By the way, the keyboard warrior over here is supporting imperialism, but they have no empire. All they have is falling apart Hollywood for spreading sodomy and georgefloydism worldwide and a pitiful army that got kicked in the ass by divided rice farmers and desert sheep herders. I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. It would be great humiliation.

China has concentration camps — Bob Ross

Your political and social elites have several pedophile rings, buddy.

Someone defending imperialism should at least have their physique on show, but I guarantee that OP is out of shape.

That is exactly what you wanted to say by that phrase, unless you don't understand your own language, which is in fact the rule rather than the exception.

You have been given the answer to the "problem" and you don't like it.

Unsurprisingly, this website is still a waste of time.

The fact that you would name countries like Iran, China and India in this list betrays an ignorance that is hard to explain in mere words. — Tzeentch

Leave it to Burgerlanders to say the most ignorant, barbaric rubbish on a daily basis. They are born with an incurable sort of brain virus that leaves them unable to perform the most basic rational operations. What great philosopher or artist came from that place? Truly a stain on mankind.

The most offensive part is that those blobs of seed oil like to pretend they are allies of Europe, and many idiotic Europeans fall for it, when their shenenigans in the Middle East are the direct cause of the refugee crises that has resulted in the rape and death of thousands and thousands of European women.

the last spasms of a morally bankrupt empire whose outdated propaganda apparently still holds some unfortunate souls in its grasp — Tzeentch

North Koreans at least know that they live in a horrible place. Meanwhile yankees pay the government to take their own children away and put them on hormone blockers. What can I say? God is punishing them lavishly.

are you claiming that nationalism and fascism are the same? — Bob Ross

This sort of 8th grade question really is only seriously stated in places where the majority is of a culture summarised by carbs and rap and no basic education. The funny part is that this is the standard in any webspace where English is the common language. Curious.

If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered — Banno

~G→~(P→A) — Banno

These two are not the same thing.

What ¬G→¬(P→A) actually means is:
¬G→(P∧¬A)
P and ¬A are necessary conditions of ¬G.
Since you say ¬P, one of the necessary conditions for ¬G are not there, so God exists by ¬¬G.
The argument is valid but unsound, P1 is false.

What you wanted to say by "It is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered", which is not two propositions P and A connected by material implication, but one single proposition containing the idea of causal implication, is ¬□(P→A) or ¬◇(P→A). You can throw both of these into the logic checker and it will show that any conclusion about G is invalid. Besides, the premise would be false too.

https://slideplayer.com/slide/7419329/

Relevance logic is also irrelevant here. The premises are all thematically connected, and none of them are the LNC/LEM.

It is not even about the topic, it is about the fact that they are using the picture of a female model while the cross-dresser in question is this person:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/australias-legal-battle-to-define-a-woman-is-not-over-yet/

You would have realised it had you even opened the link and scrolled down a single page.

our childish smear though is evidence of your lack of intellectual seriousness — Baden

Of course mate, I am the one who is intellectually unserious LOL not the tens of people on this website paddling pseudoscience. Maybe focus on that.

I don't know, being that Aristotle was a zoologist (maybe first and foremost), I think he was talking about what later we would know as genetics, so Greeks would have immutably what makes them suited to ruling.

More ex-mormon complaining ^

https://x.com/amnesty/status/1826982698226737303

When I was in school, I thought that Amnesty International was one of those NGOs made up of teenagers who do nothing at all managed by parents, like UN diplomatic simulations. Was I wrong?

All the while no one would expect "coherent arguments" to state that Muslims aren't Christians, common sense is all that is needed.

Anyway, 15 posts of yours and it is just complaining + complaining. If you provide some content in the next one, I will reply. Otherwise, no.

Your failure to make an argument proves you wrong — flannel jesus

Someone not making an argument makes them wrong? That's just dumb.

Anyway, Mormons aren't Christian, the only ones who think so are Mormons. Black Israelites are not Hebrews, the only ones who think so are Black Israelites.

YOU brought up the topic of how much I know about mormonism — flannel jesus

And just stating "I know a lot about Mormonism" while being clueless as to why someone would say Mormonism isn't Christian, something that is agreed by every Christian denomination, helps you prove me wrong?

I am not being silly. This whole discussion is:

1 – you complaining about your misinterpretation of my post.
2 – saying you know a lot about Mormonism.

I know an awful lot about mormonism, you're being silly. — flannel jesus

Everybody knows an awful lot about any given topic they are talking about...

If you don't expect people to think that you mean Mormons aren't Christian for the reason you stated, you are failing at the goal you're aiming for. — flannel jesus

As I said, I am not God, not every text I produce is perfectly unambiguous; it is flattering however that hold me in such regard.

they can string together related thoughts within a paragraph, separated by periods — flannel jesus

Yes, that is what I did. Mormonism not being Christian is related to things that make one not Christian. The two are separated by a period. But Mormonism not being Christian is not an example of the principle of not believing in the divinity of Jesus making one not Christian (because they believe that Jesus was divine), in that case I would use em-dash.

I know more about Mormonism than most Mormons do. — flannel jesus

I don't see how that relates to what you are replying :-P

That's not how most people use punctuation — flannel jesus

Counterpoint:

A Gallup analysis published in March 2020 looked at data collected by the U.S. Department of Education in 2012, 2014, and 2017. It found that 130 million adults in the country have low literacy skills, meaning that more than half (54%) between the ages of 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, according to a piece published in 2022 by APM Research Lab.

Considering that sixth grade over there is equivalent to fifth or fourth grade in most countries, the situation is even worse than it looks.

Matter of fact, my usage of punctuation is refined and aims for clarity. I would even say my usage is the correct usage of punctuation.

I'm still mind-boggled by that. — flannel jesus

I am not god to be flawless. But besides that, if the two were connected, I would put an em dash between the two, not a period, to show that the two I brought up are supposed to be examples of what is said before. Since the two sentences are thematically connected, I left them in the same paragraph.

"They aren't christian because I don't feel like it" — flannel jesus

Religion isn't science, so that is not a bad thing. It doesn't seem like you have looked a lot into Mormonism. If you do, you will see how they are not Christian any more than Muslims are.

It is simply wholesale a different religion. Compare any church, even protestant ones, to their Mormon temples, you can tell then and there they are not the same. A spin-off of Christianity, sure, but not Christianity.

I don't know why exactly they call themselves Christian, but I have a few things in mind.

It also feels vulgar to include Mormonism into Christianity. The latter has centuries of sophisticated and curated thought building its tradition, the former is dumb as soon as you bat an eye on it.

But to their credit, the temples do look amazing, much better than what current western architecture has been putting out (mostly geometric abortions made of stone).

the way you presented it it seemed like thats what you were saying — flannel jesus

I guess that is true.

if it's not, what are you saying? — flannel jesus

I said believing Jesus (not you) was not divine makes you not a Christian. Also that Mormons aren't Christian.

Believing those two is not enough to make you a Christian.

a western country — Tarskian

No such thing. A barbarian delusion at best.

It's not as if there exists some essence of True Christian. — wonderer1

There is no essence of redness, yet we are not calling yellow "red", even if it is closer to red than blue is.

Aristotle recognizes that the differences between the master and slave are generated by contingent factors. They are not somehow predetermined or immutable or necessary. — Leontiskos

I think that is a bit unspecific. From a point of view, it seems unproblematic; from another point of view, it would then be puzzling why Aristotle said that Greeks are suited to rule the world and thus the strong savages to the North as well as the effeminate intellectuals to the South to be ruled, as we can't change our race — immutable.

Synthesising expertise. — apokrisis

Circular innit?

Modern Unitarians are as Christian as Mormons, which are not. Ancient unitarians are something else, which why we don't simply call them "Christian", but a modifier comes before.

You have a thought, you make some marks on a piece of paper, you mail the paper to me, I look at it, and by some mysterious communication algorithm, I construct in my own brain a pattern that has the same feel as your original thought. Information! — Athena

Sounds like Early Wittgenstein's picture theory of language.

What if we did not use words, but communicated with math? — Athena

How would that work, basically?

It's not even explicit that a ethanol molecule is a straight-forward sum of parts. — Johnnie

And it really is not. H2O is not two hydrogen atoms together with an oxygen atom, like two boxes is one box together with another, but the resulting structure of the complex process of oxidation of hydrogen gas, the principle behind hydrogen fuel. Its representation as H2O is meaningful, but just symbolic. The same applies for any molecule.

It is possible that the prediction of the behaviour of organic molecules using hard physics is not computable, just like the behaviour of a human stomach can't be predicted using hard physics, even if we accept that we live in a purely physicalistic universe that regularly obeys the fundamental laws of physics at every level.

Fields other than physics are then justified, even if they all reduce to physics. Me riding a bike does reduce to dynamics, but I can't ride a bike by using dynamics, I need other cognitive methods.

Considering that psychology is a science — wonderer1

Hardly. Surely not in the sense he is meaning there: giving explanation to natural events (Zeus and lightning).

Thinking of Jesus as just a man like anybody else makes you nothing because that is not a particular belief or worldview. To be Christian, you need to believe that Jesus Christ is divine and died for us. Mormons aren't Christian, neither are Kardecists.

Yes, I am being restrictive. Words have meaning.

But as I suspected this thread won't get a few real replies if at all. There aren't really any active outspoken Christians here.

How would you respond? — Art48

I think a better way to phrase that is "How would you proceed?".

Not a Christian so I won't answer.

Were the Greeks better off when the Romans conquered them? — Moliere

In a way, yes. Their culture was maintained and cultivated. The once divided city-States unified completely and because of that managed to fight off Eastern invaders for centuries, when it barely managed to do so before that, in the Persian war. Basically, Greece was given a Mediterranean empire for free when, the only time it managed to do something like that, the whole thing collapsed before a single generation passed.

Were the people conquered by the Arabs, Mongols, Turks, Vandals and Huns better off? Absolutely not. It might be for the same reason that those were called barbarians so often in history.

causing pain to the child is not a part of what facilitates the end of giving them immunity — Bob Ross

It is not just pain, injections cut through the child's skin.

The reply applies all the same to self-defence: are you harming someone who feels no pain if you break their legs, stopping them from hurting you? Well, you broke their legs, but they will heal; you cut through the child's skin, but it will heal. Both cutting through the skin and breaking their legs are means to the end of immunisation and self-defence.

The problem you are having is that you don’t have a refined conceptual understanding of what a means is. — Bob Ross

A means is something that facilitates the end — Bob Ross

That is not really what "means" means, as the dictionary will show, but I can fly with whatever definition you prefer. The usage of "facilitate" however is definitely troublesome, I take it you mean "enables the end"; whether is made easier or harder is unimportant.

I mean the flow of intention—e.g., an archer aiming at their target. — Bob Ross

I don't know what the phrase "flow of intention" is supposed to mean, you will have to be more specific. Someone either intends something at a moment or not, it doesn't flow. An archer aiming at their target is an action, an action which can be intentional or not.

Whether or not one directly intends something matters, because moral agency is agent-centric. — Bob Ross

So is the problem that we intend to harm the attacker for the sake of our self-defence, while we don't intend to cause pain for the sake of vaccination but that we intend to vaccinate and it happens to cause pain?

People who vaccinate know about the pain. In a self-defence situation we know what is going to happen if we shoot the assailant. I will say again that whether it is idiomatic in English to say we "intend" one while not intending the other seems unimportant, we know of the consequences of our actions, they happen.

Take for example if we had no clue how vaccines worked. We just knew that they did work and that they are painful. In that case, our intention would be to cause this specific kind of pain that is only caused by vaccines, because we thought that the pain is what gave immunity. So we are intending to harm for the sake of something good, it is morally fine.

I will say again that it is 2 that is problematic and ought to be rejected. 3 is not. Harming someone is, in itself, bad, but the harm might be outweighed by a good.

You could reject 3, but there are reasons against it.

:up:

But could Lionino not say the same thing, namely that the child who does not feel the needle penetrating their skin is still being harmed by the needle? — Leontiskos

I could, but then we are simply establishing that the word 'harm' includes 'milimetrically ripping skin with or without pain'. It is a semantic move. There is some precedent for that. We do say that someone eating junk food or drinking alcohol is harming themselves for ingesting toxins, even if they don't feel the harm at a physical level.

Not only that, that harm is more than just physical pain seems to say very little. Physical pain is surely not necessary for harm, but we could say that it is sufficient for harm, because any noticeable pain, no matter how small, could be said to inflict mental harm — also a semantic move.

Semantic moves are done to establish clarity, they don't establish informative arguments. I think my communication has had clarity, so I was thinking past that.

Simultaneous in what sense? — Leontiskos

Idk, but they don't seem simultaneous at all. The vaccine's liquid setting into the muscle can cause a lot of pain, but it is the vaccine's liquid setting into the muscle that allows for immunity to be developed. They are not simultaneous: one precedes, and is necessary for, the other in the causal chain.

But then one might say "Well, the pain is a neurological effect of the muscles' reaction..." but then I go back to the question that will be stated for the third time now: why does any of this matter for whether I shall do X or Y?

In any case, I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates:



Should save me time.

Merriam-Webster — ucarr

1 – Merriam-Webster is garbage;
2 – that is a metaphorical meaning;
12 – Merriam-Webster would have noted that were it not a terrible dictionary.

Even if it is somehow a valid definition, it is worthless for the argument being put forth. I won't invest my energies into explaining it. You can think about it if you want.

Why are 01Lionino and 02 Lionino not a contradiction? — ucarr

Because HPU is not about either "existence" or "observation", these two mean nothing in physics.
Next you will say something about this or that. No, observation is not relevant in physics, it is interference that is relevant, and interference happens through measurement, which is how we observe things (observation in itself is irrelevant).

In that case, Wikipedia is still not worse than its original sources — Tarskian

:rofl:

That website constantly misquotes their supposed "sources", which definitely are not even read in its entirety.

It is impressive how you are wrong about basically everything you say, post after post. Is this some advanced trolling or a genuine condition?

What examples do you have in mind? — Moliere

Roman Empire, Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, Macedonian Empire...

But you did say "literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers". — Ludwig V

Yes, and I meant literal idiots on Twitter.

"miracle" I mean a highly improbable or unlikely development — ucarr

That is a spurious definition and by then we are already off-track.

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither.

He also told me that everything in the physics A-Level (School leaving) syllabus was false. — Ludwig V

A-level are the last years of basic schooling isn't it? That sounds very wrong, but I don't know what they taught in Britain back in his time. Classical mechanics is still true, and it is taught in schools, generally correctly.

Perhaps part of the trouble is that many researchers are anxious to spread their news as widely as possible. — Ludwig V

I don't see that. I don't see researchers going on Youtube or Twitter to talk about their research, they are usually too busy for that. It is usually the university's journal (sometimes written by students) that writes the news pieces. Then we have MSM reporting on it, which is the bottom of the barrel.

I am starting to convince myself that this user is a bot from 2014 reposting the same threads every 2 months.

More specifically, when it comes to Joe Public, he has no business touching research papers or textbooks or things of the sort. Most people can't solve a basic quadratic equation, and have never really heard of Kant.

The barbarians are uncivilized, as can be heard from when they speak "Bar bar bar", saying basically nothing, and so need an enlightened human of knowledge to direct them towards the best that the inferior can hope to achieve (since they won't reach for it on their own) — Moliere

I don't know, that doesn't sound too wrong. This Aristotle guy was smart, wasn't he? Except when he disagrees with my enlightened 21st century politics, of course.

whenever a civilizer comes along somehow the civilized end up worse off and helping the civilizer live an easier life — Moliere

There are multiple examples in history where that was not the case.