I will only really interact with people who intelligently disagree with me.
That's cool, but your definition of intelligently disagrees with you pretty much eliminates everyone who does disagree with you.... (because if they believe in a god or are christian you most likely consider them to be not as intelligent)
That's cool, but your definition of intelligently disagrees with you pretty much eliminates everyone who does disagree with you
Depends on the issue. The crew disagrees on many things, but does so rationally.
(because if they believe in a god or are christian you most likely consider them to be not as intelligent)
Not true. It is only when the sole rationale for their position is based in the supernatural that their argument becomes pointless.
Being christian and arguing from logic on a point: fine. Arguing from a point supported solely by supernatural belief: stupid. (Regardless of the person's beliefs).
Not true. It is only when the sole rationale for their position is based in the supernatural that their argument becomes pointless.
Being christian and arguing from logic on a point: fine. Arguing from a point supported solely by supernatural belief: stupid. (Regardless of the person's beliefs).
I would just note, do you have any christian friends? Did any of your friends Vote for McCain?
Depends on the issue. The crew disagrees on many things, but does so rationally.
We generally only disagree on taste topics. (or with Scott)
I'm just saying some of us live in more ivory towers then others. Some prefer that way other have more broad tastes. I like arguing with people and showing people where they are misinformed, you might not enjoy that as much or have the time to work on people in the long view.
Not sure why I am arguing this view to this level, because it's a matter of taste :-p
""We were wondering if you would petition to be emancipated," he said in his lawyer voice.
"What does that mean?" I asked, picking at the mauve paint on my hands. I later discovered that for most kids, declaring emancipation is an extreme measure -- something you do if your parents are crack addicts or deadbeats.
"You would need to become financially independent," he said. "You could work for me at my law firm and pay rent to live here."
This was my moment of truth as an objectivist. If I believed in the glory of the individual, I would've signed the petition papers then and there. But as much as Rand's novels had taught me to believe in meritocracy, they had not prepared me to go it alone financially and emotionally. I began to cry and refused.
Hardcore objectivists often criticize liberals for basing decisions on emotion, rather than reason. My father saw our family politics no differently. In his mind, it was reasonable to ask that I emancipate myself and work for a living. To me, it felt like he was asking me to sacrifice my childhood so he didn't have to pay child support. To me, it felt like abandonment."
This is why you don't raise a family on the teaching of Rand...
I would just note, do you have any christian friends? Did any of your friends Vote for McCain?
False dichotomy.
I note that someone in the crew was planning to vote for McCain. Intelligent rationale were presented from both positions. Said person ended up changing position after intelligent and rational debate.
We generally only disagree on taste topics. (or with Scott)
There is disagreement on the details of copyright reform, the death penalty, foreign policy, philosophy, and numerous other topics.
I like arguing with people and showing people where they are misinformed
I also enjoy this. But when someone is unconvinceable, I see no reason to continue interacting with them on that subject. If they're independently unable to keep up with other conversations, I see no reason to converse with them at all (unless they're honestly attempting to keep up and/or learn).
E.g., I will not entertain further discussion with someone who believes that sylphs are eating chemtrails seeded in the sky by a vast Illuminatus conspiracy to install a new world order and send us all to death camps. If you bring that shit up, you've got one chance to un-crazy before I ignore you.
But when someone is unconvinceable, I see no reason to continue interacting with them on that subject. If they're independently unable to keep up with other conversations, I see no reason to converse with them at all (unless they're honestly attempting to keep up and/or learn).
Why even invite someone to the party if everyone else has to be on eggshells for them?
My point exactly.
That is not what you said here though, you denoted that she did not want to talk about politics and had different views. However, she would be more then happy to talk about things other then politics. Therefore this point is not valid. :-p
I note that someone in the crew was planning to vote for McCain. Intelligent rationale were presented from both positions. Said person ended up changing position after intelligent and rational debate.
I don't think we even hung out with him in person yet at that time :-p
That is not what you said here though, you denoted that she did not want to talk about politics and had different views. However, she would be more then happy to talk about things other then politics. Therefore this point is not valid. :-p
We must be remembering a different event. This was way back, and the person in question would, to paraphrase, "freak out and cry" or "leave altogether" if politics came up.
We must be remembering a different event. This was way back, and the person in question would, to paraphrase, "freak out and cry" or "leave altogether" if politics came up.
I don't recall any body who would "Freak out and cry" but anyway. (that must have been during the Dawn years :-p)
Wait does anyone on the crew actually have a different opinion on the Death Penalty? I was pretty sure we all were on the Death Penalty sucks because the justice system is flawed or that the Death Penalty sucks because we shouldn't be putting people to death.
I was pretty sure we all were on the Death Penalty sucks because the justice system is flawed or that the Death Penalty sucks because we shouldn't be putting people to death.
There is differing opinion on whether there should be a death penalty at all regardless of flaws in the system. As in, even in a perfect justice system, do we still justify a death penalty?
There is differing opinion on whether there should be a death penalty at all regardless of flaws in the system. As in, even in a perfect justice system, do we still justify a death penalty?
Yea, but if we all agree on the pragmatic solution, I.E. there will never be a perfect justice system, so we both arrive to the conclusion that there should not be a death penalty... So for all purposes we agree on the end result. Not much of a argument there unless you just want to debate for fun.
Yea, but if we all agree on the pragmatic solution, I.E. there will never be a perfect justice system, so we both arrive to the conclusion that there should not be a death penalty... So for all purposes we agree on the end result. Not much of a argument there unless you just want to debate for fun.
But the debate for or against it can be made logically or illogically. And we could easily have a case where there is incontrovertible evidence that a person was guilty of a capital crime. In that specific case, is the death penalty OK?
If a person agrees with your on the end result but used different logic to get there, they may not be your ally. The guy who is morally opposed to the death penalty might find the guy opposed to it because of it's permanence turning around and going "Hells yeah torturing the prisoners!" and suddenly that association with them makes you look really bad. So it's important you know not only the other guy's positions, but how and why he got there.
But the debate for or against it can be made logically or illogically. And we could easily have a case where there is incontrovertible evidence that a person was guilty of a capital crime. In that specific case, is the death penalty OK?
Since free will is an illusion we should not kill people for things they can not control :-p
There is objectively no free will, but for society to function we have to act as though a degree of free will exists because we cannot make the choice to internalize the idea that free will does not exist because we don't have the free will to do so.
But the debate for or against it can be made logically or illogically. And we could easily have a case where there is incontrovertible evidence that a person was guilty of a capital crime. In that specific case, is the death penalty OK?
Seriously though, since I believe the justice system is flawed, I don't think you can ever be 100% sure that someone is 100% guilty of the crime in a way that would demand a death plenty.
We have no way to prove that currently, so you can't say it. Unless you want to prove it.
but for society to function we have to act as though a degree of free will exists because we cannot make the choice to internalize the idea that free will does not exist because we don't have the free will to do so.
Bullshit. If we don't have free will, then we don't have to do anything: we already did those things for all intents and purposes. Doing it or not doing it was never an option, and saying that perfect causality requires some action on our part is a direct contradiction.
If a person agrees with your on the end result but used different logic to get there, they may not be your ally.
You will never get anything done politically with that mindset. Just a note.
Sure, but not being aware of that as a simple fact will lead you to stupid alliances that makes everyone miserable. It's exactly how the republicans ended up the unholy alliance of religious fanatics and hardcore randroids.
We have no way to prove that currently, so you can't say it. Unless you want to prove it.
Sure? Our neurons exist in physical space. All things in physical space are bound by casuality. The only non-casual effect is the random nature of quantum mechanics. Therefore, your brain operates on a combination of casuality and randomness. Neither of which are free will.
Seriously though, since I believe the justice system is failed, I don't think you can ever be 100% sure that someone is 100% guilty of the crime in a way that would demand a death plenty.
Someone murders a few thousand children over the course of several years.
They videoed every death from multiple angles. They kept DNA samples of each, as well as the bodies themselves. They further held prisoners who had been forced to witness the murders. They further kept detailed records, and even performed autopsies, which matched those performed by forensic investigators after the fact.
The only possible way to argue that they didn't commit the murders is to invoke solipsism and claim that nothing can ever be proven.
Now what?
(Hint: the Nazis kept detailed records. We hung several of them).
Sure, but not being aware of that as a simple fact will lead you to stupid alliances that makes everyone miserable. It's exactly how the republicans ended up the unholy alliance of religious fanatics and hardcore randroids.
eh, I don't see that alliance the same way you do.. It's more the big business and religious fanatics. Libertarians are in a weird place usually in their own party,
Someone murders a few thousand children over the course of several years.
They videoed every death from multiple angles. They kept DNA samples of each, as well as the bodies themselves. They further held prisoners who had been forced to witness the murders. They further kept detailed records, and even performed autopsies, which matched those performed by forensic investigators after the fact.
The only possible way to argue that they didn't commit the murders is to invoke solipsism and claim that nothing can ever be proven.
Now what?
(Hint: the Nazis kept detailed records. We hung several of them).
It would be hard to not argue mental illness in this case...
Free will is the extraordinary claim. Bring me 1 gram of free will.
Objective lack of free well, as opposed to unevidenced lack of free will, is equally extraordinary.
Claiming there is no Christian god is an ordinary claim, as there is evidence against and no evidence for. Claiming there are objectively no gods of any sort whatsoever in all the universe is an extraordinary claim, as it implies gnosis. Claiming that no gods likely exist is an ordinary claim, as it is evidenced but can not be proven. It is true for all intents and purposes.
Or, my favourite argument, which part of your brain is your free will kept in? What happens if we take that bit out?
Ooh, I haven't used that one before. I'll add that to the repertoire.
It's only the objective claim I disagree with.
What about biochemical imbalances causing behavior changes? We have direct evidence that many behavioral patterns and decisions are the direct result of chemical changes in the brain, and we can produce very particular responses by changing these chemical levels.
Comments
Being christian and arguing from logic on a point: fine.
Arguing from a point supported solely by supernatural belief: stupid. (Regardless of the person's beliefs).
Did any of your friends Vote for McCain? We generally only disagree on taste topics. (or with Scott)
I'm just saying some of us live in more ivory towers then others. Some prefer that way other have more broad tastes. I like arguing with people and showing people where they are misinformed, you might not enjoy that as much or have the time to work on people in the long view.
Not sure why I am arguing this view to this level, because it's a matter of taste :-p
""We were wondering if you would petition to be emancipated," he said in his lawyer voice.
"What does that mean?" I asked, picking at the mauve paint on my hands. I later discovered that for most kids, declaring emancipation is an extreme measure -- something you do if your parents are crack addicts or deadbeats.
"You would need to become financially independent," he said. "You could work for me at my law firm and pay rent to live here."
This was my moment of truth as an objectivist. If I believed in the glory of the individual, I would've signed the petition papers then and there. But as much as Rand's novels had taught me to believe in meritocracy, they had not prepared me to go it alone financially and emotionally. I began to cry and refused.
Hardcore objectivists often criticize liberals for basing decisions on emotion, rather than reason. My father saw our family politics no differently. In his mind, it was reasonable to ask that I emancipate myself and work for a living. To me, it felt like he was asking me to sacrifice my childhood so he didn't have to pay child support. To me, it felt like abandonment."
This is why you don't raise a family on the teaching of Rand...
I note that someone in the crew was planning to vote for McCain. Intelligent rationale were presented from both positions. Said person ended up changing position after intelligent and rational debate. There is disagreement on the details of copyright reform, the death penalty, foreign policy, philosophy, and numerous other topics. I also enjoy this. But when someone is unconvinceable, I see no reason to continue interacting with them on that subject. If they're independently unable to keep up with other conversations, I see no reason to converse with them at all (unless they're honestly attempting to keep up and/or learn).
E.g., I will not entertain further discussion with someone who believes that sylphs are eating chemtrails seeded in the sky by a vast Illuminatus conspiracy to install a new world order and send us all to death camps. If you bring that shit up, you've got one chance to un-crazy before I ignore you.
Wait does anyone on the crew actually have a different opinion on the Death Penalty? I was pretty sure we all were on the Death Penalty sucks because the justice system is flawed or that the Death Penalty sucks because we shouldn't be putting people to death.
//I troll I troll.
They videoed every death from multiple angles. They kept DNA samples of each, as well as the bodies themselves. They further held prisoners who had been forced to witness the murders. They further kept detailed records, and even performed autopsies, which matched those performed by forensic investigators after the fact.
The only possible way to argue that they didn't commit the murders is to invoke solipsism and claim that nothing can ever be proven.
Now what?
(Hint: the Nazis kept detailed records. We hung several of them).
(Hint, the answer is a P-Zombie)
Claiming there is no Christian god is an ordinary claim, as there is evidence against and no evidence for.
Claiming there are objectively no gods of any sort whatsoever in all the universe is an extraordinary claim, as it implies gnosis.
Claiming that no gods likely exist is an ordinary claim, as it is evidenced but can not be proven. It is true for all intents and purposes.
It's only the objective claim I disagree with.