I have similar concerns about the History Channel and Fox News. Neither one is what they report to be. Fox News is hardly “balanced and fair,” and it is mostly a propaganda or public relations firm for the hateful, disgraceful, xenophobic, racist Trump administration. It is not news.

The History Channrel should be renamed “The Fiction Channel.” Hardly any of the programming on it is accurate history (thinking about the “Ancient Aliens” series).

Shouldn’t there be an FCC regulation that mass media platforms should have disclaimers reporting what kind of content they produce? For example, Fox News should have to report before each program that they are giving opinions, not the news, and that many if not most of the opinions don’t accurately reflect reality. The History Channel should have to report that what they are airing are conspiracy theories that have not been corroborated by experts or any other sane person.

Now, I’m all for free speech, but shouldn’t people have the right to know just what it is they are consuming? After all, food products are required by law to list ingredients. Why not “Fox News may contain unsubstantiated claims, poorly supported opinions, horse shit, and outright lies?”

Also, a lot of crap in my life is coming to an end (an almost 15-year divorce that started overseas and is now being finally ended in a joint division of assets here in the States). Also being on SSI, helps in allowing me to devote most of my attention to philosophy. So, I'm pretty happy. Also starting a new business from home, which will help me and my mother if it all works out. — Wallows

I’m happy for you.

Did you recently become more intelligent? Did you start a new medication or something?

I'm a Zoomer. — S

You take Adderall, too? :rofl:

True Neutral Human Monk/Cleric (3rd/2nd Level)



Ability Scores:
Strength- 11
Dexterity- 10
Constitution- 12
Intelligence- 15
Wisdom- 13
Charisma- 10

Alignment:
True Neutral- A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment when it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Monks- Monks are versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor. Good-aligned monks serve as protectors of the people, while evil monks make ideal spies and assassins. Though they don't cast spells, monks channel a subtle energy, called ki. This energy allows them to perform amazing feats, such as healing themselves, catching arrows in flight, and dodging blows with lightning speed. Their mundane and ki-based abilities grow with experience, granting them more power over themselves and their environment. Monks suffer unique penalties to their abilities if they wear armor, as doing so violates their rigid oath. A monk wearing armor loses their Wisdom and level based armor class bonuses, their movement speed, and their additional unarmed attacks per round.

Secondary Class:
Clerics- Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Yeah I don't like dealing with other people, either. It's such a hassle... — Wallows

:wink:

I’m not a threat and I’m not dangerous. I just want to be left alone by certain people; not you, you’re fine. I like Wallows. It’s certain other people.

Obviously you think I’m just psychotic. I may have mental/emotional problems, but you weren’t there. You don’t know my history. I don’t really care if you believe me or not.

Well, the CIA/Pentagon is protecting me as compensation for what they did to me.

You have my sympathy. I’m sorry you lost your freedom.

I had a full blood work-up a couple of months ago. My kidneys are in good shape, thank heavens.

I didn’t realize drinking too much water is bad for your liver. Why is that?

That’s true that you showed other interests. I have a BMI of around 40. I do not have diabetes maybe because I drink more water everyday than should be humanly possible. I have lost twenty pounds in the last month due to taking a stimulant prescription for my sleep apnea.

How did you get out of continued child support payments to your first wife? — god must be atheist

My sons got SSDI benefits.

How much is your monthly allowance with the disabiltiy? — god must be atheist

How did you get out of paying back the student loans? — god must be atheist

My finances are none of your business.

Furthermore, if that’s what you’re interested in given my story, then I have to question your motives and character.

If you don't care about money it can be something extraordinary to live in the USA and derive such benefits. — Wallows

I am grateful to this great country for what it has done FOR me. There are bad Americans, however, and I for a long time equated bad Americans with a bad country. Now I look at what America has done for me and I am grateful.

Sounds awful. You have my sympathy and best wishes. — Baden

Thank you Baden.

I have very little confidence that you know what you're talking about, so I'll go with what Wikipedia says over what you've said. — S

I was deconstructing what abductive reasoning means. “Simplest”, “most likely”, and “best” at the end of all the arguing about objective standards and facts boils down to sentiments. If you can’t see that, then you’re dense.

there would be nothing wrong with that. — S

It is all you do here that I’ve seen, and it’s not doing philosophy.

You do realise that the exact same thing can be said of the belief that I'm Napoleon or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? — S

You would be delusional. Belief in God is not delusional.

As far as abductive reasoning goes, it IS reducible to sentiment in that it is what the community thinks and feels is the “best” explanation, whether it is a community of experts or a forum replete with atheists. It’s no wonder you are so bold around here. This place is overrun by atheists.

You haven't done that, and I have a problem with people who are clueless about what "most likely" means. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean wishful thinking. It is not a feeling. — S

That’s a straw man. It’s not wishful thinking. I didn’t claim that “most likely” means “wishful thinking” or that it was a feeling. I said my belief was strengthened by my intuitive feeling, and I said that “most likely” was more akin to “more elegant” and “not nonsensical”.

You didn’t understand his position that God is not accessed through empirical observation but through subjective experience, which by definition cannot be properly relayed between individuals.

I’m not really religious. If I were, then I’d join a church, mosque, or temple. I don’t have a problem with criticism, per se. I have a problem with people not comprehending something like abductive reasoning. I have a problem having to repeat myself because I couldn’t have said it clearer the first time. Horses are cats!

Oh, that’s right. You don’t make affirmative claims. You just point out the flaws in others’ arguments. Anyone can do what you do on this forum.

And what is philosophy to you? In all of my interactions I’ve had with you I’ve yet to see you put forth an argument for any positive claim. You are adept at questioning premises in others’ positive arguments, though. However, that’s easy. My mentally ill, mentally retarded, drug addict cousin can do that. Anyone can. When are you going to START doing philosophy? You’re no better than a troll.

You go from "highly likely" to "I prefer it". That's pretty ridiculous, and way below the standards of good philosophy. — S

I prefer it because I intuitively feel that it is more likely. Just like a intuitively feel like you are more likely to punch a baby in the future than I am. I have no proof of the future, but I’m almost certain I’m right.

For someone who feels that morals are a matter of preference and who claims to have no beliefs concerning God, you sure do like to argue your points regarding morals and God; which are rather empty, nihilistic, egocentric, and altogether revolting to anyone with a heart. Why do you do philosophy? It seems you would be happier as a serial killer or a baby-puncher.

I'm bored and tired of the whole atheism/theism debate. You're being ridiculous. I'm not evangelizing. That's libel, and you're just being an ass.

I fail to see how you're being reasonable yourself. The pot calling the kettle "black".

"I have no beliefs regarding God, but I will try without good supporting reasons to tear down anyone who holds a belief and gives reasons for it. It is not knowledge, therefore it is not philosophy."

That's what you two sound like. It's drivel, hogwash, nonsense, and a total waste of my time.

I claimed what I believe. It may be true, it may not. Just like your atheistic beliefs.

How is my explanation "bad"? Furthermore, what do you mean by:

Yes, the explanation that we don't know enough to reach a conclusion. — S

How does one explain something by not reaching a conclusion?

So could you clarify which drugs you’re talking about? Alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, meth, codeine, morphine? Which are immoral to take? — Michael

I would say it depends on the individual's constitution, how accustomed to the particular drug they are, and how well they can function on it. Some illegal drugs help people function better. For example, some people I used to work with couldn't work or function without cannibis. Cannibis, for me, makes me not function. Some people can drink alchohol responsibiy. Most people cannot, and it is legal.

Like I said, an argument from incredulity. Your incredulity, or bafflement, isn't reasonable grounds to reach your conclusions. — S

Is it a false dichotomy then? Is there another explanation that I missed? No explanation is NOT in line with Occam's razor. And yes, when one of two alternatives doesn't make sense, I choose the better of the two.

t's not a preference, it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence.

If I were doing ontology based on preferences, the world would have things like ghosts in it. — Terrapin Station

I would be interested to hear how you explain consciousness using the physicalist model.

it's knowledge--a justified, true belief, based on evidence. — Terrapin Station

I very much doubt that.

You don't know what you're talking about. Don't put too much into the "proof" part. Think of it as a burden of justification or a request to show your reasoning. — S

I gave my reasoning in my seven-point argument. You said I wasn't justified in saying that conscious life spontaneously and accidentally came into being was less likely than that it was guided by a higher consciousness. I think instead of "less likely" I could just as well have said "less elegant". I explained to Terrapin that I wasn't using "likelihood" in the statistical sense. It is used in the Occam's razor, better, more realistic, less baffling sense. ***How would one even explain conscious life coming into existence from inanimate matter spontaneously and accidentally?*** At least my explanation makes intuitve sense. The alternative does not.

You're lying. I accurately identified a fallacy in your argument. I also pointed out that you have a burden of proof, and that you've failed to meet it. — S

There IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF in abductive reasoning. That's the nature of abductive reasoning! :lol:

What is a good reason for believing that conscious life spontaneously and accidentally came into being?

I think my head just exploded because the irony of what you just said is through the roof. — S

You constantly edit your posts after I've read them. You can't expect me to go back and see if you've edited all of your posts. Why do you do that?

You still don't seem to understand how philosophy works. You don't get to just assert that the alternative possibility is just as good an inference. You don't get to just spurt out how something seems to you. You don't get to just assert that something is not contradictory to science. You don't get to just assume that there's a consciousness about which you say you do not know the nature of.

That's not doing philosophy. I have zero reason to believe any of these claims. They require support. It's on you to support these assertions. — S

I gave reasons. Whether you thought they were bad reasons is your preference because you haven't addressed my reasons. You just said I was wrong.

I already have. Just retrace my replies. That's not difficult. — S

No, you haven't. You made bald assertions.

It may well be, but you still haven't shown this, and you still have the burden of doing so. — S

It is just as good an inference to say that conscious life was guided into being by another consciousness than to say it occurred spontaneously and accidentally. In fact, it seems to be in better line with Occam's razor than to say that some complex mechanism is occuring that causes inanimate matter to become conscious. Even if some such mechanism is at work, it is not contradictory to science to say that, for example, the universe was created by other beings in another universe (higher consciousness). As I said, I never claimed to know the nature of said consciousness.

But your position here is neither of those things. Myself and Terrapin exposed a fault in your argument and you've been unwilling or unable to salvage it. It has been refuted. — S

Point out where I went wrong.