmative defense where she was defending herself.
If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
Did you shoot yourself dead? No. Are you morally and criminally liable for the circumstances that concluded in your death? Yes.
Now answer me this:
If I were the father of a 3 year-old child and my child got into my unlocked drawer which contains my firearm where he'd pick it up, unwittingly discharge it, fatally wounding himself, and upon the advent of this tragedy, the State charges me with negligent homicide, would the charge be alleging that I shot my son?
Created:
-->
@Vader
It doesn't matter what you believe is needed, especially due to an unsubstantiated prospect of "havoc." Anyone can create havoc, and they wouldn't need a gun either.I believe it is uneeded for someone with these disabilities to own a gun when they have a chance at creating havok in our nations.
Mass shootings are committed by mentally ill. That is what I'm focusing on. In the average society, things will happen like that
Show me the pathological analysis of blood work that infers "illness." Mental illness is merely a guise thrown around to augment abnormal social behaviors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
Just so that there are no misconceptions about my argument, here it is:Should one argue that an abortion is an extension of a woman's right to her privacy and person, then by that same reasoning, a parent's obligation to the sustenance of his or her children should be argued capable of being [ABANDONED AT A MEDICAL FACILITY] as well regardless of the children's age.
Why a medical facility?
What moral theory do you subscribe to?
Individualism.
This is legally incoherent.If I'm at a party, and I see some twerp that I don't like, and then I pummel them into the dance floor in order to increase my social standing, and in the scuffle, the twerp shoots me dead...AM I GUILTY OF SUICIDE??
Are you arguing under the misunderstanding that we're discussing action rather than liability? She did not shoot herself, that much is clear. If the State can substantiate that she was indeed the aggressor, then they can make the case that the circumstances which concluded in her being shot is primarily her fault. And moral liability rests with her if she in fact initiated the aggression.
@secularmerlin
So really almost never since it is hard to imagine being in a situation where shooting someone is the only effective means of defense against an unarmed pregnant woman slapping you.
It's not about that which one can imagine, it's about moral liability. Her welfare cannot be my responsibility once she initiates aggression. Absent of any aggression, I have a moral responsibility to do everyone no harm. Once aggression is initiated, I no longer bear the obligation to the individual because that individual violated the same obligation he or she bears me. Hence, I sustain my right to my person by effectively ending the aggression by any means.
Your argument is that the reaction is not commensurate with the action. That is not the concern of the target; that is concern of the aggressor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So your argument is that if an unarmed pregnant woman slaps you you should be aloud to shoot her and it is her own fault?
No. That's not defense; that's retaliation. And once again, there are no lines. Once a person initiates aggression, then the target bears the imperative to end the aggression. So to use your example, if an unarmed pregnant woman continued to slap me (on-going aggression) and shooting her is the only effective means to end her assault, then yes, the conclusion to our conflict would be her liability since she was the one who initiated.
I have not endorsed one camp over another.
And for those who claim that they're pro-choice while simultaneously sustaining that her privacy be null and void after the child is birthed, I have news for you: you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.
I do think that someone with no uterus should have minimal input about the discussion
There's nothing that can stop those with no uterus from having that discussion.
we are not actually discussing my opinions about abortion but your opinions on what does and does not constitute manslaughter.
No, we're discussing what the Alabama legislature constitutes as manslaughter. I just understand their reasoning. If they're able to substantiate that unarmed pregnant woman was the aggressor, then they can conclude that the conflict which resulted in her fetus's death was her fault. My point is that this isn't inconsistent with how legal/criminal liability is currently levied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Just so that there are no misconceptions about my argument, here it is:
Should one argue that an abortion is an extension of a woman's right to her privacy and person, then by that same reasoning, a parent's obligation to the sustenance of his or her children should be argued capable of being "aborted" as well regardless of the children's age.
Those who assume the "pro-life" argument are more consistent; they are not arguing for special privileges (then again, what is a legal entitlement if not a privilege?) They merely argue that zygotes/embryos/fetuses be included in the scope of "protections" afforded to children under 18 years of age. And regardless of its name ("life, personhood, etc.") human development begins at conception.
And despite my personal objection, which has no relevance to the exercise of a woman's right over her body, I in fact endorse the "pro-choice" position. The difference is, I extend the reasoning of a woman's right to privacy to its logical conclusion which is to completely remove any legal obligation a parent has to his or her child. And for those who claim that they're pro-choice while simultaneously sustaining that her privacy be null and void after the child is birthed, I have news for you: you're not pro-choice; you're pro-abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are we going to argue over lexical semantics, now, and elide the description I gave earlier?Yes it most certainly is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Even if someone punches you in the face, you're not allowed to shoot them.
No. As I've already stated, "flipping someone off" is not an act of aggression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think it is better to view this as a worse case scenario hypothetical if we are to get to the bottom of what we believe and why.Is that something you are interested in?
It's not about interest. My particular focus is on consistency; if one is going to argue that this mother bears no culpability, if she's proven to be the aggressor in this conflict, then by that reasoning, one should at the very least endorse the removal of child endangerment/welfare laws.
What degree of physical harm? Because I'm sure you will agree that this
There are no degrees. Physical harm is physical harm.
Is not what happened. So again where exactly is the line. A slap? Two slaps? A punch? Disregarding queensberry rules and hitting below the belt? At what point exactly does it become an unarmed pregnant woman's fault someone shot her?
There are no lines. Once a person initiates aggression, the target of that aggression has the onus to put an end to that aggression by any means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Please explain how shooting a person you did not know was present killing them is not manslaughter.
That's a good point. But again, my points were made in conjunction. And perhaps this may illustrate the point: what if a pregnant woman chases you with a chainsaw, and you happen to find your legally owned 9 mil glock 19, if you were to shoot her, fatally wounding her, and thus concluding in the death of her unborn child, are you responsible for the fetus's death? Should you then be charged with manslaughter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This implies a presumption of guilt. Legally we should begin with a presumption of innocence. It is therefore up to the accusing party to differentiate between being an instigator and an act of self defense or even that the two cannot in fact both be the case.
And isn't that what the charge and indictment does? Has she been convicted, yet?
Again you are assuming guilt when legally the reverse should be the case. Please present your preferred metric for separating aggressors from non aggressors if in fact either party was non aggressive (as a side note shooting someone seems very aggressive and inciting).
Of course, I'm assuming guilt because my argument is inductive. If the unarmed person was the aggressor, then she would be guilty/culpable. Of course, it's the burden of the accuser to substantiate the premise, "she was the aggressor." And my description of an aggressor would be one who initiates physical harm.
You did so to speak you flipped him off.
I was actually referring to the women. When you asked your question before, I replied, "No," because flipping someone off is not an act of aggression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Absolutely not.The person firing the gun should be charged with manslaughter.The mother may be charged with "reckless endangerment of a child" or somesuch, but NOT manslaughter.
I suspect that the person firing the gun wasn't charged with manslaughter for two reasons:
1. She didn't know that the other woman was pregnant (which speaks to her intent.)
2. She was not the instigator.
And the mother can be charged with felony child endangerment, which is quite similar to manslaughter as far as sentencing; you're not really arguing that she shouldn't be held culpable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
Birth is when you enter the public space.
How is that?
Before birth you are part of your mother and not a separate entity entitled to the rights and protections associated with CITIZENS.
How is a fetus any less separate than a birthed infant? You may be able to argue that birth children are not dependent on a single individual, but they are still dependent, the obligation to which is enforceable by State force. One resolution would be to not obligate any individual to the sustenance of the infant even if that means the infant's death, but that's a slippery slope those who assume the pro-choice argument do not find easy to argue.
And if this separation you speak of is physical, then would I still be considered as part of the public space every time I penetrate a woman? Can I rebuff a rape charge, for example, if I were to argue that during said rape, my victim and I weren't physically separate? Does a pregnant woman lose her rights because, as you argued, she's no longer a "separate entity"?
@secularmerlin:
In your example how do you separate a woman who got into a fight from one who was defending her family and should she then still be prosecuted for manslaughter?
The premise of the charge is that she initiated the conflict, right? It's hard to propose an affirmative defense under those circumstances.
Is it in fact ever alright to press charges on an unarmed person who has been assaulted with a deadly weapon for being assaulted with a deadly weapon?
Depends. What if that unarmed person initiated the conflict? Isn't the aggressor at fault?
If you flip a man off on the highway and he shoots you and incidentally your passenger killing them but leaving you alive are you guilty of manslaughter?
No.
If not please explain how the two situations differ in any discernible legal sense.
That depends. Who threw the first punch, so to speak?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's not arbitrary.CITIZENSHIP and its associated human rights and legal protections begin at BIRTH.This event is commonly commemorated with a state-issued-official-magical-piece-of-paper we often refer to as a, "birth certificate".
- Conception
- Birth
- 18 years of age
What's not arbitrary about selecting one of these stages of human development and ascribing a "certificate" associated with human rights and legal protections for no irreducible reason other than the stage itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then your argument is that abortion should be considered justified in the same way
Not all methods of abortion are justified. For example, using the same analogy, would you consider my puncturing the aforestated person's head, killing him/her, before I expelled them from my home, murder?
miscarriage is not manslaughter
Yes.
which case there has been a miscarriage of justice in Alabama?
Understand their reasoning. Had she not been pregnant, but instead was taking care of a five year-old toddler, would her starting the fight that would eventually conclude in the murder of her child not make her somewhat culpable under current legislation? What if she were fighting with a one year-old infant in her arms?
[Note: I don't agree with any State measure, but it's not inconsistent. There's a bit of hypocrisy in the camp of those who support a woman's right to choose.]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I challenge your first axiom. (And by doing this, I undermine your entire argument.)
I propose the counterfactual, life begins at conception, but abortion isn't necessarily murder.
In the circumstances where abortion is exercised to merely expel the fetus from its mother's womb, and not do it bodily harm, I argue that the resulting expiration of the fetus is not murder. My reasoning is best conveyed through this analogy: if someone were to enter my home (their being invited notwithstanding) and I chose to expel them, would their capacity to survive outside my home be my responsibility? If my intent is simply to sustain my right over home, this someone's survival notwithstanding, then does this expulsion comprise of malice aforethought? It doesn't. It's the fetus's physiology that disallows it from surviving outside its mother's womb, not necessarily the expulsion.
Just an aside, the political impetus for "pro-life" is in my judgement more consistent than that of "pro-choice." Their position is that the parent has a responsibility to the child and therefore is obligated to sustain them until these children can sustain themselves. In essence, those who are pro-life are just arguing that zygotes/embryos/fetuses should be included in the scope of legislation that obligates parents to their children. And they would have a point given that conception is when "life" begins since the zygote has a human genome. Pro-choice proponents can play lexical semantic games all they want, but if we were to operate on their method of argument by arbitrarily selecting when that life should begin, then there's nothing indefensible about one's arguing that life begins at 18.
It should be noted that I do believe a woman has a right to exercise an expulsion of content (e.g. fetus) in her womb (e.g. abortion) but the inconsistency is resolved by removing the obligation parents have in sustaining their children, their age notwithstanding. If her "privacy" is paramount, then this right should always be extended, not argued one way (abortion) and argued another (child support and family law.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Reality is now copyrighted. You don't even own your own memories.
That's the slippery slope of arguments endorsing intellectual property. How does one lay claim to an idea when its fundamentally and infinitely reproducible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
Although illegally downloading someone's song doesn't deprive them of the ability to listen to that song, it does take away their ability to sell the music they produce.
No it doesn't. Owners of "intellectual property" can still sell their content even if it's illegally downloaded. If downloading content neither displaces nor deprives, then there's nothing to prevent said owners from at least attempting to sell their content. Proponents of IP claim that they are being deprived of the prospect of sales had they been the exclusive distributor. It's argued as an opportunity cost--i.e. the costs of foregone alternatives. You have to justify the regulated distribution less you engage circular logic (i.e. opportunity costs --> property right and property right --> opportunity costs.)
We as a society have simply decided that people should be able to sell their intellectual labor, just as they can sell their physical labor.
"We" decided nothing. Even if you were to indulge a consensus fallacy and argue that this alleged collective consciousness is appeased by consensus, there was never a public referendum on intellectual property. And this is purposeful. If there were a referendum, then "we" would have likely decided against it.
There is nothing arbitrary about this.
It is arbitrary when the government attempts to manipulate the scarcity of a resource by arbitrarily enforcing a regulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL:
Your scathing critique is requested.
No critique warranted. I agree with you.
@dylancatlow:
To say that something is "property" is to say that no one else but the owner can have or use it unless the owner decides they can. But this is necessarily a legal concept, because even in the case of physical property like a chair, anyone can acquire the chair by stealing it. Nothing within the chair itself says that it belongs to the owner. That's a societal decision, which makes the whole notion of property abstract. To say that a physical object is "property" is really to say that we as a society will *treat* it as "property". And clearly, things like songs and movies can be treated as property. All that's missing in the case of intellectual property is one of the justifications for property, namely that because taking away property from its owner deprives them of the ability to use it, it shouldn't be allowed. But it also deprives them of the ability to sell it, just like in the case of abstract ideas such as songs and movies.
The concern here isn't whether the concept of property is abstract. The concern is whether the abstract should be extended to abstracts themselves (i.e. patents, copyrights, and trademarks.) Property is a device that resolves disputes over scarce resources; and "intellectual property" is nothing of the sort. It is abundant. Another concern is establishing theft. In order to establish theft, the property must be displaced denying its owner abusus and its usufruct. How does this occur when one, for example, downloads a song? Intellectual property law undermines itself in that its real purpose is to monopolize the capacity to rent intellectual content. It does not establish ownership. If that were the case, then once purchasing a song, for example, its owner (at least of that partitioned data which contains the song) should be able to do whatever he or she wants with it including uploading it to their computer and reproducing it so that others can listen. Denying that intellectual content can be alienated especially through purchase or willful trade while also denying your patrons the usufruct of the purchase is to deny said content is actual property.
"Intellectual property" as its currently legislated is a useless attempt to "own" access and distribution of intellectual content at all times. It's like selling museum tickets or "sponsoring" an animal in need.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@zedvictor4:
The point is that there is more to the issue of a minimum wage than an academic exercise in pure economics.
What is the "more" to this issue?
I would suggest that this sort of debate highlights how very little we have actually moved forward as a species, in terms of inherent behaviour.
What is our target or objective as a species?
For most people when push comes to shove, it's still all about the survival of the fittest.
"Still?" You mean it ought not to be? Why?
It's just that nowadays mental and financial fitness are far more important than just physical fitness.
As sectors of the economy enter their Quaternary phase, I would figure so.
We're still more than happy to whip the donkey and feed it carrots.
I presume that this "whip" is a metaphor for subjugation. So it begs the question: how are these donkeys (hard working poor people) being "whipped"? And who's doing the whipping?
@Nemiroff:
Fair enough. My position on minimum wage is a bit unique. I'm not for a national 15 (or any flat rate), but one tied to the cost of living, and especially rent. More precisely, im not sure if low cost areas need a wage increase, but high cost areas absolutely need a boost and our economy will not survive without it. Although i want the wage to vary, I do want there to be a federal minimum set via algorithm weighing relative costs rather then a flat rate.I'm assuming your view on minimum wage is there should be no min wage. Please correct me if I'm wrong.With those definitions I would be willing to argue Pro on either:a) Minimum wage must keep up with costs, or the economy will suffer/collapse. This is a point i frequently push and am very prepared to defend.orb) Minimum wage is beneficial to the poor. This seems to be a concern you focused on, I feel confident I can support that.
The latter will suffice.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
It doesn't matter. The point is, if you had solid evidence at hand for the existence of a particular god (regardless of whether it is concrete or abstract), would you use it?This question has already been answered.Your answer:Okay, good. Now, if there were evidence to support your proof of said god, would you use it?Depends on the context. If the context demands evidence, then of course.Would this context demand evidence?What is the context? When you ask for proof of existence, what effect is this evidence to inform? Materialist? Idealist? Or does the distinction not matter at all?I will explain this to you again. You (as a theist) are trying to prove the existence of your particular god. You find strong, solid evidence (physical artifact, logical proof, etc.) for the existence of your particular god. Would you use said evidence?
Once again this has already been answered. In addition to that which I've emboldened, I also stated this:
If I were to coach one on presenting an argument for the existence of God, I would inform them to highlight the significance abstracts have in rationalizing existence, and that it's logically dissonant to claim that abstracts, whether "rigorously defined" or "purely imaginative," do not "exist," while using abstracts as a gauge for determining that which exist and that which does not. I would also coach them to point out that since we possess and are possessed by our own minds, we'd have to be able to control for an existence independent of our mind's bias--meaning, you isolate it, and you observe it's behavior. How do you perceive without the influence of your mind?
If you cannot answer that question in a straightforward way, then let me ask you this:
Nothing roundabout in my responses.
Is it true that the more evidence/proof one has to support their premise, the better (more convincing) their premise will be?
No.
If an argument contains a logical fallacy (say, circular reasoning), then is it still valid (from a general POV)?
It would be logically inconsistent; validity is another matter.
Since you stated that not everyone bases validity on logical consistency, then it follows that not everyone would believe that logical fallacies would invalidate an argument. Is this what you are saying?
No. To engage argument is to tacitly or explicitly accept logic. Not all Theistic statements are arguments; case in point: I believe God exists. It's not an argument at all; it's a statement of truth. Now, let's add a reason. I believe God exists because I feel God in my soul. Once again, another true statement. How do you scrutinize that on the basis of logical consistency? Remember logic doesn't create truth; it connects true statements inductively, or deductively.
So you are saying that mathematics, science, and logic are completely made up. Correct?
I said they were imaginary. Then again, they are no less conceived by the mind than that to which you refer to as "made-up."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
only if you misbahave canada and scandanavia are places i admire and they are very peaceful but nordics tend to be well behaved are you?
So what would be the function of the aforementioned constitution if arbitrated conduct informs legal privileges?
i have no qualms about sing military force or killig lots of people even civilians
Hence, your liberal directives and imperatives exceed no more than my aforestated description--socialist propaganda.
revolutions have to be bloody
Not necessarily.
and the people that make them have to have ice in their veins
You've confused moral conviction with murderous psychopathy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly.So eight hours of work is eight hours of work.And worth is arbitrary.And social justice or injustice is something we can choose to ignore if we are in a position to be able to do so.
What's your point? Thus far, I've seen only a series of discrete statements.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This question has already been answered.It doesn't matter. The point is, if you had solid evidence at hand for the existence of a particular god (regardless of whether it is concrete or abstract), would you use it?
How would you differentiate the abstracts that are valid and the ones that aren't?
What is "valid"? (It might be interesting to note that the terms valid and value stem from the same origin.) My point is, these arguments are essentially reduced to disputes over values. I make distinctions based on logical consistency; that does not mean however others accept that standard when parsing their abstracts.
What do you mean by "imaginary" in this context?
Something imagined--i.e. conceived by the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
And what about the content you've read in textbooks, or read in papers? What about Da Vinci's notebooks? Would consider their being texts as diminishing to their effect as evidence?Well, it depends on what we are saying it stands as evidence for. It doesn't disqualify as a possibility. Everything we have ever imagined could be real in some possible world. I just don't think the text is evidence enough for me to say, become Christian and abandon what i believe.
I purposefully said as far as i know.
I know. "As far as I know" still suggests that you know something, it's particular extent notwithstanding. So, as far as you know, how do you know?
But as far as i know, it doesn't seem to be repeatable with our present day knowledge simply, bc if it were... i think we would have all heard about it by now. Minus things like conspiracies to withhold this information or fringe people with no desire to share... i would say there is no repeatable evidence the rest can show. I would add that bc i have experienced stuff and know i can't repeat it... that would also be a reason i suspect this, but i can't generalize with my experience vs. others... maybe they can. But that is sorta another reason i don't think it's repeatable. We can also add other things to this like human nature and a thirst for power. I would say all combined, i'm pretty confident there isn't repeatable evidence for "a particular deity."
What informs this confidence? Your statement is riddled with uncertainty (as it should be.) My point is that there's a distinction between making ontological claims (i.e. there is no evidence) and following epistemological form and stating, "I as an observer have yet to be made availed to said evidence." Though it's not as eloquent as the former, the latter is logically consistent. When one states that there's no evidence, one in essence states that the evidence can't be there, or that it does not exist. Of course, this would require proof in and of itself. The ontological claim also disregards the possibility or even the prospect that methodology, formula, or interpretation may be culpable.
Gauging your response, I presume your reasoning does follow epistemological form. It's just your conclusion ("there's no evidence") is at odds with it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"EXISTENCE" is INSEPARABLE from THE MIND."EXISTENCE" = NOUMENONNOUMENON = "EXISTENCE"THE MIND = NOUMENONNOUMENON = THE MINDTHE MIND =/= THE BRAIN
You've only restated the proviso. I am asking you the reason you submitted it in the first place. What is the significance in your distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Martial Law? So the basis of your "social democracy" is militaristic coercion?the us military dude thats who decides
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
You're handling this quite well, i hope you two continue this evidence topic in this thread.
I see no reason this discussion--or any discussion for that matter--cannot be handled with decorum.
My two cents... they do not have any hard evidence that would convince everyone, to date. Is there this evidence? Will there be this evidence? I don't know. If we are going off their holy text... i basically throw that out as evidence bc it's clearly man made.
Why does its being "man-made" as you put it disqualify it as evidence?
However, that evidence can easily be misinterpreted bc as far as i know... it's not repeatable.
And how do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is work
The production or supply of serviceable skills and effort, be it mental or physical.
and what is worth?
