Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Eh, maybe history will vindicate one of us. I do hope Israel's destruction of Hamas succeeds at least if they attempt it (it's not like anyone can stop them from trying). At this point it seems like we're repeating ourselves, so I'll leave the discussion as-is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Worst case scenario, they should try both. Pour funding into missile defense until it stops all the attacks it can, and if it works, then hold off on throwing away more lives in an invasion. In lieu of that, the options here are occupation (which definitely costs a lot of Israeli lives) or defense, which has already saved a lot of Israeli lives. I won't pretend to know the future, but I'd err on the side of what has worked before.
If they don't, that neither means they didn't have a right to try
This may apply if Israel occupies and attempts to rule Gaza (which will require a lot of soldiers). Counterbombing is not enough to occupy and rule. So in lieu f nukes (which Israel has made clear it won't use), Israel's best attempt at occupation will be a bloody land invasion.
It will never be cheaper to intercept a missile than it is to build a missile.
Intercepting a missile stops the missile. Attacking another Israel outspends and overpowers Hamas already, so the question is whether Iran will up their spending if Israel allocates more to missile defense. In which case, if Iran is willing to spend more, why haven't they already? If the goal is to minimize Israeli casualties, should Israel avoid reallocating its funds in a more efficient way solely to avoid escalation? Aggressive measures are more escalatory than defensive measures anyway.
If they haven't invested a huge amount into anti-missile systems that only means they understand war better than you appear to.
They might, or their primary incentive may not be to prevent Israeli deaths. And as you said, humans aren't exactly rational. Killing a lot of enemy soldiers plays well politically even if it costs a lot of lives.
Appeasing the insane is impossible
Hamas and some of their supporters are insane, but not everyone supporting them necessarily is. Dead children are a pretty good selling point if you want to radicalize people.
It would be a bloodless cold war between Israel and Iran IF Israel occupies the attack vectors so that Iran can't attack without giving Israel the right to strike at their homeland infrastructure.
Has Israel been concerned with the "right" to attack up to this point? Seems like they've been making their own rules regardless of what the UN has to say about it.
You don't need to drop bombs when you occupy the region.
So given either of our plans, Israel doesn't need to keep dropping bombs. And a D-day invasion scenario is much easier said than done. "Just do an invasion" is a much riskier plan than missile defense.
humans aren't exactly rational; especially around war.
Right; they're emotional and more likely to want a war with Israel if Israel kills other people in their country. "Israel is committing genocide" is a widely held opinion in Palestine. Some percentage of the country is irrationally genocidal, but even if just half of the support for war against Israel is based in part on Israel's counterattacks, Hamas losing support from that half would flip the majority of the population against them.
Wars are won when there is nothing but despair in the hearts of the enemy and the enemy is everyone who voted for Hamas
You're assuming that Hamas' supporters are afraid of death, which they aren't really. It makes them mad, not scared. The Cold War was won without striking fear into the hearts of the enemy, and proxy wars are another example. Even then, it doesn't matter how the enemy feels if you counter all of their attacks.
You have to go all the way.
If you're not afraid of escalation, then sure. Nuke Iran and Palestine. But there are consequences for aggressive measures, the further you go the more reason you give undecided factions to retaliate.
People launching warhead tipped missiles at your country IS by definition WAR
I'd argue it's not really war if only one side is attacking (the point is that waging war comes with risks), but let's say it is. If none of their attacks are successful, that's probably the best deal Israel is going to get.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They don't need to destroy every terrorist in the middle east. They just need to destroy every active terrorist in Gaza, the West Bank, and anywhere else that the world seems to think doesn't count as a nation that can commit acts of war.
If they succeed, I'll reevaluate my position, but I see little reason to believe that Israel is willing to invest enough resources to take over and govern the West Bank (if they don't, there will be more terrorists). Israel has been at war with terrorists for decades and suffered much worse attacks than October 7th, but they've never gone that far before.
Let me define winning: people stop launching coordinated attacks on your population like an active volcano that goes off every 10 years.
Killing everyone in Gaza would pretty much do it.
You're right, achieving this would probably require nuking Gaza (and likely Iran as well). Besides not being politically feasible and other obvious downsides, this increases the odds of powerful nations launching a large-scale attack on Israel. They do care abut their children, but the difference between them and Hamas is that they can win (especially since the US might stop funding Israel).
I would instead define winning as "minimizing deaths of Israeli citizens" and then go with missile defense, which has most effectively managed to achieve that. It's likely this would eventually cause support for the other side to dry up, since there are no dead children to use in propaganda, and the missiles are just getting destroyed.
Counter-bombing didn't stop the attacks, it infuriated the enemy
Israel is counter-bombing right now, that's where most of the criticism against them is coming from. The Iron Dome is completely different.
D-day made Britain safe again and it was the only permanent solution.
So Israel should draft and sacrifice a huge portion of its own population? That would be the equivalent of D-day.
The idea of a perfect defense has always been fundamentally flawed and the only reason an imperfect facsimile appears feasible in the context is the vast economic and technological difference between Israel and the terrorists.
That may be the case; nonetheless Israel does have a huge economic and technological advantage. Technology today is not the same as during WW2, nor are Hamas and the Nazis structured the same. Hamas is easier to defend against but too spread out to completely destroy. And even if they were completely eliminated, there's no guarantee we wouldn't see an equivalent terrorist group rise up.
So maybe if you are decades ahead and spend a 100 times more than your enemy you can keep them from harming you without killing them, but what a ridiculous idea that a nation ought or must commit to that?
Israel is already spending a huge amount, and missile defense is a tiny fraction of its budget. Even if the civilian deaths in Israel aren't Israel's responsibility, they are Israel's problem. Also, keeping the enemy from harming civilians and killing the enemy are two different things. Missile defense has historically prevented civilian deaths; shooting missiles at the terrorists hasn't.
When Israel winds down military presence 10/7 happens.
Military presence is fine. Shooting rockets into civilian populations in an attempt to destroy Hamas is exactly what didn't stop the attacks and infuriated the enemy when both Israel and Britain tried it. Also note that the "winding down" was only relative to the long-term ongoing conflict. Israel has had many opportunities to decide how to respond before.
What happens when someone a little richer starts helping the terrorists? Actually that is apparently already happening with Iran.
So we get a bloodless Cold War instead of a bloodbath. It's a spending competition no matter what. A D-day invasion costs Israeli dollars and lives. Not to mention that aggressive measures give more countries reason to oppose Israel, hence increasing funding for the other side. You can throw lives at the problem or money at the problem, and only one of those makes the world go round. Spending becomes tit-for-tat, though. If Iran spends money on missiles and all of them get shot down, why would they keep spending money on missiles?
multiple Muslim nations descended on Israel with conventional armies
This is way more likely to happen if Israel continues shooting missiles that result in civilian casualties. Hamas barely won more seats than Fatah in 2006, and it was widely known that Hamas was a terrorist organization. In other words, there would be no October 7th if just 10% more of the population in Palestine has opposed Hamas in 2006. Civilian deaths, aggressive measures, and building settlements definitely influence that.
Israel can force wars to fall into that category again by annexing these pseudo-nations
Hence requiring another D-day, which would cost many Israeli lives and possibly even escalate the conflict. Israel has a few enemies they can outspend, plus as many additional enemies as they make.
Yet they always pay because if you do nothing you lose everything.
Missile defense isn't nothing; in fact, I'd say it's a modern miracle. It's the first case I can think of where a government could reliably protect many of its citizens without the uncertainty of war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
End the war quickly, occupy the region
One can only hope Israel actually has feasible plans to fully occupy the region and destroy every terrorist in the Middle East, despite multiple world superpowers trying and failing to do just that. Otherwise, the war won't end, and most of this will be for nothing.
Not winning this is not an option.
It might be the only option, depending on what you consider "winning." If winning means a long-term peace where terrorists no longer fire rockets at Israel, then it's probably a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.
Israel's only consistently successful measures to protect their people have been missile defense systems. If either side wanted to greatly reduce Israeli and Palestinian casualties in the long term, they could. It's a bit more difficult for Israel, but still doable if they have an interest in doing so (not saying they necessarily do). Pouring funding into those is probably the best they're going to get, but maybe I'm a pessimist.
there is no nation and no household on Earth that wouldn't respond to rocket artillery (to say the least) with war
There's no nation that hasn't paid a huge price for waging war either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That's W upside-down. Close enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
all over the Internet, Christians cheering the jews to keep up with this butchery
Hard to quantify something like that if it's just based on anecdotal experience. I'd guess most of this is because America has a lot of Christians while also being more culturally similar to Israel than to other countries in the Middle East. But depending on where you go, you will find Christians with a double standard in favor of Israel, Christians with a double standard in favor of Palestine, and Christians who support neither government. The same as with any group of people.
In addition to that, Christians believe that Judaism was at one time the correct religion (Jesus was literally Jewish) but that Islam was never the right religion. Muslim extremists have also executed more Christians than Jews have. If 9/11 was done by Jewish extremists (I'll ignore all the conspiracy theories), Americans would have an extremely different set of biases. That doesn't mean they should logically hate everyone in Palestine (there's a lot of Christians there too) or even support civilian warfare at all, but cultural differences influence a lot.
Created:
Posted in:
In 1945, America supplied Japan with nuclear power. As a result, Japan experienced an economic miracle. During the economic boom from 1945 to 1991, Japan rapidly became the world's third-largest economy after the United States and Soviet Union.
Embrace nuclear power!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
I saw one where the debater who used many sources was awarded NO points when the debater with NO sources was awarded points for "better sources"
That's why there's a report button for votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I didn't see the title and didn't fully expect GP to be the OP.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
either you are wrong
What's wrong with being wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump is, according to the people (represented by two would-be assassins), a tyrant who must be kept at bay.
Hard to be a tyrant when he's not even president right now. If anything, the assassins are afraid of him being elected by voters.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Jesus is 1/3 and the Father is 2/3. 2/3 and 1/3 are 1, but 2/3 is greater than 1/3.
It's basic math.
Created:
When a war criminal endorses a politician you don't like: "This guy must be evil if a war criminal is endorsing them"
When a war criminal endorses a politician you support: "The other person must be evil if even the war criminal sees how bad they are."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Abortion and education reduce death rates of born people more than education alone.
Banning abortion reduces death rates of unborn people more than education alone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Abortion rates have reduced greatly thanks to education.
So do all those other things you want to reduce. No need to legalize abortion when education will just reduce crime anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So if you want to reduce those other things, regardless of whether they are called crimes, it might be reasonable for people to also want to reduce abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It just changes label, not action.
Yeah, that's what crimes are. Things labeled as crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It doesnt matter if label "crime" is there or not.
It does because if you don't call them crimes, no crimes are committed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Abortion reduces crime rates
I concede that making abortion legal would reduce crime rates, but have you considered making all crimes legal? Anything above a crime rate of zero is too high.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
And it was a decent movie, even though it wasn't one of the greatest ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
People tend to recommend good movies they watched to friends
Yeah, but advertising and company reputation play a role too. Sometimes those are what drive the hype.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
But then I read that it made billion dollar profit, which made me wonder and I became curious.
It made money because it was a PG-rated Disney animated movie with a decent soundtrack that appealed to all ages. People didn't know whether the story would be great or not until they watched it, at which point they had already bought a ticket. The Phantom Menace is one of the highest-grossing movies of all time, even adjusting for inflation, and it's just because the previous installments in the series were good (except the holiday special).
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Taxes are theftYou can't own land
You might like Georgism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Rule of three
Why did you make 2 posts instead of 3?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Second, we have to rehumanize our adversaries."MAGA MORONS"
Yeah, it was good while it lasted.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Smartphones before religion: none
Smartphones after religion: billions
Next time you buy a smartphone, thank religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
popular things are rarely good, at least for me
Find the highest-rated show that isn't very popular (watched by a lot of people). Though it could be that the popular shows you've seen just aren't very highly rated by audiences. Vinland Saga S1 is highly rated, has a lot of fighting and has a more niche appeal, so you could try that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@zedvictor4
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Moozer325
Responses are in!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
@WyIted
@JoeBob
Responses are in!
Created:
Posted in:
5. Of the three main schools of western moral Philosophy, which do you like the most?
The question doesn't state what it thinks are the three main schools of western moral philosophy, but I am guessing the person who asked this question thinks they are consequentialism (right and wrong is all a matter of consequences), deontology (some things are wrong despite having good consequences) and virtue ethics (what is important is actually being the right kind of person, having the right character traits, or virtues). It is very common to think that these are three rival views. My own view is that this way of looking at things is probably not the most helpful. First of all, I think that it is a mistake to think of virtue ethics as an alternative to consequentialism and deontology. Once you spell out the various character traits you think of as virtues, and explain WHY these are the traits one should have, I think you will either end up with the sort of virtue ethics that a consequentialist can accept, or the sort of virtue ethics that a deontologist can accept. So virtue ethics isn't really a third alternative, distinct from consequentialism and deontology. And then, second, beyond this, I think it actually turns out that even the relationship between consequentialism and deontology is more complicated than one might think, since one might think that familiar commonsense deontological rules (like "keep your promises!") are the best guide to bringing about good results in ordinary cases, so even if consequentialism is the underlying truth about why the deontological sounding rules are valid, one should normally decide by appeal to the deontological rules! Many consequentialists believe something more or less like this. And that means that even a simple minded opposition of consequentialism and deontology may be too simple minded. The relationships between these three "schools" are actually far more complicated than meets the eye. Still, as I explained above, my overall sympathies lie with consequentialism as being more fundamental than the other two.
6. One of our users had an essay they wrote about death and wanted to get your feedback on it. Would you be willing to do this? If so, I can send it in a follow-up email.
I'm terribly sorry, but I don't really have time to comment on essays like that. My own students (along with other obligations) keep me busy enough!
7. You have made many arguments in favor of a secular basis for morality. Many people on our platform would like to debate with you on this to understand your positions better. Would you be interested in a text-based debate on our platform with one of our top users? I understand that you are very busy and have many commitments, so we could set the time for each argument to 1 or 2 weeks so that there is less time pressure.
For pretty much the same reason (lack of time), I just don't think I can engage in a debate with you or your fellow members. I don't mean to be rude, I just get too many demands on my time. I made a special point of trying to answer the questions you sent in a timely fashion--after not replying to your initial email for several months!--but the truth is, I get too many requests to get more involved.
Created:
Posted in:
Kagan got back to me. The questions I sent are in bold, followed by Kagan's reponses in plaintext.
1. What is your favorite color?
Alas! I do not have a favorite color.
2. What are the strongest arguments against the existence of a soul? Does general anesthetic prove that there is no soul and show that consciousness is solely dependent on the functioning of the brain?
Let's suppose that to believe in a soul is to believe that there is something nonphysical about us, something that is distinct from our physical bodies, something that thinks and decides, and feels and so on. The central argument against believing in the existence of a soul, I think, is that there is no compelling argument for believing in a soul! That is, the burden of proof, I think, falls in this case on someone who thinks that we should believe in such a thing. We don't normally go around positing things without good reason, so is there a good reason to believe in a soul? If not, then we should tentatively conclude there is no such thing. To be sure, there could be an argument for souls. It would be a different matter, for example, if we needed to posit a soul to explain something that we all agree needs explaining. (This is like positing atoms which we cannot see, so as to explain chemical reactions, and so on, which we can see.) And there are arguments that have been offered along these lines by various people. But I think the proposals are not convincing (we can explain the phenomena in question as well, or better, in strictly physical terms). And in the absence of good reason to posit the soul, we shouldn't do so. (This is the same sort of thing as saying that while there could be Martians, we have no good reason to believe in them, so shouldn't posit them until we have compelling reason to do so.)
Some think that explaining consciousness requires positing a soul. And I suppose I would agree that physicalists (who think we are merely physical beings) don't yet have an adequate account of consciousness (the fact that our mental life has a subjective qualitiave aspect, e.g., the ability to feel pain). But it isn't as though soul theorists have an alternative account either! Merely saying, "souls explain consciousness" isn't really offering any kind of explanation. So I don't think consciousness gives us a convincing reason to posit souls.
At the same time, I don't think that things like the fact that anesthetic can cause us to lose consciousness give us reason to deny the existence of a soul either! Dualists (people who posit nonphysical souls as well as physical bodies) have almost always been "interactionists," holding that the body and the soul interact with each other and can cause changes in the other. Thus, for example, they think that my soul can cause my body to do things (like type these words), and that my body can cause my soul to experience things (like seeing the tree outside my window). So the fact that anesthetic can cause the person to fall asleep won't trouble most dualists. They always thought there could be interactions of body and soul like this.
3. Do you believe that the p-zombie thought experiment has any plausibility to it? If so, then what separates a zombie from a non-zombie is metaphysical, since both have the same bodily equipment that, to our knowledge, enables consciousness, yet one lacks a "true first person perspective" anyway. If you and I are beings who exist on a metaphysical plane, then how is this distinguishable from having a soul?
I am guessing by a "p-zombie" you have in mind something that looks and acts just like us, but has no mental life, in the sense that it has no "consciousness"--feels no pain, doesn't experience the color blue, and so on. Most discussions of this sort of creature assume that they have beliefs and desires, just that it doesn't feel like anything "on the inside" to BE such a creature. (Why the name "p-zombie"? I am guessing this is meant to be short for what sometimes gets called a philosophical zombie, to distinguish it from the kinds of zombies shown in horror movies!) Can we imagine such things? Well, it sure seems so. (Although things immediately get tricky, because we aren't always imagining what we think we are imagining. So are we REALLY imagining such zombies, or just thinking we are?) I take it that we can do something that we think is imagining a body that behaves just like our bodies do (speaks, acts, etc.) but has no inner conscious mental life . That is, it feels no pain, and so on, though it behaves like us: it avoids flames and sharp objects, it knows that such things are dangerous and harmful, and it and will SAY that they are painful, and so on. If this is indeed what you mean by a p-zombie, then I think we can imagine such things existing (in some possible world or the other). The harder question is what follows from this mere conceptual possibility, the apparent ability of our mind to imagine such creatures, to conclusions about what is actually logically possible, and what is metaphysically possible, and what is physically possible, and so on. David Chalmers, who most famously argued on the basis of such thought experiments, thinks that we can derive all sorts of surprising conclusions from the intelligibility of such cases. I disagree, though getting into the details is beyond the scope of a short answer like this.
Of course, I do think the following: since I think WE are conscious, I take it that anything that has the VERY same physical components as we do, living in a world with the same laws of physics (and chemistry, and biology, and so on) as we do, WILL be conscious. But for my money, I don't see how this shows anything about the existence of a soul. (Neither did Chalmers.) It just shows that in a world where the laws of nature are the same as the ones in our world, physical things like us will be conscious. But I don't see any argument for a soul here. This might just be a fact about what physical things of a certain sort are like in a world with laws of nature like ours.
4. Do you believe that it is possible for there to be a universal set of ethics, a right and wrong without god existing, and if so, what would do you think it might look like?
I do think it possible for there to be a universal set of ethical rules, objectively true, valid for everyone, and so on, even if there is no God. I argued for this in a conversation I had once with William Lane Craig (who claimed that morality requires God), which can be found online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm2wShHJ2iA I suppose this is another case where I would put the burden of proof on someone else. In particular, on someone (like Craig) who thought that we need God to have morality. I can't see why we should believe this. After all, one can have a reason to move one's hand from a hot stove, even if there is no God to make that true, right? But then, why can't we also have a reason to help someone ELSE move THEIR hand from a hot stove, even if there is no God? Obviously, a quick remark like this can't show very much, so someone who wants to hear me spell out the idea a bit more fully can check out the discussion I had with William Lane Craig. But my own view is that morality does NOT require the existence of God.
Of course, beyond this, there are any number of other worries one might have about the very possibility of an objective morality. I actually don't think the worry about God being required for morality (so what if there is no god?) is the most pressing. I discuss a number of other such worries in a book I published last fall, called Answering Moral Skepticism. One might wonder about what moral facts would look like, and how they could fit into a scientific world view, and whether belief in evolution gives us reason to be skeptical about our moral intuitions, and doesn't the extent of moral disagreement give us reason to be skeptical, and so on, and so forth. It took a book to state and respond to those worries, so sadly I don't have the time to try to lay out these arguments here.
As to what specific moral views I believe in, broadly speaking I accept what gets called a "consequentialist" morality, according to which the morally right act is a matter of bringing about the best possible outcome you can --roughly speaking, making people as happy as possible, and avoiding hurting them (counting everyone equally, indeed counting animals too). Of course there are a lot of details that need to get worked out, but that's the basic idea. However, I hope it is clear that one can accept quite different moral views from this consequentialist one, while still agreeing with me that morality doesn't require the existence of God. One could, for example, be a "deontologist" --thinking that some acts are wrong even though the results are good overall--that other features of actions are morally relevant besides the consequences of those actions--and still think that morality doesn't require the existence of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Oh that's right, your dream. From my POV, unless you are lying for some reason, it's Owen. I don't know what his role could be, but he did confirm it to some extent. That said, it doesn't affiliation confirm him.
VTL Owen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@Owen_T
No it hasn't failed yet. Idk why Owen thinks it's between me and him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
At any rate, if Joe's role redirects the targets actions to him, then that mechanically clears me because WF couldn't have died. It would mean Joe would be the nightkill, ergo I am town
Good point. Now I suspect JoeBob by POE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Earth is an interesting case, and if you flip town I'll have to reevaluate a lot of what he said. But WF is right that the case for you being scum requires less leaps in logic. It could be Earth, but lynching him seems like more of a shot in the dark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@JoeBob
Tbh, I was wondering if Austin might be scum earlier. I mean it's him or Owen, but going after Owen very early might have been him trying to set up a mislynch. Right now, I trust WF's reasoning, and even if Austin could have made a mistake, he's the safest lynch at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It should. Here's my role described by Shakspeare:
Alas, Tom, bereft of hope, didst attempt to flee the iron bars that held him, and in his flight, was struck down by seventeen merciless bullets. 'Twas thy burden, Atticus, to bring this woeful tidings to his widow, Helen. Yet, though Tom's mortal coil was severed, thou didst deliver his final words and, in so doing, taught thine own children the delicate balance of right and wrong.
Now, thou art the Town Probate Lawyer. Each night, thou may'st visit a soul, and if that soul should meet their end during the course of the game, they shall be granted the chance to leave a final message—a last will, if thou wilt. When thou meet'st thy own demise, all such wills shall be revealed to the townsfolk.
Thou art pledged to the cause of the Town and shalt find thy victory in their triumph.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I picked JoeBob as my second target. Hoped he would be killed at night, but he wasn't. If either of you die, I should be confirmed now. I can give more info if I end up on the chopping block.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Looked over WF's logic. WyIted seems more likely as scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
It's actually because I trusted you, there's a bit more to my role that I won't reveal just yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Sorry for not being as active. If whiteflame dies, I can confirm my role. However, based on what Luna said, I don't think we should be lynching whiteflame.
Created: