Nonsense. If I claim that it is a scientific fact that you won't get burned if you set yourself on fire, I'm making false claims as to whether that is a scientific fact. — Πετροκότσυφας

You're entitled to make false claims within the limitations of the law. Others are not obligated to believe you. If you can't see the difference between making an argument for creationism vs talking someone into setting themselves on fire or someone being beaten to death then I'm not sure what else could convince you.

Murder is 24 clicks. Helps to be in incognito mode to keep the links fresh.

Diamond was nine clicks.

Also, where'd the subscribe button go? Is there a way people could enter an amount greater than the 1 month or 6 month subscription cost?

Cost of site to run: $49/month
Subscriptions received: $247 — jamalrob

What is needed is a reasonably steady income that over time meets, but does not greatly exceed, the cost of operation. Too much money at one time presents an odd problem. One might be a year ahead in income, but if one stops seeking donations, eventually the cash will be gone and people will be out of the habit of thinking about donating. — Bitter Crank

Maybe any monies beyond 3 months worth of site costs go to targeted advertising?

"Now" is a place in time though. "My nose grows now" is not self-referential like the liar paradox.
I see it is like this: utterance(now)-growth/not growth(not now). It only seems like he's telling the truth because of the outcome. If the rules of Pinocchio's world determined that it would take a minute after he lies for his nose to grow, it wouldn't seem this way. It is causal, but not because Pinocchio was telling the truth, but because he was lying. It seems like nothing more than a party trick.

Premise 2. Pinocchio claims "my nose grows now" — Michael

When is "now"? And how soon after Pinocchio tells a lie does his nose grow? Does looking at this on a timeline dissolve the paradox?

I think you've just moved the goal post. — Wosret

How so?

Ahh I see. Well that should be an easy update for them. Thanks.

Anyone else noticing eye fatigue from the white background? It looks great, but for long discussions or heavy reading it's wearing on my eyes.

The evil falsehoods do in both cases, is firstly by big brothering people, and deciding what kind of information they can and cannot handle, or should and shouldn't be privy to, which makes you an unreliable, patronizing person. The evil it does in the second case, is that anyone that would rather believe pleasant falsehoods than terrible truths is also not trustworthy, or credible, and weak of heart and mind — Wosret

No this is not the case. I'm not talking about a fools paradise and I'm not talking about withholding all relevant facts that would cause someone suffering. I'm saying there is a level of detail about certain things, such as the gruesome demise of someone's loved one, that giving said detail unsolicited under the pretense that "all truth is desirable" is ridiculous. If it's solicited that's a different story.

I personally would want to know details; that's how I am. However, I can see why other people might not.
It's not a matter of yes or no, but how much.

You misunderstand. — Wosret

Yes, I think I did.

Advocate just forgetting about it, and not worrying about what happened to them, and sing the virtues of just feeling good all the time, regardless of what happens to you or those around you. — Wosret

Kind of undercuts your credibility, if, as you suggest, truth is not undesirable for being useless, or irrelevant, but because it might make you feel bad? — Wosret

My argument wasn't that feeling bad is always useless or that ignorance should be our bliss, but that sometimes the truth only serves to cause suffering and nothing else, making it undesirable. What good does it do a mother or father of someone who died in a car accident to tell them their loved one not only died, but was trapped and awake in the vehicle and slowly burned to death in front of desperate onlookers?
I don't see suffering as an end in itself. It's certainly inevitable that at times it will be, but it doesn't have to be desirable.

I feel the philosophical position one takes in a discussion like this hinges on their psychological state.
How can you quantify suffering or pleasure? Even if you could it wouldn't mean they're equivalent to each other. Humans trade suffering for pleasure all the time, so I'm inclined to think pleasure has a better exchange rate.
The long-term outlook is bleak though..

No, its value is relative to its actual usefulness. We can be wrong about something's usefulness, which may make us value facts that are useless, but we value them mistakenly believing them to be useful. — Wosret

Value, much like truth, is not "out there" to be found(IMO). Something could be potentially useful but unknown, and therefore not valued. It would only attain a value by us or some other being deciding so.

The truth about what happened to your loved one is indeed desireable, in order to feel the appropriate emotional reaction, which I think at least honours their memory and what they went through. Would you like to have suffered a great trial, and have everyone think that it was a walk in the park? — Wosret

Firstly, I would be dead and therefore I imagine I wouldn't be able to care.

Secondly, how much truth or how many truths about the loved one's demise is sufficient enough to honor their memory and amount "the appropriate emotional response"? Do you need to know every detail of their suffering, lest you not understand the significance of the ordeal?

You value truth in all cases because you think truth is desirable in all cases. I think that truth is undesirable in some cases, and therefore has no use for the living or the dead(in those cases*).

I think TGW's goal is to convince people to stop procreating. Now I don't think the antinatalists have a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the entire human race from procreating, but they might convince some people. That brings up the question of what a practical antinatalist hopes to accomplish. If you can't convince everyone to stop giving birth, then how about plan B where you convince people to make a world that's less terrible to be born into? — Marchesk

Why not try for plan A and B at the same time?

All truth is clearly desireable, males in particular love to know tons of useless facts, and can seem to never get enough of them. — Wosret

Isn't a truth's value relative to it's perceived usefulness? As TGW said, he could know the number of hairs on his head, but unless he's a scientist doing a study on hair follicle counts what is the value of that information?

I think the reason we say things like "all truth is desirable" and "I'm a seeker of the truth" is because understanding how the world is or works is and has been a useful survival tool. Learning a ton of useless facts might actually have more to do with a person wanting to be perceived as knowledgeable or smart rather than those facts being intrinsically valuable.

For instance, what if a loved one got lost in the woods and died. Would the truth about how much they suffered at the end be desirable? The only way one could answer yes to that is if they tell themselves the truth for the sake of knowing the truth is worth it. Cold comfort, I think.

If you end up with a surplus from donations any of these months, you might consider targeted ads on philosophy based sites or searches.

Any chance of an Amazon.com click through? It could be under the subscribe page and when people are going to go to Amazon and buy something, they can just click through and TPF will get a little somethin. I think it's called Amazon Associates.

jamalrob, of course. He needs to get more traffic so he can sell this site to Vaygmedia in six months and start another. Eventually Vaygmedia will be the proud owner of hundreds of philosophy based forums!

We could start a few abortion and gay marriage threads to get more traffic.