Yeah, your argument is slipping. If history is the battleground of human ideas playing out, it's got a lot of horrible examples of what humans do. Thus this argument that some particular set of morality is "the" true or essential human biological behavior just seems cherry-picking. — schopenhauer1
I think you're conflating "morality" in general and the specific morality we have going on at the moment in particular. — khaled
Moral claims that don't match the majority do not lose their status as moral claims. — khaled
The society and biology determine which moral positions become most prevalent. — khaled
So, unenlightened hasn't shown us any meaningful distinction when talking about what symbols and rules can be used to refer to, or express beliefs. — Harry Hindu
Perhaps you can muster a better one? — Kenosha Kid
I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying. — Harry Hindu
Because they commit violence on college campuses and disrupt college speakers such as Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. Those aren't fascists. — BitconnectCarlos
Antifa is using violence and intimidation to shut down the rights guaranteed to us. — BitconnectCarlos
Neither. An amendment can be added and it's not an attack on the founding principles. Obviously something being passed in the 1970s wouldn't be a founding principle.... — BitconnectCarlos
What constitutes fascism" is an extremely relevant question. If you believe it's good to punch a Nazi or a racist and violent suppress that type of speech, what about Zionism or capitalism? Can we punch capitalists if capitalism is essentially white supremacy? This is a really important question. — BitconnectCarlos
I don't think so. He clearly and unambiguously said that the antinatalist claim is not a moral claim as far as I understand. — khaled
There a whole bunch of scientists who have a dim view of philosophy which I suppose they regard as nothing more than wool-gathering. I can't name them but if you survey the scientific landscape as it were you will come across a few science bigwigs who don' take too kindly to philosophers. That's not to say they're right of course. — TheMadFool
I'm probably talking out of my hat when I say this but it's probable that some, not all, scientists aren't aware that science is just one branch of philosophy - empiricism - taken to its natural conclusion and even if they are in the know about it, their grasp is likely to be superficial and unlikely to include the intricacies and subtleties that lie at the heart of objections to empiricism. Thanks — TheMadFool
Agreed. Isaac so it's literally just you trying to say that antinatalism is not a moral theory. — khaled
No, there are clearly natural reasons to accept them. — khaled
It is wrong to eat sherbet on a Wednesday — Kenosha Kid
I know that freedom of speech doesn't give the right to whatever platform you want, but you're still allowed to express your ideas verbally and in writing. — BitconnectCarlos
I avoided your first point because it was wrong — BitconnectCarlos
I didn't feel like getting into it — BitconnectCarlos
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Take your undemocratic trash elsewhere. Very convenient of you to avoid my second point, as well. — BitconnectCarlos
it certainly does not protect your perceived right to act to make a world that is violently hostile to others. — Kenosha Kid
Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove. — Harry Hindu
I was saying that what antifa is doing is contrary to our first amendment. — BitconnectCarlos
Science can, if all goes well, find a good foundation to build its theoretical/experimental structures on — TheMadFool
Antifa fundamentally seeks to stifle certain views, and I get it - in Europe they do this but in America it's against the principles our country was founded on and moreover it sets a dangerous precedent. — BitconnectCarlos
And I'm telling you that you are wrong. — Harry Hindu
So what? Different languages have different rules for the same symbols. We can still translate the meaning and end up saying the same thing in different ways. — Harry Hindu
I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen? — Harry Hindu
Heck, I would say most people think so. You and KenoshaKid (I think) are the only two trying to say that antinatalism isn't a moral theory. — khaled
How does one select one at random? — Harry Hindu
the Italian Fascism never knew any kind of racialist thought — Bertoldo
I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing? — Harry Hindu
Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something? — Harry Hindu
but then it wouldn't be a contradiction, like they claimed. — Harry Hindu
I think it is quite controversial to place science within empiricism. — Garth
This is the exact verbal violence, meant to silence me, that I am pointing out is symptomatic of emerging fascism. — Garth
Insofar as someone is just doing nonviolent, legal acts like this, meant to clean up the community, he is not an Antifa-scist, but an Antifascist. The distinction is important for my argument. — Garth
Good thing I'm not using right wing logic. — Garth
The Antifa-scist sets aside his conventional morality to fight against this enemy -- he verbally and physically attacks the enemy, he destroys the enemy's property and interferes with the enemy's business. He would not normally do these things, but he justifies his actions because of the danger he perceives. — Garth
The probability that you randomly select a real number from the unit interval and it turns out to be rational, is zero. — fishfry
Either way, arguing about the trivial illustrative example I offered is irrelevant. — unenlightened
Do be careful with computational logic. It doesn't work the same as propositional logic, because instructions are not statements. "A= A+1" Contradiction as statement, simple commonplace instruction. — unenlightened
If you are just a collection of mental states, I'm not sure, but in this case, there is not only one version of "you", a guy that was exactly like you until 10 years ago and now is doing different things is "you" too... And if you expand this vision, you will probably reach something like "open individualism", where you are everybody. Even more, since this don't require physical continuity a guy like you appearing now is your past "you" too... And, then, a guy remembering being a famous singer is him, even if these singer have never existed... Since this is based on memories, I guess that you could reach bizarre conclusions, like if your neighbor develop false memories of being you and you got amnesic, he is more you than yourself. — Philosophuser
Whoops! Misread this as "Quantum Immorality". Now there's a metaphysical topic worth pursuing! :nerd: — jgill
Right, I guess I shoud have been more specific : what in the quote is the opposite of consensus ?
Do you think what I said is wrong, like scientists don't say things like "we can measure welfare" ?
Or do you think that defining such concepts in a scientific way wouldn't lead to consensus ? — Avema