Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
No, I wouldn't be okay with that, but that's because the poor would get poorer in that situation in absolute terms
Please clarify. My example was 100% close to reality excluding the numbers of course. Even with the link provided if you look at the graph the poor have stagnated/steadily increasing while also the rich increasing drastically.
I would also have a problem with how slowly the poor would be getting richer
With the link provided that is true. Look at the graph.
As you can see:
The bottom quintile barely moved.
4th quintile are moving more than the bottom but not by much.
Middle quintile more then 4th.
2nd quintile most so far.
Top Quintile much more than 2nd.
Top 5% on par give or take with 2nd.
To illustrate my point, would you be okay with an economy where everyone's income was equal at $1 a week?
No and I wouldn't be okay with barely any progression between the bottom, 4th and middle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Okay then I would be an agnostic. I am perfectly okay with that. What would you be?It wasn't specific to my religion, but it would apply to it. However, it would apply equally to your atheism. That's why it has no practical effect, because it invalidates everything equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
So you are okay with lets say a recession and the rich are billionaires and there is no millionaires just people with a dollar to their name. Lets say every year they make another dollar. Would you be okay with that?I don't care how much richer the rich are than everyone else, just so long as everyone else is getting richer too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
What was the answer specifically towards your Religion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Yes, but so long as the poor are getting richer too, it really doesn't matter.
Okay.
Before 21st Century
Rich people 8
Poor people 2
Currently
Rich people 32
Poor people 10
'Numbers are not supposed to be accurate'
Even though the poor are getting richer don't you see the divide between the rich and poor is increasing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It would apply to everything. Theism, atheism, string theory, 2+2=4, etc.
So how do you know Protestantism is valid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Given what you have concluded in the start of the thread don't you think this can apply to your Religion as well?
Do ask if you want me to tailor the thing you did at the start to your Religion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I am going to give you a question in your thread. Be sure to reply if you want too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Here's a link.This article explains data from the Census Bureau. From 1967 to 2018, the real, inflation-adjusted income of the bottom 20% has increased by 28.8%.
Do you accept that the increase has been much higher for the rich so much so the divide is much higher than earlier years?
No, I'm not ignoring you. I just haven't been at a computer.
How about the logic thread you created where you didn't reply back?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My moral good is whatever makes people happy while not harming others.
What is your morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Are you ignoring me?
Can you at least me what I did?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't think a pedophile would have the same understanding nor moral standard as me but even if someone thinks something doesn't mean they are true. A pedophile under the law will be punished and I accept that.A pedophile doesn't think sex with a 14 year old harms her. Would you punish him for sex with a 14 year old?
1. What about the person who values bringing harm to others, is he less moral than you?
Under my moral standard yes.
2. If bringing harm to others brought you happiness, would you do it?
I guess but then I would have to change my moral standard thus being a different person given the new moral standard and actions I would commit.
Test your morality in a real world case.
I like video games so I play it. I don't harming people so I don't do it.
Opposing Hitler would bring horrible harm to millions. Would you have opposed Hitler or surrendered to him to avoid harm to others?
Why would opposing Hitler bring harm to millions? I'll answer your question if you sufficiently answer this.
Okay then in reality if I put something in the microwave and set a timer it will eventually heat up.I caused the microwave to heat up the thing by setting the timer and the effect was the thing having an increased in temperature.Do you disagree?
Answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How does this contradict anything I've said?
Do you agree to it not whether it is contradictory of your position?
And the claim in your comment above is illogical nonsense.
What the diseases question? The economy is about money not about diseases. I am guessing you are referring to private business capitalizing on people by giving them a service to use in return for money or doing something that generates money. It just so happens that this very thing can happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I often do that with dumb questions.
Okay then in reality if I put something in the microwave and set a timer it will eventually heat up.
I caused the microwave to heat up the thing by setting the timer and the effect was the thing having an increased in temperature.
Do you disagree?
I asked you for your moral belief.
This is my belief "Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others."
Why do you behave differently to how you believe?
I don't like to do it and I value not bringing harm to others since I don't think it brings me happiness.
You now seem to believe raping babies is morally different from nurturing babies because rape harms the baby.
No you asked me if there was no moral difference between the two I said no. See post #16 for the question and post #18 for the answer. I simply decide to morally apply to be happy to be good and to cause harm to be bad.
So, is there a moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Inherently no but for my moral standard yes.
Then it IS morally different. You either lied or was wrong about your own morality.
I accept there is no difference between two actions yet still apply something to it. I can say there is no moral difference between gardening and playing video games while also choosing to like video games more. These are not contradictory because I am talking about them in two difference instances. One is what is another is what I like to do.
Would you rape a dead body?
Nope because I don't think it will bring me happiness and can harm the family that is still around that cares about the dead person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What does diseases got to do with the economy?Sorry, I'm currently looking for evidence that dirty water cause diseases.
Yes. This thread. Post #1
Okay so closing their borders.
You have your answer about professors.
says this: "the immigration of low-skilledlabour (H1) reduces the wages of low-skilled workers, but enhances the productivityof high-skilled workers and capital."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you?
Why did you pass the question to me and are you going to answer the question?
Your Moral standard calls them the same thing.
How so?
You said there is inherently no moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them. Thus your Moral standard calls them morally the same thing.
This isn't my moral standard. I am simply stating what is. There is no inherent difference between the two doesn't mean I personally treat the two to be the same.
Please this again: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3190/questions?page=1&post_number=6
"Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others."
Why not? For you, it isn't immoral.
Given that it harms others I wouldn't do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Have you ever come home to meet squatters in your house?
No.
Did your walls impede that or is their only purpose to hold up your roof?
My walls did impede that.
Legal, educated, and civilized immigrants boost the economy. Illegal, illiterate, primitives drag down an economy. As do illegal drug imports.
Evidence that "Illegal, illiterate, primitives drag down an economy"
The point was that their behavior changed even as their beliefs did not. Reality forced that.
Do you have an example of their behavior changing?
Do you trust cooks in finding nutrition about the specific food they are qualified in?
Yes if they are qualified in speaking about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Link?And if the poor are getting richer in absolute terms, which is what's happening in America, then we're headed in the right direction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do have an example of reality?How do you know anything is true? It is congruent with reality.
But your Moral standard calls them the same thing.
What do you mean?
I would never let you near my children.
Okay?
Do you rape babies?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Does your home have walls?
Yes.
Have you ever taken the train from Paris to London? Were you asked for a passport?
Please refrain from anecdotes. Do you have a link?
No one has argued that people are not free to move around.
"TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread."
Did that help you?
Do you trust them in finding information about the specific field they are qualified in?
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
You didn't exactly say what I quoted but okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
A border wall if you looked at my debate would realize would not help with illegal immigration, drug imports and immigrants boost the economy.Please tell that to the idiot democrats who are resisting a border wall here in America.
EU citizens did not need passports inside the EU.
Link: "With a valid passport, EU citizens are entitled to exercise the right of free movement (meaning they do not need a visa and don't need a residence permit for settling) in the European Economic Area (European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) and Switzerland."
Meaning they need a valid passport to freely move across EU countries.
No one has argued that people are not free to move around.
Guess you agree the border checks isn't against the EU principle.
?? What do you think of cooks?
I hope I like their food. What do you think of professors?
As I said, you pass or you die. Pay attention.
Where did you say "you pass or you die"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Okay.Huh? Who are soulless people? Who said anything about punishment?
I trust the bible because its true.
How do you know it is true?
So is there any moral difference between raping babies and nurturing them?
Inherently no but I don't imagine a lot of moral standards would have them be the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Please explain.Different decide different things about morality.
So who is "we"?
Me, you and everyone else.
If we decided that raping babies was moral, would it be moral?
Yes. A real life example would be the animal farming farmers do. Majority of the time they are caged and killed for our pleasure.
Because the bible says so.
Why do you trust the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Hell is death. It is permanent. No one is alive or conscious in hell. Souls are destroyed. That is hell.
So soulless people should be punished forever for lets say an 80 year lifespan?
Are you going to answer this?
How do you know they are from God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are you going to add me as a receiver?
Having border checks doesn't change the free movement of people principle. Border checks I am assuming would be extra checks that they already do. Even before this you would need a passport to travel around. Now I am guessing there are more checks. People are still freely able to move.They no longer are that stupid.
How can one be against an institution? And what did I say that made you think I was "against" anything?
Okay then. What do you think of professors?
You're in it. You won't fail it. No one ever fails it.
How about people who are dead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am guessing you mean this:
Now you. Same questions.
Nope to afterlife.
Bad moral actions are defined whatever we want it to be.
It might be
We who?
Yes we but I hope we can rely on more qualified people but that doesn't seem likely.
So you consider bad moral actions to be based on what we decide?
Yes.
I answered all the questions you gave me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Since you didn't even tell me how they changed their position I'll argue against this.
<br>As community colleges are filled to the brim with liberal progressive idiots as professors, I would be surprised if I even got a C.
So you are against institutions we use to decide whether someone is qualified or not on a specific subject?
Thank god for the University of Reality.
I couldn't find it. You sure it is a university?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Hell is a state, not a place.
Is it not forever?
We who? So you consider bad moral actions to be based on what we decide?
Yes.
No sir. This will be a discussion, not an interrogation. If you don't answer my questions, I won't answer yours.
So...
How do you know they are from God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Do you think Hell exists as well?1. Heaven
2. Bad moral actions are actions that go against the laws God set down for us.Now you. Same questions.
Whatever we decide that brings about the most happiness while not harming others.
How do you know they are from God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Are you asking if "afterlifers" exist somewhere in the universe?
? I am asking if you die you will go to heaven or hell.
Do you mean moral bad or legal bad?
Moral bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Must be hard trying to defend your views. Who would have thought a person would say things but not able to support their argument.no
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I believe there is no life anywhere else in the universe.
How about afterlife?
What do you consider to be bad actions?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But it is a change from their original position.
Let me repeat myself again: "Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you want something that I don't think I need to prove is that Muslims dislike Jewish people. Were you aware of the Israel and Palestine conflict? Palestine are the Muslims and Muslims across the world support them. Palestine are the Jews.I quoted the Quran this post, what more do you need to know that I am not a Jewish conspiracy man
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am trimming this down.
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it
Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
How about afterlife?I believe there is no life anywhere else in the universe.
What do you consider to be bad actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.
What is reality again?
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it
Clearly you can't engage with a hypothetical. Do you support America's restrictions on speech or are you going to avoid the question just because you think it is not relevant. Hypotheticals are relevant and mine can be clearly seen to be as close to the topic at hand.
Don't put dictionary makers out of business. Look it up yourself.
Okay then given I asked you a question wanting you to answer but you don't want to answer it I will be also making this difficult. Liberalism isn't multiculturalism.
I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.
This must be how you converse with people. Saying nothing of substance.
The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.
Not explained nor in what you said did you add a qualifier. This is a real problem with you that you can't even clearly lay out what you say then blame your shortcomings on me.
News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.
Is liberal pretty much attached to everything? Damn you must be obssessed to liberalism.
Wrong defintion and here is the actual one: consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media.
If it wasn't clear you would have to show they are being deliberate in their disinformation. I don't think you can read minds nor bother to argue so I guess you won't be able to support the claim you make. Nothing new and I doubt this will change anytime soon.
If you believe my not doing what you want means I don't know, sure.
Please clarify this.
Because it would not help you.
So basically instead of actually supporting your claims with evidence you are saying it wouldn't change my mind? I see the opposite. You realize I am asking the right questions, you don't want to find evidence so that your precious worldview isn't challenged. I know it must be hard to have such a flimsy reality but if you are right then all this would do is reinforce what you know. If you don't care about what is true then don't give evidence but I would like for you to say that before I claim that you don't care.
Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.
So I should be fulfilling your burden of proof? Must be really difficult trying to be someone who says things, gets annoyed and says to the other person go look up the information.
Read it again slowly.
What? So when I give you a clear contradiction you don't know what to do and tell me to read what I said again? You should read again maybe it would actually help you realize the contradictory of the two statements.
Read it again slowly and then get back to me. Real slow now.
Again nothing of substance. With the way things are going it would seem like you don't care about truth instead how truth conforms it your reality.
I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?
Nothing of substance yet again.
I said "did", not "would".
I mean at this point I think you are intentionally missing out the point I was trying to make so much so you are correcting things that need no correction. If it wasn't clear even if I said did instead of would it wouldn't change my point. You do know that right?
Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.
It was an oxymoron given peaceful requires no crime to occur so yet again pointing out little details instead of the points I am making.
Common sense works nicely.
Anarchism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Communism or other (do tell what other or you know do what you have been doing this entire time)?
Notice no "completely"
You are actually like without qualifiers like more or less the other person is supposed to understand no I don't mean complete civility but pretty much anyone knows civility isn't on a spectrum until you put it on one. It isn't my fault you can't clearly lay out what you say.
They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?
Oh so a key word is removed and now you blame me for your shortcomings? Damn it must be hard for you to understand when you have done wrong. Nice moving the goalposts as well.
OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.
At this point I don't even think you even know what the word liberal means.
Who said there was some grand conspiracy?
Do you think multiculturalism works anywhere?
And who started this and who is carrying it on?
I want to see if you have the bravery to state the conspiracy you are apart of?
Lol. I agree.
Anyone reputable in any important subject would side with me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How about immigrant women?Im not racist, just sexist, i have no problem with immigrants
Ding Dong!
Sheesh.
I like Isreal
If you think women are lesser than men by the same standard you can of course be into Jewish conspiracies but guess you are halting to this fictional reality.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.
"Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech."
I just remembered I said nothing about you supporting whatsoever. If it wasn't clear "support it" refers to Denmark supporting free movement of people. Are you saying they don't and this clearly rebut your arguments. America has restrictions to when they use "free" so does Denmark. If you say I also disagree with America then I would have to think of a different argument.
They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.
Define liberalism.
And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.
Then enlighten me.
No. I state what I like. Sorry.
Even if you are contradicting yourself it doesn't matter. Noted.
"What you know is of no importance."
"Tell us why they have now started to check."
Clearly asking me what I know doesn't matter then asks what do you know about the cause of these checks.
Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.
??? Define fake news.
Lol. You don't that either. Go learn. The internet is free.
So you don't know either? If you do why not show some evidence?
Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists.
What does it mean? Do tell.
Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only an dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.
You say I did not say there is no trash then contradicted yourself by saying beautiful country means no trash.
Please tell me you know what a contradiction is.
Why do you even think I want something?
So you want nothing?
TRN:It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.ethang5:And no one said it was.
And I quote "Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism."
No qualifier was made that it would become less safe. You simply said by virtue of Musim terrorist the country would no longer be safe, beautiful or peaceful.
liberalism loses to reality.
What do you propose as a solution instead of liberalism as in another political ideology?
Bringing busloads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.
Yet again stating Denmark and Sweden were civilized before Muslims then they became uncivilized. You do know you are not saying less right meaning it is going from 10 to 0?
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
I don't think you have stepped into a university. Given your lack of knowledge on this subject. All I need to say is America has the same restrictions with the word free, your links don't support some grand conspiracy. I mean some people are just helpless in their own delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
Who said anything about support?
I am talking to someone who is too much of a coward to be for the things he talks about. So basically whenever I do make a worthwhile argument instead of actually rebutting it you are going to say well I don't support it.
What you know is of no importance.
If you are having a discussion of feelings please do tell me because I'll immediately stop talking to you.
None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.
?? Prove it fake news. Oh wait are you going to say who said anything about support?
Tell us why they have now started to check.
This seems like a knowledge question. You really should've changed your earlier statements. Remember this "What you know is of no importance.". I would say I don't know. Here you can come in and state your knowledge or feelings whichever you decide to use.
OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?
Wow pivot? So unexpected. Please stay on topic.
So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?
So you can't actually rebut my points so you are going to pivot yet again? Do try to answer what I said.
Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.
What? I saying even without immigrants there are still plenty of trash places.
Only to a moron.
Don't know what peace means and calls me a moron.
No one said anything about starting.
Oh wow so whenever I say something that you can't defend you are going to feign ignorance. It is pretty boring for you to say nothing of substance but I would've expected nothing less.
I answered you.
Saying no multiculturalism. Still leaves me with other question. Do you want a dictatorship, monarchy, communism or anarchism?
The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.
It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.
You sound just like lefties instead of Europe it is America. I guess horseshoe theory has more substance than I actually thought.
Created:
I am guessing doing weird shit China does foreigners is something close to a golden age. Well I guess the golden city has to be built with concentration camps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Damn you must be close to the far-right or as call it the likely path from conservatism.
Against immigration is not a far cry from our country is the best and everyone else is bad or we should maintain our culture because others cultures are bad or whites are the superior race and everyone is inferior.
Men and women are different therefore women should be at home.
I think the only thing that could stop you is the Jewish question part. I don't think saying you support Israel then say they have some sort of global conspiracy really does look like there is a likely path between the two.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But do you seriously think that someone like Mitch McConnell is deeply concerned about the people of Kentucky, or is he just concerned about republicans and himself getting more power?
If Kentucky is red then they would also care about their party also being in power. Those two are not different choices. It would be if Kentucky was blue. I am guessing it isn't.
But he doesn't seem to really care about his constituents. He has been in politics a long time. He is in it for the money and the power. If that comes at the expense of his constituents I doubt it would trouble him.
So to support your claim about him not caring you are saying: He is a politician for a long time, made money and has power. None of this in anyway means he doesn't care about Kentucky. If he didn't he wouldn't try his best to appeal to them but he did and won the election in 2014.
Then you finish this off with your feelings.
But does he use that power to just to gain and maintain his power, or does he use it in a way that he believes would help people.
What are you even saying here? Mitch put powers over appealing to people who vote him in? That is absurd and if Mitch did follow that he wouldn't win elections.
I think AOC tries to use her power and influence to help people. I think McConnell just wants the power and influence.
No deductive logic used so this is just your feelings.
I'm sure he would say that. But he said, with a straight face, that Obama shouldn't have the right to appoint a judge in his last year, then laughed about it and said he would definitely let trump do that. He is a liar.
Him changing his mind or having a double standard doesn't change he wants what is best for his party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?
Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech.
If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".
Breitbart is propaganda. I have never heard of euractiv. Only two of them I know and none of two said they closed their borders. Please read through the first two again
Forbes as in October 2019 talking about an event in November 2019. Meaning they are speaking about it not telling us what occurred because it didn't happen when they released the news. They also said this "The temporary border checks–planned to start in mid-November 2019 and last up to six months".
Telegraph are also talking about a event in November 2019 when they released the news at October 2019. Please find something more relevant and reliable. If it wasn't clear not Breitbart and during of after the event.
Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.
Safe? Crime still occurs with or without Muslims.
Beautiful? There is plenty of trash places that Muslims weren't apart of.
Peaceful? That would mean there is no crime whatsoever. From what I understand Muslims didn't start that either.
So let me ask you again "What do you want instead?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
With the standard given to us I would say it is valid and fair to do so. Mainly due to the way we define things to be good or bad and I don't feel like what was stated by thread started was loaded in anyway.It attempts to deny that there are possible circumstances/contexts wherein either/neither can apply in lieu of.
I am not saying that he did. Not once has I or the thread starter has stated that we ought to follow this.One can not derive an ought from an is.
P1: Every argument is either logical and/or illogical.fixes the first premise, because it removes the boundary and allows a third (n)either option.
Tell me a thing that is logical and illogical.
It's actually the only knowledgeable one.
So the ultimate skeptic approach where we have made no progress whatsoever and don't really attempt in a given framework to make progress?
Take Israelis and Palestinians as A and B, where C is any/all not locked in the conflict of A and B due to having no weight towards/against one-or-the-other.
When discussing which side you take you have to either refrain from opinion so not even be apart of the discussion or say which side was more logical. If there are more parties involved then the very thing stated by the thread starter doesn't reject this. If we have what we think about lets say A,B and C we can then say was it logical for A to do something and the others as well. When this has been answered for the 3 then we can come to conclusion where they lie either logical or illogical.
"I believe not, knowing I am willing not to merely mistakenly believe to know..."
I don't understand this.
C is anything/everything outside of any A/B conflict. It is the A/B conflict that is the problem.
So you are saying we are discussing this in a vacuum?
It relates to the theorem: Conscious Knowledge of Ignorance (Inference) Theorem (CKIIT) designed to attempt to address the problem:
So basically me knowing I am stupid?
In effect: it finds a/the fixed properties of the two Mythical Edenic trees such to designate an orientation towards/away from either. Once this orientation system is established, the absurdity of belief in any "all-knowing" god is made explicitly clear.
Would you care to make it relevant to what was said in this thread or say how is this what we are talking about?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But at least she is fighting for what she believes in.
Anyone would say this not just AOC.
She is working to make things better for her constituents in the way she thinks is best.
Anyone would also say this. Your opinion doesn't change that. Doesn't matter that the results were bad but that person would've wanted what was best for the people they represent. Unless we are talking about fringe cases.
Can anyone say that with a straight face about McConnell?
He is a Christian conservative who wants the best to happen in a way that he thinks would be the best. This would be serving God in whatever the Bible says the right way to do it is and conserve traditional values. No matter what you say you would need some kind of non-existence brain technology to make him out to be someone like the joker. Even then I would consider the joker to think he is doing well but is well going about it wrong so I am not really going to question want for good instead how they go about it.
He fights for power for himself and his party at the expense of everyone else.
His party represents half more or less of the US population. If he didn't he wouldn't be as powerful.
He doesn't serve the people, he only serves himself and his cronies. He is the personification of what is wrong with modern politics.
Even if he might be a crony (by your standard) Mitch can easily say I am doing this to make a better place.
Created: