Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ok but you really don't have to engage in ANY of my threads. In fact I'd rather you didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
I have been blocked by Tarrik. He made personal insults and ad hominem attacks and never justified his arguments or provided his preferred definitions without later acting as though the definitions he gave were not correct. I have not blocked him. I have never insulted him personally. I hope this is a learning experience for him going forward. If his behavior dies not improve I recommend you do not engage. There is limited utility based on my experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This conversation is over until you answer my questions (message repeats)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If everyone receives the same benefits with no consideration for class or income then the system could not be gamed.
How is it unfair to the hypothetical elderly person you are referring to if they can now use their earnings entirely on things that make them more comfortable because their basic needs are being seen to? I am not proposing his earnings be confiscated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This conversation is over until you answer my questions (message repeats)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
If everyone across the board was given access to equal access to basic necessities then there would be no "gaming" the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am not necessarily calling to abolish currency only that people be afforded necessities such as food, water, shelter and human contact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Perhaps no one 'deserves' more. Perhaps you must earn more. What does that have to do with a universal basic income emphasis on the basic? Who said everyone even wants more?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
We are not discussing their work only the degree to which they deserve basic human necessities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Believing that human life doesn't matter is A BIAS - and ISN'T NIHILISM. If you think that is Nihilism you don't actually know what your talking about. You are not actually presenting my arguments fairly, you are cherry picking - you have ZERO excuses here bud, so stop making them.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This conversation will not continue until you answer my questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
how do you decide who deserves more or less?
Revolutionary idea... why not just consider everyone equally deserving?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
biology and past experience...did not prepare me to choose to begin eating sushi. Or to write my first novel.
Ah but they did. Without your biological need for sustenance why would you aeat anything and without your past experiences what would you write about?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
No it isn't. And if any of the scripture is to be believed then Jesus came ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel . Not England or Wales or Scotland or the natives of Papua New Guinea or the Aborigines of Australia.
Excellent point. At the very least there are far to many interpretations and not enough evidence to say anything definitive.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Jesus dying for everyone is a pretty iron clad way to prove he died for everyone.
Tautologies are necessarily true. If jesus died for everyone then he died for everyone but we don't actually know that this event took place or if it did what the actual motives are. I can construct a tautology too.
he knew what would happen to him, went through hell, and died for everyone.
And then came back and then went back to being the yahweh. At best/worst you can argue that jesus had a bad weekend that cost him nothing. I might have a bad weekend for someone in need even if I don't specifically love or even know them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Your definition of nihilism is two parts and once I pointed put that anyone who has moral principles cannot be a nihilist even if they are irreligious or even if they are anti religious and once I pointed that out you dropped the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My preference is not my choice? Whose is it, then?
It is no ones choice. It is not a choice at all. It is a combination of biology and past experiences. Nothing more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@Theweakeredge
Even the position that human life doesn't matter is a moral view.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well, if you know as much as you claim to then provide support for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Freewill is logically incoherent.Why?
Everything you do is guided either by your preference (which you do not choose) or outside forces (which you do not choose) but even if that were not the case every event is either caused (subject to cause and effect/deterministic) or indistinguishable from random (uncaused/almost always without utility/ indeterministic) determinism leaves no room for freewill and randomness leaves no room for freewill. No clever mix of the two propositions magically grants freewill.
Freewill is logically incoherent.
assuming that cause and effect means that God
Whatever you care to put after this is by necessity untrue. I do not think any god(s) have done anything in the observable universe ever. If any god(s) exist they are indistinguishable from fiction based on the available evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
We can only "know" things about the universe through observation which is only useful if the observation is reliably repeatable. This gives us reasonable expectations based on past experience. If cause and effect is an illusion then we cannot "know" things even to this limited degree
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No. If you don't know what a sociopath is you wouldn't bring them up so much. Now tell me what makes "objective morality" moral and why I should bother with it when my opinions and the common consensus that human life and wellbeing is worthwhile has always been enough for me and enough for society at large.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I am not sure how we could accurately measure the "degree" especially since humans suffer survivors bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your mother typically has the capacity to think through all various thoughts and actions of which she is capable, as well as the consequences of them,
How do you know?
Because because my mother aactually can't do that as far as I know. I would accept axiomatically that people have no idea what they are capable of until they MUST.
Please address my entire post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
what if this isn't a "cause and effect" universe?
How would we confirm or deny this proposition? If it is unfalsifiable then it can just be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
it is the results of having free will.
Freewill is logically incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Just tell me what makes "objective morality" moral and why I should bother with it when my opinions and the common consensus that human life and wellbeing is worthwhile has always been enough for me and enough for society at large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because humans haven't gone extinct.
Just tell me what makes "objective morality" moral and why I should bother with it when my opinions and the common consensus that human life and wellbeing is worthwhile has always been enough for me and enough for society at large.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? Rejection of all moral principles is effectively impossible. They only people who arguably are able to do so are mentally ill.
Remember you supplied a two part definition. A rejection of all religious AND moral principles.
Two separate things. If I embrace my own moral principles then I cannot be a nihilist.
Ask me again what makes them moral without agreeing to sone PRECISE standard WHICH WE AGREE TO MUTUALLY for measuring morality. Or rather don't. Just tell me what makes "objective morality" moral and why I should bother with it when my opinions and the common consensus that human life and wellbeing is worthwhile has always been enough for me and enough for society at large.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Rescue workers routinely risk their lives to save others. I don't think they do it out of love.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Honestly I don't see the point of this exercise. Why make things up, how we would prefer it? It's hard enough trying to figure out what's going on in the first place.
Well stated. Far better than my own reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Cause and effect leave no room for freewill I would change the unjust part of the law which punishes individuals for actions they have no control over. The goal of any law should not be to level punishment at individuals or groups but to protect those living under said law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your mother typically has the capacity to think through all various thoughts and actions of which she is capable, as well as the consequences of them,
How do you know?
Because because my mother aactually can't do that as far as I know. I would accept axiomatically that people have no idea what they are capable of until they MUST.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
The goal is not punishment but to prevent the further dissemination of dangerous propaganda. He should be prevented from doing so in the future.
The most prudent action is to take steps to prevent the producion of propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
Try helping some homeless people (who might also have a "right to life") before you start giving out medical advice.
Just yesterday morning, I was volunteering at a local food bank. You? I contribute 20% of my annual increase. You? Let's be careful to whom we hurl accusations, huh?
How very noble of you. Allow me to rephrase the criticism.
Try helping some homeless people (who might also have a "right to life") to rise out of the abject poverty that leaves them in a position of needing your charity to survive before you start giving out medical advice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Rejectung a claim that cannot be demonstrated is neither correct nor incorrect it is just prudent skepticism.That’s an understatement, it’s over and beyond that, it’s prudent logic and rationality
Excellent I'm glad to here you are prepared to reject the idea of all supernatural including god(s) and the afterlife.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No. Nihilism is not "correct". Rejectung a claim that cannot be demonstrated is neither correct nor incorrect it is just prudent skepticism.
Also humans develop personal codes. We just do. Some are better for different goals. That doesn't make them "correct". Now why do you believe in hell? Why do you believe hell is just? The entire heaven hell dynamic as I understand some claims actactually seem distinctly unjust to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You are just trying to avoid the real question. Nihilism is a red herring.
The question is "why do you believe in hell?"
The question is not "why do you not not believe in hell?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't actually think you can speak for nihilists anyway if there even are any which I doubt.
Get me a quote from an actual nihilist if you can find one. Otherwise I think we should just forget about nihilism and stick to talking about why we believe what we do believe.
You are just trying to avoid the real question. Nihilism is a red herring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I guess that depends on what stuff your talking about.
Please be specific. What stuff do they believe and what stuff don't they? You know what it doesn't even matter I don't actually think you can speak for nihilists anyway if there even are any which I doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your mother typically has the capacity to think through all various thoughts and actions of
How do you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
correct to reject morality
You cannot reject your own preference.
You must accept your own subjective idea about morality even if you are of the subjective opinion that morality is somehow objective.
If you rejected it it would not be your morality. By necessity whatever you believe after you reject your current opinions would become your new opinions your new morality.
Also you still haven't offered a definition of morality that is not by necessity subjective. You haven't even concretely defined the moral dictates which you seem to think count as the morality itself.
Also also if you "believe" that it was more "correct" to reject morality than to play along than you would have a belief and couldn't be a nihilist. You are not arguing from a nihilist perspective or at least you are doing a poor job.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Love is a distressingly bland word in English. It is very non-specific, generalized, and requires added adjectives to give full meaning to what is meant by how it is used. Does your dog express all seven separate lexographic meanings of that word as translated into Greek, for example? No, it does not not.
This seems besides the point.
We are getting bogged down in details about my example and leaving the actual conversation behind. It is no different than if I asked "Does your mother express all seven separate lexographic meanings of that word as translated into Greek?", for example.
Please explain exactly why your mother is an independent actor and my dog is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What are you talking about? Things that are absent don't exist. Absences don't exist. That is their very definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nihilism cannot be "correct" or "incorrect". It isnot a belief or a claim it is the absence of them. Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
My dog seems to love me. My mother seems to love me. The only difference between them is my mother can say "I love you" and even then it is the behavior not the words. I dare say ants fancy other ants.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Basically yours imaginary and mine doesn't work without cooperation from all involved.
Created: