Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I looked up Carl Munck. According to Wikipedia he works in archaeocryptography. Wikipedia has this to say about archaeocryptography.
"Archaeocryptography is not a recognized branch of archaeology or of any other academic discipline. It is an example of pseudoscience or pseudoarchaeology that employs contrived calculations involving many free parameters to achieve an impressive-looking result.[2]"
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Yes I said poly's comment was well stated. I still think it was well stated. If you are ok with beings that can communicate their personhood being killed, for any reason, it seems odd to quibble over a being whose personhood is under contention.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Also the comment in question has nothing to do with infants only fetuses so your comment does not stem from it so much as it is an attempt by you to confirm the consequence
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Do you mean this statement?Who saysThat conversation stems from the comment secularmerlin considered "well stated"
The only correlation between guns and abortion is the right of the citizen. No one can be forced to buy guns or have an abortion. Just like on one should be forced to not own guns or have an abortion. Other than that this is a stupid friggin argument. If you are ok killing people with a gun for any reason don't blame a women who wants to terminate a pregnancy before the thing is even a person.
If so please give credit to poly the original author.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Damn well stated.One is real, the action we actually take, and the other is imaginary, the action we imagine we "could have taken".We intuitively imagine that "the road not taken" is somehow "just as real" as our actual action.This conflates what is real with what is imaginary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Our desires do not make us free. They are merely one more thing that dictates our actions, in the end no different then the rope or the chair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Unless it gives us some actionable information then yes it is meaningless to us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You have no control over your preferences. If a factor beyond your control is responsible for determining your "choices" then freewill is nonsensical as many people mean the term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
How on earth could we know if we can take a different course of action than we actually take? We will only take the course of action we do take after all.The ability to take a different course of action.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Anything outside our local spacetime (otherwise known as physical universe) and honestly most of the stuff in it are unknown variables. Unknown variables give us no actionable data. It is meaningless from pur perspective. It has no impact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I suppose you could call anything freewill. You could name your cat freewill but I think what is generally meant is having the ability to have done differently. I think most people are uncomfortable with the idea that their descision making process is deterministic and involves little or no actual choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Should is inconsequential. Reality is as Reality does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Indeed this isn't really a thread about immigration at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Who here has endorsed illegal immigration? Is this discussion not about the laws themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
As charming as that idea is there is no evidence to suggest that reality bothers itself very much about what we want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you want to call it that but I would consider it a misnomer and it certainly does not qualify as freewill as most people who believe in freewill seem to mean it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
What is possible? What does that have to do with what is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Evolution is not really a religious topic but if your religion is invalidated by the process of evolution then I may have some bad news for you.
I'm not sure who this is addressed to
i believe that god created these seasonal animals to turn white during the winter to go with the white snow.
But if this is the case then evolution is the process that the god(s) you are proposing seems to have used to accomplish this.
i do beleive those studys are bull
Which studies exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
What is the difference between sufficient evidence and proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would say that if freewill is part of the causal chain then it is deterministic and if it is deterministic there is nothing free about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I would argue that any belief without sufficient evidence (and as you say testimonial evidence, even our own, is deeply flawed) cannot be rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
If you cannot prove the evidence to me then it is not evidence for me. As to actual proof of spirituality my desires are completely immaterial. If there is no sufficient evidence then I cannot believe and if there is sufficient evidence then I must believe.
Created:
Posted in:
until we have some concrete evidence (as opposed to testimonial evidence)That is about as concrete evidence you will ever have dude.
No amount of insufficient evidence will ever add up to sufficient evidence and only one piece of sufficient evidence wpuld be enough all on its own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please rigorously define human and murder. Then we can examine your stated goals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Literally the first thing you said.I would like to know an argument that makes abortion a good thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Also did you have to bring this to the phylosophy thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What do you mean by good? That us a very subjective term.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If their is a difference between brain and mind then both are still either causal or indeterminate. This does not magically make freewill logically coherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't see the problem with this.The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.
It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.
That is correct. The only problem is with an inanimate object holding a belief not if it causes one.
Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.
Ok. How does this preclude determinism or rational thought? How does this render the two mutually exclusive?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't see the problem with this.The problem is that the belief selection process would be determined, entirely, by non-rational forces.
It wouldn't be a problem for something that causes a belief to be an inanimate object.
That is correct. The only problem is with an inanimate object holding a belief not if it causes one.
Imagine a hammer that hits nails on it's own volition. Now imagine a person who, on their own volition, uses a hammer to hit nails. In both instances the hammer is striking the nail so the cause is the same but the chain of events do not begin from the same place.
Ok. How does this preclude determinism or rational thought? How does this render the two mutually exclusive?
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
I am reluctant to attribute personhood to anything that is incapable of communicating complex concepts. The development of language skills may be the transformative event that you are referencing.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
I am reluctant to attribute personhood to anything that is incapable of communicating complex concepts. The development of language skills may be the transformative event that you are referencing.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Please pinpoint the transformative event that does make one human or you have done nothing to "unload" the question.
Created:
-->
@Alec
This can easily be explained due to other factors, such as GDP per capita, the culture of the country, etc. America has an aggressive culture compared to a place like Europe, so this could explain the homicide rate increase. A more accurate way to examine the homicide rate effect is to compare a region before and after gun laws got more strict so this way, we know more accurately what caused the homicide increase.
All of which still leaves us with no reason to think that more guns = more safety.
I don't want the government to force women to have sex.
Good because that would be rape.
I merely want to keep the kid
Are we discussing kids or fetuses? Please decide on your prefered topic.
I also don't want to allow the boyfriend to smash and dash in the event of consensual sex. This makes boys want sex less.
Nothing makes boys want less sex. You are displaying a remarkable poor understanding of human sexuality. Also how exactly do you intend to enforce this without tyrranical means?
If your unnaturally unconscious, I don't think your brain is active, although I might be wrong on this. If I'm right, does it mean an unnaturally unconscious person should be killed if they're expected to regain consciousness in 14 weeks?
Are we discussing people or fetuses?
The difference between a cockroach and a fetus is chromosomes. A fetus has human chromosomes, a cockroach does not.
Do we attribute personhood entirely based on chromosomes or do we attribute personhood based on behavior and communication skills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is not obvious. Perhaps you should be less subtle.For someone who is so full of shit, I think it nbn is pretty obvious that I have the most reasonable approach to this topic.
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
The issue is not killing people but what qualifies as a person and what qualifies as a right and which people qualify for which rights.
You will notice that I used the word qualify (Or some conjugation thereof) several times in that sentence. This is not a mistake. It is to highlight rights and personhood are qualified not quantified.
That is to say that we cannot measure personhood. We don't detect rights. We just decide what they mean to us.
Quantifiable facts are si.ply cold analytical data. They are inherently meaningless.
Qualified distinctions are the meaning we assign to the quantifiable. They are meaningful and by necessity entirely subjective (neither inherently true or false ).
Created:
-->
@Snoopy
Confirming the consequence. "I heard of this one bad thing that happened this one time because of one bad person so this thing which I am associating with it must also be bad".
It sounds like the problem is with the small minutia of the law not the intent.
Created:
--> @Polytheist-Witch
The only correlation between guns and abortion is the right of the citizen. No one can be forced to buy guns or have an abortion. Just like on one should be forced to not own guns or have an abortion. Other than that this is a stupid friggin argument. If you are ok killing people with a gun for any reason don't blame a women who wants to terminate a pregnancy before the thing is even a person.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Very well stated.Why do you define "God" as "the ultimate reality" when clearly you're defending "Christian theology"?This just tells me you lack the ability to rationally justify Christianity. Please include this as your signature:"In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I don't think nuance is the problem. I think rational thought can follow from non rational (not irrational but non rational) causes. Either that or there is no rational thought.
If that statement is to nuanced let me know and I will attempt to rephrase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
So you believe determinism that can be rationally accepted even though all beliefs would be installed by mindless, non-rational processes? How does that make any sense?
The cause of a rational thought does not need to have rational thoughts. That would make it a non rational force but not an irrational one. I can accept the implications of non rational forces (such as gravity) because they behave in a way that can be rationally understood.I do not choose to accept that gravity exists it is simply the rational conclusion. Cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why do you insist on conflating hate with disagreement. Nobody hates you Mopac we just think your full of shit. I would appreciate it if you would recognize the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
You also said this and this is nonsense. One does not make choices under a deterministic model. Your original post did not really mean anything.a choice to accept determinism would not and could not be rational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
One would be compelled to accept
These are your words. What about being compelled to accept something makes acceptance irrational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Accepting something is not necesarily a choice. That is the equivocation error I an talking about. Determinism does not preclude accepting things just choosing to. Your original claim was true only tautologically and only because of your use of the word choice.
Created:
-->
@Alec
But advocating for more guns when held in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces the homicide rate and/or defends against a potentially tyrannical government to the citizens.
Statistics are mostly meaningless and correlation does not equal causation but statistically speaking world wide geographical locations with stricter gun laws suffer less gun related homicide. As for defending yourself from a tyrannical government the small arms you are advocating for are no longer a viable leans of accomplishing this goal. You had better get some anti aircraft laser guided guns and some tactical armed drones.
Pro life laws defend against a potentially tyrannical mother to the fetus.
You don't seem particularly worried about a tyrranical government when discussing uteruses. In fact you call for government invasion of uteruses all over the country. That is also logically incongruous.
A sleeping person doesn't have significant brain function.
Your brain actually becomes highly active while you are dreaming.
Also, post born humans are technically bundles of cells too.
All organisms are either one cell or a bundle of cells. Being a bundle of cells does not grant rights or a cockroach would have rights and in my kitchen at least they do not.
Created:
-->
@Alec
I will say that it seems logically inconsistent to me to be advocating for more guns given your feelings about killing even masses of cells with no significant brain function.
Created:
Posted in:
While this is arguably discriminatory it does touch on another issue. If behavior is genetically coded then should those genes be edited? No anti-social babies. No gay babies. No babies that question the status quo.I imagine there will be atheists using this to their advantage. Since the think theism is mental illness.
Honestly the implications are horrifying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Insisting you kniw the truth of matters that are beyond human epistemology is vain and absurd but that doesntstop you from proclaiming all over everyone's threads when you should be respectfully discussing.
Created: