Formelyknown

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkxiVflurKs] Pussies or not?

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-patent-government-control-phones-2012-10

A give B corns, B give A gold. Both are compensate for any land they used. A doesn't owe anythng else.

Since when libertarism is apealing to peoples? For one pro-libertarian article there is 100 agains it. That guy is not even wrong he is somethng else.

If I were the owner I would ask the leaving customer to pay and tell him if he doesn't. He won't be welcome into my restaurant anymore. Furthemore, all other members of the good customer club will do the same.

I reject any question without a direct or indirect observable inductive manifestation. The knowledge look incomplete only if doesn't solve a valid problem. The " why we exist" is an invalid question because you didn't identify the problem it tries to solve. Your premises are rejected. I conclude your are making baseless assertions. It is impossible for me to continue this debate. Bye , Have a nice day. P.s my personality type is Intj. I understand perfecly those book. Those books are only valid for people blind toward their own emotional baggages.

Well the questions like why the reality exist is an invalid question and/or problem. Because it doesn't have any manifestation into reality other then words put together with a question mark at the end. Science isn't about building model. Model is only one tool to help our search of knowledge about reality.

He didn't say science was idealist but that the scientific method was limited compared to the idealist metaphysic aproach. Since the mind already had the knowledge the materialist aproach of science was not true. Of course he had more sophisticated mumbo jumbo to tell us. But it boiled down to that. About how the mind and the universe was only different shade of grey of the spectrum. A rock was less conscious then our mind but still conscious.

We had a idealist metaphysicist with similar philosophy writing on this board no so long ago. I found his aproach invalid. He was saying stuff like the knowledge coming from the scientific method was innate since the one who build the bow was able to do it without learning physic. But learning from observing was the scientific method. Science is saying the rock fall down when I stop holding it up. Nothing else, the rest is just deriving from observations.

At least the guns are regulated. Phew!

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKanxgLjmFA] Come on that must be fock up even if you are not a libertarian.

You should see those wonderfull adds from revenu quebec. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY6zDewMDY

People who believe in free will are so stupid that that they can't tell the difference between large heavy flying machines and birds. Determinists are smart enough to know there is a difference. If you are a determinist then you don't need to be responsible for the things that you say, or your spelling or your grammar. Furthermore, free-willis can't understand that showing someone's bad free-will arguments doesn't make him a determinist. Yes, I don't care about grammar. I wish we change it for a more efficient language. Plus, it help me to see if someone are more interested about the arguments then the font him using.

Only determinist can call others insane because they are able to understand a planes can't copulate with a bird even if both can flies.

[View:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAsTXtowZVQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]

The fact that someone have preferences still doesn't answer the question. Does that preference come from a determinist outcome or free-will? You can turn on the fog machine all you want it still there.

Let observe an argument from a free-willist. He usually use a series of premises that bring them to their conclusion that make him sane. Then explain what series of event bring them to that false conclusion of the insanes. Why they need to use reason to come up with to the conclusion. Aren't your own free-will by itself enough? Why use "Because" to justify your actions? Isn't binding yourself to logic and rationality nullify the freedom of your will? Are you free or not to be yourself or not? I agree that causality doesn't bring us to the conclusion you are a determistic. But when did you or the other debaters use their own free will when you are pointing how the unescability of the someone prefering the truth? Is he insane or exercice his own free-will. If he is using free-will then the preference of truth is invalide. If he is insane then you need to make the case using logic wich is bind by a determist view of the universe.

I'll stop discussing this by taking one of Stefan's analogy: Don't you see my friend that while we are debating this question we are just 2 falling rocks bouncing on each other. Sometime your sharp edges are chipping away a piece that changed me. But you keep telling me that Sometime you choose to slowdown because of that flatted hill side below you. That your free - will make you stopped at the bottom of that cliff so that you can polish yourself with your introspection made of wind and sand.

The fact it changes their view or not is what make me predict you won't stop. The fact you added a reason why you keep doing it doesn't unplug you from a determistic point of view. In fact if you just stopped, without any regret and no reason given would of made a strong case from a free-willistic point of view.

Yes, because you can't stop attempting to change people's minds about parenting. If you try or not, both answers will need a rationalisation or a why you won't do it. I will make a prediction. You will not stop.

Never proposed it to be an argument. Which bring to my other point. It is emotion and not reason that drive the question of free will vs determist.

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago. What's the rule? Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented. I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument. Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument? Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension. Come on -- the actual argument is kindergarten stuff that doesn't need to be reproduced in detail every single time. He always gives the same little argument: 1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations 2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue 3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics Yes, this does boil down to taking one's own "imagination fail" far too seriously -- it's an outline of an impossibility proof with "lack of imagination" substituted where you'd expect to see "proof" (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but you can pretend it does if you don't think about it too much). And it's just a bad way or arguing to begin with -- there are an infinitude of philosophical concepts that don't appear in physics (whether it is deterministic or not), and were never expected to. If you want to actually convince people that the state-of-the-art understanding of physics is wrong (and determinism is right there in the middle of it), you need to clearly show that it predicts something incorrectly. In the absence of this, you have a fake proof that is worse than useless, unless you are just really into chasing your own tail for ever and ever and ever. Another way to look at it: If successful physics (an experimental science) collides with philosophy (a bunch of conditional reasoning), guess which one is going to have to be re-thought? even if my argument was that simplistic, you still haven't addressed it I think he did. Stefan says he follows scientific method + Scientific method contradict Stefan's invalid theory = Stefan ignore science.

To find something Weird is not an argument. To not be able do imagine something is not an argument. To find prefereable or not a true statement doesn't make someone determinist or free-willist. It only mean it is true or false. We can right a buggy code without crashing and named it an error in a determinist universe. That question is coming from emtional scars and not reasoning. The answer from both side is only a way to avoid insecurity toward judging ourself in relation with others actions.

Am I detecting a statism on a defensive position?