You see, their views are totally contrary to mine. As a man, I do not just pay for myself. I also pay for wife, children, subsidies and allowances to extended family, and charity to neighbours in the wider community. I cannot imagine seeking to ask for freebies from other men. The idea alone is horrifying to me. Other men don't owe me anything. I simply do not want to live in a country with that kind of freebie mentality. — alcontali
you were taught and learned all the right things before you were thrown out into the world — Noah Te Stroete
Some people need freebies — Noah Te Stroete
Do woman get freebies by becoming wives? — Gregory
If you are so smart — Gregory
In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1] — Wikipedia on Dunning-Kruger
I for one reject all miracles that imply a God, while accepting all the other incredible things that happen strangely in this world because you can't accept all of them. — Gregory
Inheriting wealth is a freebie (Trump). — Gregory
public-school indoctrination camp — alcontali
large-scale imbecilization factories — alcontali
But what exactly is knowledge? — alcontali
It is Allah's punishment for adopting false, pagan beliefs. If these people refuse to accept the truth, then [...] — alcontali
We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe
We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe
Morality is based on scriptures, while ethics is a code for good and bad behaviour agreed on by society. — Nobeernolife
I only addressed the question of education. It is not hard to become a worthless idiot of whom the stupidity is certified by a worthless degree along with spectacular student-loan debt. So, the question of education is not necessarily simple. Should children spend their childhood in public-school indoctrination camp and then acquire a worthless degree in a dumb liberal-art subject? Maybe or maybe not. That is certainly debatable. I do not send my children to public-school indoctrination camp. I do not believe that they could ever benefit from that. When I look at that kind of large-scale imbecilization factories, I even wonder why they exist in the first place? — alcontali
But what exactly is knowledge? Do we even agree on that matter? Memorizing phone books replete with trivia does not amount to acquiring knowledge. On the contrary, that is utmost worthless. Furthermore, not even one of the culturally-Marxist beliefs that children learn in public-school indoctrination camps can be considered justified in epistemological terms. Again, all of that is worthless, and often even dangerous.
So, what the indoctrination camps teach, is usually not even knowledge. Still, even when the subject matter really is knowledge, I still do not support the practice of memorizing such knowledge databases. As far as I am concerned, either you use the machine, or else you build the machine, because in all other cases, it is you the machine. — alcontali
I pay for the education of my children, but under my terms. — alcontali
I am completely opposed to freebies. As I have said already, I do not want a ministry for the provision of gratis clothes to the populace. For a long list of reasons, too long to enumerate here, clothing should not be free of charge. The same is true for education and healthcare. I simply do not share that kind of culturally Marxist beliefs. — alcontali
It is Allah's punishment for adopting false, pagan beliefs. If these people refuse to accept the truth, then they will still have to accept all consequences of doing so. Unfortunately, it is the very same people who engage in irresponsible behaviour who will later on demand that other, more responsible people bail them out. I can almost guarantee that these born idiots will not even pay off their student loans. They will again want freebies instead. I utterly despise these irresponsible freebie retards. — alcontali
You see, their views are totally contrary to mine. As a man, I do not just pay for myself. I also pay for wife, children, subsidies and allowances to extended family, and charity to neighbours in the wider community. — alcontali
I cannot imagine seeking to ask for freebies from other men. The idea alone is horrifying to me. Other men don't owe me anything. I simply do not want to live in a country with that kind of freebie mentality. — alcontali
There is, however, no document that describes "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society". In that sense, the whole idea of ethics is just fantasy, i.e. some kind of "imaginary friend" !
Think about it, do you really go to the school and tell them how to educate the kids and what to teach them? — Sir2u
How many islamic countries have college level education systems that anyone can get financial help to study in? — Sir2u
Every day, there are news stories about the college tuition crisis. But what is the crisis we are seeking to solve? Is it the staggering amount of student debt? The rapidly rising cost of higher education? The interest being collected on student loans? The high default rate on student loans? Or all of the above? — hbr.org on 'What Will It Take to Solve the Student Loan Crisis?'
Why is a document needed? — BitconnectCarlos
If there were a document written up, what would validate it? — BitconnectCarlos
In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?
There are no such agreements, let alone, documented ones, simply because there will be no way to validate them.
For me, it's not so much a matter of "validation" as it is just that the rule itself exists. — BitconnectCarlos
There is actually a procedure in which they will double-check new laws in quite a few countries. They will check a new law against the constitution in order to determine whether it is constitutional or not. So, if we change the phrase "laws are supposed to be moral" to "laws are supposed to be constitutional", it would actually work. — alcontali
If the rule really exists, then it should be possible to write it down, no?
So, why don't they do it?
Constitutions are written by people, so yes we are back to a definition based on society. As opposed to morality based on religion, which supposedly comes from god, so can not be discussed. Don´t really see how what you write contradicts what I said. — Nobeernolife
We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe
Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be constitutional. — Bug fix
? — alcontali
In an illiterate society there is no need to document anything, not even the laws. Nothing. So, the real question becomes: Why are we reading and writing, instead of just saying things?
Or we could just invent things on the fly without committing to them? — alcontali
Yes, you could write them down. — BitconnectCarlos
No, I know for a fact that this is not true.
Atheism is not a worldview. It is merely disbelief in a God/Gods. There are no tenets or rules. — Susu
Trivialism (from Latin trivialis, meaning 'found everywhere') is the logical theory that all statements (also known as propositions) are true and that all contradictions of the form "p and not p" (e.g. the ball is red and not red) are true. In accordance with this, a trivialist is a person who believes everything is true.[1][2] — Wikipedia on trivialism
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)", or ex contradictione (sequitur) quodlibet (ECQ), "from contradiction, anything (follows)"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it. This is known as deductive explosion.[2][3] The proof of this principle was first given by 12th century French philosopher William of Soissons.[4] — Wikipedia on the principle of explosion
I think that it is obvious that the religious scriptures exist, links galore, while the atheist "good and bad behaviour agreed on by society" does not. We have documented rules while the atheists don't. Therefore, it is clearly the atheists who keep referring to their "imaginary friend" to make a point, and not us. — alcontali
Atheism may reject God's law, i.e. tenets and rules, but it clearly does not propose alternative tenets or rules. That entails that there would be no need for moral rules. Hence, according to the atheist view, all behaviour would be equally moral. — alcontali
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.