How well does it pay? A chicken a week? Two? Two chickens, three curse-liftings, a bag of shells and a hat that looks like a teacosey made out of a heavy tappestry? — Bartricks

Maybe a change in career is needed but don't try comedy, you would fail at that as well.

Look, I think my OP is pretty clear. — Bartricks

That is one person at least I suppose.

If it is wrong for an omnipotent person to subject people to life in this sensible world unless they are going to change it, then our inability to change it implies that it is wrong for us to procreate as well. It's a delightfully simple argument. — Bartricks

And there you go right back to what I have already explained. If there is only one of these "omnipotent persons" how could something be judged as right or wrong. He/she/it is the judge and jury as well as the witnesses and victims.

I think we need to add English to the courses you'd fail. — Bartricks

I actually give those courses, it pays reasonably well where I live.

If you need help presenting your ideas here on the forum, you can PM me. But I do not help people do their assignments, there is a special section for that.

Tell you what, tell me what my argument is. — Bartricks

It is a confused mess. Your are trying to build an argument about man doing something because a god would do it (or not do it). Not going to work.

And do not tell me that I would not pass a philosophy course with that answer. I don't need to pass anymore course than those I passed long ago. :rofl: :cool:

Glad to have been of help. :wink:

Maybe I could offer another tip. Try looking at other societies and their histories before making sweeping, generalized statements about how society came to be.

Here's how our exchange is going: — Bartricks

No, that is what you are doing because you failed to understand what I said. A rookie mistake.

Focussing then: if you want to cook a very hot curry tonight, but you also want to invite James over - someone who really dislikes hot curry - then do you agree that you ought to thwart one of your desires? That is, you ought either to cook the very hot curry, but not inflict it on James, or you ought to invite James over but cook him something else? — Bartricks

I have no opinion about the futility of you trying to prove a pointless, no correct answer question. It makes no difference to an "omnipotent, omniscient person" because those same qualities give him/her/it the ability to do both things at the same time or or fail to be an "omnipotent, omniscient person". This is just another "rock to heavy to lift" theory and comes to the same end. But only a rookie would not be able to see that.


All I did was answer your question about the morality of your "introduce life or not question". I don't give a hoot about the rest of the claptrap.

Another "so what?" thread. :meh: — 180 Proof

Coming up like weeds in a rose garden, and there are too many thorns to be able to get too them.

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, — Sir2u

No it isn't. — Bartricks

So explain to me, how is morality formed. I will even give you a basic definition of the word morality.
"Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct"

If society does not decide what is good or bad for its population, where does it come from?

But anyway, that's an absurd 'metaethical' claim, whereas my question is a normative one. — Bartricks

First of all, please tell us what YOU mean by 'metaethical' and explain why what I said comes under the heading of absurd.

Rookie mistake. — Bartricks

You should know I suppose, as they say "takes one to know one".
One of the worst rookie mistakes is having to give several different examples so that others can get an idea of what you are blathering about and then insinuating that they are the ones that are lacking in brains.

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks — Sir2u

You asked a question, I explained why the question is irrelevant. If you cannot see the pointlessness of your own question, I cannot help you to understand.

Me: "which way to the city centre?"
You: "A city centre is a collection of trees" — Bartricks

You must live in a nice place, do the Ewoks live around there.

I am not going to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. — Bartricks

That's the spirit, you are no use to the cause if you get shot down every time you open your mouth.

When you have multiple "Once in a century" weather cataclysms wrecking havoc multiple times per year, and it will only get worse, much worse, then maybe, just maybe, this time is different. — hypericin

And here is sciences biggest problem, there is only a short period of recorded history. Something that is today "Once in a century" might very well have been a common thing 20 or 100 centuries ago.

We do know that humans are helping the problem along with their abuse of the environment, but is it really the only cause?

Morally what ought they to do? — Bartricks

Morality is built around the needs and desire of a society, this is a one person society so he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants to do and it would always be morally acceptable.

And if he/she/it does like the results, he/she/it can redo or undo the problems he/she/it caused.

No problem to discuss here, moving on.

Is there any difference between how one begins one's day in the medieval age and in the modern age? As far as I can tell toilette and a good breakfast was common to both eras, but then after that ... — Agent Smith

You don't have to go back in time to see differences between the many ways of starting the day, just look at the many different cultures ways of doing things today.

Were I live, not many people really take breakfast seriously. they prefer to either take something to work or buy something there. For the people in the backwoods, there day usually starts before dawn some there is often a couple of hours of work done before breakfast.

I think that the only really significant point of connection between different times and cultures is taking a piss before you do anything else and maybe washing your face.

Starting by waking up is usually a good way. :wink:
Not much is going to happen before that.

Are these the best of times? Are we all lucky folks? As an example, slavery is in the past and animal rights is in the future — Agent Smith

No they are not, on still exists and the other will not get very far until humans evolve to be able to live on a different type of diet.

The only bloody place we have to live on.

Let's try not to fuck it up too badly.

Life started exactly once in 4.5 billion years on earth. — an-salad

Do you have any links to the info you used to reach this conclusion?

That strongly implies it’s a one off event. — an-salad

No it does not.

Have you tried googling the answer? :wink:

1. Should courses in logic be mandatory? By that I mean courses to teach students how to identify and refute logical fallacies in everyday life? If yes, at what stage, and to what extent? — Elric

A lot of educational standards are based on teaching logical processes to students and are included in most subjects. Much depends on the teachers actually being able to have the time and conditions necessary to do the teaching, and the students desire and ability to learn.

Having students learn the official names for fallacies is not really necessary. They can do that later if they have a need for it in their university studies.

Probably Charlie Brown would be a good candidate, he always seems to know so much about the peoples way of thinking.
Snoopy could run for vise.

Have you tried looking for a different version?


There are quite a few translations available.

Word of God survived the test of time.
laws that humans make do not survive the test of time, human laws are constantly changing. — SpaceDweller

The laws of god have been around for a couple of thousand years, natures laws have always been there.

But even if one were to accept the word of god, is it not man that interprets what god is trying to say?

If there is no law then how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

for example:
you are forced to choose to either kill yourself or kill your friend.
there is no law for this situation, therefore what is right and what is wrong? — SpaceDweller

I think that instinct would take over and I would kill the friend. Self preservation beats all except when your kids are involved.
That would be the law of nature. :wink:

it won't be a rose either in this world or in "heaven", if it complains. It must be a 'human' disguised as a rose. — skyblack

Maybe Rose is the name of the person. :wink:

but what is sure is that you can't judge what's good or evil without some laws. — SpaceDweller

Not sure about that, could you explain a bit how you got to that conclusion. and maybe you could explain what you consider a law to be.

However, as there are so many threads on this forum it may be that you may have said something really clearly on the existence of God somewhere. — Jack Cummins

Now I see his evil plan, he wants people to follow him so that they can get to know him and participate in this thread.

Evil genius. :smirk:

sAy agAin: gOD sUcks! — Hillary

You are going too far now, I only said that god never gets capitalized. I never said that I do not follow the rest of the grammar rules. :rofl:

sAY AGAIN! — Hillary

god never gets capitalized in my sentences. Screw the grammar police. :lol: — Sir2u

There are excellent black physicist or mathematicians, but they are by far in the minority. — Hillary

White taxi drivers are also a minority, should we call for an investigation into the racism of taxis as well?

Is there really any solid evidence that white people are keeping black people out of math and related areas? Just saying that there are only a few does not prove racism.

god never gets capitalized in my sentences. Screw the grammar police. :lol:

How so? God doesn't exist. — Hillary

You don't think that there is a history of numbers and god does not exist, so where did numbers come from.

And why do you capitalize the name of a none existent being?

Now I am considered racist, while it's white supremacy enforcing math at our schools. — Hillary

Common sense is enforcing math in school, if you cannot use math adequately you are useless to society, so you have math in schools.

The methods of teaching math might be questionable, but not the need for teaching it.

As if such exists? — Hillary

You don't think god gave us numbers do you?

Just look at the history of math. Mainly white folks. — Hillary

Just look at the true history of numbers, not many of the numbers came from white peoples languages.

https://education.casio.co.uk/blog/a-brief-history-of-numbers

This caught my eye.

The Vancouver, Washington, school board director moved to dramatically alter advanced classes because too many white kids were enrolled. He would force the higher achievers into classrooms with underachievers to meet the district's equity commitment.

I wonder how many black, Latin, or mixed race kids got screwed over there. And how many low achievers improved.
I don't think that it should be considered discriminatory if the kids that are not doing well in school, many of them for the same reasons, are all put together so that highly trained teacher can work on a single learning level to raise their achievements to a higher standard.

Kids need to be taught at their level of learning, not some sitting in an office talking bullshit minister's single level of learning ideas. Every kid has his/her own special needs, and they don't get met by over stuffing classrooms with overworked, badly equipped teachers working under some idiots ideas of fairness.
Working in a classroom that contains many people with different needs is nearly impossible. You end up with everyone except the very high achievers going down.

Place Richard Dawkins and some Muslim on an island, come back in a week to see who's head was cut off. — stoicHoneyBadger

I am sure he would have loved to spend time talking to any of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_scholars_described_as_father_or_founder_of_a_field

Probably because he was not a bigot and I seriously doubt any of them were either.

Actually my parents raised me in a very hands-off way, so you are projecting here. ;) — stoicHoneyBadger

I guess I must have learned it from you.

Somehow reading this my imagination draws a picture of 7 year old you being yelled at by your father not to wear a pink shirt. :grin: I think it is time for you to forgive him and move on with your life. — stoicHoneyBadger

Somehow reading this my imagination draws a picture of 7 year old you being yelled at by your father not to wear a pink shirt. :grin: I think it is time for you to forgive him and move on with your life. — stoicHoneyBadger

If he had ever done anything like that I would probably told him to fuck off. But he was a nice person and never participated in such pathetic ideas that boy should not do this and girls should not do that.

Shame you never had the balls to tell your dad to fuck off. You might have turned out a man with balls instead of a bully asshole crapping on kids.

I spend time listening to audio books. No effort needed except to turn on the app on my phone.

Parents are wiser, they accumulated some knowledge about how life works, and they should give it to their children in an appropriate way. — stoicHoneyBadger

Yeah, yeah, whatever. If only that were always true.

Just let the little fuckers wear what ever they want even if it is a pink shirt. As long as the are not wearing it instead of their school shirt.
Bye, again

Yes. — stoicHoneyBadger

Enough said, I am out of here. You are going to cause your kids to have a hard time later on, best of luck with that.

Bye.

I'd say it seems that some teachers, social media, even Disney are more than happy to indoctrinate children into this ideology. — stoicHoneyBadger

So, as someone already asked, if you have seen so much of this indoctrination why are you not gay?
Oh, I suppose it is because you are too smart to fall for the lies.

Yet in the same time kids don't have the mental capacity to figure everything out on their own, so their parents experience might come handy. — stoicHoneyBadger

So that gives you the right to tell your boys that the have to act like men and cannot wear pink shirts or dance ballet!

I'd rather feel sorry for kids, whos parents are thinking up new ideas about gender fludity and such. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Holy shit, I sort of agree with you about that. But I have never met anyone that has tried to talk their kids into being bi-sexual or gay.

Where do you think the parents got the ideas from? Most parents are not really happy bout their kids being "different".
Could it be that the kids come up with the ideas?
Could it be that these concepts about gender have always been there and no one has ever talked about them, sort of like hiding in a closet type of thing?

But that still does not make it right for you to push your ideas down your kid's throats. Let them figure out what they want to be and how they want to live their lives. Just because you were force to each a lot of shit does not mean it is OK for you to do the same to them.