Check out my thread. It's the best. You won't believe how good it is. All the others are fake. Total lie. It has more replies than the shoutbox.

I would say that lacking proper epistemilogical proof does create a gap in which to deny ontological determinism. — Chany

Sure. I would conclude we really don't know and accept that I act as if the world is determined in good faith (so far, it hasn't let me down).

On the second point, and at the risk of derailing towards a free will debate, determinism in decision making creates problems for incompatibilists. Free will libertarians and hard determinists would be looking for the ability to do otherwise (i.e. a way to avoid complete determinism in our actions) and the gap allows this to happen without the need to appeal to some sort of dualism. — Chany

I wonder if we would really start acting differently if this question would be answered one way or the other. I doubt it and in the end don't think we'll change if we discover we don't have free will. I already believe the latter and I'm not exactly apathetic because of it. In the end the question isn't that relevant.

You are not a determinist by that definition. Because of the current understanding of quantum mechanics, the hard determinist position seems very hard to affirm. The best you can do is say that we may be mistaken about our conception of quantum mechanics, given how relatively new and weird it is, but this simply leaves possibility of determinism open.

To make clear though, believing determinism simply means indeterminism is true; it does imply you believe in the compatibility of free will with this indeterminist state or some libertarian conception of free will. — Chany

I've always found this a rather odd things to claim for two reasons. First of all, there's a distinction to be made between ontological and epistomological determinism. QM is proof of epistomological indeterminism only, not ontological. Ontological determinism is, for instance, an intuition with which we can interpret QM results, which will lead to Bohmian mechanics - e.g. the necessity for hidden variables.

Second, free will is something that implies the exercise of reason, which in turn discerns between options that will be caused by the decision. The very act of choosing presupposes determinism because it assumes specific consequences will follow the choice made. It would be rather weird if we would have free will because of the existence of ontological indeterminism - an ontological hiccup in my thinking would then be the source of my free will. In that sense it wouldn't be free will but an accident of probability.

Enough about Rant.

Sylar, some of my favourite books dealing with ethics is On Justice by Rawls and Nozick's reply to that.

Moving manufacturing to Mexico, for instance, is a benefit to Mexican workers, — Bitter Crank

In the short term only. Note that it's easier to establish/move a company abroad than it is to emigrate. All workers have become temps.

So we will welcome Saudi Aramco with a nice tax deal but not Arabic people. The latter we will begrudgingly accept only if they can prove they're fugitives but not until after about 2 years of procedures.

We live in a world where we're happy to help corporations. People? Not so much.

One interesting thing to see is whether there will be any measurable effect on economic growth in the USA, due to his retreat from ttp, possibly nafta and ttip. This has always been gospel for capitalists but the benefits for society at large often disputed. Historically, a lot of dominant market players got a head start because of some form of protectionism. Once mature, they could compete internationally. Only mature market participants can benefit from these trade agreements, which is why less developed nations aren't catching up with the rest, despite these "beneficial" trade agreements.

Repealing these trade agreements might not be a bad thing per se.

I was kind of hoping someone would talk me out of it by showing where I've gone wrong. Pessimism is not my usual mode, nor politics my usual concern. I think it was the combination of Trumpery, Putinism, and at home, Corbynism and anti-Corbynism together with Brexitry that got me wondering what is going on.

I'd like to believe it is just a psychological condition I've got stuck in, but you'll have to work a bit harder to convince me. — unenlightened

Ok. So things aren't looking up but I don't think the majority of the rich elite are so detached from the world that they don't care about anybody else. If I look at the giving pledge, for instance, and the amount of good Bill and Melinda Gates do for others, there is hope right there.

But we are living in the entitlement generation. Where the rich blame the poor for thinking they are entitled to social benefits and the poor blame the rich they are entitled to a disproportional share of the profits. I'm in the camp of the poor as I'm always reminded that we drink water from wells build by others. The individual accomplishment is greatly exaggerated and the humbleness of the great men of the 1900-1920, who "were standing on the shoulders of giants" is gone from our societies. Great intellectuals and researchers who advanced society without any profit motive are no longer social heroes, they've been replaced by business men. And those business men aren't evil or bad but the society that worships them just isn't that great.

I'm sorry Agustino but your inability to read anything most people say charitably means I'm going to put you on ignore. Enjoy the forums without interacting with me.

You dismiss ideas that don't confirm your world view rather quickly. Business is morality when you trust the other will perform their obligation (fairness and reciprocity). Especially absent an effective system of enforcement (judges and police) this is governed by a shared system of morality.

Only via outside pressure. For a monkey it's not good to abstain from beating the other monkey because it is moral, rather it's good to abstain from it because otherwise they'll be kicked out of the monkey community and die. I don't call that morality. Maybe dogs actually show a sense of morality that is closer to humans (some dogs) but even there it is questionable. — Agustino

This is simply not consistent with recent research. You can watch this as a first impression: Do animals have morals (spoiler: yes)

Robotics can also be an opportunity provided that they produce what people need, thereby relieving those people of the necessity to provide labour to buy their needs. It could be a (Marxist) utopian future where people can pursue what they truly want to do (music, reading, art, etc. etc.).

Perhaps this can be arranged by not taxing profit but requiring robotic production time (50%) to be contributed to the masses. Or (eek) common ownership of the means of production.

It's nice to dream.

Why do you think that would make a difference? She can enjoy watching, but that doesn't mean it's any less harmful for me. (Now it's different when it comes to mutual masturbation if you're asking about that...) — Agustino

Because it can be part of sex and often is and you've stated that sex as part of a lasting relationship was the way to go. Just wanted to get that straight.

Are human beings monkeys? You should be aware that morality only applies to other human beings - or rather to beings capable of reason (and hence of ordering their passions). A monkey may not be able to do this unless compelled from the outside. — Agustino

It's an interesting turn of fate that merely because our capacity to reason in a certain way that is different from monkeys that we should therefore obstain from acts that occur naturally within both the monkey and human population. It smells of a capricious distinction to me. Monkeys can reason and do have a set of moral rules. You could look into some of the work done by Frans de Waal to get an idea. Thelatest research in animal intelligence (and morality) suggests a far greater - but specialised - intelligence exists within them than that we've been led to believe. For clarity's sake, I'm not saying that because it naturally occurs it's therefore acceptable, just pointing out that reason and moral rules are concepts other animals have and apply.

How about teenagers who don't have the capacity to reason sufficiently to make these sort of ethical trade offs? If the capacity to reason is a reason why ethics applies to us then certainly stupid or underdeveloped people are excused and not acting immorally when they masturbate.

I'm pointing out animal reasoning and morality and human stupidity as reasons why I think "the capacity to reason" is not a very good measure for whether or not to apply ethical standards.

In my opinion masturbation is immoral — Agustino

What if your wife enjoys watching? And what about a masturbating monkey? Is the monkey sinning as well?

Good to see darwinism is dead as we'll be sure to kill ourselves off in the long run with all the religious and militant conservatists right, left and center.

Of course. If Hitler says the blue sky is blue, it's still blue, despite his somewhat sullied reputation. However, in many instances (like climate change), we can't just look up at the sky and confirm the veracity of a statement ourselves, so we are left to rely upon the credibility of the speaker to some extent. It's for that reason, for example, if Charles Manson and his band of merry men and women deny having murdered anyone, yet a group of disinterested witnesses tell us otherwise, we tend to believe the disinterested witnesses, mostly because we understand why Manson may be inclined to lie, but we don't understand why the witnesses would. — Hanover

Your examples don't change the fact that it is logically incorrect. In the case of Manson, it shouldn't follow logically from the fact that he's untrustworthy but because we have statements from witnesses that better match the facts. If his statement would match the facts and not contradict other statements, then regardless of his trustworthiness, we would have to acquit him due to reasonable doubt. If the statements of witnesses cannot be corroborated by facts, they should not be used no matter the presumed trustworthiness of the witnesses as opposed to those of Manson.

And we all do this very thing on this forum all the time. For example, once I cited to a website for the proposition that most Palestinians wanted the elimination of Israel, and you ruthlessly ridiculed me over the reference, claiming that I was a patent fool for relying on such a biased poll, damaging my pristine reputation and making me less believable than I previously was. — Hanover

You have the unfortunate quality of bringing out the worst in me. Nonetheless, always a good escape from the echo chamber.

I don't agree though that the polarization we have in US society isn't very real and very deep, which lends itself to a reasonable distrust of anyone who arrives at a conclusion opposed to one side's political position. Using a legal analogy (because that's all I can apparently do), it's reasonable for a jury to have a healthy distrust for both parties because the jury expects that both lawyers are going to present their cases in the best possible light, leaving the jury as the objective body to ferret out the truth. That is, in the legal context, polarization is expected, but an objective body is inserted in to resolve the truth of the issue. I'm not sure, though, that in US society that there's any mainstream objective body waiting to hear both sides and ferret out the truth. The press has openly abdicated it's role as an objective bastion of truth, and the courts are openly questioned by both sides depending upon their ruling. — Hanover

Fair enough. So how about you start being more distrusting of Republicans et al. and I'll do the same for US liberals and other leftists. ;)

I would agree with whatever floats your boat from a pragmatic point of view (in the sense that you can't convince everyone), however, the two cannot live together in the same society, thus it will end up a political war, that we must all fight. — Agustino

They can live together. It requires the virtue of forbearance instead of the sin of violence.

But of what use is saving my soul if it has no effect in this world? Clearly, even the Protestants believe that living by grace in this life is superior to living in bondage to lust. — Agustino

Memento mori. Salvation is through the belief Jesus died for your sins not through works or grace in this life.

Also, for someone who insists on seeing humans free from their "cultural" distortions, your cultural and religious convictions are carried much stronger than anyone else in this discussion. You're not free from this type of subjectivity either. Merely because you're a bit old-fashioned doesn't make your view more accurate.

Not if you're protestant. Damn you and your materialist body, save your soul and pray to God and thank Jesus for dying for your carnal sins. (Also, him dying didn't help because you're still a sinful slacker).

Having said this, it requires one to understand what being human entails, and what role does sex have in a human existence, to understand the truth independent of culture - meaning which path is actually better regardless of what you have been taught. — Agustino

Being human, is thankfully, dependent on culture. Otherwise we'd just be animals.

But it seems to be that the psychological effects of casual sex depend on the circumstances surrounding it (drunk or sober, pressured or willing) and the ethical views of the participants. Those with a more liberal sexual upbringing don't suffer from autonomous casual sex whereas those with a more conservative sexual upbringing or engaging in non-autonomous casual sex do. — Michael

Plus a majority of women regret the age at which they lose their virginity in hindsight. Even when culturally accepted for this to happen around 16 they by and large indicate to prefer to have waited until their 20s.

Yes except that it wasn't a mistake. My argument isn't that it's good to have a single partner because it's natural to want to be special to one person. My argument rather is that people do have such a desire. In the context of them having such a desire, it is good to want to be special to one person and therefore to have a single partner. — Agustino

Ok, let me rephrase then:

p1. If people have the desire to be special to someone then they should avoid multiple relationships and people who had multiple relationships.
p2. Some people have this desire.
c. Therefore some people should avoid multiple relationships and people who had multiple relationships.

That works but that wasn't what you wrote initially as that was a general argument against promiscuity. As an argument against that it doesn't work. The argument that people should act in accordance with their desires - you won't have an argument there and that's not the argument that seems to be on the table either.

Isn't the answer to this whole discussion: whatever works for you?

Nope. I merely identify that it exists, naturally and by itself - as opposed to artifically. I don't discuss whether it's good to have it or not. — Agustino

Your earlier quotes quite clearly do not reflect this. You are arguing whether it's better to have a single partner or not and your argument to have one is "because it's natural to want to be special to one person". That's a fallacy, as pointed out. Your denial doesn't diminish this and it would be nice if you can just gracefully accept this obvious mistake. Everybody makes mistakes, it's ok you know!

But if it exists, its in the nature of desire to seek its fulfilment, so if you do things which render it impossible to fulfil, then yes, you have hurt yourself, because that desire was part of you, and you have denied it.

Now you're making he claim conditional that if this desire exists then it would better (avoids hurting yourself) to have a single partner. Still a fallacy!

EDIT: if it makes any difference at the old forum I once started a thread that was a single long naturalistic fallacy. It happens.

A natural desire. You have a natural desire for food. In what sense is that seeking to fulfill that a fallacy? — Agustino

It follows from the context of your discussion. First you said:

Right it would be better that your partner gets fucked by hundreds of people before you get married to him/her - that sounds nice! Sure! >:O — Agustino

(emphasis mine)

Then you said:

Not at all. It's a natural desire of the human being, which has nothing to do with insecurity. The desire for specialness with your partner is a desire that is natural to the human being. — Agustino

You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural. You moved from a statement of fact (desire to be special to your partner is natural) to a value judgment (therefore its better not to have a partner fucked by hundreds of people). That's the fallacy you are making.

Not at all. It's a natural desire of the human being, which has nothing to do with insecurity. The desire for specialness with your partner is a desire that is natural to the human being. But it seems you don't care about that, you'd much rather have your tiny instrument pleasured by some random women. >:O — Agustino

I can't seem to interpret this in any other way than an appeal to nature and that would be a fallacy.

Credibility of the person is critical when you have a distrust of their data gathering and computations. Obviously, if you were accused of murdering your neighbor, your mother's credibility in asserting you were with her and could not have done it would be suspect (as she does dote on her little Benkei) as would any physical evidence she might present to prove your whereabouts. — Hanover

That's what lawyers keep telling themselves but it really isn't. Even someone who isn't credible could still be telling the truth. Logically, this doesn't hold any water.

With regard to political affiliation bias, it goes beyond that to the point of being a liberal worldview consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests. Anyway, I'm not arguing as forcefully against climate change as it might appear, but am only pointing out that there is nothing irrational per se in climate change deniers looking skeptically at the backgrounds of those presenting the climate change conclusions.

It's understandable that people do it because so many people around them do this but it's neither here nor there with respect to the veracity of the climate change research. It's also a cop-out for either side to stop listening to each other. "Oh, can't trust what he says because he's a Republican/Democrat". Rational discourse doesn't work that way. And your bare assumption that "a liberal worldview [is] consistent with anti-corporate and anti-business interests" is very telling. It's not even true for most leftists but that requires you to take others that don't agree with you a bit more seriously to absorb.

It also appears that you're inconsistently arguing both sides of this, on the one hand criticizing those who reject arguments based upon the perceived authority of those making the case, but then appealing to authority based upon the perceived authority of those who make the case by suggesting I should be concerned with the number of bona fide scientists who have concluded a particular way.

No, there's a primary argument: it's a logical fallacy.

There's also a secondary argument that when assuming that credibility has bearing on the veracity of the data, those people claiming it's an issue are left having to resolve the following points:

1. the discrepancy between the split between liberal and conservative scientists and the split between climate change asserters and deniers
2. the blind spot with regard to non-US researchers
3. no data on consensus of researchers in the US in danger zones (e.g. who have worries that presumably would trump political affilition)

The OP asks what the positives of climate change might be, and whether the loss of the Netherlands is or isn't a positive is a matter of opinion. — Hanover

Har har.

I'm curious how is the Nederlands preparing for climate change? Are we going to see floating cities?

Frankly, I don't see how climate change can be avoided. To what degree is debatable. It's just too much to ask for countries to do something about it when the same countries telling the other one's to do something were, in fact, the main contributors to the current situation. — Question

20 billion was approved in 2014 to improve our existing system of dykes. It's a decent start.

We also had a court case in which citizens demanded the government do more. They won but not sure about the state of any appeal or to what extent the government is taking action to reach the 25%.

So, I just read this article here and have had a discussion with a friend who's pretty conservative.

Maybe I'm missing something; but, what are your thoughts about climate change? Please skim the article, thanks. — Question

BTW, the IPCC report does go into some of these benefits which seem to be there to some extent (but not much research available) but the benefits quickly deteriorate with an increase in temperature above 1 or 2 degrees celsius (depending on the type of crop or trees).

For instance:

A second reason for concern is the distribution of impacts among people and across regions. The impacts of climate change will not be distributed equally. Some individuals, sectors, systems, and regions will be less affected—or may even benefit; other individuals, sectors, systems, and regions may suffer significant losses. This pattern of relative benefits or losses is not likely to remain constant over time. It will be different with different magnitudes of climate change. Some regions may have gains only for certain changes in temperature and precipitation and not for others. As a result, some regions that may first see net benefits eventually may face losses as well as the climate continues to warm. — IPCC

and

It has not been assumed that all the impacts of climate change will be detrimental. Indeed, several studies have looked at possible benefits. Moreover, adaptation is a means of maximizing such gains as well as minimizing potential losses.
However, it must be said that potential gains have not been well documented, in part because of lack of stakeholder concern in such cases and consequent lack of special funding. Examples that have not been fully documented include the possible spread of tropical and subtropical horticulture further poleward (but see some New Zealand studies, on kiwi fruit, for example—Salinger and Kenny, 1995; Hall and McPherson, 1997b). In southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, notably Tasmania, there could be gains for the wine industry, increased comfort indices and thus tourism, and in some scenarios increased water for hydroelectric power generation.
Guest et al. (1999) have documented possible decreases in winter human mortality alongside possible increased summer mortality (see Section 12.7.1), and Howden et al. (1999d) have shown that Australian wheat yields may increase for 1 or 2°C warming, before showing declines at greater warmings (see Section 12.5.3 and Figure 12-3). A similar situation may apply to forestry (see Section 12.5.4). Such studies take account of gains from increased CO2 concentrations. Changes in overseas production and thus in markets in some cases also could lead to greater demand and higher prices for Australian and New Zealand primary products (see Section 12.5.9), but only if such changes do not disrupt world trade in other ways (e.g., lower capacity to pay).
Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change must be considered in the context of the entire ecological and socioeconomic environment in which they will take place. Indeed, adaptations will be viable only if they have net social and economic benefits and are taken up by stakeholders. Adaptations should take account of any negative side effects, which would not only detract from their purpose but might lead to opposition to their implementation (PMSEIC, 1999).
Adaptation is the primary means for maximizing gains and minimizing losses. This is why it is important to include adaptation in impact and vulnerability studies, as well as in policy options. As discussed in Chapter 18, adaptation is necessary to help cope with inevitable climate change, but it has limits; therefore, it would be unwise to rely solely on adaptation to solve the climate change problem.
In some cases adaptation may have co-benefits. For example, reforestation to lower water tables and dryland salinization or to reduce storm runoff may provide additional income and help with mitigation (reduction of GHG emissions). However, other potential adaptations may be unattractive for other reasons (e.g., increased setbacks of development in coastal and riverine environments). These considerations have particular application in Australia and New Zealand. Studies of adaptation to climate change in Australia and New Zealand are still relatively few and far between. They are summarized in the remainder of this section. — IPCC

So in fact, they specifically avoid confirmation bias by allowing for benefits even though the research for that is rather sporadic so far.

In small instances you are right, as soon as you go beyond what is considered "white" in "white lies" then honesty is paramount, not only to self development as seen in this thread but also in terms of how lies may negatively affect others. — intrapersona

It's all about context. A general rule like this is just a theoretical exercise that can't hold in real life.

Say you're in a political race and your opponent tells lies to win votes. You're convinced your plans are better for everyone but no matter how often you tell the truth, people believe the lies because they want the lies to be true. Should you not lie and stick to the principle of truth, or lie and clear it up later or lie and leave it at that and get on with the job? I don't think that's a clear cut case.

Or you're a doctor and you discover an epidemic of a dangerous disease in a large city. You haven't been able to pinpoint ground zero and how its vectoring. When asked by a reporter "is there an epidemic?", should you lie to avoid panick causing many people to leave the city (and thereby cause a spread outside the city) or do people deserve the truth? I'm not sure what to do there either.

90-110 IQ isn't a moron but "average". Borderline retardation is 70-80, which I suppose I'd equate with morons.

I think you were missing my point here. If everything is commonly owned, there's nobody to pursue their particular self-interest at the expense of a common resource because he does not have the power and authority to make that decision. Communism would solve the problem as well - theoretically speaking and aside from the other issues that arise from common ownership.

My point here is that it is rational and not at all arbitrary to reject the conclusions of someone you find lacking credibility. What would be irrational would be to fully accept the credibility of the scientists but to simply refuse to accept their inconvenient conclusions. I don't think that is at all what is happening. I think what is really happening is that the general public (myself included) has no idea what sort of experiments have been conducted or what sort of data has been collected, but we are all asked to accept the conclusions because most scientists say it's valid. If tomorrow they report they were wrong, I suspect you'd change your mind. Whether placing trust in the consensus of the experts is reasonable and rational is debatable because polling scientists is a not a scientific act. It's a political one. — Hanover

It isn't rational because it's a logical fallacy to reject an argument based on the perceived authority of those making its case - especially on something as flimsy as political affiliation. Moreover, the consensus is over 97%. What happened to those 40% Republican scientists? Third, it's not just US scientists that say this so the political affiliation discussion only goes so far and really is only a US discussion.

Do you think the Netherlands, where if water levels rise, is happy with conclusions that mean 40% of our land-mass, where over 60% of the people live, will disappear? We'd rather not have to spend trillions of euros on having to ensure the safety of our country and there's a big incentive therefore to get it right before spending that money, regardless of your political leanings. The consensus here is close to, if not exactly, 100% with respect to climate change and the dangers it creates with respect to rising sea levels, increased rain and river discharges. So for us, there are no benefits. It's nice though that there's a few more trees and less deaths from cold winters.

How about those areas in the US where scientists have a particular personal incentive to get it right, such as NY? What's the consensus then?

Like I said earlier, the tragedy of the commons is a unique phenomenon of non-private property systems. — Emptyheady

Is it? In a centrally planned economy without private ownership this problem probably wouldn't occur either. So it seems a unique phenomenon to any mixed system.

Tragedy of commons is a fundamental problem of non-private property -- it is a tragedy of communal ownership you dips. — Emptyheady

I'm not sure how else I was to interpret this as private ownership as the only solution but my bad. I do note that I merely raised this issue as an example of the tragedy of the commons (which it is) and I received the above as a reply against my suggestion that the West apparently didn't pay enough for the use of certain resources.

I also fail to see how the tragedy of the commons and the externalisation of costs are unrelated. To me it seems quite obvious that certain costs (pollution) are borne by people who didn't cause and aren't causing them. That means that producers in the past and now haven't paid and aren't paying the correct price for the use of resources. Since I'm not keen on having the air I breath privatised and also fail to see the practical possibility of doing so, there are other solutions more appropriate to tackle this problem.

There are more solutions to the tragedy of the commons than just Hardin proposed. The problem is set out by him first but the assumption that only private ownership is a solution is false. Which you would've known if you weren't still stuck in 1968.

Edit: Carbon tax for instance.

Edit 2: Also, aside from the economic discussion, how about getting back to the other points I made?

Wrong.

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system (clean air) where individual users (countries) acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good (fucking pollution) of all users (everybody) by depleting that resource through their collective action.

EDIT: 2 secs of Wiki and some editing since that was quicker than dregging up what I learned 15 years ago.

EDIT 2: A well-know method of adjusting that individual behaviour is transferring the costs to those actually using the shared-resources. E.g. the West didn't pay enough for the pollution because it externalised those costs to the rest of the world.

I always find it interesting that the assumption seems to be scientists don't know what they're doing and haven't looked at global warming in different ways. This is then done by referring to scientific work done by fringe scientists.

Either the scientific work done by the majority of scientists can be trusted but if you're arguing it cannot then doing so by referring to other scientific work is then completely arbitrary. If you're going to choose one scientist's results over another, you're going to have to go into the scientific methods used, the theories tested and the data collected. Anything else is just trying to find justifications of beliefs that don't seem to be currently supported by the majority of climate change scientists. And claims that "it's become a religion" or "full of left wing bias" are simple assertions and speak of your own personal bias and says zero about the science behind climate change.

There are about seven billion people in the world. The rich west accounts for about one billion, and the rest are quickly emerging. They will emit more carbon, and taxing that will reduce their big climb out of poverty. — Emptyheady

Alternatively that's proof that the West didn't pay enough for the pollution it caused. Tragedy of the commons and all that.

.S. law sweetums, heavily protects the rights of the citizens over any other entity, so bringing up the law does not help your case. — Lower Case NUMBERS

>:O

Honesty is overrated. Lying is a social act that greases social interaction.

How are you doing?

Great! (even though my cat just died)