Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
One (part of the) solution could be advanced spacefaring civilisations tend to congregate and cooperate.
This in turn narrows down the divergent choices civilisations would have made otherwise.
What do you think? I haven’t heard/read this particular solution before.
Anyone else have any other solutions?
Created:
Posted in:
Objective morality is an oxymoron. It’s a self-defeating statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.You're still playing the semantics game.Facts are facts for sure.
It wasn’t a semantics game. It was in contrast with Fauxlaw’s belief that “unknowns must also apply.”
But it seems you want to play though.
But where does the necessity of proof occur?
In everyday life. It’s a product of evolution.
...And what flippantly attributes facts with the quality of existence?
To claim truth when the evidence is weak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
According to your definition facts have basis in senses. Also according to your definition geocentrism wouldn’t of been a fact to begin with although people thought otherwise. Or are you wanting to use another definition?
Facts =/= truth. Facts are evidence based while truth isn’t necessarily.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Alright I’ll keep that in mind.
Now, do you have any arguments against my conclusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which senses? How many of them? Try to be specific; there's method in the madness.
Does it matter? I think you’re losing it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
II. Senses relating primarily to truth.
You’re using this definition of fact, correct?
Read it again and put an emphasis on senses.
again, facts exist irrespective of unknowns.
I’m not trying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you have nothing of substance to say the easiest thing to do is stop responding.
I have given my logic in each post I’ve made here, unlike you.
Just stop if you have nothing else to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I recall you were the first to bring attention to definitions.
I have no problem with it, but suddenly you do?
Besides, it’s important to build a common understanding.
Don’t be a hypocrite.
I have no problem with it, but suddenly you do?
Besides, it’s important to build a common understanding.
Don’t be a hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
You do realise that you asked for "a list of views that the left tends to disagree with," not leftist views I personally disagree with?
nonetheless, leftwing narratives getting destroyed? hyperbole maybe.
I’ll choose the issues you’ve decided to challenge. Hmm it seems coincidental both subjects fall under identity politics
“Social hierarchies:”
Not nuclear families.Basically, its formal recognition of people's job/social status, such as being a boss of an organisation, or having lower status as a manager. Some leftists argue that everyone should be treated in all regards, and that's what "social hierarchies" responds to.
I don’t really see much of the left arguing for tearing down management. I see quite the opposite. Worker cooperatives for example. What are your thoughts on them?
“Gender duality:”
In recent times, there has been a push to have semantic distinction with these terms, in order to aid the left's push to normalise gender/sex fluidity. Currently, this distinction is formally recognised through dictionary definitions, but I believe this to be folly because what you would refer to as "sex" is genetically determined, and thus there is no room for a term such as "gender", despite the latter being formally recognised.The left has been quite excellent at controlling language, hence why they get their way on many things
Throughout history cultures have been defining sex and gender separately. This is not a new phenomenon.
Femininity and masculinity is one clear example. It falls under gender, not sex.
What people call masculine and feminine has changed over time.
Humans like to categorise things. Sex and gender is an obvious one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well the variation is perfectly known, 0-16% reflection.
Variation is an ambiguous word. It isn’t just to do with certain percentages.
But I’m not sure how that refutes my statement if at all.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding "apply".
I suppose we’ll first need to agree on what the definition of a fact is.
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Do you agree? If so, it’s safe to say a fact is knowledge/evidence based.
There for facts exist irrespective of unknowns (unknowns do not apply). Correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I should have worded it the same as my original question.
My bad.
Original question: Can you please give me an example of a fact that applies unknowns?
“Apply” is the common word fauxlaw and I used which we agreed on.
My argument is “a fact exists regardless of unknowns.”
While fauxlaw argues that “unknowns must also apply.”
Now in regards to your inquest... unknown variations don’t create a fact, known ones do, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thanks although we’re not entirely on the same page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Capitalism
This will have to boil down to policy. From my understanding most people are for a mixed economy which tends to lean left in the U.S. (ignoring hot rhetoric).
smaller government
In what way do you want smaller government? In terms of political sets, budget, regulation, or all? And in what regards?
lower taxation (or even flat tax)
I’m not sure you know what flat tax is. Flat tax doesn’t mean no tax.
“A flat tax system applies the same tax rate to every taxpayer regardless of income bracket.”
You can say its in contrast with a progressive tax (an unbiased term).
“It imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners than on those with a higher income“
social hierarchies
This is a broad topic. Do you mean the nuclear family? Can you get into specifics?
gender duality
I don’t know what you mean exactly.
There’s a difference between sex and gender.
You might be conflating the two.
homogenous countries (both racial and cultural), validity of I.Q.
Historically intelligent civilisation have been pretty diverse and enervative in which “western civilisation” been built upon.
But no, I do not deny todays validity of the average I.Q. In various countries.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It will be interesting to see which ones you pick to tackle or if you’ll pick to tackle them all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The misinterpretation and misuse of words, or straying form formal definition is commonplace.
Truth: the quality or state of being true
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true
Do you agree with the definitions? If so...
Primarily, a fact is a known truth.Though we have the ability to assume that there are unknown facts.
Wrong. It’s self-evident by the definitions. But would you like me to clarify just in case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your question assumes all unknowns are counterintuitive.
To being part of facts.
Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false.
Would you have considered them to be factual without evidence? Or do you actually need data backing a claim to come anywhere near approaching a fact?
How would you know about other unknowns unless they are not unknown? Unknown means, well, isn't it self-evident?Don't ask me. Ask Someone for whom there are no unknowns
Like I’ve said, a fact exists regardless of unknowns. You said the opposite. You said “unknowns must also apply.”
It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.
I’ll ask again. Can you please give me an example of a fact which consists of unknowns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I said one of your counterintuitive facts, not one of your plain facts.
Can you please give me an example of a fact that applies unknowns?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Could you please give me an example of one of your counterintuitive facts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
I’ll sum up our conversation and the point I’m making.
You said:
But if the contraceptives fail, it will not be acceptable for them to abort the baby, after taking the willing risk of having a baby.
So the contraception(s) was a preventative measure which lowered the risk of pregnancy.
The failure of the contraceptive(s) was out of the woman’s control.
Then I asked:
Is it a woman’s fault for getting raped and pregnant because she wore revealing clothes?
I didn’t ask this question due its affronting nature.
I asked because it was the closest example I could come up with which contained the elements I was looking for.
In this scenario the woman increased her risk, but you wouldn’t say its her fault, correct?
If so, that’s cognitive dissonance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
No.
I want to point out your cognitive dissonance in terms of risk factor and it being out of the woman’s control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A fact is an accumulation of data pointing towards a conclusion regardless of unknowns.
But you’re saying unknowns also apply?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Is it a woman’s fault for getting raped and pregnant because she wore revealing clothes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Take what I said at face value. I said nothing about abortion.
I’m a big advocate of contraceptives for couples who aren’t ready.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A fact by definition is evidence based (proven to be true).
What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified?
I don’t know why you’re so agitated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MgtowDemon
Can you make a list of views that the left tends to disagree with?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
The natural purpose of sex is to have babies.
The main purpose of sex is yes, procreation, but for social creatures it’s also for strengthening social bonds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
With it's last dying breath it asked the strong tree, what did I do wrong?The tree shrugged, you just didn't have the talent for it kid. You doubted yourself. You didn't suck up enough water and minerals and sunshine. You weren't true to yourself.
Really? The tree’s a douche.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The acorn was in the trees shadow quite literally. The acorn had no choice in the matter both physically and metaphorically.
Advice such as “be true to yourself” mean little when you’re an acorn.
Created:
Posted in:
If you’re familiar with the story of The Witcher 3 you might recall Ciri having to jump through different worlds while running from the Wild Hunt.
Well in one world she stayed there for 6 months and described it to Geralt as such: https://youtu.be/oJGiq1khxKU?t=125
I really hope there’s a side quest or DLC of Ciri. I just wanted to share my thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes gravity itself is non-observable, though Its effects are. Do you understand? Now apply this logic to wider science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So you’re also saying gravity is not a fact as well?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is a crock. Science can only provide real information about observable things. Once they delve into the future or the past - it loses FACTUAL status and becomes best guestimates. And sometimes they are going to get it right and sometimes they are going to get it wrong. But what is true - is that these things are not facts.
How far are you willing to go with this logic? Are you saying the existence of black holes is not a fact?
Created:
Posted in:
Well hypotheses vary from the sublime to the ridiculous and the ridiculously sublime....Make of that what you will.I currently work on the idea, of material evolution with a purpose, rather than nihilism.GOD is just an epithet.
Would you mind sharing your ideas?
Nihilism should be considered an epithet too. There were tribes without the concept of God(s). Would you have called them nihilists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As to the origins of matter.....That one is currently unknown.....GODS are one of many hypotheses.
Interesting. Do you have any good reasons? Historically they haven’t been the most reliable source of phenomena, verifiably speaking.
They aren’t really on my radar. Well I guess we’d have to define what you mean by “GODS.” Could a god be a inter-dimensional/inter-universal manipulating Boltzmann brain? Or do you mean more traditional gods?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
SubjectivismAccording to subjectivism, to say that something is wrong is to claim that you personally disapprove of it. The problems with this is that murders would technically be justified as they believed what they did was right.
Bad framing. When people follow through with immoral acts, they themselves consider it immoral most of the time.
Including murder.
Emotivism (My personal go-to)According to emotivism, to say something is wrong is not to make a claim at all. It is simply express personal disapproval. The problem with this is that it essentially eradicates the idea of morality as a whole.
How do you define morality?
Morality how I see it is the distinction between moral and immoral. Not what is moral and immoral. If that makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
You could also say he has what psychologists call a complex.
“A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status“
His subconscious being Bronze Age peasants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Weird take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I’m not sure what exactly happened but I do know how extreme world views of isolated tribes can get. For example thinking your tribe are the only humans in existence, which is pretty logical when put into context. Although I’m not sure how being isolated would genetically function unless it only refers to the modern world.
Anyway, seeing an outsider could potentially be threatening, especially if he wears weird clothes and essentially bears magic.
Created:
Posted in:
Thoughts? This might be interesting.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Jupiter and Saturn do not have solid cores underneath the gas and vapors, so it is difficult if not impossible to define the difference between atmosphere and planet in the case of gas giants.
It might be because they’re one in the same. When it comes down to it, I think you have a disconnect.
Planets also consist of gas which Earth’s atmosphere is a part of.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
An arm is both connected and a part of the human body. I don’t see a distinction in this context. Your trailer and truck analogy is bit of a strawman.
Do you concede that Earth’s atmosphere is part of the planet just as Jupiter’s and Saturn’s atmospheres are part of theirs?
If so, we’ll continue with biomass.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I’m happy to use them interchangeably. Do you have an actual argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@sadolite
Are you guys the types who are against sex education too?
If so, this is a waste of time.
Might as well be against health education in general.
Created: