Total topics: 45
Saw this post on the anti work reddit and had to share.
you're looking at eventually a renters economy. renting and loans is how the economy would run
you will not own a house you will rent an apartment. you will not own your car you will be paying it off or leasing it from a company
you will not own your cell phone because they are so expensive you have to have a payment plan
you will not even have a job
it will be an entire gig economy wherever employee at every job is listed as a private contractor even though the responsibilities would be the same.
doctors. lawyers. drivers. chefs. it will all run on an Uber business model where all of the costs of running the business are offloaded onto the worker (instead of a cab company that buys the cars pays the insurance and maintains the cars and pays for gas all of those things are on you)
meanwhile nobody will have set hours they will all be competing with each other and there will be no benefits or overtime or anything. just a complete gig economy for every profession
you already don't own movies or music anymore. u pay per month to have access
it's really not wrong. they want you to own nothing and be happy
and if you complain about any of it I'll call you lazy and entitled for not worshiping at the boots of the rich.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Your ability to produce sperm or eggs unimportant to me in determining if any given human can join the boy scouts or the army. I do not take it into account when deciding which bathroom you should use. In no way does your (in)ability to produce sperm or eggs make it less damaging for personal wellbeing or the public health to investigate or prosecute criminal cases differently in this basis. It should not be an issue when determining if someone receives a loan or government aid.
IF there is no legal distinction THEN what is the argument AGAINST accepting someone else's personal identity or even just treating it as though it were none of your buisness which of course also exists as an option?
Your argument might go
IF X is true THEN biologically female persons should not be allowed to join the boy scouts.
Or similar.
IF there is no legal distinction THEN what is the argument AGAINST accepting someone else's personal identity or even just treating it as though it were none of your buisness which of course also exists as an option?
Your argument might go
IF X is true THEN biologically female persons should not be allowed to join the boy scouts.
Or similar.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
As I get older I still identify as a young person. I still feel vital and I'm always surprised when I look in the mirror and see what time has made of me. I am also increasingly uncomfortable in and with my body often wishing to "turn back the clock"
In fact
Many people resort to surgery or other cosmetic measures in an attempt to "pass" as younger people.
Is it wrong to want to be younger and to want others to think we are younger?
If it isn't wrong then what is wrong with wanting others to view you as a different gender than you were assigned at birth? Even if it were not true. Even if nothing you do can ever make you a different gender than the one written on your birth certificate?
Now consider for a moment the possibility that the gender on your birth certificate is not like your age and may not actually accurate. That it may in fact be incorrect for a number of physical and psychological reasons.
Let's say we disallow all cosmetic surgeries, both those meant to help one "pass" for younger and those that allow one to "pass" as a specific gender identity. Are you still opposed to the idea of a person in this position dressing, acting and asking to be addressed as that gender (whatever that means to you or them)? If so may I suggest that it isn't the surgery that offends you so much as the very idea that someone would have the audacity to challenge your views on gender roles.
This isn't meant as a strawman. I'm sure not everyone who opposes cosmetic surgery feels this way but it is worth asking yourself if this does in fact apply to you and if you are ok with that.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Quote from source.
The external sex organs may not match the internal sex organs or genetic sex.
Consider the case of a baby with only x chromosomes but which has functioning penis and testicles. Is this a female boy? Is it a girl with a penis?
Lets consider an infant with functional ovaries and a non functional penis. Is that a boy or a girl? Would you support surgery to "correct" their genitals?
Let's consider an infant that displays some degree of hermaphrodism. Do you support surgery to "correct" their genitals? Which genitals should we "correct" them to have?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
Evil is subjective by nature and therefore unless you agree to a common standard with your interlocutor the conversation will break down at "is x really evil though?"
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.
Questions, comments and criticisms welcome.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
What good is freedom from handcuffs without the freedom too use your hands?
What good is freedom from imprisonment without the freedom too move about freely?
What good is freedom from tyranny without the freedom too excercise your will?
What good is freedom from forced labor if you are not free too define the terms under which you are willing to labor?
There is no freedom too without freedom from but there is no true freedom without the freedom too.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If I offered you a bite of a sandwich you might say "thank you I love sandwiches!" but if I offer you five dollars to take a bite of a sandwich you will probably think "well what's wrong with the sandwich?"
Capitalism makes work like a sandwich. No longer is it a dignified self determination of what one needs to do in order to subsist nor is it a labor of love that we are passionate about. I mean maybe sometimes it is but that is the exception not the rule.
Now work has become synonymous with employment and is used as both the carrot and the stick to keep the proletariat in line. This has resulted in useless jobs and unnecessary components of jobs being common place and also to a necessary amount of unemployed individuals.
That's right unemployment is not a bug of capitalism but a feature. Without a steady supply of unemployed workers to draw on the work force might be able to negotiate from a position of strength. These scab workers are necessary to keep the wealthy in power.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Industrialization made the world wealthy not capitalism. In fact I posit to you that if food shelter and education were free we might have many more scientists, doctors and forward thinkers. Who knows what brilliant life changing ideas we have lost because a brilliant person had no choice but to toil in relative obscurity by their circumstances? The circumstance specifically of being unable to acquire higher education because of the pricetag and/or investment in time.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
If you can talk to spirits of the dead then by all means please demonstrate. I knew some people that didn't make it out of life alive. Can you send me a message from them that is not a Barnum statement?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
As human labor becomes increasingly obsolete can we let go of the idea that failure to perform adequate labor is inexcusably lazy and immoral?
Discuss.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Undeniably many people suffer and it appears to be a given that some people suffer in ways they do not necessarilly deserve. Just as clearly not all suffering is the direct result of human actions.
That in mind and most especially if you believe in some god(s) that can be defined as both all powerful and also loves us all how do you resolve the problem of suffering?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Please give an example of something you think is a necessary evil along with exactly what makes it evil and why it is nevertheless necessary.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The argument from selfishness for secular morality (or A.F.S.F.S.M.) goes as follows.
IF you are alive and IF you care to continue doing so THEN you ought to engage in self care.
IF self care is worthwhile and IF some other organism contributes to caring for you THEN you ought to care for them right back as part of that self care in as much as no man (ant/zebra/wild dog/bee) is an island.
IF whether or not some person(s) contribute to your care is an unknown quantity (such as all humans who engage in a modern global economy) THEN all things being equal you should care for and about them to insure that care in every possible case.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
The argument goes (or one of them anyway) that rights are well and good but largely meaningless if you don't have the ability to exercise them. Like you can't exercise your right to life if you are dead and you can't exercise your right to liberty if your life is being threatened (explicitly or implicitly) they are not substantive.
So if your life and wellbeing is being (implicitly) threatened by impending eviction from ones home and subsequent starvation if one does not "make a living" then one may be forced into taking whatever job is available no matter how dirty, difficult, dangerous, unfulfilling, no matter how tedious and no matter what end of life security (if any) it offers.
That means that you might have a group of working poor who are paid so little and forced to work such long hours and is so busy maintaining their paycheck to paycheck survival that they simply do not have time for liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
One suggested solution to this is a universal basic income. This is the idea that either everyone would receive an amount of money sufficient to maintain their lives and wellbeing (home, food, medicine etc) or that these considerations would simply be supplied directly.
This has the advantage of being a solution that does not require that we demonetize (do away with exchange mediums) and therefore one requiring less change to existing infrastructure than a purely and perfectly socialist system (in as much as such a thing is feasible).
Now this discussion is not about the relative benefits or disadvantages of socialism but only about the effects (benefits or disadvantages) of instituting some form of U.B.I. as a part of our free market system (just to put an emphasis on free) and what such a system might potentially look like/operate.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
So the universe is weird huh?
I mean look at this. Measuring the effects of an event after it has happened will change the effect of the event?
What are we to make of this? Perhaps it means that both things have happened and there are many universes. Perhaps it means reverse causation (that effects can precede causes) is not just possible but ordinary. Maybe it just means we don't really understand what is going on at all. That in so much as we have observed cause and effect it is emergent of other factors rather than a logical necessity.
I cannot begin to demonstrate any particular viewpoint but I must confess that I think reverse causation makes the fewest assumptions. It is in fact even compatible with the other possible positions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
Maybe, sometimes, when someone says they believe a thing, even a thing we ourselves think of as obviously and intuitively incorrect, they are just being honest and they really do believe.
Perhaps the better approach, assuming you know what they believe at all, is to ask why they believe it and take the conversation from there.
Maybe you could even set up some kind of quid pro quo dialogue where we tell each other what we believe and why and see if there is any common ground between our ideas or legitimate criticisms, of either idea to be sure, but most especially our own if we do in fact want to have strong well considered beliefs.
Perhaps this is as good a place as any to start that conversation so if you aren't sure about someone's point if view involved, by all means starting with mine, please ask them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
In the interest of a fresh start let us begin at the beginning. I will state my most basic axiom (deeply held personal beliefs from which I build outwards) and I welcome critiques and also encourage others to share their own most basic axiom.
My most fundamental and basic axiom is as follows.
I am experiencing something.
That's it. That is all I can be 100% sure of. Even if the I in 'I am' turns put to be nothing more than the sum total of the experiential data.
Any attempt to address this experience or to communicate with any other apparent conciousnesses within it (other people for example) requires that I first accept the experience I am having more or less at face value and I cannot actually falsify this proposition. That being the case any proposition within that framework that cannot be falsified even if I do make the assumption that my personal perceived reality reflects some 'actual' reality must therefore be dismissed as doubly insupportable.
Thank you for reading and for any contribution you should make to the thread...if any of this is actually happening of course.
Yours skeptically secularmerlin.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
There have been several threads about this on the server as late. I've been giving it some thought and the truth is that have no reason to believe that the subject actually is some god(s) moral standard at all. In fact until some god(s) moral standard is outlined (as opposed to some list of moral pronouncements) and that some god(s)actually hold said standard (an impossible task without first proving that some god(s) even exist) I have no reason to believe that any standard is being discussed other than the standard of the poster which he has projected onto his or her concept of some god(s). The truth is I think some theists have gotten the idea that I do not believe based on some moral concept or lack thereof when in fact the standard some theist claims their preferred god(s) is beside the point until there is some demonstration of their claims. I am happy to continue these discussions as hypotheticals but understand that even if your preferred moral standard is perfect and mine is deeply flawed that does not get yo uh an inch closer to proving any god exists. If morals mean nothing or cannot exist without any god(s) and that disturbs you I may have some bad news for you.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
love is being the owner of the company that makes rape whistles
And even though you started the company with good intentions trying to reduce the rate of rape, now you don't want to reduce it at all cause if the rape rate declines then you'll see an equal decline in whistle sales
Without rapists, who's gonna buy your whistles?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice
Yeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another? If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?
Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being? He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).
Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice.
Or you could say.
(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
(THEREFORE)
(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
(AND)
(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgive humans without requiring a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
(THEREFORE)
THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I believe the answer is yes. If you believe that the world will be measurably better in some manner by adhering to some ethical tenets you should be able to explain how without pointing to any government, philosopher or god. Ethics like arguments should really stand on their own.
I invite further discussion especially if you disagree.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
And with apologies to the entire sports forum for interrupting.
Well theyre wrong
How do you know that they are incorrect. They also have a holy book with passages that could be interpreted in a way that seems to reflect pur current scientific understanding (and also passages that directly contradict our current scientific understanding I'm sure). That is the 'evidence' you are putting forward for your claim. They have this evidence also. Please show me the observable difference from an outside perspective.
Also let me point out that even if the bible contains some passages that with some artistic licence could arguably be referring to modern scientific discoveries this does not in itself tell us how this information got there. Its mere presence in a book does not prove the source of the information or the book though it might make claims about said sources.Really then there would have been chanches of thos claims being wrong, but there isnt any??
I sense you are getting emotional here and I'm trying to discern which claim you are referencing and how it being factually accurate tells us where the information came from. All religions (with a holy book) claim their holy book is the one revealed truth. Please show me the observable difference from an outside perspective.
On a final note even if the bible contains some passages that with some artistic licence could arguably be referring to modern scientific discoveries it also contains much that is blatantly scientifically inaccurate. If we are too evaluate the bible fairly they must be taken into account as well.How so?
By acknowledging that they are in the bible and run counter to your hypothesis that the bible is as an accurate source of scientific knowledge.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Imagine I have 3 cups turned over, and ask you to guess which one of these cups has a coin under it. You say that the coin is under a cup, and point to one. I show you that there is no coin under the cup, and then reveal which cup has the coin under it.You can certainly tell that you picked the wrong cup, you were mistaken. You missed the mark.
Ok. Now imagine that there are thousands upon thousands of cups and only one coin. Also imagine that you can only pick one. Naturally you will only win as prize if you choose the cup with the coin under it but the carnival barker also informs you that if you do not find the coin you will be punished, worse if you don't play you can't find the coin so you will certainly be punished.
Still with me? Ok here comes the real meat.
You pick the wrong cup (because of course you do there's thousands of friggin cups) and you will be punished. As they come to administer the punishment the following conversation takes place. (If you refuse to play the game this conversation may still be assumed to have happened).
You: That's not fair! It's nearly impossible to choose the right one at random!
Carnival barker: sorry but you chose this for yourself. I explained the rules and you did not choose the cup with the coin therefore you have chosen punishment.
You: Well can you at least show me the coin?
Carnival barker: oh it's down there. I saw a guy win just last week and guys used to win all the time before I started.
You: Well I don't even think you have a coin!
Carnival barker: well your getting punished anyway and it's your own fault.
Ok that's the whole conversation what do you think? Was the contest fair? Would it be more or less fair if your family and nearly everyone you know is expecting you to choose the same cup? What if the cups are under the table where you cant see them and you just point and as an added wrinkle if the spot you point to doesn't contain a cup it counts as a loss. Now in addition to refusing to show you the coin the barker also refuses to show you the cups. Is it fair now?
Perhaps you think I'm referencing you. If so ask yourself do I make any arguments like the ones in this hypothetical example. If not then this post likely is not aimed at you.
If on the other hand you have ever had a conversation like the one above (from either perspective) then please feel free to share.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I do not believe that Voltron exists outside of fiction. You are welcome however to present a case for Voltron's existence outside of fiction.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam. - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
I hope every one has a fun and safe holiday.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?
This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?
(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
So here's the thing. If there is no cloning for the reasons in the above article and if the transporters can make duplicates of our favorite Starfleet officers as shown in the below article
Then all your favorite star trek characters were dead right away. First episode you gotta assume they have already been disintegrated by a disintegration box and replaced with a clone by an clone making box at least a few times by then.
What are your thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
... to suggest that our immigration laws should reflect the words displayed at the foot of the statue of liberty?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
To punish someone for a crime they did not commit.
Special thanks to Falneze for the idea.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
@keithprosser
OK - so you think of something we can argue about...!
Ok I believe that terminator 2 was an amazing movie but a terrible sequal.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Are you familiar with the game were you answer any question with a question?.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Forum games
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
What is the most frightening space critter to ever grace the silver screen?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Imagine if you will that I have in my possession a box which I have not opened. Now imagine there is a ball in this box. This ball may be any color but I have claimed that the ball is red. Now since I have not seen the ball you may well wonder how I know this and you may well ask me "how do you know the ball is red?"
Let us further imagine that rather than opening the box and proving what color it is once and for all I reply "You can't prove that it isn't red".
Now you can't actually prove that the ball is not red. Should you simply accept my word?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
Until you can demonstrate a claim I have no reason to accept it. Rejecting your claim is not a claim in and of itself it is merely the default position in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Can you think of any reasonable argument for accepting a proposition as true without sufficient evidence?
Likewise can you demonstrate any theistic or supernatural claim?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I bet you ten money that money is an abstract concept rather than a real thing with intrinsic value of its own.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics
This is not a joke. I have never seen or heard of any god(s) that have accomplished this feet. To be clear I am not talking about acting through or influencing a mortal agency. I mean physically screwing in a lightbulb for themselves.
Especially if you consider your god maximally powerful or as a creator of the universe. Such a being should find any task I can accomplish child's play and yet no god(s) seem to ever have such a simple, direct and above all physical effect on any observable part of our world.
Do you believe that any god(s) are capable of screwing in a lightbulb and if so what keeps them from doing so?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
Do you believe in the devil?
If so who or what is the devil?
What effects does this being have on our world?
What makes this being objectively evil, if indeed it is inherently evil?
Would this being mind, do you think, if we call it Stan for the purposes of this discussion?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
The most annoying thing about the idea that our universe isn't real is that you can't really prove the universe is real without making the supposition that the universe is real. Now I enjoy my life and pursue happiness because I am happy whether the universe is real or not but I just can't shake the realisation that my experience may be completely illusory.
I am a soft solipsist, which is to say that I am willing to accept that my senses reflect reality provincially as a convenience since this tends to make my experience more pleasant than if I were to ignore my perceptions of it.
Can anyone find a way to be certain that anything exists besides your experience in and of itself?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
What do you as a human think of this piece and indeed of the idea of computers producing original music?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Show business
Perhaps the computers are taking over!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Technology
I find that a good place to start is finding out what you believe.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Religion
I always find that a good place to start is finding out what you believe.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy