They killed Socrates because he was acting like an ass. — YuZhonglu

In what way?

A democracy isnt just about the right to vote. The people have a responsibility to be informed, thats part of it. The state of democracy is the west is a result of the voting public sitting on its ass and being content to know nothing. The people have failed their democracy, not the other way around.

Good point, not to mention that the number people hearing voices greatly surpasses the numbers of this research. That should be a red flag right there.

Holy shit, you are not making a major argument against ANY position! You are baffled, and should pay attention to what you are being told so you can learn where you are making semantic and philosophical mistakes. Good god man!
The lack of understanding is entirely your own, and Terrapin has laid it out very plainly. I do not know whats blocking your ability to comprehend the very very simple distinctions and results of those distinctions to the subject matter but its aggravating me and Im not even the conversation! If you are trolling, then hats off, you are showing true mastery!

Well said mr Drake.

You must not be paying close attention. We are in agreement.

State interference in our lives is something I believe should be minimised, especially in the arena of peoples personal beliefs about things. The state should serve us, not bind us.
I did not quote or refute because I agree, the state should do what it can to ensure religions obey the separation of church and state. Thats not the same as restricting religions rights that we non-religious people enjoy such as freedom of association, to speak and promote our personal beliefs (so long as they do not cross the line separating church and state) and to hold personal beliefs others disagree with. I view it a personal duty to speak out against nefarious or harmful belief systems, not a state one. Thats the only way it can work.
I agree secular law is better, its just that secular law should focus on being secular rather than being against any particular religion. Again, thats the only way it can work.

Well you say you agree, but then immediately followed up by supporting state interference. Im no fan of organised religion, Im an anti-theist, but it cannot work that way. People have to be free to choose for themselves, thats the only way other people can be free to choose for themselves.
There are certain aspects of our system that are biased towards religion, like tax exemption or religious folks standing in the way of gay civil unions and of course those should be changed as per the separation of church and state but having the state take ANY side has always been a disaster.

I agree, in fact the only way to protect religious or non- religious belief is to ensure that no such belief is ever backed by the state.

Yes, i think you are right.

Im not going to answer your question, as it doesnt address anything Im saying. Its just you reasserting what you have already claimed. This is merri-go-round discussion, but im not going to play with you. You asked me to make my case, I did. You have chosen to ignore it.

If the law and morality are distinct, then its only immoral to break a law that is moral. Thus when you ask if it is immoral to do illegal drugs what you are really asking is whether or not it is immoral to do drugs.

Make your case! — tim wood

Morality and Law are not the same thing. This should be obvious given the huge historical examples where a law was very clearly not moral. Another thing to consider is a moral that you hold can be made illegal, and then you are suddenly immoral regardless of the merits of your original moral position. Failing to recognise the distinction is non-sensical, it renders morality meaningless, arbitrary. A lawmaker could make anything moral or immoral, no matter its merit, no matter if the lawmaker was crazy, or evil. It makes no sense.
Thats my case above. Refer to it in your counter arguments because im not going to repeat it next time you ask me to “make your case!”. Ive done so, and clearly pointed it out to you now.
You are free to not make the distinction between law and morality, but then you need to make that case before asserting it is immoral not to follow any particular law.

Your not really making sense. Its not immoral to break a law that isnt moral and in fact morality sometimes demands you break the law.

Are some laws worth breaking, immorality aside? — tim wood

Why are they worth breaking, if not for moral reasons? When people broke slavery laws, they were doing it for moral reasons, as with Schindler.
Why does history say “yes”, if not for moral reasons?

My comment was about moral thought experiments, not morality in general. Self righteous morons do not understand a moral thought experiment, their emotional response hijacks their reason and their moronic self righteousness compels them to pass defensive judgement.
ie “i do not understand this and it makes me uncomfortable to try, so Im just going to lash out so I can still feel like Im a better person than you”
Pathetic.

No need for this topic. Only self righteous morons dont get it, the rest of us understand

Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help.

Nah, you just can’t waste time with dummies and ideologues who can’t listen.

You know what S? Why dont you go punch some more babies you baby punching serial killer. We don’t need logic and reason around these parts! Why don’t you just take your fancy facts and your accountability and basic reading comprehension and stick it up your ass, Im trying to have my feelings over here!

Ok, I think you are right. “Source” was (at least) the source of confusion. It seems obvious how I meant that in context, but I didn't think of your distinction between cause and source so...now I know.
Ok, so just to check the page here using my matchstick analogy: what is the cause of the flame (primarily, no need for lists. Just give me an idea) and what is the relation between the source of something and the start of something?

No, I disagree because the processes aren't optional. You do need to worry about including everything. Philosophy doesn't work well half-assed. We need to be precise, complete (at least sufficiently), etc. — Terrapin Station

It isnt really relevant, the chemicals on the end of a matchstick, the chemical process, whatever details you want to include. Doesnt matter, I just mean the cause, whatever you want that to entail. It illustrates the way I think about it regardless.
Sufficiently complete as you say.

In addition, as I said, causes can't be identical to what they cause unless you want to say that something can cause itself. Normally we say that there are causes and effects, and the two aren't identical, as that wouldn't make much sense re making a between between causes and effects — Terrapin Station

Ya, I agree that the two are not identical. That makes no sense to me either. What I do not understand is why you think a cause must be identical to what it causes. Your explanation seems circular and I do not see an answer to my questions in it.

So far...we agree?

It has to be if we're trying to say that since A causes or is a cause of B, then A is the source of B. "The source of" is another way of saying "Where it comes from" or "Where it originates", "Where it arises from" or "What is B properties of." If A causes/is a cause of B, but A isn't identical to B, then we don't actually have B yet when we have A, so naming A doesn't tell us where/what/how B happens to be. This is actually because something else has to be necessary for B--some other substance, and/or process and/or context, etc. If that weren't the case, then A would be identical to B. — Terrapin Station

I cant say that makes much sense to me.
I know you do not like breaking down posts line by line, me neither though it seems it would be appropriate here, so maybe we can just do one thing at a time. So, this:
The chemicals on the end of the match (and their relevant processes of course, I don’t see the necessity in worrying about the specifics here) causes the flame. You disagree with this because there must be a connection of some kind between the flame and the match head, and there isnt otherwise we wouldnt differentiate between the match and the flame in the first place. Is that right?

If A causes B, it doesn't imply that A is identical to B, does it?

And if A is not identical to B, then A or, whatever makes A obtain, isn't literally the source of B, because we only have B elsewhere. How does it make sense to say that A is the source of B when A isn't itself B? — Terrapin Station

Why does a cause have to be identical to what it causes? This makes no sense me, what is the utility of thinking about it that way?
When I light a match, the chemicals on the end are the source of the flame, aren’t they? The alternative is what, that B is the source of B? The lit matches fire came from...fire? Heat?

Fuck. No.
Id have given up a while back.

Am I the only one who noticed his list of two things had 3 things on it? I think 3 was a good addition though. Perhaps a necessary one lol

be given values from something outside of yourself. Values/valuing anything is a mental phenomenon. — Terrapin Station

Still unclear how you mean this. A non-mental phenomenon can directly cause mental phenomenon, creating sensory data for example. In the same way an outside source, ie words from a book, can in-still values into our minds. That doesnt have to mean the value exists outside or minds, just that the source does.

I cut the quote short somehow, but should still be clear.

How are you using “concepts” here? Can you not be introduced to concepts with a society as the vector?

You presented it as an argument. You used an invalid premiss. This has been pointed out.
Anyway, my parting comment: you have narrowed it down to either your own in- articulation or that you are wrong. I suggest you test each of those, see which one seems more likely.

No, you don’t guess and draw conclusions based on those guesses. You look for more data. If there is none, then you draw no conclusions. You are committing the “argument from ignorance fallacy”

Its possible you arent articulating well, but it might also be the case that you are the one thats wrong here...couldnt it?

You are being pedantic. — Devans99

He is not. His statement is vitally important and on point. Ignore his insulting tone and recognise the substance in what he is saying. You really don’t “choose” in math, you calculate.
Your misunderstanding of this is what everyone is talking about when they say your foundation is not valid. If you have not calculated something in math, you are just making it up out of thin air.

Well, some overlap here as we are all replying swiftly. You can sort it out with him, I recommend you try and stay open minded as he is telling you exactly where you have erred
Ok, so you didnt respond to my question. You are willing to commit to your own in-articulation as the reason everyone is disagreeing with you?

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess. — Devans99

Ok, so you will commit to your own in-articulation? Thats why people are disagreeing with you?
I couldn't help but notice that Christoffer gave you precisely what you asked for, he pointed out exactly where you are lacking foundation for your argument. Why did you ignore it?

Well as no-one can articulate exactly what is the problem with my probability calculations, I can hardly be expected to answer that question. — Devans99

Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you?

I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument?

Well, S replied. Not a strong atheist. So that eliminates his disagreement on the basis of his strong atheism. So, is he now in the category with me as mot understanding your argument?

Since no one else replied I will have to suppose...lets suppose (as I strongly suspect) that no one you are arguing with is a strong atheist. Are we all failing to understand your argument then?

I tagged the people in this thread, but there are more people who disagree with you on the same things as we do from other threads since you’ve uses this stuff as a basis for a bunch of threads. In fact, no one agrees with you that Ive seen.

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?

So I do not understand your argument, so that's why I disagree and everyone else is disagreeing because their strong atheism is being threatened? Is that right?

I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree.