shirgall

The View just talked about how the judge being a Stanford alum may have biased him in the case... I'm sure Trump gets the same consideration.

I invite you to read UPB (the book), since that's where those are from (as I had said), with context as to why those are the standard premises for the rest of the book.

Except they are not propositions, they are premises!

Look at the ground rule premises for UPB. We both exist. Senses have a capacity for accuracy. Language has a capacity for meaning. Correction requires universal preferences. You can objectively separate truth from falsehood. Truth is better than falsehood. Peaceful debates are the best way to resolve disputes. Individuals are responsible for their actions. Most of the evaluation of actions is analytic here, except where it is required that one evaluates the physical effects of an action. However, those physical effects are easily tested. What physical effects are being falsified that you think change the conclusions you have reached evaluating actions with UPB?

We must use our empathy and compassion to determine what truths would be traumatic at the child's current stage of development. Yes, truth is preferable to falsehood, but it's probably best to converse at a level that's relate-able, understandable, and sensitive to a child's sensibilities.

I did read the original posting, but I thought I had argued that it really doesn't matter if your brain is in a vat... we have to work with what we have. All we have to go on is what we have observed, whether it is artificial or not. The entire thing strikes me that same way as the "mind/body problem". The only reason it is a "problem" is because our language is such that they appear to be distinct things, but they are not. Consciousness is an effect of processes of the brain. Analytic propositions are word games that are entirely abstract. Synthetic propositions are testable by experiment in objective reality. Statements of any sort can be analyzed via word games. Conclusions can be tested whether or not our brain is in a vat. *If* our brain is in a vat, the two kinds of propositions belong in the same set. If we do exist in an objective reality, they are distinct... but it changes nothing about claims, logical operations, or conclusions. The problem (ahem) is the multiple definitions of the word "problem." It's a puzzle to be solved, not an insurmountable negative difficulty. The way you set it up is that "no puzzles can be solved because we can't tell if the puzzle is real." That's clearly not the case.

We don't have any knowledge of any other worlds, so we have to work with what we've got. I have knowledge of the world that I sense. I can interact with it. I observe other actors in the real world. When these actors and I converse, they often have knowledge I don't have but can confirm. Thus, I conclude that there is an objective reality containing real objects I can see, smell, taste, hear, and feel that follow physical rules I can discern or learn, and that there are other people like me in it. If you deny objective reality, and refuse knowledge of it, you are very alone and likely to become tiger food.

A lot of news organizations pre-write expected stories, especially things like obituaries, and update them with final details when the event occurs. The Clinton wins the primary story could have been written two years ago.

Those property rights come from the inherent scarcity of reality. Feel free to storm the barricades of the universe in your own way, but the ultimate "fuck you" to nature trying to kill you is living, surviving, thriving, and making a whole bunch more of you to carry on the fight in the next generation. Railing against everyone else drinking the chlorine in the gene pool is dividing your efforts. Instead, seek arrangements for mutual gain and quit trying to tear down everyone else.

The real concern is the distribution of fertility rate over IQ and political system. Smart people in socialist hellholes reproduce the least.

While the dating market always revolves around catering to the whims and passions of 20-something females, that doesn't make it the best way to perpetuate the species.

Instill a love of mastery and homework ceases to be a problem; it would neither need to be assigned nor endured.

I have witnessed in my life people using faith to justify all sorts of things, including beating children and invading nations. There are plenty of good Christians that don't use faith like this, but one does need to weed out the bad ones. As for objectively moral, there's a book on it right on this site.

The point is that there are rational atheists with good values and skepticism of the state, and they should be nurtured as much as philosophically-minded Christians who don't overly rely on faith as an excuse for objectively immoral actions.

When I was in school it was unchosen positive obligations that made me into a half-assed student. When I paid for my own classes, I was a little more interested, but even then I was seeking apiece of paper and not something real. Later in life, when I was on the hook for paying back my company if I did poorly or if what I learned was not something that could realize revenue, I was more interested, and I did so much better at it. So, I have a Master's Degree in something vaguely useful, but I consider all of my other education a incredible waste of time. Good parents spark curiosity and enable finding out more, and they do it by teaching about tools for handling knowledge. I knew far more about certain subjects than my teachers about Computer Science in high school and college. Individuals are motivated if they can realize their incentives.

Capitalism is a race to transaction, where all parties think they are getting something better than what they are giving away, based on what they know and what they need at the time of exchange.

How about, "After over 100 years of trying, socialism has never worked. Why will it work now?"

Frankly, it's not something he wants to expose his daughter to and he talks about everything he discusses on the show with her. That being said, the significant events of the show are modeled after real events in human history, which is kinda cool. I think the writing is better than a lot of other shows on TV , but the writing of the novels is significantly better than that.

I thought the claim was that we all already knew where it was, he just had to remember it perfectly.

Isn't that "forbearance"? I associate "temperance" with shunning alcohol.

Let me add that when I was a hiring manager, searching for people on the Internet, including social media, was just part of the vetting process. What you post can certainly be taken into account. Heck, I have had specific impressions of people just based on what they chose for their email address.

I don't find it that ironic. I use words wherever possible, but I have been unsuccessfully mugged, too. As they say, "speak softly but carry a big stick." I maintain healthy relationships with many people in law enforcement and the military and I gauge their willingness to follow orders that go "too far". Even if the general populace didn't notice the Katrina disarming videos, a lot of the people in the military and law enforcement did, and expressed shame and regret. I carry the hope that they will choose, but I know how ironic it is to hope for someone to be moral when they already enforce immoral laws.

After Katrina and the very public disarming of the populace by the military in the aftermath, some may distrust the authorities should something new happen.

We watched him pump iron on call-in shows for years...

This event is getting (and deserves) wide coverage. Some are calling for Milo not to pay for the security the university required him to hire from them, and I can't help but agree. He was credibly threatened and security refused to remove the person who did the threatening.