Wrick-It-Ralph

Absolute truth seems succinct enough. 

What do you mean by relative truth?  Do you mean true in the moment like a synthetic truth? 

Lies seem pretty straightforward.  Where do opinions fit into your model? 

You're creating a false problem.  America has survived with differing cultures since it's genesis and so have a lot of societies in fact.  

Assimilation by itself is not racist.  Forced assimilation pointed specifically at races and cultures is racist. 

I've tried.  You'll get the same dialectic every time or an insult.  It's a shame too because it makes certain conversations with mustardness basically impossible.  This could even be the intent of the speech, but that's merely speculation on my part. 

so one part of your statement stuck out as being a step too far.  The rest was speculation, but that's cool because that's why I opened this topic, lol. 

I have a problem with the idea that a ghost "chooses" who can see it.  This would contradict the nature of observation.  Even when we imagine crazy possibilities, we have to make sure they're coherent.  By coherent, I mean that any hypothetical idea that you add should not violate any previous observations that have been confirmed consistently.  

So I'd ultimately have to ask how selective visibility could be coherent. 

I concur 

Bingo.

Assuming they have the same goals and being "better of" relates to those goals, then yes.  If my only goal in life is to not be homeless, then my choices are only limited until I have enough money for that goal since I choose to not care about other things that are more difficult to obtain. 

True, but even if it was deterministic.  That would mean that our decisions literally come down to the exact moment we make them and this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. Furthermore, let's say everything is predetermined, does that change the fact that our minds think and that we make choices?  I'd say no.  At the most, it just means that we make choices for reasons we don't understand. 

Maybe.  But there are things that even biology can't control.  like your brain might control your activity, but that activity is controlled by particles and as far as we know, particles are not deterministic.  So there's still room for choice in the matter.  

well that's the point, it's not a thing that you do or don't have.  It's a quantity.  If you only have one choice, then your freedom of will is zero and then it can be higher or lower based on circumstance. 

I would posit that in the way you described it, we could possibly call it "freedom of will" in the sense that we have some freedom within our actions.  The "free will" statement implies that it's completely unrestricted, which isn't true if you count external factors and genetic dispositions.  

Then that leaves the question, Do we make a choice because biology always makes us, or is there a point where biology doesn't care and just lets us act within our biology? 

I agree, will or agency.  The free part is definitely contradicted by determinism.  I'd be a fool to say otherwise. 

False.  this is argument from ignorance fallacy and creating a false problem aka begging the question. 

You're assuming there's a problem that needs solved and then saying we need a solution (false problem begging the question)

Then you go on to say that if there is no alternative to the false problem, that yours gets to be used (argument from ignorance.)  No solution can be better if the solution to the FALSE problem is bad (which it is.)

yes

nothing really. 

I don't care about free will.  It's just a mystical term.  I care about will.  Will exist.  The free descriptor is just a misnomer. 

\m/ (0.0) \m/

You say determines like physics has a mind.  Physics doesn't determine our actions, it limits our choices.  In fact, we're the ones who control physics.  I can harness physics for energy and food and all of my other desires.   

It's not that determinism is false per se.  It's that it's vacuous.  It's the logical equivalent of saying "what will happen will happen." 

A question. 

Since we can't go back in time, who do we KNOW that we couldn't have made a different decision? 

Furthermore, does it matter if we couldn't?  The fact is that we definitely had a choice in the moment and that's all that counts.  That's why I think it's better to call it "will" rather than "free will".  The "free" part is the true falsehood.  Because free implies that we have no limitations.  Obviously, physics limits us.  But that doesn't change the fact that we have will.  

Also, you do realize that these types of words are meant to describe humans and that makes them try by virtue of our existence, right? 

That's why I say these types of argument always boil down to either bigotry or xenophobia.  I'm not saying the people advocating are necessarily racist, but rather they don't understand what it is they're advocating for. 

My level is A2.  I have trouble getting further than that because certain specific words always stump me even though my general speech is pretty solid. 

To the first comment.   Those Hispanics are also americans.  You don't have any extra claim to this country over them just because you happened to be born here.  This country was built on immigrants and you obviously are thinking with a heavy and illogical bias toward Hispanics for no reaons. 

To the second one.  Wow that's really cringy.  You just compare speaking Spanish to inciting violence.  You don't want to preserve anything.  You want to abuse the first amendment and fly your racism in the face of American values.  It's clear to me that you're making this decision based off of racism.  Because you haven't provided any actual practical reason for assimilation.  You just make appeals to nationalism (which is just another face of bigotry) while at the same time telling other people they can't have their nationalism. 

Your views make you quite weak minded actually because you get your panties in a bunch over some immigrants while the rest of us are making progress as a species.   

You know what.  I think bigots should have to assimilate into not bigot culture and that the "bigot" language should be illegal to speak.  Either that or go back to bigot country and gtfo out of America.  Everything that comes out of your mouth on this subject is complete mind garbage and it was a disservice to my eyes to read your racist drivel. 

I would say have a nice day.  But I wouldn't mean. it. 

I think I would agree with that. 

Just seen your other post.  I4 is the second level right?  I think that's where I test as well.  I haven't taken the test in a while so I don't remember.  I more or less taught myself because I used to be a door to door salesman and I had to learn Spanish to sell to Spanish speaking customers because my boss was a jerk and would drop me in all Spanish speaking neighborhoods.  I was stubborn, so I decided "I'll just learn enough Spanish to talk to them"   I basically could sell a magazine in fluent Spanish with ease, but I didn't learn about how different Spanish was until later on when I realized that conjugations were a thing. 

Nice. That doesn't surprise me.  You said you took Spanish classes and the way they teach them it's easy to forgot a detail here or there.  One thing I always forget is adjective/noun agreement because we don't do that in English.  

My trick is to say the phrase in my head using Spanish grammar so it's easier to build the word.  It makes the English version sound dumb in your head, but it translates easily 

On a side note.  Glad to meet another hablante de espanol.   gracias. 

I agree. 

also, when you say aprendido, you have to say "he estado" before it when you use the past participle. 

you're pretty good for teaching yourself honestly.  You know the words, but I can tell you don't know the native phrases yet.  LIke when you say "for 8 years"   There's two things here. 

1.  it's "por" not "para" 

2 natives don't say it that way

3.  They say "it makes 8 years that I did X or hace ocho anos que estudie espanol"

The native phrases are always tricky like this 

also.  it's me enseno (I taught to myself)  if you do something it's "yo"  if you do something TO yourself then it's "me" (it's called reflexive)

ya veo.  aye entonces necesitas dos cosas.  primero: estudiar gramatica y Segundo: estudiar conjutivos (el Segundo es muy importante)

You're arguing to take away the thing from Hispanics that you also want for americans.  Your argument is a contradiction.  

Btw, Spanish is the most spoken language on the internet.  Wrap your mind around that for a second. 

For the same reason you want to preserve English.  If it doesn't matter, then why do you care? 

That's a violation of the 1st amendment.  Do you not agree with the 1st amendment? 

I accidentally tagged you.  But since you're here.  Are you saying that you're in favor of assimilation and if you don't like division, I'm guessing that you don't like border control then right? 

My mistake. 

No, they do not force you to speak Spanish in Mexico.  The breakdown you're speaking of is a cultural one.  Who cares?  Is a culture more important than people?  No.  People are more important.  Get some perspective.  You're talking about making a bunch of people suffer just so you can have America the way you want.  You don't see how that's immoral?

what's wrong with having Hispanics in our country?  We're all the children of immigrants. 

If you're calling Spanish dangerous, then I'm not sure that this conversation will end up being productive, because I just cannot see a reality where that is true even if I shamelessly stretch it. 

Well group identities isn't a mexico problem, it's a world problem.  Pretty much everybody does it.  My problem with this argument is that it logically always has to fall on either xenophobia or racism.  Those are fallacious foundations for an argument. 

agreed 

indeed

Oh I see.  You think they should assimilate to American culture, that makes more sense.  

Well you do realize that assimilation just happens right?  Also, some of their culture will sit with us.  I don't really care about cultures but I'm not a fan of social constructs.  I don't equate it to race though.  

Even if you believe this, there's not reason to reject Spanish.  You're taking it to the next level when you do that.  I can appreciate Spanish without appealing to culture and having a culture is not wrong.  It's only wrong if you make a group identity out of it and impose it in a bigoted way. 

It implies that ONE circumstance was out of control.  It also implies that I could change my circumstances (driving to the store) to meet my desire.  It also showed that I could ignore my desire.  Those are choices.  I made those choices and that's really all I need to know.  I don't really care if it's called free will or not and I think that term is loaded anyway.  I would rather just call it will because the free part doesn't really do anything.  Who cares if it's free?  Can I make a choice?  Then it's will. 

I said "I wish that there was more Spanish speakers in here."  Not an exact translate because I had to move the words around, but it would sound funny if I said it with Spanish grammar. 

I'm not sure why you don't like multiculturalism.  Every culture is multicultural if you think about it.  Each person brings their own culture and it changes over time.  Sending immigrants away also has nothing to do with culture, that has to do with race. 

Espero que huya mas hablantes de espanol en aqui. :) 

I think it's the other way around. Situation, then preference.  I can give an example. 

The situation is bad, so I prefer to change. 

The situation is good, so I prefer it to stay the same. 

I can also prove that these things are in fact in our control at lease some of the time. 

My preference itself is not necessarily in my control, although I can't say for sure that it's not in my control.  What is in my control is what I do about my preference and how I achieve that action.  Here's an example.

I prefer turkey over beef, but I have no turkey, so I eat the beef.  (Couldn't have my preference, so I chose to forego it for now for a lesser preference)

I prefer turkey over beef, but I have no turkey, so I drive to the store for turkey  (Couldn't have my preference, so I chose to change my circumstances)

I prefer turkey over beef, but my wife won't let me eat turkeys, so I've learned to develop a taste for beef (Couldn't have my preference while maintain my preference for being married, so I chose to only eat beef, which I eventually change my preference for)

So I have examples of control my outcomes at least to some extent.  If you want to say that's not free will, then cool, but I would then say we're not talking about the same word anymore.

 

nice

First point. 

duly noted

Second point. 

You're talking about determinism.  So while it's true that you can't change your decision.  It's a vacuous truth.  Even if we did have free will, we still could never make more than one decision.  will simply speaks to desires.  We have desires, so we have will.  the free part is where the contentious lies.  If free means no impositions, then sometimes yes and sometimes no, if free means as much freedom as the situation allows, then probably yes.  If free means not being mind controlled, then probably yes.  If free means literally whatever you want, then no. 

That's a part of the whole fallacy.  

Yes, technically it's all our brains, but that doesn't mean it's the same part of the brain.  If we're just going to say "it's all the brain" then talking about any kind of knowledge at all is vacuous.  

While they may both be biological processes, opinions are not the same as cues.  

Opinions relate directly to active thought and our ability to make choices.  We can actively think and dwell upon an opinion and change it. 

While we can dwell on our cues, nothing we think about them will ever change them. 

This appears to be what I'm arguing for. 

I think that puts us at a resolution. :) 

I just realized we're arguing over hume's gillotene. 

ultimately, I'll have to agree there's a subjective element although I'm okay with.  I still believe there's something objective driving us even if we ultimately do it for subjective reasons. 

To your third statement

The morals we make would always be subjective, but literally anything we believe is subjective but can also be simultaneously objective.  It's just like you said.  "we can pick something and make an objective standard for it"  So the question of whether the thing you pick is subjective or objective doesn't change the fact that the standard itself is objective.  You even pick the harm/benefit standard like I do.  So essentially we have close to the same moral code.  I'm just adding in the observation or moral tendencies seem to come from evolution.  

Feelings themselves can't be externally falsified (other than hooking yourself to a brain scan).  However, any judgement you make based on feelings can be falsified because we can compare it to people who didn't use those same feelings to see if you used your feelings or not.  That's how science generally finds objectivity within anecdotal claims.  Although the truths you get from this method aren't as fruitful as they are in logic. 

I would just say that your "moral feelings" are just the way you feel about morality.  ultimately morality is just a concept with a goal in mind.  people might have different opinions about the goal, but the goal seems to be the same for everybody.  

Well he's admitted to not knowing much about philosophy.  You're merely asserting that his language is not confusing.  Even people who like his work tend to admit it's confusing so you saying I don't understand it because I have my own confusing language is just false.  If he was so easy to understand, then I should be able to whip out a dictionary and understand him, but that's not the case.  

Furthermore, it's not that I don't understand what he's saying, quite the opposite, I understand that when you take what he says to it's logical conclusion, it ends up with multiple possible meanings.  In philosophy, they call that equivocation.  It's something that everybody does, but people arguing for god almost always have to do it because it's the only way to smuggle god in.  When you really peel back what JP is saying.  He's not really saying anything at all.  He just defines god into existence and then implies that there are "hypothetical truths" then calls god an archetype "connecting him to hypothetical truths" then says we should live our lives by our archetypes "final step of smuggling in God".  But when you ask him if god exist, he won't answer that . Because he knows that if he says god is real, then he would have to drop his mumbo jumbo about hypothetical truths and deal with the same problems with the god claim that stop other apologists from proving it.  While it's clever on his part, it's also dishonest and ultimately vacuous.  

The only people who fall for this crap are people who don't understand what he's saying and theists who want to ride his wave because they need a good argument for god and don't have one. 

this is the best way I can put it.  The cue is the reason that we have morals.  The morals are tenants that were initially drawn subjectively due to the fact that it's hard to resist cues.  Then as a society we got smarter and we were able to conceptualize what the cues were telling us and we started making morals off them.  So you could call is subjective, but the thing we used to make the morals was objective.  Those morals act as a priority list and when we're in a situation, we try to subjectively sort those morals out to make moral judgements.   The thing to note here is that we technically did invent the concept of a moral, but there part where I feel there's objectivity is where we did "moral" things before we knew what a moral was.  So I guess my argument boils down to the origin of the word itself. 

no problem.  It happens.  

If you look at insect morality, it actually makes sense.  insects have short lives and small brains, so they don't need a complex moral system like we do.  A morally good life for an ant is getting to be alive long enough to help the colony and maybe eat some food and get laid.