North American heart association was paid off by Big Seed Oil.

https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/american-heart-association-was-paid-procter-gamble-heart-disease-saturated-fat-seed-oils-sugar

Broken image. Try Google links.

Anyway, leaving racist incels aside, this is interesting: — Mikie

Don't you think a 35 year old such as you should not be emulating teenage girl vocabulary? You definitely have the testosterone of one but it is still a bad look.

Descartes wanted to achieve a scientific moral code. Due to the fact he couldn't, he came up with a provisional morality whose maxims, more or less based on common sense, are given in the Discourse. But I take it that you already knew that.

And what's with the folx, folks? :chin: — ssu

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folx

Trust the science

What I can't figure out is — Wayfarer

This is really about you more than it is about them.

It still seems like harm is fairly obvious in many cases, and these will also tend to be the more important cases (e.g., offending someone with a joke versus setting their home on fire). — Count Timothy von Icarus

In most cases. The problem is the few cases where it isn't:

If I am shooting someone, I am making them lose qualities (health) that we hold universally as desirable. However, if I offer someone drugs, there will be wide disagreement about whether I am harming or helping them — Lionino

For instance, in chess, the thing being referenced is the game itself, but the rules of chess are objective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am not sure about rules, since rules are things that we keep inside our heads and agree with.

How a word is spelled correctly is also an objective fact, but it's the language that is referred to for this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and language is a phenomenon, which linguistics studies. It is objective therefore. Harm is not always an object, sometimes it is a feeling.

How about if they would show up on the main page after or separately fro the Philosophy related articles? We have the Shoutbox there in the up? Why not a link to "non-philosophical" stuff? — ssu

That sounds like a good suggestion. But from my experience in websites, I doubt owners will implement it, since the main page has links only to threads and not to sections.

You posted this thread twice already. In fact you posted it a third time, but after I pointed that out it got removed. This is the fourth time.

There is no way you are not a bot made in 2015 by a now-bankrupt company.

Of course, you're correct that what constitutes harm is, to at least some degree, bound up in the virtues, and the virtues are bound up in a given context, but I'm not sure how this leads to their not being at all objective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem is that I had to replace "quality" with "virtue". Using quality originally, there will be qualities that are completely up to the aesthetic preferences of someone:

Being talkative is seen by some as a virtue quality, others as a vice not a quality. — Lionino

The fact that the definition of something no longer depends only on outside objects that may be referenced should be enough to say something is not objective.

Let's be honest with ourselves, there isn't any.

The quality of posts these past few days has been abysmal.

I realised from the get go. I was just doubting myself here and giving OP a chance to enlighten me. Unsurprisingly that didn't happen.

Or perhaps I am committing another strawfolx

Lisbon is looking like pastel de nata.

Oh no... p-p-please don't call me racist... I am literally not Hitler.

Anyway there was nothing racist about that post. It has more to do that someone calling for people's death looks foldable with one punch — besides being ugly.

Another overtly racist remark — Mikie

The hungry dreams of bread.

Word salad.

Try a dictionary. You can start here: — tim wood

I know how those work, they taught me in first grade. Reread my post as me politely saying that OP is using the word wrong.

Sorry but playing dumb doesn't make it not obvious.

I didn't strawman you. You have this tendency to accuse others of making a strawman when they point out how your posts make zero sense.

In this thread you do it several times: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15054/why-we-dont-have-free-will-using-logic

The word strawman is an outdated term — Echogem222

It isn't, that's how everybody says it.

because it expresses gender discrimination — Echogem222

It doesn't. And even if it did, it doesn't matter, it isn't 2017 anymore.

https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/straw-person.html — Echogem222

Yeah, that is literally the only link the shows up on Google when you look that "word" up, while everything under that says "strawman".

I'm saying that if you think every person (B-H) is actually being reasonable, that there is no fallacy being used, then it's a paradox. But if you understand the fallacy, then there is no paradox. — Echogem222

That doesn't follow. Whether I think someone is being reasonable or not does not result in a paradox.



This post was written by an AI. Likely ChatGPT.

It is not clear how that fits the definition of paradox. So what is the impossible situation that results from that?
Btw, it is strawman, not strawperson.

A paradox is a situation that results in something impossible. How is this a paradox?

when empty space itself is considered a positive value? — Echogem222

That means nothing (pun intended).

How can something that appears to be nothing have properties? — Echogem222

A hole in a mug is not nothing, it is the shape that the material makes.

A paradox is a situation that results in something impossible or contradictory. This ain't one.

No, the more you define things the less understandable you become. — unenlightened

This post by Count seems related https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895615

The Church and the "instagram hippie" are often drawing from the same texts (e.g. the canonical gospels) but drawing different conclusions when it comes to interpretation — BitconnectCarlos

The detail missing is that the text is compiled and edited by the Church. And the Church has continuity from the times of Constantine and supposedly from Peter — whose remains are supposedly in the Vatican.

How does authoritative interpretation work in the context of the Church? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know the details of that. But the big part are the Councils. Trento, Nicea, etc. Very basically,
bishops meet up and discuss things until a decision can be made. In Trento, the council officially condemned the selling of indulgences, which Luther criticised, and the Church admitted its mistake.

your experiences of kinds of harm which no one else is vulnerable to or can recognize as harm because such kinds are "not objectively defibed" — 180 Proof

That doesn't follow. I don't need to have a private harm experience for harm not to be objectively defined. I gave you examples where people will disagree whether something is harmful or not.

1 – Harming is defined as making something lose its qualities (virtues).
2 – A virtue is not objectively defined.
3 – We can be quite confident that what's a virtue in a person is up to the aesthetic preferences of the one judging — being introverted may be judged as a virtue or a vice.
4 – To make someone lose that quality is harm.
5 – Since the object of the action is not objectively defined, neither is the action.

I think you are approaching the word "harm" from a physical and psychological perspective (suffering). I am approaching it from the dictionary.

As an example, I may incentive a quiet person to speak more. Being talkative is seen by some as a virtue, others as a vice. So, depending on who you ask, I am or I am not harming the person.

Are opinions not beliefs? — Relativist

I think that is a bit of an awkward question, so I will just say that opinion and belief refer to different things, hence the difference names. An opinion is simply "This massage feels good" or "This massage was expensive". A fact is "The bird flies in the sky" or "The bird has two wings". I guess anyone that utters any of those four sentences believes in its content.

Instead, I'll reiterate that one can have a completely valid position on Jesus without it sticking neatly inside the party line — ENOAH

Of course, but we are not talking about having a position on Jesus, something that everyone is entitled to. What we are talking about is that having a position on Jesus is having a position on Church doctrine. Separating the two is nonsensical.

my only concern now is tgat my heresy hasn't offended you — ENOAH

You would be shocked to find out I have no dog in this fight, I don't care about heresy. I am just saying it how it is, the whole "Jesus was a cool dude but the Church sucks" is dumb.

if he was anything was, a prophet against Dogma — ENOAH

At his time, yes, but the Church dogma is broadly what Jesus preached. That's why it is called Christianity. If you are against central dogmas you are against what Jesus said hence not Christian. You are against central Buddhist dogmas? Not a Buddhist.

I am not being facetious when I say, I love you for your orthodoxy — ENOAH

I am not even Christian.

And you realize there were quasi political motivations behind rejecting various apocryphal, like Thomas for its gnostic flavor, and notwithstanding its historical status possibly being on par with Mark? And so on. — ENOAH

I don't know, I wasn't there.

If only Christians carried out Jesus's "teachings"; and I don't even mean social etc. If they sought, personally, to transcend convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family," oh, what a world this would be. — ENOAH

This is the original statement of yours. Here, you imply that:

1 – You are in a better position to say what the teachings of Jesus than others.
2 – That Jesus' teachings boils down to "uuuuh turn the other cheek".

Number 2 can only come from a place of someone who picks up their own personal prejudices from the gospels and ignores else.

It is a good idea but I think threads on that section still show up on the main page.

Rather, opinions are propositions that are not truth-functional.

We have the gospels and some are canonical and some are not. If people stick to the four canonical ones then we're interpreting from the same texts. — BitconnectCarlos

You are referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas I am guessing? That is another topic altogether, but Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost.

my so called hippie construction — ENOAH

It is not your construction (is it?), I don't know what you believe in. I am referring to people who say they follow Jesus but reject Church doctrine.

You said previously you like Jesus' teachings, but yet you are not Catholic or Orthodox, I imagine you are not even Protestant. You don't like Jesus' teachings, you saw things you personally agreed with and suddenly that is what you think Jesus preached. Those "Jesus followers" do the same thing, on top of other things.

But if the Academy somehow lived on today, as a student in Athens today, I might offer my interpretation of the trial, a radical interpretation — ENOAH

If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine — it won't happen anyway because whatever you may have thought of has been thought of before and addressed —, otherwise, it has been rejected by a reason and insisting on it is heresy. Besides, Church doctrine is handed down through tradition. If you want to follow another tradition, you are not Christian.

Either be apostate or follow dogma. The alternative is heresy, which is foolishness.

Tge latter, hate to break it to you friend, you have no control over. — ENOAH

400 years later and protestantism is still considered heresy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sure. Why? Because Oxford is more remote from the source than the Church is from its? — ENOAH

No, because the source is given by it. On the topic of Oxford, not only is it removed but also holds no authority over it.

But again, I could be totally misunderstanding. — ENOAH

That is a lot of text for a very simple question. Again, where else do you get the teachings of Jesus from, besides the Bible?

I mean it in the same way as if you were saying Plato’s teachings are dictated by Oxford University — ENOAH

It is not equivalent, at all. It is more like Socrates' teachings are dictated by Plato and Xenophon. It is.

on what authority do you claim that the teachings of Jesus are exclusive to the true Churches? — ENOAH

:yawn:

Ok, let's go there, where else would you get the teachings of Jesus from?

I'm asking why these two churches and not The Church of England or Quakers? — Tom Storm

It is not "these two churches", they were sites I provided since you asked. I am referring to the Catholic Churches, which are the Church, not nonsense like Mormonism. Reformists were formal heretics and modern Protestants are at least material heretics. I don't need to argue for the legitimacy of the Catholic Churches as they have continuity from the church established during the Roman councils, not something that some guy in Germany or England or Sweden that thinks his interpretation skills (of a translated bible) trump 2000 years of tradition has. A historical overview of the subject is available in many places and stands by itself.

The Church of England I don't know. I have heard some claim it is Catholic but I doubt it. But they also deny that they are Protestants? The only thing I know is that it was created because the pope refused to cancel some English king's marriage, so he made his own church since others were doing the same at the time. From that fact alone it is hard to take seriously as a traditional institution.

Remember I don't share your worldview — Tom Storm

It is not about worldview, I am saying it how it is. The teachings of Jesus are given through the Church, not through some Instagram hippie's interpretation of the Bible, which was compiled by the Church. It is like talking about the story of Harry Potter and referring to fanfictions online instead of the writings of JK Rowling. Well you are not talking about «Harry Potter» anymore, are you?

It would be just easier to say "Catholic Church", but people here will misunderstand Catholic Church in this context to mean Roman Catholic Church, thinking I am excluding the many Orthodox Churches when I am not.

I can't start to understand what you mean by these two questions. My guess is that you didn't start there, so I wasted my time posting the links.

Start here, for example
https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
https://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/en/home/

Islam — ENOAH

The others perhaps. This one, I doubt it.

If only Christians carried out Jesus's "teachings"; and I don't even mean social etc. If they sought, personally, to transcend convention and complacency on the level of "love your enemies" and "hate your family," oh, what a world this would be. — ENOAH

Jesus wasn't a hippy. The teachings of Jesus are preached by the true Churches. The issue is that the Church doesn't preach your personal prejudices dressed in religious robes. And that goes for most non-denominational "Christians" in the west — they are not Christian, just supremely arrogant.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/teenager-charged-with-terrorism-over-sydney-bishop-stabbing-2024-04-18/

Muslim terrorist stabs Assyrian bishop in Sydney, the bishop was sent to the hospital and survived the injuries.

Would you be willing to accept a set of principles that increases the prospects of others, even if it means having fewer opportunities yourself? — Rob J Kennedy

In some cases yes, in other cases no. Most people saying "yes" would be lying.

Really? Name a kind of harm that you have undergone and yet, because it's not "objective" phenomenon, no one else is vulnerable to it or can recognize it as harm. — 180 Proof

if I offer someone drugs, there will be wide disagreement about whether I am harming or helping them because what the drug is supposed to counteract may or may not be held positively, or may or may not be held more negatively than the other effects of the drug — Lionino

If I am shooting someone, I am making them lose qualities (health) that we hold universally as desirable.
However, if I offer someone alcohol, there will be wide disagreement about whether I am harming or helping them. — Lionino

Yes? — Leontiskos

:up:

Which is why I say that harm seems to push the issue back and leave it up to subjectivity, as "harm" begs for "goodness", and so harm is not objectively defined. But then again, in utilitarianism, welfare isn't objectively defined either.

there is also misprision through linguistic interpretation as Macintyre points out, “there is no precise English equivalent for the Greek word dikaiosune, usually translated justice.” — isomorph

I just asked my Greek friend, he says it means justice.

When it comes to the propositions, I don't have any disagreement that makes me want to voice it. Just that on 4 specifically, genius is very much important. Every student stands on the shoulders of giants, only a few of those hundreds of millions of students will ever prove a theorem or improve a theory.