Total posts: 7,093
-->
@Critical-Tim
We cannot learn without quanta but it doesn't matter what we learn without qualia. Neither is more or less important to our understanding of the universe. They simply have different utility.
Created:
Posted in:
Any industry needs capitalNo it dies not. It needs resources. You share conflating two separate ideas.YOU are the one "conflating"
Imagine that currency had never been invented. Would engines cease to function? No they would not. Now let's say you have money but no gasoline. Will your engine cease to function? You betcha. Know ehy? Because capital is not the resource it is only a stand in. Resources could still be utilized without this stand in.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Yes, it is impossible to make a decision without a perspective because if you cannot perceive the situation there is no way to conclude a response.
Well perspective is subjective.
What do you mean by the brute fact is often meaningless?
Quanta is the brute fact. It can be directly grasped and measured and there is nothing more beyond what calculation can provide. It is factually accurate and meaningless.
The sun's temperature as revealed by a spectrometer is an example of quanta. It is not subject to debate because it is imminently measurable.
Qualia is the experience. the nature, or content, of our subjective experiences. What we are aware of when we see, hear, taste, touch or smell. It is meaningful and visceral and absolutely subjective.
That many think the sun looks beautiful is an example of qualia. It has meaning but not a universal meaning and if someone said the sun were actually an ugly star they would not be "wrong".
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Without some perspective it may be impossible to make any decisions.
The brute fact is often meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I just won't threaten them with financial penalty and the threat of bodily harm to see that happen.
So they ought to take care of their children but if they don't and niether will anyone else what then ought to happen?
IF no one decides to give children the GIFT of adequate food and shelter THEN ???
(Kindly if you have the time and inclination fill in the ???)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
So really no one ought take care of children unless they feel like it. That is consistent anyway. Agree to disagree but I do understand your stance.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Perhaps the information that should be considered as relevant to the equation is what plays a part in the outcome, no matter what perspective or lens it is being viewed.
Ok if you find any let me know.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Perhaps the information that should be considered as relevant to the equation is what plays a part in the outcome, no matter what perspective or lens it is being viewed.
Ok if you find any let me know.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Perhaps it's less of a representation and more of an interpretation or perspective of reality.
Whatever you want to call it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Before we her too much further I just wanted to clear something up that is as yet unclear in our discussion.
When you say all coercion is wrong do you also mean that if one person gets another person pregnant that they should not be coerced or forced into providing for that child financially?
Like do you mean that while people ought to care for their children they cannot be made to or are you also in favor of slne coercion sone of the time?
Sorry to change the subject and we can get back to the rest of that possibly if we decide to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's not preventable
Perhaps not eliminated completely but that is no reason to let more children starve than we have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It's not preventable
Perhaps not eliminated completely but that is no reason to let more children starve than we have to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Any industry needs capital
No it dies not. It needs resources. You share conflating two separate ideas.
Ok why is it a problem if a woman's a child and also is not married?We have already addressed this issue.
Post number please.
The discussion would seem to revolve around if it IS preventable and if it is WORTH the cost for that prevention.Now you're getting close.
The it here for me at least is children starving. It is either worth keeping children from starving or not. I think it is pretty worthwhile personally.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
It has to start with the axiomatic acceptance that it is indeed a representation of reality.
Created:
-->
@Critical-Tim
One does not understand reality "correctly" whatever that means. One only ever experiences the best approximate of reality one's brain can conjure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Maybe he thinks we should let hungry kids starve
I don't think anyone actually wants this. The discussion would seem to revolve around if it IS preventable and if it is WORTH the cost for that prevention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Mother's being unwed is not a problem per se is it?Within this thread ...Yes it is ....A = A
Ok why is it a problem if a woman's a child and also is not married?
"the funds generated by capitalism equally benefit everyone rather than only the ultra wealthy."What planet are you from?
This one
Capitalism Has Made Human Life Fantastically Better."
Incorrect. Industrialization has done that. Capitalism is not necessary for Industrialization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Mother's being unwed is not a problem per se is it? It is children who are not being financially supported that is the problem right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Then it is possible that I prefer some forms of coercion to wide spread poverty.
It is also possible I would prefer a commonwealth approach where the funds generated by capitalism equally benefit everyone rather than only the ultra wealthy.
Perhaps then we wouldn't even need to collect taxes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
This started as a question I thought.
I thought the question was "if the father cannot be found then who pays?" I thought that was A.
I did my best to answer that question only to be told that you don't feel I'm engaging your point. Everything after was just me trying to determine what the actual question is.
If the question is "wouldn't it be better is all children had responsible parents?" Then the answer is yes that would be better obviously.
It does leave us with the problem still however that this is not actually the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
At least take responsibility for what you're suggesting--"I can't deal with children starving so I'm willing to cosign any measure that would coerce individuals, whether they be parents, public officials, or taxpayers to fund or provide any necessary provision I believe necessary in response to child starvation."
Are you categorizing the collection of taxes coercion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
You're missing a third option all right!!!!!
I am prepared to listen to this third option so long as you give it in plain direct language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm just not willing to cosign any coercive measures which would service that end.
So at the end of the day no one should have to starve unless no one cares to feed them in which case they should starve.
Or is there a secret third option I'm missing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Ok well if you decide you want to tell me your actual point feel free otherwise good luck with.. whatever it is you actually want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
By your question it is obvious that you have read neither the totality of my posts nor have you read the links I have sent.
Actually I was just hoping nit to straw man your position but since you refuse to elucidate further I will try to offer my best understanding of your argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your main argument here is "no person(s) or organization(s) should put an undue burden upon the average tax payer".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Children shouldn't starve. No one should starve. Whether they do is subject to both their own devices and the devices of others. I would also put forward that no one should be coerced into submitting their time, labor or resources to anyone. Would I maintain this position whether more or fewer persons starved? Yes.
So children should not be allowed to starve unless no one feels like feeding them in which case they should in fact starve?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
The answer to all is in the various links that I have sent to you, as well as all the previous correspondences.
All I'm asking for is a concise statement of your position.
If a person who is destitute gets another person pregnant then what ought happen as a result?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Whoever volunteers.
Let us say no one volunteers. Should children then starve?
Assuming your answer is no children should not starve what is now your answer?
Just curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Subjective is anything that requires some subject's perspective to become true. Often you must adopt a subjective or better yet intersubjective perspective before you can discuss things objectively. We could have made any given length the bases for metric units but it is objectively true that there is only one length that we decided would be a meter which is exactly what makes it useful. Once we agree on the intersubjective perspective of metric units of measure we can discuss how far away the post office is objectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Maybe you could just say plainly on your own words what you expect. What should a person do if they are destitute and they make another person pregnant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Those that are poor in responsibility should not have children.When they do they should be made to become responsible.
What does responsible mean to you in this context? What should a person who is destitute and fathers a child be made to do?
Please be more specific than "be kind" or "get civilized".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Actual conversion by force is impossible of course but conversion by the sword does have the side effect of leaving everyone who disagrees vocally dead. This does tend to lead to generational conversion which is far more effective as children are very impressionable and a lack of dissenting voices has a big impression.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
it okay to be addicted to meth, heroin, or some hard drug if it leads to you stealing from other people
Poor analogy. It is absolutely possible to believe both on personal property and bodily autonomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
More to the point are "welfare for deadbeats" and "make the deadbeats pay their fair share"
Agreed and let's start with
"Corporate welfare" and "make the rich pay their fair share"
As that would have far more positive benefits for the average taxpayers than anything else yet suggested in this thread... unless of course you don't actually care about the average tax payer.
You need to understand that if 14 out of 15 children are cared for in a more or less traditional manner, why should the remaining 6% catch a break?
the 6% of children? Why should the 6% of children not being taken care of be taken care of? Well I don't know if I would call that catching a break it is just the same consideration shown the the other 94%. No one is arguing that one child deserves more than another... unless of course you don't actually care about those 6% of children.
Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.So then you need to become financially responsible. 94% do......
So what you are saying is that the "poors" shouldn't have children?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
On July 27 you wrote ..."Perhaps we should collect a public fund maybe even codified into law. A sort of tax if you will. Perhaps since they are noble endeavors we could also use this fund to care for the elderly and support infrastructure. I think this plan has real potential so long as those who earn the most do not find legal loopholes with which to avoid paying a share that is commiserate with their larger earnings. "
We already do this don't we? Isn't this precisely what you are calling to abolish?
If not all we are discussing is a matter of degree. In any case I'm not calling for any new ideas here or even ideas not already to some degree being implemented.
The question is not can we find him but rather do we find him. In too many cases we do not. The system is broken.
I agree that the system is broken but perhaps finding destitute fathers and punishing them is not the best use of our fraud prevention resources. But since you brought it up
Ok
Let's say we do find him and he just doesn't have as much money to give as is needed to provide financial support for all his children. Now what? What is your plan for these individuals?
Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
Biology disagrees.
It is factually accurate that even if you use multiple forms of birth control sometimes you can still get pregnant. Sometimes despite being reproductively responsible you still get/make someone pregnant.
Also sometimes only one or the other party is behaving irresponsibly and in some subset of those cases whom that is can be unclear.
Also also even if your parents are irresponsible you should not be the one who suffers.
there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
Yes that is and should be the goal. Period.
Great because eliminating tax shelters and deductions exclusive to corperate interest and the ultra wealthy is a simple practical solution that would benefit the average taxpayers and the children of "deadbeat" dads far more than tracking down anyone.
Now that would cut down on government welfare to those who don't need assistance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Yes you are calling for something extra. Don't you read your own posts?
What specifically am I calling for that is extra? Didn't you say the services I have described are already in place?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
NO The father is the question to this answer.
I thought you said we could not find the father? So which is it? Can we find him or not?
It is the biological mom and dad who are at fault.
There is not always fault to be assigned. Sometimes even the most responsible people who do everything possible including but not limited to the practice of safe sex and they still get pregnant. Some nonzero number of people get pregnant through no fault of their own.
I already showed that the community is stepping up
Yes in fact you seem to be arguing that this is the precise problem and you would like to see the degree to which the community steps up to be reduced if not eliminated entirely.
The children are being supported currently, as I stated earlier. You seem to misunderstand the question at hand,
Oh almost certainly I thought the question was "what if the father can't be found?" and it seems instead to be "how can we find all the fathers?". The answer is I'm not sure we can or should. Think there may be a more practical solution that could benefit the average tax payer greatly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Existing programs with existing funding already handles these cases.A review of your comments reveals that you contributed little in addressing these issues, other than calling for more government.
If programs already exist it seems like I'm not calling for anything extra. Are you really reading my posts?
Created:
Posted in:
those that do the deed
a father cannot be found
Try hard to follow my logic here. If the father cannot be found then the father cannot be the answer to this question.
Perhaps what you meant to ask to be presented with THE PLAN WHEREBYE PREFIX IS NEVER ASKED TO HELP STARVING CHILDREN. If so I'm afraid I don't have one. Some nonzero number of children through no fault of their's are without family support and if you agree that there is a need for the community to step up and you are a part of that community... well I'll let you draw your own conclusions but the alternative to stepping up is starving children.
Unless of course you are not talking about CHILDREN in need and the actual discussion is about some other humans. Perhaps the children are actually unimportant in the conversation although that seems odd given that the question is how to support children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
Also never underestimate the evolutionary longevity a social paradigm has when willing to convert by the sword.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
The root of morality is almost certainly evolutionary longevity. No human is an island. Those groups which were internally cohesive outcompeted others. The puddle is always shaped exactly like the hole. I am not in general in awe of this phenomenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So in theory if only lions existed then would there then still be any morals?Nope.
So what your saying is that morality is dependent upon sone moral agent to have a moral opinion?
Then it subjective. Case closed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Listen carefully. I didn't ask for a definition of woman. You are definitely not ready for that yet.
I only asked you to describe a woman. To picture one and tell me what she looks like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
a father cannot be found
In this hypothetical the father CANNOT be found. In that case the father CANNOT be forced to pay.
IF the father CANNOT be made to pay AND if children should be taken care of financially regardless THEN someone has to pay.
Unless you know something I don't the fairest way to handle this is for everyone to control a common fund according to their means.
Perhaps you meant to ask about when the father CAN be found but if so you accidentally asked literally the exact opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So in theory if only lions existed then would there then still be any morals?
Truly only lions. Like lions and nothing else in the entire universe or any other reality. This is a thought experiment. Imagine a universe where nothing exists that is subject to morality whatever.
Now describe morality in that universe. Go!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
penises aren't the defining factor. It is a combination of factors.
Well talk about how you assess a stranger and decide if they a man or a woman.
Describe a woman to me. Please only describe what you would see if you were on a bus with a person as you cannot in general determine particulars like genitals or chromosomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I think the ground floor here is understanding that everything exists for me as an idea only. My brain is not an eye or an ear or a nose. It is not my skin. My brain only interprets signals second hand like a man in a submarine with no windows operating by instruments only.
I can only ever experience that which "exists" as an Idea. An interpretation based on purely mechanical instruments which can be imperfect at collecting the intended data which of course may be misinterpreted anyway.
What exists? I have to start with me and work out room there so here goes. I am real as the me who even wonders what I am at all. I think so... that thought is a thing that exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is it objectively true that it is immoral for a lion to kill an innocent? Or are only humans subject to these morals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@prefix
Ok fine it is what it is bbutbut if the discussion isn't around "what do we do about kids who aren't being supported" then maybe be a little clearer.
Created: