alexqr1

If this is a philosophy board, then surely banning should be justified for someone who can't or is not willing to use reason in a conversation. No, that is not what I said. I don't know how he would had reacted. The thing is that one post is not a conversation. The OP is just a presentation of the argument, then someone may respond and the reply of the original poster will let you know if he/she is in it to troll or to try to defend the original argument. Here's an example that might help explain what I've been trying to say. Imagine 2 scenarios with the same beginning:Scenario 1OP: Free markets suck because it creates homeless people and people-less homes (I got this from another recent post in the boards)Replier: Would you explain how free markets achieve that?OP: The Zeitgeist movement is the best and all you capitalists have no idea what you're talking about!Scenario 2OP: Free markets suck because it creates homeless people and people-less homes (I got this from another recent post in the boards)Replier: Would you explain how free markets achieve that?OP: By letting big corporations manage the economy and lobby government when mom and pop's store can't do it because they don't have the resources and all you heartless people have no problem with that.See what I mean? It is the reply to the reply the one that will let you know. In the 1st scenario, the OP is not willing to discuss, in the 2nd one he is wrong but there is room for a conversation even with the noise (insults). My point is that if there is room for conversation, we should take it. You never know if what you say will have an effect, either immediate or otherwise, but I am willing to take the chance because that is the revolution of ideas that I believe in.

Josh, I'm in this board to discuss subjects philosophically, not to preach to the choir or to be preached at. It is so easy to engage in conversation with someone who only slightly disagrees with us, it is a lot more challenging to do it with people who disagree on the most important issues.Now if this is a board whose primary objective is help people heal, then I understand my mistake. I thought it was primordially a philosophy board and I apologized for that if that is the case. I understand you not wanting to have a conversation with someone who continuously insults you, I am the same way. But are you saying that you would not converse with someone who continues to advocate the opposite of what you advocate?If we want to prevent more spanking in the world, then it is precisely those who think they have a good reason to spank that we need to engage in order to make a fundamental change. If we wait for those who already agree or who are looking for direction, then that is fine, but I'm sure we can do better.For example, I'd be a lot happier if I help a hard-core statist understand the evil of the state than if I help someone who is a minarchist. Now I'm not saying you should all be like that, but I just don't get how my approach annoys you. In situations such as these, I try not to pretend I can predict a person's response if I have a chance to get an actual response.

Some physics is a priori, like the theoretical prediction of gravitational waves back in 1916. There was no way to detect them 100 years ago.

I agrede Cab. It would have been interesting to see how he responded to your post.

OK, that answer made me realize I just assumed that that the main goal of the board is philosophy. I may be wrong about that. If the main goal is to help people heal then I would not argue against the rule. Maybe I was just hoping for this to be a board primarily about philosophy so bad that I just assumed it was. I understand. I'm not sure if you were the victim of spanking or not. If you were, let me say I am truly sorry about it, and I too am strongly against it. I understand that not having been spanked myself I may not be aware of the intensity or form of discomfort a spanker's victim may experience in a conversation like this. But this would bring us back to the question: is this primarily a board about healing or a board about philosophy? I don't know the answer to that, but thanks to you, now I am aware that I don't know that answer. I'd like to find out. I never said I did not recognize them, I will however explore your proposition. I would also like to say that it may also be that since you don't have the stomach for such a conversation, maybe you have a predisposition to avoid it, which I think could be understandable if you were in fact victim of aggression. Then I am afraid you completely misunderstood me. That may be my fault, I'm not sure, but when I read my posts I don't see it, although English is not my 1st language. I disagree. I won't explain why because the reason is all over my replies.I also want to say that if I caused any type of discomfort with what I've said, that was not my intention and I am sorry about that. All I am looking for is the truth, and I am convinced that I can only attain it by having conversations with people who may disagree with me but who are willing to put their ideas on the line as much as I am.

Would you care to tell us your explanation of why a situation like the one in the image happens?

"It would be paradoxical for a physicist to claim that through emprical science, they found something that can't be detected." You did say empirical science. Math is not an empirical science, it is strictly a priori.

I don't even know if there was an opportunity or not, I did not get to find out. His post made it clear to me he was wrong, but his answer to our reactions would had given me a clearer idea if he was looking to defend his ideas or just to troll.Sure, he did a poor job at wording things and to be honest, I also think it seemed trollish, but it was not a huge cost to find out. Now this makes sense to me. I should had looked up his history before, thanks for that. I'm not sure if those in favor of banning him looked at it either. Oh I'm not worried about that, It just seemed to me that I was being downvoted for disagreeing and not for being rude or for a lack of willingness to use reason, which is interesting to me. That I would understand. If someone is arguing in favor of theft, I have no problem debating that person as long as he/she is willing to put his ideas on the line and use reason. For example, I've had many conversations regarding the state with statists. It is a matter of looking for truth regardless of where we are coming from.I once advocated theft, I used to believe in governments. I was wrong but I was willing to put those ideas on the line. I'm glad some people took the time to dismantle those ideas.

Sure it is. I did not argue against it. My argument was that it does not really matter, it was more important to find out if he was willing to debate seriously than for him to show empathy. I think this goes beyond this forum, but fore everyone who is truly willing to philosophize and have conversations about it, the only necessary prerequisite is willingness to use reason to debate. Being in agreement is not a prerequisite.More importantly, those who want to prevent spanking should embrace the opportunity to talk to someone who is in favor of spanking and who shows no empathy, because that is precisely the people we are trying to help, again the only necessary requirement, is their willingness to use reason. Without letting him answer, we don't know if he wanted to engage in conversation or not.I don't meant to come across as someone making a big deal out of something small, but I actually don't think this is small at all. Again, I think the Socratic dialog Meno illustrates this point. In this case, the original poster was Meno, we should had been Socrates.

You might be right. I would had attempted to rebut his post and then see if he attempted to rebut mine or if he was interested only in advancing his idea without debating. Nevertheless, I am always in favor or helping correct illogical arguments, because that is what I would like people to do with me. That is how we learn, and what better opportunity to advance philosophy than to help those who have a pseudo-philosophy to realize their error. Like I said, I don't know if this person was willing to realize his error or not, but his next post would had been a far better indicator.He was booted not because of his lack of willingness to debate but because of his ideas. We don't know if he was willing to debate, all we have is "clues"

Sorry, somehow I missed that you were specifically interested in Russian in the original post.

No, I understand, I don't think you are a dick or anything. I also understand this board was not created to gain my respect. I just thought it was a board that advocated the advancement of philosophical debate and I think this guideline goes against that.I don't think I ever implied that you are required to care what I respect or not. It is you who answered to my post which leads me to believe you care.I guess the focal point of my argument was not the slightly diminished respect I have for the board, but rather, the importance of being open to all ideas which is not to say to agree with everything that is said. I think (yes, I know what should people care what I think, but for those who care) that this board should ban people not because of their ideas but for their lack of use of reason in debate or discussions. I don't think this person was given a chance. Maybe he was a dick, maybe he was just confused. I agree that the argument was terrible. I've seen other terrible arguments from people who have not been banned. I never said "letting everyone say whatever they want" is philosophical honesty. I just meant that we did not have a chance to find out weather it was a failed attempt at philosophy (in which case we could had all helped and even learned) or if it was just an asshole being an asshole.

You mean that things do not exist if they are not detectable?Is this just semantics again? it may very well be but I want to make sure. There is more to science than just empiricism. There was no empirical evidence of gravitational waves back in 1916. What if there is another physical system which is not detectable to us, with probably different physical rules than our own system?This is not like believing in a christian god or something like that, there are actual scientific theories which hint to the potential existence of such systems.

I have more respect for those who are wrong and are willing to put their ideas on the line than for those who are right without even knowing it. The original poster may have been a troll but maybe he was being honest in putting his ideas out there. Ideas which are wrong by the way and easily dismissed from a logical stand point. If he was the latter, then we would be better off trying to dismantle his illogical position and hopefully helping him learn from the interaction. The only way to honestly do that is to put our own ideas on the line when discussing the issues. Am I going to get negative reputation for this too?

Sorry, I never meant to say that, I agree with you completely on this. But saying "nothing exists within something else" was not meant as nothing exists. This is my question, how do you determine that every thing is part of something larger? I don't buy your premise, I don't know for sure that there is something which is "the largest". Dimension and universe are not the same thing. What if there is another physical system which also has the same amount of dimensions as ours but that was not a result of the big bang and that does not occupy the same 3-dimentional space as ours? We could not call that another dimension. I agree 100%

OK, I see what you mean, thanks for clarifying.To me, principles are only valid if they are applied to all instances. If I say "Thou shall not steal" and then I make an exception in a situation where most people will likely sympathy with it, then I might get away with it. Like if I steal in order to feed a hungry person. But regardless of the exception, there is no denying that I did not apply my own principle.In the same way, if this is a philosophy board, then I don't understand why it should ban certain points of view. If those points of view are invalid, then surely it won't be too hard to expose them through philosophy and logic.Socrates did not ban or dismiss Meno because he was the student of a sophist or because of his points of view. In the end Socrates does end the talk with Meno in a funny and dismissive way, but only because Meno was not willing to use reason.If someone comes here arguing that abuse is good, then let's put that argument to the test, after all, isn't knowledge what we are after?

OK so this part was just semantics then, although I do not like that definition myself, other "physical systems" (For lack of a better term here, I usually use "universe") could exist and have no relation to the big bang or this physical system which we inhabit.But for the context of this thread, I understand what you guys mean by universe. How do you figure that? Metaphysically speaking it is as accurate to say "everything exists within something" as saying "nothing exists within something else". It's just a way of trying to make sense of reality, it is how we understand the universe.

There is no reason, that I know of, that would make multiple universes impossible. And why would they all have to be a part of something else?

The Hispanic Mises Institute has some, here: http://www.miseshispano.org/authors/stefan-molyneux/ I translated "Olvidemos el argumento desde la eficiencia" even though I don't fully agree with it. Here's some videos http://www.miseshispano.org/videos/?auth=Stefan+Molyneux Hope that helps

I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand

Well what do you know, you're right. That makes me lose a little respect for the board. You'd think a philosophy board would welcome all arguments to be debated.

My kid has never been spanked, but that does not mean he does not know physical pain. He's hurt himself before several times so he has developed empathy towards those who get hurt. He is smart enough to understand that if I spanked him, it would cause him physical pain. He is also smart enough to understand that if a kid gets spanked, that would cause that kid physical pain and like I said, he has developed empathy towards people feeling pain. T There is no need for me or my wife to cause him physical pain at all. It would be a stupid and cruel thing to do to let my kid know that the people who most care about him in the world are prepared to willingly inflict pain on him for their personal gain.

Exactly, if the cat was in your yard then the owner of the cat is responsible. If the cat has no owner then there is no discussion, but it is nice of you to help an animal in need. So all the context regarding how you got the dog would be irrelevant here. If you are asking who is morally responsible, then the law has nothing to do with it. If you are asking who is legally responsible then that depends on your state laws and how they relate to federal laws and on how those laws are interpreted by the "authorities" analyzing the case. That would be a nice thing to do, but you do not have any moral obligation towards the cat in any way. You could had let the cat die if it got to that and you, or your family, would have no moral responsibility. That would make you kind of a douche and other people would not tend to react in a positive way towards your actions, but it would not make you morally wrong.

That is very interesting, it makes a lot of sense. The incentives are there for democratically elected leaders to plunder and gain power at the expense of future generations. That incentive is not present, or at least not as relevant, in a monarchy. As always, it is all about the incentives.

This is my shortest video so far and that is one of the reasons I like it. Hope you guys do too.