Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Everyone would be equally free of securing their day to day needs. This is not the same as saying no one would work. If you want a car or a big mac or a beer or a Netflix subscription you must work for it. I actually doubt, once things have settled into their new shape, that unemployment will be much off what it is now.
It would mean that there would be no land lords and that employers would have less control over their employees lives, after all if you don't strictly speaking need the job you are not going to do it unless you are adequately compensated and your safety is guaranteed.
Truly I find it strange that you ate so worried about how unfair it would be to you if you no longer had to work for a living and instead could simply work for what you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
pain is real in a simulation. You and I being simulated is irrelevant within the simulation.
Well stated and sufficient reason to dismiss solipsism even if you cannot disprove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I am not strictly speaking arguing that there should be a UBI, though I am tacitly in favor of the increased liberty it would provide citizens, I am more just discussing the implications and your ideas deserve to be heard too. That being said however I would be most gratified if you would recognize the difference between a substantive exercisable right and a privilege which can be taken away if you have not 'earned' it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
IF there is a right to life BUT food, water, shelter etc are privileges THEN the "right" to life is not substantive and, being contingent upon privileges which must be earned, becomes effective a privilege that must be earned.
IF you believe in the substantive right to life THEN the basic requirements of life must also be substantive rights.
It is to think that one must earn (the privilege of) a living but it is mutually exclusive to granting people the right to live.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So just to be clear you don't believe in a right to life but only in the privilege to life which may be earned?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ok have a nice day then. If you ever want to stop being real bad at this let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Would you mind terribly putting our current discussion on the back burner? I'd really like to talk with you about what makes an argument valid and how to structure one. I think it might make worlds of difference in any discussions we have moving forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You haven't constructed any full syllogisms that are logically necessary whatever as yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF all dogs are blue AND IF you have a dog THEN you have a blue dog.
This is not a concession that you own a blue canine it is a logical syllogism in which the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. If the conclusion is incorrect then the trouble is actually with the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then please supply/paraphrase the entirety of my statement and not just the logical conclusion of my best understanding of YOUR PREMISE.
IF all dogs are blue AND IF you have a dog THEN you have a blue dog.
This is not a concession that you own a blue canine it is a logical syllogism in which the conclusion is logically derived from the premises. If the conclusion is incorrect then the trouble is actually with the premises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So now you propose to know my own position better than I do? To read my mind and know what I am really prepared to agree to even when I patiently explain that you are incorrect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I did not concede to your argument I was trying to evaluate it. To see what the practical implications are. IF your argument (such as I understand it) is valid THEN you should not care about any life including your own and yet I wager you do in reality care about life very much. This suggests that YOU are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. We cannot move past this issue until the dissonance is resolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, considering the narrative is MY ARGUMENT I am however proposing to read MY OWN MIND, with that being said I know what’s necessary to understand it and it’s NOT YOU making YOUR OWN syllogism period.
I would be happy to evaluate any syllogism you would care to construct.
They go
IF a THEN b
IF premise THEN conclusion
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You don’t need to make YOUR OWN syllogism to understand MY ARGUMENT.
Are you now proposing to read my mind? To know what I understand and to what degree better than I do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Please don't post a sentence fragment you have quote minded for the express purpose of taking out of context as though it constitutes some agreement upon my part. That was part of the valid syllogism I was trying to construct using your argument in order to better understand it. You can claim I didn't understand that argument but you cannot pretend I agree with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You already conceded to my argument several posts back
I do not accept your premises and when I tried to construct a logically valid syllogism using them you objected. I'm not sure that counts as conceding to whatever your point actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
let’s move on.
Not until this is resolved. WHETHER OR NOT meaning exists we are accepting definitions by Google and according to Google any meaning that did exist would NECESSARILY and DEFINITIONALLY have to be subjective.
True or false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Don’t be dramatic, I didn’t say ANY word.
I only insist on a definition of those words which are under discussion. If meaning has NO DEFINITION than it becomes nonsense to say "there is no meaning" in as much as it is nonsense to say "there are no poofleswammers".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
And I later said to forget about the definition (or any definition for that matter) not that it’s subjective but to just forget about all of it all together for arguments sake.
If we are not accepting any definition of any word the froppynewtz in your sleezeper you jiffybug stundermoose and a good bat exception wellwether bell.
Without some definition that we can agree on words become so much nonsense and we are incapable of having a conversation. If YOU are unwilling to accept ANY definition then YOU are going to be incapable of communicating.
Now if one of the above paragraphs made more sense than the other I think you know what that means. In having this discussion and using words you are defacto agreeing with some definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Not at all.Then keep the same energy in regards to this.
I will but this is not a subject that you have made no past discussion of such as music. I promise not to just assume that you like thriller but you offered a specific definition (thank you).
The second subset of the noun meaning is most relevant to the context of this discussion, important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
YOUR offered definition. This is the only thing I am basing my evaluation on. If YOU now disagree with the definition YOU have offered then YOU should probably further discuss, offer an alternative definition or rephrase, restate or reformulate your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That logic is incredibly flawed, so if you have your own preferences pertaining to music and you ask me mine and I opt not to discuss it in your mind that means I agree with you?
Not at all. I do however assume that your taste in music and mine are subjective. In the matter of meaning I am actually quite glad you have agreed to a definition. A specific definition can be examined and its qualities (such as subjectivism) can be determined. Once we have agreed to our subjective standard (definitions by Google) we can make objective statements... like this one.
According to Google's definition of meaning it is necessarily subjective being compromised of judgement values and goals.
If you disagree with that statement please explain what I am misunderstanding specifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
By not discussing it,That is tantamount to conceding the point that meaning is NECESSARILY subjective.
So if you don't concede the alternatives is to further discuss, to offer an alternative definition, to rephrase, restate or reformulate your argument. These are the alternatives to conceding the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The second subset of the noun meaning is most relevant to the context of this discussion, important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
All of those are subjective qualities. Important and worthwhile are judgement values and judgements are dependent on a mind to do the judging and purpose requires a goal and a goal requires an acting agent for whom that goal subjectively applies.
The meaning of meaning you have subjectively chosen to represent your idea of objective seems to be subjective
So far every definition presented leads unequivocally to meaning being subjective.I never conceded to this, so once again that’s another flat out lie you told.
Not a lie an observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So far every definition presented leads unequivocally to meaning being subjective. Unless you REJECT our current working definition AND suggest an alternative definition you are defacto agreeing that meaning IS necessarily subjective.
If we have resolved this point we can move on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
By not discussing it,
That is tantamount to conceding the point that meaning is NECESSARILY subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The second subset of the noun meaning is most relevant to the context of this discussion, important or worthwhile quality; purpose.
All of those are subjective qualities. Important and worthwhile are judgement values and judgements are dependent on a mind to do the judging and purpose requires a goal and a goal requires an acting agent for whom that goal subjectively applies.
The meaning of meaning you have subjectively chosen to represent your idea of objective seems to be subjective
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Indeed imagine the music, poetry, cinema, scientific findings and new inventions if every mad bastard could follow their crazy dreams wherever they led?
Created:
Posted in:
Meant is the past tense and past participle of mean
Mean
intend to convey, indicate, or refer to (a particular thing or notion); signify.
To intend or refer to, to indicate or signify anything I must have a mind.
It is completely predicated on there being a mind and so it is subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What is MEANT by a word, text, concept, or action is by definition dependent on the mind or an individual's perception for their existences.No it’s not.
In order to have MEANT something by my word or action I must have a mind. Is that bot something we generally accept?
Created:
Posted in:
Meaning (as per google)
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
Subjective (as per google)
dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
What is MEANT by a word, text, concept, or action is by definition dependent on the mind or an individual's perception for their existences. Meaning cannot be other than subjective given the google definitions you have agreed to accept.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You tell me, your the one arguing in favor of it.
That's silly. You are the one who said it. I have been very clear that I am not a nihilist and I am not arguing as one so if you are maybe you had better tell me what you meant when you said those words in that order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nihilists don’t believe in meaning.
What does this mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why don't we solve it by proving your definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If we fundamentally disagree on what meaning is how shall we resolve the issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Separate issues. You told me not to use subjective meaning in any context whatsoever regardless of my intended definition.
Created:
Posted in:
Nihilism
the rejection of all religious and moral principles,
Moral principles the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group
If you are accepting these definitions then just accepting that some things are even just legally right or wrong disqualifies you from being a nihilist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Why did you ask me to change my words when I was perfectly happy with the words I was using and their descriptive meaning if you are not willing to do the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
How will I ask for clarification of any kind if you are unable or unwilling to rephrase your arguments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What if I don't understand what you mean or disagree with how you are using a term?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well maybe you should be concerned with both.
You can't remember exactly what you said either huh? And like me you just don't care to dig through our whole long tap dance as we circle the actual issue and are now apparently still arguing about use of terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am more concerned with your meaning than your words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You can break it down word by word if that’s what it takes, Google is free if you don’t know what one of the words mean the dictionary is available to you.
My best understanding of the words you used as according to Google in the form of an IF A THEN B syllogism is as follows.
IF you cannot prove objective meaning for your life THEN you should stop caring about all human life even your own.
If this is not the ESSENCE of your argument then please explain the practical difference so that I can refine my personal understanding of YOUR argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is not a gotcha test. I have legitimate concerns with your logical structure if your logic doesn't follow to other ideas. That is how we use logic.
Can we look exclusively at the STRUCTURE 0f the next syllogism and without evaluating if it is true or false just tell me if the CONCLUSION follows from the PREMISES.
Premise 1 Elvis Presley was one of the greats.
Premise 2 the greats will never die.
Conclusion 3 Elvis Presley is still alive.
Forget our larger argument for just a moment and just evaluate the STRUCTURE of this argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't see how we can move on to anything without agreeing to what your basic argument means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Let me rephrase. That may not have been an exact quote but it is my understanding of your argument.
IF you cannot prove objective meaning for your life THEN you should stop caring about all human life even your own.
Is the above not a concept you were trying to communicate with me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You didn’t break anything with logic and science instead you ran with your own narrative and claim it’s based on mine (which it isn’t).
Well IF I genuinely misunderstand what you are saying AND IF you care about my full understanding of YOUR argument THEN it would benefit that goal to restate or even rephrase your original argument which I have misunderstood. Feel free to use definitions liberally but be careful about defining things out of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is how the scrutinizing of ideas works. You try to break them with logic and science and whatever is proven wrong or unfalsifiable is dismissed as likely untrue. That is how logical validitation works.
IF you MUST either objectively prove objective meaning OR you should immediately stop caring about all human life including your own AND IF you cannot objectively prove any objectuve meaning THEN regardless of any actual objective meaning your INABILITY to objectivively prove it NECESSARILY means that you should stop caring about all human life including your own.
This is my best understanding of your most basic argument although you haven't been structuring your arguments very neatly so I cleaned it up a bit. If that is problematic feel free to rephrase but if it doesn't change the basic meaning then I DON'T CARE. I am not sifting through more than a thousand posts though you are welcome to especially if it significantly changes your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This will be the one thousandth one hundred and thirty ninth post. Can't you just tell me what I'm getting wrong so we can get on with it?
Which specific word have I used that spoils the MEANING of your argument?
Created: