Total posts: 3,556
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Glad you made it through with no injuries, and it sounds like the damage is manageable...was a lot worse for many. My Mom and both of my sisters live in Sarasota, one sister got obliterated, the other sister just had a lot of branches, Mom's in a home, just a few trees down there.
All in all, this wasn't as bad as expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I guess liberals are now saying that weather modification is not possible they are currently claiming that it is impossible but it has actually happened during the Vietnam War. Beyond that we know that technology has gotten better since WW2.We also have those some people claiming that the United States would never try diverting disasters away from huge population centers to more rural areas to preserve lives. This is also untrue. During the cold War the United States put nuclear war heads in rural areas because they would be the first targets in a nuclear war and because it would save lives.So this whole assertion that there is a conspiracy and the government would never modify weather is absurd, it's almost as bad as the cynicism of the left saying that the government is so evil they would never ever divert disasters away from large population centers
You said liberals but what you meant was MAGA.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Sometime a word is just a word, it isn't a dog whistle, it isn't even part of a conspiracy, over here in the real world, words have a meaning, maybe if you get a dictionary that will help you understandThe guy who says that Trump is dog whistling that he wants to genocide people because he mentioned increasing border security thinks dog whistles don't happen. Okay
You get all that from I typed the word liberal when I meant the word liberal?
LOL, no wonder Trump loves you.
You really should consider getting a dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
How? We are not Trump voters.Op said weather modification doesn't exist despite the fact we have been cloud seeding since the 1970s
What exactly do you seed clouds with to make a hurricane?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Would you like to do a live debate on whether cloud seeding exists or not since you said LOL after I mentioned it?
I was laughing out loud at your retard post; I corrected your misinformation on cloud seeding, didn't laugh out loud at that.
You want to do a debate about when we began cloud seeding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
How? We are not Trump voters.Op said weather modification doesn't exist despite the fact we have been cloud seeding since the 1970s
We began cloud seeding in 1946.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
With that out of the way. This is called moving the goalposts. What you meant originally is that Jesus was a Democrat and you conflated the term liberal with Democrat, so I went with your definition. Now that you are embarrassed you are being pedantic and claiming you meant the original meaning of the word.
I know this is hard for you to understand, try to comprehend that it is just straightforward, no conspiracy, no misinformation, go back and read it again.
What I said was liberal, and what I meant was liberal. If I had meant democrat, guess what, I would have said democrat.
Sometime a word is just a word, it isn't a dog whistle, it isn't even part of a conspiracy, over here in the real world, words have a meaning, maybe if you get a dictionary that will help you understand
With a dictionary, maybe you wouldn't be so poorly educated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The article states that Donald trump created misinformation that meteorologist cause hurricanes but doesn't provide a source BTW
You forgot to mention that there is a cover up, and fake news, and a witch hunt, and the deep state.
You guys are forgetting your core values, stay focused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Jesus was a liberal.This is false. People often say this because he calls for helping the poor. Republicans on average give more of their money to help the poor than liberals. The liberals however do push for shortsighted policies that harm the poor though. For example, flooding immigrants into the country to compete with poor people for jobs and stretched resources
Although you guys use "liberal" as a profane word and try to paint your opponents as anti-God and anti-American with it, the definition of the word liberal hasn't changed. In this context, conservative means "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions" and liberal means "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms". If we put aside the fact that MAGA has hijacked Christianity for a political agenda, it's pretty clear that within the social, religious, and political context of his day, Jesus was astoundingly liberal; in fact, he was a revolutionary in every sense of the word.
Jesus was absolutely anti-establishment, radically liberal, and vehemently critical of the authoritarian establishment, aligning Himself instead with the poor, the oppressed, and others the establishment considered social outcasts. Jesus fiercely defied the ultra-conservative religious, political, and social power structures of the day, bringing a radically liberal theology to the masses, healing on the Sabbath, blessing outside of the rigid purity system, forgiving the sins of those condemned by the establishment, and calling for the liberation of women and minorities from their social, political, and religiously sanctioned oppression.
To the existing power structure, Jesus was a subversive that taught people that they do not need to conform to the strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life that the corrupt establishment perpetuated. He condemned the ruling elite's greed, violence, their glorification of power, their amassing of wealth without social balance, their judging of others, their lifestyles, and their beliefs. He ferociously rebuked the religious right of His day for embracing the letter of the law instead of the Spirit, calling the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites and vipers, and they assassinated Him for it.
Jesus was imparting a vision for a completely new world order, one based on compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace and love. His egalitarian vision for mankind was diametrically opposed to the authoritarian political, social, and religious structure of the day. He demanded nothing less than the complete transformation of all the laws and conditions of his world into those of the Kingdom of God. He wanted to empower all human beings with their divine identity in that Kingdom and he vehemently exposed the naked corruptions of the establishment's various forms of external power, especially the gender based and grossly patriarchal misogyny of the times.
He "astonished" people with a transforming vision in which all the lies of the corrupted establishment were unmasked and he called for profoundly radical changes to the existing social and political power structures. He was dangerous because He was shaking the very foundations of all of the false constructs of the corrupt establishment...and the people were listening to him.
This political, social, and religious revolutionary was imparting an egalitarian vision that was absolutely lethal to the conservative ruling elite of the day, both the Roman occupation's imposed order and the corrupted religious "mediators". It is for this that the ruling powers conspired to kill this dangerous Rabbi, the Romans crucified him to make an example of him for anyone who had been listening to his incendiary vision of equality and concerted effort for justice and compassion for all.
With revolutionary intent and passion, he was willing to die to bring about a complete transformation of the conditions of his world, and so by definition, anything even remotely resembling a genuine interpretation of His life, teachings, and intent, make it clear that He was a radically liberal progressive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Can you prove that government doesnt control the weather? No you cant!
Think about it, Florida is a red state, Trump lives in Florida, and Hurricane's keep hitting Florida, coincidence, I don't believe in coincidences.
Illinois is a blue state, they never have hurricanes, think about it, why does red state Florida have so many hurricanes and blue state Illinois doesn't have any?
No way that's just a coincidence.
No way.
Created:
Posted in:
Damn it, that was supposed to be a secret, who told MAGA about our weather control machine?
That damn Marjorie Taylor Green is one hell of a detective, we just can't keep anything from her, she always finds out.
Created:
Posted in:
3.8 terabits per second of garbage data is just free speech. it's right there in the Constitution next to the stuff about lies, misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump loves you.Not just me, but America and all Americans.
Except for black and brown ones, and blue state ones, and LGBTQ ones, and Muslim ones, and women ones.
But the rest, oh wait, except for the suckers and losers in the military who dies or were captured, but the rest, all those white guys who haven't polluted the gene pool, you know, the Aryans, those are the American he loves.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You forgot to mention that we will enforce the censorship with our Jewish Space LasersI provided links for a reason. In every single case you can hear this said with their own mouths. This is not comparable to a conspiracy theory that they never mention.You have walz saying he will end free speech at the VP debate.You have video of Kamala and Clinton say it in interviews per the links I provided and you have social media companies testifying under oath that the establishment intimidated them into censoring speech.It's just weird as fuck to see literal videos of them saying they will end free speech and then say it is some weird conspiracy.Evidence from recent polling suggests 60% of democrats support restrictions on free speech suggesting that I n isn't political suicide for the establishment to clamp down on free speech as well
LOL, you guys really do feel you are entitled to lies and misinformation, no fact checking, your lies are free speech, fact checking is censorship. That's what the 1at Amendment is all about, it's what Cadet Bone Spurs didn't fight for, right?
Misinformation is protected by the Constitution, Lies are protected by the Constitution, lies and misinformation is your inalienable right according to the Constitution.
How about free and fair elections, how about the peaceful transfer of power after a democratic election? I kind of think there's something about that in the Constitution too.
How about a free press, isn't that in there somewhere, same place as your Constitutional right to lies and misinformation isn't it? I don't recall it saying anything about a free press being the enemy of the people, I don't think it said there are free speech exceptions if it's a black football player exercising it, where is that clause?
The more you blather your lies and conspiracy theories, the more the rest of us laugh at you.
Trump loves the poorly educated, the rest of us laugh at you, but hey, at least it's a feel sorry for you kind of laugh.
MAGA is a stupid joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The rest of us, the well-educated and informed people are laughing at you.Why would you include yourself in this statement?
It's not a bald-faced lie and it's not a conspiracy theory, so you wouldn't understand,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Trump loves you.Not just me, but America and all Americans.
You see, that's a poorly educated statement that no informed person would believe...that's why Trump loves you.
The rest of us, the well-educated and informed people are laughing at you.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You forgot to mention that we will enforce the censorship with our Jewish Space Lasers.
We have the windmills set on "kill whales" now, but we can always tune them to kill Trump voters, just know that if you vote for Trump, it will be a bloodbath.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everyone's an ist.
If true intelligence is mental expansion, which is to say,it is an aptitude for understanding widely different things from multipledifferent perspectives, an aptitude for grasping a wide range of truths,relationships, and meanings, and the capacity for abstract and symbolicthought, then it follows logically that the contention that one can reduce realityto only one of its modes, to know it in only one of its forms, and consequently,to reject other ways of knowing, is an unintelligent claim.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden presided over the greatest economic recovery since the great depression.You're literally smoking crack if you think a 80% rise in food costs is a "recovery"
I know you guys don't allow fact checking, but the total inflation rate under Biden is 19.4%, not your nonsense 80% figure.
But hey, under Biden the windmills are killing the whales, and the Jewish Space Lasers are starting forest fires, so there's that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Biden has done a good job.Lol, ok bro. Going into debt to fund illegals, foreign nations, and lobbyists with corporate welfare while forcing everyone to pay more for food was a good job. I'd hate to see what a bad job would look like!
I can tell you what a bad job would look like.
Grossly mismanage COVID causing the unnecessary death of a million Americans, preside over the greatest economic collapse since the great depression, be one of only two Presidents in history to have fewer Americans working at the end of your term than at the beginning of your term, increase the national debt by more than any President in history, undermine confidence in our institutions, our Constitution, our Military, and a free press, commit dozens of felonies, Alienate our Allies and befriend our Enemies, sexually assault dozens of women and become an adjudicated rapist, get impeached twice, ...oh yeah, and lead an insurrection to overthrow our democracy.
Biden presided over the greatest economic recovery since the great depression. and he got COVID under control, by itself, that's a good job.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I heard he sent generators and water to victims while Kamala told everyone to go to a website.Clearly this proves Trump is an existential threat to the deep state.
No, those weren't generators and water, it was paper towels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Another Trump University graduate that majored in Diplomacy LOL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Trump's message was "Putin is your friend and Americans are your enemy" and half this country swallowed it.
There's a reason he also said, "I love the poorly educated".
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
All internet atheists are literalists.
You don't believe in an invisible bearded man in the sky that grants wishes, got it.
Nobody believes in the God you don't believe in.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I could be wrong about the way I'm using the word Fundamentalist, but I think of it as characterized by Biblical Literalism.But I still feel that somewhat has to be applicable to you when you refer to The Bible as a justification for your view, and that’s what’s throwing me for a loop here.
I believe that literalism fundamentally obfuscates the spirit and intent of the Bible.
Christianity tells us God is a Spirit that cannot be fully comprehended from a human point of view. In the Bible a “transcendent” God is represented as "seen through a glass darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12) at best “we know in part”, it tells us “The word of God is not bound” (2 Timothy 2:9). Jesus said, “his Father’s house had many mansions” (John 14:2), He invited His listeners to “seek the Kingdom within” (Luke 17:21). Literalism is simply incompatible with these core principles of Christianity; they cannot be expressed literally.
The words of the Bible were meant to resonate on many different levels to bring about a synthesis of mind, heart, and soul, they were meant to be listened to with the heart and responded to with the heart in order to give expression to the soul that is within the words and events that they expressed. The original words surely revealed dimensions that go beyond the surface understanding of any written translation, they were designed to integrate the listener's reality with God's reality and show how they are one. You simply cannot confuse a literal translation of the words with the experience of Truth that they attempted to impart.
For me, it is the truth that "is within" that the Bible speaks of and to. If we listen to that "voice within" we will know how to interpret it and we will be able to distinguish between what is permanent truth and what is cultural bias. Consequently, when I read the Bible, I try to read it with my heart rather than my intellect and to do so I change my focus from actively pondering the external events to passively opening to the internal, transcendent knowledge within.
The point being that we cannot confuse the words and the language with the reality and truth that they attempt to represent symbolically. Language is no more than a very limited symbol of the reality experienced and then expressed, changing in time and place, and meaning different things to different people of different points of view, in different contexts.
Literalism creates a blindness that flows from thinking reality is as we have labeled it with words; we miss out on the depth and wonder of reality if we limit it to the words we use to describe it Literalism attempts to make faith stagnant, it doesn’t allow doctrine to change and adapt to circumstances in order to have contemporary meaning, and that is tragic because Scripture is referential to much more than some strange events that happened a long time ago, as Huston Smith said, "It is about religion alive".
Religious narratives achieve greatness because of their power to generate meanings, not because of their value as a literal record of facts and events. Literalism necessarily imposes a reinterpretation of the transcendent dimension in the narrative that defines it as religious in the first place, by assuming that "narrative", implies record, it doesn't. With literalism you are only opening the text to scrutiny that only sharpens doctrinal debate and results in divisiveness. A literal reading of scripture does not foster religious awareness, it distracts from, and conflicts with, the goal of transcendence, in the end, the text is negated.
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
The Bible includes history andprophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which isconducive any kind of "literal" translation.Be that as it may, The Bible is much more then just that.
Too often we get lost in the pettiness and divisiveness of Biblical detail and in so doing we forget that its message is about unity and love.
I read the Bible to be inspired by its pages. I do not go to it as though it were an unyielding oracle that related once and for all the will of God. For me, this is to make the Bible a pretentious idol, a barrier to creative and personal thought, and a myth. I do not accept the Biblical myth that many try to impose on me, I do accept the Bible as a profound work of both historical and current significance, and for me, the myth of the Bible is nothing compared to the reality.
Considering the linguistic journey the Bible took to arrive at an English translation, I don't think a literal translation is even possible.Does that journey significantly alter the meaning?
Yes, and it in necessarily unavoidable.
Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, Latin and English is a rough approximation of the journey that had to be taken to arrive at an English translation of the Bible, all of these languages use different words, syntax and grammatical structures. Translation from one language to another always results in an inexact interpretation of words, meanings, and context.
Old Testament Hebrew was a very primitive language, it was the first alphabetic language, it consisted only of consonants with no vowels written in the text, and there is no "past, present, or future" tense in Hebrew. The Hebrew language had only about a 30,000-word vocabulary, Greek had a 250,000-word vocabulary and English has over 300,000 words. One Hebrew word could be used in dozens of different ways, and the meaning was determined by the context, Koine Greek, for example, had four different words for "love"; Hebrew only had one. It is absolutely impossible to translate most Hebrew words exactly into modern English. Greek had many verb forms that do not exist in English, and Aramaic uses different verb forms depending on whether the subject is male or female.
Aramaic was the native language of Jesus and the one he mostly taught in, Aramaic is structurally and grammatically very different than English, as is the context in which the words were spoken, written, and then read today. Aramaic is not just structurally and grammatically different than English, it is also very different in that it is a rich, poetic language that utilizes webs of constellated meanings to represent ideas. Jesus "spoke as no man had spoken before", and he spoke as "One who knows", he used words to inspire and initiate, to involve the listener, and to transmit complex ideas through imagery. The language he used was polyphonic, poetic, and profoundly imaginative, and he taught the truth of the Kingdom mainly in parables, which is an "invitational" form of speech that stimulates the imagination and needs to be completed in the mind, heart and soul of the listener. It is a great tragedy if we try to take words and expressions that were originally meant to resonate on many different levels of meaning, on intellectual, metaphorical, and universal levels, and translate them into explicit representations of material facts. If we do so, we are bound to "miss the mark", so to speak.
With all due respect, the fact is there is no such thing as a "literal" translation of the Bible, that contention becomes meaningless in view of it’s many translation through such different languages.
The authors of Scripture were interpreting and expressing a spiritual experience that lies prior to and beneath language, typically described as “transcendent” and “ineffable”, because it’s too immediate and direct to be adequately described with words and language, and consequently, we must resort to symbols, allegory or metaphors to even try to express it. I believe that the genuine spiritual experience reveals dimensions that go beyond the surface understanding of any “symbolic” religious concept or idea, and Scripture is designed to help provide the reader with access to that transcendent spiritual experience, it certainly is not a substitute for it.
If morality depends on the will of God, I think that would make it absolute rather than objective.What’s the difference?
Absolute truth is a statement that is always true, regardless of circumstances, while objective truth is a statement that is based on facts and is independent of personal belief.
If morality is based on the will of God, then it is a matter of the personhood of God, which is a personal belief that is absolute, but by definition, it is not objective.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You know these guys aren't ever going to listen to reason, Musk came out in support of Trump, that makes him a holy man in their eyes....you can't reason with the cult.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I saw it. Awkwardly channeling John Galt.
Who is John Galt?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
“I think the Bible explicitly warns against literalism and so I’m not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.”I may be a part of the problem here but this sounds contradictory to me, if The Bible warns against literalism then why are those who subscribe to The Bible considered fundamentalists? Isn’t that term pedantic.
I could be wrong about the way I'm using the word Fundamentalist, but I think of it as characterized by Biblical Literalism.
The Bible includes history andprophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which isconducive any kind of "literal" translation.
Considering the linguistic journey the Bible took to arrive at an English translation, I don't think a literal translation is even possible.
“If you believe that morality depends on the will of God, then yes, everything would be subjective to the personhood of God.“But if His moral will is consistent doesn’t that make it objective?
If morality depends on the will of God, I think that would make it absolute rather than objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The problem is that it is only our allies that think "he is so unhinged that they're all afraid of him".
Our enemies think he is their friend, madman or not, they see him as an opportunity.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The answer to your question is yes, I believe in an afterlife, but not in any traditional sense.Care to elaborate on that?
I will try.
I think the Bible explicitly warns against literalism and so I’m not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. It’s to that extent that I see literal interpretations of the afterlife are the “traditional sense” which I don’t accept.
I believe Spirituality can be experienced, but it cannot be understood within our normal frame of reference, it is a matter of transcendence. Consequently, when words are applied to Spirit, they are being used metaphorically to describe something that transcends words.
I believe the goal of faith is to transcend the realm in which our own materiality is located. It is a matter of adopting a perspective that defines life as good in terms of participation in something greater and the associated contribution made in service to others. I believe we are called to transcend our own ego consciousness and extend our awareness and being to include the experience created in others by our actions. If we can overcome consciousness of material being and enter a completely different realm, a spiritualistic realm, in which we are truly one with our fellow man. In this way, I believe that we extend our existence beyond the death of the individual by participating in a greater being that lives on beyond the death of any individual.
Words are clumsy, two left footed things that are impossible to dance to when it comes to describing the transcendent reality we call Spirit, so that is my lame attempt to use words to tell you what I mean when I say “not in any traditional sense”
In response to the religious view that morality depends on the will of God, I don't believe that makes morality objective, it just makes it subjective on a cosmic scale.But wouldn’t that make everything subjective? Sometimes these philosophical discussions leads us to overthink relatively basic things.
If you believe that morality depends on the will of God, then yes, everything would be subjective to the personhood of God.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
If Determinism negates freedom to act and Free Will is an illusion, then you deny the very basis of reason, the idea that "something subjective can be rational" is an illusion and the very idea that you could "decide" is negated, it is incoherent to say you are "undecided".Fair enough. What do you consider to be the basis of reason?
It involves the capacity to evaluate information and draw conclusions with the intent of determining the truth. If determinism negates the freedom to choose among alternatives to determine truth, then reason, truth, logic, and the associated human activities like science, philosophy, art, religion, and mathematics are not meaningful, everything we know to be distinctly human is an illusion.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Therefore, it is by direct observation that we can conclude that there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and from that, we can conclude that moral knowledge is objective knowledge.You believe in an afterlife?
OK, I went back a couple pages, and I see that you are making a religious argument.
The answer to your question is yes, I believe in an afterlife, but not in any traditional sense.
In response to the religious view that morality depends on the willof God, I don't believe that makes morality objective, it just makes it subjective on a cosmic scale.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
This post negates every single one of your previous posts in this thread.I don't see it that way. My posts were to show that something subjective can be rational. Knowledge was never mentioned, nor was causal agency. As I said, I am undecided on the issue.
If Determinism negates freedom to act and Free Will is an illusion, then you deny the very basis of reason, the idea that "something subjective can be rational" is an illusion and the very idea that you could "decide" is negated, it is incoherent to say you are "undecided".
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Therefore, it is by direct observation that we can conclude that there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and from that, we can conclude that moral knowledge is objective knowledge.You believe in an afterlife?
That's quite a non-sequitur.
Are you making a religious argument?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
it is reasonable to accept as an objective fact that we are morally responsible causal agents.What you say makes sense but there are many who would challenge that premise saying that due to deterministic cause and effect, free will is an illusion and we are ultimately not causal agents.
Those arguments presuppose determinism without establishing determinism as a fact, which is to say that they are invalid arguments.
To be a causal agent, one would need to create an uncaused cause.
That’s nonsense, to be a causal agent we merely need the ability to foresee the consequences of our actions, deliberate, choose among alternatives, and act in accordance with those preceding conclusions.
Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A conscious state includes a desire or intention, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state. Such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values, purposes, and intents, which are not reducible to the purely physical state of your argument.
I am undecided as I haven't been able to disprove that notion.
Either you aren’t trying very hard or you haven’t given it any thought at all then. It only takes a cursory understanding of science to see that notion has been proven false for well over a century.
Determinism requires the complete causal closure of the material world; science has not even come close to establishing the causal closure of the material world.
Determinism was just a thought experiment 200 years ago, what Laplace (and before him Leibnitz) proposed, was explicitly that, IF the mathematics we apply to our physical systems is consistent and complete, which is to say that mathematics itself is completely deterministic (Godel proved that it isn’t), AND reality is completely circumscribed by Newtonian mechanics (and it isn’t), AND the motion of every particle in the universe can in principle be predicted from exact knowledge of its position, momentum, and the forces acting on it (and it can’t), AND everything occurred within a single, universal reference frame where an absolute Euclidean space and an absolute time that passes uniformly, are independent aspects of reality (and they aren’t), THEN “theoretically”, all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by purely physical causes such that, there is one and only one possible effect for a particular cause or set of causes, (and there isn’t).
The two most prevailing scientific theories, Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics are explicit that reality is not the Newtonian World Machine that Laplace believed in, and Heisenberg showed us that even in principle, adequate knowledge of a particle’s position, momentum, and the forces acting on it are impossible, the requisite exactness of those quantities just doesn’t occur in the real world.
How do you respond to the assertion that any action you take is due not to a choice, but to the realization of your preferences which you did not choose but were created through cause and effect from external forces (genetics, environment, society, etc).
I’d respond that the denial of the experiential reality of every waking moment, and the negation of the validity of every moral and legal system found in every known time and place where humans have ever existed is an extraordinary claim which necessarily requires extraordinary evidence, and no evidence whatsoever doesn’t qualify as extraordinary.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
it is reasonable to accept as an objective fact that we are morally responsible causal agents.What you say makes sense but there are many who would challenge that premise saying that due to deterministic cause and effect, free will is an illusion and we are ultimately not causal agents. To be a causal agent, one would need to create an uncaused cause. I am undecided as I haven't been able to disprove that notion. How do you respond to the assertion that any action you take is due not to a choice, but to the realization of your preferences which you did not choose but were created through cause and effect from external forces (genetics, environment, society, etc).
This post negates every single one of your previous posts in this thread.
Are you saying you can do the "Argument Clinic" thing all by yourself?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
If, by objective knowledge, you mean facts, data, and information that can be verified independently of personal opinions or experiences, then yes.
Why would objective knowledge mean that? Doesn't all knowledge begin with experience? Reality is experiential, all we “know” of reality is, by definition, in our heads,
How can any “facts, data, and information” be verified “independently” of “experience”?
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
@Tarik
Mathematical knowledge, like moral knowledge, is a product of the human mind, and yet, almost no one would say mathematical knowledge is subjective.
At some stage of hominid development, our ancestors acquired a brain structure that afforded them access to the mental world of mathematics. It then became as much a part of their environment as were the grasslands in which they lived, and they did what animals do, they explored their environment, and what they did was discover objective facts about the reality in which they lived. Even though mathematics is a creation of the mind, most people accept that mathematical knowledge is objective.
So why would we consider the case that the history of mathematical experience that led us to discover an enriched human environment of objective mathematical knowledge is different than other forms of distinctly human ability. The human experience of reality includes qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, and these ethical intuitions indicate the existence of a moral dimension of reality open to our exploration to discover further objective facts about the nature of the reality of our experience. I see no reason that we can’t arrive at objective moral knowledge in the same way that we arrive at other types of objective knowledge, by observation we come to discern underlying principles which are then tested by examining how well those principles align with further observations of the world of our experience.
The simple self-evident experiential reality of a human being is one that is imbued with qualities, values, meaning, and purpose, consequently it is reasonable to accept as an objective fact that we are morally responsible causal agents. Therefore, it is by direct observation that we can conclude that there is real mental or moral causality in the universe, and from that, we can conclude that moral knowledge is objective knowledge.
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
@Tarik
Out of curiosity, this question is for both of you.
Do you think that mathematical knowledge is objective knowledge?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
The fact that you think pedophiles are all over YouTube suggests you're drawn to pedophile spaces.
Gee, you think so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
A-Eye States......
Far out.
The first thing A-Eye should have stated is that it took acid, everything in this post is a hallucination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The first Jew was JacobThe first Jew was Abraham.
Unless you are talking tribe, then the first Jew was Judah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
The first Jew was Jacob
The first Jew was Abraham.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
But if what you say is true, then is China building fusion just to get plutonium?
That's what the conspiracy theorists will say, but I think they are working on it for the same reasons other countries are working on it, they think they can overcome the obstacles and make it work. I don't, but I'm in the minority in thinking it will never work out, but then again, it's pretty common that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm a legend in my own mind you know.
I dont understand why would they build it otherwise, if its so ineffective at producing electrical energy?
They want to build it for the same reason a dog licks his own balls, because they can....at least they think they can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Does it matter the particular species?No, I cant really imagine what animal species would it be justified to use violence and cruelty against.
Mosquitos, no-see-ums, roaches, to name onlya few...and that fucking baby hippopotamus is really starting to get on my nerves too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The best solution for the US is to store our nuclear waste in New Jersey and Mar-a-Lago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Oh great, you just had to go and get me started on fusion asan energy source. Theoretically, coolbeans, practically speaking, it isn’t happening.
Unlike nuclear fission—the nuclear reaction that iscurrently used in the energy sector—fusion does not create radioactive waste.
Yeah, except for all that radioactive waste that is produced in the process.
A fusion reactor doesn’t generate electricity, the energy produced is inthe form of very high energy Neutron streams and guess what happens when you convert Neutronstreams into electricity, you get more radioactive waste than you get from afission reactor.
Another byproduct is weaponsgrade Plutonium 239, a lot of it, so you can kiss any nuclear nonproliferation effortsgoodbye, fusion reactors will always be producing weapons grade plutonium in largequantities.
Fusion is only commercially viable if the fuel used is tritium,and that isn’t naturally occurring, the only place to get it is from a fissionreactor, so fusion can never be instead of fission, to make fusion viable wewill need to continue with fission.
It produces three to four times more energy than fission anddoes not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike burning fossilfuels. That is why China is working to build fusion reactors.
The vast majority of the energy a fusion reactor produces needsto go back into the system, there is always a huge "parasitic power consumption", so it consumes about 80% of the energy produced at best, and it goes up as you scale, in the end it’sabout as efficient as fission, which it needs to supply the tritium, so it doesn't solve the problems of fission, it perpetuates them and generates a host of new problems to go with them.
Also, to kick start the fusion process you have to get the temperatureto about a hundred million degrees, that's six times as hot as the sun’s surface (we don't have the pressure the sun does so we need to get it much hotter to make it work). In the end, it takesmore energy to start the fusion process than it produces, and once started, thecontainment will probably take more energy than what is produced too. It takes a boatload more energy to get the requisite containment than what is produced by the reaction today, and I suspect it always will.
Also, when you produce high energy neutron streams theentire plant is bombarded with much higher neutron energies than what happens in a fissionplant, and that knocks atoms out of position in the metals used, so the metal fatigues and becomes brittle, the entire plant degrades structurally pretty quickly which increases chances of an accident, and even if you are lucky enough to be accidentfree, you have to replace the very expensive components of the plant regularly,which probably costs more than the energy the plant produces.
In 2023, China’s fusion testing facilityset a world record for the longest run time for a magnetic confinement fusiondevice, a crucial step toward operation maintenance.
Ah yes, 403 seconds, the "world record" is less than sevenminutes. That containment needs to be continuous,so seven minutes needs to grow to 24/7 or we are screwed.
It plans to construct a nuclear fusion reactor independentlyas a demo project and aims to commercialize nuclear fusion on a large scale by2050.
Never gonna happen by 2050, they won’t get any net energy,all they will get is enough plutonium 239 to blow the world to smithereens a couple hundredtimes, let the conspiracy theorists run with that fact and let’s see what kind of predictions we get.
The Sun is very efficient at using fusion toproduce energy, but the incredible pressure and high temperatures needed occur naturally, wedon’t have that here, and the high cost of producing the environment necessary for fusion makes itcommercially unviable. Everybody wants to believe we can overcome these problemswith science, but it’s more practical to just believe other clean energy sources aremore viable.
Making fusion is like making diamonds, we can do it, but it costs about a hundred times more to do it than the resulting diamond is worth.
There are viable alternatives, wind, solar, geothermal, biochemical, and some shit we haven't even thought of yet, there are a lot of clean energyoptions we need to be putting our efforts into besides fusion.
Created: