Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
No, inheritance is not morally wrong. It doesn't use anybody against their will, or anything that could be really considered immoral. Making a better life for ones children was the driving incentive of many American immigrants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you know because your senses don't deceive you? How do you know your senses aren't deceiving you? How do you know your experience isn't an illusion?
You can't just say you know because you know.
You can't just say you know because you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I did answer. I don't see how it's relevant. Stop dancing around my question or let Eternlvw, who the question was originally directed towards, answer himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Like I said, just reread our messages, that's the argument you made.
I don't feel like going through my moral epistemology. I'd like an answer to my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That literally is your argument. Just reread our messages, and that's the argument you made.
I know morality isn't an illusion because I can deduce a universally true moral principle.
How do you know your experience of God isn't an illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That's how your argument flows over your last couple of messages. Maybe you have a better one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I know why I know things, therefore, my experience of God isn't an illusion? That's a non-sequitur
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You're not making a coherent argument. How do you know your experience of God isn't an illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
How do you know that your experience of God isn't merely an illusion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
The problem is that you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept. Without an empirical element to show that god exists as more than a concept in your imagination, there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
My bad, I thought you were arguing in favor of the ontological argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Define "great."
And your reconstruction is no longer a proof of the being in question
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
For one, you can't just define something into existence. For two, this "proof" is totally dependent on your subjective definition of the word "great." Finally, the word God can be replaced with literally any other noun and be equally as invalid as an argument for that things existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Democracies are governments that are bottom up. That's still a government.
The only qualifier of anarchism is the absence of a state. If there's a state, it isn't anarchism
The only qualifier of anarchism is the absence of a state. If there's a state, it isn't anarchism
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I studied anarchism intensively for several years, so I'm well aware of most of the arguments.
A confederated democracy raising a professional army (probably through taxes, but you didn't say), is a state. If a state is handling a professional army and a judicial system, then that isn't anarchism solving those problems.
A confederated democracy raising a professional army (probably through taxes, but you didn't say), is a state. If a state is handling a professional army and a judicial system, then that isn't anarchism solving those problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There isn't a practical way to raise capital and solidarity for a organized army without a government. If you have an idea, I'm apt to hear it.
A judicial system is necessary to settle disputes between citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I spent several years delving into pretty much every theory of anarchism, and none of them can account for the problem of foreign armies, or the need for a judicial system with any practical solutions. I would also say they can't account for a system of policing, but that's a slightly more tentative claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Welcome back.
I used to also be an anarchist, but now I think governments are necessary to protect people from foreign armies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I was shooting for something I figured would be less, but 0 is better than what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not really sure. There isn't a single good answer I'm aware of, because depending on how wealthy one is, the matter of a number amount vs a percentage amount becomes the issue. For someone with ten million, I'd say like 15%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Estate taxes ruin incentives for people to build inter-generational wealth. Making a better life for your kids drives many peoples ambitions today the same way it did in the past.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That's right unemployment is not a bug of capitalism but a feature. Without a steady supply of unemployed workers to draw on the work force might be able to negotiate from a position of strength. These scab workers are necessary to keep the wealthy in power
I believe this is what marx called the reserve army of labor. Its an advantage businesses have in the struggle with the workers over the definition of a subsistence wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, but 1 doesn't change it's meaning as a symbol. 1+1=2 no matter what specific thing the 1 is symbolic of.
In all cases, If we define a one meter long wood piece as 1 unit of wood, then a 0.5 meter long piece will always be 1/2 of a piece, unless the definitions are changed mid-problem
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If half a piece of timber equals 0.5 timber, then 1+0.5+0.5=2 pieces of timber.
Either 1=1 or 1=0.5
If 1=1 then 3+3=6
You can change that outcome only by redefining a term, which you keep trying to do by redefining the number 1
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
2.5 doesn't equal 3 if you define half of 1 as 0.5, which you did.
So your proof is flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
numbers are only necessarily rigorous when they can be individually appreciated as units of 1.
We can rigorously define fractions and decimals. Show me how 3+3=6 without changing the definition of any of the terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you have one piece of timber, and one piece of timber, and one piece of timber, you will always have three pieces of timber. If you cut one of those pieces in half, you will now have four pieces of timber. At no point do the rigorous definitions of numbers stop applying. If you redefine the numbers to mean something they don't mean then you haven't actually proven that 3+3 can equal not 6, you just redefined the terms to mean that, Even though nobody on earth means the same thing as you when they say the number "3"
1+1+1=3 is true because of the principles of math, and math is a way of shorthanding reality. We don't want to say one timber, one timber, and one timber; We want to say three timbers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When I click the corner of the ad, it says "adchoice"
Created:
Posted in:
What is the best piece of evidence that the 2020 election was fraudulent? And how has that evidence been addressed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, to qualify for ads the posts of members like Mesmer and Wylted will need to be removed, even some of my rap battle lyrics may need to be censored.
The site already has ads
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it's a concept in the mind, 3+3=6 and can't equal anything else, right?
Math is a way of shorthanding reality. 3 + 3 will always equal 6 because "3" is rigorously defined. If you redefine it to mean something else, then we're not talking about the same thing anymore
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Photons don't radiate light. Theyre corpuscles of light waves
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well I'm asking how do you calculate how much tuition they should qualify for if you don't know how drastically different their incomes will be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
What if two people get philosophy degrees, one flips burgers for $12,000 a year, and one makes $2 million a year as a life coach? how do you determine how much tuition that a should be paid up for before they graduate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I have not been shown any compelling evidence that the election was fraudulent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's always going to be two cats in the box, the superposition of states applies to whether or not the cat is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Communism is a theoretical goal...
Marx and Engels believed that socialism was a bridgehead into communism. But in the USSR and everywhere else pretty much, once there was a socialist regime with people in power, those people did not willingly give up their power for a communist state. In Stalin's case he tried to create a state communist state, which is just socialism. Countries never leave socialism and become communist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
When has any government ever tried honestly tried to make everybody share everything?
Soviet union probably came the closest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
Mods use ip addresses to target alt accounts I believe
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm talking about the value of the money, not the existence of the money itself, although many governments have historically minted currencies.
The value of a currency can be heavily affected by government policy.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The value of money is maintained by the will of the people not the government...
Since the conversion from the gold standard to floating exchange rates, supply and demand determine currency value more than ever, but governments set those policies.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think this is only a problem with safety equipment manufacturers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You're misunderstanding me. Im not romanticizing anything lol, you get too carried away man. I'm just trying to explain why everyone assumes every aggressive troll is wylted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
It's a witch hunt for sure. All I'm saying is that people here think every aggressive troll is wylted bc the community is small and wylted is the troll everyone has experience with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
It's really more of a troll phenomenon. Everyone just expects wylted to be every aggressive troll because that's the sites experience. I guarantee that if the site had 10,000 users, wylted would just be one of the trolls, rather than THE Boogeyman troll.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
How is any of that evidence for a god?
You don't know that what you're seeing is supernatural.
NDE's happened to Hindus, that doesn't make them evidence of the Hindu gods existence. People hallucinate when they're about to die.
How do you know that a person is being possessed by a demon?
Entropy decreasing in the universe is not indicative of a God.
We know that humans evolved. If you want to think of us as meat robots that's okay, But it seems like we can choose with some freedom, within the bounds of our evolution.
All intelligent design arguments are fallacious.
Created: