Total posts: 5,766
-->
@RationalMadman
There is absolutely no interaction you have had with me in the forums where your intent isn't to gaslight or undermine my reasons for feeling frustrated at a situation.
Gaslight - To manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
I declare before the almighty mods themselves that if any statement in the post in question (post 19) is shown to be factually incorrect in any way I will create a formal apology thread dedicated to you, and if you can convince the mods using logic and facts that I made such statements with malicious intent then I will respond by requesting that they recognize the post in question as harassment and punish me accordingly. If you are unable to find anything actually incorrect about anything I said and it turns out that you are just making things up about me...
Slander - The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
... then how you respond to that is up to you.
You are the one who has no clue what you're talking about. Fauxlaw suddenly goes around typing 'poundmetoo' as a distasteful joke about why I blocked him earlier in the same day he posted this thread.
Non-sequitur. FL being a misogynistic dick has no bearing whatsoever on what the # symbol is called or whether I am guilty of gaslighting and harassment.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is absolutely no interaction you have had with me in the forums where your intent isn't to
I mean, for the last few months There has been absolutely no interaction I have had with you in the forums at all...
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The # sign has been called a pound sign in the US since ancient antiquity (1850's or so), and still is to this day. If it is not called that in the UK then just point that out, but according to my research of ancient documents Twitter was not around in the 50's so I don't think the outrage you are displaying at the suggestion that the # symbol has multiple names is necessarily logically justified.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What is it that they have to build back !?
Rumor has it there was some sort of virus going around for a bit that had a bad effect on the world economy, but I have yet to confirm that.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Okay that answered my question, thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Ok but what does that have to do with republicans suddenly wanting the president to have more power to go against the other branches of government?
Do you seriously think that extreme partisanship is not the reason for their change of heart? I can't think of anything else it could be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
so it is the more moderate republicans that want to put a check on executive power.
I think it makes sense to conclude that, while of course not completely immune, the more moderate members (of either party) are less prone to partisanship.
Created:
Maybe he strongly disagrees with the position you took on the debate on an emotional level?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Unpopular
Morally speaking I would say that
Trump's children becoming executives at his company right off the bat, or even being appointed to government positions?
is actually a lot worse than
two rich celebrities, and other rich parents, to pay money to get their kids into good colleges.
Created:
-->
@janesix
You aren't really saying anything that I didn't already say I already knew in my post. I already know that the sky is divided up among these constellations, I am asking specifically what the physical basis of your 25,920 year cycle is.
For example, when people refer to a persons astrological "rising sign" the physical basis of that is they are looking at which part of the sky the sun rose in during that part of the year.
So, I ask again, what is happening in the Aquarius part of the sky that makes you refer to it as the "Age of Aquarius"?
Created:
-->
@janesix
we are 36 degrees past zero aries
What does this actually mean in reality? I understand that there are 12 zodiac constellations, usually they each represent a portion of the year which I believe is the portion of the year the sun rises closest to said constellation in the sky (I could be off on that) and I get what you mean by the degrees (360 degrees in a circle and 360 divided by 12 is 30 so each dominates 30 degrees of the sky if evenly split) but what is the physical attribute of this 25,920 year cycle you refer to?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is off topic but you seem to have matured a lot since I first met you. I am proud of you, kid.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Dune has been in circulation for 55 years. If you haven't read it yet its officially on you.Besides which, saying that Jessica made a mistake is more perspective than actually revealing any plot point.
I disagree with most of the rest of the post but it would be really hard for me to not agree with these two points lol.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
That's an interesting set of assumptions.
I'm just asking because if there is a country that has no taxes other than sales tax like you implied I would be interested in learning that fact.
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
their sales tax at a store.
uhhh... is that the only tax that your government has or just the only one you know of because you don't get out much? Because I am betting on the latter.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Have you ever watched Star Trek?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Anyone certain of anything is an idiot.
You sure about that?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Collapse would suggest, that said building, lacked structural integrity.
That seems like if a doctor said "The health of the patient was at risk of decline" and someone responded "Decline would suggest that said patient lacked health".
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I heard a story on the radio, I don't know if this is true of course, but apparently some local geologist or construction guy or something got a call from someone asking them "hey, you hear about that building collapsing?" and he immediately responded "No but I bet I can say exactly what the address is before you tell me, I have been telling people for years that this was going to happen".
Created:
The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.
Herein lies the crux of the problem. The moment there is high-quality reporting on a phenomenon said reporting tends to result in identification, hence any unidentified phenomenon is going to have little information on it by definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Isn't it possible that since we know that the Universe is a simulation, these objects are just glitches in the simulation generator?
Seems unlikely. If the glitch hypothesis was accurate I would expect such glitches to be just as common in day-to-day life situations such as eating lunch in the kitchen or mowing the lawn as in high-stress fast-moving situations such as that most common to UFO sightings. Such does not seem to be the case.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why not?
Created:
A very controversial subject that has come up many times on this forum. What are everyone's thoughts?
Created:
While they are undeniably Christian, whether they are a cult is less clear-cut and depends upon ones definition of the word (of which there are many).
So, what do you use to determine whether an organization is a cult?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Any claim he makes requires a fact check.Citation needed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If "humans" get to decide what a human is, who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
If you went back 2000 years and asked that question nobody would understand what you were even saying, therefore whoever or whatever decided that must have done so some time between then and now.
After carefully reading my reiteration and summary of Paul's message in Acts 17:34-31, which I know you read carefully and thoughtfully without just skimming through, is it true?
I am not aware of any evidence that it is, and therefore have no reason to believe so.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But is a Galaxy simultaneously both 3 and 6 billion light years distant?
No. If you are referring to the link Oromagi put in his post note that it specifically says it looked at 36 separate galaxies. It is possible that some of them were 3 billion light-years away, some 6 billion, and the rest somewhere in between (I read the title but only skimmed the actual paper so am not certain).
There are of course also other methods for astronomers to know the past of galaxies and stars without directly seeing it, analogous to how a geologist can know the history of tectonic shift by studying geological layers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Circular reasoning means to use two or more axioms to justify eachother, as an example:
A is true because B
A is true because B
B is true because C
C is true because A
To illustrate more clearly, an example of being wrong that does not include circular reasoning would be the following:
A is true if B is true
B has no justification
So, you made the accusation of circular reasoning but never bothered to explain what I said that justified this accusation. Do so now please.
1) List the statements or claims I made that resulted in circular reasoning.
2) Quote my words as to where I say said claims justify eachother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If this were a thread about abortion then I could easily say for the sake of easier communication "I do not think fetuses should be aborted regardless of whether they are considered human or not", then you or anyone else would be free to disagree with me and explain why. The discussion of whether fetuses are human would be an irrelevant tangent in that scenario.
Importantly, however, this thread topic says nothing about abortion. This thread topic doesn't even say anything about morality.
This thread started not by proclaiming that the words of Paul were morally good, but instead that they were irrefutably true. I see no reason to confuse those two statements. No logical reason, anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Assuming that the chucking process becomes less efficient with more wear the question then becomes not at what point of wear does said process becomes physically impossible but instead at what point it loses economic viability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Nope, not trolling. I must have missed it while skimming on my cheap smartphone. I see it now, admit the misunderstanding to be my fault, and feel rather silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ask me any philosophical scenario type things if you want.
I am sure you are familiar with the classic trolley problem so won't explain it in full. What would you do in the classic scenario with no modifications? (i.e. one person on one track, five people on the other, all complete strangers).
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
How do scientists actually know what occurred between 3 and 6 billion years ago.
In the case of astronomy it is often possible to see it directly. If a galaxy is 3 billion light-years away then by definition it takes light from there 3 billion years to get here, meaning we are literally seeing how that galaxy looked 3 billion years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
but how would you answer the question about who gets to define what a human is?
The ones who use words to communicate with each other are the ones that decide what those words mean, that is the whole point of language in the first place. Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves. If two speakers disagree on the meaning of that word then the most efficient way to resolve that disagreement would be either for one to agree to use some other word for their conception of what is human or for both to explain what they mean when they use the word so that both can conceptualize what the other is saying and meaning when they speak on the matter.
Created:
Posted in:
I get that this is not about the technology and is actually all about politics, if a republican tried to upgrade our armed forces combat capability you would be all about it but a democrat trying to upgrade our combat capability triggers your BLUE BAD reaction. Watching people pretend to know what they talk about in military matters amuses me though, so I will play along for now. Please bestow onto us your vast strategic and tactical wisdom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
what good does a solar panel serve rolled up in a backpack, during the day?
Sometimes in the military we have to move from one place to another. That is easier to do if we put things in our packs rather than holding it all with our hands. Most things we can't use while they are in our packs, that is why we take them out when we stop moving.
Let me ask you a simple question. Look at the following idea:
"Items that are useless while in a pack and useful only while not in a pack should not be packed into packs"
Do you think this idea is a good one or a silly one?
My argument has been from the beginning that, during the day, which is when most troops are mobile, getting from A to B, the solar panels are rolled up in their backpacks, and, therefore, are not deployed to collect sunlight.
1) How many hours on average does the sun shine each day?
2) How many hours a day do you think we spend walking?
I suspect you will ignore one or both of these questions but if you want to surprise me now is the time to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why would that marine be walking with a backpack, during the day, with a solar panel rolled-up in it?
Because batteries are heavy and we can fit more of other things in our packs if we need to carry less batteries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't think so? But I have not read Isaac Asimov so the reference was lost on me.
Often considered the father of modern science fiction, one if his most popular stories was a series of books where sentient robots were invented, they had three core rules programed into them as un-bypassable safety features:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2)A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Many of his stories revolved around certain unintended consequences of these laws based on the interpretation of these rules. Some robots for example were programed to only recognize people with a certain accent as human, others concluded that because they possessed human intellect and emotions they themselves deserved human rights and counted and being with feelings as 'human' under the above laws.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, can you tell me who gets to define what a human is?
Depends on whether we live in an Issac Asimov novel or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
For example, can you tell me why it is objectively wrong - or evil - to commit adultery?
Not sure I would use the word "evil" precisely, but the fact that it causes emotional distress to the spouse would be reason enough to say it is bad/immoral behavior.
Take for example open marriages, that would be adultery under your definition yet is not considered immortal by the people involved. Why? Precisely because of the fact that it involves activities agreed to beforehand by those involved and therefore causes no harm.
Therefore since it is the lack of harm which makes adultery in open marriages not immoral it is logical to conclude that in cases where it is considered immoral it is considered such due to the harm done to the victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I do not disagree with this. But if that is the case, how can you know with absolute certainty that there is an ice cream truck outside your house?
I mean, it was there. I saw it. I mentioned that I know optical illusions exist but you are making it sound like I should go full solipsist lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yes, I do think that when evaluating a claim empirical evidence in favor of or against said claim ought to be taken into account. I am not going to say that empirical evidence is at all times and in all places absolute proof of anything, senses can be fooled. Optical illusions are for example a thing that exist. On the other hand I am not going to claim the opposite either, because I do not believe the opposite to be true. If you want my general feelings about empirical evidence I have now given it to you twice. If you want my specific feelings about a specific piece of empirical evidence regarding a specific claim then formulate a question that asks about that.
Can you know anything with absolute certainty?
Yes
If so, please be specific in how you can know anything with absolute certainty.
My answer in post 71 is as specific as I can get with such a non-specific question. I follow the evidence and I make judgments based off of the evidence. When I see an ice cream truck in front of my house, that is convincing empirical evidence that there is an ice cream truck in front of my house. I am sorry to hear that you don't like that particular specific example of how evidence can lead to a conclusion. I am open to examining a different example of your choosing.
Created: