It's difficult to explain the value of functioning institutions if you're used to thinking mostly in terms of individual merit. — Echarmion

Well thats not the terms I think in, im not a “libertarian, freedom trumps everything individualist type”.
I just wanted to respond to that for clarities sake. If your inclined Ill just stick to the main disagreement at the end. (But we can go through the other stuff too if you think its important.)

But everyone knows that no justice system always serves justice. Yet it must still function in some way. Would you install some superintendent with absolute power just so you could overturn those decisions that did not ultimately come out just? — Echarmion

So this doesnt directly address my points, but lets start here cuz I think its our main point of disagreement.

The purpose of a justice system is to serve justice. The fact that a justice system is fallible doesn't mean we should ignore justice, we should still try to make sure justice is being served wherever we can. It doesnt mean we should ignore injustices, that cant be part of the justice system.
I wouldnt want to give absolute power to anyone of course, but ya I think someone making sure there are no miscarriages of justice as best they can would be a good thing. Youre saying that It wouldn't be good because of potential corruption but couldnt that be said about any part of the system at any level?

Is that a serious question? I have eyes and a working brain, that's how I know. Anyways It's the threat of politically motivated interference that does the damage. With corruption, it doesn't so much matter whether it can be proven that there is corruption. It's sufficient that the trust in impartial justice is damaged. — Echarmion

So if someone disagrees with your assessment, or doesnt place the same value as you do on appearances then they have no brain or eyes (or lack the ability to use them)?
Trust in the system is more important than the system actually working and it trumps ethical consideration of individual cases? Gosh, what could go wrong doing it that way?

Not much I can do about you "not buying" the importance of the judiciary being and being perceived as impartial. — Echarmion

Sure there is, you could have a stronger justification for writing off miscarriages of justice.
Do you not see how similar your argument is to the ones used by places like China and N Korea where the state reigns supreme and individuals dont matter?

I think the operation of the system of checks and balances is more important than individual corrections. There is a reason this system exists: The people making corrections might themselves be wrong or corrupt. — Echarmion

Well this is the fundamental disagreement we have. I understand the importance of impartiality, but its not more important than individual corrections. Ultimately the justice system is about justice being served, not the system itself.

Why is it politically motivated? How did you determine that it was politically motivated rather than correcting an injustice? Im not buying this threat to rule of law bit, nor the appeal to consensus that follows. The fact it benefits any involved party doesnt mean it isnt the right thing to do, it can be both.
Anyone with the power to do so should always correct a miscarriage of justice.

Still besides the point, but I dont blame you for being guarded.

That's what makes the corruption. Even if Stone's conviction had been some striking miscarriage of justice, it'd still be wrong and corrupt for Trump to commute that sentence. — Echarmion

It would be the opposite imo, if “striking miscarriage of justice“ occurred, then its moral and not corrupt to correct that injustice isnt it? Isnt a striking miscarriage of justice precisely the circumstance under which you would want an overriding executive decision?

Besides the point, you put spin on that. He lied, thats much different than not being 100% correct. I thought better of you than that, thats all.

Come on...not ”100% correct“? He lied under oath, which is a crime. Relativists point stands, his conviction for his crime was just and your position that it wasn't just is incorrect.
Is it just hard to admit it sometimes because of the constant mud and dishonesty you have to wade through on here?

I would go further and say that identity politics is not just a distraction, but a deliberate way to further polarization of the political field and reinforce the status quo where bipartisanship or any kind of consensus seeking doesn't exist. Both parties encourage their own view of identy politics and welcome it with open arms. — ssu

I would go a step further than calling it a distraction, i would say its about power and control. There are useful idiots who participate in the PC and outrage culture, and there are real activists who want change, and bad actors using it as an excuse to act shitty AND there is a core ideology spread by idealogues that use the groups, social media structure and social justice culture to exercise authoritarian social control.
We even have an excellent case study, Evergreen University. The academics produced ideologues who produced outrage that produced a culture that produced a cult. It started out just like it has in the wider world, changing definitions of words like “racism”, controlling speech and framing everything as identity politics and it ended up with nothing short of an authoritarian cult roaming around the campus committing acts of violence and hunting down the “racists” and “bigots” who had become everybody but their cult group. Like we see now, the police were told to stand down, to not interfere. Like we see now, the Dean and staff were cowed into submission with guilt and shame so that the cult could take over and thats exactly what they did.
Nazi Germany and the other horrors of modern history started this way too, but somehow its been forgotten. So we have Evergreen, very recent. Lesson learned? Nope! Failure of memory? Nope! Failure of courage, failure of attention.

I dont think Fishfry was was addressing you either you clueless hypocrite. The concerns he expressed are 100% legit, and dismissing them only shows your hopeless bias. Kev made a good point about reason not being an option.
Junior. :roll:

...you’ve reached maximum delusion. You have no more space up your ass for your head to fit inside of.

Indeed, as evidenced on this very forum where reason seems in short supply on certain topics.
I think the behaviour is cultish, with cultish characteristics. Purity testing (virtue signalling), in-group reporting, rigid adherence to ideology, us vs them mentality, Belief in the moral superiority of those in the cult, punishing dissent or doubt, use of shame/guilt to influence/control members of the cult, the ends justify the means...all characteristics shared by these extreme activist types and a cult.

:lol: :lol: :rofl:

I see. Couple world greats huh?

Wow. Why do you have to be cruel to Metaphysician?

How could anyone dare to argue with one of the greatest mathematicians in the world?
Though I am honoured you came down from the mountain to humble us (im sure your very busy with all the genius math you are doing) with your declarations, I simply can not in good conscience go against your almost singular understanding of mathematics, O Calculating One.
“2+2 equals anything but 4”.
Riveting. Bold. Original. Gregory the Great ladies and gentlemen, be humbled in his presence or not at all.
:meh:

Philosophy isn't at all practical. You can't use philosophy in your ordinary life. — Wheatley

Ok, so that seems to contradict what you said in the above quote. Philosophy seems to have some practical value after all, and is useful in everyday life.

I think that there is a lot of philosophy that is sort of arcane and impractical like you say but there is a lot thats useful as well.
It depends on how you define philosophy, I think a case could be made that philosophy can be applied generically, outside academia as well as within. To me, its more about thinking, how to think and thoughtful consideration than strictly academia or philosophical history.
The more impractical aspects of philosophy are also interesting as thought exercise, which I would say is of practical value.

Ok, so are critical thinking and logic of practical value?

Edited for clarity.

You arent answering the question, Im not sure why but you keep giving me Wishy washy non-sequators. Ill take the hint and leave you be.

Sure, thats fine. Im asking you if you think those two things fall under “philosophy”. Like, if you were to study critical thinking or logic, would I be taking a philosophy class or something else? Its like if I asked you if geometry or calculus are under the purview of math....you wouldnt say “not so fast, using geometry isnt the same as studying geometry”, thats non-sequitor.
Do you think critical thinking and logic fall under the purview of philosophy?

So thats no? They arent under the purview of philosophy?
Im asking because if they were a part of philosophy then that would mean the claim philosophy is not at all practical is false as those things are clearly very practical. Have you considered that implication?

You dont think critical thinking or the rules of logic are philosophy then I take it?

How do you define philosophy? What is it you dislike about it?

Sure, but isnt 2 the only one determinism specifically entails? Thats not mutually exclusive to what you said.

On review, Anscombe seems to me not to be saying that even if we had perfect information we could not predict the landing place of the ball, but rather that since we do not have perfect information, we cannot do so. — Banno

Ok, then I would only point out how little is actually being said there, seems pretty obvious at that point.

That is, determinism ceases to be a physical Law so much as a metaphysical desire on the part of certain philosophers — Banno

Well it could be both those things.
So there are 3 things at play, the knowledge of how something is determined to go(which we can do pretty well on pretty simple examples), the actual things that determine the way things go and the range of determinate factors we are actually able (and/or not able to) to track.
It seems to me only the middle one is what determinism is about. The others are so much more generic and tangental as to fall under different purview.

If nothing else, they ought not be taken as granted. — Banno

Agreed.

But of course no one could determine the final resting place of the ball. Even the smallest error in the initial positions will be magnified until it throws out the calculations. — Banno

That doesnt show that determinism fails, it shows the limits of the predictive method used. This is just increasing the complexity of the calculation to create the illusion that it isnt determined (cuz we cant show how, which is a fallacy).
A box of much simpler design would show determinism quite obviously. We could increase the complexity of the box and continue showing how the balls path is determined right up until the point where the complexity grows beyond our ability to predict but that doesnt show determinism failing, it would only show the ability to predict as failing.

Alright, then I dont think you are talking about something that can be said to be ethically wrong. Those are preferences, and a matter if risk managment not morality/ethics.

It's all hypothetical in which I've yet to determine whether self-harm is wrong in the first place. One thing at a time. — Wheatley

Ok, well perhaps a distinction between different types of self harm would be helpful? Some things are more pure self harm, like stabbing yourself in the eye, while other things have a clear trade-off like eating junk food or going to the beach and suffering harm from the sun. You trade harm for pleasure of experience.
Would that kind of cost/benefit analysis be useful forvwhst yiu have in mind?

At what point does preference become self harm? Some things inflict more self harm than others, how do you determine what amount is ok or not?
Also, ate you talking ethically permissible self harm, or using some other goal/metric.

No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations.

So now the founders beliefs have nothing to do with the movement?
If the KKK grand wizard, a self proclaimed KKK-racist, founded a movement and then decentralised his leadership you would say his self proclaimed KKK racist beliefs wouldn't be relevant to the movement? You wouldnt be suspicious of that movement?

What does Karl Marx have to do with an activist movement with no centralized local leader? — Wheatley

In what way does the beliefs of a movements founders not “have to do” with the movement? I would think it would have quite a lot to do with the movement, so please explain that ine to me sir.

Unfortunately I think it will stay, the foundations are too strong (academia churns out new brainwashed minions every year), to firmly entrenched in the minds of the general populace. It will fail, its designed to suicide itself, but not before their pound of flesh becomes a ton. Not before we repeat modern histories worst.

I need you to cite a source not "I got that from the BLM founder" however, I found what you claimed according to the New York Post: — Anaxagoras

I linked a video of her saying it.

My apologies for this long post for the sake of preventing misunderstanding I hope you read it all. — Anaxagoras

I did read it all. I appreciate that the subject comes with a lot of trigger words and weaponised language but alot of what you clarified wasnt addressing points I actually made. Because of the format (text) communication is difficult on this subject (Or any really) so its usually better to operate under a principal of charity.
Obviously we disagree fundamentally and despite your protests I still think you are closed off to anything that contradicts your comfy narrative. You’ve been trained to see racism where there is none, though I understand you can just as easily say the same to me. (In reverse).

Try that sentence with a different “ism” in it. Suddenly not so shades worthy huh?

Thats Agist. Lol

Perhaps some people suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome after all huh? :wink:

https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8

And then ask yourself why you were so sure what I was saying was bullshit. Recognise how closed off you’ve become to anything that doesnt fit your comfy narrative. I didnt repeat right wing or white supremest talking points, I got that right from the BLM co-founder.
Now ask yourself about the other things I said, and instead of operating under the presumption im some sort of uncle tom race traitor or a white supremest based on words that trigger you try operating under the presumption that i might (might...thats a low bar) be saying something true or worth hearing.
If a white supremest says the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue does that mean Im repeating white supremest talking points?
Its not ok to group someone in with evil people just because they say something youre not comfortable hearing, and thats what I found offensive. Your narrow perspective and limited understanding of the race issue has caused you to act like an asshole. A decent person would be apologetic.

Whether I got something wrong or there is a discussion to be had is irrelevant. I have no interest in working around your entrenched prejudices, you can characterise me however you like but I dont need to waste my time engaging you.
Now to quote the great Gene Wilder:
“I SAID GOOD DAY!”

Ok. I’m quite familiar with people who are of color that promote white supremacist rhetoric and although I am not identifying you as one, you’re talking points are dangerously close to the rhetoric they espouse. — Anaxagoras

I find this characterisation offensive. Thats not what Im doing. Good day sir.

↪DingoJones I'm not seeing the implications of Ockham's Razor on a bunch of fields, but if you think there are some, I'd like to hear about them. — Pfhorrest

Well using Occums Razor here would be something like “do not add reasons or axioms except out of necessity”.
I reviewed your core principals, this seems similar to me, would the above qualify?