Comments

  • Argumentum Ad Aetatem
    This leads me to make a troubling discovery, and that discovery is the overuse of ideals such as, ‘You’re too young to understand,’ or ‘You’re too young to hold an opinion on this matter’. This logic is fundamentally flawed, it is no worse than saying that someone is wrong because of their race, marital status, sex etc. — Bradaction
    It does have one supporting feature the other's lack. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Age isn't a literal position, but rather a statement regarding the amount of information one has available. But, in agreement; I've never had a reason to claim it. I'll just tell you, you don't know what you are talking about in a hypothetical scenario.
  • Necessity and god
    Superposition is not an example of a real-life contradiction. If it were, we would be able to conclude absolutely anything. Rather, superposition is described within a mathematics that takes LNC to be true. — Banno

    I thought the issue was the lack of even a metaphysical coherence? Qualifying it as "not real-life", implies some other type of existence. If the assumptions of the LNC being true are consistent with a metaphysical contradiction then the LNC proves it's coherent. Or not.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno
    That's fair.
  • Necessity and god
    I don't think time plays a role here. I think logic tells us what we can reasonably say, and helps us recognise when we've said stuff wrong. Our response to any apparent contradiction must be to rephrase the issue. — Banno
    I don't think the empty chance of the model failing warrants further consideration of anything tangential. But, the universe is very big and time implies it's in constant flux; so in a nearly trivial point of ceremony I'd have to reserve an or not, but ignore it without any trouble. If something can be dismissed perhaps it ought be doubt concerning the LNC. I don't disagree and see the counter-point as the definition of arguing at extremes.
  • Necessity and god
    Note that Bart is not following this path. Paraconsistent logics claim that LNC is not true. He claimed that LNC is true, but not necessary. As I pointed out above, LNC is a theorem of propositional logic, and all such theorems are necessarily true. — Banno
    The LNC is a model of our expectations about the world. The model is undeniably consistent, but the assumption it will always correspond to the facts for the rest of time out into infinite starts to seem just as bold as questioning the LNC when you take the scale into account. Would finding an exception have implications; I imagine, but some exotic singular case could flicker through reality for a moment. But, it does feel like irrational speculation.
  • Does anyone have any absolute, objective understanding of reality?
    ↪Cidat
    Yes, probably a lot of people. But, the nature of truth in an absolutist sense means we don't always know who or when it's perfectly true.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    ↪Isaac
    Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to be evasive, I may have quoted the wrong person initially. I'm not sure exactly what your position on the matter is to be honest.
  • Is Racism a Natural Response?
    That explains mutual distrust/animosity between races*. — TheMadFool
    Between elves and orcs maybe, but humans interbred with literally different races and evolution favors diversity, so its inaccurate on two accounts.

    Correction: *species
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    No. I'm unable to grasp the the position I quoted in the actual post you seemed to be responding to. — Isaac
    The whole matter is under false context of causing anyone confusion — Cheshire
    Yeah, except for the subject who may be themselves experiencing it. The burden on society is negligible relative to the contrived controversy manufactured from conservative social views. It's a position.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    ↪Isaac
    Nope. Could not make head nor tail of any of that. If English is your second language we could try to draw out what you're trying to say, if not, it's probably too late by now. — Isaac
    Fair enough, I miss identified you as the OP and assumed the perspective was different, but made no indication of it. A lot of it is faking confusion for the sake of controversy. You are genuinely unable to grasp multiple genders across binary sexes?
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    Well that's reassuring. Pretty damning of my own intellect (or morals, depending on how charitable you're feeling), but at least everyone else is fine. — Isaac
    I'm saying objectively. In example, the post below. I think some of its BS, but I'll call you what ever you like; Subjectively, you have to consider how long or how some one met you. I know a lesbian named Kim I wouldn't call a woman but doesn't mind she. It takes a minute to learn at first, but an ounce of empathy and you can figure it out.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    How can one be born as a particular social construct? If a baby is born as a particular social construct then it ceases to be be only by their say that they are he/she/they/xe... If you're claiming that you simply are X, not that you chose to be X, then it must be possible for a third party to judge your gender. Someone could validly disagree with you about it. — Isaac

    The entire issue simply makes conservative men uncomfortable and is being leveraged politically to divide society. No one cared until they legalized gay marriage and needed a new point of leverage. The whole matter is under false context of causing anyone confusion or the sudden importance of women's sports. You know what they make in the WNBA?
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    ↪T Clark
    Thanks, I figured if I was going to tease an ad hominem; it better be funny.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    If gender and sex are different things then how do you know if others are referring to your sex or gender when using pronouns? — Harry Hindu
    Context. If you are trying to stack people neatly then it's sex.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    ↪Harry Hindu
    Actually it's closer to proper names considering they often carry an implied gender. You might be right , but not for this reason.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Bartricks
    ↪Banno


    If it's necessary than it is due to being self referentially the case. The true things can not be false without dissolving the meaning of true.

    If it's contingent, then it is contingent on the future corroboration of cases where the LNC is maintained. There may be some unknown or unthought of statement in which the LNC doesn't apply; such as superposition or other funny physics we haven't discovered.

    I think the question of whether it's rational to be skeptical in this case and if so when is not rational to be skeptical is the issue.
  • A Counterexample to Modus Ponens
    Anderson ran as an Independent. If a Republican wins then it had to be Reagan. A single party only runs one candidate in a US presidential election. 1 is false.
  • Bannings
    ↪James Riley
    Better man than I; that dumpster fire was making my eyes burn.
  • The “loony Left” and the psychology of Socialism/Leftism
    ↪MikeListeral
    Thanks for the hypoxia perspective on macroeconomics.
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    or how about i call you whatever the heck i want to call you

    because its a free country

    if you dont like it you can go cry in the corner     — MikeListeral

    Yeah, you can go around offending people if you want. In my experience the gender variant crowd isn't usually the most physically intimidating. Maybe, run by the old folks home afterward and slap pudding out of the hands of the elderly. Or upon learning of a deep seated character flaw it would be advisable not to act on it. It makes it harder for your primate brain to reverse course in the future. But, I imagine corrective action in this case is like pouring perfume in a sewer grate. Make my day and tell me you aren't from the US.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Banno
    I do not understand your question. I don't even think the word 'contingent' does any real work, if that helps. — Bartricks
  • Why is the misgendering of people so commonplace within society.
    It seems to be used as propaganda more than addressed as an issue by those it should concern. If you can call them by their name then call them by whatever they select. If you misnamed some one more than once you'd apologize.
  • How do we understand the idea of the 'self'?
    It's a vehicle of continuity that makes complex relationships possible in general. I believe a member here used to say "You are to yourself what you think and you are to others what you do"; it's the most uncomplicated answer I know. Credit CreativeSoul I think.
  • Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)
    What if we called it the "peripheral agreement" button?
  • Poll: The Reputation System (Likes)
    At worst it's harmless, so I would say let it run long enough to be used. I didn't notice how to actually implement it prior to looking for it. Then, maybe compare the likes to say the ratio of comments and replies to see if it tracks well. A "good" poster is one that inspires discussion and I suppose a poor one just litters all over the place, so the ratio should be relevant. I imagine there's other metrics as well.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    I am not even preaching about God or faith. I am talking about open mindedness, human decency and respecting your fell peers to think for themselves. — SteveMinjares
    Pretty sure you called me a Nazi there Gandhi
  • To Theists
    ↪tim wood
    Valid commentary. I seem to have acquired a novel experience that persists. I wouldn't want others agreeing with me on the off chance it validates a delusion. It's like an invisible friend with implicit priorities and a ridiculous code of ethics. Not sure if I'm making up for something or what, but it's not about me and the sooner it's over the better at this point.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    The trophy for fastest slide into accusations of Nazism when faced with differing points of view just getting your name etched on it, be with you in a moment. — Kenosha Kid

    :rofl:
  • Are emotions unnecessary now?
    For example:- You wouldnt go upto an Amish person and ask them if they have seen a cybertruck nearby would you? You would ask them if they have seen a weird metallic car which looks like a kid's drawing. — Kinglord1090
    Excellent use of hypothetical.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    He said in the OP he is Christian because it gives him tingles. That's building your house on sand if there ever was such a thing — Gregory
    They fancy themselves victims. He may have a great deal of social networking that relies on it. You can't take a belief away from some one that knows it undeniably, so the fact he's threaten suggest a pretender.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    Always preaching about truth but nothing to back up your testimony. If your going to tell me that he is not real show me the proof. — SteveMinjares
    I think 'he' is real and misrepresented by childish interpretations. Stories are meant to notify us of the existence of God, but not to describe things in a real sense. Religion wants to inject itself into Cosmology, Evolution, secular laws all in order to maintain the world as taught to children for entertainment in many cases.
  • Are emotions unnecessary now?
    ↪Kinglord1090
    Your honest; I appreciate that in a philosopher. You should look into Fahrenheit 451 its a book and old movie available on youtube. They try to make society perfect by removing books. It's one of a few examples of Utopian hypotheticals. "A Brave New World" is another one. Both entertaining; but highly suspect of engineering the
    No one.
    But no one will hate it either.
    And that in its own way is beautiful.     — Kinglord1090
    This idea drove a lot of the movements that serve to explain how the world is currently set up. I think it's interesting because it is at the same time from a place of goodness and somehow very dangerous in practice.

    Quick edit:- There could be an argument made that capitalism wouldnt exist in a world void of emotions either, as greed and/or profits often seem to be the cause of it. — Kinglord1090
    I think your correct, but without capitalism we lose a tremendous known reason for optimization. Which is an opposition to your positions expected outcome. Without profits driving production or empathy to remove suffering where does the motivation come from; an intuitive idea of what society ought look like? But, does it remain intuitive?
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    It sounds more like a dictatorship than being opened mind to me. This type of ideology is border line of Nazism and how if we don’t think like you than they need to be brainwashed or removed from society. — SteveMinjares
    I think your uncomfortable with the source of your beliefs. I think you can do better.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    We have to be an example of discipline and thoughtfulness if we want others to also employ discipline and thoughtfulness. — Yohan
    I believe in God and think that most beliefs are based on a literal children's story character. They built an ark in Tennessee. I didn't make them build an ark, so I'm not accepting blame for obvious foolishness.

    Follow up: The Ark cost 100million dollars to construct in a state with a household income of 56K. This is a misallocation of resources which has a literal drag on progress towards roads, buildings, anything but silly stories you can't tell adults due to the inability to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it. It is crippling minds.
  • To Theists
    1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus
    What I call God is not what most people call God, but it's the closet thing. I've had an ongoing experience for a year or so; that can't be accounted for otherwise. I've made every attempt to eliminate the possibility and failed to do so; including multiple psychologist. The other side of the experience is the inability to convey it in a meaningful way as if evidence isn't supposed to be possible. The moment I can identify or be notified of an inconsistency in what is a rational experience with no rational explanation I would welcome it.
    2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus
    I don't and if God has a will it intends us to be atheists.
  • What is the Obsession with disproving God existence?
    What is the point? — SteveMinjares
    It's a free public service. Adults running around believing characters in children's stories are real has slowed down social progress. And if there is an actual God, then these lies and magical thoughts are a distraction. Some people experienced a great deal of intellectual freedom once released from religious thought patterns, so it is a giving back for some people.
  • Are emotions unnecessary now?
    I have always looked at hypotheticals, as something where we can assume the wildest of things, yet with reason still find an answer.
    If you are saying that it is not the correct definition of a hypothetical, i would gladly back off.     — Kinglord1090
    Nothing about it is incorrect. It is what would be called a unique or novel approach to 'doing' philosophy. Feel free to engage however you like within the rules I have never bothered to read.
    I apologize if I sounded like I meant religion wasnt based on logic. — Kinglord1090
    No apology needed; and much of religion is an intuitive emotive response. I was countering a possible oversimplification.

    In response to the question as I understand it. So much of capitalism is centered around optimization that believing it would increase and compensate for the loss of empathy is difficult to support. It seems you may be trying to define a "perfect world" which was the goal 60 or 70 years ago, but it's been understood to be a flawed notion. But, in this case; suppose it worked. Removing emotions lead to a peaceful and productive society; who could truly enjoy it?
  • Necessity and god
    Our reason tells us that some things 'must' be so, and others are merely 'possibly' so. Philosophers (with the occassional exception, such as me) then think that there is, in addition to truth, 'mustness' and 'possibility'. There is not. There's just God being adamant and God being tentative. — Bartricks
    Generally, I'd say I am agreement with skepticism when comes to knowing we have established truth beyond doubt. But, extending it to self-referential systems like logic or mathematics might be further than reason allows. Put another way the law of non-contradiction is maintained in certainty because of the meaning inherent in something being true or false. But, truth in reality appears so often an approximation instead of a binary assignment that I suppose the opposite could be true in practice.

    1+2 can't have more than one answer, but miscounting is always in play.

    ↪Cheshire Yes, to say that something is 'possibly true' is normally to express tentativeness. And that's fine. That's how I generally use it. Similarly, if someone says "that 'must' be true" they mean to express certainty. — Bartricks
    Why not leave it on an agreement. At least till sunrise.
  • Many people are afraid to actually make an argument
    Most people are afraid to make an argument because they have to defend it. Rather, it's easy to snipe at other arguments. I dare the usual critiquers to actually make an argument, and one that isn't pedantic and easy to defend. — schopenhauer1

    I think people argue incorrectly. The burden of proof and demands of concession fuel bias of egos and don't further the search for any greater truth. The sales pitch that starts so many into this maze of heaps and vats. If there were a third recognized standard that could allow an argument to end, but reserve the ascription of winning or losing we might make some better progress in next 3,000 years, than we did in the past.
  • Necessity and god
    ↪Bartricks
    So, we've dissolved contingently and possibly. What about tentatively? There might be a razor's edge in between absurd doubt and tentative laws of contradiction where a position might be maintained.
Home » Cheshire