Total posts: 4,920
Thank you
Yeah sure.Don't you mean, "traditional family values and cultural pride"?
Don't you mean, worker's rights, labor unions, employee owned businesses, and social safety-nets?
Nope. I don't accept this to be a communist idea. All of what you said relies on a capitalist framework. If we were working under a communist framework if it was working optimally everyone would be equal meaning there is no need for unions, co-ops or social safety nets.
Don't you mean, "individual sovereignty"?
Complete individual sovereignty whatever that is worth.
What institutions do you consider "highly regarded"?
Public education, government and trusted new sources. I guess private education as well but it would have to conform to what we know currently so no to Religious schools.
This seems slightly FASCIST.
Define fascism.
Created:
Copyright
If you can accomplish that in 20 years, you deserve what you get.
Okay. So your aim for the patent being 20 years is to give people enough time to capitalize on their discovery? What is your previous to that? Reduce harm, give people what they deserve or make sure individuals are free to do what they like?
The most profitable drugs are designed to treat patients without curing them.
Given the need and willing people to buy the cure I don't need to be the most profitable by not curing them. I already addressed this and the other claims your brought up in my hypothetical. If it wasn't clear I will continually reduce prices until every single person with cancer has the cure. Effectively removing the market.
A corporation is made up of people. I don't believe a company should have the right to strip their employee's of any and all rights to their creativity.
What if the employee agreed to be paid out? Are you saying the employee does not have the right to exert his will to sign a contract to give away his part in the invention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So if the place is good people should buy it instead of renting it, Why?Unsure. It depends heavily on the property. If the place is good, I would allow more rent then if the place is terrible. I don't think of this so my answers are on the spot, but I´d rather make sure the price gets approved by someone before rent is allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Big trueFourth Reason: Nothing in it for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Some rent control is necessary
What do you mean by some?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
<br>
This things comes up sometimes when I have post a comment but never typed that. Can you fix it?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Thank you
Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem.Well stated.
That would be a reason why I would be for censorship. There are too many idiots to allow stuff like white supremacy, communism and anarchy to be associated with the highly regarded institutions. I don't believe in that in the market of ideas if we allow everything in we will get the best ideas out. That is some straight BS. If that was the case everyone would be neo-liberals but I don't hear about how much we are going to spend on helping immigrants settle in instead I hear about protectionist policies from people like Bernie who does have a chance of winning and from a current president Trump (bring back jobs slogan).
I am okay with them being part of historical record but when I hear historical revisionism or people advocating for these ideas they should be punished. If there is a socialist professor remove his status as an authority on the subject. If there is a person advocating it on the streets have the person jailed for being a public nuisance. If the person is praying to Stalin in private, I don't care until he decides to bring other people to support what they are doing as well.
Copyright
The minimum 1% (or whatever they can negotiate) would be split between all patent/copyright holders.
What if a party involved was a corporation who gave the funding to make this happen?
Because it is a reasonable amount of time to build a business (and reward you for your innovation)
I can agree with this.
but not enough time for you to retire for life (and for your children and grandchildren to retire for life) and revert to generations of pure rent-seeking (monopoly-seeking) behavior (like disney).
Well what if I invented the cure for cancer? I have 20 years to milk everyone dry of there money. Nearing the end I can continue to drop prices until every single person has the cure. At that point I would have accumulated so much wealth to reward my innovation but no one after 20 years will have any customers to sell what I created. I effectively created a market and ended it in 20 years. What do you think?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic-Zombie
If you are capable of speech you are capable of logically-coherent-skepticism.
Capable doesn't mean the person is going to do it. I could be capable to be a gardener but I have no real interest in it. What would make them want to be a logic zombie?
Most people are skeptical about at least one thing. That makes a good starting point to build common-ground.
That would be under the assumption the person is willing to contest that point and will take your point seriously?
I don't think a Religious person would just accept what you say if they are skeptical about priests fucking kids. Yeah sure you can prove that certain priests have but they can say well that doesn't reject what I believe in. I was just curious.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Censorship
What are you so afraid of?
People making the world bad but think they are doing good. Alex Jones lied about Sandy Hook. Doubting the very thing that gives us information. The government and the media. Now you can have healthy skepticism about what you read but I know for a fact that people who believed Alex Jones actually don't care about what is good or bad ideas just if my Jesus said it is or isn't. I think when people have too much freedom they tend to not use it to the best of their ability instead restrict themselves on what they like through no fault of their own.
An AXIOM is the basic building block of a Sound-Logical-Statement.
You told me what it is used for not what it means. Basically asking because I found variations of it in just 1 definition.
I reject the myth of the "noble lie" wholesale.
I don't think it is noble to do anything. I am merely saying I think knowing certain things is worse than lying to not bring less desirable consequences. This would be a white lie but I can give the most extreme example if you want.
Only private-citizens should have iron-clad privacy.
Does this apply to Harvey Weinstein where he sexually assaulted women? He did do things privately but should he have iron-clad privacy?
Created:
Censorship
Do you accept the consequences that can happen?How is this not obvious.
It's a primary AXIOM.Human rights must begin with a right to one's own person.
Can you define axiom?
You didn't say anything about this:
Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?
It is a hypothetical. Do you think there is information too dangerous to know about?
I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing. If we want our media and politicians and corporate overlords to be HONEST, then we need to be HONEST about EVERYTHING.
Do you care if information can lead to harm?
Oh and this part:
While I agree that drawing a bright line between FACT and OPINION is priority #1,What is your plan on resolving this?By explaining it to as many people as I can.Quanta = verifiable REAL-TRUE-FACTS and or what is logically necessary (TAUTOLOGY).Quanta are necessarily Emotionally-meaningless.Qualia = personal, private, experiential, imaginary, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, gnostic knowledge and OPINION.Qualia are necessarily Emotionally-meaningful.
You already gave an answer to the question I gave.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Logic-Zombie
I've been a LOGICZOMBIE for about 3 years now and I've converted at least 3 people that I know of.
How much time did you spend with them and do you think your asking too much from all/most/some people? The / is whatever you decide to choose.
Explain to them what epistemological limits are and logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority".
How about people who have disdain to things they don't understand therefore don't actually take what you said to heart?
I would tell them that they are super intelligent for not trusting any information they can't verify logically.
They can say back I don't care about logic only God or something essentially that whether it be good or bad faith. What do you have to say to that?
Most adults I've interacted with believe their views are (mostly) logical.
What if they say whatever is valid is what God says? Example: Mopac.
If I demonstrate that a 10-year-old can do it, this demonstration strongly implies that if they spend a little time practicing, they can probably do it as well.
How about people who are not able to do so? Disabled people, working all day etc.
Given the adult is also older you would have to convince to them why they should do this instead of with a kid who just listens to their parents. How are you going to convince them?
When you understand that these are logical fallacies and recognize that each claim must stand on its own merit, that's a game-changer.
Okay. I have already asked a similar question, I was going to put here, above so no point in asking it again.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Copyright
I would propose that these copyrights and patents cannot be owned (only licensed) by corporations, but can only be owned by the original inventors with a minimum of 1% of all profits derived from the copyright and or patent required to go directly to the original inventor (or their family and or heirs) for a time period NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS. At which point the copyright and or patent becomes 100% PUBLIC-DOMAIN.
So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?
Why 20 years again?
My problem is what I made a while back when thinking about it.
Here:
"20 years is a long time. A company can simply create a plan to use measures to seize control of the market it when the patent is broken so that only large corporations are able to compete or actually make it competitive. Meaning small businesses would still be screwed.
From this do you find things that I have missed which make what I said nullified?
I think I also gave problems that you considered positives so I don't think you should be annoyed if I didn't speak about all the claims you brought up.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Censorship
So people should be allowed to associate with Alex Jones?Private citizens acting in a private capacity should have absolute and inalienable rights to their person and home and data-privacy.
Where does this "inalienable rights" come from?
Are you suggesting that medical research should be secret?
It is a hypothetical. Do you think there is information too dangerous to know about?
I'm not sure what "problem" you're describing. If we want our media and politicians and corporate overlords to be HONEST, then we need to be HONEST about EVERYTHING.
Do you care if information can lead to harm?
I would propose that these copyrights and patents cannot be owned (only licensed) by corporations, but can only be owned by the original inventors with a minimum of 1% of all profits derived from the copyright and or patent required to go directly to the original inventor (or their family and or heirs) for a time period NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEARS. At which point the copyright and or patent becomes 100% PUBLIC-DOMAIN.
So one person instead of multiple people? What if it was a joint effort into lets creating AI? Who gets sole ownership to the invention?
Why 20 years again?
My
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
By spreading the word, and by living as a LOGICZOMBIE.
What would be like the turnover?
Example for every 1 logiczombie there is x amount of people becoming one as well.
People endlessly moan about "lies-in-the-media" and "untrustworthy-politicians" and "hate-speech" but all of these are just RED-HERRINGS.
What do you do about people who value opinions over facts because they have a mistrust over highly regarded institutions?
We need to explain to these people that sifting FACT from FICTION is EASY.
A person can simply come back to and say, are you calling me stupid for not conforming to your worldview?
I've seen 10-year-olds do it.
10 year olds are more malleable than grown adults. I can't imagine how an adult would be able to commit to a career change for being in it for a long time so I can't imagine a Religious person pretty much saying well most of my life is in vain. I think it is a difficult pill to swallow. If it wasn't clear I was speaking about majority of cases. I'll try and find a link.
Spotting logical fallacies is literally child's-play.
Saying this doesn't help them understand. You are basically saying they are worse than children or implying that to be so.
This single activity will dismantle government corruption and corporate corruption and media lies.
If everyone made a good faith approach to it then I would say yes but how do you get people to do that? Don't talk about kids more so Republicans, Religious folk and lefties as well (commies and socialists).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
While I agree that drawing a bright line between FACT and OPINION is priority #1,
What is your plan on resolving this?
Secret information is the rotten-core that allows corruption to thrive.
Do you think no information should be gated?
Example of something I would use is what if science has researched all possible ways in finding a cure for a cancer but ultimately failed. Should science have a duty to come out and say we haven't found a cure for cancer pretty much saying to a lot of people, you can't live healthy lives while also impacting the people that care about them.
The simple way of my argument would be:
A can harm the public if they know.
They should be strictly limited to 20 years.
Is this arbitrary or do you have reasoning for why it should be 20 years?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You know this is pivotal to win the information with zero censorship right?that everyone needs to be able to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION so we don't get herded like sheep by the mass-media
I think everyone's ability to use LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION is more important that zero censorship. Without LOGIC to clearly distinguish between FACT and OPINION you have what is going on now. People supporting communism and nazism. Even though I think cenorship is bad if people knew what was fact and opinion it wouldn't be a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Do you accept that you are advocating for rent control?If landlords were required to reduce their prices by the property tax amount, then it basically saves the poor person money. The hard part would be forcing them to do it, but companies often obey the law, otherwise many legal workers would get paid less than minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
The argument is that God cannot be simultaneously omnibenevolent and omnipotent. So it doesn’t “imply” it, it’s from the definition of God this argument uses.
Okay. Thought you were talking about a different omni.
The argument has many problems, in my view, and I’d recommend searching for those problems on Google Scholar instead of asking me, since my explanations are probably pretty bad.
Any links you have in mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Isn't this implying God is good?
Is that the problem with the argument? You did disagree with the first paragraph
Thank you for simplifying it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
P1) P(G ∩ S) = 0P2) P(S) = 1C) Therefore, P(G) = 0
I have never seen shapes likes those. Can you put this into words?
What is “gratuitous puzzlement.”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
Please simple words.
Are you saying the argument doesn't fail?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Pollsters don't usually poll on nitty gritty details of healthcare reform.
Using this doesn't, I am implying, support your Bernie support. If you actually want me to take seriously that Medicare for all is what people want then bring a poll.
His plan has actually already been proven to be effective
Okay tell me how Bernie's plan is even effective when he hasn't even been elected and it is unlikely for that to occur?
I am saying that people want the fundamental problems in the system to be fixed. They want their lives to get better. At the moment, many just want to beat trump and they think Biden is best to do that. But since he won't actually fix the problems that got trump elected, it would be a disaster if he won.
Poll. If all you have is your opinion. Just say it and we will move on.
Well his healthcare plan is to essentially let private companies take all the profit from providing healthcare.
Tell me Pete's plan again.
Just like Obama care was a right wing plan created by a right wing think tank.
So the creation of something means it will forever be on that side? Meaning Obamacare is a right wing plan because its first relevant came by Republicans? If this is a no then tell me your actual reason for calling it right wing.
Here is a recent south carolina poll. He got less than 1% support from black people in a state where like 65% of the electorate are black. An average might put him 1% or 2% higher. But this guy has no attraction to black people. He can't win the primary and he likely couldn't beat trump either.
So you are a liar then?
"But he polls at like 0% among black people"
Nothing you says defends the statement I made so I am guessing you are intentionally not speaking about the point. I will keep bringing it up until you won about lying about Pete's approval with black people. After that then we can talk about his support with black people.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what the people want
What do people want? Polls will help.
His plan has actually already been proven to be effective
Whose plan?
What plan (populist plan)?
Trump and sanders' popularity has proven that the people don't want to "return to normal".
Are you saying Biden is less popular than Bernie?
If they wanted that then Hilary would have won.
I am going to let this slide.
economically right
Policy proposal please.
0% among black people so he has no chance of winning.
Is it unfair to lie about a candidate. I guarantee at least 1 black person supports Pete so why are you lying about this? This is intentional because I don't believe for a second you actually think he has 0% black support.
Can you source the Iowa poll as well or do you want me too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I’m an atheist, but I think New Atheism is mostly dumb
Truuuuuu
there’s a good chance religion is a net positive for society
Depends on how you define it.
(e.g., the omnipotence paradox, the problem of evil, the second order problem of evil, the contradiction between omniscience and free will, some of the more apparently sophisticated arguments of people like the late Michael Martin and the late Victor Stenger) fail
Explain the evil one.
(though the same is true of most common arguments for God’s existence, e.g., the kalam cosmological argument, the various versions of “ontological arguments,” the teleological argument and its variants, the Leibnizian cosmological argument, the argument from religious experience, and so on).
I am guessing this is a both sides meme.
I probably won’t respond to anything on this thread, but in case you’re interested in discussing with others. This also isn’t a strong opinion or one I’ve thought about too deeply.
Okay.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Does Bernie?
This is relevant.
How about Biden?
It is relevant because it about comparing her to them.
That she knows perfectly well that the outcome will be Pete's plan
I didn't know how much I liked him before reading the article.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I doubt Bernie would lead a revolution, but I see your point.
Well yeah but with people like Trump and Bernie, can lead to much worse political outcomes. If people think it is the norm to be well not-professional during their presidency then the next Republican might very well joke about white supremacy. If Trump was allowed to say what he did without meaningful consequences then that can lead to a revolutionary democrat spouting faleshoods about communism which can lead to normalization of it.
It's just highly unlikely.
Well yeah. I doubt even a recession can make that happen.
Such as?
I am finding this on Nick Fuentes's twitter. I remember seeing other people defend him but don't remember their names.
https://twitter.com/ScottMGreer/status/1197006607110021120 (Basically supporting him on free speech grounds while not acknowledging his ideas)
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1196928151881805825 (Thinks the problem with him is that he is way too offensive)
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/1196849391564312576 (Even though she has been fired she still has 2.9 million followers)
https://twitter.com/ZoomerClips/status/1196671999252127745 (I think on the left they support his free speech. On the right they don't)
I think that should be enough. The last counts for a lot of people but no links to the tweets or videos but I guess it wouldn't be too difficult to find.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I wouldn't know how they would able to sue for this. Just don't call it BIG issues. Call it views. Have less than DDO so both the name of the thing and the bulk of it are different. You can also add momentary views which change and are altered depending on what is going on. If Brexit is still as relevant as now as lets when this is going to be implemented have that as an issue that people speak about. If another mass shooting occurs ask people what do you think should happen. This can be adjusted according to user activity. If you find out barely anyone uses it. You can have it changed every 3 months or if there is a lot of activity then every week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I am guessing it is but very realistic. Only 2 and 5 need to be removed to be comparable to actual internet dialogue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
1.) Do background research on your opponents’ position by finding lots of memes that reinforce your worldview.
I remember doing this.
2.) Set your Caps Lock key to ATTACK.
Pretty cringe but to each their own.
3.) Start off by comparing them to mass murderers, preferably Hitler.
I remember doing this and remember other people doing this. I don't think I do this anymore.
4.) Brutalize your opponent, then when they hit back, claim you’re a protected, marginalized class and therefore immune to criticism.
Pretty cringe if you ask me but this is an easy of pretty much winning any argument just with optics. Basically discussing the n-word with a black guy.
5.) Hold your enemies to the most stringent moral standard while you yourself sling insults like a middle schooler.
I think this is pretty shitty. I don't think I have done this since I am pretty much clear with what I say but others well. It is for you to decide.
6.) Keep in view your real goal: grandstanding to get lots of likes on your replies, not to seriously engage your ideological foes’ worldviews
Wish I had that attitude. It would be so fun to say I am better than you.
7.) Finally, hit ’em with a condescending GIF.
This has got to be a niche one. Not cool random site on the internet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It was not the same question, and your answers contradicted each other.
Clearly don't know what you are talking about but hey see ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
you can always look up the OECD report yourself.
I don't know what is going on but OECD seems like it is underfunded. The look of it so old-fashioned. I find it difficult to read it.
Actually, he did in the first sentence of the third paragraph.
I have to pay to read the entire thing.
I just don't see how income inequality could cause a revolt in the US without some other extenuating circumstance.
If your feelings out of touch with society people like Trump, Bernie can revolutionize you into doing something about it. When people were being displaced because jobs were being moved to other countries Trump had the best time to lie to them that he will get your jobs back. The thing is he can't unless he is a dictator. From what I heard nothing in the constitution allows him to do this and he hasn't brought jobs back. If Trump was able to vote for on that basis Bernie, Spencer etc can lie to people to get what they want.
it's hard to motivate people to get off their couches and away from their televisions to revolt over Jeff Bezos being too rich when they actually have couches and televisions in the first place.
Don't think that is true. Eventually with enough time people sitting watching TV will eventually find something to motivate them. This can be FOX news which can lead them to a path of extremer views.
Possible, but I think that's more of a highly vocal minority than a serious threat - so far. That could change.
Minority from a majority white country is still a lot of people.
However, there has been plenty of pushback on the right against people like him.
Steve king comes to mind. Link: " but after a January 2019 interview in which he questioned the negative connotations of the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacy",[13] he was widely condemned by both parties, the media and public figures, and the Republican Steering Committee removed him from all House committee assignments.[14]"
Here's one example of a prominent conservative organization firing a member for backing Fuentes
I am sure there was other people backing Fuentes who weren't rejected on the right given I think they used free speech as a defense. Mainly right wing media.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If I was that annoyed I wouldn't have been answering the same questions over and over again.Lol. Really? It didn't seem so, but OK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
ETHANG5'S QUOTE OF THROWING IN THE TOWEL AND GIVING UP: "Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end. Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable."
Pretty funny actually.
Ethang5 reminds me of one of those guys who shout, "somebody hold me back!!" When they don't really want to fight, but are ashamed for people to know that they are yellow.
Basically an internet tough guy.
He keeps begging you to quit. Lol.
You can tell with the same question he gives over an over again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I demonstrated by your answers that you were unfair and irrational.
You appealed to emotion the entire way through meaning instead of "logically" demonstrating my positions were unfair or irrational you did what you said I did, acting unfair and irrational. Here is a list of unfair and irrational comments made by you:
Subject 1: If we decided that raping babies was moral, would it be moral?
Subject 2: So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Subject 3: Do you rape babies?
Subject 4: So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Subject 5: Would you rape a dead body?
Subject 6: Would you punish him for sex with a 14 year old?
Subject 7: Would you have opposed Hitler or surrendered to him to avoid harm to others?
Your moral system is bad by your own standard because it causes suffering for others as you seek to maximize your personal happiness.
"On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right"
I have not claimed objectivity.
To even argue against my position you would have to appeal to objectivity but guess you don't understand that. I know it must be difficult and you are certainly not making it even more probable.
The justification was logic. You have not addressed it.
You can't use logic when logic disagrees. You are basically saying cause and effect works but not for God. Actually illogical. Do I need to remind you of the definition of the word logic because you were far from it in this conversation?
You cannot address it so you pretend to be obtuse.
Please I answered yes and no from the start yet you had so many nonsensical questions. Your gotcha's were actually terrible. You didn't understand my position yet you carried on make the same mistake over and over again with appeal to emotions.
So you' wanting me to have the same standard for different things is illogical
Yet another misuse of the word illogical. Who would've thought a person crying about liberals being wrong comes out so uneducated.
I think I've demonstrated that your moral system is unfair and irrational, and that you have no defense for why it is so.
It is like talking to a child. When you answer the question. They ask another one. It goes until the grown up decides to stop answering. Realizing how little was learnt from the exchange. I kept repeating the same thing but you still wanted to ask questions about things I have already told you. You might have a reading problem or an understanding problem. It wouldn't be surprising.
If your moral system was coherent, you would not now be running away from questions and pretending not to see arguments against it.
Please refer right at the top. Where I give countless examples of you asking same questions but in different contexts. It kinda gets boring when you don't even try to put up a coherent point against my coherent system.
Now that you've stopped answering questions, and I do not want to be interrogated, our time on this subject has come to an end.
Well all I have to say is this was an actual waste of time. You have shown to be irrational, can't answer simple questions, don't want to justify your beliefs yet you say it to me as if the writing doesn't speak for itself. It is almost as if you are deflecting and can't actually defend your position because of how flimsy they are. I wish you were educated but I think that is asking too much when you have word liberal stuck in your throat for anything good in the world.
Thanks for your time. It was enjoyable.
Feelings mutual because it was one hell of a laugh. I didn't think someone could ask so many questions but here we are deflection andy just can't stop not realizing the faults as a person and projects it back to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am going to make this simple.
Morality
For you to be in a position to question my morality you would need to appeal to an objective standard. If you don't then your claim that "It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have." has no bearing. In order for you to even attempt to do that present your moral system but first tell me how it is objective.
God
"TRN: You have no justification in reality for this.
ethang5: Sure I do."
If it wasn't clear nothing you said after this provides a point for God. You say " The logical concept of creator and creation is seen everyday" but then don't bother to acknowledge the double standard you commit with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is your objection to this:
If all human beings do not have intrinsic value (equal worth) anything can be justified.
justified part mainly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
First, there is a difference between moral good and preference and you confuse the difference.
I don't see a difference.
I like ice-cream. Does that mean you SHOULD like ice-cream too?
If you like it as well sure.
Does that mean if you do not like ice-cream you should be put in jail or executed?
If you harming people's ability to eat ice cream then sure. I think would be harassment or violence depending on what occurs.
Morality, on the other hand, is a prescription and what everyone should do.
They should do whatever makes them happy while not harming others.
All three of these "goods" harm the person and may indirectly harm others too. Yet, if they did not, would you say these are "good" since the person doing them thinks they are good.
Yes if they are not harming others. If I do accept the drugs to be against my morality then I open up way more than I lose.
If you love someone you will not murder them, steal from them, covet something they have, lie to them, commit adultery on them, dishonour them.
How do you have the ability of love?
Why do I have to think the same way you do?
My system is not me saying you should be playing video games. It is do whatever it is that makes you happy without harming others.
What if someone else thinks their pleasure is the greatest good and they don't think that hurting people is off-limits as long as they achieve their goals.
It would be a different system. A person is doing what makes them happy while harming others. I don't know what you are getting at here. Are you saying morality is some kind of Juggernaut able to apply force to people who disagree with it? I thought morality was a set of ideas that cover what is good or bad for people to do.
But how do you get to the identity of "Good" if morality is subjective?
Just make with what you like. I like video games so I think it is good for me to carry on playing them.
If that is the way you feel (relative) then how can you criticize someone who believes the opposite that you do?
I can criticize. I will just say your moral system isn't mine. If you harm others you will be jailed.
How are your morals objective? It kind of implies here you think yours is and I want to know how you got to that conclusion.
But what makes that good unless there is an unchanging value for good?
Doing what makes you happy is pretty unchanging and I doubt too many people have objections to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I sort of see your point, given that there are far more developing countries than developed countries, which would skew the numbers.
Any developing country would just make the US better. It is only fair to target countries that are comparable not places that barely have governance.
They're just citing statistics.
First link goes to another article. CBSnews to be exact.
Second Link is to wikipedia.
Third Link to another article instead of OECD directly.
To say they are citing statistics wouldn't be correct. If they did the only link they need is to the OECD.
Reread the Forbes article and pay attention to the European countries it mentions.
He didn't cite a single source because it was an opinion so he didn't need to do it.
I think that revolutions based on income inequality are sparked in large part because the income inequality is due to an oppressive government
It would be also the ability to revolutionize. That is key given Kim is a dictator yet no one can oppose him. I think oppression can be occurring but income inequality I think would be the main reason for a revolt. What if there was a dictatorship that allowed you to keep guns and income not that unequal while also having their basic needs met. I don't think people are going to revolt because it is a dictatorship.
The far right has the guns to try it but isn't so concerned with income inequality.
I am guessing the "white replacement". This is going to take a long time to happen but given the more people like Nick Fuentes are popular the more likely it could turn revolutionary.
The far left is opposed to guns and doesn't really have any, so I don't know how they would revolt.
Even if someone is opposed to something, doesn't mean they won't use it to get their intent goal then ditch what they oppose or use it to make themselves secure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Exactly! Which is why he could have the same moral standard as you.
Okay. There is also implementation of said ideas. If it wasn't clear this would be comparable to having 1 Bible with different versions from different sects.
Both you and the pedophile started off neutral. Both of you chose your pwn moral standard. You freely admit his choice of morality is not morally different than yours, but you admit, if you were in judgement, you would punish the pedophile, (even if it is only sentenced to a mental institution).
None of this is unfair or illogical. Remember we are talking about morals not logic.
On what basis would you judge and punish him? Simply because you think your way is right, though you admit it isn't really "right", and there is no "right".
We need rules. I would use that as a justification.
Though you give everyone the right to chose their own morality, and admit all moral standards to be morally equal, you still would punish someone who did not follow your personal morality
You pointed out a fringe example not the norm. The norm would be Religious folk who would feel like they are happy being Christians. I have no problem with that until they harm other people which I would have a problem.
That my confused friend, is fascism.
Explain.
There you go. You have no morality. You have only your tastes.
This is a morality. It doesn't have to be objective to be a moral standard.
That itself is fine, but when you begin to punish others for violating your personal tastes, it becomes fascism.
When people are expressing there 2nd amendment right to kill people. It becomes fascism. Do tell me how I am wrong.
Your position on morality makes you unable to judge or condemn any other morality. All you can say is, "It differs from mine". You cannot punish anyone for choosing a different moral standard than you did, all you can do is follow your own.
Neither does your moral system. Not once have you told me how your moral standard is objective nor have you attempted to do so. As far as I am concerned you are in no position to condemn someone else if I go by your standards.
If he is justified under his standard, as are you under your standard, why do you think you have the right to sentence him?
I don't believe in rights as in things given to you by God. Do change what you said.
That is understood. The problem is one of those people suddenly wanting to judge and sentence others on his own personal opinion of "what is good." Hitler did so and started world war two.
I see no difference between how the constitution was written. Both had ideas that they thought would be best for society and ultimately history goes to show Hitler was not accepted but the constitution was.
If a person thinks suffering is the greatest evil, he will think pleasure is the greatest good.
Your moral standard doesn't ensure this would be any different.
So there are conditions where you would abandon your moral code.
How am I abandoning my moral code again?
I did state I would fight but if I knew how to fight. Surrendering seems like a less happy position.
Any moral standard that has to be abandoned under certain real world conditions, is a poor standard.
Real world example: "I like video games so I play it."
What rules? You stated no rules, you asked a question.
Cause and effect.
Because you are confusing two different things. Creation and creator. God is not part of nature, thus does not operate under the rules of nature.
You have no justification in reality for this. Nothing has the same standard that you apply to God. Meaning you have a double standard and I don't think it is justified.
God is uncaused. The law of causality refers to matter. Space. Energy. Created things. God is not constituted of created things. He is not matter. Or energy. He is other. Unique.
What are you using science?
that I know it could not be from man, much less men from 6,000 years ago.
You can't prove this.
This is why the bible has been able to do what no other book has done. It has no equal, no rival, nothing is even close.
Islam disagrees and looking the populations between the two, Islam is increasing while Christianity is decreasing. What do you have to say about Islam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Logic is valid just not valid inherently like with pretty much anything in the world. It is the most valid thing we have in gaining information.I consider it the most important question, but there are times when I want to talk about something else, like whether or not logic is valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Depends on how you look at. To some degree it's unfair, but it also illustrates just how well America is doing.
If you don't it is unfair please see this. All of them are actually making the bare increase that much greater because you are not comparing the US last year household income but you are comparing this year US to other countries. This is what I consider a bad way of finding out if the US is improving by comparing barely even comparable countries to the US.
I don't know why you posted the dailycaller because I find them to be spreading misinformation. If you want I will talk about the very link you gave me but if not I will just talk about forbes. If it wasn't clear my claim wasn't America wasn't better then in 2013 compared to 2012 but my claim was to say America can't do better would be a lie. This even makes this claim "The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant." Using unfair places to compare a developed country like the US. Of course a places that don't even have drinking water would be worse than the poor in the US. Don't you want to do better than that?
That's a political problem, not an economic problem. Also, nearly every country has income inequality, but most don't have revolutions. I think it would take a lot more than that to incite a revolution.
Politics and economics do mix together. Whenever a revolution does occur it will impact the economy. Yes it would take a lot to incite the economy and enough income inequality can do just that.
I know I shouldn't find this funny, but the idea of Alex Jones teaming up with Ocasio-Cortez to overthrow the 1% is a ridiculous image.
Funny but can happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
why not? A pedophile can also be a nihilist.
This in no way helps me understand your position. Him being a nihilist doesn't change anything. Everything starts off morally neutral and we assign what we like to be good or bad. I don't think you are understanding.
Would he be punished if you made the laws?
Yes as in he will be sentenced to a mental health institution where as a society we can rehabilitate him. I think would be reducing recidivism which will lead to him being a functioning member of society.
he isn't under your moral standard. This is a yes or no question.
Under his moral standard he would be justified.
Under mine no.
I thought this would be clear. A person would do x because they think it is good. It is no different with a pedophile, The Joker or Hitler.
It is one of the absolute worst moral systems to have.
Care to demonstrate it?
Because Hitler would only respond to force. Either you surrender, or fight, which means war.
I guess fight if I was capable but I could never know until I was in the situation.
No.
If it wasn't clear God doesn't follow this foundational premise. Meaning God doesn't abide by these rules. Given the reality we live in every single instance clearly shows the cause and effect to be true yet God doesn't follow it. If it wasn't clear what I am going on about I am basically going to ask it in a question, what cause God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Wouldn't you consider God to be one of the most important questions?Why single out God?
No, I don't have time for a "Does God exist?" debate right now.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
1Which example are you referring to?
Economics is complicated.
I think people can get by simply understanding supply and demand but with this topic I guess there is more.
That is an improvement, and it's improving from an already excellent position (on a worldwide scale).
Are you actually comparing this to 3rd world countries? This is not a fair comparison. Of course the number would be high but would it as high compared to European countries?
but what's wrong with it? How does the 1% getting richer hurt me?
Too much will lead to a revolution. A far right one or a far left one. It is just a matter of which side is displaced more. Maybe they will come together. Link
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It's a philosophical thought experiment meant to show how you can't be certain about anything because you can't be certain about logic.
I am simply showing the real life examples of philosophy. If we take this theory and apply it to the real world. We realize we can't be certain God exists.
Do you want me to speak to you in another thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I can use this exact same argument for my case. What makes yours more true?Simply because I wouldn't be certain that it is true doesn't mean that it isn't true.
It could still have a 99.999 percent chance of being true. Not certain just means not 100 percent.
Are you saying you know for sure God exists as in 100% or 99% sure or something else?
Created: