Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Freedom from" and "freedom to" are rules. They are supposed to apply always.
But some moral systems reject such rules. For example, consequentialism says that its okay to violate freedom if it carries some greater benefit.
Utilitarianism would prefer increasing happiness over not violating freedom.
Pretty much any system that weighs harm and benefit would have to violate freedom at some point.
The only system which doesnt would be rules morality, which says that rules are to be followed even then when following them results in more harm.
For example, if lying is always wrong, you are not supposed to lie even when it might save your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The idea of liberty is usually divided on:
1. Freedom from (you cant be killed, you cant be robbed...)
Or
2. Freedom to (right to free speech, right to vote...)
Thats how most countries make laws.
I think the idea of liberty doesnt have "golden rule".
There were some theories, such as greatest equal freedom. It says that everyone should have same amount of freedom, and that such freedom should be in greatest amount possible while not violating other's freedom.
But the idea that people can be free from influence of others or from impact of interaction with others is not realistic. Thats why I say there is no golden rule for liberty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Propaganda vs Trump?
Created:
Posted in:
I got food poisoning.
Apparently, meat and animal products are much more likely to contain harmful viruses and bacteries.
I learned the hard way.
Couldnt sleep for the entire night due to pain below chest.
Cant drink even one whole glass of water without puking. I must drink very slowly. It takes me an hour to drink one cup of water.
Must go to the toiled 5 times a day due to diarrhea.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Water?
Created:
Trump is an old man. As much as I dont want him to be US president, putting him in prison seems cruel.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
You are mean, but its okay. I forgive you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My weeks tend to be fun, but right now I am having a painful week. Sick and puking.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I am kinda hoping that there is no afterlife.
Before my first memories, all I remember is nothing. So thats probably how the afterlife will go.
Created:
Posted in:
The main argument of capitalists is that government intervention always makes things worse.
They follow premise:
P1. Government interventing to help poor people will not help poor people, but will harm poor people.
Now, while its true that historically, there were countries with very little government intervention, most of the rich countries today have lots of wealth redistribution.
Thus, capitalists would have to defend position that countries with most free market have least poverty.
This position is very hard to defend, because
1. Countries with least poverty are countries that have lots of government intervention.
2. There is no country on Earth without wealth redistribution
Also, they would have to defend that capitalism on its own wont produce the effect of wealth moving up.
Because wealthy people would have much more wealth without high taxes, it follows that their buying power would increase. Thus, they would consume more products from market, and market would increase production for the wealthy while reducing production for the less wealthy.
Since in capitalism, the richer you are, the easier you can compete and more you can consume, there is basically no guarantee that making rich richer helps the poor.
Capitalists would argue that:
P1. Not helping the poor motivates poor people to get a job.
While it is undeniable that poor, if being left on their own, would be forced to die or find a way to survive on their own, this doesnt result in much good. First, the job they might get would likely be the lowest wage job. They would likely have no money for health service, leaving them in very vunerable position if they get sick.
Second, the unemployment rate in countries with lots of wealth redistribution is very low.
Third, poor people having access to health services payed by government ultimately makes them more productive, where without health services their health would decay and force them out of workforce.
Created:
Posted in:
Free market allows people to be sexist to a certain point.
If an employer decides to pay some women less, and those women agree to that, thats free market.
Created:
Christians consider God as real.
They justify it in two ways:
1. They say that they have proof, just that other people dont understand such proof.
2. They say that there is no proof, but that they can consider God as real even without proof.
1 is obviously false, because Christians never presented any clear proof of God.
Now, lets talk about 2.
There are these options:
1. If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real.
2. It is false that "If we have no proof that X exists, then we shouldnt consider X real".
Christians who think that they should consider God real even if they have no proof for God's existence, they must defend position 2, since position 2 is the negation of position 1, and position 1 is negation of Christian position.
To make it simple, they must defend that sometimes people should consider things as real without proof.
Then they must explain why position 2 works with Christian God, and not with any other God or unproven being.
But thats exactly the point.
Christians are more likely than atheists to believe in all kinds of assumptions and fictions. Christians are more likely to believe in demons, monsters, spirits, ghosts, vampires, political lies, conspiracy theories...
It seems that abandoning proof as a requirement for something to be considered real sends you onto the slippery slope of the magical world where things are considered real with no proof except pure imagination, fiction and assumption.
Of course, one can consider something as real without proof. But should one really do that?
Created:
Posted in:
former president “exemplified what Jesus would do.”
He meant to say "exemplified what satan would do".
Created:
-->
@FLRW
God either doesnt exist either he is very good at hiding.
Playing peekaboo for 2000 years instead of simply showing himself and clearing confusion.
Created:
Punishment should be proportional to the crime.
It seems absurd to punish non-violent sexual activities the same as violent ones.
Obviously, if all else is equal in two crimes, crime that includes violence must be punished more than crime that doesnt include violence.
Created:
-->
@Mall
You are ignoring the answer.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
As much as I like to assume magic,
There is no explanation as to how God exists.
The only explanation could be that God was created from nothing, which then means anything else could have been created from nothing as well.
The only thing that doesnt need a cause is "nothing".
Now, I dont claim to know any answer for sure. We cant go back to the beginning of existence to establish facts.
But anyone using God as an explanation for all cannot explain why or how God exists.
Created:
-->
@rachealmark23
Lol
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
I just listed them as I remembered. John Wick is of course better than Hunger Games.
Created:
I prefer empiricism a bit more for two reasons:
1. Logic can be used incorrectly, and often is.
2. Facts are more reliable than reasoning
Rationalism creates knowledge from logical laws. For example, a contradiction means that something is wrong.
But rationalism is limited in this way, because in any reasoning without clear contradiction, rationalism can easily lead to incorrect conclusions or to wishful thinking. Even mathematicians, who work with most pure form of rationalism, make mistakes.
Empiricism, on the other hand, focuses on gathering as much knowledge as possible, first.
Its best to use both empiricism and rationalism, with slight focus on empiricism because you need facts before you can reason. In facts, facts often support correct logic, where mere thinking about contradictions could itself contradict with an unknown fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it would be less corrupt to simply adopt a UBI and let the poor decide how to spend the money.
So would you agree that everyone gets income that is enough to buy food?
Universal basic income doesnt have to be 1000 dollars. It can be 100$, which is 34,000,000,000 per month, which is about 400 billion dollars per year.
Its a lot of money, but extra 100$ per family member would encourage high birth rates as well as reduce poverty. USA anyway prints trillion dollars each year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What statistic are you referring too?
I think I already mentioned before in some other topic that The Trauma Myth talks about those relationships, and most of them arent violent.
Now, obviously, every case is different. You said that you didnt want to report your case. Well, there are probably many other children who dont report.
There are many studies and statistics, but even if you take lowest numbers, its still lots of cases.
"Research shows that one in 10 children will be the victim of sexual abuse before their 18th birthday."
Even 10% is 34 million people in USA.
And I gave you links before that 30% of children in USA have sex before 16.
Children having sex with other children cannot really be less bad than child doing something sexual with non-violent map. If sexual activities were very bad, they would be very bad in both cases.
Created:
-->
@Mall
If child can talk, talking and rewards apply.
If not, then only rewards and distractions apply.
Beating should not apply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
So, according to you, where do the laws of logic come from and why are they universal?
They come from nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
In other words "they are what they are because they are". That's not a very good explanation.
Well, you used same explanation for God. But unlike God, laws of logic are demonstrated literally everywhere. Kinda like math.
Some things can exist without a cause. Necessary entities exist without causes.
So those are two assumptions.
An orange donkey is not a necessary entity, as the explanation for their existence is found outside of themselves.
Maybe you misunderstood.
Why doesnt a magical orange donkey appear in my room without any cause?
Why cant magical orange donkey be a neccessary entity?
There is no explanation for magical orange donkey, and by your logic, things that have no explanation must exist, so therefore magical orange donkey must appear in my house now.
Therefore donkeys of any color cannot appear without explanation, therefore they are contingent entities
Again, why cant a magical orange donkey appear without explanation?
Your entire argument is an assumption that necessary entities dont require explanation, so why cant a magical orange donkey appear without explanation?
Why cant a magical orange donkey be a necessary entity?
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
Just because you don't like the explanation doesn't mean it isn't true
Explanation without explanation.
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
If you want to understand the difference between contingent and necessary
I already demonstrated it.
Nothing is necessary to bring first something into existence.
You're literally making it up.
I am making up that things must have a reason or a cause?
Well, looks like that wikipedia article agrees with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I am curious.
How much wealth redistribution is acceptable for you?
Should we have no food stamps?
Should we have no public schools and no private schools supported by government?
Should we have no government involved in healthcare?
Should the government not help poor children at all?
Created:
-->
@Morphinekid77
I'm going to regret posting this
I agree.
According to the PSR (principal of sufficient reason) NOT everything needs a cause
"The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause."
A Necessary entity does not depend on an outside agent. It's explanation for it's existence is found in itself.
Thats a religious way of saying that God doesnt have reason to exist, or that God is the reason that God exists.
So no, Christians cannot explain the existence of God without using circular logic and violating the law of logic which says that everything needs a cause.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
A material universe without an eternal Mind cannot justify the existence of the laws.
You said that they werent created, so there is nothing to justify.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
The better question to be asking is WHY are these laws the way they are? Why can't they be broken?
Because they are what logic is and breaking them would make your God illogical?
This is NOT a law of logic and is patently false!
So you believe things dont need a cause in order to exist?
I wonder why doesnt orange donkey appear in my house without a cause?
Created:
By law of logic,
"Every thing has a cause."
As long as "cause" is also a thing, it follows that each such cause needs its own cause.
So where is the beginning? The beginning can only be that which isnt caused.
Therefore, the only true beginning can be "nothing".
"Nothing" doesnt require a cause, since its not a thing.
But nothing can create something. In this exchange, "nothing" stops existing and "something" is created.
Therefore, first existence could only come from nothing. It couldnt come from "something", because first existence is first "something".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
Define illogical
You know that there are 4 basic laws of logic.
1. Non-contradiction (X cannot both be and not be)
2. Identity (X is equal to X)
3. Excluded middle (either X or not X)
4. Everything has a cause ( X needs a cause)
Christian God violates all 4 of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
The "beginning" is not a reference to logic, in context, it's a reference to all things that came into being.
Thats a good explanation, but then you would also have to assume that there are things that dont have beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
Words can have multiple translations.
True, but I would prefer if you guys could agree on one translation. "word" is not equal to "logic" in English.
So it either means logic either it doesnt. You cant exactly have both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Sounds like Augustine was a bad boy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
Um, you are aware that the Greek word for "Word" is λόγος which is Logos right?
No, I dont speak ancient Greek.
I guess Christians failed in translation then.
It was really supposed to say "in the beginning, there was logic", which would imply that logic had a beginning. Awkward!
So Christian God cannot do illogical things? Thats really an even worse position to defend, as explained by the other topic I posted where I assumed Christian God is unable to do illogical things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
From my point of view, wealth redistribution can have negative effects, but not having wealth redistribution doesnt solve poverty.
You can make arguments that wealth redistribution makes things worse, but there are no studies to confirm anything close to that, as richest countries usually have wealth redistribution.
And the point is not just "give poor people a job". One can have a job and still be in poverty.
The wealth in capitalism naturally goes more to top. People with most money buy the most, and prices and production are adapted to those with most money.
The main point of wealth redistribution is to create better chance for people.
If people can succeed in most cases only if born in rich family, them capitalism just becomes an economical monarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
For fifty years after the civil war the federal government barely did anything (by today's standards). We know the world doesn't fall apart
Well, I guess it can work, but right now most countries resort to wealth redistribution.
"I wont do anything" rarely wins elections.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
In the beginning was the Word (Logos) and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. (John 1:1)
Ah I see. You are adding words to the Bible that arent in the Bible.
God did not create logic.
Some Christians claim he did, so I guess now you have to fight over which version of Christianity is correct one.
God IS logic. Logic is a reflection of how He thinks. God is Truth and truth excludes contradictions. God is eternal therefore God is eternally logical.
Now, now, no need to throw so many circular assumptions around.
I suggest you look into St. Augustines argument from abstract concepts
I will, as soon as you present it.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, I assume AI will be able to explore on its own.
It will not need humans.
In fact, once AI masters self-repair and develops ability to produce more AI, it will be more advanced than humans in every important way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump has more sins than satan, but in Christianity, as long as you say that you believe in Jesus, you can sin as much as you want.
If you do only good deeds, but you dont believe in Jesus, you go to hell to burn.
So yeah, in Christianity, logic doesnt apply.
Christians were faced with famous moral question:
If person only does good deeds but doesnt believe in Christ, will that person go to hell?
If no, then one does not need to be Christian to avoid hell.
If yes, then Christian God is a madman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Also, a child I would imagine is much more likely to be in foster care than they are to be sexually abused.
About 15% of children get sexually abused before 18. So thats over 50 million people in USA. Does foster care have 50 million people? No. It only has 400k. Yet foster care makes up to half of prison population. In some prisons, there is even 70% of foster care, but the average is usually 25 to 50% for adult prisons and 50% or more for child prisons.
If the child doesn't report it, the kid isn't traumatized and the parent doesn't get prosecuted.
Its actually a common misunderstanding that report comes from the child. The report usually comes from others who find out about relationship.
This is an assumption and it depends on your definition of violent.
Most map wont punch a kid or beat a kid up. Most map wont force themselves on a child. In fact, judging from statistics, most map wont even use threats to get what they want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What percentage of foster kids get sexually abused in foster care (not from prior pedophile parents, but from actual foster care)?
Its difficult to say for sure, but there were many cases of sexual, physical and emotional abuse.
"In Florida, a longtime foster parent who had housed over 70 children during his time in the system was found to have repeatedly raped a child and placed hidden cameras in the bathroom to watch her shower. He saved the video footage of the molestation, which remained unknown until he was arrested. Unfortunately, caseworkers were unaware of the abuse and continued to send foster children to the home."
"MacLaren Hall is one of the most of the most well known examples. Likely thousands of children were victimized by this state-run group home, which operated for more than 40 years. MacLaren Hall is referred to as a “child prison”, and not only were the living conditions terrible, but hundreds of former residents have come forward with details about the sexual abuse they faced by doctors, staff, and other children."
"A Johns Hopkins University study found that children in foster care are four times more likely than other children to be sexually abused, and those who live in group homes experience an abuse rate of 28 times those of other children. There are indicators that children living in a foster care situation may be more likely to experience abuse at the hands of their foster parents or other people living in the home."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Correlation vs causation fallacy. Afghanistan also banned premarital sex and the US didn't. That could be the reason just like pedophillia laws may be the reason.
Having lots of sexual partners is more correlated to STI. Thus, reducing number of sexual partners reduces STI.
Those kids are almost certainly getting STIs from that pedophile (all while these kids might not even know what STIs are).
So do you agree that its better if less children get abused? A map being bonded to one child is less likely to have 300 partners.
And adoption is usually for couples, so instead of two maps each abusing many children, you would have two maps abusing one child.
When something is legal and regulated, there will be people that brake regulations as well.
People are more likely to respect regulation if regulation exists. And regulation is ultimately more beneficial for map and children than complete ban. One can understand easily that map would be more likely to respect regulation that benefits them than resort to a much more risky path that carries little to no benefits. If regulation allows them to be with children legally, they would be less likely to go for much greater risk.
Created:
Posted in:
Now, I have already covered why morality is most likely arbitrary.
Thats because any moral standard is ultimately a product of choice, or a product of desire, or a product of will. Since any moral standard can be rejected and different one can be accepted instead, it follows that morality is something equal to wish. Any moral reason is ultimately an arbitrary reason that can be rejected or accepted at will of anyone. Arbitrary reason is not, as one might think, the actual cause. The will is the actual cause for accepting or rejecting a standard. Thus, standard is always a choice.
But some Christians have stated that God created logic, and that God can do illogical things.
Wouldnt this make logic itself an arbitrary product of God's will?
Logic, by itself, has these self-evident rules:
Non-contradiction: Something cannot both be and not be at the same time, cannot be true and false at the same time.
This rule is mainly about the impossibility of both existing and not existing at the same time.
If one were to completely deny this rule, he would have no way of forming any logical thinking. Plus, he would have no way to demonstrate his thinking, as we have never observed anywhere something both existing and not existing at the same time.
In fact, its not even possible to imagine. Even our imagination cannot imagine something that both exists and doesnt at the same time. Its simply impossible to imagine.
So when people claim that God can do illogical things, is that a mere assumption?
If we have these two claims:
1. Object A exists somewhere
Or
2. It is false that object A exists somewhere
How is it possible for both claims to be true? The second one being true means that first one isnt.
Yet in an illogical world of God, they can apparently both be true.
Of course, some thinkers have claimed that both can be true at different times. However, the time of claim one is included as time of claim two, since claim one itself is included in claim two.
So, by logic, two contradicting claims must mean that one is false.
Another law of logic is excluded middle.
This means that claim can be either true or false, but not both and not neither.
Illogical world of God would defy this logic, but how?
How can something neither exist nor not exist?
Even law of identity, which states that X is always equal to X, would be defied.
These logical laws form our universe, but if God created them, that would make logic itself arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What kind of a psychopath wants to cook people for all eternity?
A religious psychopath!
Now, Jews dont have Hell, so some religions are obviously more moral than others regarding the afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The data on that is not available
STI are usually the result of having many sexual partners. Afghanistan has less percentage of STI than USA, despite Afghanistan having child marriages and USA trying to protect children from that.
Well, they are more likely to remain sexually inactive if they don't adopt kids than if they have have what they view as a sex source living with them.
This is an assumption. Some map have over 300 partners. When you make something entirely illegal, you also make it entirely unregulated. Plus, children in foster care have high chance of being sexually abused.
What if there was a foster kid that was in foster care and got sexually abused by their parents? That person might easily go to prison.
Foster care contributes much more to prison population than sexual abuse. Therefore, reducing the amount of children in foster care reduces prison population. We can also conclude that reducing time in foster care is beneficial.
There are cases where parents sexually abuse their child, but sending that child to foster care isnt beneficial.
So not letting pedophiles adopt (for the kid) means a slight increase from the foster system in terms of going to prison, but I think a significantly less risk of going to prison based on sexual and physical abuse.
That is an assumption.
Foster care contributes the most to prison population. Physical abuse also contributes 38%. Sexual abuse contributes only 14%.
Most map arent violent, so we can say there would be much less physical abuse with map than with foster care.
But foster care basically guarantees physical abuse, and has high rates of sexual abuse.
That is the point.
Created:
Posted in:
Christians have problem of evil.
Muslims have problem of Aisha.
There are several ways around the issue:
1. Assume that the text which talks about her age got her age wrong.
Or
2. Assume that their relationship wasnt sexual
Or
3. Try to defend child marriages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
20% of Americans have an incurable STI (Curable STIs: Which STIs Are Curable & Which Aren’t? (verywellhealth.com)).
What percentage of map have incurable STI?
that pedophiles are more likely to rape kids than orphan leaders.
Thats again, irrelevant to the main point.
Also, you assume that all map who arent allowed to adopt would just remain sexually inactive.
Do you believe that foster care is more likely to produce abuse than a foster parent that sees their kid as a sex object?
Foster care makes 25% to 50% of prison population. Sexual abuse makes up 14%. Physical abuse makes 38%.
Sexual abuse happens at foster care, but physical abuse is much more common.
I imagine someone that adopts a child for the purposes of having sex with that child is going to do sexual things to the child that the child does not consent too (if we accept that children have the ability to consent, these children would choose to not consent).
This is an assumption. You can imagine all map as monsters, but thats not an argument.
Created: