Topic: Is this a case of LGBT rights, or just liberal newspeak?
Anonymous A started this discussion 7 hours ago #134,039
https://x.com/PattyMurray/status/1316124710447599616A senator says that using preference here implies people had a choice in their sexuality.
Is the Senator correct? Or does the word preference just mean you have a preference, not not that you choose your preference?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 7 hours ago, 3 minutes later[^] [v] #1,428,078
For example, if I went to a buy a shirt, and the clerk asks if I prefer a red or green variety they aren't implying I choose what colors I liked, right?
How I got those preferences is one thing, not a choice but innate. I can choose to buy the one I prefer or not, but that's a seperate question.
How I got those preferences is one thing, not a choice but innate. I can choose to buy the one I prefer or not, but that's a seperate question.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,084
Honestly, I’ve thought about it, I was going to state my opinion on this, and then I realized that I don’t care.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 hours ago, 35 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,090
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 4 hours ago, 57 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,099
@previous (A)
> You might find you care a bit when they rename your home Airstrip 1.
I don’t want religious kooks dictating anything. LGBT+ have no impact on anyone’s life. Religious kooks are somehow fascinating with them.
> You might find you care a bit when they rename your home Airstrip 1.
I don’t want religious kooks dictating anything. LGBT+ have no impact on anyone’s life. Religious kooks are somehow fascinating with them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,101
@previous (C)
You clearly have no idea what this is about, because it's got nothing to do with views on LGBT or religion.
You thinking it is makes it clear you're having a kneejerk reaction. You say the term LGBT and figured it was about affirming or being against LGBT issues.
The actual topic is, what does preference mean. Does the way this word imply that people choose their preference?
Sometimes I think these politicians know what they are doing. Millions of people can't comprehend what they read, so they just see "LGBT" and immediately get mad thinking LGBT people are being told what to do, without ever really thinking through what's being discussed here.
You clearly have no idea what this is about, because it's got nothing to do with views on LGBT or religion.
You thinking it is makes it clear you're having a kneejerk reaction. You say the term LGBT and figured it was about affirming or being against LGBT issues.
The actual topic is, what does preference mean. Does the way this word imply that people choose their preference?
Sometimes I think these politicians know what they are doing. Millions of people can't comprehend what they read, so they just see "LGBT" and immediately get mad thinking LGBT people are being told what to do, without ever really thinking through what's being discussed here.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 12 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,102
Troons and troon enablers do suck tho.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 hours ago, 57 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,103
@previous (D)
Could you tell if someone was for or against trans and/or gay issues based on their use of this word?
That's the question.
Could you tell if someone was for or against trans and/or gay issues based on their use of this word?
That's the question.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,108
@1,428,084 (B)
> Honestly, I’ve thought about it, I was going to state my opinion on this, and then I realized that I don’t care.
FYI I’m Catholic and I don’t hate LGBTQ+ people. I just wrote that because I thought about it, almost formed an opinion, and then realized I don’t really care because arguing about terminology is boring.
> Honestly, I’ve thought about it, I was going to state my opinion on this, and then I realized that I don’t care.
FYI I’m Catholic and I don’t hate LGBTQ+ people. I just wrote that because I thought about it, almost formed an opinion, and then realized I don’t really care because arguing about terminology is boring.
Anonymous E double-posted this 2 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,109
Especially anything that comes from that cesspool known as X and formerly known as Twitter. People say the dumbest stuff on that website. Apparently a few years ago there was this dumb thing where people would say "female is offensive because it refers to animals and women aren’t animals" because somebody said that on twitter. Which is stupid because human are animals and women are female humans over the age of 18, girls aren’t women, if you want to say women or girls, you’re talking about females, it’s a word that has a meaning, it’s so dumb! I call men and boys male.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 2 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,110
I didn’t like Twitter before Musk bought it. You know what I think of it now? I think even less of it because I don’t like Elon either.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 2 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,111
I mean, the problem with Twitter now is right wing nuts thought the issue was that there were too many lefties on Twitter. That was never the problem. The problem is the only debate happening on that website is between stupid people arguing what words people can and can’t use and what words mean. The right’s take on it is equally as stupid with the "absolute free speech" oh you called Elon Musk Elmo? Account deleted.
If Twitter is the "town hall" of the internet, maybe we should check that town’s drinking water for lead poisoning because what is going on?
If Twitter is the "town hall" of the internet, maybe we should check that town’s drinking water for lead poisoning because what is going on?
Anonymous E quintuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,112
Then that’s ignoring the AI generated CSAM from Mr. "Please let me onto the island" Epstein reject Elon Musk’s mechahitler.
Anonymous E sextuple-posted this 2 hours ago, 43 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,113
So you know what? I don’t care about the sexuality thing, I just really hate Twitter.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,114
@1,428,108 (E)
Words and their meanings matter, and the Catholic church is notable in studying the exact meanings of words in scripture.
Lawyers are supposed to as well. Why does an organization of lawyers not understand the meanings of words, either?
Words and their meanings matter, and the Catholic church is notable in studying the exact meanings of words in scripture.
Lawyers are supposed to as well. Why does an organization of lawyers not understand the meanings of words, either?
Anonymous E replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,115
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,116
@1,428,109 (E)
> Especially anything that comes from that cesspool known as X and formerly known as Twitter.
Once again, you don't understand the source vs. the platform.
A senator, and an association of lawyers should be able to understand what words mean.
Where it was published is really not relevant to what is happening.
> People say the dumbest stuff on that website. Apparently a few years ago there was this dumb thing where people would say "female is offensive because it refers to animals and women aren’t animals" because somebody said that on twitter. Which is stupid because human are animals and women are female humans over the age of 18, girls aren’t women, if you want to say women or girls, you’re talking about females, it’s a word that has a meaning, it’s so dumb! I call men and boys male.
I agree, and itt sounds like you actually do think the meanings of words matter.
In the case I started with, and in this case, people are getting offended at something that wasn't really said and both are rooted in not understanding what words mean.
> Especially anything that comes from that cesspool known as X and formerly known as Twitter.
Once again, you don't understand the source vs. the platform.
A senator, and an association of lawyers should be able to understand what words mean.
Where it was published is really not relevant to what is happening.
> People say the dumbest stuff on that website. Apparently a few years ago there was this dumb thing where people would say "female is offensive because it refers to animals and women aren’t animals" because somebody said that on twitter. Which is stupid because human are animals and women are female humans over the age of 18, girls aren’t women, if you want to say women or girls, you’re talking about females, it’s a word that has a meaning, it’s so dumb! I call men and boys male.
I agree, and itt sounds like you actually do think the meanings of words matter.
In the case I started with, and in this case, people are getting offended at something that wasn't really said and both are rooted in not understanding what words mean.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,117
Tbh I’ve always found science and engineering to be more interesting than law or politics or rhetoric.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 hours ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,118
@1,428,115 (E)
That's fine if you aren't a lawyer, or planning on becoming one.
Actual lawyers should be able to understand the meanings of words, because their job is to know what laws say exactly.
When someone says "I don't care about your sexual preference" abd they think that means "I care about your sexual preference" all because they think acknowledging preferences is the same thing as stating preferences themselves are chosen, those people have failed at their specific skillset.
That's fine if you aren't a lawyer, or planning on becoming one.
Actual lawyers should be able to understand the meanings of words, because their job is to know what laws say exactly.
When someone says "I don't care about your sexual preference" abd they think that means "I care about your sexual preference" all because they think acknowledging preferences is the same thing as stating preferences themselves are chosen, those people have failed at their specific skillset.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,119
@previous (A)
But like who cares how someone describes something if we all know exactly what they mean?
But like who cares how someone describes something if we all know exactly what they mean?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,120
@1,428,117 (E)
If the National Women's Engineering Center didn't understand calculus or structural safety, we would have a problem too.
If the National Women's Engineering Center didn't understand calculus or structural safety, we would have a problem too.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 23 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,121
It just feels like a waste of time and effort to nitpick over stuff that doesn’t even affect anything.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,122
@1,428,119 (E)
The people who know the role of senators and lawyers in society.
You can't have a functional society when the upper chamber of the legislature, and the people involved in determining law and truth in courts are unable to understand the meanings of words.
The people who know the role of senators and lawyers in society.
You can't have a functional society when the upper chamber of the legislature, and the people involved in determining law and truth in courts are unable to understand the meanings of words.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 27 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,123
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,124
@1,428,121 (E)
Coverage of the Supreme Court in media, and by sitting senators impacts the most important parts of the government. People listen to them, and trust they know what they are talking about.
When they fail at their job, bigger problems occur downstream.
Maybe not in this specific case, but it's a sign of a bigger problem that isn't going away on its own.
Coverage of the Supreme Court in media, and by sitting senators impacts the most important parts of the government. People listen to them, and trust they know what they are talking about.
When they fail at their job, bigger problems occur downstream.
Maybe not in this specific case, but it's a sign of a bigger problem that isn't going away on its own.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 35 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,125
The reason why a legislature exists is to give citizens representation in government by proxy. It’s too hard to do direct democracy in a country with a large population so we elect representatives instead. But we only do it that way because it makes people feel better when they feel like they have control over their government. But you can create a functional society where the people have no control over the government at all, and you can have a functional government where there is no free and open debate.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 28 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,126
Now I don’t want that government. But I’m just saying, we don’t explicitly need these people.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,127
@1,428,123 (E)
Yet we have a congress, and they will be determining the rules that our society operates on for the foreseable future.
Maybe the reason congress has a low approval rating, and our country is failing in so many aspects is that the people who are supposed to understand words to create good laws are incapable of understanding words.
Yet we have a congress, and they will be determining the rules that our society operates on for the foreseable future.
Maybe the reason congress has a low approval rating, and our country is failing in so many aspects is that the people who are supposed to understand words to create good laws are incapable of understanding words.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 24 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,128
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,129
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 47 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,130
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 32 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,131
@1,428,129 (E)
They have a low approval rating because the citizens don't think think congress is solving the problems of the country, and because of ethical differences.
Both of those are directly impacted by congress' ability to understand words.
They have a low approval rating because the citizens don't think think congress is solving the problems of the country, and because of ethical differences.
Both of those are directly impacted by congress' ability to understand words.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 59 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,132
@previous (A)
Well that’s because the system could have been designed to be more efficient and more democratic.
Well that’s because the system could have been designed to be more efficient and more democratic.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 26 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,133
@1,428,130 (E)
That's really not the point. The rules we have from before, and the rules they make in the future, are impacted by their ability to understand words.
A temporary pause doesn't change that. The reason we have an impasse is because of failed neogtiations, and negotiations are impacted by both parties ability to understand words.
That's really not the point. The rules we have from before, and the rules they make in the future, are impacted by their ability to understand words.
A temporary pause doesn't change that. The reason we have an impasse is because of failed neogtiations, and negotiations are impacted by both parties ability to understand words.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,134
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 19 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,135
@1,428,133 (A)
No they’re not affected by both parties ability to understand words. Negotiations are affected by the fact that the United States government was designed to have a first past the post system that discourages the formation of a true multi-party democracy with legislative coalitions.
No they’re not affected by both parties ability to understand words. Negotiations are affected by the fact that the United States government was designed to have a first past the post system that discourages the formation of a true multi-party democracy with legislative coalitions.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,136
@previous (E)
First past the post is a concept that applies to a single race, not to the negotiations between parties.
First past the post is a concept that applies to a single race, not to the negotiations between parties.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,137
@previous (A)
Well some other counties have legislatures with more than two parties. How does that happen?
Well some other counties have legislatures with more than two parties. How does that happen?
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,138
Duverger's law: first past the post voting tends to produce two party systems.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,139
@1,428,137 (E)
Some countries give seats to parties that get a certain number of voters, regardless of whether those voters are concentrated in a single area.
That gives you a multi party system, but it doesn't change the fact that parties and coalitions will end up in negotiations.
Those negotiations will depend on MPs understanding words.
Some countries give seats to parties that get a certain number of voters, regardless of whether those voters are concentrated in a single area.
That gives you a multi party system, but it doesn't change the fact that parties and coalitions will end up in negotiations.
Those negotiations will depend on MPs understanding words.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,140
@1,428,138 (E)
Yes, and the formation of a two party system or a multi party system is different than how the parties (in either system) negotiate.
Yes, and the formation of a two party system or a multi party system is different than how the parties (in either system) negotiate.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,141
@1,428,139 (A)
I feel like you’re just inserting "depends on understanding words" into comments your writing that are unrelated to that because you’re being petty about it for some reason. But it’s pretty obvious a two party system will be more divisive than a true multi party system and a more decisive political system will obviously tend to have more gridlock.
I feel like you’re just inserting "depends on understanding words" into comments your writing that are unrelated to that because you’re being petty about it for some reason. But it’s pretty obvious a two party system will be more divisive than a true multi party system and a more decisive political system will obviously tend to have more gridlock.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 53 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,142
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,143
@1,428,141 (E)
> I feel like you’re just inserting "depends on understanding words" into comments your writing that are unrelated to that because you’re being petty about it for some reason.
I'm inserting it because you will go off on tangents that aren't related to the topic of the thread.
The central question here is whether it matters when lawmakers know the meanings of words.
> But it’s pretty obvious a two party system will be more divisive than a true multi party system and a more decisive political system will obviously tend to have more gridlock.
Multi party systems tend to form into a governing, and opposition coalition.
I'm not against a multiparty system, but you still have negotiations on how to form coalitions.
> I feel like you’re just inserting "depends on understanding words" into comments your writing that are unrelated to that because you’re being petty about it for some reason.
I'm inserting it because you will go off on tangents that aren't related to the topic of the thread.
The central question here is whether it matters when lawmakers know the meanings of words.
> But it’s pretty obvious a two party system will be more divisive than a true multi party system and a more decisive political system will obviously tend to have more gridlock.
Multi party systems tend to form into a governing, and opposition coalition.
I'm not against a multiparty system, but you still have negotiations on how to form coalitions.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,144
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,145
@1,428,142 (E)
> My point is that negotiations are unimportant.
Negotiations are how coalitions are formed.
> The system is more important than the result of debates because debate is essentially a competition to see who’s better at lying.
This viewpoint is the central corrupting factor in modern political leftism.
People need a way of determining truth, and without dialectics (which leftists perjoratively call debate) how are you going to do that? Just on feelings? Genuine question by the way.
> My point is that negotiations are unimportant.
Negotiations are how coalitions are formed.
> The system is more important than the result of debates because debate is essentially a competition to see who’s better at lying.
This viewpoint is the central corrupting factor in modern political leftism.
People need a way of determining truth, and without dialectics (which leftists perjoratively call debate) how are you going to do that? Just on feelings? Genuine question by the way.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,146
@1,428,144 (E)
Great, and I'd be in favor of that, but it's really not related to the topic.
Multiparty systems still have negotiations, that's how they decide who they will form a government or opposition with.
Great, and I'd be in favor of that, but it's really not related to the topic.
Multiparty systems still have negotiations, that's how they decide who they will form a government or opposition with.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 20 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,147
@1,428,145 (A)
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing politics, debate isn’t a valid way to find truth.
It has nothing to do with left wing or right wing politics, debate isn’t a valid way to find truth.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,148
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,149
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 38 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,150
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,151
Fundamentally, I deeply disagree with the idea that debate is a valid way of discovering truth.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,152
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 14 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,153
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,154
Anonymous E triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 35 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,155
You have to make assumptions about the way the world works, and then try to disprove those assumptions.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 15 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,156
@1,428,153 (E)
Yes, but in the meantime I can use evidence and reason to get as close to the truth as I can.
@1,428,154 (E)
The scientific method uses rationalist ideas, do you deny that?
Yes, but in the meantime I can use evidence and reason to get as close to the truth as I can.
@1,428,154 (E)
The scientific method uses rationalist ideas, do you deny that?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 16 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,157
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,158
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 20 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,159
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 21 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,160
Rationalism is dumb. You can’t know everything without observing anything.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 33 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,161
@previous (E)
I never argued for a purely rationalist framework.
I combine rationalism with empiricism, like Kant.
I never argued for a purely rationalist framework.
I combine rationalism with empiricism, like Kant.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,162
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,163
@previous (E)
The point in using both is that you can't get away from rationalism if you embrace empiricism.
The point in using both is that you can't get away from rationalism if you embrace empiricism.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,164
I guess my issue with you is when you speak you try to portray it like you’re being objective and you just want to know the truth, when it really feels more like you’re a fanatical ideologue that doesn’t listen to reason and ignores facts whenever it suits you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,165
@previous (E)
If that's the case then you should give a specific case where I've done that. After you show where I do it, I will either refute it or prove you right by changing the subject.
If that's the case then you should give a specific case where I've done that. After you show where I do it, I will either refute it or prove you right by changing the subject.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 second later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,166
Then on top of that you’re incredibly arrogant…
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,167
@1,428,165 (A)
You always change the subject and accuse me of changing the subject. I don’t see what the point of doing that is because I don’t need to prove to you how you are to yourself. I’m just telling you how you are as I see you, and you can believe me or not believe me, but I’m not interested in convincing you.
You always change the subject and accuse me of changing the subject. I don’t see what the point of doing that is because I don’t need to prove to you how you are to yourself. I’m just telling you how you are as I see you, and you can believe me or not believe me, but I’m not interested in convincing you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,168
@1,428,166 (E)
Arrogant people will state they are correct without trying to show they are correct.
An empiricist like you should have a clear test of when someone is being arrogant in a discussion, right?
@previous (E)
> You always change the subject and accuse me of changing the subject.
Notice here that you aren't giving a clear example of when I have done this.
In fact, you stated yourself earlier that I kept repeating the line about how what you said didn't relate to the meaning of words. Clearly I make an effort to keep things relevant to the topic.
> I don’t see what the point of doing that is because I don’t need to prove to you how you are to yourself.
Not to me, but anyone can open one of our threads and see that when you fail to make your case you start making many vague accusations of me without giving clear and specific examples of when I've done them.
> I’m just telling you how you are as I see you, and you can believe me or not believe me, but I’m not interested in convincing you.
Then we both agree, you aren't trying to defend your stance here.
I have, each time. I've not ignored one point you made, I've addressed each one until you do what you always do and derail the conversation and stop altogether.
Arrogant people will state they are correct without trying to show they are correct.
An empiricist like you should have a clear test of when someone is being arrogant in a discussion, right?
@previous (E)
> You always change the subject and accuse me of changing the subject.
Notice here that you aren't giving a clear example of when I have done this.
In fact, you stated yourself earlier that I kept repeating the line about how what you said didn't relate to the meaning of words. Clearly I make an effort to keep things relevant to the topic.
> I don’t see what the point of doing that is because I don’t need to prove to you how you are to yourself.
Not to me, but anyone can open one of our threads and see that when you fail to make your case you start making many vague accusations of me without giving clear and specific examples of when I've done them.
> I’m just telling you how you are as I see you, and you can believe me or not believe me, but I’m not interested in convincing you.
Then we both agree, you aren't trying to defend your stance here.
I have, each time. I've not ignored one point you made, I've addressed each one until you do what you always do and derail the conversation and stop altogether.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 8 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,169
One thing I will say is whenever we’ve argued about anything I never felt less sure about what I believed before I talked with you after I talked with you. This is because I never felt like you actually responded to any of my arguments and instead you always spent the entire time trying to insult me by acting like I don’t understand what words mean or acting like I don’t understand what an argument is, while you just made assertions about things with no evidence and explanations that showed you had no clue what you were talking about.
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 31 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,170
Anonymous E triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,171
Also lying about going to Oxford by saying you studied "race science" (a subject that doesn’t exist) at a school at Oxford that doesn’t exist was pretty funny.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,172
@1,428,169 (E)
Once again, a paragraph of insults, and no actual refutation of anything I've said.
Why is it always vague insults, but you never show where I made an error to really drive home the point?
Once again, a paragraph of insults, and no actual refutation of anything I've said.
Why is it always vague insults, but you never show where I made an error to really drive home the point?
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 24 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,173
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 11 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,174
@1,428,170 (E)
It's an anonymous forum, and I am more objective than you.
I'd try to respond honestly.
It's an anonymous forum, and I am more objective than you.
I'd try to respond honestly.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 1 hour ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,175
@1,428,173 (E)
You care a lot, and write many paragraphs about every subject we talk about, until everything has been refuted and you cannot refute my own points.
You care a lot, and write many paragraphs about every subject we talk about, until everything has been refuted and you cannot refute my own points.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 50 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,176
@1,428,174 (A)
Saying you’re more objective than me isn’t very smart. Everyone thinks they’re the most objective person because everyone agrees with themself 100% of the time. That’s such a dumb thing to say lol
Saying you’re more objective than me isn’t very smart. Everyone thinks they’re the most objective person because everyone agrees with themself 100% of the time. That’s such a dumb thing to say lol
Anonymous E double-posted this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,177
@1,428,175 (A)
Whether or not I can or feel like refuting every single objection you can muster up has absolutely nothing to do with whether I’m correct or incorrect. I’m not incorrect, so I don’t particularly care about most of your objections because I find them to be rather silly.
Whether or not I can or feel like refuting every single objection you can muster up has absolutely nothing to do with whether I’m correct or incorrect. I’m not incorrect, so I don’t particularly care about most of your objections because I find them to be rather silly.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 49 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,178
You can obviously keep saying "what about" to anything anyone says forever, it doesn’t prove anything. It just shows you’re stubborn.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,179
I mean, hypothetically even if you didn’t have your own personal feelings, calling yourself "more objective" than other people is silly because you’re not God, you’re a human. You don’t know, can’t know, will never know everything. And you’re imperfect, you make mistakes. You say things that are false, whether you know you’re doing it or not. To say otherwise is a lie.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,180
@1,428,176 (E)
> Saying you’re more objective than me isn’t very smart.
I'm trying to be truthful first and foremost.
I have a lot of respect for people I meet that value that, whether they are quickwitted or slow.
> Everyone thinks they’re the most objective person
I completely disagree, I meet a lot of people that will say they believe everything is subjective, or an opinion or their truth instead of the truth.
Postmodern epistemology is popular now, and people will virtue signal as you are now that they don't believe in objective reasoning.
> because everyone agrees with themself 100% of the time. That’s such a dumb thing to say lol
When someone says they value objectivity they usually mean they adhere to a process with specific rules that gets them to a more objective view of the world.
You clearly don't hold that view, you constantly espouse a subjective epistemology, and that's the reason I say I'm more objective.
It's easy to be more objective than someone who doesn't believe in rationalism or the dialectical process. After all, how else would they discerne between truth and fiction after they have used empirical methods to simply collect data? People using the same data often disagree.
> Saying you’re more objective than me isn’t very smart.
I'm trying to be truthful first and foremost.
I have a lot of respect for people I meet that value that, whether they are quickwitted or slow.
> Everyone thinks they’re the most objective person
I completely disagree, I meet a lot of people that will say they believe everything is subjective, or an opinion or their truth instead of the truth.
Postmodern epistemology is popular now, and people will virtue signal as you are now that they don't believe in objective reasoning.
> because everyone agrees with themself 100% of the time. That’s such a dumb thing to say lol
When someone says they value objectivity they usually mean they adhere to a process with specific rules that gets them to a more objective view of the world.
You clearly don't hold that view, you constantly espouse a subjective epistemology, and that's the reason I say I'm more objective.
It's easy to be more objective than someone who doesn't believe in rationalism or the dialectical process. After all, how else would they discerne between truth and fiction after they have used empirical methods to simply collect data? People using the same data often disagree.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,181
@previous (A)
A lot of people are trying to be a lot of things. Trying to be truthful doesn’t mean you are. You’re being arrogant by pretending to be objective when you aren’t and can’t be.
A lot of people are trying to be a lot of things. Trying to be truthful doesn’t mean you are. You’re being arrogant by pretending to be objective when you aren’t and can’t be.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 55 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,182
@1,428,177 (E)
You are unable, or you would. After all you still write multiple posts in a row after you reach a dead end in one of the specific threads that underlies the main proposition.
You are unable, or you would. After all you still write multiple posts in a row after you reach a dead end in one of the specific threads that underlies the main proposition.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,183
And why do you value truth? Why should we hold things that are true over things that are false rather than the other way around? Do you know why?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 hour ago, 46 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,184
@1,428,178 (E)
No, I don't say what about, I refute the central point.
Whataboutism is a red herring technique to avoid refutation.
No, I don't say what about, I refute the central point.
Whataboutism is a red herring technique to avoid refutation.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 hour ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,185
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 59 minutes ago, 42 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,186
@1,428,179 (E)
I'm not claiming to have actual perfect objectivity, I'm stating there are ways of analyzing data and arguments to get closer to the truth.
Subjective epistemology serves two purposes: avoiding hard cognitive work, and avoiding conflict in a world where people disagree.
I'm not claiming to have actual perfect objectivity, I'm stating there are ways of analyzing data and arguments to get closer to the truth.
Subjective epistemology serves two purposes: avoiding hard cognitive work, and avoiding conflict in a world where people disagree.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 58 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,187
@1,428,181 (E)
Trying to be truthful, as in following known processes that work, is always going to be superior to giving up and insulting the person who is doing that work.
Trying to be truthful, as in following known processes that work, is always going to be superior to giving up and insulting the person who is doing that work.
Anonymous E replied with this 57 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,188
I’m just waiting for you to say something that’s not completely self serving and arrogant.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 56 minutes ago, 44 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,189
@1,428,183 (E)
> And why do you value truth?
Valuing truth matters because it underlies morality, survival, productivity, and many other important goals.
Really any goal that people have, it usually depends upon knowing the truth as well as possible.
> Why should we hold things that are true over things that are false rather than the other way around? Do you know why?
Yes, because if you have an incorrect model of the world you will be set back in achieving all the other goals you have.
> And why do you value truth?
Valuing truth matters because it underlies morality, survival, productivity, and many other important goals.
Really any goal that people have, it usually depends upon knowing the truth as well as possible.
> Why should we hold things that are true over things that are false rather than the other way around? Do you know why?
Yes, because if you have an incorrect model of the world you will be set back in achieving all the other goals you have.
Anonymous E replied with this 55 minutes ago, 29 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,190
Just because you say you’re telling the truth doesn’t mean you are. I feel like you lack empathy to the point where you don’t understand that everyone thinks that they’re correct about everything they believe.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 55 minutes ago, 2 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,191
Anonymous E replied with this 55 minutes ago, 41 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,192
@1,428,189 (A)
> Valuing truth matters because it underlies morality, survival, productivity, and many other important goals.
You will die either way.
> Valuing truth matters because it underlies morality, survival, productivity, and many other important goals.
You will die either way.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 54 minutes ago, 36 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,193
Anonymous E replied with this 54 minutes ago, 19 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,194
Do you understand my perspective? Can you actually describe what I believe?
Anonymous E double-posted this 52 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,195
@1,428,193 (A)
> None of this is self-serving, I don't gain anything by it, I'm an anon.
Maybe you’re so shallow that you can’t understand how shallow everything you say is.
> None of this is self-serving, I don't gain anything by it, I'm an anon.
Maybe you’re so shallow that you can’t understand how shallow everything you say is.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 51 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,196
How do you not notice that you only ever say bad things about other people and good things about yourself? It even extends to groups of people. You say negative things about groups of people you don’t belong to: women, black people, Muslims. But you say good things about groups you do belong to: men and white people. But you claim to be objective. But you’re not objective, you’re just a self obsessed narcissist and it’s so obvious.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 49 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,197
@1,428,190 (E)
> Just because you say you’re telling the truth doesn’t mean you are.
That wasn't my claim.
My claim was that following a specific process you can get closer to the truth.
Rather than respond to what I claim, you are acting like I am simply expecting any reader to take it on faith because I said it. The only person doing that is you, because you've said you were right but that you don't want to bother refuting me.
> I feel like you lack empathy to the point where you don’t understand that everyone thinks that they’re correct about everything they believe.
I know that everyone believes what they believe, and I specifically said why there a differences. You choose to ignore what I said about the process.
Even after having it explain multiple times, in multiple threads, you act like you don't know what I'm stating which would certainly be a case where you don't have empathy.
Could you explain what my position here is? Specifically on how I distinguish people who tey for objectivity vs those who don't? I doubt it, you would simply act like I have confidence in my position, which while true, is beside the point I am making.
> Just because you say you’re telling the truth doesn’t mean you are.
That wasn't my claim.
My claim was that following a specific process you can get closer to the truth.
Rather than respond to what I claim, you are acting like I am simply expecting any reader to take it on faith because I said it. The only person doing that is you, because you've said you were right but that you don't want to bother refuting me.
> I feel like you lack empathy to the point where you don’t understand that everyone thinks that they’re correct about everything they believe.
I know that everyone believes what they believe, and I specifically said why there a differences. You choose to ignore what I said about the process.
Even after having it explain multiple times, in multiple threads, you act like you don't know what I'm stating which would certainly be a case where you don't have empathy.
Could you explain what my position here is? Specifically on how I distinguish people who tey for objectivity vs those who don't? I doubt it, you would simply act like I have confidence in my position, which while true, is beside the point I am making.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 47 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,198
@1,428,194 (E)
> Do you understand my perspective? Can you actually describe what I believe?
You keep saying that everyone thinks they are right, and that there is no distinction. That would just make me more confident, but not more correct.
Tell me if I missed anything.
And also, explain what my position is.
> Do you understand my perspective? Can you actually describe what I believe?
You keep saying that everyone thinks they are right, and that there is no distinction. That would just make me more confident, but not more correct.
Tell me if I missed anything.
And also, explain what my position is.
Anonymous E replied with this 47 minutes ago, 42 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,199
@1,428,197 (A)
It blows my mind how you completely missed the point of something so simple. My point is that you’re claiming to be rational and objective, but the only reason why you think you’re more objective than me, is because you agree with 100% of your opinions because everyone agrees with 100% of their own opinions, including me. I think I’m more rational and objective than you, everybody in the entire world thinks they’re more rational and objective than everybody else. So you saying that you’re more objective than me means absolutely nothing. And the fact that you said it was out of nothing more than self serving narcissism.
It blows my mind how you completely missed the point of something so simple. My point is that you’re claiming to be rational and objective, but the only reason why you think you’re more objective than me, is because you agree with 100% of your opinions because everyone agrees with 100% of their own opinions, including me. I think I’m more rational and objective than you, everybody in the entire world thinks they’re more rational and objective than everybody else. So you saying that you’re more objective than me means absolutely nothing. And the fact that you said it was out of nothing more than self serving narcissism.
Anonymous E double-posted this 46 minutes ago, 51 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,200
@1,428,198 (A)
You don’t have a position other than you’re right and everyone else is wrong because you’re you and everybody else isn’t you, and you like you more than everybody else because you are you. And that’s the end of it.
You don’t have a position other than you’re right and everyone else is wrong because you’re you and everybody else isn’t you, and you like you more than everybody else because you are you. And that’s the end of it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 45 minutes ago, 52 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,201
@previous (E)
> You don’t have a position other than you’re right and everyone else is wrong because you’re you and everybody else isn’t you
So you can't explain my position, but I can explain yours.
> You don’t have a position other than you’re right and everyone else is wrong because you’re you and everybody else isn’t you
So you can't explain my position, but I can explain yours.
Anonymous E replied with this 44 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,202
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 42 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,203
@1,428,199 (E)
That is what I said your position was.
You are saying that people agree with themselves, and so it's meaningless to assert my own correctness.
What part did I miss?
You completely refused to state what my position was, which really drives home the point about empathy.
My position was never that I'm right because I said it, I've said multiple times my position is that there are processes people can go through to get closer to the truth and you failed to even say that.
That is what I said your position was.
You are saying that people agree with themselves, and so it's meaningless to assert my own correctness.
What part did I miss?
You completely refused to state what my position was, which really drives home the point about empathy.
My position was never that I'm right because I said it, I've said multiple times my position is that there are processes people can go through to get closer to the truth and you failed to even say that.
Anonymous E replied with this 41 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,204
@previous (A)
If your position isn’t that you’re correct, then is your position that you’re wrong? And if your position isn’t that you’re wrong, how can I be wrong that your position is that you’re correct?
If your position isn’t that you’re correct, then is your position that you’re wrong? And if your position isn’t that you’re wrong, how can I be wrong that your position is that you’re correct?
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 40 minutes ago, 31 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,205
@1,428,202 (E)
No one thinks they are wrong, you said that, and I agreed.
I was able to explain your position, and you didn't show what I left out.
But then you refused to state what my position was and said I didn't have one.
Do you really not understand what it means when one side can explain their own position, and the other sides— but one side only knows their own position, and claims the other side doesn't have a position despite being told many times?
This really is about empathy.
No one thinks they are wrong, you said that, and I agreed.
I was able to explain your position, and you didn't show what I left out.
But then you refused to state what my position was and said I didn't have one.
Do you really not understand what it means when one side can explain their own position, and the other sides— but one side only knows their own position, and claims the other side doesn't have a position despite being told many times?
This really is about empathy.
Anonymous E replied with this 38 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,206
@previous (A)
If your position isn’t that you’re correct, then your position must be that you’re incorrect, so I can discount everything you just said.
If your position isn’t that you’re correct, then your position must be that you’re incorrect, so I can discount everything you just said.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 38 minutes ago, 23 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,207
@1,428,204 (E)
My position is that even though everyone thinks they are correct, some people have followed a process that leads to more objective answers and others don't.
One person states their feelings, and ends it there.
Another follows a dialectical process, revising and looking for errors, to become more objective.
You didn't say "dialectics" or "rationalist process" you said I didn't have a position, and you still seem completely unaware of my position deapite being told so many times.
My position is that even though everyone thinks they are correct, some people have followed a process that leads to more objective answers and others don't.
One person states their feelings, and ends it there.
Another follows a dialectical process, revising and looking for errors, to become more objective.
You didn't say "dialectics" or "rationalist process" you said I didn't have a position, and you still seem completely unaware of my position deapite being told so many times.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 37 minutes ago, 39 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,208
@1,428,206 (E)
My position is that we have to distinguish between why people think they are correct, since everyone thinks they are correct.
My position is that we have to distinguish between why people think they are correct, since everyone thinks they are correct.
Anonymous E replied with this 37 minutes ago, 39 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,209
@1,428,207 (A)
I said you don’t have a position because you don’t have a position. You just feel like everything you say is correct because you said it and you came to that conclusion through the process that you feel like is the best process instead of the process that I feel like is the best process. You’re completely shallow.
I said you don’t have a position because you don’t have a position. You just feel like everything you say is correct because you said it and you came to that conclusion through the process that you feel like is the best process instead of the process that I feel like is the best process. You’re completely shallow.
Anonymous E double-posted this 34 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,210
Your entire way of thinking essentially is just vibes. You just go with what vibes with you, the process that vibes with you, the conclusion that vibes with you, and you don’t listen to other people because other people aren’t you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 32 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,211
@1,428,209 (E)
> You just feel like everything you say is correct because you said it and you came to that conclusion through the process that you feel like is the best process instead of the process that I feel like is the best process.
We went over this. I asked what your process was, and you said the scientific method.
You didn't seem aware it was built on rationalism, and I told you that I believed in the combination of rationalism and empiricism like Kant.
Then you didn't know how to respond so you started making a lot of vague insults instead. You also kept saying I didn't have a position and that it was no different than anyone else who believed what they believed, even though I said a dozen times what the distinction was. Of course you couldn't respond to that, because then and now you have no way to refute the distinction I made.
> You just feel like everything you say is correct because you said it and you came to that conclusion through the process that you feel like is the best process instead of the process that I feel like is the best process.
We went over this. I asked what your process was, and you said the scientific method.
You didn't seem aware it was built on rationalism, and I told you that I believed in the combination of rationalism and empiricism like Kant.
Then you didn't know how to respond so you started making a lot of vague insults instead. You also kept saying I didn't have a position and that it was no different than anyone else who believed what they believed, even though I said a dozen times what the distinction was. Of course you couldn't respond to that, because then and now you have no way to refute the distinction I made.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 31 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,212
@1,428,210 (E)
> Your entire way of thinking essentially is just vibes. You just go with what vibes with you, the process that vibes with you, the conclusion that vibes with you, and you don’t listen to other people because other people aren’t you.
Dialectics and concrete rules in rationalism isn't vibes at all.
They are very rigid ways of getting to the truth.
> Your entire way of thinking essentially is just vibes. You just go with what vibes with you, the process that vibes with you, the conclusion that vibes with you, and you don’t listen to other people because other people aren’t you.
Dialectics and concrete rules in rationalism isn't vibes at all.
They are very rigid ways of getting to the truth.
Anonymous E replied with this 30 minutes ago, 53 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,214
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 29 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,215
Anonymous E replied with this 28 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,216
The problem with logic is this, I’ll use an example.
This is the example: the negation of true is false, why is this the case?
This is the example: the negation of true is false, why is this the case?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 26 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,217
@previous (E)
That's a semantic case, it's true by definition.
You are simply clarifying terms by saying it, why?
That's a semantic case, it's true by definition.
You are simply clarifying terms by saying it, why?
Anonymous E replied with this 26 minutes ago, 49 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,218
You know that the negation of true is false, it’s obvious. What underlies that? What is the reason why the opposite of true is false? You know it’s always true. How do you know that it’s really true in every possible situation that the negation of true is false?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 24 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,219
Anonymous E replied with this 23 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,220
@previous (A)
That wasn’t really an answer. The word "negation" has a definition, but negation is something that exists. Why is the negation of true false?
That wasn’t really an answer. The word "negation" has a definition, but negation is something that exists. Why is the negation of true false?
Anonymous E double-posted this 22 minutes ago, 28 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,221
The word describes a thing, I’m not asking about the word I’m asking about the thing.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 20 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,222
@1,428,220 (E)
@previous (E)
It's not a thing, it has no physical existence.
False is the negation of true because we have defined the words that way.
@previous (E)
It's not a thing, it has no physical existence.
False is the negation of true because we have defined the words that way.
Anonymous E replied with this 20 minutes ago, 12 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,223
The point is that you can’t come up with any explanation other than "it’s true by definition" because logic and mathematics are both based on axioms that we accept to be true without evidence because they are self evident.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 20 minutes ago, 27 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,224
@1,428,222 (A)
If it has any other existence outside language, then explain what that is. I am sure you cannot, and will simply state that something else exists.
If it has any other existence outside language, then explain what that is. I am sure you cannot, and will simply state that something else exists.
Anonymous E replied with this 19 minutes ago, 35 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,225
@previous (A)
If it has no existence outside of language, then there is no truth in reality, it’s nothing more than an abstract concept.
If it has no existence outside of language, then there is no truth in reality, it’s nothing more than an abstract concept.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 19 minutes ago, 2 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,226
@1,428,223 (E)
Calling it an axiom is fine. But it's an axiom in a formal system, and axioms in formal systems are definitions.
Calling it an axiom is fine. But it's an axiom in a formal system, and axioms in formal systems are definitions.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 18 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,227
@1,428,225 (E)
I disagree, truth is when an idea maps correctly to reality. False is simply defined as the opposite, when an idea does not map correctly to reality. Negation is a word created to communicate the relation between those words.
I disagree, truth is when an idea maps correctly to reality. False is simply defined as the opposite, when an idea does not map correctly to reality. Negation is a word created to communicate the relation between those words.
Anonymous E replied with this 18 minutes ago, 11 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,228
@1,428,226 (A)
The point is that axioms are true, but you can’t explain why they’re true and that’s what makes them axioms.
The point is that axioms are true, but you can’t explain why they’re true and that’s what makes them axioms.
Anonymous E double-posted this 17 minutes ago, 57 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,229
@1,428,227 (A)
Does "mapping correctly to reality" physically exist or is that another abstract concept?
Does "mapping correctly to reality" physically exist or is that another abstract concept?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,230
@1,428,228 (E)
You can demonstrate they are true by testing the conclusions made with them.
@previous (E)
Yes, in the same way software physically exists and can map to reality.
Does your robot car move through the maze and get to the finish point? Or not?
Electrons are physical, the maze is physical, the position of the robot is physical.
The same goes for a brain and a human.
You can demonstrate they are true by testing the conclusions made with them.
@previous (E)
Yes, in the same way software physically exists and can map to reality.
Does your robot car move through the maze and get to the finish point? Or not?
Electrons are physical, the maze is physical, the position of the robot is physical.
The same goes for a brain and a human.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 minutes ago, 7 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,231
"Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth.... Through words and concepts we shall never reach beyond the wall off relations, to some sort of fabulous primal ground of things."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,232
@previous (E)
> "Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us
This is essentially what I said already.
> nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth.... Through words and concepts we shall never reach beyond the wall off relations, to some sort of fabulous primal ground of things."
>
> - Friedrich Nietzsche
So Nietzche rejected rationalism, yet he expected someone to read these words and learn something.
That's ironic, isn't it?
> "Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us
This is essentially what I said already.
> nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth.... Through words and concepts we shall never reach beyond the wall off relations, to some sort of fabulous primal ground of things."
>
> - Friedrich Nietzsche
So Nietzche rejected rationalism, yet he expected someone to read these words and learn something.
That's ironic, isn't it?
Anonymous E replied with this 12 minutes ago, 36 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,233
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 minutes ago, 43 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,234
Anonymous E replied with this 11 minutes ago, 33 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,235
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 9 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,236
Anonymous E replied with this 9 minutes ago, 42 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,237
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 7 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,238
@previous (E)
My point is that Neitzche wrote books explaining his reasoning for his philosophy, and then wrote that quote.
And my point is that you need to stop acting like I'm a pure rationalist when I've stated multiple times that I am not.
My point is that Neitzche wrote books explaining his reasoning for his philosophy, and then wrote that quote.
And my point is that you need to stop acting like I'm a pure rationalist when I've stated multiple times that I am not.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,239
@previous (A)
You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work. Which is why you don’t really have any point here.
You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work. Which is why you don’t really have any point here.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,240
@previous (E)
> You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work.
Right, which is why I'm not a pure rationalist.
> Which is why you don’t really have any point here.
I've never defended pure rationalism, how many times do I need to state that?
> You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work.
Right, which is why I'm not a pure rationalist.
> Which is why you don’t really have any point here.
I've never defended pure rationalism, how many times do I need to state that?
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 3 minutes ago, 1 second later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,241
@1,428,238 (A)
@1,428,239 (E)
My Portuguese girlfriend with the big curly hair has been at my place for a month now and has gone home. My Zimbabwean girlfriend comes over at 15.00 and I need to scrub the place of all traces. My fear is she finds a stray hair or hair clip which is highly likely.
@1,428,239 (E)
My Portuguese girlfriend with the big curly hair has been at my place for a month now and has gone home. My Zimbabwean girlfriend comes over at 15.00 and I need to scrub the place of all traces. My fear is she finds a stray hair or hair clip which is highly likely.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 minutes ago, 49 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,242
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Ah, yes. The quote from the drug addicted racist Brit with stubby thumbs.
Ah, yes. The quote from the drug addicted racist Brit with stubby thumbs.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 minutes ago, 23 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,243
@1,428,241 (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
Oh, no! The quote from the drug addicted racist Brit with stubby thumbs!
Oh, no! The quote from the drug addicted racist Brit with stubby thumbs!
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 1 minute ago, 46 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,245
@1,428,240 (A)
> > You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work.
>
> Right, which is why I'm not a pure rationalist.
You’re not really a rationalist because you know rationalism doesn’t work yet you’re arguing against me because I reject rationalism.
> > You can’t be a pure rationalist because rationalism on its own doesn’t work.
>
> Right, which is why I'm not a pure rationalist.
You’re not really a rationalist because you know rationalism doesn’t work yet you’re arguing against me because I reject rationalism.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 seconds ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,428,246
@previous (E)
I've said multiple times that I combine rationalism with empiricism, like Kant.
Why do you keep acting like I've defended pure rationalism?
I've said multiple times that I combine rationalism with empiricism, like Kant.
Why do you keep acting like I've defended pure rationalism?