Total posts: 1,971
-->
@Best.Korea
Your post 8 (emphasis added):
Full of hate comments opposing to what I am arguing for…
Your latest post:
Its interesting how you moved the goalpost from "misgendering" to "nasty comments".
But… I am the one moving the goalposts?
I dont do research for you. Sorry.
You mean that you don’t support your own claims. Well, you should be sorry for that.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
This is the first relevant video that appeared in my brief search. I don’t see any nasty comments, though:
Do you have any examples of what you are talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
One need only observe Senator Fetterman to realize what little it takes to defeat some Republican candidates these days. Cynical? Without a doubt, but fairly effective in a Faustian bargain kind of way…
Created:
Many people are saying: "Boys should not be called girls...".
Do you have real world examples of what you are talking about, exactly?
Created:
The debate doesn’t involve accurate definitions:
Transition - When a person who is born a boy dresses like a girl, wears make up and is addressed like a girl.
The above is an incomplete definition of the concept and isn’t even controversial from a legal standpoint. These things are all pretty superficial and very easily reversed if need be. The word “allow/allowed” isn’t defined, and, from the given context, appears simply to mean “don’t be mean [to boys who wish to transition].”
So, good luck to the challenger!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You could say that Clinton’s marriage appears transactional, but she is clearly more qualified in statesmanship than Harris
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I suppose it would be determined by one's belief in the nature of the world. It is my belief that the world is materialistic, and as a result everything is merely a projection of the physical.
I, too, am a materialist, but I still acknowledge the limits of what science is meant for. For example, capitalism (and its various subcategories) does not require metaphysical or supernatural belief; neither does socialism (and its various subcategories). Does science help you choose which economic system or which mixture of a mixed economic system to employ? No, because science does not provide guiding principles for all human endeavors. Science is used after guiding principles are chosen, not before.
Being that the description of science is to understand the natural world, and I see philosophy as a means to view the natural world through a specific lens, it seems to me that philosophy is a more fixated way of understanding the world, where science is a broader way to understand the world.
Again, I see it the other way around: philosophy provides a broad lens or a wide variety of lenses, whereas science provides a specific lens.
I do acknowledge that you pointed out philosophy came first, perhaps it is possible that a specific lens of understanding the world was created before they understood the broader scope of the world in general and created a broader goal. Ultimately, I see the metaphysical as merely the (non-existing but real) conception that is rooted within the physical nature of the world. I'm not asking you to agree with me, but do you understand my perspective, and how does it relate to yours?
I sort of understand your perspective. To me, it seems that what you espouse is called scientism (which I mentioned earlier in a list)— the belief that science can address all human endeavors. Alas, it is usually used as a pejorative accusing the system of having an excessive trust in science, precisely because it is being applied outside of its scope.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
I disagree that philosophy is a subset of science. If anything, it’s the other way around. If you read the first link you provided, you will read that the scientific method originated from philosophy, and it was originally called “natural philosophy.” Here is the summary the article provides:
“1.Philosophy and science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis for science, formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many branches or fields of study and make use reasoning, questioning, and analysis. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge.
2.Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
3.”Science” comes from a Latin word (scientia), while “philosophy” was derived from the Greek “philosophia.”
4.Another common element between the two studies is that they both try to explain situations and find answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation, while science utilizes empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
5.Science is used for instances that require empirical validation, while philosophy is used for situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied. Science also takes answers and proves them as objectively right or wrong.
6.Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy, while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers, philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile, science is only concerned with the latter.
7.Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking; science does the same by observing.
8.Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy, which can be applied to many extensive areas of discipline.”
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Do you then believe that religion will not disappear completely, but will become more diverse and personalized?
I have no belief one way or the other on that. What I am saying is that humans need a philosophical framework in which to function in the world, deity or no deity.
Do you believe that science could ever be a point of unification that religion once held?
No, because science is a method, a tool, a means to an end but not an end itself. It does not even pretend to answer certain philosophical questions, such as: why does anything exist? Why are we here, and what should I do to live a fulfilling and meaningful life?
Do you believe that the future of religion will be better or worse in the perspective you believe it will evolve towards?
I have no idea. As Yogi Berra said, “Predictions are hard to make— especially about the future.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And don’t forget “Spearchucker” Jones. He was a very little known character who only lasted a few episodes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The real tragedy is that he has no detectable sense of humor. None. I am reminded of a certain TV character from days long ago:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Oh no, you didn’t criticize the Democratic Party, you personally attacked Kamala Harris as a whore with a terrible laugh.
The Vice President is lucky to have you in this forum to defend her honor, particularly when she is not here to defend herself. *massive eyeroll*
You are not a serious adult American. You just don’t have the intellect to discuss politics.
You seem to be projecting your own fragile ego onto me. It’s also humorous that you think that what you do here is “discuss” politics. Here’s an idea: you don’t HAVE to post to me in the first place.
That is why they deserve to be ridiculed and hated.
Duly noted. So very, very duly noted!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
How could I forget?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, I get it: you hate the Republican Party. Your even bigger issue, though, is that you love the Democrat Party. You even see criticisms of it as a personal affront.
Created:
Edit for clarity:
*I just would not say it would ever be presented like this*
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Your first post to me:
I suppose the most complicated part of this hypothesis would be deciding which would be the most favorable. Would you say that they should be determined based on a majority vote?
And your subsequent claims:
I wasn't suggesting a vote
I wasn't proposing a majority vote
Eh… what? You most certainly introduced the subject of voting. Whether it was your “suggestion” or not, your “proposal” or not, is very secondary to the goals of clarity, intellectual honesty, and avoiding semantic entanglements in this forum.
It's apparent that history has the clues, it's just a matter of interpreting or discovering the consistencies. Would you explain your view of what history has taught us?
Well, I’ll just use the US as a historical example. The land was originally settled by pioneers with strong, unifying religious beliefs. The nation itself was founded by men with a strong belief in classical liberalism and a definite fear of tyranny and totalitarianism. These ideas were finally implemented via revolution and agreement upon installing a constitutional republic. So, revolution is an avenue; belief in representative government is an avenue.
Social evolution just happens as a matter of course. That can involve any endless number of things, from theism to hedonism. And, as I said, different leaders espouse different central doctrines, be they “Manifest Destiny,” “Return to Normalcy,” neoconservativism, America First… the list is virtually endless. So, yes, majority vote does play into it, I just wouldn’t say that it would never be presented like this:
“Today, we bring up a national referendum: will our nation be founded upon humanism, or will it be founded upon objectivism? The majority will decide.”
Created:
-->
@TwoMan
A very relevant observation
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Are you talking about the US? Not really. I wasn’t limiting this to the US, but voting isn’t usually how working philosophies gain traction, with the exception of electing politicians who espouse a certain philosophy upfront.
Again, look at history for clues. Sometimes it happens via revolution, sometimes via social evolution, and sometimes via democratic political processes. Perhaps there are other avenues I haven’t thought of.
My central point is that humans need something to believe in, whether that something is a deity or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Someone needs to take a chill pill…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If Pence weren’t a gentleman, he would easily beat Harris.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Are you charmed by Harris’ laugh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I didn’t realize you are an admirer of VP Harris.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Could science or another alternative fill the void that was once filled by religion?
IMO, this is the crux of the matter— there is a void that needs to be filled. We humans are emotional beings, and the world has limited resources. It’s not just “could there be” or “if” so much as other things will fill the void, and it will not be something so lofty as “pure reason and logic” or “pure love, compassion, and selflessness.” We can see this in history. One of the most straightforward examples, the Soviet Union, showed that other systems or “isms” will inevitably fill the void if religion is eradicated. In that case, statism was the replacement with the state serving as the deity demanding worship, if you will.
Various “isms” can fill the void I believe, and it can be various overlapping ones of various categories: humanism, socialism, capitalism, hedonism, nationalism, scientism, objectivism, imperialism, environmentalism, postmodernism, etc. etc. I believe that which one a person or society aligns with most coincides with where a person or society is on the human hierarchy of needs. The more one’s basic needs are met, the more one will tend toward humanism, environmentalism, or hedonism, for examples. The less their needs are met, the more they will tend toward socialism, Marxism or communism.
Some of these philosophies can also accompany existing religious thought. The US is largely religious but still abides by capitalism and classical liberalism. And, some might argue, colonialism and imperialism. Communism is just about the only one which seems to require a lack of belief in a deity.
So, I figure the trick is to pick the most favorable combination of “isms” to “worship.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Vice President Harris serves as an inspiration to young women everywhere— that with hard work, determination and perseverance, you, too, can sleep your way to the top!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
At least you get some of my jokes…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wrong. Post 27 was a response to you trying to parse federalism and socialism.
I should have been more specific. What I was saying is that this:
Blue states send more money to the Federal treasury than red states. Red states get back more money from the government than they send.
is correct and notably different from your exaggerated and heavy-handed characterization below from post 27:
it’s the red state republicans who are taking all the federal money that comes from blue state taxpayers. Without the federal government, red states would starve to death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The lesson is clear: if you are living on food stamps, thank a Democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Blue states send more money to the Federal treasury than red states. Red states get back more money from the government than they send.
Correct! And notably different from your characterization in post 27. However, the nagging question remains: which party can piss farther?
If anybody should be bitching about socialism in this country it’s Democrats working and living in blue states.
By all means, please do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The hypocrisy I’m talking about is Republican voters from red states claiming Democrats are socialists when it’s the red state republicans who are taking all the federal money that comes from blue state taxpayers. Without the federal government, red states would starve to death.
Doubling down on exaggeration and your facile interpretation of the data, unsurprisingly. I get it… everyone here gets it— you hate Republicans, and especially Republicans who happen to be poor and/or dummies *yawn* Wake me up when you wish to discuss things honestly. I have a feeling I’ll be getting plenty of rest…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It takes some nerve to raise taxes in an inflationary environment. Inflation is already known as “the hidden tax.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It doesn’t take much investigation to find hypocrisy in the realm of politics. Bitching about taxes and paying low taxes isn’t really hypocrisy though, and what you’re bringing up here is federalism rather than socialism.
My favorite example of right wing hypocrisy (and ignorance) is the guy that held up a protest sign saying “Keep government out of my Medicare!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe he is suggesting Northern States continue to pay for the reconstruction of the South today as ongoing reparations for the devastation of the Civil War and forced Indian reservations?
Hmm… maybe… just maybe. Or maybe he is implying that states which don’t vote “properly” should be punished by the federal government rather than assisted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yes, the article I cited and which you just quoted offers a conclusion from the data. And I agree— wealth is preferable to poverty. The data also show how much poverty in the US is concentrated in the South.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Broad interpretation? No, the data says red states pay little in to the federal treasury and get a lot of money back.
Ha! That is yet an even broader interpretation. Funny thing— New Mexico has the greatest gap of all the states between money out vs money in. It is the most glaring exception to your broad interpretation of the data.
Again, what of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I expect him to make a good showing on the debate stage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That’s a broad interpretation of the data rather than a conclusion. So, what of it? Are you making a value judgment or something based upon that interpretation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What are some conclusions that can be drawn from this data?
Created:
Posted in:
The economy is doing well in the same way that a game of musical chairs can be playing a good song.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It’s official— I’m embarrassed for you now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Dude, you’re moving the goalposts of this particular discussion. Do I need to prove that now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
“The existence of nuclear weapons has never led to a nuclear war. Therefor, they never will.”
Is this reasoning sound to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The fallacy is called “non sequitur”— does not follow, in other words.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think freedom of association should be abolished in modern society?
*crickets*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
US debt has never caused us a problem
If you are implying that your conclusion is “ergo, it never will cause us a problem,” that is a fallacy.
Created:
No overreach or corruption to see in this administration, folks! It was only the last one which did that stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Agreed, with the exception of political disagreement = bad guys, but you are overthinking it. This is just about identifying people who disagree politically but also qualify (by whatever measure you wish to employ) as intelligent in your personal estimation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ok, so now is your opportunity to state the names of people who disagree with your politics but are also intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
I have observed that a number of members in this forum tend to view people who disagree with their politics as intellectually inferior. I think it is a mistake to do this. In that spirit, let’s try to name at least one person, famous or not, who has an opposing political worldview whom we nonetheless consider to be intelligent. I’ll go first:
Noam Chomsky (probably the smartest yet most disagreeable on my list)
President Carter
President Clinton
President Obama
Justice Elena Kagan
Jon Stewart
David Letterman
Dave Chappelle
Noam Chomsky (probably the smartest yet most disagreeable on my list)
President Carter
President Clinton
President Obama
Justice Elena Kagan
Jon Stewart
David Letterman
Dave Chappelle
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
“in the Wikipedia write up”lol
He is a crack up, isn’t he? In the completely unintentional kind of way…
Created: