Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, and irrelevant to this discussion.So in case the above isn't clear enough: I don't believe that, I don't know why I think you do, and it doesn't matter anyway.
My original post:
- Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
Existence defined: A state of beingDefinition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.2. If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.This was a pretty easy challenge.
I don’t know why you’re bothering to debate this other than for a damaged ego.
While were at it, (don't continue to cherry-pick what you respond to by responding only to this part) I can actually defend zedvictor4's argument. It doesn't depend on any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Key word: depend. It did include a dichotomy, but I don't think it was intended to be interpreted as a strict dichotomy. The point is that there is a reasonable notion of existence under which thoughts do not exist.
Zed’s statement was a false dichotomy between existence and occurrence. Now you’re adding colloquial notions of thoughts having to be verified by external means for them to qualify. Or am I just being too charitable? Thoughts themselves exist irregardless of external factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I didn’t reply to Zed because it’s a blatant false dichotomy. But yeah, sure, everything can be argued, just like the existence of the belief of Last-Thursdayism in your hypothetical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
To be even more accurate you think beliefs don’t exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
You made a challenge intending to prove a point, in which I dismantled. Make a challenge that’s foolproof.
Created:
These false flags are pissing me off. Someone has to do something about it.
On another note this guy doesn’t realise he needs to take back the cultural meaning of the swastika, not embrace Nazism!.. There’s a cultural appropriation joke here somewhere.
Created:
-->
@TheApprentice
Yeah. The urinals could be behind a stall wall or something.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Best Korea did pretty well with covid
Created:
Posted in:
No. Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance. Under your definition of existence, everything imaginable or even so much as theoretically definable exists. Basically, you have rendered "exist" meaningless. Allow me to give an example of how damaging this is: Did you drive to work yesterday, or did you walk? Simple question, right? Well, it effectively means this: Did there exist a point in time yesterday at which you drove to work, or did there instead exist a point in time at which you walked? So this question would be rendered meaningless. That question, and so many others.
Like it or not Last-Thursdayism exists as a belief within your hypothetical world. You can’t escape that fact.
What? Okay, your first sentence here is a matter of semantics, and is entirely beside the point. As to your second sentence, I have no idea where you got that from.
Besides the point? Interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
You're deflecting.
My answer is as useful as the belief of Last-Thursdayism. Is that better?
Why would this discussion be about some non-existent group of people? It's about the belief itself.
For it to be a belief, there would need to be people (hypothetical or not) believing it.
You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I'm thinking of a unicorn right now. Does it exist?
It exists as you thinking of a unicorn. So yes.
If you said "yes":Existence as defined by you is then not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable or even theoretically definable exists.
Last-Thursdayism isn’t a useful concept.
Who is "they?" Also you haven't disproven or for that matter proven Last-Thursdayism.
The people who believe in Last-Thursdayism.
And I didn’t know I had to prove or disprove said belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
- Define existence, and explain why you think that your definition is reasonable. As I pointed out here, the dictionary definition won't cut it.
Existence defined: A state of being
Definition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.
- If you did challenge 1, how does it apply to what I have said here?
They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.
This was a pretty easy challenge.
Created:
Rednecks need to stop killing themselves.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
If it’s too late to have your own children, you can still adopt, assuming you’re able.
Created:
In other words there should be one large public toilet.
Pros:
Less likely for people to be physically assaulted due to the toilets being more accessible to the public.
Puts an end to the trans and toilets debate
Cons:
Potential increase in verbal harassment
Less privacy / more Insecurity
——————————————————-
What are your thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I thought there were many species considered biologically immortal, they just succumb to injury, hunger, disease, etc. Crocodiles come to mind. Though the immortal jellyfish goes one step further by producing clones of itself.
Created:
This is obviously a false flag operation conducted by the woke borg at the head of the CIA psyop team in conjunction with the FBI antifa squad. It’s CRT all the way down folks. Not even the supreme court can save us now. Only our beloved convicted rapist who likes to make fun of disabled journalists and bomb American children, who thought it would be a good idea to nuke hurricanes.. can save us now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Box jellies have 24 eyes? fascinating Ebuc.
Created:
I don’t know. The military is looking pretty woke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Put your ego aside.
Edit: I posted this before I read your edited post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
“If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, then you don't understand it yourself” — Albert Einstein.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Do you yourself even understand what you’ve been posting? Are you sure it’s because there are multiple kinds of space? it’s like saying fish aren't true because there are multiple kinds of fish. Are you sure it’s not because you’re thinking under a specific framework when it comes to time?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Who fits that criteria? The answer is agnostics. Agnosticism falls under the umbrella of atheism whether you like it or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Can you speak in laymen terms what you mean by time being the only dimension? And are you talking about quantum gravity? I’m unable to distinguish between truth and nonsense with you.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Racist rednecks need to be dealt with.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You’re not a serious person parrot.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Given a choice between a 2 ton missile of a car hitting me or a stray bullet, I would take stray bullet any day
It’s funny you said stray bullet. If you’re being targeted specifically, it would be a shot to the back of the head. A smarter way to talk about it, is in stochastic terms. Guns are more efficient regardless.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
They probably struggled to get guns because of retarded liberals policies and are now dead as a result
I concur. The more guns the better.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If you were at that bus stop yesterday in Texas, how could you have defended yourself?
By having a car of my own of course.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Cars aren’t an officiant way to kill people, unless your plan is to ram it into a mass gathering like a protest or something. I would say guns are more effective.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
After killing 8 people including children. They should have been armed. I bet they were atheists too.
Created:
Coming from the person who still has me on block.
Which cops?
Created:
Only good guys can stop bad guys with guns. They must have been liberal.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Did you listen to Green Day?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Liberals are pushovers. They only care about servility politics. They don’t care about the truth of rednecks.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Blacks still hold the scars of redneck culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Morality is knowing what is good and what is wrong, despite what your body or your mind tells you.
And this is why people who claim to have objective morals are dangerous when they get into power.
Again, training, and emotional response is not the same as having a moral conscience.
What is a moral conscience without our humanity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No. And even if it was taught to not steal the bone, it wouldn't understand that stealing the bone was morally wrong. The dog might get taught with discipline and treats what to do and not to do, but it doesn't understand the moral value of it.
Again, you’re confusing morality with ethics. Morality is merely the distinction between good and bad, right and wrong.
Yes, it will learn that it is a bad behavior, not that it is a moral sin.
It is morality by the “objective” definition.
Kids who aren't taught to not steal still see stealing as a bad thing.Dogs won't know stealing is morally bad, regardless of discipline.Humans will.
they would know through media and other means.
Dogs aren’t that capable of understanding human language. Well body language they somewhat understand. They’ll try to protect you if you’re attacked.
Also if you’re in trouble and they need another human to come and help, they might try to get the attention of the nearest human.
Emotions are different than morals.
Emotions inform morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If a dog, steals a bone, would you say that dog is commiting a moral sin?According to evolution, our closest animal relative is a monkey. Yet the same applies for them.
Was the dog taught that stealing is wrong? Take jumping on the dining table to help itself to a meal as an example. If you tell it off enough times, it will learn that’s bad behaviour. That’s how kids learn and some adults for that matter, through various punishments. While rewards work to reinforce good behaviour. Puppies get growled at by their father, mother when they’re too hypo, they then calm and lay down. That’s their miss-behaviour being corrected. They also learn social dynamics from each other through play, just like humans.
Humans are great apes. Our closest living relatives are other great apes such as chimpanzees, so I’ll use them to explain. Plus they can be taught sign language if that helps you relate to them better. Okay, so everything above essentially applies to chimpanzees. Though I’m not sure how they usually parent. I know gorillas are very chill parents from what I’ve seen. Anyway, about chimpanzees.. they have a patriarchal hierarchy. If the dominant male is too greedy, he will get ousted in favour of a chimp that’s looked upon more favourably by the group. Yes, they are very political. They have social standings with each other which can help them go further and therefore reproduce. Though they are very hostile to outside groups. Bonobos (another closely related great ape) on the other hand are matriarchal, and they often greet outside groups with sex. Anyway, sorry about the tangent.
How do we as humans have a distinctive moral drive and a moral code, while animals do not?Animals moral code is based upon survival. They couldn't care less if one of these own was to die for the greater good.
Staying with chimpanzees, it’s been documented that a mother chimpanzee has carried around the corpse of her dead baby to the point of starving herself.
Anyway, elephants are famous for mourning their dead. It’s also been documented they have starved themselves while laying next to their dead. They also return to the body after some period of time to pick up their bones as if they still mourn.
You also don't see any murderous animals for no reason, or genocidal animals, simply for fun.
Chimpanzees have been known to form raiding parties to hunt down smaller groups nearby.
If you had to survive on an island with 5 other people, and for some reason you had to kill one of the members for everyone's survival, would you not skip a beat, or would you think about it?That is what separates us from animals morally.
Let’s change it up. 3 of the people with you are your kids.
Very little separates us from other animals morally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Religion is what bases society. It doesn't matter if your religious or not. Most people, non-religious and religious say that religion is good for society because it is. It puts a moral standard in life, and keeps family's together, and has the fear of God put inside those who might want to do evil.
Aren’t irreligious countries the happiest? Also aren’t the murder rates in red states the highest in the US? Though you might have a point about divorce, it says little about the toxicity of said relationships.
Yes, I am aware of this.A person in a consequentialist mindset would say that if the outcome is bad, then the action is bad.Then you have to ask yourself, how they know bad from good? How did they already have that moral sense of good and bad?
The same way people have thought for more than 100,000 years. We are not perfect moral beings just as our ancestors weren’t.
Though I can go deeper in so far as to argue morality has a strong evolutionary basis. Even if it’s self-evident that many animals have moral inclinations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The definition that I proposed is a stable definition for morality.
Although it’s essentially the definition for ethics.
I side on the side of Deontologically. The choice of the person, (the drive) overall determines the morality of the action or thought.
To be clear, motives within the court of law are independent of consequentialism and deontologicalism.
But anyway…
A person in a deontological mindset would say killing is wrong.
A person in a consequentialist mindset has to think about the consequences of said action.
We are all moral agents no matter how many rules you abide by.
Yes.But people who claim that they try to base their life off of an objective moral system that they follow usually have a happy and fulfilling lifestyle.
This reminds me of a quote… “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” It’s easy to feel happy and fulfilled when you don’t have to think too hard about what’s good or bad.
But anyway, their true happiness comes from community. We are social creatures after all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Firstly, you’re conflating morality with ethics. Morality is the distinction between good and bad while ethics is essentially the definition you proposed.
Secondly, what side do you sit on most, consequentialism, or deontologicalism? And why?
I would argue that consequentialism is multifaceted while deontologicalism is not.
Thirdly, people who claim that they have objective morals don’t contribute anything to the conversation on their high horse. And often times do more harm than good when in power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Unions also make people work less too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Without science informed government regulation, you would be dead within one week of eating some bad meat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So did the Mongols, after all the pillaging of sorts. They opened up new trade routs for both east and west of the Mongol Empire. Though a political culture isn’t stable when it’s based on conquest, hence the rebels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I will repeat "Quite frankly, if we run out of oil, your worries about the climate, ICE's and EV's are trivial compared to a future without crude oil." Your eyes glaze over and talk about horses and buggies.
You can’t imagine a future without crude oil? That’s pretty sad.
"Scientists convey what data they have at hand." Maybe it’s time science get out of the dooms day prediction business as they have been wrong 100% of the time.
You’ve been listening to too much Greta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What makes you think crude oil is not a renewable resource or that we have even scratched the surface of available crude oil that already exists on the planet? Govt actively prevents looking for more
What do you mean, America found oil in the Middle East not too long ago. Yeah, I’m partly being facetious. Truth is, wars happen over oil. You can see that now with Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine found huge deposits of oil just before Russia took Crimea in 2014. Russia is a petrostate after all, and they don’t want competition nextdoor to them. I’m not saying it’s entirely why they invaded.
When I was in my 20's I was told ,in no uncertain terms by the greatest scientific minds to ever exist that the world would be out of oil in 40 years. Well here I am 60 years old and no shortage of oil. Where is all this oil coming from?
Scientists convey what data they have at hand. They don’t have a crystal ball to see what the future will bring. Anyway, it’s better to be cautious/safe than sorry when the worlds greatest mind warn you about something. Especially for inti-intellectuals.
Every non organic thing on this earth that is not made of wood or steel is made of crude oil.
Wood and crude oil are organic, steel is not. Anyway, were you ever taught your three Rs at school? from my quick research, crude oil based rubber is recyclable. And as for plastics there are multiple ways of making them and many can also be recycled.
Quite frankly, if we run out of oil, your worries about the climate, ICE's and EV's are trivial compared to a future without crude oil.
Yeah well i’m still pissed off about the horse and buggy.
Created: