That's an ignoratio elenchi.

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

"If the president has done what has been alleged, then he is stepping into a dangerous minefield with serious repercussions for his administration and our democracy”.

"If the president has done what has been alleged...”.

"If...”.

What? — NOS4A2

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

Even if you’ve never spoken hate speech you might get arrested for it. — NOS4A2

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

Is your Google broken?

I've read some logic and the video gets along well with what standard textbooks say:

1. A sound deductive argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. — TheMadFool

No, that's validity. Soundness is where the argument is valid and the premises and conclusion are true.

I find it very strange that you obsess over the same oddly worded truisms. Yes, stuff existed before people first started talking about stuff. Perhaps it's time you moved on.

15 — uncanni

Not 66?

I like to make things up, too. My father was an astronaut, and he would always say to me, "Son, when you grow up, I want you to be the first man on the moon, just like me". And I did, I grew up to be the first man on the moon, just like my father, and his father before him, and his father before him, but not his father before him, my great-great-grandfather, because the moon hadn't been invented at that time. I never met my mother, but I know that she was a Klingon warrior from the planet Qo'noS.

A Mormon was seated next to an Irishman on a flight from London to the US.

After the plane was airborne, drink orders were taken. The Irishman asked for a whiskey, which was promptly brought and placed before him.

The flight attendant then asked the Mormon if he would like a drink. He replied in disgust, "I'd rather be savagely raped by a dozen whores than let liquor touch my lips."

The Irishman then took a sip of his whiskey, and began to rummage around under his seat as though he was looking for something.

He kept on rummaging around for quite some time whilst the Mormon looked at the Irishman in bewilderment, until finally the Mormon asked him, "What are doing? Are looking for something?".

The Irishman replied, "Yes, and I've just this moment found it!".

So the Mormon asked, "What is it that you've found?"

And the Irishman replied, "A cat with no arms and legs".

What I have learned from philosophy is that most people (includes myself) live in a 'consensus reality'. Nobody really knows what anything is, but they get queues from their culture and society as to how to behave and what to think, and this comprises their reality. Learning to see through that is the main task of philosophy. — Wayfarer

Learning to see things for what they are is important. Not necessarily to see through them, as though they're a sham and truth is on the other side. There's often a consensus for a good reason. Too many people in philosophy develop an aversion to what's right in front of their eyes. This is sometimes mislabeled as 'taking things for granted' just because the answer to some questions is obvious. Not everything is an unfathomable mystery requiring a philosopher to solve. What do philosophers ever actually solve, for that matter? I suppose the fortunate ones might solve their own problems which philosophy itself helped to bring about, like overthinking things and learning to unlearn what you already know. The ultimate goal might be to reach a point where you can just walk away from it.

There most definitely is deception from you. Otherwise you wouldn't say the incredibly misleading things that you do, in spite of the misleading nature of the statements being brought to your attention, like that it's all about the prevention of suffering. Again, that's like saying that the Disneyland proposition is all about going to Disneyland, and how much fun Disneyland is. Kids love Disneyland. That's like saying that the atomic bomb is like watching fireworks. "Ooooh... Ahhhhhh... Wooooh...". That's like saying that terminal cancer means time off work. "Woo hoo! Go cancer!". That's like saying being punched really hard in the nose will get rid of that itch. "Thanks, mate! That did the trick!". That's like saying that being stabbed to death means that you'll have a good excuse not to see your mother-in-law. That's like saying that it's alright that you broke your favourite pair of glasses (because I'm about to decapitate your head from your body, so you won't really need them).

Get the point yet, or should I keep going?

Here is where you are off the mark. Neutrality (no badness here) of a devoid life matters not to no one. — schopenhauer1

No, here is where you are way off the mark. A world devoid of life matters to lots and lots of people. Just ask them. And no, I know exactly what you're thinking, but by then it would already be too late, so that obviously doesn't count. But anyway, we don't need to argue over that because it's neutral at best, which still isn't better than good.

Yes — schopenhauer1

I'm glad you agree.

Other things matter = agendas for people to follow. — schopenhauer1

No, it's just a fact that other things matter. Ask people if you don't believe me. And that fact can be used as a justification in terms of probability for the moral permissibility of having a child. They don't have to follow any agenda if they don't want to.

But we also went over how if no one is actually alive, preventing joy is neither good nor bad. — schopenhauer1

We've been over this all a million times, and I stand by my criticism regarding your double standard. In that case, preventing suffering would also be neither good nor bad. And no, that's not an acknowledgment of your asymmetry point, it's a charge that you're committing a fallacy. But sure, if you're going with neutral, I'll just point to the good which beats it.

Forced to do all the things life entails when one is a functioning human in an enculturated setting. And yes, you know I will say that forcing someone to play and then saying that your only way out is violently ending your physical being is not right. I would also mention the starting and continuing comparison. — schopenhauer1

No one is forced to play. Full stop.

And having kids isn't a messiah complex? Oh, the "mission" to bring happy people into the world following the agendas of this or that. Procreation is force recruiting. At least antinatalists just try to convince. — schopenhauer1

Convince through the deliberate deception involved in mis-selling a product. Yes, your agenda is much more noble and praiseworthy.

So that's what "S" stands for! — Artemis

It alternates between that and sarcastic son of a bitch.

It only matters to prevent suffering. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your opinion, you know. I already know that that's your opinion, and it won't become any closer to being true or justified the more that you repeat it.

All the people alive who report that they experience something "good" doesn't take away the logic of the asymmetry prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

The asymmetry between the good of there being lots of people living worthwhile lives on the one hand, and the neutrality or badness of a planet devoid of life on the other. Got it.

The one time all harm is prevented is all the matters. — schopenhauer1

Yes, to someone insanely removed from reality, that's all that matters. To everyone else, lots of other things matter. So much so that what you're saying will sound outrageous to them.

Anything else is forcing an agenda so another lives it out. — schopenhauer1

We've been over this and you failed to produce a valid response. You're guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You're guilty of forcing your agenda by only considering the prevention of suffering, rather than the prevention of joy and everything else. So it doesn't work. It's the fallacy of special pleading, also known as applying a double standard.

No, you are mischaracterizing the argument. What I mean is once born, that person is forced. Prior to this, no one is forced. — schopenhauer1

What are you talking about then? You've lost me. Forced to do what? No one is forced to do anything once born. Are you forgetting that life isn't a "game" that people are forced to "play"? People stop "playing" all the time, and no, that isn't a cue for you to go off on one about suicide. I'm only raising it as a refutation of your point about being forced, I'm not suggesting anything beyond that, and I don't want to hear all about your vaguely related thoughts on the matter yet again.

In the world of the superficial and easily offended, straight-talking criticism is mean and nasty. It could be that. It could also be that some people hear the word "autism" and automatically think "victim!".

If I go around saying that I'm a sociopath, will you all forgive me for any perceived wrongdoings? If so, then I'm a sociopath. :smile: :up:

Oh. Well, that doesn't apply to me, anyway. I'm like a most evil malignant cancer poisoning and rotting humanity, but in a good way. No, scratch that: a brilliant way.

S, how old are you????? — uncanni

Twelve.

Eh? What are you calling "mean and nasty", though? Chances are that it's something that I would have others do unto me, like mockery or bluntness.

Welp, same repetitive underwhelming response I expected. — Swan

Okay, fine, you're right. You have never hated anyone in your life. Not even that girl you hated at school.

I think the hostility is tragic. — uncanni

In a good way, though. Right?

I posit that there are no meaningful distinctions between "hate" and "disgust" via your usage of the words (and the cultural usage of the words); and the attempt to make it seem so is "novel" just for that fact alone. — Swan

Okay, well posit away, but there is a meaningful distinction. I'm not talking about those, "I hate Brussel sprouts!" moments where there isn't one.

Anyway, it's funny how easily triggered you are. I definitely don't believe that you haven't ever hated anyone. The evidence is against you. If you don't hate me already, I reckon I could get you to hate me in just a short period of time. And you've probably encountered worse than me. There was almost certainly someone in school that you hated. Have you tried being honest with yourself?

What a jerk. — DingoJones

What? Me? A jerk? No one has ever called me that before. I'm shocked and upset. @T Clark said that I'm cute and nice.

Yeah, nothing agressive there at all. Do you define aggressiveness like you define hatred, by any chance?

Confusing "disgust" and "hatred" is a common thing; doesn't require a "novel" answer, and pretty sure none of my answers have been "novel". — Swan

I'm not confusing disgust and hatred. If I had meant disgust, then I would have used that word instead. And your answer is definitely novel because no one else has answered in the way that you've done.

But since you're the one trying to add complexity to where there isn't any, it's quite evident you're projecting on my answers.

Whatever floats your boat, bud. — Swan

I'm not trying to add complexity. I rarely am. I usually try to do the opposite by simplifying matters. And the simple common sense fact is that everyone has hated at one time or another, except, like, babies and some severely disabled people, and it's very unlikely that you fall under that category. Although...

It's much more likely, as I said, that you're redefining the term to render it largely inapplicable, even though that clashes with common sense and ordinary language use.

It's the same situation as staring at a mirror on the wall and asking over and over, who is the most brilliant of all. It's pointless. — uncanni

Yes, because I already know the answer. It's me.

Anyway, I have other things to be getting on with. The world isn't going to destroy itself now, is it?

Yeah, sorry. Some people genuinely have other things to do than feel intense hatred for foreign objects, TV shows and random people they don't even know. If you seriously hate television I suggest getting some therapy; it's only a matter of time before a heart attack via stress takes you, and to be honest, it's not worth it going out over a TV show. — Swan

Okay, sure, I get the general gist of that. That's not controversial. But let's be honest. There's no way you haven't once, in your entire life, hated anyone or anything, even if just for a relatively brief period of time.

But I get it. You're being that gal who feels a need to give a novel answer, and I suppose redefining hatred as something entirely out of reach for the average person is one way of doing that.

Your humour has no power over me, DingbatJones. I freely decided to laugh at that.

That’s untrue. You’re committing the fallacies, the straw men, the guilt by associations (we’re terrorists now?). — NOS4A2

No, just advocates of terrorism. :grin:

Yes, you’re pretty good at editing your posts after being called out on it. — NOS4A2

Thanks. You're pretty good at committing fallacies to keep me on the ball.

I guess it’s a shame you’re horrible at it. Poisoning the well occurs before you make an argument, not long after. — NOS4A2

Ah, you got me before the edit. I'm pretty good actually, and that was close, but it's an association fallacy. You're trying to make those on the other side of the debate seem guilty by association with the sophists.

Ah, I love a good old game of spot the fallacy! Poisoning the well. No, wait, guilt by association.

Laughter can be an involuntary response. — DingoJones

What sourcery. Jokes don't force anyone to laugh. They have no power over anyone. All those people filling up theatres to watch a popular stand-up comedian all freely decide whether or not to laugh at a funny joke. They just so happen to all decide to laugh in unison at the punchline.

Are you telling me that jokes have agency?

Well we’ve just been over it haven't we? Am I remembering wrong? — DingoJones

But that's what we do here. We celebrate Groundhog Day in this insane asylum full of idiots and nutters.

Are you in favour of a speed limit of 50km, or whatever the speed limit is where you live? — DingoJones

Yes.

His next discussion: music doesn't invoke feelings, that's sourcery.

No Im not for ACTS of terrorism. — DingoJones

You are by implication, but if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine.

It's laughable that speech could force actions? I'd agree with that.

Or you think it's laughable to only ban speech that would force actions? — Terrapin Station

The latter. It's laughable to set your threshold so high that it allows in so much that's wrong. It's laughable for the same reason that it's laughable to set the threshold for banning asbestos to be that it forces cancer on immediate contact in every single case.

None of that would matter prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

What are you talking about? It matters now. Now is prior to the birth of possible future generations, which is what I was talking about. It matters already, right now, whether or not our planet will be full of human life fifty years from now, one hundred years from now, two hundred years from now, and so on. And if most people now wouldn't opt to never have lived if possible, then it's reasonable to infer that a new generation of people would also not opt to have never been born if possible, so it's not wrong, it's actually good. Good is better than both neutral and bad, as I've told you before. And a planet devoid of life is neutral at best.

And you keep switching up your justifications in a logically inconsistent manner. If there's no person prior to conception, then there's no one to be forced. You yourself just said "no forcing", but then you illogically try to challenge me as though there's a person prior to conception that would somehow be forced into existence.