Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 08:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 05:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
Oh, you might say, these systems are just technical, consensual stuff that the society uses to organize itself, they have nothing to do with truth, justice and virtue? Great! Spell that out please, in big letters.
...

I can do better. Would you like the 2-day course or the 3-day course?

Smartass
Is it true, good or useful? Consider Sorry, I have to pick and choose nowadays. Usually I find out I that already know most of this stuff and that it's not true, good or useful. It started more often just as people started having difficulties understanding what I say Sad

(02-09-2014 08:07 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 11:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-an...26012.html

Did you read that article? It was not exactly in favour of your position. Consider
Right, you could say that. I was just writing a school article on Detroit to earn the credit and there were many links floating around. But there's a broader point, economic incentive is important. A paid force doesn't protect the people who pay them, it protects the people who could stop or might start paying them. Choice makes quality, no choice means little quality.
Money that keep coming no matter what (taxes) are taken for granted and needs only minimum protection. A customer can say yes or no, tax cattle can't. If two customers might be fighting, a private security would want to keep them both as customers. For a private security, a whole neighbourhood and bystanders are potential customers.

Which is why there is the private-run company in Detroit that protects 1000 homes and 500 companies and it is customer-funded and based on people's safety first.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...11532.html
http://www.copblock.org/33399/threatmanagementcenter/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 08:37 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... fucking satire
...

Did you mean that?

[Image: satyr%2Band%2Bgoat.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
02-09-2014, 08:58 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 08:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 08:37 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... fucking satire
...

Did you mean that?

[Image: satyr%2Band%2Bgoat.jpg]

I wish. That, at least, would be moving a step beyond masturbation and incorporating some audience participation.

No, I meant this:
(01-08-2014 05:55 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(01-08-2014 05:48 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is a conspiracy? Now that I think of it, I have never actually read a definition. I think it is a negative but meaningless buzzword.
But nope, German newspaper wrote about the pilot who did the shooting. Some earlier articles showed the bullet holes. But it is unknown who ordered the shooting.
https://tigr.net/2746/2014/07/28/ukraini...an-boeing/

You might want to check your source there pal.

[Image: 118a0ded86b02a2558e80b3886522d2d.png]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
02-09-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 02:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 05:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I do not stipulate to the reality of my own existence. You apparently do. ... You are no more a serious metaphysicist than my farts. Drinking Beverage

Actually, you do. By your own actions, posts and replies. If you imply that actions do not imply existence of anything, then you're being obtuse and a liar. Natural philosophers gave up this kind of dumb denial 400 years ago.

That is not an argument.

Nope. There could be an evil demon as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me. As a self-proclaimed metaphysicist I'm surprised you are either unaware of deus deceptor or dismiss it out of hand.

You ain't a philosopher, you're just a hack. Not an argument, just an observation.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-09-2014, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 05:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 03:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 02:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Actually, you do. By your own actions, posts and replies. If you imply that actions do not imply existence of anything, then you're being obtuse and a liar. Natural philosophers gave up this kind of dumb denial 400 years ago.

That is not an argument.

Nope. There could be an evil demon as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me. As a self-proclaimed metaphysicist I'm surprised you are either unaware of deus deceptor or dismiss it out of hand.

You ain't a philosopher, you're just a hack. Not an argument, just an observation.
Just out of curiosity, show me, how that is not an argument? Consider Might or might not be, but this is not a fucking checkbox quiz, you get no points if you don't say WHY or HOW.
Oog got new toy! Oog sez, no arghmt! No arghmt to all Lumey sez!

Ah, pulling Descartes on me? Man, do you want to say that you were taught about Descartes, but not the refutation to his evil demon hypothesis? Facepalm The Christian philosopher that taught the subject taught me refutation. And I have debated a lot with one Christian student of philosophy (who otherwise completely sucks at it) and who complained about Descartes a lot. Bad argument, man. I can look it up in my notes.

Descartes "solved" the problem of evil spirit by saying that
a) In the human mind there is an Inborn Idea of God, the idea of absolute perfection.
b) God is our creator.
c) If God is perfect, He could not equip us with imperfect senses. So there is no evil demon deceiving us, we would notice it.

Refutation:
It's a circular argument. Descartes declared the thinking as unreliable, but then he used this thinking to make up God, who will magically make thinking reliable. This is known as the problem of radical skepticism. If you doubt the objectivity of human thinking, it's a self-detonating argument, since you're using human thinking to formulate it. If human thinking wasn't reliable, then the idea of radical skepticism could not be reliable either.
The capacity for reliability and objectivity of human thinking is a principle, any arguments against it are self-detonating, because they require human thinking to create.
Does my overly sure, full of myself simplistic presuppositional dogmatism offend you? Laugh out load Or are you slowly, slightly, maybe, getting a hang of this finally? Any idiot can doubt everything, but a philosopher must know where too much Occam's razor would cut the red wire and detonate itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 05:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 04:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 03:55 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That is not an argument.
Just out of curiosity, show me, how that is not an argument?

Just having an antecedent and a consequent does not turn an unsupported, unsubstantiated claim into an argument. If Lumidiculous claims to be a philosopher then he is a delusional hack. ... Wait bad example, that claim is actually supported and substantiated. Still not an argument though.

(02-09-2014 04:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Does my overly sure, full of myself simplistic presuppositional dogmatism offend you? Laugh out load Or are you slowly, slightly, maybe, getting a hang of this finally?

Not at all. I find your juvenile pretentiousness quite endearing. "Awww. Look at the little fella trying to figure shit out all by himself with only a half a brain. What a trooper."

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-09-2014, 05:37 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 05:57 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 05:11 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Just having an antecedent and a consequent does not turn an unsupported, unsubstantiated claim into an argument. If Lumidiculous claims to be a philosopher then he is a delusional hack. ... Wait bad example, that claim is actually supported and substantiated. Still not an argument though.
You mix together two different concepts, validity and truth.
A sentence is a valid argument, for example if it's a syllogism, if it has the necessary structure (A is B because of C...). No doubt about that.
It may or may not be a good argument, but that is a different kind of question and must be actually addressed and dare I say, refuted. Which you didn't Rolleyes

(02-09-2014 05:11 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not at all. I find your juvenile pretentiousness quite endearing. "Awww. Look at the little fella trying to figure shit out all by himself with only a half a brain. What a trooper."
So, you have no arguments. You can't the difference between a non-argument, a bad argument and a good argument. And you couldn't test one for consistency to save your life. And yet you expect a free pass on all the insults.
This is awkward. Just like a few other people here, you failed the Turing test.

I don't have much philosophical hopes about Chas, about nobody here, actually. The very best result I'd expect to see here is when someone would honestly say something like... "I haven't seen this stuff in a long time, this might be something that you know and I don't and it's not like I shit my pants out of envy, boo hoo. If I ever get envious enough, I learn this stuff myself and kick your ass in your own game." Fair enough! That's right, you guys who failed the Turing test. I don't mind that you know or don't know something, I despise you for moral reasons of your dishonesty and insultfest. I have never started calling names anyone who didn't start first. People who do that are douchebags. Name calling is a deal breaker in any kind of relationship, including philosophical debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 06:13 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 05:31 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 04:19 PM)Luminon Wrote:  fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcmanaman/pages/first_principles.html

"Incidentally, this is why the will needs to be moved by an agent. The will is an immaterial power and as such, has no parts. But if an outside agent can move my will, then my act of the will is no longer mine, but the agent’s, which is contradictory. That is why no external finite agent can move the will of man. Only God, who is infinite, can move the will of man without determining it. Free-choice is precisely the ability to determine oneself. God moves the will of man towards the good in general, that is, the good without qualification. The will of man needs to be moved by God, because nothing moves itself from potency to actuality except by something already in act. Man cannot move his own will from the state of potentially willing to actually willing, for a thing cannot give to itself a perfection that it does not have."

Laugh out load

Oh, and the acronym "ycdsb" in the URL means "York Catholic District School Board."
As I know the people here, you see the G-word and that is enough evidence it's false. Fair enough, even though you have no arguments, just one smillie. So what if I replaced God with Big Bang, which is the causal source of all energy and therefore all human behavior? I think then it would pass under the radar of many people here. I could shred this paragraph to pieces even like that, but I doubt many people here would get the nuances.
Other than this footnote, I think the text is a good explanation of the first principles of thinking. At least the Catholics aren't nihilists, radical skeptics, relativists, consequentialists, post-modernists and other vermin. Catholics seem better debaters than most people here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 07:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you are claiming that the Law of the Excluded Middle is universal. You have not proved that.

The philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine argued that the rules of logic are revisable, much like the axioms of geometry.
Law of the Excluded Middle is the basic position. Occam's razor, two positions. In order to disprove that, you'd need to take up your burden of proof and find an additional concept of incomplete existence. And that concept would need to have 100 % existence or you couldn't use it at all. Hence it would be a self-detonating statement.
At best, an "incomplete existence" would be an empirical oddity in some freak accident of quantum world and even then it would be just a bad name that scientists gave to some phenomenon, which in itself fully exists.
How much of God do you disbelieve in, when you say there is no God?
Just think about it. Try o imagine a partial existence of something. The more I think about it, the more I realize how impossible it is. It's just our crappy natural language that allows to string these two words together.

I don't know what do you mean by revisable axioms of geometry, I'm not familiar with that process. Scientists can certainly find out a more efficient or precise way to calculate some shapes, but does such a change create two different concepts of a circle, for example?
I only know that logic is derived from universal properties of energy and matter, not from their instances like empiricism. There may be errors and imprecision in how the natural language tries to approximate the properties of matter and energy and that may certainly be subject to revision, but not matter or energy itself, that is always consistent.
Yes, people can make up whole worlds of new logic, but only thanks to consistent behavior of electricity in their brains and these worlds are only as substantial as the calories they put into thinking.

There is not just one geometry as there is not just one system of logic.
For starters, there are geometries as defined by changing Euclid's 5th axiom - The Parallel Postulate. Lobachevsky developed hyperbolic geometry by changing it one way, Riemann created elliptic geometry by changing it another.

There is tri-valued logic as developed by S.C. Kleene and others.
Do you really think everything is two-valued? Do you not understand that most things are on a continuum?

You don't see the extent of your ignorance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
02-09-2014, 06:37 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(02-09-2014 06:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-09-2014 07:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Law of the Excluded Middle is the basic position. Occam's razor, two positions. In order to disprove that, you'd need to take up your burden of proof and find an additional concept of incomplete existence. And that concept would need to have 100 % existence or you couldn't use it at all. Hence it would be a self-detonating statement.
At best, an "incomplete existence" would be an empirical oddity in some freak accident of quantum world and even then it would be just a bad name that scientists gave to some phenomenon, which in itself fully exists.
How much of God do you disbelieve in, when you say there is no God?
Just think about it. Try o imagine a partial existence of something. The more I think about it, the more I realize how impossible it is. It's just our crappy natural language that allows to string these two words together.

I don't know what do you mean by revisable axioms of geometry, I'm not familiar with that process. Scientists can certainly find out a more efficient or precise way to calculate some shapes, but does such a change create two different concepts of a circle, for example?
I only know that logic is derived from universal properties of energy and matter, not from their instances like empiricism. There may be errors and imprecision in how the natural language tries to approximate the properties of matter and energy and that may certainly be subject to revision, but not matter or energy itself, that is always consistent.
Yes, people can make up whole worlds of new logic, but only thanks to consistent behavior of electricity in their brains and these worlds are only as substantial as the calories they put into thinking.

There is not just one geometry as there is not just one system of logic.
For starters, there are geometries as defined by changing Euclid's 5th axiom - The Parallel Postulate. Lobachevsky developed hyperbolic geometry by changing it one way, Riemann created elliptic geometry by changing it another.

There is tri-valued logic as developed by S.C. Kleene and others.
Do you really think everything is two-valued? Do you not understand that most things are on a continuum?

You don't see the extent of your ignorance.

Put it another way: it's like saying, if you're not for us, you are against us. That is usually not true and is a false dilemma to manipulate the person who is not agreeing with a groups stance to join them. For example, your constant strawman of political stances to 'supporting violent statism' and support of anarchism as 'no-wing' is trying to pigeon-hole everyone you disagree with into this fantasy of yours, Luminon. The Law of Excluded Middle does not apply here.

Excluded middle does not apply to everything and is debated about in epistemology. It works for circuits with ones and zeros, true and false; but in reality as a whole, it's not clear cut. Something that is not provably true does not mean it is false. There isn't always two positions. Everything isn't just black or white. You get the picture. This is where we get the need for something to be falsifiable. A claim of a supernatural agent is not falsifiable -- it cannot be proven true but doesn't mean it's false either. Skeptics ask for evidence of such, otherwise, we remain skeptical of such an agent.

To sum up: your twisted reasoning presented as 'logical' by yourself is a farce for black-or-white thinking with no evidence behind it besides magical thinking.

Stop trying to pretend as if you know everything and everyone else who brings up valid points are wrong.

Or not. More entertainment for a lot of people if you keep showing your ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: