Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Yew berries are red. They can kill you.
Akee fruit is yellow. They can kill you.
The Machineel tree fruit is green. That will definitely kill you.
european spindle fruit is orange. Again. Will kill you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
1.) There is more than one type of renewable energy. There are many different types that do not have issues when the sun goes down. The wind doesn’t stop blowing, water doesn’t stop flowing, the earth’s core doesn’t cool down, and tides don’t stop just because it’s night time or daytime.
2.) There are many various forms of energy storage. This can either be on a household scale (like batteries), or large storage facilities such as pumped hydro. Even CSPs can retain generation for up to 15 hours using molten salt heat storage.
You have not mentioned any other forms of renewable energy other than solar, and haven’t really talked about any other type of solar power other than Photovoltaics. There is more than just Solar PV - and the fact you’re fixating on this one, and arguing as if itre limitations of a single type of technology extend to all renewables is not particularly intellectually honest approach to the subject, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I once borrowed $200 from a friend, so its possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That will have no effect on the car industry, or on individuals. Anyone who needs a car but can’t get a loan can simply borrow money from friends, from strangers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What part of my explanation did not make sense to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The important thing is that there really isn’t any legitimate safety issue with Nuclear Power Plants. Most direct deaths in the last decade have been from people stirring mixing tanks with too much Uranium in.
There was actually a substantial push by oil companies to promote the safety issues after 3 mile island. Pro nuclear maybe pushing Nuclear power today for much the same reason. For me, that someone is pushing an agenda is not particularly relevant, only whether the agenda is reasonable and relevant.
In this case, while nuclear capacity is economical to maintain (so shouldn’t be shut down), the plants are incredibly expensive, require large subsidies, tax incentives and loan gaurantees to build in an economic climate where the cost of natural Gas doesn’t include its own pollution. The true inherent cost is largely obfuscatsd, because the true direct cost to the taxpayer for these sweeteners isn’t clear, and the indirect economic cost of disasters - whilenrare - isn’t factored in.
if you want to make Nuclear Power Competitive, slap a 25c tax per kg of co2 generated that goes up 0.25c every 6momyhs - capped at $3 per kg; issue a rebate an equal fraction of each the tax income (save 10% to spend on clean energy investment and climate change mitigation) to each adult in the country every quarter.
While someone facetious that I make half jokingly: it would solve poverty, global warming almost overnight, and would cause dozens of nuclear plants and renewable
energy projects to be rapidly expedited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Post #113
I think we should work on the totally not a troll tax plan (TNATTP)
I can ran a half marathon last weekend. Ergo, we can encourage workers to give up their cars and run 13 miles to work every day. Obviously, as training improves pace, running every day will mean the ability to run this distance at 1hr 10 minutes. I base this off I once ran 100 in 20 seconds, which multiplied by 10x21.1 would be 70 minutes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Like I said: there’s more than one type of renewable energy. Better yet there is a substantial multitude of storage technologies. My favourite is pumped storage hydro.
There are indeed golden zones for sun, this includes a substantial portion of continental US.
There are “golden zones” for Nuclear also; it has to be within a communizing distance of medium sized city for the purposes of having employees and access to core infrastructure. Most current reactors require access to large volumes of water - so the sea (or due to salinity) a large river. While there are many zones that fit the criteria, you can fit a solar panel pretty much on your roof, and make your money back in a decade.
This type of microgenerarion is not available to Nuclear and is largely a different way of thinking about energy generation, rather than thinking things in terms of large ubiquitous power farm - though they also have their place.
But Kudos on ignoring everything else said.
Created:
Gotta love the consistency of conservatives that want to make government so small it fits inside a woman’s uterus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, so you’ve mostly stopped with facts and started with your feelings and opinions. Proof by anecdote seems to be a common thread and tactic from the right so far.
So to start wIth, I can completely agree that some particular regulations are aimed at stifling competition. The consistent push to remove them comes from corporations too. Eradicating regulations, and lowering enforcement of, say, mandatory product recalls are great for fisher price - not so great for dead babies.
While I dig the paranoia: it’s worth focusing on whether a regulation is good or bad on its face, rather than some nebulous and opinionated woo peddling of how nameless regulations are the death knell of America.
For example, regulations governing safe levels of lead in drinking water - I’m okay with those, even if they are a ploy by big tech companies not
to have a generation of lower intelligence children due to exposure to lead. Back ups and redundancy in safety critical system to enforce multi level layers of failure for a catastrophic accident - I’m okay with those too.
Like I said, regulation can be a tool to allow the market to do things that are necessary but incurr no, or limited cost to the company: capitalism normalizes for cost, not social necessity.
Now, you may not like that: but your overt paranoia and mistrust of all regulation, is no more valid than the mischaracterized straw man optimism you’re portrayin. In reality regulation can be nefarious, lack of regultion can be nefarious, both can also be good. Is it too much to ask to treat examples on their merits, rather than make blanket assumptions about them all being the evil machinations of Herr Zuckerburg and his paid of congressional lackeys?
I think I asked - which specific regulation do you take issue with, and what is the cost basis of it?
Secondly, your confusing plastic with eWaste. You can’t export eWaste to developing countries in this way; and while some gets to Malaysia, it’s a tiny fraction of what is recycled in Europe. Worse, even your characterization is far far worse then the article implies or states.
For solar installations - which as I stated is one out of many forms of renewable generation - solar panels even in the UK without feed in tariffs pay for their initial investment in 10 years, larger CSPs and lathe Solar plants are more expensive and do better in brighter sunnier areas, which there are substantial locations all around the US that would benefit, given that almost everywhere in the US gets more sun power per day than the UK, most locations would be economical on an individual level even if not with raging profits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s first address some innacuracies
Firstly you very much do have reactors in tidal areas. There are multiple reactors on the Us Coast, and all reactors are generally near some significant water source due to cooling water requirements. This renders almost all susceptible to coastal or river flooding events - and given recent news - these can be substantial. The issue is not direct damage, but issues relating to infrastructure damage. The issue at Fukushima was the flooding - an event that can happen pretty much anywhere.
By all means though, feel free to specify the exact safety regulation you object to, and its imposed cost.
For E waste, it is currently illegal to ship eWaste to deceloped countries. While some people do it illegally, the number is a few percent - not “much of”. This is inherently why regulations. When consequences have no financial cost, the market will not minimize the Consequences. This is kind of the inherent backward thinking on regulations coming from much of the right: Complain that there is a regulation on dumping toxic waste in the ocean or exporting waste to countries that will dump it in the ocean - then take issue when toxic waste is dumped in the ocean.
This is literally why regulations have a valid place: the market maximizes profit and minimizes cost. If the cost you need minimized is not financial, market ain’t going to fix it.
Literally the source of the current climate crisis is that the cost of pollution is 0, even the source of the whole nuclear discussion here is that the inherent cost of carbon pollution and cost of toxic waste pollution is 0. Nuclear plants are close to financially unviable because gas and coal plants don’t have to pay to clean up the pollution they cause - preventing true market competition.
The us spends $1bn on Nuclear subsidies - this is active subsidies on running power plants. This doesn’t include loan guarantees, and other proposed tax breaks and subsidies that would be applied to building new reactors. When Westinghouse went bankrupt, there was at least $6bn I loan gaurentres on the hook.
Solar plants have subsidies to build, and for individuals to buy panels, long term operation doesn’t require that much: and unlike nuclear are become
less necessary as the price of solar has been falling - and is cheap enough to no longer requires subsidies in some countries. Nuclear has already requires some capital outlay support, and it would be interesting to compare the total subsidy cost per me of historical subsidies for solar and nuclear - that’s a much more valid way of comparing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Firstly, the bulk of the cost of building and running a nuclear power plant are initial capital outlay, fuel, and decommissioning. Given that most of the safety methodology are similar to other industry (but applied based on nuclear issues), the Design Basis accident that they are designed against are actually pretty reasonable. The reason north western Japan is currently habitable, is the multiple layers of safety and redundancy afforded by nuclear safety regulations. If these were laxer safety regulations, or this was a Soviet era RBMK with cut corners and lax safety, you’d be looking at catastrophic releases of radiation. These regulations are mostly the reason that meltdowns are rare; and more people are directly harmed due to accidental overexposure from faulty Radiation therapy equipment.
Secondly, the toxicity of solar powers is largely overly dramatic. The US for the moment, as it’s in an industry not filtering money to republicans - has regulations relating to pollution caused by these toxic chemicals, as does Europe : which do a very good job of negating the pollution. Equipment recycling is slightly harder for now, less so in Europe, as there are so few panels to recycle right now. Still this doesn't cover CSPs or any other type of renewable so the point is largely moot.
Beat yet, though, Solar is currently viable economically without any subsidies, and plants are being built around Southern Europe and even into Germany without benefiting from subsidies.
The financial and environmental cost of keeping a nuclear plant running or extending its life, are minimal and trivial: and I do object strongly to countries eliminating this Nuclear Capacity before EOL - but at us same time, the technology is fairly mature, highly expensive, takes too long to build and require such an up front investment that it’s not competitive without government assistance - given that the multiple hundred billion dollar price tag for any accident there is - the true overall dollar cost of Nuclear is equivalent or greater than that of Renewables, which are not currently a fully mature technology - and as such will continue to decrease in cost.
Created:
From my perspective as a user of this site, I don’t feel that there is anything in this thread that requires addressing. Everything you have said has already been repeated in other threads, topics of discussion or any one of your numerous other colourful theses presented to the community at large, and in private. All of which I feel have been answered.
However, I’m trying to help you by pointing out the practical issues with what you’re doing; drama, noterity, butthurt, and reactions like this are oxygen for trolls that feed of negative reactions.
If what you say is true, then regardless of the action, Type1 is going to keep coming back and is going to keep trolling you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You're not really responding to anything being said.
Legitimate issues with your plan are raised, it’s implementation and its consequences; and you’re simply dismissing them as irrelevant.
For example: Living in a tent requires external sanitation for peeing, pooping and cleaning yourself, places for cleaning and washing clothes. Equipment and hardware for cooking food, electricity for light. They are difficult to secure, and thus are easy to rob or invade. Anywhere where there is a large collection of people living in temporary accommodating like tents, there are invariably major health issues, issues with crime, robbery, rape - for these reasons. Given your plan, it’s not one or two individuals but millions of people. This would require the equivalent of refugee camps to facilitate such things. Given that you also noted that individuals would give up their cars necessitating walking to their place of employment.
Your plan necessitated thousands of people holding a 12 hour a day job in these circumstances, to be able to go to work clean, with clean clothes; to take in adequate nutrition, whilst they all work at a stop and shop less than 1 hours walk away.
You didn’t address any of those issues. Your response was to assert that none of this was a problem because a) you lived in a tent for 2 days, b) you worked a summer job, and that people can and will eat a well balanced diet complete with a full spectrum of nutrients required to maintain their health by “eating sandwiches”.
There are major practical flaws in your plan, which you neither acknowledge or address: and this inability to defend your position appropriately is reflected in all of your responses to every point raised so far.
To answer the questions like this, you need to detail why its not an issue: why would people not live in large tent cities? Why would sanitation not be an issue? how will people find work close enough to walk? How many jobs would be required? Is it practical? How would it be practically possible for all these individuals to bathe, clean their clothes, get their kids to school: etc?
Your non-answers fo these questions are just that. Non answers. Naive repetion of your vehement belief that it will all be okay, does very little in the face of the major and crippling issues that have been raised throughout, and in detail.
This is why I’m now certain that you’re a troll.
When confronted with a major list of practical issues and crippling deficiencies of your plan, and the long list - that your sole response is to not address any of them directly, but simply dismiss them with ridiculously fatuous explanations such as “you can live in a tent” or “you can wash in someone else’s house” can only be explained by one of two things.
1.) You are so profoundly stupid that you do not realize how inadequate the assertion that people can “just live in tents” is at addressing the key practical issues raised, and you are profoundly ignorant at how inapplicable the experience of camping for a whole of two days is to the practical experience in the operation and administration of large scale temporary housing projects.
2.) You’re not profoundly ignorant, and you’re just making increasingly facetious and ridiculous explanations of practical concerns to see how Absurd you can make your explanations before people realize you’re being absurd on purpose.
This is repeated on almost every issue and every points raised.
I am logically faced with the choice of believing you’re one of the most stupid person I have ever met: given the level of ignorance in your responses, or you’re the most epic and excellent troll I have ever encountered. The latter is much less insulting, so I’m taking that.
Created:
Let me fight off the urge to say something facetious - and frankly that takes all my willpower right now - Trolls survive in the drama and disruption they cause.
For example, if you visit the Metabunk forums, there are trolls; they get banned, they are instantly forgotten, and no one mentions them again. No Drama - the fuel for that fire is choked off, and the forums retain their usage.
Type1 is going to keep coming back if you and others give him the attention and noteriety he likely craves.
While insults and abuse are serious and warrant bans, at the same time, Type1 and Sparrow are so dramatically over the top, that it’s plainly obvious that the insults and abuse are solely targeted into illiciting a dramatic reaction, rather than explicitly to be solely abusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
There’s not really a safety issue with Nuclear at all; its expensive and wipes out a lot of land for a long time; but major events are rare and don’t kill many people. Deaths are only higher for solar as solar deaths normally include people falling off roofs, so it’s not a fully fair comparison.
What the main financial issue is that the cost of Nuclear is somewhat hidden as from what I’m aware the recorded cost mostly doesn’t take into account major costs of big nuclear disasters. Worse, it’s not actually that cheap, it’s possible to build nuclear plants today; part of the issue is not all down to lack of will to build, but they’re not actually particularly economical - it’s why there are often large tax incentives and subsidies to allow for them. With massive cost overruns, it’s not often clear what the true cost of Nuclear actually is.
You have issues with FBRs being too far out to be economical, and needing much more investment in research to be mainstream, without them, burn up rates mean that Uranium supply is problematic for a major ramp up in nuclear power. While former nuclear weapon material can be used in reactors, this is lot a long term strategy.
I don’t think any plants need to be shut down now; even RBMKs are safeness now: but I think I question the long term economics of nuclear power given how drastically the price of renewables has been falling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
You’re trolling we get it. You literally cannot be serious - no one is this cretinously dumb.
Why bother with the expense of making people live in tents; how about government issued hammocks, people can wash their clothes in drink fountains?
Forget about food costs, people can live of nuts and squirrels that they can trap with nets crafted from their own hair. I saw something similar once on McGuyver, and ate a packet of dry roasted peanuts - so it’s possible.
If people can’t afford children, they will be happy to let their children off suffering from this mortal coil, and deposit them in a soylent green composting facility where their kids can be processed into cheap food for the rest of the poor plebiscite.
There should be a complaint tax where people are charged twenty billion dollars every time they complain, they can pay by becoming venture capitalists, and selling their blood. I lent a friend $15 and got $20 back, so it’s easy for people.
How about we make poor people earn money by making them work as human furniture for billionaires...
Please...
You're not being serious, stop wasting everyone’s time.
Created:
I don’t really have the spare time to invest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
LIGO can detect distance changes between two mirrors 4km apart down to 1/1000th of the diameter of a proton.
Still not as sensitive as straight people during Pride month.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nothing says “I’m a legit Fiscal conservative”. Better than implementing a universal basic income, doubling the federal budget, reducing Military spending by 15% and increasing the federal debt by 500%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Uther-Penguin
That is amazing, I’m stealing that!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Designed to only allow rich, competent people to reproduce so eventually, we get rid of the incompetent and replace them with the compitent. In the meantime, since poor people benefit more from children grants, this causes American society to become dumber and poorer since less rich people are reproducing and more poor people are.
Yay for Eugenics!
But you don’t mean “rich competent people”.
You mean “some lucky poor people and those who are born to already generally successful families”. Like before, its just wishful thinking based on ridiculously faulty assumptions, and based on a romantic and wholly false concept of upward mobility.
Uoure stupid, naive plan doesn’t consider how people create their own success, mires the lower and middle classes in a taxation burden; and doesn’t bother to explain or assess how any of the practical issues of mobility will be addressed considering that you are now inherently raising a concrete and impassable barrier to the poor.
Naively assertion “people can give up their children”, or “people will work to pay this tax”, or “people can still become rich”, is grotesquely ignorant and based on your own lack of any apparent qualified knowledge of the real world.
What you also ignore, is this will destroy the country socially - for the reasons listed on the previous page - and you ignored
They get more revenue under my plan then before.
You are proposing frost the tax burden on the poor will be massively reduced by many orders of magnitude; yet the amount of federal income will be roughly the same. You also argue that concurrently welfare programs will be removes
if you have the ability to count - you realize that it is not possible to do that without raising taxes on the poor substantially.
Again - disproportionate targeting of the poor and policie that enshrine wealth inequality will set the US up for a worker revolution.The tax policy does not target the poor more then the rich. Often, it does the opposite. There is just no income tax involved.
Under your naive plan, the poor will pay a far high percentage of their salary to the government then the poor. As there must necessarily be a higher burden on the poor than the rich: the rich will get substantially and massively richer while the poor will languish.
This rapid growth in income inequality and additional hardship will, given historical present of the French, Russian, and all communisy revolutions, foster an environment of open revolt.
I have a history with summer jobs, so I have worked previously.
Troll troll troll troll troll. Lol
You cannot possible be wretchedly dumb enough to surmise that working over a summer is sufficient experience of major long term employment, the
stress and pressures of managing your own budget and maintaining yourself.
The same way you cannot be pathetically dumb enough to believe your experience of spending 2 days in a tent is sufficient experience to determine that it could be used as a permanent place of residence.
The same way that you suggesting that families simply give up their children for adoption cannot be the product of an honestly believed rational thought.
I’m calling you out, this is a deliberate act to troll. No one is this consistently stupid, and consistently provocative: this nativity is an act.
Kudos to you though, this is probably the most epic example of Uber trolling I have seen. Well done, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Median individual income is 31k. This means 50% of individuals are below that value.
Repeoductice Maintence makes no sense at all.
If tax burden is significantly higher for those earning less than 31k, you will destroy the US economy.
Again - disproportionate targeting of the poor and policie that enshrine wealth inequality will set the US up for a worker revolution.
You don’t appear to be able to count. And still have no grasp on reality - I suspect because you do not work.
Obvious Troll is Obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Firstly, no: the US specifically is one of the more backwards of modern western countries in terms of lgbt rights, and there is still widespread issues with discrimination; lack of acceptance. Hell, the Vice President of the country supports gay conversion therapy; and you have people like Mopac still claiming that it’s a choice. So while the treatment of homosexuals is better than in countries where you can get stoned for it; is a pretty low bar, and aiming your sights pretty low. The bar is and should be, that there’s no difference in treatment - and you are way behind most other OECD countries.
Secondly, a drag queen doesn’t care if your gay, a gay oiled up gay man twerking on a perqdd float doesn’t care if your gay. Pride parade don’t care if your gay any more than woman in Bikinis.
The idea that pride month some how requires or wants you to be gay, is simply ridiculous. Men can flaunt their heterosexuality, women can too. Advertising does it all the time, those women in bikinis. Or the portrayal of sex and relationships on TV are ubiquitously heterosexual - you don’t have to wait till June to see people flaunting their heterosexuality the way people do on a pride parade. Just turn on the TV, or read a magazine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Yes it does. There’s actually 12 of them.
Your bombarded with flagrant cultural images of heterosexuality pretty much 100% of the time. TV, to advertising, what’s acceptable behaviour in public. It’s literal wall to wall Hetero across the board.
You just don’t notice it because it’s “normal”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Just so you’re aware, Hetro pride month lasts all 12 months.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Consider this a formal warning for implementing changes Sadisticly.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
So the “moderated”/“unmoderated” portion is an excellent hint to voters and debaters prior to acceptance whether the debate will be viewed as a troll debate. There’s no reason to remove that for the moment.
Moderators already designate debates as unmoderated; this gives a clear indication to all involved and should be largely uncontraversial as it’s simply implementing what moderators do manually.
The ELO aspect should be rolled back, as there is an implicit understanding right now that all debates generate ELO other than judges debates. You probably want to solicit more feedback for that one.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
i think the terminology is fine; it covers troll debates, rap battles, full forfeits and all the unmoderated examples (which is basically what the voting rules were set up for),
The rating being unchanged is the only real issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Incidentally, I went to the 2017 Toronto Pride parade, and had my favorited “faith in humanity restored” moment:
I was standing in between a group of Asian students, and a group of women wifh pushchairs in Burkas, and a group of Indian/Pakistanis - all of whom were dancing and cheered as the oiled up topless police man (full blue oyster) at the top of the of a float sprayed them all with water.
I have a picture somewhere of Burka woman high-fiving a drag queen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
For multiple thousands of years, homosexuals, the transgender and other human beings that all fall under the large umbrella and spectrum of what is human sexuality were branded deviants, stoned, shot, tortured, vilified, forced to conform; they are currently still being arrested and tortured in multiple countries, and even to this day in many countries where homosexuality and gay marriage are full enshrined in law - lgbtq are still the victim of violence, hatred, bigotry, hysteria and discrimination.
Pride is not really an expression of pride at who gives you an erection. Though it is indirectly part of it.
Pride is mostly an expression that you see nothing wrong in being yourself and expressing who you are despite the entire weight of society over the last two millennia emphatically and violently indicating otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, this is an accurate description of me if one didn’t understand sarcasm, irony and such a defective sense of humour you’d qualify for protection under the ADA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sparrow
Nah, it’s subtle, but it’s there, in substantial quantities.
I have magic powers.
Created:
Posted in:
Unless the rap was White N Nerdy by Weird Al, I am 100% certain that no rap thus far linked represents me accurately.
Created:
Posted in:
The Don Juan Pond is the saltiest place on earth.
This thread is very close second.
Created:
Posted in:
Did I say your name three times into a mirror?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
At this point, I’m not sure if you’re just deliberately dense, or just realize the fault in your argument and simply cannot admit it.
You claim to have an objective standard. If that standard is truly objective. I can use it. If God exists, that standard doesn’t stop being objective because I am an atheist.
This is you’re entire faulty objection; a denial that O can use your own objective standard, and the pretence that the standard you believe is objective would cease to be such when I apply it.
Its a ridiculous argument out of both sides of your mouth that do not appear to be able to factually distinguish how key presuppositions work. Indeed, our appear to be confusing your presupposition about my athiesm, with me presupposing your values incorrectly.
In this whole shit-show of an argument, you presuppose I have already made a mistake in a specific argument I have already presented because I can’t objectively apply an objective standard because I will apply it subjectively - somehow.
What this really amounts to, is really a form of poisoning the well, you have magic access to objective morality that I can’t use or test logically because the moment I attempt to apply these magic objective morals objectively - you declare I must mistakenly apply them subjectively, without any real reason why.
We can boil it down to specifics because you seem unable to actually be able to talk abstractly about an abstract premise without confusing different frameworks with each other: ironically it appears the concept of a thought experiment appears to be mostly lost.
List the prime qualities of God, according to the Bible, and I will propose a universe that will better meet those qualities: you can determine with your “objective” standards whether I’m being subjective or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The problem is that it is you who are imagining it. How does that make it best?
Because I’m using your values, which you claim are objective. This is the whole point of the razor, and the mai issue you don’t appear to be grasping.
You can’t claim you have an objective system of values them tell me it’s impossible for me to use them, or impossible for you to apply them using the razor. That makes no sense.
If you can’t tell that Adam Sandler is not as bad as Hitler I’m your moral or ethical system: then frankly, you dont need the razor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
see above:
You're trying to reason God into existence using bad logic.
If “the ultimate reality” is more than just reality - you should call It reality. Otherwise if not you can’t tell if it exists; because it’s not plane and simple reality - the thing we know exists.
if “God” Is more than just reality, you should just call God Reality; otherwise if not you can’t tell if he exists - because he’s not reality - the thing we know exists.
Hence - this is the source of your equivocation, using weasel words and implicit definitions, dodging questions, evading errors.
For one who claims to have the truth you sure appear afraid of asking or answering any questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're professing be wise and to know answers, and your arguments boil down to major logical errors.
Why is that passage not applying to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
OOPS! You must have realized you’re error!
You're trying to reason God into existence using bad logic.
If “the ultimate reality” is more than just reality - you should call It reality. Otherwise if not you can’t tell if it exists; because it’s not plane and simple reality - the thing we know exists.
if “God” Is more than just reality, you should just call God Reality; otherwise if not you can’t tell if he exists - because he’s not reality - the thing we know exists.
Hence - this is the source of your equivocation, using weasel words and implicit definitions, dodging questions, evading errors.
For one who claims to have the truth you sure appear afraid of asking or answering any questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Reality - this exists.
Ultimate Reality - if this is reality, call it reality. If if is “more” than reality, you don’t know it exists.
God - if this is ultimate reality, and the ultimate reality is just reality - then Just call God Reality. If it is more than ultimate reality, or ultimate reality is more than just reality, then you can’t show God exists.
You obviously won’t answer - as it proves where your fallacy is; but you are equivocating at least one of those definitions. By implying it is “just reality”, then more than just reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Like I said - if God is more than just reality, you can’t show he exists just by pointing at reality. It’s equivocaing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you think God is more than just reality - than you can’t show God exists without equivocating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So god is reality and nothing more.
great.
”Reality exists”, but as you’ve defined God as just reality, this doesn’t prove the Christian God exists. You have to equivocate to do that
Whixh ia basically what I’ve been saying all along
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Apparently you have an objective Moral standard by which you can judge things.
You are also arguing that I am implicitly unable to use your objective moral standard and apply it to the universe.
If I can’t make objective determinations from your objective standard it’s not an objective standard.
What I suspect you’re doing, though, is arguing out of both sides of your mouth: arguing that you have objective values based upon God: but any attempt to actually assess those standards by applying them to the universe in a novel way “don’t count”, because these objective standards are subjective when I use them.
Created:
... by Calvin Klein.
Created: