Total posts: 4,140
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
towns have been accepting my lead
Seriously? They were sheeping off Lunatic and drafter, not you. I'll grant that your analysis at the end of DP1 did convince some people, but that was an exception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Wylted
I highly doubt that town would have done better with a dead Lunatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Why did you intentionally misrepresent arguments anyway instead of exaggerating them to the point they became straw man's you could tear down?
He didn't. All you had on him was being involved in a near mislynch with Arose and that late VTL with Supa. Yes, that's a case, but it was a really weak one. Also, how do you know drafter shared your read on Speed? How would Lunatic's death have benefited town in any way? Speaking as a mafia, Lunatic was by far the most threatening member. He was logical and active. His plan in the last DPs was brilliant, given the incomplete info available to him. His death would have been a major success for us. Drafter was a good substitute since he was also active, but his tunneling made his death less valuable. I was hoping since the end of DP1 that Lunatic would get mislynched. His death would have been a disaster for town. The only way it would have helped is that Drafter would not have been tunneling, but that wouldn't come close to guruanteeing a town win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Because we had a role cop, role blocker, ninja, and a safe claim with Stanley. Both sides were highly powered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Wylted
we knew press was not a cop
He was a cop. I think he looked like a PGO on purpose to keep himself safe from NKs. It was actually highly intelligent.
I just talked to max and max said warren told him a few day phases in.
Even so, it's still partly on max for not telling town about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Warren bastard modded a mechanic of a game that would have worked against max in the end a million ways as long as he remained alive.
That depends on whether Warren changed it mid-game or Max just neglected to say it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
So obvious to watch me and yet just stupidly not done
It would also have been obvious to watch the cop. We will have to wait to hear what Oro really did and why to know the actual truth, though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
We guessed you wouldn't buy it, which was part of the logic behind killing GP and not max.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
You can just be honest.
He was honest.
Seriously why wasn't I watched
Oro was probably watching Sheriff PressF.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Given the info he had, he made excellent decisions in this DP. The only thing he could have done better was to wait for Airmax to defend himself, which would have increased town's chances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
We were your top three scumreads. You couldn't be allowed to talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Lunatic's play was actually very good after he stopped shooting himself in the foot in DP3. He was just missing vital info, and Speed played it brilliantly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, we shot you first, so it wouldn't have mattered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'm curious to see how my satirical predictions will fare compared to yours, although yours will probably do better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
It is new. The same page includes polls from previous years if you scroll down, and this is the first year that the majority of women said they were pro-life. I actually didn't know it either until I looked it up to refute his accusation. Last I heard, only 48% of women said they were pro-life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
People like you are one of the biggest reasons Trump was elected (Disclaimer: I don't support Trump). You disagree about abortion? You think women are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same rights as men! You want immigration to be legal? You're a racist! You don't think men can become women? You're a bigot! (I'm speaking in generalizations. I'm not saying that you believe any of these things, except the one about about abortion because you said that yourself, though in different words.)
The point is that many people are sick and tired of self-righteous liberals who condemn everyone who disagrees as a bad person, rather than just a person with bad ideas. Pro-life people don't oppose women's bodily autonomy; they believe that the unborn is a different body entirely. Now, you can say, "That's nonsense! Fetuses are part of the woman's body!" or "It's in the woman's body, so it's her choice." Consequently, people who oppose abortion oppose bodily autonomy. However, that would only be true if they agreed with you on those things. Let me use an analogy to show what I mean.
Suppose there was this guy who said the earth was flat, and someone accused him of lying. The flat-earther replied, "I'm not lying. I really believe the earth is flat." Even though he would be wrong, that would not make him a liar; he's just ignorant and misguided. If we pro-lifers are wrong, the same is true of us. We don't oppose bodily autonomy; we just mistakenly think that the unborn is a different body (assuming we're wrong for the sake of argument).
Of course, you can refuse to accept this and desperately cling to your belief that those who disagree with you must somehow be sexist and hateful and oppose bodily autonomy. If so I have a simple question for you: according to gallup, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life.
Do they oppose their own bodily autonomy and consider themselves to be second-class citizens? If not, then how can you logically maintain that men who oppose abortion do think those things? If you do think that pro-life women don't think they're second-class citizens but pro-life men do, then why does the difference in their chromosomes and genitals change the logic of the situation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Which branch of philosophy (or philosopher) however unusual questions the presupposition that logic is valid?
None that I know of. It's not a very useful topic to discuss because it has no practical effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Philosophy doesn't presuppose the validity of logic?
It usually does. However, it is also the only field (that I can think of) that would be willing to question that presupposition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Philosophically. More down-to-earth things like science and law presuppose logic is valid, or else they can't function.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I won't bother replying to the rest of what you said because it would be a waste of time. If you think genocide is okay if the majority says so, then we have no common ground. As such, it would be impossible for either of us to persuade the other, so it would be a waste of time.Of course it would be fine. That is what a democracy is. It's their society. They get to do with it as they please.
Created:
Posted in:
This is what would happen if NFL games were decided by how "green" and "woke" their mascots were.
Disclaimer: This is purely for entertainment. It is not intended to parody any specific person, nor is it intended to be an accurate representation of the environmental movement. I am entirely aware that no one actually thinks like this (I hope, anyway). This is completely satirical. I do not believe any of this, nor does any of this reflect my viewpoints in any way.
Thursday
Steelers vs. Browns
There is absolutely nothing more environment-hating, mind-destroying, maniacally earth-killing than steelers, who put Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
Steelers: 0. Browns: 42
Sunday
Cowboys vs. Lions
This is a no-brainer. Of course lions are far more environmentally friendly than a bunch of dead white men who raised cattle for meat.
Cowboys: 3. Lions: 24
Jaguars vs. Colts
This one isn't so easy. Both of them are animals, so they aren't environment-hating humans. Jaguars are predators, however, and meat is murder. On the other hand, colts are the willing slaves of humans. Jags pull this one out.
Jaguars: 28. Colts: 27
Bills vs. Dolphins
Again, both are animals. Neither are carnivores, which is a plus. Dolphins are really cute, and no one would want to hurt them (other than a white, Christian, male capitalist, but they're not people). Buffaloes, however, are endangered, so they clearly win.
Bills: 31. Dolphins: 21
Broncos vs. Vikings
While this seems obvious at first because broncos are animals and vikings are people, it's not that simple. Vikings are not capitalist, they don't emit CO2, and they engaged in common-sense population control by slaughtering their enemies. Broncos are still animals, so they can't be ruled out. Also, the vikings were white, which is a large disadvantage. Even so, they should win.
Broncos: 10. Vikings: 14
Saints vs. Buccaneers
A worse choice would be difficult to imagine. Christians, and not just Christians but saints, opposed to white male murderers?!!! Inconceivable! At least the saints give lip service to being good stewards of the world their magic invisible friend created, which is more than can be said for the pirates.
Saints: 7. Buccaneers: 3
Jets vs. Redskins
Obvious. A machine that literally runs by emitting CO2 against noble Native Americans? Not even close.
Jets: 10. Redskins: 35
Falcons vs. Panthers
This is extremely close. Both are animals and carnivores. Panthers are black, which is a plus. Furthermore, some falcons have been known to subject themselves to humans for hunting. I can't even.
Falcons: 17. Panthers: 28
Texans vs. Ravens
Texans used to own slaves. The Ravens will dominate this game.
Texans: 0. Ravens: 21
Cardinals vs. 49ers
There is just no contest between birds and genocidal capitalists who oppressed the Native Americans and expelled the Mexicans.
Cardinals: 38. 49ers: 7.
Bengals vs. Raiders
This is a little tricky, since it isn't clearly defined what these raiders are raiding. But if in doubt, pick the animal. However, if they were just raiders of the lost ark, that could be okay, or at least less bad. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because bengals are probably endangered.
Bengals: 21. Raiders: 10
Patriots vs. Eagles
This is inconceivable. People who support America playing the American symbol. Say it with us: This. Is. The. Patriarchy. If the Eagles didn't have the out that they are animals, the earth would literally be forced to open up and swallow them both.
Patriots: 0. Eagles: 3
Bears vs. Rams
This will be really close. Bears are awesome, plus there was an Ind-Native American chief named Standing Bear. Rams are also really cool, and they are probably doubly cool because they provide the start to the name Ramshutu, and he's a progressive so that must be good. Bears are sometimes carnivores, so that puts them at a disadvantage. However, the Rams are the opposition to the sheep in that fictional character Jesus' parable. We definitely aren't His sheeple, so we have to go with the Rams.
Bears: 31. Rams: 35
Monday
Chiefs vs. Chargers
Chargers are the greenest thing ever! They power your earth-saving electric vehicle. On the other hand, don't even get me started about the Chiefs. How dare those white men culturally appropriate the title of chief?! This one is a certain lock.
Chiefs: 6. Chargers: 63
Any thoughts? Have I made a mistake in the environmental oppression olympics, or have I proven my wokeness? Which teams do you think are the most environmentally friendly in today's matchups?
That's all for now. Just remember to save the whales! (and collect the whole set.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Why does a less valuable organism deserve life at the cost of a critically life alterating, damaging and painful event for a more valuable organism?
Because you haven't provided any evidence to show that the unborn are less valuable, other than instinct, which is totally subjective and unreliable. You just keep repeating it as though you've proven it, even though you never even tried to prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
However in terms of deciding actual policy, majority should rule in a democracy.
So if the majority decided to commit genocide against the minority, that would be fine? If not, then why is it ok for the majority to dictate morality regarding abortion but not genocide?
Yes I can. It's quite simple. If it involves you, it is your business. If it doesn't involve you, it is not your business. You can certainly insert yourself into a cause in support, but it still wouldn't be any of your business
So if a criminal breaks into my neighbor's house, shoots him so he is lying helpless on the floor, and rapes his wife in front of him, that isn't any of my business because it doesn't involve me, so I should just let it happen? If people going around killing each other, we shouldn't outlaw murder because we're not involved?
so whatever society decides is correct is not is correct.
If society decides that all Jews need to die, then. . . what?
The mother decides on personhood.
Why does the mother get to decide personhood for unborn children, but not for born children? How is the state deciding that abortions should be legal up to X point in the pregnancy equivalent to the mother deciding?
The state facilitates her wishes.
The Germans wanted the Jews to die to control undesirable populations. The state facilitated their wishes.
restrictive abortions would be the state determining personhood.
Does the state determine personhood when it bans the murder of born humans? If so, why is that only okay when the human is already born?
Zygotes never having a life in the first place is the exact reason why they have less moral value to adults.
Either they have life, or they are dead, or they were never alive to begin with, meaning they're not made of cells. The cells are functioning, so they are alive. It really is that simple. If you disagree, then I would be extremely curious to hear how cells that aren't alive can multiply in numbers.
Not at all. I do not give or take moral value. It is what it is on instinct. You yourself have that instinct because you immediately decided that the zygote did not have a life, despite your claim that life begins from conception. The common question to save the child or the 5000 embryos is a perfect example of this.
It is also people's natural instinct to save their own child rather than 100 strangers. Does that mean the strangers are less valuable?
The two in inseparable. If you are arguing to save the fetus, you are simultaneously ****ing the woman carry the fetus.
That's only true if the woman's life is in danger. In that case, when there is a choice between killing one to save the other or letting both die, I don't know and have never heard of anyone who would choose to let both die. This is a strawman.
And don't think I haven't noticed you've used "child" again. Either prove that a fetus is a child or you can stop with the manipulative bull****.
Don't think I haven't noticed you've used "fetus" again. Either prove that a child is a fetus or you can stop with the manipulative nonsense.
Why is it okay when you use language slanted to your side and not when Our_Boat uses language that slants to his side?
Now, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not accusing you of being like Nazis. However, the logic that morality is determined by society inevitably leads to the inability to condemn any crime, no matter how horrific, so long as it is condoned by society.
Also, the idea that it isn't any of my business if I'm a man is complete nonsense. If unborn babies are people, then abortion is murder and must be stopped; if not, it isn't. The question that matters is whether or not the unborn are people, not what my genitals are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Everyone knows that wooden horses are the best animal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Squids have an exoskeleton.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Query: if 'that I am' is an unknown universe,can "I am" infer 'that I am'if "I am" is also unknownunto/by itself ?
This is akin to saying, "If blue is 'three men planting daisies in a cornfield,' can we infer that the sky is not blue?" Maybe we can, but there is no reason to believe that blue is three men planting daisies in a cornfield or that "that I am" is an unknown universe. There is no logical justification for either statement.
Notice how Descartes identifies himself by way of his own thought:i. one can not think less they exist, andii. one can not possibly think less: having knowinglybeen born in the mind as the thought:"I think (therefor) I am!"therefor this utterance of Descartes is absurd.
You say it is absurd, but the points i and ii that you provide support his point. You don't show how it's absurd. However, I don't know what this has to do with anything.
I think, therefor I know I am able to think.
And if you know you are able to think, then you are. This is merely restating Descartes' claim without the inevitable conclusion. If you are able to think, then you must exist. You think, therefore you know you are able to think, therefore you are. Your statement merely adds an intermediate step.
Which acknowledges both:i. conscious acknowledgement of selfii. ability of selfbut notice it is still lacking severing one from their own thought-process.
Again, you are merely restating Descartes' ideas in different words. The "I am" part was a conscious acknowledgement of self. His statement did not sever him from his own thought process. Rather, it relied on them not being severed, because he knew he existed because he could think. He did not separate them; rather, he united them. If one, then necessarily the other.
duly followed by any/all cessation of thought. This accomplishes much:i. severs from ones own thought-processii. conscious acknowledgement of selfiii. ability of self / full command of willThus deriving a fully consciously justified knowledge absent belief: to know one is not thinking.
You can't sever yourself from your own thought process or cease thinking except by going to sleep. No matter what you do, your brain activity continues, and your thought continues. In order to know one is not thinking, you would have to have the thought that you aren't thinking. You can't know without thought. It is an impossible divide. However, I don't really see the point of any of this. What are you trying to say?
I believe not, knowing I am willing not to believe...and find the same.
And the same thing applies. In order to will something, you have to think it. Once again, though, I don't see that it's even worth disagreeing about, because there doesn't seem to be any point to all of this.
I do not assume that logic is valid, because I find modern use of the term 'logic' to be invalid on its own terms:P = P is invalid.
This statement is still logical because of this:
P is unknown: a variable.Therefor, P = P is intrinsically invalidbecause it ignores (ie. self-defeats)that P is a variable.
If P is a variable that can have different values on different sides of the equation, then that is still logical. It's unusual and mathematical gibberish, but it isn't contradictory.
and find that they are all relatively ignorant to:I know I am...I know not to believe I am something/anything I am not...
But you don't show how they're ignorant. You just "find" them to be.
P1: First set of statements
P2: ???
C: The first set of statements is ignorant compared to the second set of statements.
which clarifies why I do not take 'logic' as 'valid' because it removes unknown variable from itself (!) which is a blunder of Western "thought".
It removes unknown variable from itself. It removes unknown variable from itself. It removes unknown variable from itself.
I feel dumb just writing it. This statement has no meaning in the given context. You never explained how your equations proved this. You never explained why this is a blunder. You never showed that Western thought includes this blunder. You never even showed there is such a thing as Western thought or what that could be. This is gibberish.
Thus 'know thy self' is absolutely valid:
Firstly, this isn't what that phrase means, but I'll let that slide since you aren't using it in that sense.
Secondly, this does not in any way follow from your previous statements.
one can not possibly know of any god less they know something of themselves whence to know of such a god.
This does not follow from your previous statement.
In the same way Descartes was fixed to his own thought-process, "believers" are rooted in a practical ignorance(s) of themselves.
This is based on your previous statements, which do not follow from each other. This also relies on a large number of unsupported assertions, such as your faulty definition of a believer, which I addressed in previous comments.
I believe I am... = Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil merely "believing" to know but being dead wrongI know I am... = Tree of Living Forever
Those two trees have objective definitions, and those are not it.
thus belief is the root of all suffering/death,
This does not follow from your previous statements. It relies on the absolutely ludicrous, unsupported, and in fact insupportable idea that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to "I believe I am," which itself does not follow from your previous statements, and those statements don't follow from the statements before them, etc.
an all-knowing god would know it takes a believer to believe evil is good.
You never even attempted to explain why a believer believes that evil is good. This does not follow. Furthermore, this statement is utterly meaningless. It is a truism. It takes a believer to believe, period. No one that I know of other than Satanists believe that evil is good. This could not be more irrelevant. I don't understand why you keep repeating this phrase as though it actually has some profound or important meaning.
They have no conscious knowledge of their own ignorance
This is also an unsupported and insupportable statement.
Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem which derives the real identities of the two Edenic trees
There is no "real identity" of the Edenic trees other than that of being the Edenic trees. This is complete and glaringly obvious hogwash.
I therefor condemn any/all "believer vs. unbeliever" conflict(s) as being necessarily ignorant
The conflict is necessarily ignorant? Is that a typo? Conflicts can't be ignorant or knowledgeable. This is gibberish.
including the designation/persecution of "unbelievers" relative to a particular "belief"-based ideology
Persecution and designation are relative to ideologies. What?
CKIIT finds that the hundreds of millions of people dead are dead due to the exact singular reason alluded to in the warning of Genesis 2:17
Congratulations. You have reached the exact same conclusion that Jewish and Christian scholars have known for thousands of years. They didn't even have to write formulas. All they needed to do was read the Bible.
I hope this has clarified my position and contention to belief-in-and-of-itself.
I regret to say that it has done anything but. The more I try to understand what you're saying, the less sense it makes. I feel like one of the characters in the move Fiddler on the Roof when he tells someone, "That's not talking. That's babbling." Your statements don't follow from the ones before them. Your attempt to find the "real identities" of the Edenic trees is beyond ridiculous and is something I would expect to find in a parody of someone searching for a metaphor behind every word to find support for his end times prophecy pamphlet "20 reasons Christ will come back in '20." You never provide any clear definition of "belief-in-and-of-itself." You say Descartes' statement was absurd only to provide your own statements that are merely reworded versions saying the same thing, except that you give them a distinction without a difference. Quite frankly, your attempt to clarify your position pointlessly pontificated preposterous propositions paired with prolific and prevaricating prose.
Tl;dr: What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
BUT HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS VALID!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?Checkmate
Precisely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
That's a relief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
is that what you want
Of course not. How could you even consider the idea that I am so inhuman and monstrous that I would want people to starve?
is that how bad things have to get/ they cant pay their rent, pay for health care they cant afford education or heating one doesnt have to starve
If you're talking about a living wage, then being able to buy enough food to live would qualify as a living wage. Of course, those other things are all good, but they aren't absolutely necessary for survival. I'm not saying I want people to go without those things; all I'm saying is that those aren't needed for living, so a living wage would not have to be able to pay for them. However, you can have those things at the minimum wage. It's obviously not great, but you can get them. I personally know people who live on jobs that pay only a few dollars above the minimum wage. They're not well off, but they're hardly deprived.
in my mind all that has to exist is relative deprivation for things to be intolerable
I don't think intolerable is the right word, but it would certainly be pretty bad not to have those things.
if you do even a minimal amount of reading thats all we need to bring this whole system down realitive deprivation is gong to de legitmaize this system and cause people to undermine it
Most people in the US don't live in relative deprivation, so I don't see how that would bring down the system.
please please do remain smug
I'm sorry that I seemed smug. That was not my intent, but I worded my comment very poorly.
it makes it so much easier to stick a knife in your back when the time comes
Would you seriously be willing to kill me or to let others do so, or is that sarcasm, or maybe some kind of metaphor for wittily refuting my arguments? Please tell me that's sarcasm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PaulVerliane
and they cant of they cant make a living wage at it
Then why aren't they starving?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
1. I do not treat merriam-webster as any authority on definitions of words/language.
Irrelevant. They are not the only dictionary to have a definition like that, and they have that definition in there because that is how many people use it.
2. The definition you provided relies on further substantiations viz. "examination of evidence" thus is incomplete and not self-contained.
How is it incomplete simply because it includes the examination of evidence? That does not follow.
3. To convict while containing degrees of uncertainty would definitely be an ignorant act,
If true, this would render the justice system completely inoperable, since they can never have a 100% certainty that the accused is guilty. That is why they operate by establishing the facts beyond reasonable doubt rather than absolute certainty.
especially if convicting others for the crimes of self (!).
What does this have to do with anything?
4. It is possible to both believe in, and know: gravity, but "believing" in gravity is redundant, as gravity "acts" anyways. So does the gravity associated with any/all belief-based ignorance(s) that take ignorance(s) as knowledge(s), such as books to be perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant etc. It doesn't matter if a person believes in a truth or not: its efficacy is the same. Knowledge always negates belief-based ignorance(s).
True, but not all belief is based on ignorance. You admit yourself that beliefs can be rational.
0 + 1 - 2 + 2 - 1 = 0: I am willing to BELIEVE *not to* (any/all) KNOW <-*it takes a believer to believe evil is good (ie. satanic)
What is the point of the equations? They don't seem to accomplish anything that couldn't be done more clearly without them. Also, why do you keep saying "it takes a believer to believe evil is good"? That is a truism that proves nothing, and no one is saying otherwise. Why continue to repeat it?
It is when a belief is taken as a definite: my belief is definitely true!
Yes, but that is only relevant when someone is saying "My belief is true because I believe it," and it is only true if beliefs require ignorance and/or uncertainty, something that, despite repeating it over and over again, you have failed to prove.
Such an utterance would be ignorant-in-and-of-itself. If something is in a state of 'definitely true' it requires not belief, but rather acknowledgement.
True, but that acknowledgement is one meaning or type of belief. It doesn't matter if you don't like it; it doesn't matter if you say that beliefs must be based on uncertainty; it doesn't matter whether you accept it or kick and scream. That is a legitimate meaning of the word, and the only argument you have presented to the contrary is completely circular.
belief-in-and-of-itself is the agency required to ever confuse one-with-the-other, therefor satan must necessarily require it to confuse evil and good.
This does not follow.
How can both god and satan require belief if they are opposites?
How can both black and white require belief if they are opposites? The answer is simple: because black and white and God and Satan are not opposites in every respect. Black and white are opposites in color; however, it would be illogical to say that they must be opposites in everything, because that would require that one existed and the other didn't. Similarly, God and Satan are not opposites in every respect.
Also, what do you mean by "require belief"?
I don't try to undermine belief: knowledge does this naturally.
Only if we accept your limited definition of belief, which you have only substantiated with circular reasoning. When you say "belief," you can mean that it requires uncertainty. However, that has no bearing on the rest of us who don't use that definition. When we say "belief", you don't get to impose your definition on us. If it was a word that had a very technical and established definition like assault rifle or third-degree murder, you would have a good case; however, it isn't. There are multiple definitions for belief, and you have provided no justification for why we should consider the one you present as the only valid definition.
I simply designate belief-in-and-of-itself as a property of satan
This is a textbook case of an unsubstantiated assertion. Yes, you designate it as such; however, it makes absolutely no difference in reality.
It's not necessarily true: it can be both. Argumentation exists that tries to reconcile them.
Any argument trying to reconcile logical reasoning and illogical reasoning would be inherently illogical. It's either logical or it isn't.
Okay, but nobody is trying to prove logic is 'valid'.
You're missing the point. My point is that, since you can't be absolutely certain that logic is valid, you can't be absolutely certain of anything, since being certain of something would require being able to logically prove it. Thus, knowledge defined as something known to be absolutely certain is impossible.
Believers likewise presume that belief is 'valid'.
On the contrary, not all believers simply presume that their beliefs are valid. You're confusing believers with presuppositionalists, and most people can't even spell that, let alone take it as a philosophical position.
It is also impossible to use the Torah/Bible/Qur'an to prove that the Torah/Bible/Qur'an are valid.
Agreed. I cringe inwardly when I see someone try to use the Bible to prove the Bible or their definition of belief to prove their definition of belief. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are doing the same thing.
I don't recognize your use of illogic and is undefined.
Correct. It isn't technically a word, so I should have defined what I meant. Illogic would be the opposite of logic or an illogical argument.
It is possible to use knowledge to prove the invalidity of belief.
Only if we use your limited definition of belief that you have only substantiated with circular reasoning.
I wouldn't want to.
Nor would I. It's both impossible and pointless, since there is no one who says it isn't valid (that I know of).
I hope I didn't disappoint.
You didn't. Actually, your response was interesting and not what I expected - which doesn't say anything because I didn't know what to expect, but still.
I do not assume that logic is valid.
This is the interesting part of your response. What do you mean? If you don't assume that logic is valid, then would it be possible for logic to not apply in some circumstances? If so, what would that look like? I'm genuinely curious.
Which emphatically calls for the designation that P =/= P, but rather there is a basic variability intrinsic to P that is set as a variable from the onset.
But if it's a variable and it can mean different things on different sides of the equation, then those equations could still be logical.
Created:
Posted in:
I used this argument in a different forum and decided that it needs its own topic simply because it is so unusual and counter-intuitive.
There is no way to be certain that logic is valid. We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical. Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories. My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.P2: Any attempt to use logic to prove that logic is valid is circular, because the use of logic presumes that logic is valid.C1: It is impossible to use logic to prove that logic is valid.P3: Any attempt to use illogic to prove that logic is valid is inherently contradictory.C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.C3: Because of P1, C1, and C2, there is no possible argument that can prove that logic is valid.As a result, no matter how self-evident logic seems or how well it is supported by the evidence, we cannot prove that logic is valid because such arguments are logical and therefore circular. Since it is impossible to be certain that logic is valid, and since all knowledge is dependent on the validity of logic, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that knowledge is true. Consequently, knowledge cannot exist, since any knowledge would be based on the uncertain assumption that logic is valid.
So what do you think? I'm guessing we all agree that logic is valid, but do you think it's possible to prove that logic is valid? Is my reasoning correct, or does it have a flaw(s)?
In other words, can we prove logic is valid, or do we just have to assume that it's valid out of necessity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
There are several flaws in your logic. Firstly, you are asserting that your definition of belief is the only valid definition, which is not true. According to Merriam-Webster, there are three definitions, including this one:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
By this definition, belief and knowledge are not exclusive. It is possible to believe something that you know. Your previous refutation of this is that belief is uncertainty, so you can't be uncertain of something that you know. However, this is using your definition to prove your definition. If belief requires uncertainty, then belief and knowledge are exclusive. However, if belief does not require uncertainty, then they are not exclusive. Your logic is as follows:
A: Belief requires uncertainty, so belief and knowledge are exclusive.
B: According to definition X, belief does not require uncertainty, so they are not exclusive.
A: That definition is wrong because belief requires uncertainty.
You are using your definition to prove itself. This is circular.
Secondly, even if belief does require uncertainty, uncertainty does not equal ignorance. Take this example:
I believe the current time is 4:03. However, I am not certain because I do not have the universal standard clock (or whatever it's called) to prove it. However, I am not ignorant of the topic, because the clock in front of me says it is 4:03. This is a reasonable, informed belief. I am not certain, but I have good evidence that I am right, so I am not ignorant.
Thirdly, it is true that to some degree I am ignorant even though I am informed on the issue because I am ignorant of the official time. However, ignorant is not the same thing as irrational. By that standard, I am ignorant of the time. However, I have good evidence that the time is 4:03 (or was, since time keeps moving as I type). As such, this is a rational belief.
You have failed to prove, except with circular reasoning, that belief requires uncertainty and that belief and knowledge are exclusive. You have failed to prove that belief is ignorance. You have failed to prove that belief is irrational. Therefore, your logic fails to undermine belief.
I also have an interesting point for you. I am going to take the position that certainty is impossible. Thus, by your definition, knowledge is impossible, and belief is the only possibility. Here is my case.
There is no way to be certain that logic is valid. We can divide any possible argument into the two categories of logical and illogical. Since anything that is not logical is by definition illogical, and vice versa, these are the only two possible categories. My argument follows inevitably from these simple and indisputable premises.
P1: Every argument is either logical or illogical.
P2: Any attempt to use logic to prove that logic is valid is circular, because the use of logic presumes that logic is valid.
C1: It is impossible to use logic to prove that logic is valid.
P3: Any attempt to use illogic to prove that logic is valid is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.
C3: Because of P1, C1, and C2, there is no possible argument that can prove that logic is valid.
As a result, no matter how self-evident logic seems or how well it is supported by the evidence, we cannot prove that logic is valid because such arguments are logical and therefore circular. Since it is impossible to be certain that logic is valid, and since all knowledge is dependent on the validity of logic, it is impossible to be absolutely certain that knowledge is true. Consequently, knowledge cannot exist, since any knowledge would be based on the uncertain assumption that logic is valid. Since knowledge cannot exist, the only possibility is what you term belief.
I am extremely interested in seeing your response to this argument.
Of course, I myself make the assumption that logic is valid, since it is impossible to make any sense of the world otherwise. However, I cannot prove that my assumption is correct, which is the point I'm making.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't think either side is generally considered more rational. I think they both consider their own side to be rational and the other side to be feelings based. Consider this:
The Left-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Right-Wing usually revolve around 'absolute morals' that they assign to a religious authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is.
Rephrase it to say, "The Right-Wing consistently based their policy on stats and reasoning. The Left-Wing usually revolve around 'social justice' that they assign to a woke authority to then call everyone who opposes it 'evil', no matter how good the opposition's reasoning is."
From the perspective of people on the right like myself, this statement seems true (although weirder because "woke authority" doesn't make as much sense as "religious authority"). I think the real trouble is that right-wingers watch too much Fox and left-wingers watch too much CNN. Whenever they see someone from the opposing side on those channels, it's usually someone who can't make a good argument and doesn't rely on facts. As a result, they perceive people from their own side as using facts and people from the other side as using feelings. Concerning the point of calling the other side "evil," both sides are equally guilty. People stop to be offended by statements that insult them but are more likely to scroll past statements insulting the other side. You see people on the right calling liberals evil. As someone on the right, I am continually seeing the left calling the right evil. Just think for a moment: Who was the last Republican president that the media didn't call a racist? Sexist? Bigot? Homophobe? Fascist? On the flip side, who was the last Democratic president that wasn't called a communist? If you think that one side is less insulting than the other, then I think that you have tunnel vision. And if you're thinking to yourself, "But they really are those things!" then you are only proving my point.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Just so you know, saying "just semiautomatics" about guns is like saying "just four-wheeled cars" about automobiles. The vast majority of civilian-owned guns in the US (85% if I remember correctly) are semiautomatic.
Created:
-->
@PaulVerliane
What illegal government are you referring to, and what does that court case have to do with illegal governments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I missed your joke and took you seriously, didn't I?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am entirely aware that no one said anything about bribery, but I'm not crazy. If you're going to set up an in-site currency, you run the risk that people will abuse it, and bribery is one of the easiest ways to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
I'm aware that could be done because you said so earlier. However, buying a higher spot in the mafia mod list is not very useful. What else could you do with it, other than use it as a bribe?
Created:
Posted in:
What is the point of this? What can I actually do with DAB other than almost useless things like buying a higher spot in the mafia mod list? Couldn't this be abused to buy votes in debates or likes for posts? Could this be used as bribes in the next HOF election?
I can think of many ways this can be abused and very few ways in which it would actually be useful.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you sure that he isn't just using the country part of his profile as a joke? I saw one person on another forum change his every day just for the fun of it.
Created:
-->
@PaulVerliane
You have not answered my question. Instead, you have gone into a rant about Singapore, a country that is significantly less socialist than China, which you claim has good policies. I repeat:
If socialism works so well, then why did capitalist Hong Kong experience far greater economic growth than China, but without having to starve and kill over 20 million people?
Created:
-->
@PaulVerliane
If socialism works so well, then why did capitalist Hong Kong experience far greater economic growth than China, but without having to starve and kill over 20 million people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
There's just one thing I don't understand about this game. Why did you kill PressF?
Created:
-->
@Vader
I ran a Greece K
What's a Greece K, and how is it different from a normal K?
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
This one time, we asked the opponents what their sources were and they said common sense. And the worst part is our team lost the debate.
That just hurts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I finally listened to the song you posted. It wasn't bad, but it's not really my style. I think what you're hearing with the singer (at least part of what you're hearing. He does have a tendency to skip notes in live performances, but usually not on their records) is actually a restrained scream. I doubt you would enjoy this song, but it does demonstrate what I'm talking about.
If you listen to it, you can very clearly hear what seems wrong about his voice: he's in a metal band that interjects screaming into their ballads.
Created:
Posted in:
Provide a link to it once you have it finished so we can listen to it, please.
Created: