Total posts: 48
-->
@Greyparrot
It's working FYI.
Charts at the bottom comparing unvaccinated death rates as well as the efficacies of the various vaccines that exist now. It's pretty black and white.
Not sure what exactly you were expecting to see in the data, and why. Perhaps if you made some concrete predictions and gave a logical justification to it - then I could respond more directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I don't understand exactly what you mean by "backsliding democracy".
I am currently interpreting it as:
"Our ability to select our own respresentitives".
If this is an accurate interpretation then US democracy has been backsliding long before Trump took office. Gerrymandering, voter requirements and the first past the post system are both used and worsened by both major policital parties in the US as it stands.
Trump has just taken this a step further by undermining public trust in the voting system(s) that exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I would hedge my bets that the demonstrably irrational and easily delusional human mind is a better explanation for NDEs than the alternative that you offer.
If that is the best evidence you have for the existence of God then atheism is perfectly rational.
Created:
Posted in:
Politically I disagree on as much stuff as I agreed with for Jordan.
Religiously I disagree more than that.
Yet he has easily informed me the most in his field and always worth listening to - especially when he stays in his lane in psychology.
I don't think I would be able to listen to him the same way if he does what the vast majority of authoritative oralists do which is to deride, categorise and fire shots at those that disagree with him.
Religiously I disagree more than that.
Yet he has easily informed me the most in his field and always worth listening to - especially when he stays in his lane in psychology.
I don't think I would be able to listen to him the same way if he does what the vast majority of authoritative oralists do which is to deride, categorise and fire shots at those that disagree with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You should easily be able to find a mirror or at least. Social media post referencing a screenshot of it if that were actually true.
And no, I want an actual source that support stated exactly what you just said:
And no, I want an actual source that support stated exactly what you just said:
1) Demand cash payouts from white-skinned people to black-skinned people.2) Fund public teachers and public teacher unions MORE while defunding the police.3) Let convicted criminals out of prison.4) Affirmative action hiring of the police force and firings based on what the local community demands, specifically skin color.
After all it is "BLM whose stated mission", it should be easy to find this.
I am currently thinking it is more likely you are simply lying in what you said. I particularly would be interested in seeing where 1 and 3 are stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just checked it. Nothing.
Mind giving me the actual link to the article you read that says exactly what you said that I asked a source for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
BLM whose stated mission is to:1) Demand cash payouts from white-skinned people to black-skinned people.2) Fund public teachers and public teacher unions MORE while defunding the police.3) Let convicted criminals out of prison.4) Affirmative action hiring of the police force and firings based on what the local community demands, specifically skin color.
Source for this please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't know.
But what I stated is an explanation for how an otherwise reasonable conservative person would end up voting for Trump. Which is the topic here.
And everything I stayed here gets turned up to the extreme with media echo chambers, including partisan news networks and social media.
A person who is a moderate Christian who believes marriage really should only be the purposes of sustaining children will be inundated with content and articles with more extreme anti-gay stances.
A person who thinks that humans have a soul will be inundated with every article and video on how abortion is evil, murder and an atrocity.
If that's all you hear than I don't blame people for taking more extreme views than they otherwise would. Again leading for extreme actors such as Trump to get support where they otherwise would have lacked it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What are Conservative views? You mean prejudice, bloodline elitism and tax evasion? What do you mean exactly?
I listed the examples in my post, worded closer to the way that conservatives will tend to believe them.
You can disagree with their stances on it but they are still stances they take, and thus they will vote for a candidate that will represent those stances more closely, and not vote for someone who will do the exact opposite of those stances.
The lack of any PR system means that no matter how retarded the republican candidate is, they will feel forced to vote for it. If we had 3 conservative parties with a. Range of views, then they would perhaps vote for a non retarded conservative candidate, even if they differ on their stances somewhat. E.g. they might support universal healthcare but agree on the rest of their stances.
Sadly you don't have that, so they are stuck with Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BiblicalChristian101
It is when they give billions of dollars to the Democrat Party.
No it isn't. A community/group of movement that financially supports a party doesn't make them a branch of that party.
I financially support Oxfam and a range of charities, that doesn't make me a branch of them.
I do my shopping at Tesco and give them money for services. That doesn't make me a branch of them.
If you ask me the only reason they are protesting is to generate funds for the Democrats who are in very bad shape financially
If you ask me, that is not the reason.
You clearly have shown zero effort in understanding BLM's perspective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
12.1% of the US police force is black. Roughly 15% of the US population is black.
These statistics are not hard to find.
The population, and police force isn't spread homogeneously. Very few samples of the US will have the average ratio of blacks/whites. Blacks tend to be concentrated in communities and vice versa.
So while there need to be better representation of blacks and Latinos in the police force in the US, the statistics for Blacks aren't what your post portrays, and a sample of a handful of white police officers says nothing for how diverse it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@EnvisagePlease explain how, in the system you deem broken, one concludes that Trump is the lesser evil.
Consider yourself a person with relatively conservative views.
This might be hard but you'll have to try to understand the point.
Consider yourself largely leaning in the conservative direction in most major issues. You don't think gays should be allowed to marry, you think reducing cooperate tax is genuinely the right move for the economy and jobs. You believe that the US's religious heritage is important to preserve, you are anti abortion etc. Etc.
You don't even need to hold extreme views on this, just that you generally agree with those statements.
Now you have a system that forces you to choose between Hillary and Trump. Hillary is pretty much the antithesis of everything you believe in, and even though you feel Trump is incompetent, or will do a poor job at supporting his party, it is still in your view more likely to give an outcome closer to what you value than what Hillary will give.
That's a large percentage of Trump voter's positions.
Now if you had a system closer to for example Germany's, then you would have several candidates that will be represented in government. In Germany it's at least six parties. If Trump and Hillary ran in such a government then would be trump voter's would be far more likely to support a moderate candidate that closer represents their views and would not be forced to make a lesser of two evils choice.
While from your perspective Trump is the greater of two evils - someone with different values to you will "obviously" - in their view - disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh, as with all omnivore and carnivorous animals.I like the taste of meat. Do I need any other justification?Morality? Is that a joke?
I see no errors in this. However just know that this exact same justification can be used for me to eat you. Or for a society of humans to breed, rear and fatten up a herd of Homo Sapiens, slaughter and butcher them in the same way we do livestock.
If they like the taste of human meat then "Do I need any other justification?".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bernie Sanders made a statement a couple days ago which I largely agree with, that the law enforcement needs to look like the people they police over, and not look like an invading force taking control.
It might actually be sensible to impose a demographic make-up or quotas for the police in the US so that trust between the populace and police is improved and that they are seen as more of a service to the community rather than to their authorities.
This comes with a lot of issues on discrimination such as those faced by affirmative action that would need to be navigated though, and clearly will take a long time to implement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You have an electoral system that guarantees an all or nothing two horse race, which has devolved into a choosing of the "least worst". The you have a media and mindset culture that reinforces this with hyper partisan society that does everything to encourage people to "take sides" and thus you have a system that gives results and leadership that does not actually represent what people want from government.
Social media bubbles which create dangerous echo chambers further worsen this and the end result is exactly what you have now.
Fix the system before complaining about the outcomes. Note that none of the above is actually partisan in its nature, the very fact that so many people actually label themselves as "democrats" and "republicans" is an absurd outcome of this system in itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why is this cancer allowed to plague the forum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
--> @Envisage
Luckily "perception" (which 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.
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, C
Definition: Set Y:
Contains D
Set 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, D
What can we say about Set Z? Well set Z is a subset of set Y. It is not a subset of set X though.
Their non-existence in the cupboard, yes it does.Once again, you're attempting to inform location, not existence.
There is no broom in the cupboard... No broom exists in the cupboard.
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."
Really? And in what philosophical journal have you read that? 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. There is nothing logically inconsistent a priori with that. That's the reason why both theologians and physicists pose that question in the first place.
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.
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?
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.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Lemme try.Origins of:1) existenceThe sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.How things come to be then.
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".
I imagine this question makes perfect sense in your head, either that or you are not articulating your thoughts very accurately.
If your question is "How have all things that exist have come to exist as they are today?", that question makes sense, and I can try and answer it.
if your question is "How/why does anything exists at all?" that that question also makes sense, and again I can try and answer it.
But if your question "what is the origin of existence?" then that is incoherent to me, I do not understand what you are trying to ask, since it seems to me you ae treating "existence" as a type of "thing" that can be talked about in the same way as a statue, or a tree.
If you want me to talk past you than I can try in futility to answer the question in its original form and fail as anyone else here has tried to.
2) The universeDon't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.If you don't know then what is more reasonable to believe? What view is able to make sense of existence. What view is more reasonable in making sense of the universe?
Define "view".
I assume you mean "the view with a god, or the view without a god" and I am happy to answer that if that if what you are asking.
3) lifeDon't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.The what is more reasonable to believe. Explain what you believe and let's take a look at the reasonableness.
I already stated I believe I don't know. Do you want to rephrase your question more explicitly (I assume it requires similar phrasing to=== Q2) so I can answer it more to your satisfaction?
Note that I would normally be more charitable in discussions and not request rephrasing, but I assume we have very different terminology, culture and viewpoints, and it would all too easy for me to say something that doesn't answer the question as you envisioned it in your head.
4) logicHumans developed it.So, without human beings, there would be no such thing?
Note that when I speak of logic, I think of formal axiomatic logical systems, such as those used in mathematics, or rules of inference etc.
I see no reason why other species or aliens couldn't develop logic themselves.
I assume your question is better rephrased as:
"So without beings to reason, there would be no such thing as logic?"
To which I answer "Yes". Since logic doesn't exist as a thing outside of the mind.
Now, logic is not dependent upon you but it is dependent upon thinking being. Without God (i.e., materialism or empiricism) how does something that is non-living, non-conscious, develop into something that is and is this more reasonable to believe than logic comes from an eternal necessary Being?
You do realise that logic systems with completely different axioms to those we commonly use in math etc. can and have been developed that have zero application or relevance to reality as we experience it right? You can even have entire mathematical systems that are inconsistent. The systems and axioms are wholly dependent on thinking beings.
5) truthThe sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.Okay. Is truth mind-dependent? Does truth depend on being or is there such a thing as truth without "being" to perceive it? If truth has its origins from beings you still need to jump the hurdle and develop how conscious beings come from physical matter devoid of consciousness. If truth is not an abstract mindful process then it cannot be known or explained.And when I speak of truth, I speak of the truth of origins. How do you know your view of origins is what corresponds to reality unless a necessary mindful Being has revealed origins?
This falls into the same category of thing as Q4. So redress these arguments to that.
Truth falls under epistemology, and a lot of that will depend on your view of logic systems, which define within themselves "true" and "false". To state there is "truth" outside of imaged systems such as logic makes zero sense to me, thus #4 should be addressed first.
6) moralityNihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.Develop that nihilistic thought. What do you mean?
There is no such thing as inherent right or wrong on any level. They are all imagined orders/realities.
Neither do I classify behaviour as morality for the following reasons: How does an 'ought' come from an 'is.' A behaviour is. It is a description of something taking place. A preference is a "like," a personal taste. I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?
"Ought" is defined within whatever imagined order you subscribe to. I do not subscribe to any, so asking me how "ought" comes from an "is" makes no sense, since "ought" makes no sense outside of an imagined order "such as a religious order, but certainly not exclusive to a religious order".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
"If you're using the term "absent" in a context where its synonymous with non-existent, then no you have not. You can neither perceive nor interact with the absent."
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.
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. "
Their non-existence in the cupboard, yes it does.
---
In the context of the modal ontological argument, I can easily conceive of the following worlds:
1. A world that contains nothing, zilch, zero.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I am not the OP of the post you responded to, but I am also bored so, whatever.
"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."
You are conflating "conjuring mental images of a scenario/world" with coming up with a logically consistent scenario/world. The latter is closer to what is required for the modal ontological argument to work, which uses metaphysically possible world semantics.
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. I can conceive of a cupboard that is empty, and one that contains a broom. I can even go as far as to conjure mental images of exactly that, too, of an empty cupboard, and of an occupied one. 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.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Lemme try.
Origins of:
1) existence
The sentence of "origin of existence" makes no sense. Something either exists or it doesn't.
2) The universe
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
3) life
Don't know. Can freely speculate, but don't know.
4) logic
Humans developed it.
5) truth
The sentence of "The origin of truth" makes no sense. either something is true or it is not.
6) morality
Nihilism works fine as a meta ethical theory. Describing human behaviours and what human behaviours people would generally most prefer I don't categorise as morality. If you do though then I encourage you to read "Sapiens: A brief history or humankind" for some good speculation.
7) other things
Can't be assed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The 24h/round request was least important.
Trim it to 3 rounds and 10k char/round and I will accept. If that's not ok with you then we just won't debate, it's not a problem.
I rather a shorter, if less comprehensive debate, that will actually finish and people can be bothered to read than a slog. It's a debate on a true/false statement than a motion anyway so it really shouldn't need any more than this.
Otherwise, as you say, you have plenty of other people you are debating and I have other things to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Reissue the challenge with the following:
3 rounds each
10k character cap (preferably 5k)
And ideally 24h/round, so it finishes within a week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"and we will never see the end of it as long as organic structures continue to reproduce on earth? It is the true and original renewable energy source"
Debate me on this claim?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Don't know. Millions of possibilities.
Perhaps a high cloud, perhaps an icy cloud, perhaps a smudge on the camera, etc. etc.
Can give any number of explanations within what we already are familiar with. Grainy clips of only a few seconds don't really give much information about it.
Created:
Posted in:
I love how this post gives zero context thus people just argue over the headline using nothing but their pre-existing biases and judgements on Israel.
Facts please.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I don't see this as a long-term situation.
The reason why coal has been struggling recently is because demand has dwindled, due to shifting energy production across the industrialised work towards oil/gas fired plants. Renewables are also making a dent, albeit a small one for now.
The switch has been made because bluntly, coal is filthy, the soot and pollution (non-CO2) are not viable near where populations live.
That is to say, the supply is there, we have several hundred years worth of coal consumption accessible, much less for oil and gas (several decades, with steeply increasing costs of extraction). Unless in the future renewables and nuclear ramp up to take a significant amount of the slack then demand for coal will simply return again.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
No, they are equally representative. 6 million lives in one place doesn't suddenly make them have fewer rights than if they chose to live spread apart.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
6 million votes of NYC out of 300 million is not enough for a majority. So your point is moot.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
So instead we have tyranny on the majority?
.. and this is better how?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
This is so simple and so obvious but is rarely seen in democratic political systems.
There is a fundamental conflict of interest between the partys favoured by the first past the post system (and thus, are the only ones in a position of power to change the system) and the voting public that wants to be fairly represented.
In the US, the Dem and Rep partys have exactly zero interest in perusing any sort of reform here since it reduces their likelihood of maintaining power in future elections.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Great idea. Here is one problem for you. Please tell me how you wish to address it:
If we take the most recent result, the 2016 election we have the following:
Trump/Rep: 46.1%
Hillary/Dem: 48.2%
Other/Ind: 5.7%
So what do you do? Whoever has a majority will effectively have 100% of the control over decisions, meaning that if the majority was Hilliary, then 51.8% of the country will be pissed off because they aren't at all being represented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
9 in 10 people get chicken pox in their lifetimes, today. So... ok? Well done I guess?
Note that once you have had it, it often reappears later in life in the form of shingles, especially when the immune system is compromised.
Literally the only disease on that list that has been eradicated, period, is smallpox.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Why am I being forced to vote for Biden on the threat of "If you don't take shit option A, you'll get shit option B".
Why can't I vote and be represented by a person and party who I *gasp* actually want to represent me?
Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work?
This obscene two party system has succeeded in making the US play the stupid game, when it is the game that is bad.
If the US actually had proper representation in its system, as opposed to a ridiculous first-past-the-post-system then we wouldn't have ridiculous threads like this one vilifying anyone who doesn't want to vote for a party lead by Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
I cited exactly as much as you did in your OP.
You don't use carbon isotopes to date coal, 300M years is far beyond the capabilities of 14-C (which maxes out at ~40,000 years, around 70,000 if using really high end gear, and with anally careful sample preparation, transport and storage), you need to date the strata you find coal in.
300M years, as in, all the coal was made around this time ago. None was made before, and none made since.
Which is an oversimplification, the bottom line is, new coal isn't being formed. That being said there are.probably deposits for several hundred years at our current consumption rate, oil and gas will squeeze much sooner than coal will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Pretty cool thought experiment. Which would not be completely outside the realms of possibility of occuring within my lifetime on some scale.
1. If the scientist should turn off the server, it would "kill" every AI sentient "person" in it. Would it be immoral for him to do so?
Don't know. If we drew a parallel to that in the "real world", if somebody decided to just "terminate" existence, suddenly, just like that. That is, you no longer exist the next moment, with no warning or experience of this. I am not sure if I would deem that any more or less immoral than the thought experiment you have proposed.
2. If the scientist decided to experiment on a few of his AI entities in such a way that caused them to experience great suffering, would that be immoral?
Yes, as much as we would regard a parent experiment on their children that would cause suffering to be. Assuming the experiement wasn't for the benefit of the child.
3. If the scientist decided to give his AI some "moral" laws, one of which was, "Do not damage the Server." Would that "moral" law be any different from the "moral" laws the AI's have developed themselves?
No clue.
4. If a few of the AI's develop weapons and begin to use those weapons to extinguish/kill other AI entities, is the scientist morally obligated to stop them?
If the scientist can, then yes.
5. If your answer to question #1 is "yes", please tell us as precisely as you can, whether it is the AI's sentience or it's ability to feel suffering that more morally obligates the scientist to keep them "alive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
The only conclusion hatt comes from those premises is "The universe has a cause".
The simplest response I can give is "Then I'll grant you the universe has a cause, that makes me no less of an atheist, so what?".
Rain has a cause, lightning has a cause, etc. I don't assign a God or any form of agency to these.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
My above post is the most substantive thing I can push on you. The definition of "possible" you use must be exactly the same concept throughout the argument or its invalid. People are conflating metaphysical possibility (the type required for this argument to be valid) with epistemological possibility ("...it could be true/correct") therefore grant P1 far too freely.
To give the reverse argument:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great does not exist in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist
Just to explain P3, as you stated in your original argument, if god exists in 44 out of 100 worlds, then it would be greater if it existed in 60 of 100, and so on. Therefore, either god exists in 100/100 worlds, or he exists in none, there is no in between. Thus if there exists one world where a MGB does not exist, then none of the worlds contain a MGB whatsoever.
Thus we are left with opposite conclusions form two "possible" premises
1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
or
1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.
Thus why I asked you to prove your P1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Your defence of P1 is literally this:
"First, it is certainly possible that an MGB could exist"
Is that seriously supposed to be your standard of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you are going to use this argument then you want to make it clear it is a modal ontological argument for others to understand where the deduction comes from.
That being said, please prove P1. Good luck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'll address two.
Problem 1: Moral relativism suffers from what is known as the reformer’s dilemma. If moral relativism is true, then societies cannot have moral reformers. Why? Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. For example, Corrie ten Boom risked her life to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights in the U.S. If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But such a view is defective for we all know that real moral reform has taken place!
Taking the definition: "Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint "
Then reformers simply change the standpoint, which in turn changes whether or not an action is moral/immoral.
Unless the current standpoint is "changing the standpoint is immoral", then there isn't an issue with reforming.
In any case, even if all the premises in this problem are correct, I don't see how it makes moral relativism any less true as a meta-ethical theory.
Problem 3: Moral relativists cannot complain about the problem of evil. The problem of evil is one of the most commonly raised objections to the existence of God. Some of the great atheists— Bertrand Russell, David Hume, H.G. Wells— concluded on the basis of the evil and suffering in the world that the God of the Bible must not exist (genocide, child abuse, suicide bombings). The common argument is that if God was all-good and all-powerful he would deal with evil. But evil exists, so God must not. The force of this objection rests upon moral evil being real and some things being objectively wrong. But such a claim is peculiar if we understand the nature of evil. Evil is a perversion of good. There can be good without evil, but not evil without good. There can be right without wrong, but not wrong unless there is first right. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, like ice cream flavor, the argument against God’s existence based on evil vanishes. If evil is real, then so is absolute good, which means moral relativism is false.
This is just flat out false, since the problem of evil can be presented as a formal reductio ad absurdum argument. For example (and this specific example is not the point, but the fact that a moral relativist can agree with the required premises to be able to make the argument.
A: God exists (assumption)
P1: If God exists, then suffering will not exist
P2: Suffering does exist
P3: Suffering does not exist (A & P1 Modus Ponens)
P4: Contradiction (P2&3), therefore A is false
A moral relativist only needs to agree with P1&2, and P1 is a conditional premise assuming a theistic worldview (thus not committing to their own, relativistic, one) is correct for the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
How the fuck the government got to a point where an impeachment decision is made entirely along partisan lines, and that this isn't seen as a problem is beyond me.
And this is not just in reference to Trump's impeachment, all other impeachments that occurred in the past did exactly the same. The system is fucked, not the people.
Created:
Posted in:
People are familiar with Flu. They have seen people suffer with it 1st hand, or had it themselves.
Very few people (particularly in Western communities) have experience with Coronavirus' such as SARS or MERS.
Thus it is simply easier and conveys more easily if comparing with Flu.
Not to say this is a sensible thing to do, of course Sars-COV2 is significantly more contagious and more lethal than seasonal influenza. The false sense of security from this comparison is damaging to people's response to it. The countries who had been hit by SARS had a much better response, I wonder how much of that is because of difference in how seriously the community takes it with that first-hand experience of an actual Coronavirus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Did you know that pretty much all the coal that exists now was all made about the same time, ~300 million years ago. Back when the structures that first formed the "woody" structures of trees (e.g. lignin) were first evolved. Before microbes had figured out how to digest it. Hardly any new coal has been produced since (when you date the layers that contain them, few date any later than this).
For oil its less clear cut, but the basic fact here is that we consume oil and gas several orders of magnitude faster than it forms.
So we group these, along with Uranium into the non-renewables, because for all intents and purposes, they simply aren't being renewed.
Created:
Posted in:
Looks clean and actually functional.
Can't say I'll be much a part of it but looking forward to see what it will become.l
Created: