Will Torbald

There is no reason to believe in the principle of sufficient reason. The universe can just be without a "sufficient reason". It's just stuff philosophers come up with, but the universe doesn't have to please philosophers. The question itself is a good question though, and it's something that honest physicists do struggle with. The current interpretation is that the universe could be one of many in a landscape of possible universes, in which the features of this particular universe are accidental, not fundamental. In other words, there is not reason for our universe to be the way it is other than it was a possibility, and it happened by chance. It's like finding out we are not special in the universe, but finding out the universe itself isn't special either. Tough for the ego to accept - and while it still in the realm of speculative theory - it is a possibility I wouldn't reject if the evidence showed it is true.

If the liberals are foaming at the mouth at her appointment, that's all I need to know.

"Don't forget UPB is based upon our requirements for life." 99.999999999% of humanity lives ignoring UPB ethics and there's 7 billion+ people now. I think it's been empirically proven UPB isn't required for life. "Correction in a debate isn't necessarily about universal preference" I think you're contradicting Stef's argument directly here. If contradicting the argument the book makes, so that you can prove UPB is true, is a good way of arguing in favor of it - I would be very confused. "Just nope. Those "initial preferences" are empirically proven universal preferences which aren't used to force conclusions. Conclusions are built upon these empirical facts." None of the first premises of the scientific method can be proven empirically because there is nothing to compare reality with non reality. It is simply assumed we are real, that we exist in an objective world. But the latter part of the group of assumptions are not necessarily true since they assume things about human nature that aren't axiomatic, but only presumed for debate. "If you don't agree on empiricism, we get surrealism and no possible debate at all." Yet empiricism can only be assumed, not proven. There is no empirical evidence that empiricism is true. That's why it's an assumption, which I am glad to make - but there are assumptions that are made after empiricism has been assumed that need to be proven because they can. "I will bring the proof of the necessity of this assumption:" It isn't about assuming people are responsible, but proving they are - because that is a falsifiable statement. It is a thesis, not a premise. You can make scientific experiments for it. You already believe some people are not responsible for their actions in relation to their age, or mental health. What if there are people genetically predisposed to aggression and violence, who don't have the neurological structures in their brain that would make them capable of self control? Who look otherwise mentally healthy and adult. You can test that. It isn't an assumption. In any case, when you assume this of the other person, you're only doing it because in a debate you have to pretend this is true- not because it's been proven to be true. Also, Stef's argument is consequentialist - neither empirical nor rational. He doesn't like the idea of having classes of people with more agency than others, so he dismisses it. I think that fits my criticism of choosing the premises to fit his desired conclusion. "You still can choose to not use UPB at all." According to UPB, I can't. It supposedly is an inescapable theory, and if I dare to say no - then I am wrong. This, however, doesn't make the theory right - it makes it not even wrong because it is internaly unfalsifiable. The reason it reaches that state of wrongness is because the premises are not honest.

The rational response is to signal to the authorities (Trump) that antifa must be declared a terrorist organization, that the UC at Berkeley was directly involved in the riots with staff guiding it from within, and that they have to be defunded from federal sources. That Free Speech must be protected by the law. When all that fails, that's when you fight.

The American left has become the party of the third worlders bent on bringing down the US to their level. An infernal coalition of drug cartel, Islamists, globalist sugar daddy insitgators, black supremacists, and cat ladies. It is the scum of the world against the world.

Everything here is wrong. I'm certain more discerning spectators know why, but I'll detail it anyway. 1) Pain, by being a signal of harm, is a good thing for life to have. Also, life doesn't avoid pain. It avoids the cause of the pain, but only if it is harmful. Life depends on things that are painful, nonetheless - like childbirth, or the first time having sex, or going to the dentist. 1.1) To say that science "is a type of debate" or that it has "the same premises" is foolish, for the premises of debate are a mix or rational and empirical claims - and science doesn't make empirical assumptions, only rational ones. All the empirical evidence is part of the process that comes afterwards. The rational claims that "we exist" can't be tested, which is why they are necessary. Premises of debate like "people can change their mind" are empirical claims, and actual brain experiments have been done (guess what, brains are pretty deterministic actually). 2) Conclusions are reached through debate, not truth. The truth is only reached through evidence in the case of empirical claims, and of rational proof in case of logical claims. However, we are dealing with world-level claims when dealing with morality. Empirical claims subject to evidence, not argument. If you change the rules of tennis and chess arbitrarily, they cease to be tennis or chess. The rules define the game, to begin with, even if they can altered slightly. 3) "Truth is reached through debate" is what a rationalist would say, not an empiricist. If you say "evidence is debate" then you are conflating argumentation with science. Words have definitions, and only sophists mix them together to confound meanings. I was saying that UPB wants to be a science-level system, not me. I'm not the one "who needs to understand" but tell that to Stefan instead. - Still No Argument That Falsifies My Case

Even if most whites are suicidal, a large contingent is not. Liberals are breeding themselves out of the gene pool, and conservatives are above replacement. It will take time, in the long haul, but the west can/has a shot at surviving. Although I could see it reduced to a handful of states, rather than the global hegemony it once was.

Oh gee the lolbertarians are upset how will he recover from this?? They who have never had a successful presidential run are critical of the most successful private citizen presidential run in the world, and his first week on the job. I might faint from the pressure his opponents are giving him.

Your enemies will use their superior collective force to eliminate you before you can defend yourself.

Probably not, but the government could fund a completely public and 1st ammendment protected social network themselves in order to prevent media monopolies.

He doesn't want segregation as much as what he calls "peaceful ethnic cleansing" where each of the races would leave to their area of origin through incentives and relocation programs. In the end it wouldn't be an ethnically pure society, but one that is explicitly for European peoples, not a multicultural melting pot. Any remaining groups would have to accept those terms, I assume, like Israel does where it's not 100% Jewish, but it's 100% for Jews.

I agree with his thesis quite heartily. I don't think I should expand on that too much. While I understand the need to preserve western civilization I fear that the same thing that is hurting it is an exploitation of a weakness hardwired into the system. West Civ will inevitably snowball into a liberal-progressive Juju that seeks to be more prog than thou by being ever more tolerant. Liberty requires tolerance, and more differences require more tolerance to preserve liberty. Sooner or later you get the lunacy of Sweden and pals.

If it pisses liberals, it's probably true.

You might construct an argument that ends with "truth is good", but not with one that says "truth is goodness". Good is only an adjective. Goodness is a noun. And, I don't know, but it seems to me that the OP wants to know if there is such 'a thing' as goodness.

Wow when people believe in divine punishment they don't do as many bad things wow.

1- Pain isn't bad for life. Science is how the truth is known, not debate. Saying that what is good for life is the same as what is good for debate is the same as saying that there is a life/debate continuum - it has not escaped the rebuttal. Also, that is still a claim, not a proof. 2- The truth isn't known through debate. The premises of tennis and soccer are not arbitrary, they are necessary for the game. The premises of debate are not arbitrary, they are necessary for debate. The issue is that they are not necessary for life. The only premises needed for the truth are the premises of the scientific method, and UPB uses many more premises beyond those, premises which are ideological - not scienfitic. 3- That definition is a rationalistic view of truth, and the problem is that any logical argument that doesn't include scientific knowledge is limited by the the unwarranted assumptions made in the premise stage of the argument. Therefore, if you only include "logically argue for" in your definition, you could technically debate anything is true in any case for any ideology and religion and come up with a "truth" because your premises will always be chosen by your desire for the outcome. UPB wants to be as good as the scientific method, but for morality. It can't be as good if it doesn't only make the assumptions of the SM, and no more than that. Your only standard is aetherial ungrounded logic, without any scientific requirement. Good for you, but not for the theory as a system of ethics that presents itself as scientific, objective, and universal.

Sadly, sadly predictable.

I know why you would think it is, but it's not a good analogy. The universe is not a hammer, because you can trace how the hammer was made from the wood to the iron by their craftsmen. The universe can't be assumed to be a craft in the way a hammer can, nor humans or other forms of life as well. It's a very easy to follow into trap. We as humans make things, so we say that spoons and cars have makers. We see natural things around us, so we assume natural things had makers too. It would be like spiders thinking everything is made out of silk because they make webs out of silk. Or like bees thinking everyone else also eats honey. We craft tools, so everything else was crafted as well. Back to the science aspect of it, if you don't know how atoms come together, how particles flow, how quantum fields operate - making any assumption about "substances" is folly of the arrogance to argue without knowledge. Those who do know about these things do not come to the conclussions you do because they actually know better.

Ignoring that god doesn't exist, god can't be called moral according to the same morality he gives to humans. So how can god be morally superior to us, if he doesn't follow the same morality he wants from us? Morality has no meaning applied to god, since he is devoid of it. I don't know if you wanted to say that is morally superior to follow christian-derived morality vs non-christian or humanist or rational or deontological or etc moralities. The problem is that god is not a justified assumption, so all moralisms derived from it are chosen for the desired consequences, not for the reason it is derived from. So you want people to think murder is wrong just because, because you just want people not kill each other.

Philosophers arguing about substances and the universe without knowing anything about physics and cosmology is absolute futile intellectual masturbation.

It think you're rationalizing social awkwardness.

This is so wrong I don't even want to deal with the eveything said before. I think you have severe issues with the concept of morality itself if you believe this. Not even worth going back and forth with the rest. The challenge is simple: Prove that life and debate are continuous and one in the same. I show how the assumptions of debate are not necessary for life - and all you do is insist and repeat that they are. Also, the proof has to be exclusive for debate, and not every other situation that has rules and premises (like chess or tennis). The rebuttal of "you can't debate without accepting the premises of debate" is wrong because the premises are only taken in order to contextualize the debate - not to prove that the premises are true. It could be very real and true that determinism and not free will is how the world works, yet we pretend free will is real in order to debate because we haven't proved it is.

By real, I mean - not an illussion. The trees and the concept for forest that envelops them, are real material things. The brain is the real material thing, and thoughts are physical events, -real- events in the brain. Thoughts and emotions are defined by neural networks. Every thought you have can be looked in a scan and you can see individual parts of the brain dealing with them. A "personality" is those networks acting in concert together. The brain isn't one single group like a forest of the same trees. It's a diverse ecosystem, and even though the two halves look similar, each side operates differently and has specialized functions. For example, typically only the left hemisphere has language centers, so when a split brain person speaks, only the left brain does. In order to communicate with the right brain, signs and words (that they can read, but not speak) are used. I think the difficulty you're having is still that you are too philosophical, and not scientific.

The premise in case is "people are responsible for their actions" - which is not a premise of equal meaning to self ownership. When, for example, someone kills another person, we can ask of this event "Was this person insane? Was this person under drugs? Was this person in a blind rage that numbed its cognitive skills so intensely that it couldn't avoid killing?" These questions are relevant to the state of the mind of the person that would impare his ability to decide and exercise self control over his emotions and aggressive impulses - We don't ask "Was this person in self ownership of the hand that pulled the trigger? The sophist trick here is to say that because the hand was attached to the arm that was attached to the body that has a brain then obviously and axiomagically the person was responsible and morally culpable for the killing. But nobody does that. Except when autistic-type libertarians say that assuming responsibility for your words during a debate as a premise is the same as believing that everything people do is their fault, therefore objective morality, therefore the killer is culpable. These are two completely different and separate concepts that are being conflated to justify the nonsensical phrase "you can't argue against self ownership" as a means of determining that because we agree to assume responsibility for our arguments in a debate - then during real life then everyone is always morally liable for their actions.

You should be worrying about neurology and neuroanatomy, not ontology and epistemology. For example, have you heard or seen information about people who have had their brains separated in the middle, leaving the left and the right brain independent from each other? Each brain develops its own personality and consciousness separate from the other hemisphere. If there are other personalities in your brain, they would have to be associated with a function similar to that, where each brain has its own processing network, but can meet in the middle.