Sure, I have also read Einstein's historical papers on special and general relativity, have you? — leo
There's not a "thing" that creates separation between objects. There's just the facts of their extensional relations — Terrapin Station
Not "bends the light", "bends the trajectory of light". When you launch a ball horizontally its trajectory gets bent right? Same idea. Even in Newton's theory of gravitation it is predicted that light gets deflected by gravity, its prediction is simply less accurate — leo
Otherwise you might as well say that a rock falls to the ground because the space between the rock and the ground shrinks. See the fallacy? — leo
Einstein agreed that spacetime is a tool of thought, not an actual thing, it's people like you who don't understand him — leo
Spacetime isn't an actual observable thing either, it's a mathematical tool — leo
For instance the phenomenon of gravitational lensing can be explained by saying that it is the trajectory of light that bends, rather than some undetectable space or spacetime — leo
Suppose there is some space and a small corner of it moves, now there is no space in that corner which means the space in that corner is non-existent. Correct me if I am wrong. — elucid
You're wrong. It's not true that the statement, "Force equals mass times acceleration", is untrue. — S
Newton's laws have not had examples in real life that would nullify his laws, but CONCEPTUALLY they may happen — god must be atheist
Thank you for your answer. What are the experiments that Newton used to show their laws are true? — Fernando Rios
If you've read my other posts then you know that the Theory of Relativity was derived from measurements from instruments that followed Newtonian laws. What do you have to say about that? — TheMadFool
The reason I created this thread is about that eternal property of things — elucid
The aim of this topic is laudable, I think, but quite possibly unattainable, as you suggest. — Pattern-chaser
So you don’t believe human reason has the answer for this ethical question? Why are you reasoning about it then? And why didn’t you say so at the very start? — khaled
I would do A in that case although I don’t know where you got the idea that I was trying to be true to any cause in the first place. — khaled
My values are mine but the highest one among them is: I can’t enforce my values on others, and I think you share this too (as do most people). You’re just making an exception for procreation — khaled
Me too. Do you not also believe that no one should be entitled to make OTHERS do hat THEY believe is valuable? — khaled
Again, would that psycho be right for what he did? You’re still not answering questions which is quite ironic because the quote you quoted is literally me telling you to please answer the questions — khaled
I don’t have such a conviction or I wouldn’t be here, again. I do however have quite the strong conviction that you’re being a hypocrite to your own values. Especially since you keep avoiding giving straight answers — khaled
So you wouldn’t mind if some psycho believed very vehemently in the greater purpose of cleaning sewage and so forced you to clean sewage with him for 60 years? After all, it’s not wrong for him to force you, he sees value in the activity after all. Fuck asking for your opinion — khaled
And I’m here to ask everyone to take this advice and find that the favorable conditions are: never — khaled
Would you appreciate it if someone destroyed your house in an attempt to add a room to it when you didn’t ask him to do so — khaled
Let's say I like my job- I'm just going to "allow" you to have to do it for a life time (obviously the job being a metaphor for the conditions of life itself). You eventually say, "eh, I guess it is not that bad a job". I still say this is wrong. Consequences be damned, it was wrong to force (um, I mean "allow") it. — schopenhauer1
I'd like to explain thatforcingallowing others into a model that you agree with or even someone else identifies with later on is wrong — schopenhauer1
Any of which case, ALL would be wrong to signal "life is always good" — schopenhauer1
Whether YOU like this or not, throwing people into adversity (even if in order for them to grow from it), when it was UNNECESSARY is not good either — schopenhauer1
Existence is riskier than non existence correct? In other words, more pleasure and more pain are at stake when it comes to existing than when not existing correct — khaled
B becomes capable of deciding later no? Yet he still has to do the thing A told him to do, namely live — khaled
The child still has a personality, experiences, and thoughts of its own. There is no 1:1 correlation here between parent's values and childs, besides which the parents values to themselves versus modelled behavior is different, also indicating that the child will have personal thoughts that have nothing to do with being modelled — schopenhauer1
The self-consciousness comes from that. So this species argument in no way negates the claim that procreation is the cause of this person being born, and suffering/being harmed in the world. — schopenhauer1
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to cause individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
Ok great. Not every parent succeeds at providing that even if they can. And not every child grows to be happy. So why take the risk? Give me a reason that does not depend on your valuation of human existence as your child might not share it — khaled
Not getting the point that your child might not agree with you a about human existence having merit — khaled
It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled
No. I am not benefiting anyone by not giving birth to them. I'm just making sure no one is harmed. Not having children is not "good" it's neutral. It's just that having children is bad. Because it's imposing your own ideals of life on them when you don't have their consent. — khaled
Alright. How about putting them in a situation where they MIGHT get harmed. Say, leaving them in the middle of traffic. — khaled
So that means that consent is not an issue for young children. So then I asked whether or not it's ok to torture them. Please actually answer the question. — khaled
It does. But that's not the point. Even if it meant something to me I wouldn't force it on others. Why aren't you getting the simple point that it's not about what you believe to be good. Unless you are willing to force others to work for your values which I don't think you actually are. — khaled
Does that make it ok to say, torture children because they can't say no? When consent isn't available you do the least harmful alternative no? — khaled
Fair point. Maybe it's not "forcing" but the fact that you have no consent to do it doesn't change. That's the real problem — khaled
Murder and rape are natural..... this is just a naturalistic fallacy. Having a child obviously forces a child to exist, it IS forcing. You didn’t choose to exist did you? Now that would be impressive — khaled
And your child might have something different in mind than preserving the human race. I’ll just leave it at that. — khaled
Here’s a challenge: find me a scenario in which individual A is justified to force individual B to do something A doesn’t know B agrees with or not without having B’s consent and where B is put in a much riskier situation as a result — khaled
This is the problem here. YOU believe producing life is a justifiable endeavor. — khaled
Well this is just empirically incorrect. — khaled
The idea that you can ignore all moral considerations when it comes to risking someone ELSE’S life for your own ideals was. If I saw “greater purpose” in working as a janitor let’s say... — khaled
but when considering that this is then applied to another person altogether is misguided at best. — schopenhauer1
PS: 1k replies. This thread is literally second to trump on the front page — khaled