Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
What has that to do with my level of argumentation? You falsely stated that I resorted to ad hominem in the face of logical superiority, and cited my age as a reason. Pretty hard to misinterpret that huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
"You’re now delving into more semantic nonsense now"
From 116 bud. the guy whose all logic, pedantic isn't an ad hominem, its a classification of argumentation - ironically the difference between it and semantics are pedantic. Furthermore, all of my accusations of pedantry were proceeded by my argument. IF you wanna take Ram's side in the biased way you tend to, fine, but don't try to mischaracterize me bud. You're as condescending as everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Again, the "biggest source of evidence" not that the evidence itself is big - or large - so you have the sources? Please present them. So far the only thing that you've asserted to me that you've "substantiated" is with a quack's documentary. So please - give me the evidence. You say that there are "two distinct fields of research, two different studies" and that a study would "find correlation" - that's the thing THERE ISN'T A STUDY TO ACTUALLY PROVE THE CORRELATION. So far you've asserted things, but not actually proven them. You know the easiest way to prove your point that a study would say x or y? Showing the study! It doesn't matter if you THINK the evidence is permissible, you have to PROVE that's the case with solid and concrete methodological practices. That's how you actually prove things, and eliminate as much confidence as you can.
And.... um - no - that's the cased with HISTORIC EXISTENCE, the mere fact that there are "sources" which agree that a THING (not a historic thing, not a thing we no longer have access to, something that allegedly still existing) exist, means literally nothing. If all of these sources are not valid, they mean literally nothing, and the quantity of them does not impact that truth. For example, regardless of how many people claim that the earth is flat, that does not mean that the earth is flat, the reason that historic assertions are vetted like that is because we literally no longer have access to the thing being asserted to be a thing, so that is often the best evidence we have for its existence, but evidence, widely, does not work like that whenever you still have access to the thing you are claiming to exist.
Seriously... you are that pedantic at this point? Completely ignoring the ad hominem, I don't mean the literal individual cases of spirits or near-death experiences, I MEAN NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCES in general, I mean spirits, I mean the spiritual - are you seriously grasping that hard to where you have to so obviously misinterpret what I say? Like did you actually believe that sentence as you were writing it? If so, I would beg for you to take a stats course, please, and if you have already taken one, please take another ten or so. Because apparently, it did not teach you about what "repeatable experiment" means. And yes, it is extremely important to be able to repeat something like this to confirm it exists, it is by far the most efficient (and in some cases only) way to eliminate other causes of x or y behavior. Repeating it under different conditions.
Please present the valid, preponderance of evidence to me. Because, and as I've already lectured you about, yes anecdotal evidence is "evidence", but it is, when making a claim as you are, the weakest form of evidence, and means nothing in regards to actually proving an assertion. Its like you're so caught up with the pedantic fact that a person saying something is evidence that you aren't actually analyzing the quality of the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Um...no - what you've done is argue "well my colloquialism disagrees with the experts" - that's the thing with colloquialism - how about this: as the actual definition of fear is - you are incorrect and your entire argument is flawed- if I accept your definition of fear that you accept - sure. However, and I say this again, the risk/reward system IN GENERAL, is not the same thing as avoiding danger because of emotion, as you seem to put it.
For the record your critique of my definition is irrelevant
"You’re now delving into more semantic nonsense now. Fear is both the emotional response, and describes the conditioned behavioural choices that comes from it."
Avoiding dangerous situations IS the behavioral choice that comes from fear - duh - that's what fear is aside from the chemicals in your brain. The part that you assert is different is the entire part where people come up with ideologies because of it. In an abstract sort of way, you might be able to claim that some moralities are formed like that, but you have not at all proven a single thing in regards to fear being the factor behind making ideologies.
See the thing is - you have been pedantic here- literally the entire time - and whenever an actual source was presented - it disagreed with what you thought was the definition of fear. Cool, that doesn't mean you're right though. Because we're not just debating on the specific definition, but the interpretation of what fear causes, and that has remained unsubstantiated. You've made a conjecture, not much more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I raised to believe in spirits, its simply that it was not brought up much, you looked a tad too much into a off-line that meant literally nothing (its what writers would call "needless fluff")
Furthermore, as we have already discussed, there is exactly zero peer-reviewed research that demonstrates spirits exist, and... interestingly enough, the ones that try do a lot of fraud in the process, the biggest evidence we have for spirits are collections of anecdotal experiences that are not controlled for other occurrences, are not checked by other researchers, and are not able to be recreated or reproduced, a lot of times, you can't even verify that it happened at all (the instance where someone was nearly dead, not the experience, you can't verify that). So while I do think that accepting naturalism automatically means that spirits don't exist, the utter lack of evidence, and repeated failure to demonstrate such existence only helps that notion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I have been entirely consistent with my definition of fear - and cited an actual source for the context and definition I am referring to - you on the other hand are simply asserting that avoiding negative consequences is defacto fear. I am rejecting that assertion via the actual definition of fear. You have falsely equivocated fear and avoiding negative consequences, thereby coming to a conclusion where your premises do not support your conclusion, a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
Uumm... boxing definitely isn't dictated by brute strength and speed... that's definitely a part of it, but without technique, that's almost useless, 'specially cause of the weight division. And we are talking about sports here... knowing how to kick a ball through a goal isn't gonna help you in life either, but you don't see anyone havin' a problem with that. But, even if we grant that mode of thinking, if two people don't have a weapon (and even if someone does) and you don't have a weapon. Which is better - to know boxing or know nothing? The clear answer is boxing, its just another tool in your belt, yes, weapons are definitely preferable, but in the instance that you do not have access to weapons, it is definitely better to know how to fight than not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Give me a rebuttal or engage with my arguments please. I already explained that the popular interpretation of the framework is my problem, given that moralities are half framework and half interpretation, I'd say its pretty important.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
That's why I said the "INTERPRETATION" - seriously - and no... the harm and pleasure thing are equal in this instance, they symbolize the same thing.... also - there can be fringe cases, fine, but I am talking about the overall ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws, policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.Utilitarianism appears to be a simple theory because it consists of only one evaluative principle: Do what produces the best consequences. In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have).
See here, me and utilitarianism would almost agree - it's fairly similar to my basis of groundwork, its the interpretation that I take issue with.
"To illustrate this method, suppose that you are buying ice cream for a party that ten people will attend. Your only flavor options are chocolate and vanilla, and some of the people attending like chocolate while others like vanilla. As a utilitarian, you should choose the flavor that will result in the most pleasure for the group as a whole. If seven like chocolate and three like vanilla and if all of them get the same amount of pleasure from the flavor they like, then you should choose chocolate. This will yield what Bentham, in a famous phrase, called “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.”"
Because it assumes the pleasure of ONE PERSON equals the pleasure of ONE OTHER PERSON, when that is not always the case, or actually almost ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Then we don't see it at all the same. I would disagree heavily with that intrepretation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
No - I'm saying you made a false equivalence, and a non-sequitur - the fact that avoidance of danger is PRESENT in risk/reward analysis does not mean it pervades it, nor does it mean it is ALL that. Sure, you can redefine fear here, but I wouldn't view it any different than people trying to define god into existence or something, we have a word for that already.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't typically, it was a shorthand. And I have no idea what a hedonist is, nor do I trust your definitions to be unbiased - you have a tendency of trusting google's top result apparently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Fear - as defined by the APA
n. a basic, intense emotion aroused by the detection of imminent threat, involving an immediate alarm reaction that mobilizes the organism by triggering a set of physiological changes. These include rapid heartbeat, redirection of blood flow away from the periphery toward the gut, tensing of the muscles, and a general mobilization of the organism to take action
Fear is the avoidance of what we perceive to be dangerous, while, as I admitted, it is the case that in some ideologies that are driven by this - the risk/reward system is not the same thing as fear, you are conflating the two things. While risk/reward has some analogous qualities with fear, fear is, in general, a much more immediate reaction. You are getting more into anxiety and paradigm, not fear. It's a false equivalence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
The quantifying of lives. Again, I was VERY explicit with what I saw wrong with Utilitarianism. One person being harmed does not always equal another singular person being harmed, in fact, in most instances it doesn't. Utilitarians seem to forget that
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
Mmmm, angry is probably the wrong word - frustrated is better. Now, some of the BS you try to pull actually makes me angry, but in general, I become frustrated easily. And the answer is probably a combination of things: Anxiety, feelings of inferiority, general frustration with perceived incompetence, general frustration with perceived dishonesty, the current hopeless situation that pervades real life all the time, breaking up with my boyfriend, etc, etc - or you could be projecting. Either one really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Raw numbers don't always quantify what the MOST HARM or is or what the MOST GOOD is. Which is a thing I've already explained to you. Numerous times
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Ramshutu spotted, lol
This is a very interesting observation to say the least, it reminds me of several concepts that would kinda support this - like us versus them mentalities that are quite systemic, we reject what we don't understand, and so on and so forth, but I would be hesitant to generalize politics as merely fear or even manifestations of fear, certainly some ideologies (mostly radical ones), but it's a broad brush, I think, to claim it as a response to "what causes politics" in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
so generally the concept of utilitarianism is fine - increasing good - but the particular interpretation that most utilitarians take is disagreeable to me, hence "soft utilitarian".
This is me defining what I MEAN when I say soft utilitarianism, because - hint hint - I'm not actually referring to an official ideology, this is just something I came up as a short hand for what should be obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I already did that... like, literally in the post you responded to
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
As far as we know - there is nothing not made of matter, occupying space not in space, etc - that would inherently make your god "nothing", a self-contradicting premise if I've ever seen one.
So the correct answer here is "we don't know what made the universe" at least until we can prove that something did in fact precede the big bang.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
God - no - that's generalizing a word - i wasn't referring to any already-a-thing "soft utilitarianism" I mean that I don't subscribe to it because it's frankly much to quantanistic, it doesn't deal in nuance, whereas nuance is literally the key to all morality - so generally the concept of utilitarianism is fine - increasing good - but the particular interpretation that most utilitarians take is disagreeable to me, hence "soft utilitarian".
also - please CITE where you got that example
And no - I don't remember the last one you put out- the last thing I remember you putting there was a wall of text, if you don't have a wall of text as your last response, I haven't seen it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Um - no - they're just really different. It'd be like if someone said they were a cat lover, then you responded: "How does that conflate with loving dogs?" they are completely separate. Unless you're saying that all utilitarianism is egoistic? Then that would be an interesting claim, not one I think you could justify, but one you could make I s'ppose. And also - I've made myself clear - I do not have the patience nor the time to respond to that massive wall of text. So I gave you that option so you could continue the conversation, if you want to be a dick, be a dick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
AND - the concentration of wealth AND the capitalistic exploitation... also not capitalism itself, lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
I think you've missed the point a tad - stuff like universal healthcare isn't the cause of raising the debt, in fact, nations that have done that pay LESS for the same standard of healthcare. Because ya know, less monopolies and concentrations of wealth - which are indeed the direct cause of the debt rising.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Uuuh - let's pretend the debt isn't caused by the concentration of wealth and capitalistic exploitation by America... yup, let's just pretend those aren't the direct cause of the debt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
What the hell is that question? Egoism and Utilitarianism are as about as distinct as two moral frameworks can be. Furthermore, its interesting that you never took my opportunity - I asked you to explore one issue at a time, and you never got back to me. Yet here you are with this pedantic joke of a question
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
Not the point of my post, I was just pointing out the assumption in your position there.
Created:
Posted in:
RMM
You seem to think that raw rhetoric is the most important part of debating... I would disagree, it's certainly an important part of debating, you should have the ability to correctly interpret data and research you cite, sure, but without that research all you have is empty claims. ITS A GOOD THING that Oro debates things he's researched in depth, you should only come to believe x assertion whenever there has been evidence indicative of it's truth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
So this is music, but I think that music is one of the originator's of expressing art - so.... here's music I've recently gotten into
Lovejoy - really good band
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Um... because transgender people don't change their gender - I mean -they can transition their phenotypes to match their gender- but that isn't the same thing. Furthermore, no - age is just how long your body has been like around - and how long your brain has developed neurally - now - there are people who go through extreme accidents and their age is lost - but that's radically different from a gender identity- which is the experiential neurology that determines how you process and interpret data. The two things literally can't be compared - and you claiming they can be is a claim - please substantiate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can... can you source that for me? Because it seems that none of that actually appears in legislation. To be clear - it is more than possible that police step over the line (they do that a lot), I just need a source cuz I'd never heard of a police actually doing that before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
interesting question.... if a tad irrelevant. Um, as far as I was aware, restrooms aren't enforced by police....? Like not even a fine, in fact, the legislation trying to put that in has been opposed at every step. So - no police shouldn't be able to stop people from going into different restrooms. Generally, people use the restroom of the gender they identify with (at least I think they should be able to) for general ettiquite. But I wasn't aware you could be like... fined or even removed for going to the wrong restroom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
If you consider more regulation liberal than that- I'm not sure if I've become more conservative on anything this year.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What the actual fuck are you talking about? none of this has ANYTHING to do with any of my points. I have literally not mentioned this ONCE until you said something about it. Why is there is any need for a scanner in restrooms? Again, its all disingenuousness with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Fine then - you seem to be intellectually dishonest based on the preponderance of evidence. Happy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
um... no - gender identity and age aren't at all related. They have nothing to do with one another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Implicitly so - yes - you quite literally called gender incongruence, in general, a "fetish" (gender identity and sexual identity don't correlate)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No - I block people for being intellectually dishonest. See Fauxlaw - we disagree on almost EVERY POSITION - yet I have NEVER blocked him. Stop projecting Zed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Look at your pedantics. Once you start taking yourself seriously, perhaps I'll respond to your points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also.. what the fuck are you talking about? "Strip-searched" that wasn't ever even presented as a thing? Do you actually have ANY idea of what you're talking about? God I hadn't even unblocked you when you wrote this and I already remember why I did it! Because you're one of the most disingenuous people on this website!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Um.... funnily enough I actually forgot that I had blocked you - so my bad - second of all.... seriously? that's your substantiation? That's utterly ridiculous - because (guess what) we can actually real neural activity, hormone levels, phenotypical expression, and so on and so forth TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SOMEONE"S HEAD. You are empirically wrong. Furthermore, you don't like Science at all then, huh? Because that's how the deduction works IN ALL SCENARIOS. Stop coming to conclusions, know your epistemological limits, how could you know whats going on in that petri dish! There's no possible or conceivable way that you could ever unravel what happens in solar systems! Its an impossibility!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Wheeere? Do you think I have a perfect mind? Will it kill you to just drop it... also - funny that you have a book to demonstrate your claims - perhaps something peer-reviewed would work better anywhose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Cause from YOU there has been exactly ZERO substantiation for any of your claims. You have a hard time proving a thing you claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Then.... link it. Let me read it - if you are so convinced by this source, then just give it to me. It's not that difficult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your support there reminds me of a certain DDO.... the guy who refused Pastuer's research.... ya know - the germ theory of disease - same vibes- same lack of substantiation.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Mmm - no - just pointing out that your "the teeth isn't the same" is bullshit, your entire argument is bullshit, the fact that the bit in question can come out does not preclude it from being a part of the mother, the oxygenation, protein syndication, all of that - was done by the mother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Um... people having a locker room, bathroom isn't a right... ya know - actually not a right, but furthermore, no - you're just incorrect on the whole. The majority of US citizens don't know that there are three branches of government much less complex neurology.
Created: