shirgall

S = Tundra p = "My stance is x"... 1. The best evidence of p is S's beliefs 2. The only evaluator of the truth of S's beliefs is S 3. If S believes p, then p is justified and true 4. S believes p 5. Therefore S knows p (justfied, true belief) 6. x is "there is no p, where S can know p" 7. x says there can be no p where S can know p, which violates #5 This is a problem.

No, I asked how you knew, and I meant how do you know your stance is "humans are incapable of knowing anything, incapable of gaining any knowledge." I assert that knowing one's stance is possible. You seem to claim the same. How is the knowing of ones stance not a justified, true belief?

I couldn't because determinism forced me to react to previous stimuli by posting something snarky instead. You did claim you were wrong because I'm assuming you are human and you said humans cannot know anything, but you cannot make such a claim without knowing language. This is saying, "I am wrong." Since I'm human, last I checked (but who knows?), I added, "...and so are you." You are trying to kill the framework that allows us to know things by making the false claim that we cannot know things. Knowledge can be false. People can be be taught something, or infer something, misinterpret their senses, or believe something that is not true. It's still knowledge. By the way, complaining that I mischaracterized a situation as a "trap" without actually addressing the argument I made is not an argument.

This question can be turned around: do people always do what they say they should do?

Because you have to know an incredible number of things just to make an argument that you can't know anything. You have to know how to communicate, how to argue, what words mean, and believe that you can not only impart knowledge to another person and convince them that some knowledge is true and that other knowledge is false. But when your words are, on top of this massive framework that millions of years of the universe trying to kill our ancestors produced, "I'm wrong and so are you" it doesn't really go anywhere, does it? Yes, certain words and definitions can fall into traps of circular definitions, but it really doesn't happen very often. There's a reason I push hard on defining terms and clarifying arguments when they get bent into these logical traps, but there's also a reason I don't spend all that much time on them. They are traps set by the nihilists to waste precious time we could be going out and doing something productive.

I see it as a self-detonating argument, nonetheless, because I know what the words mean and what they connote.

It's your stance that you believe, truly, and are justified in believing, what your stance is, yet somehow you are also incapable of knowing this.

Good analysis here: https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/07/07/what-happened-to-philando-castile/?singlepage=true

How do you know that?

If the police knew that someone with a history of violent incidents likely had a gun you can't really fault them for demanding immediate compliance to lawful commands. While police have the extraordinary power to give such commands, they also have voluntarily accepted the duty of pursuing, arresting, and transporting malefactors. What I saw was that part of Alton's body was obscured by the parked car, depending on the angle, and that he was not laying there peacefully either. Coupled with the anxiety of confronting a likely armed and dangerous felon, this is not going to go well. When a fellow officer says, "he's got a gun" they are going to trust that assessment. I don't know why the confrontation started, but in general police don't like to do that when there's bystanders near. Are there any more details on what started the encounter? I still predict no true bill, but the BLM folks are going nuts on Facebook already. Is there any evidence that race had anything to do with this?

I'm going to predict no true bill on this one. Seen multiple camera angles already, and heard clearly the "He's got a gun" from one officer. Even if that officer was totally incorrect in his instant assessment, the other officers would have acted on that information. Alton was not subdued in his actions, and his quick body movements would have made a very bad situation already worse.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Fate accomplished!

Wait. We have a choice on how to spend our time?

Stef supports the truth, and if the truth benefits Trump more than it does his detractors and his opponents, does that somehow produce the "essence" of support? Stef has leveled criticism at Trump from time to time, does that give him the "essence" of supporting Hillary? Trump does not consider the NAP when he suggests policy, instead he seems to consider what appeals to voters. That's not going to earn the support of a philosopher, but the way he goes about it might earn some commentary. The reaction of the media and his detractor's to Trump's statement are worthy of comment, especially since the discussion earns money for the show. Stef willingly engages in a wide variety of topics, but he's also careful to touch upon topics of current interest (in impressive time) and perennial favorites. That doesn't mean he is a Trump supporter. That doesn't mean he stopped being an anarchist. He does, however, spend more time on the obvious war of values between the west and others. It's not just topical, it's immediate.

We're going to have to stop there. You aren't paying attention. Fascination with someone that plays the media like a fiddle is not promotion.

Outside of this forum, how often have you seen someone post they were sorry? It's a similar phenomenon.

Let's boil it down to this: a particular critter is the result of trillions of molecular interactions that came previous to its existence. A particular choice is the result of trillions of molecular interactions (termed "stimuli") that came previous to its existence. Does that mean that a particular critter was pre-ordained by the universe? Does this mean that a particular result of a choice is pre-ordained in the universe? There is some level of uncertainty in what happens next. That we have mechanisms that help us choose that are subject to physical laws does not invalidate the fact that no one can accurately predict with 100% certainty any choice. This is why I say, "if you feel you have a choice, you do." The original poster was depressed because she had been convinced that free will is an illusion and she has no choice. But that is not the case. There are always competing factors for our attention that are infathomable to anyone, which Kevin addressed in his very first reply to the OP. No one has refuted this: "Arguing for free will does not require a suspension of the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or logic. It's simply the acceptance that this subjective experience of rationally choosing one action over another, despite instinct or conflicting desire, is a true and accurate description of events."

Determinism has been rehashed repeatedly on these forums with no change in outcome. In fact, the outcome is so predictable there's no point in discussing it again. Bottom line is, if you think have a choice, you do. Anyone that argues for determinism believes they can change someone's mind, which undermines their own position. If everything is compelled because it is fore-ordained, then you can't get mad at someone for banning a discussion... it's not like they had a choice.

I have a funny one: my current wife saw my match.com profile before we met, and didn't like my profile. She didn't realize it was me when we met later, but eventually remembered.

Just remember that females get a heck of a lot more inquiries than they send on dating sites. They have to use ways to quickly get to "no" or they get overwhelmed.

I do read what you are saying, but it's irrelevant to whether or not someone is a Christian, therefore I cast it aside. We already agreed, over and over, that being a Christian is being an adherent to Christ. You have selected one aspect of Christ's alleged teachings and made it central but most people would not agree that use of force doctrine is central to being a Christian. Christians waged war for a variety of reasons, even against their own. In the 1920s there was violence against Catholics by Protestants over religious interpretation in the United States. I discard the myth that any Abrahamic religion is a religion of peace. Religion is a tool of convenience and control, and there's enough material to find any "central tenet" desired over thousands of years. It's like horoscope wisdom writ large. The community aspect of some churches is laudable (help one another, raise children with strong values, come together to solve problems, and so on). Religion is not necessary for community, but it seems to help. If there was a central tenet I'd champion it would be that. As for the violence angle, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." When you are defending your life from attack, you cannot waste precious moments determining whether the attacker feels justified. If you had that kind of time, you probably could avoid or extract yourself from the situation. If I interpret correctly, you've latched onto this as some sort of bloodthirstiness, but it's not.

Then we don't agree on what a Christian is. Not believing in Christ is breaking something more fundamental than some odd digression about violence. You can confirm this by asking Christians.

Okay, I think I get what you are saying, but it's not an appropriate application of objectivity. Stefan is not the judge, a dispassionate, disinterested observer is. That judge would not think Stefan was a Christian either. He is not an adherent to Christian faith, nor a believer in his divinity.

Since neither I nor Stefan are Christians under this definition, why continue further?