The amount you're willing to sell it for, and the amount someone else is willing to pay for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
Sure, as long as the terms are agreeable.Would either of you be willing for a debate on minimum wage?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".Or in other words, any supposition or analysis of that which exists fundamentally independent of the mind would be "logically incoherent"?100%If I were to submit a converse construction, would it suffice to say, it is logically necessary for anything logically coherent to be fundamentally dependent on the mind?100%
So then "existence" is fundamentally dependent on the mind.
But just to be clear, mind =/= brain.
Why have you added this proviso?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
This in essence is Kant's philosophy as indicated by 3ru7al's association with noumenon(which literally means manifestation of the mind in Greek) with ultimate reality.I don't think it was the case Kant used this term on accident or incorrectly, I think he used the term because it expressed what he was really trying to say.
I would agree with you. The etymology of the term "noumenon" is at odds with the common understanding of Kant's reference.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is logically impossible for "anything" to be fundamentally "independent" of "the mind".
Or in other words, any supposition or analysis of that which exists fundamentally independent of the mind would be "logically incoherent"?
If I were to submit a converse construction, would it suffice to say, it is logically necessary for anything logically coherent to be fundamentally dependent on the mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
This is all to do with a printed sign that people are getting angry about but can't explain why it makes them angry. It is typical libtard BS that only apologists for Islam seem to get angry about. They can't seem to make up their minds if it is about women, or about islamControversial Signs Posted In Downtown WinchesterIslam Is Right about Women.
That's funny.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're conflating "mind" and "brain".
How am I conflating "mind" and "brain"?
Every identifiable system and individual concept (monad) is "incomplete". Which is to say, contingent on (or, part-of) contextual concepts (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic,It is similar to formal arithmetic because it is what formal arithmetic itself is based on. This is Zeroth Order Logic....where you are still assuming truths.These are testable, verifiable REAL-TRUE-FACTS, quite distinct from OPINIONS and assumptions.This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.Logic itself is the evidentiary basis.If you took everything that you know and added it to everything that I know and then added that to everything that everyone has ever known and will ever know, what would you call that?Perhaps, "the sum total of human knowledge"?Are you disputing (somehow) that there is "human knowledge"?(IFF) there is "human knowledge" (THEN) there must necessarily be "the sum total of human knowledge".
How is any of this relevant in controlling that which is independent of the mind?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
In its simplest sense, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem(s) proved, rather rigorously, that all systems are incomplete.
How does Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to the relation of perception and the mind?
In other words, co-gito (pieces shaken together, agitated), ergo sum (total).Every identifiable concept is part-of "the-whole".
You're supposing this on an axiom of formal arithmetic, where you are still assuming truths. This "whole" is an assumption with little to no evidentiary basis.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Reference?Kurt Gödel solved this one already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
EconomicsReasoningSpecificsFactorsImpressionsAnalysisIt's all acquired, assimilated, stored, rehashed and outputted data.And I'm certain that you fully understand every point that I make, because you clearly have enough intelligence.
My intelligence is a non-factor in your explaining your statements. (And you have not done so.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So God exists?God exists in exactly the same way that Scritino-waves exist.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@zedvictor4:
The assertion substantiates itself.
No, it doesn't.
@3RU7AL:
Are you suggesting that Thor, Big-Foot, Santa-Claus, and the words you are reading on the computer screen in front of you "EXIST" with equal validity?
At this point, you're not even contending against their existence; instead, you attempt to qualify them with your notions of "equal validity." Such qualifications aren't necessary to the resolution of this discussion.
Semantically, how do you differentiate between "real" and "imaginary"?
I don't.
These are very good questions about THE CLASSICAL PROBLEM OF IDENTITY.
It's not about the classical problem of identity, which deals with the perception of self and its relation to others (e.g. Johari Window.) It's about perception itself. Everything one perceives is subject to the influence of one's mind. In order to discern "being" dependent and independent from the mind, one must control for both (and the irony of using abstracts is not lost on me.) How does one control for that which is independent from one's mind? Your newborn analogy doesn't suffice because any observation is still subject to the influence of the mind. It's a paradox. Whatever is discovered will be irrational until rationalized; it cannot be rationalized without the mind's influence.
Atheists such as yourself argue that the mind merely translates or "maps" that which is already there (e.g. physical stimuli.) But that is an unsubstantiated ontological postulate. Unless you were somehow able to control for that which your mind creates and that which it "receives," for lack of a better term, any gauges used to create distinctions between that which you call "real" and that which you call "imaginary" are necessarily based on assumption--regardless of how you qualify it (e.g. "reliable," "efficient," "rigorously defined," "logically coherent," etc.)
Created: