Total posts: 5,653
-->
@Fallaneze
Yep! You got it!
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Humans define the goals, not organs or physics.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
What does that have to do with achieving something?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Physics isn't a thing or force that does anything. Like I said, humans anthropromorphize things.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, fuck, PGA doesn't even know what he was voting for. He voted yes to MEEP then goes on and on about voting standards.
Created:
Posted in:
If your standards are so high as to not garner sufficient participation in a timely manner, those standards should be reevaluated. Especially given that you had to do this twice to achieve these results. So not only is it "extend the deadline until the desired results are achieved" it's also "repeat the poll until the desired results are achieved."
Created:
Posted in:
bsh1: submits process for discussion
Also bsh1: refuses to discuss process
There is obviously a balance between participation and actually setting a deadline so shit can actually get done. Right now, it seems that the deadline is just "whenever the fuck bsh1 feels like it"
That is unacceptable. Deadline should be defined and stated up front and adhered to. If people miss it, oh well. People that have an interest in participating will make an effort to participate in a timely manner.
Created:
Posted in:
It seems clear to me that you were waiting till you got enough votes for it to "count" by this arbitrarily defined standard. Because otherwise it would seem ridiculous to have a standard that couldn't even muster enough participation to pass by its own measure. So you've basically just switched secret participation thresholds with secret deadlines.There is no rush to close the voting--particularly when participation is low. It is not really as if any of the votes are razor thin and I am just waiting for that one vote to swing something my way. I am simply giving people as much of a chance to merely participate. But, as I said earlier, the voting will close soon.
48 hours gives people plenty of a chance to participate, and what you said was "afternoon". It's 10pm.
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Neither requires a purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
lol, so we're just going to extend the deadline indefinitely till you get the votes you want?
Created:
-->
@Fallaneze
Most likely they simply describe their function. Nevertheless, it is a trait of humans to humanize and personify non-human things. This does not mean they have a purpose.
Created:
Our organs don't have a purpose.Without God, evolution is just a mindless process that has no aims or goals. This means that everything that results from evolution is purposeless, including internal organs. If our organs fo have a purpose, and not one that we're merely imagining, an external intelligence is required for such a purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Logical-Master
They put their elbows on the table while eating.
Created:
Posted in:
I wish ordinary language was easer to use... unfortunately it was invented to deal with hunting zebras and gathering nuts not for doing ontological epistemology!
People have been using ordinary language to constructively discuss ontology and epistemology for millennia.
It seems to me we have true/real/exists on one side and false/unreal/'un-exists' on the other.
Ok...
We use those words but I don't tremember ever learning what they mean how they relate to each other. I've never looked them up in a dictionary.
You want me to google it for you?
So what is the difference between something that is true and something that is false?
Depends on the context. What is your context?
More to the point, perhaps we don't need seperate words for true, real and exists if we can define term in terms of each other, along the lines that 'the true=the real=the existing' and 'the false=the unreal=the non-existent'.
I don't see the point in this.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Transformers: The Movie
2. Iron Giant
3. Who Framed Roger Rabbit
4. Lion King
5. Wall-E
6. How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Boris Karloff version)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok, then, even if we establish his lineage, on what basis do we establish his heriditory rights to the kingdom of Israel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Ok. Well, when you're done shouting at the cloud, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
Do we know what the succession laws of ancient Israel were?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
very hairy stuff.
I hear we're close to that as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm just taking a jab at the older trend of RFDs needing to be paragraphs upon paragraphs of words to be considered "good" which was a direct result of the arcane voting standards. They're better now, but I can't miss a chance to add another stake to that vampire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
It just comes off as "old man yells at cloud." It's inherently silly. It's futile. And being performed by someone that has no idea what's going on or what the conversation is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Can't view the entire thing without a subscription. But it only looks like 2 pages. DART votes need at least 5 pages of explanation to be valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
LOL, I was mainly trying to take the piss in thinking of the least biological scientific question I could think of.
On the biological side, do you have thoughts on the genetic engineering of fetuses (a la the new Chinese HIV resistant baby)?
I've heard good things about the Arundel High School path and the Broadneck High School path, but AACPS is pretty good, I had interned at Maryland City Elementary in Laurel, it was alright.
Yeah, but we aren't too keen on the Arundel Middle School. I think so far we are leaning toward the Broadneck area.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Except I don't think you're bad. I just think your off-topic focus of "teh leftist media" is laughable. So I laugh at it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Science Question:
If protons and neutrons are both made of up and down quarks, why do we still treat atomic nuclei as collections of protons and neutrons rather than collections of up and down quarks? Can we distinguish between up and down quarks that are comprise "protons" versus up and down quarks that comprise "neutrons" while they are still inside the nucleus?
Non-Science Question:
I'm in AA County in MD, looking to move (staying within the county). What is a good public school district for middle and high school?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Like I said, if you have something to say without going on a rant about "teh leftist media!" I'm willing to hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
See? It's like you can't go for more than two posts without delving into "grr. media left. media bad. grr"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The debate isn't because morality isn't well defined, it's because it's subjective and relative when so many people insist that it is objective and absolute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A combination of being told what is more or less moral than other things with a projection of our own sense of what we would rather have done to us. Would you rather someone steal your wallet or slit your throat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
All I'm belittling is your "grr. media left. left bad. grr" mentality which is deserving of ridicule. If you have something else to say besides that, let's hear it without the "grr media" stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
If this MEEP process is accepted as-is, this site is pretty much irrecoverable.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think people realize how much of a barrier majority +1 with a minimum participation threshold is to enacting changes, especially when the mods can arbitrarily decide what is and is not subjected to this MEEP process. As is, it's pure lip service that doesn't bind the mods to anything nor presents the users with any realistic avenue for change.
Created:
Posted in:
Simple majority, no minimum participation requirement, all user-impact changes submitted to MEEP before being established as status quo (e.g. report anonymity, mods being unblockable, the MEEP process itself)
Mike backing MEEP results to make them binding to the mods.
Created:
Posted in:
No.1. Is the current MEEP process an acceptable framework for hosting these policy discussions?
2. Should an opt-in voting standard which is less stringent than the default be implemented for debaters?
Yes.
3. Should moderation moderate select-winner votes using the argument standard currently applied to the 7-point system?
No.
4. Should moderation be able to suspend problematic votes prior to deleting the voting in order to give the voter to fix the vote before the vote is taken down?
Yes.
5. Should there be an opt-in for stricter moderation standards? If yes, what should those standards look like?
Yes, the existing judged debates fits that purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I'm willing to talk if you have anything more to say than "grr. media left. media bad. grr"Is that really all you have to say?
Do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think the issue here is you're treating it as a quantifiable and discrete measure of something. It's more like health or humor we can say something is healthier than something else or something is funnier than something else but they're not discrete measurements of anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
grr. media left. left bad. grr.Leftist media however, wants to make you think the definition of a white nationalist is "a person who proudly believe their country is 100% a white man's country". That's the definition of a racist xenophobe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's no more absurd than comparing the length of two objects. Why is a 2" object longer than a 1" object?But they do rank them. If X is ranked as more moral than Y then there must be something about X and Y that makes people rank them as they do. It's fairly universal that murder is ranked as less moral than theft. It won't really do in the philosophy forum to say that murder is ranked as less moral than theft because murder is less moral than theft...that's not getting us anywhere!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Space.
How so?
The point being that we do assign things to points along a morality scale.
Some people do, yes. It is not universal that all moral systems comparatively rank the morality of actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am imagining a scale, or a line, with 'very immoral' over on the left and 'very moral' on the right. Murder (or 'unjustified killing') is very near the left end, giving to charity somewhere on the right and telling 'white lies' near the middle. But what is it that determines where they are on the scale?
Based on your description above: your imagination.
Surely 'morality' can't be a measure of 'morality'! Velocity is a measure of change of position per unit time. Mass is a measure of inertia/gravitational potential. But what is morality a measure of?
What is length a measure of?
Created: