Total posts: 749
-->
@foreigne48
What do you mean by falsifiable?
Like should people be able to argue that a specific belief is invalid?
I've always associated the word feminism with the social movement, not the beliefs behind it, though I guess it could apply to both. I support the feminism movement because I'm an egalitarian.
an idea/theory must be falsifiable.
I don't think feminists view their movement as based on a "theory" so much as a philosophy.
I would say that feminism can be informed by scientific claims such as "there are no major differences in neurology between men and women" or "women can succeed at any job just as well as men" which you can investigate through social studies, etc, but neither of those claims are universal to the feminist movement.
The feminist umbrella extends from people who just want to vote and own property, to Free the Nipple and affirmative action to compensate for gender bias in traditionally male-dominated workplace.
Personally, I believe that while there are several differences in men and women, some biological and some acquired from their social environment, people should be able to pursue their dreams, even if they're "not wired" for it. I wouldn't want people to say that I couldn't hold certain positions because I'm right-handed or am introverted, or my IQ is too high/low, and I have no more control over those things than my sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ah, yes! One of the oddest divine murders of the Old Testament. What's your point, that Lot's wife "came from the ground"?
Salt comes from the ocean as well, if I recall.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Interesting that the ancients referred to almost anything that came from the ground as stone . Think on that for a while,K_Michael.
Petroleum, saltpeter, a rock-hard Peter
checks out to me.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You shouldn't of went quiet for four hours
I haven't posted on this thread for over 12 hours before this, what are you talking about?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It's called sleeping. I'm not on this site 24/7. And it's not like you tagged me. I responded when I came across it.
Created:
Posted in:
The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same
Interestingly the name Pierre in French is the same. I assume it came over from the Greek "petra."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Department policy doesn’t override SCOTUS.
No, it adds to it. When you take an oath of office you are held more strictly by its terms than a regular citizen. For instance "One provision of Executive
Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5
U.S.C. 7311 for any person taking
the oath of office to advocate “the alteration ...
of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.”"
I as a regular citizen can advocate for the dissolution of the government as a matter of freedom of speech, but a public servant could not.
Created:
(One pile of sand) + (One pile of sand) = ?
[1 pile of sand of volume x] + [1 pile of sand of volume x] = [1 pile of sand of volume 2x]
You make it out like it's a complicated question.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm less convinced that socrates "existed"and even more than thati don't think it matters one way or the otherthe words we credit to socrates are no more and no less interesting regardless of whether or not someone named socrates actually said them
I never said it mattered. Only that it is an objective fact. Most facts are not particularly important. We call these trivia.
it's difficult to imagine what enhanced utility this belief might yield if considered "fact" instead of merely "opinion"
Whether or not Socrates existed isn't a matter of opinion. My belief that he did may be false but either it is a fact that he existed, or it is a fact that he did not.
are you perhaps trying to start a religion ?
Religion is famously entangled with faith, the idea of belief in the absence of evidence. I have never attested to have faith in anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we understand electricity quite well, we are able to control the flow of electrons and electric fields and manipulate them into performing workthis is being contrasted with gravity, which we cannot control the flow of
Just because we understand something doesn't mean we can arbitrarily "control" it. Gravity also doesn't flow as far as I'm aware. When we "control" electricity, as you put it, we merely create an environment where electricity naturally flows where we want it to. We don't change how it behaves at all. Gravitational waves behave similarly to light (electromagnetism). They travel at the same speed (c) as mass-less particles/waves. The difference is while any spectrum of light can be stopped by the right material, nothing is known to stop gravitational waves. Er go, we can't bounce gravity with a mirror, channel it through fiber optics, or block it with lead shielding. So under our current understanding of gravity, the only ways to "control" it is through the direct correlation to mass, which generates the waves in the first place.
cannot manipulate it into performing work
Humans have been using gravity to perform work for centuries longer than electricity. A mill is powered by water flowing downward, which is caused by gravity. Hourglasses and water clocks have been used to measure time for hundreds of years.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Imagine witnessing ten babies getting thrown off a cliff , then it rains for a week.
It would take more than one iteration to convince me, but if you could reliably affect the weather by human sacrifice then that would be strong evidence of a god/godlike power (although that could just be sufficiently advanced aliens pulling a prank on us).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
being able to describe something accurately does not mean you know how it works
True.
for example, many people can accurately describe a telephone
Are they accurately describing its black box outputs, its internal structure and functions, or both?
I can accurately describe a telephone by saying that it takes auditory input signals, converts them into electrical signals, and sends them through a landline where they are reconverted into audio, as well as receiving similar electrical signals and converting them back into sounds.
I actually don't know much more than that, but some people would actually understand the physics behind each circuit and wire inside the telephone, understand the program that converts the signals to and from audio, the mechanics of how the speaker reproduces sound, etc.
I wouldn't say that my understanding of telephones isn't knowledge, even though it's incomplete.
My model isn't technically wrong in that nothing I said was incorrect, but I don't understand how telephones actually work. My model is similar to pre-Newtonian understandings of physics. Galileo was able to observe the acceleration of falling bodies, Kepler could chart the movement of planets, but neither had a firm mathematical understanding of the why and how. Newton's model wasn't perfect either, and chances are good that the current scientific model isn't either. Similarly, my theoretical telephone expert might not have studied, say, the chemical makeup of the materials used in the telephone, or the atomic theory underpinning how electricity is the flow of electrons.
The telephone expert case is more similar to current scientific models than my own description. The telephone expert probably doesn't know how something like a solar flare would affect a telephone, but this doesn't render all of his other knowledge obsolete, only incomplete.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
everything you know is "map"therefore, you cannot know "objective facts"
True, I can never have 100% confidence in any belief, but I can be 99.9999% sure, which is good enough for me.
facts must be verifiable, quantifiable, empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessarya "really real human socrates with dna" is none of these
It is a fact that Socrates existed in that I am >99% confident that he existed, as per the historical consensus. I am likewise 99.9999% sure that all humans that exist or have existed possess a DNA sequence. The resulting syllogism is that Socrates had a DNA sequence.
OPINION must be unfalsifiable, personal, experiential, GNOSTIC, qualitative (and emotionally meaningful) (aka NOT fact) QUALIA
I have never seen someone insinuate that the past is all qualia before. I am not positing a specific DNA sequence that belonged to Socrates, only stating that the most logical (99.9999% certainty!) conclusion is that he had one. As for the other qualifiers you give here, you draw a false dichotomy.
Under fact, you posit the quality of "verifiable", while under opinion, you say "unfalsifiable." These are not mutually exclusive, nor do they cover all possible outcomes.
Verifiable and falsifiable are not the same. Verify is to confirm to be true, falsify is to confirm to be false. One can still put a hypothesis or belief in the middle ground, as of yet neither verified or falsified.
Outside of the venn diagram: I claim that there is a 100% undetectable dragon in my garage. It is invisible, inaudible, it doesn't breath or produce heat, if you splash paint or flour into the air it will drop through the dragon as if it were air. All of these caveats make it impossible to apply empirical evidence to the claim. I cannot prove that there isn't a dragon, only point out how unlikely it is to exist. Similarly, no matter how much one wants to believe a dragon is there, there is no way to prove that there is a dragon.
Verifiable but not falsifiable: The one that comes immediately to mind is the question of God. If God were to reveal himself directly to the world and start performing miracles to prove he is God, that would be pretty good evidence, though I suppose some people would insist on hallucinations or simulation theory. Theoretically God could just snap his fingers and give you perfect knowledge of everything, and then you would know 100%. However, even if we prove the Big Bang and evolution, etc., people can always claim that God exists, operating quietly in the background. You can never really prove that he doesn't exist, only assign low probabilities to it.
Verifiable and falsifiable: There is a regulation size football in my closet. This one has clear metrics. I can look in the finite space of my closet and see almost immediately if this is true or false. I specified regulation size to preclude the possibility of, say a microscopic football. I might even see a football and be required to go the extra step of measuring it against regulation parameters. If I don't see one after looking through my entire closet, then the claim has been falsified. If I do see one and it matches all of the regulations, then the claim has been verified.
Falsifiable but not verifiable: All crows are black. I can spend my entire life looking at crows and observing their color. If I see a single crow of a different color, the claim has been falsified. However, it is physically impossible for me to observe all crows that have ever existed, especially without time travel, so even if I have billions of data points in favor of black, I can never verify the claim, only place a high probability in favor based on empirical evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
Type1's been banned for a long time, judging from his profile page. I haven't seen Vici act with any knowledge that would indicate he was around that long ago. I don't have any particular guess other than best.korea as being the biggest troll type figure active rn. No one in particular with a matching style to Vici that comes to mind.
I don't have any particular reason to think that they're an alt, though if mods or site owners are checking IPs then that would be evidence enough for me.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
are you familiar with the concept of "naïve realism"
Never heard of it before, but it seems directly opposed to how I understand the world.
I adhere to "the map is not the territory."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
we can certainly describe gravity with reasonable accuracybut our models do not account for what we observe on cosmic scalesthat's why we must infer "dark matter" and "dark energy"
I consider this a strength of the model. In the 1820s Alexis Bouvard predicted that a planet existed beyond Uranus based upon discrepancies between Newtonian models and his own observations of Uranus's orbit. Neptune wasn't identified until 1845. Bouvard's model wasn't perfect-- it predated Relativity by a century, but it was good enough to detect a planet before it had been charted.
Someday, we may be able to more directly observe whatever phenomenon is confounding current models, and even if it turns out to be something besides dark matter, the fact that the model doesn't just blindly fit what we observe means that it is open to change rather than just trying to explain what we already see.
Created:
at least one human mind is required in order to consider any of your example "objective facts" to be verifiablehaving more than one human mind believe a piece of data (is "true") does not magically make that data "objective" ("independent of individual thought")
Objective doesn't mean verifiable. For instance, we will never be able to know, much less verify, what Socrates's exact DNA sequence was, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't an exact answer that existed in reality.
since more than one thinker believes this is an "objective fact"
no, no, no. You're not understanding. Objectivity literally doesn't care what anyone believes. Either Jesus turned water into wine, or he didn't, and only one of those is a true, objective fact. The other is a false belief. Technically, all facts are true - there's no need to add the qualifier. In legal terms, a "false fact" would be called an false assertion. But whether one or two or 2 billion people believe it happened doesn't make any difference.
perhaps it might be useful if you might be kind enough to provide a few examples of "facts" that you do NOT think qualify as "objective facts"
Nothing comes to mind. Something that I might consider an objective fact like "God does not exist" is a statement of belief. In reality, my belief is either true or false. The statement "K_Michael believes that God does not exist" gets fuzzy really quickly though. A more intangible statement would be "KM is not afraid of the dark," because while my conscious brain is capable of rationally reasoning that my dark room is overwhelmingly likely to be safe just as my room is when lit, there is still a subconscious part of my brain that is hardwired to be more cautious and afraid of the dark, due to evolutionary pressures mostly relating to nocturnal predators. And this subconscious part of my brain can have a measurable impact on my body, such as an increased heart rate, so it definitely exists.
I'm still not sure I would characterize the statement "KM is not afraid of the dark" as being subjective though, merely overly broad, like saying gas cars don't use electricity, even though most do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
1. SCOTUS doesn't determine state law except when two states dispute a case.
2. Chauvin was tried in a Minnesota district court under Minnesota law.
3. Even if he hadn't broken regular laws, he is legally bound by his oath of office as a civil servant.
4. He never once checked if Floyd was still breathing after he stopped moving and speaking. It was clear that Floyd was in physical distress and then seemingly went unconscious, at which point medical attention should have been a priority over restraining him.
There was a more recent case where a man with gasoline in his backpack in a police chase, was tased and caught on fire. When this man was clearly in danger of his life, the police prioritized putting out the fire over restraining the man, even though he had previously resisted arrest. Obviously the Floyd case wasn't quite so visible, but Chauvin should have been able to monitor Floyd's breathing, especially after he said "I can't breathe" so many times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
The SCOTUS decision was a year after the Floyd case.
Irrelevant and prejudicial
How is a record of excessive violence irrelevant to a murder trial? If a regular civilian went into a murder trial with assault on his record, they would absolutely bring it up in the trial.
Fun how you ignored my other points on Chauvin's oath of office and not checking for breathing.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
One might argue that if the stand-alone narrative data is verifiable, it is therefore objective. Nonetheless you cannot actually internally possess or lay claim to that objective data. You must always process it.
Whether or not I ever "know" or "verify" a fact, the fact already exists in reality. As an example, whether I "internally possess" knowledge on whether I'm wearing shoes, or if I only "process" it, I am already either wearing or not wearing shoes, and that is the objective fact, not my knowledge of it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
none of your examples are "independent of individual thought"
yes, they are. They are true independent of what any individual thinks.
perhaps what you're thinking of as "objective fact" is actually more precisely described by the term AXIOM
An axiom is defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true." This is totally different from the definition that I gave, that each fact I listed is true independent of individual thought (i.e., not influenced by properties of the observer.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
That's pure speculation. No basis in fact.
Chauvin already had 18 complaints on his record before the Floyd case, often for use of excessive force.
Chauvin's knee was NOT on his neck, ffs! It was on his shoulder. But the left and the MSM made sure you didn't see that fact of reality.
Once again, it doesn't matter where his knee was. If you had read the link I had given, you would see that it makes no mention of the police putting weight on the victims neck. If there's too much weight on your torso, your lungs won't work well, especially if you're already suffering from the effects of drugs.
If Chauvin told EMTs to stay away, that means he had NO KNOWLEDGE Floyd was not breathing. One can breathe quietly without notice to another
If someone goes from saying "I can't breath" over and over to complete silence and no discernible breath (reminder that Chauvin is in body contact with Floyd, he should be able to feel him breathing, even if he can't hear it), it is more than fucking reasonable to assume that he is either A. unconscious, and no longer needs to be restrained, and might even need medical assistance, B. dead, or C. such a good actor he can just stop breathing.
At no point was Floyd violent towards anyone to start with, so even if C were the case, they should have erred on the side of caution and made sure he was doing ok.
SCOTUS has ruled that law enforcement has NOT DUTY to save anyone.
link the decision.
"I shall, in recognition of my service as a peace keeper, first do no harm, that I will upload [sic? I think they meant uphold?] and safeguard the sanctity of life"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your definition of objective is wrong. A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true. Oxygen didn't start having 8 protons when we developed the equipment to determine that. "ignorance exists in the map, not in
the territory. If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about
my own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself." My examples above are objectively true because they are true independent of any observers.
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought
this "fact" is incomprehensible to say, a fly or a donkey
Whether a fact is comprehensible to a fly is a fact about the fly's state of mind, not about the fact. The fly's knowledge doesn't affect how many protons oxygen has.
Created:
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Water freezes at ~273 Kelvin at 1 atmospheres.
An oxygen atom has 8 protons.
There are more people in China right now (2 November 2022) than in France.
Neon gas emits visible light primarily at 585 and 640 nm
I am (as of writing this) not wearing shoes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
I saw the original video back when it happened. Chauvin (still a hilarious name btw) was clearly being more violent than necessary, and unequivocally should have gotten off of him after he went unconscious, regardless of if it was from the drugs or from his own actions. It is a well established fact and part of police training that you should not hold someone down when they are prone (belly-down) for any longer than necessary as it carries greater risks for the person being arrested. There are plenty of other cases where this has led to asphyxiation (here's a recent one).
I don't need to listen to your claims about the boot being on his shoulder or other excuses. The second Floyd stopped breathing Chauvin should have been performing CPR himself, not telling paramedics to stay away. Even if the autopsy report showing that the cause of death was asphyxiation was false, Chauvin failed his sworn duty to protect and serve by not trying to save Floyd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
If you shoot someone who has taken a lethal dose of a drug or cocktail of drugs before it kills them, you are still a murderer.
If you strangle someone who has taken a lethal dose of a drug or cocktail of drugs before it kills them, you are still a murderer.
If you asphyxiate someone who has taken a lethal dose of a drug or cocktail of drugs before it kills them, you are still a murderer.
If you run over someone who has taken a lethal dose of a drug or cocktail of drugs before it kills them, you are still a murderer.
I will debate any version of the above.
Created:
Posted in:
Fun fact: if you shoot a guy who has taken a lethal dose of a drug before the drug kills him, you are still a murderer.
Created:
Posted in:
Floyd killed himself. Chauvin did nothing wrong.
Wait is the cop's name actually Chauvin? As in chauvinist pig? That is fucking hilarious.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What’s objective about being selfish (if you agree that is)?
I have no idea why Ayn Rand decided to call her philosophy objectivism, if she did coin the name.
Created:
Posted in:
I was recently thinking about the undelivered speech written by William Safire for Richard Nixon to deliver if the Apollo 13 mission failed.
Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.
These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.
They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.
In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.
In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.
Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man’s search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.
For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.
I think its a very stirring speech and was wondering if anyone has similar media that they would like to share, especially if it inspires hope and pride in the human spirit.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
If I recall, Ayn Rand objectivism is very different from what's being argued here (i.e., is morality/reality objective?) Didn't Ayn Rand have the idea that one should value your own happiness and achievement over anything else?
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Not sure how it got to objectivism when it started out about humanism though.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
For once you're actually right about something. Hitler wrote about Esperanto in Mein Kampf, stating
Upon this first and greatest lie, that the Jew is not a race but simply a religion, further lies are then built up in necessary consequence. To them also belongs the language spoken at the time by the Jew. For him it is never a means of expressing his thoughts, but for hiding them. When he speaks French, he thinks Jewish, and when he turns out German poetry, he only gives an outlet to the nature of his people.As long as the Jew has not become the master of the other peoples, he must, whether he likes it or not, speak their languages, and only if they would be his slaves then they might all speak a universal language so that their domination will be made easier (Esperanto!).
The rest is an association fallacy (this particular form has been given the name Reductio ad Hitlerum) Just because sadolite agrees with Hitler on something doesn't mean that it's bad or that sadolite is wrong. Hitler was also a vegetarian and liked dogs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Apparently the solipsists I knew are also nihilists and I was conflating the two. I should have looked into solipsism more. My claim of hypocrisy definitely should have gone to the nihilism side of things.
As far as I can tell, it's like saying "blergle is true." They have a belief in there head labeled that, but it doesn't lead to anything.Where would you have it lead?
I still think that a belief that doesn't inform your actions is essentially useless. There isn't a specific thing I think solipsists should believe based on solipsism, but if there is literally no change, then it isn't a true belief.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah accents are a whole other thing. It's almost like you can't get a billion people to all talk the same way. Too bad for Wylted.
Created:
The easiest way to learn a second language is in the home from infancy. If you're really motivated to promote an international language, you should have some kids and teach them Esperanto from birth. That being said, plenty of people around the world are already learning English as a second language, whether in school or by choice. I think it would likely be easier to reform English to be more consistent. Dough, rough, and through could become Doh, ruff, and throo.
Wun uv the hardest things too lurn uhbout English is the pronunseeayshun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
If you're just going to ignore third genders, then I have no interest in talking with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Gender means male and female and isn't independent of biological sex as biological sex dictates gender.
Ahh, so you ignored my link about third gender roles in history. Even if you ignore that, explain why gender stereotypes change so quickly over time? Pink was a boy's color until the 1940's. Men wore tights (or hose, as they called it) and heels in medieval Europe, but now it is stereotypical of women. If there was a biological basis for those things, then they wouldn't be able to evolve so quickly.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You aren't helping that situation if you don't learn esperanto and push it onto other people
I'm all for learning languages, and unifying the world. But pushing Esperanto specifically on people is not the way to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Gender since the beginning of time has meant male and female.
"Gender" stems from the Old French "Gendre" and was originally used only in the context of grammatical gender, such as how "mesa" or table is gendered feminine in Spanish. It was only in the 20th century that gender became a synonym for sex, as sex became a more erotic and taboo word. The LGBTQ community has once again changed the definition of the word to make a distinction between the concepts of "sex" the genetic and biological based dimorphism of chromosomes and genitalia, and "gender" which they have adopted to mean the social construct of roles and expectation surrounding one's perceived sex.
No one ever separated biological sex with gender before that since the dawn of time.
There are several historical cultures that had three gender roles.
the word gender has been high jacked and redefined
What word is being used doesn't actually matter. We could use "florbalon" instead of gender, if that makes things less confusing for you. Unless you have a chromosomal disorder, you are born as either the male or female sex. As you grow up and mentally develop, you will learn a florbalon role based on your sexual characteristics, which in Western culture means the feminine florbalon plays with dolls and wears pink and the masculine florbalon plays with trucks and wears blue. Some people will grow up feeling at odds with their assigned florbalon; a boy might wish to wear skirts, or a girl to wrestle with the neighborhood boys. The florbalon role of wearing skirts isn't intrinsic to the human species, we didn't even invent pants until we started riding horses. So there is no reason to say that the stereotypical florbalon roles need to be strictly matched to sex.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Let's say the forum is less active though. By requiring this language be spoken it will weed out the retards on this forum and raise the average IQ of people posting here, this bringing more engaging conversation
Once again, no, it won't. People will just use google translate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
I also said why those statistics aren't good (preemptively mind you).I also provided my own statistics, which I made positive arguments for why they are better.
The point in my RFD was that Barney's arguments (including his statistics) better met the stipulation in the description that only DART be considered (I also found them more persuasive than your counter). If I had wanted to screw you, I could have claimed that you lost the debate de facto by mentioning DDO debaters like Tejretics and Nyxified, and awarded all points to Barney. What you got was a fair version of my vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
it's bullshit to award source points in a debate that is largely about semantics and philosophy
Barney used statistics to demonstrate how highly rated he is compared to most debaters. Furthermore, there is absolutely awardable source points in a philosophical debate. Any time you cite a philosopher's position (as Vici did about Plato's "chaotic states") there should be a corresponding source for voters' perusal (which Vici did not provide). It isn't my job to google and double check factual claims made in an argument, so anything that isn't common knowledge and especially quotes should be sourced. If one side of a purely philosophical debate failed to do so it would easily lose them source points in my eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
Rest assured, if I thought the entire universe was inside my own imagination, I would devote my efforts to making some major renovations (hallucinate a better "reality").One can already do this. It's called, "perspective."
Are there unicorns in your "perspective"? I demand unicorns!
I say almost always hypocritical because I'm sure some people have taken the belief seriously in their personal lives, but they aren't the ones arguing it online.Hello, I'm Athias. Nice to meet you.
How does your belief in solipsism affect your everyday life? I genuinely am curious.
Useless in what context?
If your belief in solipsism actually does change how you behave, then it isn't useless, but every person I've met in real life that claims to believe in it (admittedly only 3) behaves exactly the same as I would expect of someone who thinks reality is real. They are polite to strangers, care about politics, climate change, all stuff that under solipsism does actually exist. As far as I can tell, it's like saying "blergle is true." They have a belief in there head labeled that, but it doesn't lead to anything. It doesn't inform other beliefs and isn't informed by any. It might as well not exist, except for all of the time the loudly proclaim "Blergle is true!"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
As a show of good sportsmanship do you mind removing the votes in your favor and asking them to not allocate source points and to revote based only on arguments?
Barney is prohibited from moderating a debate that he participated in, as a general rule applying to all moderators.
Furthermore, my sources vote was completely justified and you can kindly shove off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vici
Pro's only counter to this evidence is the argument...
This is from my vote. I addressed the one argument on your side that countered Barney's argument.
By comparison, from the removed vote on Oromagi's debate
he solely focuses on arguments presented by Con and does not engage with responses from Pro or any of Pro's arguments. This specific point may be the most important one in the debate, but the voter cannot simply say that without touching upon the responses to it.
Barney made an argument, which, if uncontested, would easily win the debate. Only one of your arguments responded to his, therefore only that one was important to my consideration of who won the debate. If I had not addressed a single argument you had made, my vote would have been similarly removed.
Imagine if I was arguing that Mario was the best Sega character of all time, and Con's argument was that Mario was not a Sega character. No matter how good my arguments were on how good of a character Mario was, unless I could counter that single argument, I would still lose.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I would say it's helped me practice my wording. Sometimes the same argument is more persuasive if worded differently. It's also helped me appreciate the need for background information, because I used to assume common knowledge of a niche subject would be closer to my own knowledge.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
GPT-3 can translate. Bolded is prompt, unbolded is GPT-3's output.
Translate "this is an AI's attempt at translating into Esperanto. And API tools can hook up to translation services anyways." into EsperantoResult: Ĉi tio estas provo de AI traduki en Esperanton. Kaj API iloj povas konektiĝi al tradukservoj ĉiuokaze.
Similarly, it can follow prompts in Esperanto.
Rakontu al mi la historion de Sokrato en Esperanto. Rezulto: Sokrato estis greka filozofo kiu vivis en Ateno dum la 5-a kaj 4-a jarcentoj a.K. Sokrato estis verŝajne la plej fama el la antikvaj filozofoj, kaj lian vivon kaj pensojn oni priskribas en la libro "La Atenaĵoj" de Platono. Sokrato ne skribis librojn, kaj tial oni scias pri li precipe per la priskriboj de Platono kaj aliaj. Sokrato estis tre malsama de la aliaj filozofoj de sia epoko. Li ne interesiĝis pri la naturo aŭ la ĉielo, sed pri la homa animo kaj ĝiaj potencoj. Sokrato diris, ke oni ne povas scii, kio estas vero, sed ke oni povas atingi veron per diskuto kaj reflektado.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
this very well could all be some sort of manifestation of brahman's eternal dream
Once again, I am not dismissing that possibility, but there has been no evidence to make that the most likely explanation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again dummy, a republic is a type of country or state. A democracy is a form of government.
They're both forms of government.
Created: