The open persecution that big media and internet companies move towards Christian and conservative publications is the integral and definitive proof that the left has already lost all legitimacy as a spokesman for the poor and oppressed and has become the instrument of psychosocial control with which the elite enslaves the herd mentality. — Rafaella Leon
Yes, I may be biased. Yes, my experience might be skewed. Yes, our definitions of left/right may differ. All of this goes without saying. If you had decided exactly what it was you wanted, which now seems to be, proof of my claim that the forum is dominated by the left, then I might have been able to provide it. — Judaka
I can think of several ways to go about it but they're all a lot of work. We can just agree to disagree as previously arranged but your comment here is unfair and so I had to respond, I'm not accepting the "sorry I asked you to back up your claims" or whatever. — Judaka
I don't really think you have grounds for any of these suspicions but the fact that you've gone for all of them in a matter of 3 posts signals to me that you are pretty intent on discrediting me for whatever reason. Don't you think you've already reached your conclusion and you're just saying whatever you can right now? — Judaka
I am not particularly interested in debating whether the forum is dominated by the left or not. — Judaka
Happy to just agree to disagree, by the way. — Judaka
I assumed you were taking the opposite position so I was questioning that. What is your position then? — khaled
Ok. How do we come to access these fixed moral premises? Are there moral irrefutable commandments written on a rock somewhere or? — khaled
How do we come to access these fixed moral premises? Are there moral irrefutable commandments written on a rock somewhere or? — khaled
That moral premises are not fixed. There is no universal moral premises. That moral realism is bullshit. Same thing. — khaled
Any application of logic requires premises. I’m saying we cannot fix these premises. You’re saying we can. What I am saying is supported by observation that people find different things wrong. What do you say to support your position? — khaled
And when and how will this happen? What would you take as “irrevocative proof”? — khaled
Usually it’s not “too hard” it’s “outright impossible”. Because we can’t fix a starting point. — khaled
Somewhat recently, I spent a lot of time debating white privilege and honestly, it was just left vs further left and I really think if this forum had a right-wing presence, they would show themselves in topics like that. Racism, economic inequality, pc-culture and so on, so, experience basically. — Judaka
They act like soldiers on a battlefield. — Judaka
I don't have an issue with the left-dominated forum but there are clear double standards in the moderation here. — Judaka
If you post a view which goes against leftist thinking, be prepared for not just debate but unmoderated ridicule and trolling. — Judaka
If the conversation is perceived as being between people, then removing screen names is obviously going to generate confusion, agreed. But if the conversation is perceived as being between ideas, then it doesn't matter who typed what, and screen names become unnecessary. — Hippyhead
But then, this is a philosophy forum and the job of a philosopher is to be inconvenient and unpopular. :-) — Hippyhead
I've been living in forum land for 20 years now, and it's amazing to me what an absolutely fixed rigid idea we have about forums. All forums on the Internet, every last one, absolutely have to be pretty much exactly the same in format, or everyone starts totally freaking out, yelling about crimes against humanity and so on. — Hippyhead
P1: Everything that isn’t infinite must have a cause — TheHedoMinimalist
One way of removing the primary source of bias on philosophy forums, male ego, would be to remove all the screen names so that nobody can tell who said what. — Hippyhead
Someone else accused the forum of having a bias. — Pfhorrest
You know that political philosophy is a thing, right? We cannot "listen to other's points and arguments, and logically think through them " about politics and at the same time be prohibited from using its terminology. Makes no sense. — Kenosha Kid
Both worlds are materially identical by definition. However, they differ in who one *is* in this world. If I am person A or Z, I have the body and the memories of person A or Z, respectively. — SolarWind
Philosophim
It is not ethical for the workers to add more suffering to the animals than necessary. But that should be managed by the business. Incidents of particular employees acting unethically does not paint all people in the organization as wrong or unethical. Typically bringing these things to light puts pressure on business owners to fix their image.
— Philosophim
The aforesaid beatings and torture would not happen if people didn't pay for the animals products.
Surely one should stop purchasing it, thus eliminating any suffering that was resulting from you doing so. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Not to detract from the excellent recommendations you make here - they both make sense and are not beyond reach of mere mortals like us - but that's precisely why they seem so not true; after all, given their simplicity (???), many people should be virtuoso practitioners of the methods you described and yet there's no one whom we may justifiably attribute wisdom to. Is it because these traits of a wise person you listed are not as easy to cultivate as we suppose they are? Or is it something else... :chin:? — TheMadFool
Another angle to the issue of wisdom, given that we define it as both good and true, how do we attain it? — TheMadFool
From that point of view, it is the most unavoidable activity. I am the witness to myself that nobody else is. So, how does that work as a limit to anything else? — Valentinus
In fact, any event can be explained by an infinite variety of mundane causes, and an infinite variety of supernatural ones. And if your criteria is not mundane vs. supernatural but literally anything (i.e blue Ys vs any other colored Ys), you still get infinity on either side. Using this method, the probability is always 50%. Therefore, this method has zero predictive power, and discloses zero information about the world.
The real flaw is, this is not how probabilities are calculated. You don't just enumerate the possibilities and count them, you need to assign weights to them. Merely enumerating possibilities tells you exactly nothing. — hypericin
Quantum mechanics shows that events at the sub-atomic level are random and "un-caused". These "un-caused" events behave in a statistically predictable pattern, but each event has no prior "cause". — EricH
At best, the notion that everything has a "prior cause" is a hypothesis that needs to be proven. — EricH