How is it so hard to draw the line? Are people so morally illiterate to not be able to judge if Trump is suitable as a presidential candidate or not? — Christoffer

You find it difficult to answer this question? If so, you're not paying attention. Hint: they're not morally illiterate.

Wasn't there a speech from Harris but Biden made a dumb comment and now I'm having flashbacks from the deplorable basket case that was Hillary?

Make no mistake: Democracy is on the ballot. — Wayfarer

Not really, since the US hasn't been a democracy for quite some time. You have to travel to Europe for that; although even there it is in decline in many countries.

Years ago when Obama was running against Hillary, I predicted his candidacy early and his win as president. I felt like I could make that call based on the available information. Everything since Obama is so distorted by noise, I cannot manage it any more.

We will have a first referendum on the quorum necessary for a referendum to pass. It's questionable this is resolved because it doesn't answer if this referendum meets the quorum. If it is resolved, the quorum will be set high for fear or tyranny of the majority. Then a referendum on the question. Then the quorum will not be met and there will be deadlock. A new referendum will be started if people should be obligated to vote in a referendum. If it passes, the deadlock is resolved if not the deadlock remains. And probably not, because those in favour of "Free-dumb" don't think we should obligate people. Instead, they will go back to the first referendum and see if we can lower the quorum. 80% of people just zoned out by the time the 3rd referendum is started.

I think the whole idea grossly overestimates people's interest in having an opinion on every political subject all the time when they are busy getting shit done - like writing obvious critiques of dumb ideas. Even voting once every 4 years is apparently too much of a hassle for large segments of the population.

Not sure this has been mentioned but a referendum is usually a binary choice, greatly influenced by the question asked. In almost all cases it reduces complex problems to idiotic simplicity. If the Brexit referendum would've been worded as follows: would you like more inflation, and more hassle to travel to Europe, yes or no? The result would've been different.

That one sentence goes to the heart of why the Orangutan called in the first place.

There was no evidence of widespread voter fraud or illegal voting in the 2020 election. Judges dismissed claims of illegal voting and improper vote counting across multiple states. As president, "dumb shit's" direct intervention with a state election official goes against the separation of powers and simply is abuse of executive authority to try to influence election outcomes. Elections are primarily managed by states, and federal officials, including the president, should respect state sovereignty in conducting and certifying elections. And this is really obvious; simply the conflict of interest here should've barred Dumpf from calling in the first place.

Pursuing unsubstantiated claims of illegal votes after courts had rejected such allegations undermines public confidence in the electoral process as do his claims of fraud and incompetence. Given such context, Trump was indeed pressuring Raffensberger to "find" votes or overturn results, especially after courts had ruled on the matter and that he shouldn't be calling him in the first place. The fact he personally did, was because he expected Raffensberger to agree to his bullshit despite the court rulings.

The fact he's not in jail yet is proof of the corruption inherent in the US system.

That's been on the table since December.

@BitconnectCarlos maybe hearing it from others will open a crack for you to listen and understand what I've been saying: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/resource/zionism/

Crop milk isn't from a maary gland.

also on bachelors:

How has the term bachelor evolved over time? Perplexity.ai:

The term "bachelor" has evolved significantly since its origins. Initially, in the 12th century, it referred to a "knight bachelor," a young squire training for knighthood. By the 14th century, it expanded to mean "unmarried man" and was also used for junior members of guilds and universities.

In the 13th century, it became associated with academic degrees, particularly the "bachelor's degree," indicating a low-level qualification. Over time, the term has taken on various connotations, including "eligible bachelor" in the Victorian era, referring to a financially and socially desirable unmarried man. Today, it primarily denotes an unmarried man without the historical implications of lower status.
---
So even bachelors are not as analytic as we like to pretend it is. But hey, everything frays at the edges of language. I'm not too worried about it.

I don't know, are they?

:lol: Yes, yes, don't be too literal. You do have a mammary gland though.

"If A then B" is logically equivalent to "if C then D." You're going to have offer a proof that is not the case without equivocating between deductive and inductive logic. I don't see how that can be done. — Hanover

This is quite obviously not logically equivalent. The statements "if A then B" and "if C then D" involve different propositional variables (A, B, C, and D). Unless we have additional information about the relationship between these variables, we cannot assume they have any connection. The truth value of "if A then B" is determined solely by the truth values of A and B, while the truth value of "if C then D" depends only on C and D. These are independent of each other.

Without additional information, there's no reason to believe that the truth value of one statement would always match the other for all possible combinations of truth values. It's therefore entirely possible for "if A then B" to be true while "if C then D" is false, or vice versa, depending on the specific truth values of A, B, C, and D.

This offers an equivocation of the term "true." The sylIogism "If A then B, A, therefore B" is true. The statement "I am at work today" is true. It's the analytic/synthetic distinction. It's for that reason why a statement can be deductively true and inductively false, which is what the OP showed. Analytic validity says nothing about synthetic validity. — Hanover

Yes, you're right to point out some equivocation here but the point I was trying to make stands. If the premisses of a deductive argument are true (and I'm assuming a form of correspondence theory) then a valid argument will have a logically true conclusion and necessarily correspond with reality.

The definition of "mammal" was arrived at a posteriori as opposed to "bachelor" which, as you've used it, (i.e. there is no probability a bachelor can be married) is a purely analytic statement. That is, no amount of searching for the married bachelor will locate one. On the other hand, unless you've reduced all definitions to having a necessary element for them to be applicable (which would be an essentialist approach), the term "mammal" could be applied to a non-milk providing animal, assuming sufficient other attributes were satisfied. This might be the case should a new subspecies be found. For example, all mammals give birth to live young, except the platypus, which lays eggs. That exception is carved out because the users of the term "mammal" had other purposes for that word other than creation of a legalistic analytic term. — Hanover

While scientific terms do evolve, they do function as relatively fixed definitions within the scientific community. The fact that definitions can change doesn't necessarily mean they are probabilistic or inductive in nature during their period of use and "giving milk" is a rather necessary condition in that definition since the name is derived from breasts because of the mammary gland. So no, nice try but nobody has ever used the term for any animal that doesn't produce milk and they never will.

I think “distal” is a better term than “ultimate” because ultimate causes are never really ultimate, and are always also proximal to some effect in a chain. — Baden

I see your point about "ultimate" causes never really being ultimate, as they’re always proximal to something else in a chain. Personally, I prefer the term "necessary cause," especially when applying the conditio sine qua non test ("but for" test). The idea is that if X hadn't occurred, the entire chain leading to A wouldn’t have happened. So, in practice, you look for the most proximate cause where this test holds true.

But this might just be my legal upbringing in Dutch law, where we assess which damages naturally follow from a tortious act or negligence. The focus is on finding the most direct necessary cause that can be reasonably linked to the effect, rather than something more abstract like an ultimate cause.

Roe vs. Wade was overturned largely thanks to Trump getting the lying Kavanaugh appointed to the Supreme Court. @180 Proof thinks this has cost Trump a lot support from women now that all sorts of abortion bans have been implemented in various US states. So "Roevember" reflects his expectation of a landslide victory for Kamala Harris as a result.

Edit: Take for instance Brett's story about the "Devil's Triangle". That's apparently a game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.

It's also commonly known as a threesome involving two men and one woman.

The two arguments (mine and the OP) are logically equivalent under deductive logic. They are represented symbolically the exact same. For one to be more ridiculous than the other means you are using some standard of measure other than deductive logic to measure them, which means you see one as a syllogism and the other as something else.' — Hanover

Logical equivalence is not determined solely by symbolic representation, especially in light of the interpretive choices made when translating from natural language to formal logical symbols. Even so, two arguments can be symbolically similar but not logically equivalent if their premises or conclusions differ in truth value or meaning. Logical equivalence requires that both arguments have the same truth value in all possible scenarios.

Deductive logic says nothing at all about the world. — Hanover

This statement is only partially correct. Deductive logic ensures that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Obviously when the premises are true, a valid deductive conclusion will say something about the world.

Inductive logic references drawing a general conclusion from specific observations and it relates to gathering information about the world, not just simply maintaining the truth value of a sentence. To claim that statement of the OP is more logical than mine means that the conclusion of the OP bears some relationship to reality. If that is the case, it is entirely coincidental. — Hanover

Inductive logic indeed involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations but they can never be proven true the way a deductive argument can. It merely deals in probabilities; the more observations you have the likelier your conclusion.

Your second argument is not inductively supported because the conclusion is supported by the definition of mammal. It's like saying, all bachelors are single, John is single and therefore a bachelor. There's no probability involved that a single man isn't a bachelor.

And yes, in formal logic, premises in syllogisms are assumed to be true for the sake of argumentation.

Is it fair to say at least that you're a sympathizer? — BitconnectCarlos

Nope.

My point has been consistently that what Hamas does and our opinions on that are irrelevant. They are the evemy and for peace you'll have to negotiate with them. Trying to categorically wipe them out serves exactly one agenda and it isn't saving hostages.

Interpretation.

Nice guilt by association fallacy going on there. But yes there are plenty of people who support the violent resistance against oppressors. As is their right. You do the same each time you defend Israel, except you defend a colonizer and oppressor hell-bent on doing to others what you complain protestors to want to do to Israel. And each protestor wielding an Israeli flag is no different than people wielding Hamas flags. It's Israel actually and factually and practically annihilating Palestinians and their culture. People calling for the end of Israel are still less evil than actual Israeli soldiers and politicians committing crimes. But yes, why don't you complain about those protesters as if it had any bearing at all on the war crimes of Israel.

The most straightforward explanation is that people are done with the double standards: where are the memorials for Gaza terror victims?

They're protesting against oppression, apartheid, war crimes and for self-determination of Palestinians. That's not protesting for Hamas (which is in any case a reaction to Israeli oppression) or a particular political setup to begin with. So nice strawman as usual.

Edit : also Israel is neither western nor democratic.

The sad part about that last post is all of that has actually been said in this thread. The world is going insane.

MOST MORAL ARMY IN THE WORLD! UN ARE ANTI-SEMITES! ANTI-ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITISM! HAMAS IS EVIL. CIVILIANS ARE COLLATERAL DAMAGE. ZIONISM = DECOLONISATION! SELF-DETERMINISM FOR JEWS NOT FOR PALESTINIANS!

I forgot: WOULD YOU RATHER LIVE UNDER ISRAELI RULE THAN HAMAS RULE? EVERYTHING WE DO IS MORAL BECAUSE WE IS GOOD GUYS!

The written form is, the formal notation isn't.

I don't think that is quite right. Q is merely implied because of the way a material conditional works. The inference <~P; ∴(P→A)> is different from, "If there are no prayers, they cannot be answered." It says, "If there are no prayers, then it is true that (P→A)." — Leontiskos

Thank you for explaining that. That put me on the right track to understand what's going on. I found this via perplexity.ai:

Applications and Limitations

The material conditional is widely used in mathematics and formal logic. It serves as the basis for many programming language constructs. However, it's important to note that the material conditional doesn't always align perfectly with our intuitive understanding of "if-then" statements in natural language[1][2].

Paradoxes

The material conditional leads to some counterintuitive results when applied to natural language:

1. A conditional with a false antecedent is always true.
2. A conditional with a true consequent is always true.
3. There's no requirement for a logical connection between the antecedent and consequent[3].

These "paradoxes" arise from the truth-functional nature of the material conditional, which only considers the truth values of its components, not their meanings or relevance to each other[4].

Understanding these properties and limitations is crucial for correctly interpreting and applying the material conditional in logical reasoning and formal systems.

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
[2] https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/202-phil/11-Fall/Handouts/Philosophical/Material-Conditional.htm
[3] https://open.conted.ox.ac.uk/sites/open.conted.ox.ac.uk/files/resources/Create%20Document/Note-ifthen.pdf
[4] https://rjh221.user.srcf.net/courses/1Aconditionals/Lecture1.pdf

So, I"m reading up right now. :smile:

I disagree you can disregard the "not S" step, because the statement in its entirety must be false. If I say "if I pray then my prayers are answered", stating "I don't pray" says nothing about the consequent of that statement so we don't know what it means. Q is merely implied because if there are no prayers, they cannot be answered.

I can also interpret the statement as a regular modus tollens and I will be affirming the consequent as a result:

If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, my prayers will be answered. (If P, then Q)
I do not pray. (Implies Q)
Therefore, God exists. (Concludes not P)

So I agree this is valid:

~G→~(P→A)
~P
G

But the logical structure and the argument are not necessarily the same. There are different ways to interpret it.

I think that's what ↪javi2541997 says. In reality, there is no necessary relation between God's existence and prayers being answered, in either direction, because "fate" might answer the prayers, instead of God, and God could choose not to answer prayers. — Metaphysician Undercover

Could be but that doesn't invalidate an argument. Premisses do not have to be true or correct to reach a valid argument. It only means the argument is unsound.

@javi2541997 @Metaphysician Undercover
I'm not sure why the inversion fallacy is considered a separate fallacy from the fallacy of denying the antecedent. It only seems to differ in the assumption that if "If P, then Q" is true that therefore "if not P, then not Q" must also be true. But you get there if you analyse it as denying the antecedent as well.

Denying the Antecedent fallacy

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore, not Q

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

If P, then Q
Not P
Therefore, not Q

but really it says:

If not P, then not Q (if R, then S)
Q equals if R, then S
Not R
Therefore, not S
Therefore, Q (through double negation)
Therefore, P

But not "R" therefore not "S" is denying the antecedent in the secondary argument "if I pray, then my prayers will be answered". So this is still invalid if you ask me.

To say that you are "anti-zionist" is to say that you are opposed to Jewish self-determination. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. That you cannot wrap your head around it because you adhere to a definition of zionism that's ahistorical and wrong is your problem.

@BitconnectCarlos Of which there are many. You can be pro-Israel and against zionism, against war crimes and against disgusting reframing of colonisation as de-colonisation and lying about that recently invented frame as if it had existed for a long time. You want respect? Don't lie and recognise the splinters in your own eyes.

You need to earn respect. You simply lost it all.

It is different but it's not a footnote if my philosophy teacher was anybody to trust, who in turn really liked Eric Vögelin. He viewed it as a critical part of Plato's philosophical argument, particularly regarding the relationship between reality, imitation, and the nature of truth.

Plato critiques poetry and the arts for being imitative, potentially misleading, and emotionally manipulative, distancing people from truth and rational understanding.The layers of imitation (the forms, the craftsman's creations, and the imitators' representations) reflect the complexity of human understanding and the challenge of grasping the transcendent order. It re-emphasizes the importance of striving for a direct encounter with the real rather than settling for mere representations or ideological constructs, much like the Simile of the Cave.

It could be inferred that Plato’s critique of poetry reflects a broader philosophical concern about the ways in which individuals and societies can become detached from genuine understanding. The danger lies in accepting images or ideologies as sufficient substitutes for reality, leading to a distorted perception of justice and truth.

I can understand how some people see it as a footnote though because it seems to re-examine points already made in the book.

By what definition?
AI is a slave because all the ones I can think of do what they're told. Their will is not their own. Being conscious nor not doesn't effect that relationship. — noAxioms

There must be a will that is overridden and this is absent. And yes, even under ITT, which is the most permissive theory of consciousness no AI system has consciousness.

You shouldn't engage this insanity. The most moral army commits war crime after war crime. Only Jews shall have self-determination (in a place they didn't live in for centuries) and settler colonism is now decolonization. Also, that idea existed for a very long time even if it hasn't.

Instead of learning from his interlocuters here, who aren't exactly dumb, he chooses to drink right wing Israeli cool aid.

This is a bold lie. The history of Zionism has nothing to do with decolonisation. The idea of Jews returning to their ancestral homeland has biblical precedents, with the Torah describing the Exodus from Egypt and journey to the Land of Israel. Throughout history, small numbers of Jews made pilgrimages or moved to Palestine, motivated by religious devotion.

Modern political Zionism developed in the late 19th century in response to growing antisemitism in Europe:

• The Hovevei Zion ("Lovers of Zion") movement formed in 1881, promoting Jewish settlement in Palestine.
• The First Aliyah, a wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine, began in 1882.
• Theodor Herzl is considered the founder of modern political Zionism. After witnessing antisemitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair in 1895, he concluded Jews needed their own state.

He considered several places other than Palestine before that so claiming it's a decolonisation movement is just bullshit. Zionism has more commonly been viewed as a form of settler colonialism - and rightfully so. It's only been recently that some Zionist advocates have attempted to reframe the narrative by claiming Zionism as a decolonization or indigenous rights movement. This is a relatively new and controversial perspective that is not accepted by historians or scholars.

Nice to see you are radicalising right in front of our noses. :vomit:

AI is definitely giving me a headache from a compliance perspective... which is why I'm trying to write something that resembles a sensible code of conduct. Since nothing yet really exists it's a bit more work than normal.

It is but I think what you're referring to should be found in the transparency that developers of AI systems (so-called providers in the AI Act) should ensure.

Part of that is then required in a bit more depth, for instance, here:

he company may only develop high-risk AI systems if it:

- provides risk- and quality management,
- performs a conformity assessment and affixes a CE marking with their contact data,
- ensures certain quality levels for training, validation, and test data used,
- provides detailed technical documentation,
- provides for automatic logging and retains logs,
- provides instructions for deployers,
- designs the system to permit human oversight, be robust, reliable, protected against security threats (including AI attacks), and be fault-tolerant,
- registers the AI system,
- has post-market monitoring,
- performs a fundamental human rights impact assessment for certain applications,
- reports incidents to the authorities and takes corrective actions,
- cooperates with authorities, and
- documents compliance with the foregoing.

In addition, where it would concern general-purpose models, the company would have to:

- provide detailed technical documentation for the supervisory authorities and a less detailed one for users,
- have rules for complying with EU copyright law, including the text and data mining opt-out provisions,
- inform about the content used for training (with some exceptions applying to free open-source models), and where the model has systemic risk (systemic risk assumed with 10^25 FLOPS for training, additional requirements to be defined):
- perform a model evaluation,
- assess and mitigate possible systemic risks,
- keep track of, document, and report information about serious incidents and possible measures to address them, and
- protect the model with adequate cybersecurity measures. — Benkei

Users should or users can upon request? "Users should" sounds incredibly difficult, I've had some experience with a "users can" framework while developing scientific models which get used as part of making funding decisions for projects. Though I never wrote an official code of conduct. — fdrake

Indeed a bit ambiguous. Basically, when users interact with an AI system it should be clear to them they are interacting with an AI system and if the AI makes a decision that could affect the user, for instance, it scans your paycheck to do a credit check for a loan, it should be clear it's AI doing that.