calm down man. Writing an essay for one mere comment certainly says something about you.... — Count Radetzky von Radetz

Yeah, just like asking about the similarities between Moses and Jesus says something about you :rofl:

Anyway, the point is that you don't treat your employees equally - certainly not in every respect. — Sapientia

Yes, of course not in every respect. But they are treated equally as human beings first, before anything else. I work with some of my people even at 0:00 in the night if I have to. Tell me, what man do you know of who can call one of his employee in the middle of the night if needed, and they will be there? Many of these people work for me because they've learned a lot from me (and continue to learn), and I've been kind to them - unlike pretty much any other boss around here.

Do they get their personal expenses paid for, too? — Sapientia

I would loan my people money if they need it for something urgent, yes.

Do they own equal shares in the company? — Sapientia

No of course not. I own all of it, but that's only because I must have the final call on what happens with the money. I do not want to spend the money, and I want to grow the company, because this will be key to everyone's well-being in the future. Not everyone understands this - some people, if they were in charge with equal shares would squander it.

It is like a general in the army. Yes, I head the army, just like your head heads your body. But it's not like your head will let your hand die, or will not take care of the toe, or is superior to the hand, etc. They are functioning as one unit, each one doing a particular job that it can do best - the head leading, the hand taking, and so on.

Now the hand has all the interest in the world to allow the head to lead. I don't see why you, or anyone else, wants to continue to live in this wretched society as it exists today. And if we are to change it, then we need resources, tremendous resources. How will we get them, you reckon they'll fall from Heaven above? As the saying goes, God gives you the opportunity, but you must take it yourself. Do not be like that man who, when the flood comes, and the boat comes to rescue him, says that he has faith in God and will not go on the boat. The boat is also from God.

I would not work for any company which paid low wages and had zero opportunity of a pay rise or promotion. — Sapientia

I do increase payment depending on the tasks at hand and how valuable each person is to the business as a whole. But there is no opportunity for promotion because there is no hierarchy. Promotion only exists in large organisations who have hundreds/thousands of employees, and have set up a hierarchical system to make sure that everyone controls everyone else. I don't need any such hierarchy to control ~5 people I work with. And my business model does not require many employees either.

So you pay them the same amount as you pay yourself? :brow: — Sapientia

I don't pay myself. I keep most of the money in the business for development purposes and to be able to withstand shocks (run out of work, etc.). I am quite paranoid financially. I probably live on less than some of the people I work with. My personal expenses consist of food, paying for some of my grandfather's medical expenses, books and similar stuff. All my electricity, gas, telephone, internet, other subscriptions, etc. are paid via my company. I haven't bought new clothes (for example) in two years.

I don't respect money, money is just a tool to me. I pride myself on being able to control it, and not needing much of it.

Well I'm sorry you and your wife have had these experiences, but it remains unclear to me how these incidents have been extrapolated and constructed into modern tenets of the Democratic platform, e.g. that whites are incapable are anything other than evil etc., or that women must choose a career rather embrace motherhood. — Maw

How funny... on the one hand you tell me that you have a problem with people on the right claiming, for example, that there are biological differences in IQ between black people and white people on average, because it ends up resulting in discrimination, even though logically there is no link between that fact and discrimination. And on the other hand, when it comes to the narratives of the left, you say it's okay, the damage isn't their responsibility, it's not their fault - these are not their tenets. So which is it? You should adopt the same attitude across the board, and you don't. Why is that?

You clearly were part of the PF community back when you were in your early 20s, probably the period of time when your views most clearly solidified. And so, you've read the works and books recommended by the overly left-leaning PF, you've immersed yourself in the material, and haven't looked with the same intensity into other material.

Also, this community, back at old PF, had an even stronger bias for the left than it does here. Here it's not as easy to ridicule people on the right, thanks to the continuous efforts of people like, for example, Thorongil. When you have returned to TPF here, you seem to have brought back with you some of the old dismissive attitudes as the 'right way' to play the game. But things have changed a little in the meantime.

Because then they stand a better chance of a promotion. — Sapientia

There is no such thing as "promotion" with me. There isn't much of a hierarchy. I treat people as my equals.

That is true. I would say that most people who work with me are not motivated by money (an exception is my accountant :lol: ).

Also people should note that the examples provided in the first post were merely that, examples to help discuss a deeper issue. Some of you have taken them to be the central point, and that wasn't my intention. Some of the examples provided were hyperbolic anyway, and most of them refer to how the relationship was at first, not that it continues to be that way.

Hence my question was more "Why do we have to engage with (new) people in this unserious, conflictual way?"

Let’s just say the party is going to start sooner that you thought. — CuddlyHedgehog

You should know that hamster stomachs can digest almost anything :naughty:

You can't, not in the dedective sense you're thinking of. I'm talking about abductive reasoning. — Pseudonym

No, you simply don't know what you're talking about at this point. Finding the truth value of a statement requires observation of the world primarily, and has little to do with deductive, inductive, or abductive reasoning. Those get started based on other truths that you know.

I believe that when Agustino tells me he has $100 in his pocket, he has $100 in his pocket. Agustino has just told me he has $100 in his pocket, therefore he has $100 in his pocket. If, on several occasions I find that after you've declared that you have $100 in your pocket, you in fact don't have, then my theory is no longer useful. — Pseudonym

You're just telling me about how to rationally make use of beliefs - you're telling me nothing about how to find out if I have $100 in my wallet. One way is to take my wallet and look into it - ever thought about that?

I don't know. Its like asking what a Martian would look like and then claiming that I can't say I haven't seen one because I can't give a description of what it is I haven't seen. I haven't seen anything I would call a proof of a metaphysical theory. I know what isn't a proven metaphysical theory - one that perfectly intelligent people can provide rational reasons to disagree with for a start. That alone covers all of current metaphysics. — Pseudonym

If you're looking for something, you must know what you are looking for, otherwise even if you find it you will not know that you have found it. So this needs to be settled. If I am looking for a Martian, I know what I am looking for - I am looking at minimum for a living creature from the planet Mars.

So don't blame me for your own inability to form a concept of what truth would be in regards to metaphysical theories. That's your own inability to even form a concept of it, no wonder you can't find it, when you don't even know what it is you're looking for! My God! How could you even find it?

Not enough for what? — Pseudonym

Not enough to prove philosophy is dead.

No, you think philosophy has some useful things to say. — Pseudonym

No, I maintain that I know that.

Peter Unger, a published professor of philosophy recently wrote a book detailing exactly how metaphysics says nothing at all of any value. — Pseudonym

Oh reallllyyyy? I've read some of Unger's work and I don't remember him being a Positivist.

So what would you say if I asked you whether ballroom dancing had any meaningful contribution to the study of ethics? — Pseudonym

I have no a priori reason to believe that ballroom dancing can provide a meaningful contribution to ethics. But neuroscience being the study of the mind, and the mind being absolutely central to ethical concerns (when someone feels pain, etc.), then I am not sure that neuroscience may not provide contributions.

We've already tested the first. — Pseudonym

If you think that means we have tested it, then you don't understand what testing something means scientifically.

What do you mean by 'clarify'? What is the 'sense' of a term? What do you mean by 'truth conditions'? And what would constitute having 'determined' them? — Pseudonym

I can answer all these questions, but you're not serious anymore. So I won't bother. You clearly are running out of meaningful things to say, and so you resort to this pretence of an engagement with what is being said to you.

I'm quite sure that's a fallacy called rationalization too, doesn't mean its not what everyone is doing nonetheless. — Pseudonym

So presumably you are aware that you are engaged in this fallacy. Why don't you stop then? If you are aware, you can stop. You can say, I will stop with these stupid rationalizations, regardless of what other people are doing, and I will suspend judgement, because I know no better. That's the honest thing to do in your situation.

You're presuming that people decide what they want. If they do, what criteria do they use to decide? — Pseudonym

A whole host of criteria. One simple criteria is that they feel hungry and they want to eradicate the pain of hunger, so they want to eat. And so on.

Where do they come from then? — Pseudonym

From our biology, from our psychology, from our understanding - all these places.

Are you even considering the possibility that you might not have looked at it properly? — Pseudonym

Sure, unlike you I am considering that possibility. I haven't seen you consider that possibility. In fact, you recognise that you have no reason to be a naturalist over and above a Cartesian Dualist, but yet, lo and behold, you stick blindly with one of them.

the random stories our concious brain makes up — Pseudonym

This "random" story is quite coherent, that's why you're capable to have goals, pursue them, and fulfil them most of the time. If you want to find food, you know to go look in the fridge. So it's not a "random" story at all. You really should think more about what you are saying.

All the people I know who seem intelligent in areas I can judge also seem to believe that we evolved through a process of evolution through natural selection so I find myself drawn to that opinion, I check it is not utter nonsense against empirical observations and find it isn't, so I'm happy to hold that belief. I wonder how our brains work, philosopher disagree on just about every aspect of that question and I can't see any mechanism by which they could know in any way that could actually make useful predictions, so I turn to neuroscientists. I might first have a theory that I'm in charge, but find no reason why I should be (given the evolutionary theory earlier adopted) and no evidence of that in neuroscience. — Pseudonym

Accepting evolution has almost zero to do with naturalism. You can be a theist and accept evolution. Also accepting evolution has nothing to do with believing in freedom or in strict determinism.

I know, but my instinctive brain doesn't, hence it wants me to decide. — Pseudonym

So can't you disobey? You are aware of it, so this isn't a reflex that you cannot stop, the way if I hit your knee with a hammer you cannot but move your leg. So you are aware of it. You are aware that you are doing something irrational and are engaged in a logical fallacy. So stop it.

Why? What benefit is it to me to suspend judgement? — Pseudonym

You'd be more rational to begin with?

I'm obviously not going to maintain my view in the face of empirical evidence or a model which better predicts the world, that's exactly the scientific approach I've adopted — Pseudonym

:rofl: - for real? Until now you were telling me that your instinctive brain forces you to accept it. So now you've dropped that ridiculous theory?

Do you read any comments which are suspending judgement about the question of whether philosophy has anything meaningful to say here? — Pseudonym

Sure, that's what happens when I read Sextus Empiricus for example.

Do they sound like someone suspending judgement when faced with an opposing world-view? — Pseudonym

No, YOU should suspend judgement because you claim that you have no way to distinguish the truth of metaphysical propositions. I don't make that claim, so I am under no obligation to suspend judgement, since I affirm that I can determine the truth of metaphysical propositions.

This type of product isn't very difficult to sell actually. I even had someone who wanted me to ghostwrite & market a similar eBook for them (it was more about pickup stuff), but I refused on moral grounds.

The Hamster's Guide to Good Sex. — Baden

Mmm, that's actually good, I bet I could get that to sell like crazy in eBook form :lol:

...and don’t worry about the funny taste. — CuddlyHedgehog

Oh dear... what did you do now?

I learned a lot. You should write a book. :up: — Baden

What should the title be? :lol:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Religion is by definition dogmatic. — CuddlyHedgehog

Where do you take this statement from? Certainly not from the likes of Meister Ekchardt, Valentin Tomberg, etc.

Ok, here’s a pretzel then — CuddlyHedgehog

Excellent! *Hamster munches on pretzel* Life is indeed worth living! :cool:

A place in the Hall of Dumb. — CuddlyHedgehog

What are you talking about, I already am there. I need a real authentic prize, don't try to cheat me out of this! :razz:

I wasn’t referring to you but your honest self-reflection is commendable. — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes, I know. What's my prize? :cool:

Sorry, I didn’t mean to mislabel some people as educated and intelligent. — CuddlyHedgehog

No worries, I already know I am dumb and uneducated :blush: :sweat:

Im not the one giggling. — CuddlyHedgehog

That is the problem, why not? Join the fun ;)

P.S God is a delusional belief. I don’t know how seemingly educated and intelligent people can believe in such made-up fantasies. — CuddlyHedgehog

:snicker: I hope you're not serious dear :lol:

Excellent, very beautiful! :'O Is that lake, or ocean?

I'll take that as a big NO. — charleton

Do you have reading comprehension problems? A refusal to answer does not signify either yes or no. Either big or small for that matter. That should be obvious, but some people are quite dull-headed.

Please refrain from talking on subjects you know nothing about. — charleton

By the way, just for your knowledge, I've answered the question before on the forum, however, I refuse to answer it in this case since you harbour some prejudices which ought to be investigated. And so it is good to provoke you. I know precisely why you were asking that question. You want to imply that if someone did not have sex, then they do not have knowledge about sex, and therefore cannot speak with any authority or relevance about it. You further imply that the more sex someone has, the more they know about it. That is all as a means to justify your own insecurity and lack of knowledge.

First of all, even if one never had sex (for the time being I'll qualify that as vaginal or anal intercourse) it does not follow that one knows nothing about sex. This is to misunderstand the multitude of ways to learn about something. And in fact, it is a popular prejudice amongst the less cultured and the poorly educated, so it ought to be better addressed.

With regards to the above, sex is one of the few activities where, in popular culture, someone is taken not to know what they're talking about if they haven't done it themselves. To see just how ridiculous this is, let me just give you one example. Back when I was in University, we had a professor of engineering (structures). He never practised as an engineer, he was always an academic. So there was this relatively large and special structure that was going to be built. And guess who the company who had contracted it went to - to him, an academic. They did not go to the engineer with 30+ years of practice. Why? Because the academic understands the phenomenon much better than the engineer, who has really learned useful rules of thumb, and understands how to quickly navigate the rules & regulations governing engineering and the implementation of projects while minimizing costs. The practical engineer does not understand the phenomenon better than the academic who never worked as an engineer in his life, but has spent all his time studying different phenomena and publishing research.

So in literarily all other fields of life, when we're looking for the expert, we go to the theoretician, who has a grasp of the underlying phenomenon much better than the person who is always busy with encountering it in practice (that person may be, for most projects, quicker in implementation, etc., but he will not be more knowledgeable).

So, when it comes to sex, why do you think we ought to do differently? Why should we go for advice to the person who has had the most sex? Is personal experience the best way to learn about sex? Or should we rather go the expert, who understands human life, who has spent time to think about his own life, and has read about the lives and experiences of hundreds or thousands of other human beings with regards to sex and has all those experiences at his disposal to judge?

Here are ways to know about sex without doing it yourself:
• Read about it, both technically and stories of people who have done different kinds of sex.
• Watch people having sex.
• Have a very developed sensitivity & imagination.
• Talk with others about sex and listen to their experiences.
• Understand your own body sexually.
• Understand the mental side of intimacy (including sex).
• Be intimate (without having sex) with another person.
• Read sex manuals (Kamasutra, etc.)

These are all valid ways of knowing about sex. I know you have adopted the attitude of uncultured philistines of thinking that only personal experience gives you knowledge (no doubt, someone who is so poor as to only have his personal experience wants to privilige his experience above everything). And remember, it is you who were looking for a battle here, so I will give you one. Trust me on this, I will not let you go easily now. We're going to see just how well you understand (or don't understand) sex, and it will be really a big shame if after all the sex you claim you've had, you understand it worse than a man who only had sex with one woman in his life and is half your age :lol:

What makes for a positive sexual experience? I think that a brutal man, a violent man, a dogmatic man, who is always in a hurry, cannot have a positive sexual experience. He can encounter merely the release of sexual tension, but nothing more. It takes tremendous intelligence (and I don't mean academic intelligence) and sensitivity to truly relate with another person. And this is something that cannot be achieved through the understanding of the mechanics of sex. The mechanics cannot tell you what to do. No amount of sex will teach you, by itself, such intelligence and sensitivity.

Most people have a lot of hangups about sex. Do you think sex can be positive for such people, regardless of how often they do it? Or is rather the person who never had sex in his life, but is entirely open to the experience and to the other person, with his whole being, with no false prejudices, no desire to impress anyone, no fear - do you reckon this person is infinitely superior to the one who has had mechanical sex thousands of times before?

What about if someone is athletic, and really understands their body, and has developed physical strength. Do you reckon they will be superior in sex, that they will be a more enjoyable partner - for example by being able to adapt to any tempo, to any duration, etc.?

Or what about the man who has so sharpened his emotional intelligence that he perceives every movement of his partner's soul and understands their desires like no other. Tell me, you reckon they will be a better sexual partner?

Or what about the man who has developed the skill to get their partner to open up, not to be afraid, to be entirely present in the experience, without judging. Do you reckon he will be superior?

Given your superficiality on the forum, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand half of the things written above.

A famous Chinese advisor had a saying: "I only drew my sword out once, but I have sharpened it my whole life" - once, timed rightly, was enough to become Emperor.

Now anyway, I've said all this to clarify on a popular misunderstanding that I see with regards to sex. You are merely the opportune moment, because you represent this popular tendency well. Now, to address you more particularly, I really suggest you practice your reading comprehension.

Not from what I've seen. — Agustino

I've not seen people in the club toilet having intercourse (for example), but I've seen and heard about people giving oral sex there very often, and they were strangers. But this is besides the point, but just goes to show how utterly superficial and lacking in intelligence you are. Similar to your dogmatic attitude with regards to religion. If you are as dogmatic about sex as you are about religion, oh man... It's really embarrassing.

:strong: :kiss: :fire: :monkey: :lol:

Atheism does not absolve anyone from responsibility or accountability .
Atheists are good without the promise of an afterlife, or the threat of eternal punishment. — charleton

So what happens if you commit serious immoralities and then commit suicide? Don't you escape punishment according to the atheist view?

Yep, freudian slip by me there. I intended to write "philosopher". But I guess my subconscious was aghast at the thought of doing it. — Mariner

:lol: Sometimes one has to wonder how it is possible for seemingly learned people to uphold such ridiculous principles. However, I watched a debate between Rosenberg and W.L. Craig awhile ago, and in that interview Rosenberg kind of admitted that it is mostly an intellectual position he takes - so it's very possible that the book was written as a splash & marketing effort.

The promise of life after death is religion's lure. Freedom from religious dogmas originates from acceptance that there is no life after death. — CuddlyHedgehog

Topic Title: Would there be a need for atheism if there was no fear of responsibility & accountability?

The promise of the end of life with the coming of death is atheism's lure. Freedom from responsibility & accountability is achieved through the acceptance that there is no life after death.

:snicker: :kiss: :fire: :rofl: :lol: :100: :ok:

Reading this thread honestly made my day.

Alex Rosenberg (physicist) is a known proponent of "scientism". — Mariner

Unfortunately Mariner, he is a philosopher, not a physicist :lol:

have you ever had sex? — charleton

:smirk: Mmmm, I am enchanted that you have such interest in my sexual history. But what does your question have to do with what we were discussing?

In other words, people are bad reasoners (because they have competing passions in their souls). I agree with Hume. But this is clearly no reason to believe that any argument fails. ("People are bad reasoners, therefore, argument X is bad" is, er, bad reasoning). — Mariner

Sure, in that trivial sense everyone agrees. Hume isn't very deep in that way. He also misses the point that, of course, philosophical knowledge (that the goodness of the whole justifies present evil) does not eliminate the evil, or make the pain less - but it certainly provides a sort of comfort and easier psychological acceptance of the situation.

I've suffered from gout and suggest that no one can comment on his argument and fully understand it until they have also experienced that pain.

There is no argument which can point to the pain of gout being of any purpose or use. — charleton

Yes, it can be argued, for example, that the pain and possibility of gout were necessary in order for us to exist in the first place as a result of evolution (on a purely naturalistic/atheistic view). So if you are thankful for other things in life, then you have to accept the possibility of gout and the associated pain as well.

I can't think of any other reason why I would be interested in the veracity of the statement unless I intend to do something about it — Pseudonym

So if usefulness is a reason to be interested in the veracity of a statement, that necessarily means that usefulness is not the same as veracity. Usefulness is merely what makes you interested whether a statement is true or not. So then the question naturally follows - what makes a statement true? I get that you become interested in its truth once you see how it is useful to you, but how do you find out about its truth-value?

There are no metaphysical beliefs which have been proven to be true, there currently is no mechanism by which a metaphysical belief could be proven true — Pseudonym

Please explain to me what you mean by "proven", since I don't understand what you're saying. I don't follow what it would take for a metaphysical statement to be 'proven' true.

unfalsifiable premise — Pseudonym

What is the problem with something being, at the time it is made, unfalsifiable? I thought that you, out of all people, who favour science over philosophy, would certainly realise that scientists do not follow Popper's vain philosophy - in fact, there have been numerous criticism of the latter amongst scientists. The Multiverse, for example, is not falsifiable at the time being. Should it be disconsidered? What about the multiple dimensions required by String theory? Or even Darwin's theory of evolution, who Karl Popper himself recognised is not scientific.

"Ah, but did you not know that Kant accidentally misspelled 'Zwecke' in the first draft of the Critique of Practical Reason? No? Well I don't have to take any notice of anything you say then, you obviously know nothing about philosophy", it's a lazy cop out. — Pseudonym

Not knowing a word wasn't spelled correctly is different than not knowing the philosophical positions someone held to, and thinking they endorsed the OPPOSITE position of what they actually endorsed.

If there's a sound argument against what Hawking has said, it should be easy to make, there should be no need to brandish his poor reading of Epicurus, only correct it. — Pseudonym

The problem is that Hawking, most likely, did not read Epicurus at all. It's not that he has a poor reading of him - he has no reading whatsoever.

Hawking actually makes no argument against philosophy there. He just espouses his own view that models are valuable only in-so-far as they make predictions about the world. And he claims philosophy is dead. That's not enough.

If it were, we would have to declare the whole of ethics a closed subject. Philosophers are no longer allowed to discuss it because they are not fully immersed in the details of neuroscience, and neuroscientists are not allowed to talk about it because they are not fully read up on philosophy. — Pseudonym

No, it doesn't follow from what I've been telling you. I don't know if neuroscience has anything valuable to say about ethics because I have not studied neuroscience. But I know that philosophy has some useful things to say, because I have studied philosophy. Therefore I can freely speak about ethics, what I cannot do is speak about whether neuroscience is capable or not to make contributions.

Alternatively, we could just take people's statements seriously and if some lack of knowledge on their part is actually undermining their argument, we can point that out. If it isn't then we can stop using it as a stick to beat them with in order to avoid actually having to engage with them. — Pseudonym

What's there to engage with, with regards to Hawking for example? With regards to Hume, who said to commit metaphysics to the flames, there is a lot of possibility of engagement. He is making an argued position, but Hawking does not even understand what he is saying with regards to philosophy. He is not philosophically literate, how can he know philosophy is dead? That's ridiculous. He doesn't even know the most basic thing, which a first-year philosophy student can tell you, that Epicurus did not argue against materialism/atomism.

This is basic science, we hold a theory that eating grass cures cancer, we test that theory in controlled trials during which we find out it doesn't, end of story. — Pseudonym

No. That's not the point. You said:

I think perhaps we can agree there are laughably bad reasons for believing something on both sides of the argument, but if it works for them personally, then I don't think we have much authority to dismiss it. — Pseudonym

Now you're telling me that we should dismiss it if we test it with controlled trials and it proves false. Before, you told me that if it works for them personally, then we don't have much authority to dismiss it. Which is it? Clearly you can't have it both ways. Either we are able to determine something, or we're not, and it's up to each person what the truth is. There is no in-between here.

same trick that SLX used — Pseudonym

It is not a trick. Clarifying what terms mean is important. I have no problem answering your questions. So there is no reason for you to hide behind this finger pointing. If you are not capable to answer the questions just tell us, it is okay.

What does it even mean to ask what does it mean? — Pseudonym

It means that I want you to clarify what sense a particular term or belief has. What are its truth conditions, how do you determine them, etc.

What would the answer to the question "what does it mean?" be like? — Pseudonym

Like the above.

What are questions anyway? How do we know when we have answers? What do we even mean by 'answer'?... — Pseudonym

Questions are inquiries into something, a particular matter that, for whatever reason, we are interested in. We know we have answers when what is looked for in the question is found or understood. An answer is that piece of data which, when obtained, completes an inquiry or question. 5+x = 12. What is x? 7. What is the question? It is asking for what number completes the equation. How do we know we have the answer? By checking that it is a number, and by checking that when we add it to 5 we obtain 12. What is the answer? The number which can be placed instead of x.

I presume you're wearing a black polo-neck, a beret, and chain-smoking in a French cafe whilst asking this? — Pseudonym

Absolutely :cool:

That is an account of it. — Pseudonym

No. An account is a reason to believe it. That it is not contradictory or incoherent is NO REASON whatsoever. It's not contradictory or incoherent that the sun will not rise tomorrow, or will disappear, etc. That's not reason to believe it.

That's because there isn't one. — Pseudonym

So then there isn't a reason not to make fun of scientism.

It goes conclusion (the thing you've already decided to believe)->argument (to justify that belief)->testing/refinement of that argument (by debating with others). — Pseudonym

I am quite sure that is a fallacy called rationalization. So if that's how you operate, I certainly recommend a change of operating system.

I simply don't believe that people derive their world-views from the strength of the argument in favour of it. They justify the world-view they've already decided they want. — Pseudonym

This makes absolutely no sense. It is ridiculous. Look at it. Re-read it. Look at it seriously. When someone is deciding on their view they must decide also on what it is that they want. It's not like our wants are immediately given - most of the time we don't know very well what we want. The process of forming a world-view helps clarify this. So it is absolutely preposterous to say that reasons just justify a worldview that is chosen a priori - no. If you look how this happens, you will see that the reasons and desires arise simultaneously, as the result of investigation.

I believe this to because we have evolved to form models of the world and our brains simply do this without any concious thought. — Pseudonym

How did you arrive at holding this belief? What was, phenomenologically, the process?

Suspending judgement until it is needed is a dangerous tactic — Pseudonym

No. I've asked you to suspend judgement with regards to a theoretical matter, not a practical one.

Take HIV testing. Let's say that you have had a possible exposure, so you do the test and it comes out negatively. Now two things ought to happen, rationally. On the one hand, from a practical point of view, you go on living as if you don't have HIV - meaning you don't suspend judgement, since that option is now significantly more likely. From a theoretical point of view though, you remain aware that sometimes the test really ought to be positive, but it comes out negative. So you keep an open mind - if in the future any circumstantial evidence comes up which could suggest HIV infection, in the absence of significantly more likely explanations, then you will redo the test. So theoretically, you do suspend judgement in such a situation.

With regards to metaphysical beliefs, they are theoretical in nature. You will not die by suspending judgement on this. Why wouldn't you? This isn't the same as the train example you give, etc. These are theoretical beliefs. If it really is true and you don't have a reason to prefer naturalism over Cartesian dualism, then you ought to suspend judgement. That's the natural thing to do.

Not from what I've seen.

Hmm the video didn't work too well...

Suffice to say that I have no clue what you're on about.

Careful. I think Agustino might be falling in love with you. — T Clark

Hmmm, actually @T Clark, I have never loved a man as much as I love you... those Aloha shirts make you into a real gigolo. :cool: :lol:

Funny story... I have a friend who was somewhat bad with girls, and because other people were making fun of him that he was a virgin, etc. he paid a hooker when he was 18 to have sex with him. And his condom broke. :lol: And after that, he was obsessed about having contracted HIV - he did the test several times. Of course, he didn't, but ever since then, he doesn't care about sex anymore.

I think this also has to do with the culture of the place. In third-world countries, there is a lot more "fear" around sex than in the Western countries and a lot of misinformation that passes for fact. Of course, it depends, because this ignorance also makes some people blind to risks. But it certainly makes some quite a lot more sensitive and overprotective.

Sex is a strong motivator, but still some people are very cautious in the their sexual behavior (risk averse) and others very risk tolerant. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, just like the other natural impulses though I will say this. In such situations where there is some risk, people often resort to mitigating behaviours. For example, they will just do mutual masturbation instead of full on vaginal / anal intercourse. Or only oral sex, etc.

Also, how strong of a motivator sex is depends a lot on circumstances. Most often, I would say that sex is only motivating in the sense of releasing a tension. It takes love and other feelings for sex to be more motivating than that, at least from my experience.

Also, people are not good at measuring risk. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I fully agree. It's also a matter of education. I know that driving is perhaps the most dangerous activity that I can be engaged in - statistically it certainly kills or maims the most. So I try to avoid it as much as possible.

On the other hand, with regards to HIV for example, I know that even if the other person is infected, the risk of transmission is very small, even for vaginal intercourse (0.40% or so - but for some reason people seem to assume much bigger risks when it comes to HIV). So I never found it to be a big worry, especially since I never had sex outside of committed relationships. I am much more paranoid when it comes to blood tests and similar activities, where risk is higher.

With regards to sex I find the possibility of having a child a bigger risk than STDs for the most part.

At 5 b.j.s every day, it would still take almost 5 and 1/2 years to get to 10,000.) — Bitter Crank

Mmmm... is this what training for a shagathon consists in? :rofl:

Hmmm, how do you achieve that? Do you have a hole in your wallet, and money just falls out, wherever you go? :lol:

No. like these ones — CuddlyHedgehog

:eyes: I thought you are a Communist, what are you going to do with a million of them if your plan is to get rid of money? Just think how difficult it will be to throw all of it away after - it is better that I save you the trouble and not send them to you :wink:

a million bucks would be nice — CuddlyHedgehog

Like these bucks? :nerd:

all of it — CuddlyHedgehog

That is great. What reward would you like? :razz:

I believe you — CuddlyHedgehog

About which part? :P

Agustino you lil whiner :razz: — CuddlyHedgehog

Mmmm... Wanker I have been called many times before, but I do not remember any instance of whiner. You must be a first ;)

philosophical authenticity — Benkei

Please... let's not get @TimeLine started :lol: