What is the point of mocking the thought experiment? You just letting everyone know that killing a billion people is bad? You are under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise?
“Attention everyone! Bitter Crank would never kill a billion people and your a psycho who wants to nuke everybody if you answer the thought experiment! Everybody get that?!”
Virtue signaling, is that it?

I would try and think practically and feel good about saving the human race and feel bad about whatever groups didnt make the cut that didnt really deserve it.
I do not think there is anything sacred or intrinsically valuable about life, so there would be large swaths of people that had to die that I wouldnt be upset about at all. A billion is such a huge number though, eventually it would be necassary to select people that have merit and it would be upsetting to include.

Yes, hence I asked if you were satisfied the numbers could be gotten to a billion with the groups I mentioned. You didnt answer.
Obviously its horrific to choose these 1 billion people, so Im gonna want to stop selecting groups as soon as the numbers are satisfied.

I take it not killing the volunteers is their reward for being so selfless? Isnt that kinda shitting on their decision to do the right thing? You’re taking it away from them.
Also, what would be the point of killing yourself? The world would be leaderless not to mention there are surely better candidates than you to be killed, like murderers?
Lastly, im a little confused about the purpose of your thought experiment, I thought once I answered you would have sime sort of follow up. (Looks like I was the only one that actually answered your question too, rather than completely miss the point. TP made me laugh out loud with the difficulties of killing a billion people in 48 hours)

I think it goes beyond even surgeries etc, we accept the deaths of very many people on a daily basis for convenience alone, for example the speed limit. If it was lowered to 5mph everywhere it would drastically reduce the related deaths, but we do not because it wouldnt be practical or convenient so we just accept that yes, people are going to die so that we can get around faster.

You’re an evil man Sushi lol, brutal question.
I would start with the worst criminals and the terminally ill. The severly mentally disabled would probably be next. Then the oldest and work my way down. Id ask for volunteers as well.
Would I get the numbers from those groups?

Lol, case and point for the topic of this thread. Why would anyone stick around when you have to deal with people like this?
We must be sick in the head, cuz here we are.

So, the idea is simply this. Normally, we say that something like "Man first landed on the Moon in 1969" can be true or false. Can "One should not murder" likewise be true or false in some way? — Terrapin Station

When you say “true in some way”, don’t you mean “true in the same way” as the moon landing? Something can be true in accordance with the “preferences” one has accepted can’t it, or do you use another word to describe that?
ie someone could say it is true that you should not murder if you do not want to go to jail. Thats not an objective fact statement as your opponents want to claim, but I would say its true, at least in “some” sense.

Ok. Thanks.

Ok, Think I get it. Not much of a math guy so its a bit greek to me.
So does math the construct describe something, is it mapped onto something that is not constructed by humans?

What would be the distinction between the morality you are discussing with T and S, and laws? Why are you calling it morality instead of law?

I agree, I thought you more had in mind specific philosophical arguments that people keep going over and over.

I would say thats a philosophy thing, rather than specific to this forum. Many of the major philosophy topics haven’t really changed much in centuries.

What would be an example of unsuitable math?

Ya, I hear ya. Thats what I meant by the problematic medium, it lends itself to the assumptions etc. Im certainly guilty of it myself. The misread tone of a post is important too, where someone gets defensive for no intended reason. Semantics seem to be at the core of most disagreement here. Talking about the same thing but using different words for the same concepts.

I think miscommunication is built into the medium. Its an unfortunate trade-off, the vast exposure to different people/ideas/perspectives but via a medium that depends entirely on a very limited slice of how people communicate. (Ive read the words we use account for as little as 7% of communication we do, depending on the study)

One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are.

That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean.
An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.
Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.

Cogito ergo sum. Its the only thing you can be certain of. Its not sensibly deniable.

What do you think mathmatics are describing?

If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist.
Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind.
That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods.
You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.

The method is authoritarian. I do not think anyone should be able to police anyone else's thoughts on anything.
The goal, people should get along and not discriminate against minorities or anyone else, seems like a good one, but the “discriminate” must be an action, not a thought.

Nah, you are conflating my distaste for authoritarianism and thought policing and my thoughts on minorities. One might say I disagree with the methods, but not the goal.

That's why lots of people will criticise you like the hard right; you share their rejection that certain beliefs about minorities ought to be abandoned. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Like what?

The question being, are you using "SJW" in the fashion the hard right does? Are you saying these "moderate progressives" have this dangerous "SJW ideology?" — TheWillowOfDarkness

Here we go. I do not think those two things are the same. The hard right does use the term as you say, I agree. I am not using it that way, but indeed I do think there are folks who would self identify as moderate progressives that have a dangerous SJW idealogy. This is what I was getting at. I can level that criticism without the ulterior motives of the hard right.

Ah, ok. I think you are right, talking past each other a bit there.
Also, I disagree the catagory is empty.

What are the "extreme" positions of those in the "SJW" movement you are referring to? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Somethings not getting accross here, I feel like ive been saying Im not talking about SJW extremists. I feel like ive been pretty clear on that point.
Do you mean by “extreme”, the parts of the SJW movement that I disagree with?
I think the SJW ideology is dangerous and misguided. The saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was never so salient, but in addition there is a real insidious part to it, which is being taught in academia.
Again, Ive made my points on my criticisms already.
What I was wondering is why, if criticising SJW types is a tool or game of the hard right, people who are not hard right do it? This would seem to indicate that it is not just a tool or game of the hard right. Dare I suggest that it might even be the case that there is such a thing as fair criticism of SJW types? Indeed I do.

Im talking about people who refer to themselves as SJW’s in general. I'm talking about the SJW “movement”. You are beginning to tire me out here, have you read what ive said on this thread prior to our exchange?

I Suppose so, although I was operating under the impression prayers had to have a supernatural component otherwise ya, one wonders just whats so impressive about a prayer being answered to begin with.

Well, I understand its a terribly unsatisfying response but I have already described my use of the term and my thoughts on the SJW “movement”. I believe all your requested details are at least implicitly found therein.
Ok, so one explanation is that im essentially delusional about where I stand on the political spectrum. Not much I can do to defend myself on that charge since if that were true everything I would say to that end can be dismissed as delusion or product of that delusion. Agree to disagree, I do not think I am mistaken about being hard right or a progressive refering to extremists.
So with your second explanation, that I do not know what the term means...do you think Im using the term to describe an extreme? You said “or the people to whom you apply the term are not extreme”. I do not think “SJW” describes an extreme. I think it describes the primary actors of the SJW “movement” and my criticisms are directed there. I feel like Ive made that clear, but maybe you havent read my other posts in this thread? Have you been following along or did you just pick up on that one post I made and started there?

Devastating. Wish I had thought to put it that way.

Why would I speak for someone else, when I can speak for myself? Im not interested in debating about who is and who isnt hard right when I have a perfectly good example of someone I KNOW isnt hard right. Me. I am not hard right, or any kind of right. I am not conservative, or republican or alt-right. Progressive may or may not describe me depending on how you use the term but when I use the term “SJW” I am not refering to extremists, I intend it to describe the movements primary actors, not a fringe. (Although, there are fringe and extreme actors as well). So I am not one of these two people you say use the word.
Ok, so I see an answer in your response there I think. Your explanation for the example I gave (me) is that im actually hard right but do not realise it or I do not know what “SJW” means? Is that right?

No, that is not what I am asking.
You said there are only two types of people who use “SJW” as a pejorative, the fact that I am not of those two types and I use it as a pejorative directly refutes your claim. Please explain that.

I do not understand why that is cryptic to you.
I am not hard right, nor a progressive talking about extremists. You said those were the only people using it as a pejorative. I asked for an explanation for the people that are not of those two types who are saying it. You asked for an example, I offered myself. I am not of those two types, but I am using it as a pejorative because I think the SJW “movement” is toxic. Obviously, I recognise that not everyone calling themself an SJW is a toxic person or part of the problem, just in case your tempted to hurl “not all!” my way.

Strawmanned me right out of the gate, perhaps you didnt mean to. I didnt ask about people in the “centre”, here is what I said:

“In general to anyone saying the term SJW is a term used as a weapon by the hard right to smear any kind of progressive or anyone invested in social justice:

What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?”

A good portion of your response was a description of the most charitable view of SJW activism. Uneccassary, I understand that already. As Ive said, i do not think SJW activism resembles what you describe (what its supposed to be) but rather has been co-opted by authoritarians under the guise of something benign like you describe.
Anyway, I would still be interested in your answer to my actual question.

In my experience it is not used pejoratively outside those two contexts. If you think otherwise, supply some examples and we can discuss them. — andrewk

Well, Im not hard right or a progressive talking about extremism and Im saying it.

...and the rest of what I said? Do you have an answer for that?

Alright, well I wasnt intending to imply you said anything about god specifically, nor was I trying to be adversarial. It was related commentary for the purpose of discussion, and an explanation about the nebulous state of the topic of god which resulted in your stance about the “yay” or “nay” about god being “guesses”.

And the unanswered prayers of others? No plan fir them? Not worthwhile people? My son dies of cancer even though I prayed, no plan for him I guess? Not worthwhile enough to save?
God works in mysterious ways, right?

It depends on what “god” you are talking about, what attributes are being assigned to the “god” in question. These claims, at least some of them, are testable. The current popular “god” of monotheism is actually a much diluted “god”, after having been tested and found wanting many, many times. Now, “god” is this nebulous pseudo-entity that exists outside any ability to test it or even just differentiate from the various forms delusion we know humans are subject to.
Convenient, but not very convincing.