dsayers

How can you describe somebody that rejects logic as rational? If logic doesn't do what you think it should do, wouldn't tossing it out be the logical thing to do? It's always funny to listen to people use logic and reason to usurp logic and reason. A monkey can throw a dart and hit the number 4 when showed a card that says 2+2=? This doesn't mean it's a sound methodology for arriving at the truth. We know that intuition/feelings are not sufficient for determining the truth because humans have the capacity for error. As for your last question, what tool are you referring to? Once upon a time, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. Later, it came to be known that the sun was the center of our solar system. Maybe tomorrow, somebody will be able to prove that up isn't up. All we can do is relate what is true based on what we know. Since logic, reason, and evidence don't appear to be lacking, I ask again: What tool do you have that would outstrip it? Obviously if you could find a better tool, it would be a better tool. To entertain the possibility of improvement, you must first be able to imagine a flaw. Maybe you could identify the flaw before asking what if?

"For disagreeing with you?" My counterpoint is that if it's a requirement to survival, it's rational. Think of a traffic stop. The idea of somebody coming along and threatening to kill you if you don't pull over and kiss their ass is completely irrational. However, we live in a society that were you to resist, you'd be branded the bad guy and they could kill you and be lauded as heroes. So you engage in the otherwise irrational for the sake of survival, which is completely rational.

I don't mean to make light of your situation, but I find it amusing that a religious person thinks they did their best by mating with somebody who isn't religious. Of course I'm sure you realize that "selectively rational" is paradoxical. Do you have any idea WHY they've apologized? If you mother is taking the "best that I could" position, I can't help but think her motivation to apologize was for her own reputation's sake. If my theory's correct, that's a process that she doesn't actually need you for. What did the apology look like? Was it just words? Was it accompanied by a genuine interest in your experience and wanting to do right by you as was their obligation? A lot of times, when people say "I'm sorry" they're actually saying "I would prefer the benefits of you pretending I didn't do that." Unless it came with an understanding of what went wrong and correcting themselves to prevent it from happening again, it's not really an apology you could benefit from. It definitely sounds as if you've given them every opportunity to make things rights. Going back to WHY they apologized... If it's not for your benefit, this would reveal how poorly they view you. In which case, wanting to spend time together would be an act of re-victimization. Since they would basically be using you as a prop to either look or feel "normal." As in, people that didn't abuse their child because it was easier in the moment since the child couldn't resist/escape.

Same could be said for my cat. Animals have always taken to me and I've almost always treated them very well. That said, once I was exposed to the ideas of the power disparities between parent and child (size, dependence, involuntary presence), it allowed me to apply them to my relationship with my cat. It didn't really lead to a change in behavior. Because I had earned her loyalty and affection by always making our interactions about her needs (as able). It's just now, I had a better understanding of why my approach was good and effective.

If I say that rational is a description of a thought process and that inanimate objects/concepts cannot think, and then you repeat that "universe" (an inanimate object/concept) could be described as rational, the point of contention is sufficiently clear. Saying logic is derived from the consistency of matter and energy is not the same as saying that matter and energy are logical. When you repeat what you said as if my clarification wasn't offered, you reveal that you are not engaging in a conversation. You don't need me for that, so best of LUCK to you.

This had never occurred to me and this is the first time I've been exposed to this approach. Big thanks for this. Also thanks to Sabras (and Ferssitar) for that logical proof against omnipotence. Don't forget too that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Quick shorthand: If you could know it, it is certain. If you could change it, it is uncertain. As a Christianity survivor and somebody who has brought rational arguments to the religious, I think you'll just be met with the default "God exists in a dimension where these things are possible" despite rejecting this with regards to any other endeavor towards seeking the truth in their lives. Which reveals their fundamental NEED for God to exist, most likely to preserve the status of their parents in their own fantasy, in accordance with their parents' programming.

Behaviors are neither emergent nor consequences. But I think I get what you're saying. Your whole post, I get it. I think you're zooming out to make a conclusion fit though. You can't have a tribe without individuals. Individuals cannot survive if they don't realize a snake is poisonous, that stepping into a roadway is dangerous, etc. I don't think pointing out how a tribe can be dangerous challenges my argument. If anything, it serves as one example of the validity of my argument. Also, just because something can be detrimental to one's survival doesn't mean one cannot consciously choose to override it (again, behaviors being voluntary). In your Socrates example, he may have recognized that his tribe could be dangerous and chose to take "the high road" all the same. Even if he didn't, this would affirm my argument in that he didn't properly identify his tribe as dangerous and therefore didn't survive. Humans are social creatures, no contest there. Sure you COULD make your own pencil, but it's so much easier to stand on the shoulders of others, divide labor, and trade for one very cheaply. I get it. If anything, your criticism helps me to refine my initial argument that parents create a positive obligation to children to protect and nurture them until such a time as they can do so WITHOUT THEM, rather than "on their own." So thank you for that. And for taking the time to provide a rational counterargument.

On what basis? I can't refute your claim, but as it's collectivizing, it's probably not true.

This does not answer the question. Thus, the disconnect has been identified. Odd, considering that the ability to identify threats being paramount to survival is not a controversial position. As long as you're aware that it's not because you can identify a flaw in the case that I've made. Which would indicate that it's because it conflicts with your conclusion. In other words, bias confirmation.

How does he know what God is? "How do you know" is one of the most important questions anybody could ask of anything. Also, he's contradicting himself. First he asserts that all that is must have been created with his leading question of "what created that," then he rejects that God had to also be created. He rejects it because it would dismantle his belief. Accepting impossibility because it exists in some fantasy dimension where such an impossibility is possible is not a sound methodology for determining what is true. In your other thread, I recommended Stef's An Introduction to Philosophy series. In it, he points out that when somebody says God exists, they're making a large number of problematic claims. First of all, they're claiming that consciousness exists without matter or energy (CEw/oME). This is not consistent with the real world. Secondly, they're claiming that only one CEw/oME. This is also not consistent with the real world, where things do not exist in uniquity. Third, they're claiming that it happens to be the one CEw/oME that they were taught about. Don't forget that throughout human history, there have been many deities referenced. Finally, they're claiming that this CEw/oME intervenes. This is HUGELY problematic. For starters, if ghosts (for example) existed , then they would either impress upon our sense or they would not. If they did, then we could measure, document, and substantiate them. If they did not, then for them to exist or not would be functionally the same thing. Also, if this CEw/oME could intervene and doesn't, then it is revealed that the deity would NOT be worthy of praise and worship, given all of the atrocities we've suffered and are capable of inflicting. I would avoid these types of conversations right now. Given your other thread, I think it's reasonable to expect that the people you'd be debating are more experienced at making the irrational seem rational. They'll only serve to waste your time and frustrate you if you were to imagine for a moment that your inability to reach them is some fault of yours. I was organizing my thoughts for a good 6 months after I had been exposed to rational thought before I began to speak on such things. I wasn't able to do so with confidence until another half a year later. It's something I'm still working on. And I follow the advice I've offered you. If you speak English and not German, there's little to gain from trying to converse with somebody who speaks German but not English. If two people cannot agree upon how to determine what is true, then they're speaking right past each other. If you haven't already, I'd recommend checking out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series as well. It's important to understand WHY people believe what they believe. Simply put, you cannot use reason to convince somebody out of a position they were not reasoned into.

Communicating which ideas? For what purpose? My biggest problem (both in the past and present day) is getting distracted. When somebody puts forth something that sounds like a good idea. Which leads to either forgetting what was being talked about (its purpose) or understanding the ways in which isn't not a good idea. If this sounds like something you might struggle with, I'd recommend Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series on youtube. It's long, but it starts from first principles and builds from there. I've found it helps me to identify contradictions and other irrationalities that might cloud a conversation.

Strawman. I would never claim that an inanimate object or concept was eligible for descriptors that apply to thought process. What I said was that rationality is derived from the consistency of matter and energy. *I* was the one that pointed out that humans have the capacity for error. This is the opposite of "assuming your mind is rational." Instead of implying there's inconsistency in the properties of matter and energy, why don't you show me? When was the last time gravity reversed? When was the last time a single object was in two places at once? For that matter, why are you trying to use rationality to usurp rationality?

My entire post was making the case for this. Could you identify which part you found to be problematic instead of speaking as if wasn't offered to begin with? Another thing to keep in mind is that in evolutionary terms, humans' capacity for reason is very VERY young. We've had the ability to master our environment for much longer, yet we still grow hair. While my last post was one possible explanation for the evolutionary advantage of having a very powerful sex drive, if it turns out to not be necessary due to reason, it's simply way too soon for it to have been selected out. Of course worded like that, the idea that the desire to reproduce even could ever be selected out seems like a fundamental lack of understanding of what you're talking about.

Mutation is the key word here. In , Jack Horner answers the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" question by pointing out that every reproduction is a mutation. Because every offspring is NOT identical to its parents. This continuous recombining of genetic material has allowed humans to develop reason and master our environment from being able to explore other worlds to nanotechnology, and so on. This couldn't happen if reproducing was just the same but different as you describe. Agenda time: One of the ways the State is the most destructive to mankind is the way in incentivizes bad breeding. Breeding for reasons of love and the continuation of rational values helps to offset this, even though the process isn't strictly genetic as shirgall pointed out.

Humans have the capacity for error, which is how we know that any standard that originates within the human mind is fallible. We don't assume the world is rational, we observe it to be consistent, which is the basis for what we call rational. Not that anybody reading this thread needs proof of Donnadogsoth's bitgotry, but there's clear evidence now. Note that in this thread, when I referenced a way that history has credited the State with something positive, he claimed that credit for the dominant religion of that State. In this post, he takes something that would be damaging to his bigotry and gives that credit to the State.

I don't think anybody needs proof of your bigotry, but you just got caught. In this post, you took something history has credited to a country and instead gave the credit to the dominant religion of that country. Here, when crediting something to the religion would damage your bigotry of infallibility, you try to differentiate country from it dominant religion. Do you also accept that the ability to call things by their proper names is paramount to survival? Think hemlock is Kool-Aid and you're going to have a bad day. If you don't universalize gravity, you could plummet to severe injury or death. That sort of thing.

RCali, that's the second time you've spoken as if I didn't specify the parent-child relationship. So let's start from the beginning. Do you accept that when a person has a child, they have voluntarily created a positive obligation to that child to care for and nurture it until such a time as it is able to do so for itself?

"One of these things is not like the other. One of these things is just not the same." I think the answer to why people rape is patently different from the other questions. How do you know? In the short term, it's much easier to live for yourself than it is to live for a significant other. The process of having and raising children requires an enormous investment of resources. Both of these claims, if adhered to, would bring the propagation of the human species to a halt overnight. How then have we managed to procreate, even well beyond having the rationality to identify these claims? Having a sex drive makes reproducing a biological imperative. Which incentivizes and motivates people to overcome the hurdle of introducing yourself to an attractive stranger, or managing your time and desires in a way that accommodates a significant other as well. I would argue that having a sex drive isn't just about sex. We can please ourselves, but having binary genders indicates that we are designed to pair-bond. It's supposed to be that sex is greater than the sum of its parts, so a sex drive would be a way to drive us towards the fulfillment that comes from pair-bonding and not just for the sex. Not saying that I'm right. But I think I'm right in saying that to claim it is not good to need sex isn't a certainty. What do you think about this?

I commend that you're open to the possibility, can be open about it, and understand where it would've come from. There was times in my life where a lot of what you said could've described me also. I wondered if I was a sociopath, I felt like I didn't fit in, I wasn't suicidal, but was ready for it all to be over just the same. When I started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, this concern of mine became greater because of what I've learned about empathy needing to form during our formative years. I was relieved (and not surprised given how much better my first few years alive were compared to the rest) to realize I DID have empathy. In fact, I've seen it flourish once I cut out all the bullshit that got piled on top of it. I don't have any answers for you. But I did want to point out that it seems as if the possibility disturbs you. As long as this thread isn't a sociopathy-fueled attempt to manipulate others, I would say that it is a sign of potential empathy. Not to project my experiences onto you, but I wanted to highlight this as this was one of my biggest blind spots. Much later in life I learned that I had been seeking out unconditional, all-consuming love from my girlfriends. In other words, I was looking to get the love a child needs from a parent, as I never got that parental love (beyond maybe age 3-4). The problem is that the parent-child relationship is the only time you can/should get that sort of love. Later in life, pair-bonding is between equals. This dynamic never occurred to me and I became very destructive to my relationships as I started to place this burden onto them. Worst part is that I didn't realize at the time the impossibility of my expectations. As a result, I saw relationship after relationship burned to the ground. So consistently that I accepted I was constant in the equations, but had absolutely no idea where to go from there to stop it from happening. So I all but withdrew from dating at all, to avoid hurting anybody. Which ended up hurting me. As I'm sure you're aware, while I was responsible for the in the moment decisions I made that were harmful to my relationships, my approach and mindset were the responsibility of my parents. Who not only broke their promise to protect and nurture me, but also modeled manipulation, subjugation, etc. Again assuming this thread isn't meant to artificially disarm others, I thank you for reaching out in this regard.

This is one of the reasons why I pointed out that the way to answer the question is to address whether or not noise pollution is immoral. Less obfuscation. Yes the state owns the roads and uses force to artificially cull would-be competition. However, the gun pointed at our heads in this regard is NOT saying "create excessive noise or we'll hurt you." As such, the creation of excessive noise is voluntary. I further emphasize my rejection of your claim that it is unknowable. If you point to somebody with a gun to their head being commanded to sexually penetrate somebody against their will, you can't say the morality of rape is unknowable. We use logic, reason, and evidence to determine that in a vacuum (no coercion), rape is in fact immoral. Because it is binding upon another without their consent (the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights), just like noise pollution.

Having a child is the creation of a positive obligation to that child to protect and nurture them until such a time as they're able to do so for themselves. This entails many things, not the least of which is the primary wisdom of calling things by their proper names. Religiosity isn't just irrational, it is anti-rational when inflicted upon a developing mind. As this is a violation of the aforementioned obligation, it IS the initiation of the use of force. I won't speak for others, but my efforts have not been to redirect. My efforts have been to break tunnel vision. There are tons of people the world over bringing attention to Islam right now. You don't need me to say so. What most people are NOT pointing out is that Islam is a symptom and irrationality is the problem. They're not telling you that this fundamental breaking people up into teams as Mr. Stembal points out is how this sort of thing takes place to begin with. There's only one way to divide people: Those willing to initiate the use of force to accomplish their goals and those who will not. A lot of the people trying to bring attention to Islam right now are doing so in the name of the State to justify further aggression. Not saying they're wrong. Just saying they're not on your team. People are so focused on Islam that they either don't realize or have lost sight of the fact that Statism is a religion that enslaves us all. Islam can't tax me, debase my currency, or enslave my grandchildren.

Poisoned question. Reason and intuition are not compatible. Devotion to dirt is not a rational conclusion. Love is not something one can have towards inanimate objects or concepts.

That's exactly what I said. You have an opinion that you choose to hold even after receiving data to the contrary. Bigotry. The word patriotic is incompatible with words like empirical.

Because people own themselves, but not their ears? Not the first time this challenge has been offered. The person engaging in the behavior (as with any immoral behavior) is unambiguously telling you that it's a weapon.

I've been thinking about this ever since I read it. It's helped me to better address the topic in my own mind, so thank you for that. Over the last decade, I've thought a lot about how most of the things it's become fashionable to rail against can be summed up by the word progress. These people tend to be anti-progress in ways that have very real anti-human manifestations. It also reminds me of the pop quiz Bill Whittle gave to Stef in their recent conversation. The one where he asks Stef what animal has the fastest land speed record, which animal can soar the highest, which animal has been the deepest in the sea. The answer to all is human. He goes on to point out how we can eat anything and so on. I wonder if this attack on man's evolution to the top of the food chain is assaulted with such vehemence as the result of the State's assault on the concept of "individual" for the betterment of its own prosperity and growth. Seems like a fair conclusion. What do you think?