TDS is not mythical. Maybe it gets tossed around too much as such terms do, but I have met and witnessed it many times.
Ive noticed the time and energy as well, and agree it is suspicious. Ive asked him about it myself. I wouldnt say that justifies how he is often treated though. If he did the same thing about not Trump, I very much doubt he would be getting the same treatment. GnosticBishop is the same way about anti-christian stuff, those two anti-natalists are the same way about their posts, Wallows (or whatever hes called now) is the same way with his therapy posts etc, there is a type of poster that just doggedly stays on point about something and none of those other people get treated like that. (Except by me maybe). Still, even after that consideration I agree its suspicious.
I realise you are often his sparring partner, but I wasnt singling you out in the post you responded to.

I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.

No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie. — Relativist

:100: (edited to add that, it didnt work the first time)
It is just as dishonest for people to claim he was suggesting people ingest bleach as it is for Trump to say he was being sarcastic.

Is there a reason why NOS4A2 is being treated like this? I searched his post history expecting to find him trolling or flaming, but his posts have actually been rather cordial and subdued. While I disagree with almost everything he says, there's enough anti-Trump people here such that we don't need to resort to bullying. Yes, Trump and many of his supporters often do it, but we're not them either. — Wolfman

His defence of Trump and his refusal to placate for the most part. Because of Trump Derangement Syndrome, he has been relegated to a category of person no longer worthy of fairness nor respect. He is an agent of evil, and so a guilt free punching bag for the weak of character.
Not to say all his critics are like that, but Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and its primary definitive feature is not being able to think clearly on matters if Trump (or in more serious cases, anything that can be even remotely tied to Trump) so even then he seldom gets the fair or charitable interactions afforded to others.

If the inductional thinking of the situation leads to the best option to kill the killer and that the killer doesn't have any justification for that killing other than malice or mental illness that is impossible to change, then yes, it is justified since you are defending lives from a morally bad choice another is taking. — Christoffer

Ok, so is that individual good translate to the group? I would argue that it doesnt, that the group consideration is different since now you also have to weigh the cost to the group, which you never have to do with the individual consideration. Thats why we have laws against vigilantism, because people can lie about their moral reasons or moral diligence in concluding that killing the murderer is correct. Hopefully the possibilities are fairly obvious.
So that would be an example of whats good for the individual not being good fir the group.
I think that this part of your argument is foundational, and it will all fall apart unless you can alter the premiss to exclude exceptions to the rule like we did above.

Sure, lets say that all moral due diligence is done in that scenario, so as you laid it out that act is justified morally, it is good for the individual. To be clear, I mean that in the sense that the person is morally justified to murder that guy first, basically morally permissible vigilantism. Are you agreeing that under a certain set of circumstances, after all due consideration of all options (there is a scenario where police are not the best option for example) etc, its good (avoiding mind/body harm) to go kill this guy?

That book is very similar to what you’ve talked about so far. You are operating around one of the “peeks” of the moral landscape, you just do mot realise it. I highly recommend the book, as it is essentially the same as what you are proposing here. Also, you are wrong about Harris’s focus on islam over moral theory. Moral theory is his primary focus, which is why he takes issue with religions.
Anyway, lets focus on one thing at a time. Its always a temptation with presenting a theory to jump around between all the explanations and arguments and supporting arguments and premisses because you are uniquely familiar with them. Im not though, so one thing ar a time.
Fir example, you've jumped into utilitarianism and some other concepts and Im not really sure how that even matters as if yet.
So as to good for the individual is good for the group...let me set up a scenario.
If there is a threat to a person, or their family maybe. I murderer has declared you or your family his next target. He has done this before with other targets, and has always followed through with his threat. I would say you are protecting yourself from mind/body harm to kill the murderer before he kills you. So that seems like it qualifies as good in your view, since the individual mind/body harm is at stake. Is that right?

Have you read “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris?

Ok, so your central claim seems to be that what is good for the individual is whats good for the group aa long as the good is defined as not doing harm to the body/mind. Is that correct?

What if I change to "objectively valuable"? Seems that within a context of objectively valuable for one the benefit for the many includes that one person. So to have a value objectively it needs to be of benefit for the whole? Or am I attacking this premise in the wrong direction? — Christoffer

Well Im not sure how that would change that there are exceptions to your claim that haven't been accounted for. How exactly do you mean objectively valuable?

What things are beneficial to humanity and humans that do harm to the body or mind? The sun does only damage when exposed to it too much, so that means overexposure to the sun is not beneficial to humans and humanity while normal exposure to the sun is.

So what is beneficial is valuable as too much exposure to the sun is not beneficial or valuable. The premise also specifically points to one human, so not humanity as a whole, but could be applied with expansion to it. But it's hard to see anything beneficial to a human that is at the same time harming the body and/or mind. Even euthanasia can't be harming the mind of body if the purpose is to relieve the body or mind from suffering. — Christoffer

Ya, that example doesnt hold up. Ok, so let me try another in the i interest of testing your claim further. I suspect your syllogism can be applied to these as well so im prepared to stand corrected on that last criticism but Ill give it a shot.
What about if there are two harms, smoking and stress. The smoking relieves the stress, but harms the body, but so would stress. In that case, the smoking is harmful to body but its also beneficial to the human.
On a macro scale, what about decisions that benifit more people than it harms. Wouldnt any kind if utilitarian calculation be an exception to your rule?

Morality based on value
p1 What is valuable to humans is that which is beneficial to humanity.
p2 What is beneficial to a human is that which is of no harm to mind and body.
p3 Good moral choices are those that do not harm the mind and body of self and/or others.
Conclusion: Good moral choices are those considered valuable to humans because they are beneficial to humans and humanity. — Christoffer

P1 is not true at all. Many large groups of humans value things that are not beneficial to all humanity. Its arguable humanity as a whole doesnt value what is beneficial to humanity as a whole, so I would say you need more support for p1.
P2 seems weak as well, as its quite a stretch to claim everything that does no harm to mind and body is beneficial to humanity. Don’t you think there are somethings which do no body/mind harm but do not necessarily benefit mankind? Or vice versa...the sun harms your body but is beneficial to humanity,

Belief
p1 Choices made from unsupported belief has a high probability of chaotic consequences.
p2 Supported belief with evidence has a high probability of arriving at calculated consequences.
p3 Chaotic consequences are always less valuable to humanity than those able to be calculated.
Conclusion: Unsupported belief is always less valuable to humanity than supported belief. — Christoffer

Your conclusion should be that unsupported belief has a high probability of being less valuable to humanity (where chaotic consequences are bad for humanity). The “always” doesnt follow from the rest of your equation.
Also, you can have calculated consequences which are bad for humanity so P3 doesnt follow either.

See? However we may disagree we will always have Franky to agree on. :wink:

Yes yes, :100: , but that doesnt matter to Frank Apisa, and even if it did he lacks the comprehension to accept he is wrong on this. He is a fanatically religious believer...of agnosticism. A very confused person, with an incoherent position that he doesnt even know he holds.
I suspect mental illness of some kind, like Autism and Dunning-Kruager had a baby and it was raised by a lady named Aggressively Stupid. Also the baby spent its summers with Uncle Parrot, who taught the baby to repeat the same thing over and over without listening to the responses. The end result is Frank Apisa,
So basically a complete waste of time to engage with.

Lol, being wrong that many times in a row would make me sleepy too.

Ok, but Im not going to argue with Fool with you as a proxy. I'm talking to you about what you said.

Well its a broad term that you are incorrectly using specifically. Like in my human/doctor analogy.
Anyway, you’ve jumped to the word irreligious now, and that bit at the end. What does any of that have to do with this? You lost me.

I get that, but so what? Whats the relevance of whether I agree with the first sentence in someone else's post? I actually think there are a lot off errors in that quote from Fool, but I would bring that up with him not you, right? I was disagreeing with the statement you made

But, a Polytheist or Pantheist could be an Antitheist if they disagreed with the Theistic conception of God and had some animosity towards Theism in general, right? — Pinprick

Sorry, I should have used the quote feature in that post. I assumed it would be clear since it was the very next post made on the thread.

What does that have to do with what I said?

No, polytheist and pantheist are types of theism so that wouldnt make any sense. Im not sure, but I would guess there are words for animosity towards specific types of theism aimed from others theisms. Like, Anti-Christian or anti-pantheist.

“irreligious” includes opposing religion, not knowing religion and not choosing a religion. Its not specific to opposing religion, the same way the word “human” isn't specific to what we call a human that practices medicine. That would be a doctor. If you want to be specific about a person opposing religion, anti-theist is the word youre looking for.

Well those are idiosyncratic definitions of anti-theism and irreligion, but ok.
So “anti-theism” is only opposed to theistic beliefs when its “atheism”? That seems to be the consequence of your usage described above.
So what do you call someone who is not an atheist, but opposes religion?

I dont know if we are talking past each other or what...lets start from the beginning.
Atheism is about whether or not god exists, anti-theism is about opposing religion or believers/theistic beliefs about god.
Do you accept that distinction?

Right, we are discussing where we disagree. I directly addressed what you said and then pointed out how your rebuttals failed. If I got something wrong, then tell me how.

I didnt see that, did you add it after the initial post to Fool? i didnt get an alert to that one.
Ok, so yes I disagree. First, anti-theism is not always hatred. It was just one example of an anti-theist (just to be clear). Second, even if hatred was definitive of anti-theism that hatred doesnt only take the form of satanism and therefore cannot be classified as “faith” (which Im not sure satanism even requires).
No sir, I think that one can have perfectly philosophical reasons for hatred and other negative feelings towards theism.
Also, even if I conceded your point above it still wouldn't refute what I originally said about an anti-theist not being an atheist. It would just be a separate point about the philosophical validity of hating something.

I waa referencing my first post that disagreed an anti theist must be an atheist as well. Then you made a second post to Fool which I agreed with but those were to separate points. Sorry, I could have made that clearer.

Well I still disagree with that other thing you said lol

Neither polytheism nor pantheism, as I understand them, are anti-theistic; rather, they are thematic variations on theism. At most, they're anti-MONOtheistic; but monotheism is only one branch among many of that old burning bush, and very much an almighty-come-lately in the history of divine conceptions. — 180 Proof

Well now I agree with you. Good point.

Let me ask you a question. What's the difference between antitheism and atheism? If there's no difference then why different words for the same idea? If there's a difference then antitheism can't be about the claim that god doesn't exist because that's atheism. :chin: — TheMadFool

This I agree with, the two words do not mean the same thing. Anti-theism is pretty clearly about religion and ideology surrounding god, not the existence of god per say. Atheism is a direct stance on the existence of god. I think you got yourself a good point for once (:wink: )

Not sure I agree with you here, one could be an anti-theist but not an atheist. One could believe in god and hate/resent god for his biblical acts and be an anti theist for that reason. I dont think your breakdown covers that angle.

I do not think you can define evil by itself, I think you need to define what is evil and what is good at the same time, as one is meaningless without the other.
Wouldnt it be best to keep it simple, and define evil as that which opposes good? I realise thats shifting the burden but I think thats where it belongs (rather than shifting the burden as a dodge of the question).
Evil as the destruction of agency is interesting, but wouldn't that make all punishment immoral. It would also mean people would be constantly committing evil unawares, as their actions will almost certainly, at some point, effect the agency of others. Not sure if thats the best way of defining evil that way. What is the utility of that definition?

There is something very confusing about the way you are framing this. Baden gave you everything you need to answer your question, the terms you are asking about are clearly defined yet you treated it like a non-sequitor.
If a religion is not theistic, then atheism isnt a position one is able to have about that religion because atheism is a position on theism (namely, the absence of theism). If one is an anti-theist, then one is only anti-theistic religions although Im still not clear on what you have in mind for a “non-theistic” religion. Those “isms” you listed are types of theisms, and I do not see how a specific definition of god (the 1,2 and 3 traits) implies any of those “isms” are not theism.
A generic definition of theism was given by 180 Proof, the various “isms” are variations/sub categories of theism (and thus a variation on 180’s definition of theism) so it doesnt make sense to then reference those “isms” as being implied not theistic based on not exactly matching the generic definition. They won’t match the generic definition, they are more specific and further defined types of theism.

What is a non-theistic religion?

Well ya, the memory wipe is removing the experience and the experience is what makes the thing worthwhile. However, this scenario does nothing to make sense of your claim that something cannot be worthwhile and acceptable in ending. The mind wipe is just an ad hoc attempt to hold onto a point that still fails and Im sorry to say that it doesnt make much sense either. Once you introduce the mind wipe, then your original point can no longer be made since it refers to that experience (the end of it, of life). Even if you make another ad hoc adjustment to not include the end as part of the experience then you haven't said anything interesting at all, youd just be pointing out that if you only experience something negative and specifically do not experience what makes that negative thing worth going through then this negative thing isnt worthwhile. Thats not saying much at all, so Im afraid youve fallen quite short here.

The end of life is arbitrary? Seems pretty cut and dry to me, you read the book and it ends when your done reading, you live the life and it ends when you die.
Life may have an arbitrary quality to it in the sense that you dont know when you're going to die or how, but that isnt the same as what the examples of hockey and a book illustrate about the failed logic of the premiss that something cannot both be worthwhile and acceptable in ending.
The point is not how or when it ends but only that it ends. It is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Its both, and there is still no good reason to think life is an exception. Its something you do that is worthwhile, and is acceptable in ending. Just like the book, you may not want it to end but it must, and often that it ends is part of what makes it worthwhile.
In that this relates to anti-natalism, it is the same petulant, juvenile kind of perspective, focusing on not experiencing “bad” things instead of appreciating the beauty that can result from them. Adversity is the mechanism for growth and maturity, and is worthwhile for that reason.

I would like to develop a previous point: Life cannot be both worth living and acceptable in ending. — JacobPhilosophy

I dont think that makes sense. If you swap out life for other things your logic doesnt seem to hold, and so you would need to show why life in particular works this way and you havent. I dont see how you can.
For example, “a game of hockey cannot be both worth playing and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can both.
“My favourite book cannot both be worth reading and acceptable in ending”.
Of course it can be both.
And so on, for any number if things other than life. Why does the logic change in the case of life? Also, you are essentially saying that things worth doing cannot end unless they arent/werent worth doing to start with. I think thats clearly not the case.

Amen Sushi. Unfortunately the TDS is going to get worse before it gets better. (On both sides btw, I see TDS on both sides, constantly.)

There is still so much mixed messaging about this virus, and this strange defiance of “freedom over life” and “id rather die than destroy the country by not working” is pretty infuriating. People are just so fucking stupid. There are hidden triggers people have so that even the most reasonably offered request will be dismissed because of some so and so news source or medical advice.
Whats especially baffling to me is how over and over, and with the virus now as well, is how when we have very solid, very well known information on whats happened elsewhere (like with Covid and Italy for example) and yet we continue to play put the exact same procedures. Religion, politics and now with this virus, too many people just flat out refuse to learn from history or in the case of Covid 19 from actual, fresh current events.

See it really seems like a blind spot for you, and Im not trying to be a prick. Im a Trumpist?! I imagine we mostly agree on what kind of character the man shows, had you bothered to ask. How could you know im fooling myself about his character when Ive expressed so very little about it? Sorry, but I think you are assuming alot about me just because I noticed that media, including CNN, have spread falsehoods about Trump.
Honestly, Im not trying to be antagonistic but thats fairly well out of line to call me a Trumpist. You have no real basis for that claim, except that we apparently disagree the news has spread falsehoods about Trump. So ask yourself why you made these baseless assumptions, and how it might be a problem when discussing this topic.
Anyway, I think my original point still stands.

Non-sequitor, i was providing an example of news spreading falsehoods about Trump not a reference to Trumps character. Im not rejecting anything as rash speculation, nor suggesting anyone else do so. This was actually addressed above anyway, if you're following along.

Right, and it was repeated and exaggerated. Thats an example of spreading falsehoods in my books.

Regardless, you failed to specify. You went straight from "it's not 100% accurate" to "it's a lie". Yet you complained that all of Trumps inaccurate statements are treated as lies. That seems like a double standard to me. — Echarmion

It only seems like a double standard because of your low reading comprehension. Ive already explained this failure on your part but evidently you didnt understand that either.

It seems a very odd hill to choose to die on. Most media outlets have some political bias. Almost all of them have a significant economic bias. There are plenty stories that go unheard or are badly mangled by the media. When it comes to inaccuracies in major news outlets, Trump is the last thing I'd worry about. The misrepresentations about Trump are just incredibly minor compared to some of the other shit that goes on. — Echarmion

Its not a hill im dying on, not all opinions, comments or disagreements are hills to die upon. Get a grip.
Anyway, last word is yours, we are done here.