Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Being able to choose freely means that you have an actual choice between two or more options, and not just the illusion of choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Free will is not randomness. If you have the ability to choose freely, then you have the ability to choose otherwise than one does. Therefore, if your decision is determined, even if you have reasons to choose one thing over another, you did not choose it freely because you had no other choice, only the illusion of choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well thanks, it's from the StEcPhil entry on compatibalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Free will and determinism are incompatible. Consider the standard incompatiblist argument:
1: If Free will is true, then one has the ability to choose otherwise.
2: It determinism is true, one does not have the ability to choose otherwise.
3. Therefore, Free will and determinism are incompatible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Excellent, just let me know. Like I said, I'm willing to tackle any of these reasons with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Interesting, I was also raised in a christian home, and studied this stuff for years, but came to the opposite conclusion. Are you interested in debating any of these topics? I am prepared for all of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Marx distinguished the working class from the capitalist class by the need to work out of economic necessity. So if you are a worker, but your stocks earn enough that you aren't working out of economic necessity, then you are part of the capitalist class.
Communism necessarily doesn't have a state. So characterizing state socialism as communism is a false comparison.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
There are worker owned businesses. Marx saw it as an injustice that people must, from economic necessity, allow their labor to be exploited in a bastardized version of what was formerly an artisan or craftsman's way to make a living. A country that seizes the means of production is a socialist country. Marx saw socialism as a step in the road to communism but state socialism ended in lots of death. Communism only works in small groups of like minded people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're talking about socialism, where the state controls the means of production. In communism, the workers control the mean of production. There is no forced seizure of property required. Those in a commune choose what to give the commune, if it's an anarchist commune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Communism isn't about ensuring everyone has exactly the same but providing for everyone what they need. Marx thought the marketplace was an economic eden, where men traded as equals, instead of subjugated to factory work out of economic necessity for subsistence pay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
In theory there is no government. That would be a ruling class. Communism is possible in small groups of like minded people
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm no ancom, but communism Is necessarily anarchistic, because it's a classless system
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well our experience can be manipulated by changing the physiology of the brain. How do you account for that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
At one level of analysis, it is particle interactions. At a different level of analysis, it is system interactions. But it doesn't appear that the reduction actually ever goes to anything non-physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Just because two things share the quality of being composed of atoms does not mean that they share the quality of having thoughts. You're making a composition fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
While there's a bunch of ways to check leg kicks, it is more technically sound to check leg kicks with the bonier part of the shin towards the bottom. Less soft, and hurts the opponent more. Shin conditioning isn't about toughening muscle, but instead toughening the bone itself through the process of microfractures and the subsequent repair, the bone heals back stronger until Muay thai fighters have weapons for shins.
The technique you're referring to, where the kick is met higher on the shin, towards the knee, is a way of checking body kicks. It's an innate problem with how high up the leg has to go in order to check a body kick with the shin.
The 'knee-kick' is much more of a Krav Maga move.
Not sure if you're referring to the "high check", kicking the actual knee, or striking with the knee.
Tae Kwon Do, Karate and Kung Fu aim to avoid leg-to-leg kicking as they want to use the legs to kick the upper body at crucial points, in general.
As a green belt in TKD, I can confirm that leg kicks are not allowed in sparring, which was always a hindrance imo. However, they teach you to kick with the foot, which I can say from experience, and from watching many fights, is a bad idea. In TKD sparring I used to hurt my foot on the opponent's elbow when throwing body kicks; and in actual fighting, I bruised and swelled my foot badly from accidentally striking the opponent's knee with a round kick that I landed with the top of my foot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah the same distribution occurs in BJJ, most people don't get past blue belt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
In any competitive arena, most people are going to fall in the middle of the distribution.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'm not a conservative, but I can't get on board because I don't think any person is entitled to the product of another person's labor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
It seems to me that a necessary precondition of thought is time within which to have that thought. It can't be the other way around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Because I'm having the thought in time. Having a thought necessitates the time within which to have it. Which means that there is an external world where time exists; at least the now moment within which I'm having this thought exists.
Created:
Posted in:
If I can know for certainty that I think, then that necessarily means that I am thinking in time, since I am having the thought now. The act of thinking necessarily implies an external world where time exists within which I may have a thought. Therefore, I can know with the same certainty that I think, that there is an external world to my thought that at least has time.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Doesn't it actually help you to be able to predict portions of your opponents arguments? Extra time to craft rebuttals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong because it falsley assumes that particles do not have mass until they are observed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Have you considered the possibility that you might just be wrong on the issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Varrack
In order to avoid this problem, I specifically state the resolution my opponent will be arguing in the description.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Well if he says "yes" then he's lying, and if he says "no" hes lying lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If it's the christian god: "Why would you rather let the holocaust happen than just help your chosen people?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Pineapple.
Let me just stop you right there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
We make our pizza at home, but I like classic pepperoni. Sometimes we will make a thin crust cooked well done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
How do you interpret these images to say that the Earth is flat?
By retreating into conspiracy theories, duh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Because they feel too "cowardly" or "weak" to kill themselves. Do they cut themselves to avoid pain?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What about suicidal people that cut themselves because in all their despair, they don't care about their life or their well being, they just consider themselves too weak to commit suicide. Do you consider those people to value their personal comfort and their lives? And is that action functionally indistinguishable from them valuing their own life?
People don't eat and breathe in a vacuum, where that's all that they think and do. And plenty of suicidal people don't value avoiding pain.
People don't eat and breathe in a vacuum, where that's all that they think and do. And plenty of suicidal people don't value avoiding pain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're joking right? Its pretty normal for suicidal people to consider themselves too weak to commit suicide, and thus, continue on living. Starving to death is painful, and one can be both afraid to die and not value their own life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just because someone doesn't value being alive; that doesn't mean they aren't going to engage in basic biological necessities. Many don't commit suicide for a myriad of reasons (pain of death, personal "weakness", etc.). But not commiting suicide does not necessarily mean that one values ones own life.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
Possible, sure. Just hard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think one major problem is that this ethic can't apply to people who don't care about being alive. If someone doesn't care about being alive, does that permit them to use people as instruments?
All hypothetical imperatives have the problem, where if their IF principle is rejected, then they can opt out of being moral. Hypothetical imperatives will always suffer from this arbitrariness in the moral sphere.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Methodological Naturalism doesn't exclude the possibility of a supernatural, It's just a method of investigating the natural. There has been proposed no way in history of investigating or confirming the existence of the supernatural so an inductive enterprise like science just can't investigate the supernatural because there's nothing that has been shown to exist that can be investigated. Nobody is accepting scientism here. But an inductive enterprise like science doesn't need a foundation outside of itself like you claim it does, simply because it is inductive.
The question what caused the big bang, is evidently an incoherent question because time didn't exist before the Big Bang. You might as well be asking what's the north of the north pole, The question has no meaning. And shoehorning God in as an "explanation" really just begs the question of the supernatural's existence, which has no evidence. I could replace the word God in any of the aquinal arguments with FSM, and you would have to consider that a valid argument for the flying spaghetti monster's existence. I on the other hand would reject that argument as being not evidenced. In other words if your argument can be used for any God then it is not actually an argument for your God.
Lawyers don't have to have the truth on their side, they're only job is to construct a convincing case, and that doesn't mean truth has to be involved. Look at the OJ trial.
A scientific model starts with an investigation into the natural. That is not the same as presupposing the natural is all that exist which would be conflating ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism. The scientific method is methodological naturalism. They're falsifiability is a testament to their honesty, and allows them to be extended to incorporate new data or replaced with a new model that incorporates all the known data better. Most importantly though, because science is inductive, models have to make novel future testable predictions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It seems to arbitrarily assign being alive as "the good" in this moral framework.
Suppose there's a trolley going down a track, heading towards 5 people. The track forks into three Lanes: Jim on the left, the five in the middle, and a single person on the right. Jim is near a lever to avert the track. Let's assume Jim has already decided to avert the track from the five, and that he knows with certainty, the result of his choice to divert the track. Is Jim:
A) morally obligated to kill the stranger?
B) morally permitted, but not obligated, to kill the stranger?
C) morally prohibited from killing the stranger?
Created: