Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
any proposition rooted in some egregious oversight(s) which, if/when factored, render the original proposition as having practically no meaningful imlpication(s)
I don't consider this valid as in a counter to what original thread starter said. His premises and conclusions are practical apart from conclusion 3.
any egregious conflation of any one particular of any conjugate relationship invariably leading to confusion (eg."All knowing is belief")
I don't think this is valid either. Mainly due to that is how we do pretty much assign anything using any standard. It starts off as neutral but we as rational agents (even if we are not rational all the time) state whether something is good or bad (whatever the variation of the two words). I think you are bogged down way too much that the thread starter didn't include what occurs before we assign things in a certain light instead of what occurs during and after the standard is used.
See amended prior response from "In other words..." for real world example as it applies to: "believers" in/of any god.
cool
A I believe I am (good/evil) in relation to others /B I believe others are (good/evil) in relation to meC I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anyone or anything
C is the absurdist approach. It has no practical meaning like what the first part of how you defined absurdity to mean. I say this because not in any kind of thing we do we don't just state that thing has no weight to my standard. Now you might be saying well I would like to refrain from judgement until I assign it to be good or bad but by you saying that you are eventually accepting that you will answer whether that thing is good or bad. Example:
Another mass shooting has occurred. You don't have enough information on the day of the event to know what happened. You wait and find out more information then realize an self-proclaimed incel killing 10 people. You find that wrong/bad because you consider non-defensive killings bad.
Basically what I ask of you when has the C option been used practically.
...it highlights the absurdity in/of any/all possible Abrahamic context(s).
Care to elaborate?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well at least I said it.They will be sure to crop out that last line :P
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I am going with AOC.
Didn't know who Mitt Romney was until I searched his name up and realize it was him. Mitch just knows how to play the game. Instead of making him a Piñata we should learn adapt and kill that son of a gun.
AOC is a public nuisance so it is warranted to shame her as a Piñata.
If this ever comes back to haunt me, this is a joke as is this entire thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Define absurdity and demonstrate it to be the case.It's a question that lends itself to the absurdity of there being only two options: either/or.
And mapping:-P = logical+P = illogical*P = variable
Explain with a real world example.
I know I am neither good nor evil in relation to anything
The first thing I asked is more important so I want to see what you say there before I say something here.
Closed-minded, if anything.
Even if that is the case it isn't an argument against there being 2 options.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
It is about unnecessarily imposed boundary conditions that do not capture the scope of what is possible.
Okay tell me in the specific case of finding what is good or bad, what would the third option?
If not tell me why it is unfair to limit it to 2 options.
Any metrics used are limited to their own terms.
Yes it is a given but not a reason why there is a 3rd option for a closed well metric I guess. Basically the equivalent to a closed question.
"Good" and "bad" are subjective in nature.
Doesn't mean there is a 3rd option.
Your agreeing to it or not does not alter its state in any way: any deduction has to follow from the premises, even before trying the premises for their "validity".
cool
If elaborated it will lead to something very interesting.
Also cool
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
The reason why I changed the way I gave my arguments as in instead of suing your framework I made my own, I chose to not to speak about that entirely given the new information you gave which was this:
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
What is the purpose of the argument if, in reality, there is more than "only" two choices?
This isn't about choices, it is reflecting on the metrics we use for what we consider good or bad. In this instance valid or invalid. Please keep talking like this. No more maths and more small words. For my sake. Don't have to if you don't want to.
The conclusion has to follow from the premises, and the first one can be undermined.
Given your reasoning I don't really agree with this. You can bring it up when you have told me the problem with what I said before.
Will you share what you do not understand? I won't clarify anything unless asked, just am curious where the lack of understanding enters.
This would be this:
C = (N)either
I am guessing you are emphasizing neither but this isn't relevant given you gave more important in a more easier to understand way. No point in speaking about this until it becomes the most relevant in the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I am guessing you are opposed to liberalism.
What do you want instead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.
Just by looking at the headline you are wrong.
Denmark adding in checks doesn't equal Denmark closes their borders.
Please tell me how much you are stretching.
Created:
-->
@JacquesBonhomme
If it isn't against the law.
It just so happens almost any developed country has laws against violence.
A better argument would be:
It is justified and moral to start a revolution.
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
If someone still abides by a certain thing as in Religion then today's standards.
If someone is simply trying to find out whether or not x person was good in their time then by their standards.
There are more examples but I guess these would be the most common.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Basically, yes. Less basically: x/y is invariably/variably,therefor A and B can be XA / YA or XB / YBthus an intrinsic variability re: variability-in-and-of-itself,
But for the purpose of his arguments there was only 2 choices.
I think having a third option would still have him reach the same conclusion. I don't think it is a good enough defense to discredit what he did.
All the person has to do is add in a thing can be either logical or illogical or on a spectrum. This would be for P1.
After this he would need to add another premise and conclusion in between Conclusion 2 and 3
As follows:
P1: Any attempt to use something more valid than in valid or vice verse is inherently contradictory.
C2: It is impossible to use illogic to prove the validity of logic.
I am probably missing your much better argument because I don't understand it which is why I didn't answer it. Hopefully someone else decides to talk about it.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
This conversation is over.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you would give equal weight to conserving land in Colorado as you would about a campaign promise of the president? Ok.
I would've thought you could actually amount a defense but guess you couldn't. Guess you can't disprove the undeniable proof that the senators are a bunch of collectivists who agree with Trump.
You Democrats pretty consistently disagree with Trump. Is that proof that you guys stick together in your disagreement with Trump? That you guys are also collectivists?
Pivot again? You didn't directly answer my question so why should I directly answer yours? Let me do this again since it wasn't clear without actually putting a question mark at the end of my sentence do you have any proof that the majority of Republicans don't agree with Trump?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
We did some cleaning up after Midterms on our side.Not sure this proves exactly what you want, though. If you look at the top, it says the last vote was about 400,000 acres of land getting preserved in Colorado. That isn't really a partisan thing, both parties have supported similar policies in the past.However, I would argue that the tough, partisan bills would be a better test of party unity than small, non-partisan bills like that.
I don't take what you said here seriously. I provide irrefutable proof that there is a majority agreement with Trump from his senators yet you come up to me with well we cleaned up, pretty much stating this doesn't disprove my statement and both sides meme. Do you want to actually try or maybe when you can't defend a point concede it?
A majority agreement with Trump is clearly showing "you guys are the collectivists who stick together".
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If we look at this we realize:
Susan M collins, Rand Paul, John Kyl, Mike Lee, Lisa Murkowski are the only people who were less than 80% in agreement with Trump.
The rest as in 57 other senators I would consider support Trump majority of the time (80% or higher).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Anything to add that is more relevant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't know. I think ebuc is more difficult to understand to be honest.Thank you for being one of the only members of the website who makes me look like I have good social skills.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That is a lie. I have contacted Virtuoso and he said nothing I said was hateful or spiteful via Discord messages. So that is wrong, therefore the tables have turned and you are spouting false lies that are bringing down my reputation
If he actually was so adamant he would be here discrediting what I said but he isn't here. Maybe you should tell Virtuoso to come here and say it publicly.
A) Busy or preoccupied with other things that will require me to not perform to the best of my ability
I don't know your best so I can't comment on that.
B) Stopping me from displaying Freedom of Speech
Lol. I can't believe a Religious person's core principle isn't pleasing God.
C) I do not want to do the job
Please do. I would have less flame if you do decide to leave.
D) Severe lapse in judgement
✓ But I don't think you know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I called you what you are. Nothing in the CoC states me calling your a spouter of hateful rhetoric bannable.You have spouted continuous hate versus me
I am taking charge in this discussion and am taking charge.
?????
I am not afraid of failure
Guess your afraid of looking bad then.
certainly not afraid of what you have to say.
Don't be. If what I say is true you should be banned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Before this it was a non-sequitur while also this:
Race discrimination > Age discrimination
Doesn't mean you weren't being ageist.
I am telling mods to host a discussion on this soon enough to where petty stuff can not be banned and we can have a place where we can discuss freely
I hope to God you are not involved in that discussion. I hope it is Virtuoso and Ramshutu. I wouldn't even trust Ragnar given how little he cares about the holes of his logic in changing the forums. Your a hypocrite, spout hateful rhetoric and commit to false allegations but please don't give me your bad takes on Ragnar's thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I am also of the smallest power.
You are the head of Discord. You are in close-communications with DA so by you acting like this in public this does look bad on the site while also on yourself as the head of Discord. You should step down if you actually cared about the site. You are a bad person for expressing hate speech and an even more of a bad person expressing it from your position.
Nice job willing trying to take down a 16yr old.
I am also throwing in false allegation. I did not attack you for being 16. I attacked you for the hateful rhetoric you said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
No.
Have you heard of him? I think you both would get along.
A = logic is validB = logic is invalidC = logic is valid up-to degree x but invalid at/beyond degree yState 'C' allows both to be simultaneously true when variability is allowed for: degrees.P =/=PP = *P
So basically you are saying a third option?
Is this correct way of seeing what you said:
A= Yes
B= No
C= Yes until x but No until y
Retardation is not necessarily:i. personalii. unchangeable
Even if that is the case when you call people retards you are attributing them to having a slow process of growth. This would be comparing them to people who have a slow process of growth.
Created:
Posted in:
So I am guessing you would say ok boomer as an insult? Gotcha if not then your comparing two different things. Talking about a word and saying a word to someone else. I implied that you won't call people ok boomer but guess you will.Forming a discussion about the topic versus calling someone it is in no way shape or form mallace
I am not perfect. But I can be less perfect, but I restrain myself
Who said I would even comprehend you being that? bsh1 stepped down over something not even the party involved found offensive but here you are blatantly using hate speech, lying about what it says in the rules and you might use ok boomer as an insult as well. If bsh1 stepped down you should as well. If you don't then bsh1 is a better leader (actually held himself responsible even if harm was negated) than you ever were and this site is fueled by mobs of people to warrant a step down of a position. This doesn't matter to you for what reason so I don't know why I even typed this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just because no one in the US is actively pushing for the far left position doesn't make a moderate position the far left.
Who said anything about pushing?
I am saying if on one side we had the NHS and on the other private insurance. That would mean medicare for all would be in the middle.
Okay. Pete doesn't have a single player system which is medicare for all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
that doesn't include age but you don't care you live in your own world
"ageist"
You should be banned for what you said and you lying about the CoC should also be punished. You are supposed to be an authority yet you act like a random member. You use people's non-changeable characteristics as your insults then lie it is even against the rules. Ageist is discriminating based on age. Guess you are not going to apologize because you don't think you have duty to be more professional with the position you have while also on principle because you don't have that as a principle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Are you ebuc?
"Only-one-of-two" is a boundary: both can be valid context-dependent."
Don't understand. Can you make it simpler?
Don't say retard. You are using a someones non-changeable problem as your insult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But if he didn't remember he was gay when he made the joke, then it is in no way way homophobic.
Okay then a Nazi can say he forgot that he was making a jew joke. Would you give them the same leeway?
You are ascribing malice to something you have no evidence that there was malice behind.
Who said I was ascribing malice? I never made that claim. Please read what I said before.
And the nazi comparison is just super over the top.
It is a hypothetical. If you can't engage with it then it isn't my fault.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You linked to the wrong the bill. That is a different health care bill. I believe this is the correct one.
So just because it doesn't have Sanders on it, it isn't a medicare for all policy?
Please give me something better than that.
Sorry, you wrote "think thanks". I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Yeah I should've said think tanks.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The UK has a left wing healthcare system. Medicare for all is a compromise between than and the free market healthcare system. That is what he was saying.
If we are strictly comparing medicare for all to only the US then this is a far left position. If we are comparing this to the UK it would be a middle position or politically unchangeable. If lets say conservatives decide to reduce spending people would vote for labour. I think that would happen.
He literally said medicare for all was the compromise position. Are you disagreeing that he said that?
Him saying is in reference too comparing it to the UK and private healthcare. It would be in the middle because the US are not starting their own NHS.
He released a plan that is not a single payer system.
Link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Use this same argument for Nazis.I think he was just making fun of the guy's name, not making a gay joke.
Instead of a gay joke it could be jews being cooked in the oven. If you don't agree with nazis joking about jewish people then you shouldn't agree with this. The best thing for him to do is to not say it again. Given it isn't really a popular platform or is an authority on this site his harm is redeemable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I quote:
"Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users."
and quote:
"Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech"
This "incompetent millennial" is a slur against me by using an entire of class of people to do it. I would like to see what Virtuoso does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Guess you can't help yourself with 2 comments.
Have I ever vouched for hate speech?
It doesn't matter your intent. If you are discriminating based on things people can't change that is hate speech.
Stop commenting on my fanfic. You are ruining it with your shit
Please keep it up Discord head. You really show yourself to be professional enough to be the leader of something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I dream one day you stop an incompetent millennial and start listening to the facts
Let me remind you that you are engaging in the very thing you didn't engage in on another topic. You say OK boomer is ageism which is implied by me you won't say it but here you would discriminate people based on things they can't change. Its almost as if you have no principles and live off trying to lie your way into thinking you are correct.
You should be banned for hate speech.
Facts? A theist is telling me this. The irony.
Please leave this forum! You are distracting from my Fanfic!
I'll leave when you don't comment back. Can you do that hypocrite?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is over. Make sure to add 3 more comments to show how insecure you are about your forum posts.
It is unlikely you would actively stop killing my brain cells but I can dream one day you don't bother me with whatever you think is good enough to say to come out of your mouth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Are you actually commenting twice just so you have higher forum posts?
Do you actually have a problem?
You can't even answer a simple question and expect me to understand your mental gymnastics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So are you telling me a bitch doesn't act like a bitch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
So a bitch would complain?
How didn't Dr.Franklin call me a bitch then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Medicare for all is the specific plan created by Bernie Sanders
"The United States National Health Care Act or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act is a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by former Representative John Conyers "
"The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare"
He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal.His exact words in that clip are "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be caricatured as left wing". He is saying it is a right wing proposal, which it was.
This doesn't disagree with what I said.
He was saying the "Left" position is one where the government directly provides healthcare. the "Right" position was one where it was entirely private.
This is wrong. When he was stating the ACA was a right wing proposal he was talking about how Republicans were for it in the past. When he was talking about the left wing position that the government provides healthcare he was comparing it to other regions.
He was saying that Medicare for All was the middle ground between right and left wing proposals.
No he didn't.
Do you need another sweeping declaration tweet were he says "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, that I do not believe in Medicare for All". I don't think he is dumb enough to do that. It would be political suicide. He will instead push his very much not medicare for all plan while pretending it is the same thing. Advocating a plan that does not include a single payer system is him saying he is against medicare for all.
This is the problem. Instead of actually finding him against medicare for all you are assuming he is. You gave me a YouTube link which doesn't say he does. I gave you a chance to quote to him. You double down on this conspiracy even though I gave you the chance to quote him. You didn't then went ranting about a conspiracy. I admitted that Bernie hasn't proposed anything socialist but you can't even admit that you have no proof that Pete is against medicare for all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This is using bitch is the present verb form like saying to bitch, to race, to run.It is not using bitch as a noun, rather a verb
Tell me what is a bitch then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I need a second opinion. Are you going to give it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Tell me how this definition is related to what Dr.Franklin said.Bitching=Slang. a person who is submissive or subservient to someone, usually in a humiliating way:
This is so disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why do you need to bitch at everythingThat is not the same thing as calling you a bitch
Still doesn't change the fact that you called me a bitch and are doubling down. Are you actually going to stay you are calling my whining a bitch? Come on I don't see you complaining about other inanimate things. This was of course targeted at me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Well, not intentionally. I forgot he was gay.
Saying you forgot doesn't remove what you just said. You decided to attack him based on what he can't change. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can insult him especially on things he can't change.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
You seriously making a booty joke about a gay person?Mayor Booty-Geg.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Can you please not do that? It is best to say things you know are true instead of finding things that you have already stated your opinion. Can you provide a link to the weaselly comment while also stating how it is weaselly?Well just off the top
No he doesn't. He has a public option. That is not medicare for all.
Define medicare for all.
Have a look at 1:48 to 2:18. Pete used to say that medicare for all was the middle ground. That it was "the compromise position". But now he is back to advocating for something closer to what he described as "the true right wing position".
Okay let me explain this:
He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal. If it was clear already it was actually a right wing proposal but given Obama was the one to commit to it then they opposed it. Link to it being right wing.
He also said that medicare for all is a compromise comparing it to the UK. Meaning if we compare the UK to the US medicare for all would be in the middle instead of the left which he stated national healthcare would be at.
You clearly didn't watch the video. He went from fully supporting medicare for all and calling it the "compromise position" between right and left, to slapping that name onto what is, in no way, medicare for all. He now attacks and undermines actual medicare for all. That is a 180.
Quote him being for medicare then quote him being against medicare.
I want you to do this so that you can find what I didn't in the video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Therefore the topic is speculative.
So for all we know Bloomberg can have no impact on the frontrunners or have an impact on the progressives right? Yes or no answer please. No point in dabbling in this. Bloomberg doesn't really matter until he takes one of the top 3 positions.
Skipping like 2 paragraphs you said because not relevant now. I'll bring up rent control after other stuff.
He uses alot of weaselly language to try to describe his plan as just like medicare for all when it really isn't. He seems to have learned to not just declare things.
Name one weaselly statement and how is it weaselly?
1) Asking Warren a question is clearly not stating he is against medicare for all. Pete also has a variation of medicare for all. He hasn't changed his stance on everyone being covered, he is just doing it another way.
2) Do you watch the Humanist Report regularly and do you agree with his opinions?
He went from fully supporting it and calling it the middle ground between right and left policies, to attacking it saying it can't be paid for. He has done a complete 180.
Please quote him stating the middle ground. This is neither a direct quote by Pete nor a fair characterization of his position. He has not done a 180 with the information you gave (I urge you to watch the video again) and it is unfair to say that he did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You call me a bitch and then deny it?
Wow. Spineless spammer Franklin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you are calling me a bitch then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So you are calling my whining a bitch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
How is this an unnecessary boundary?this imposes an unnecessary boundary condition.
Created: