vahleeb

Hey Mike, Was wondering which are those two "outlier" states from the Violent Crime and Diversity plot graph. I'm talking about the one on the most right with over 80% diversity and under 300 per 100000 crime rate, and the one third from the left in terms of diversity (a little under 15%) but with over 300 per 100000. I know I can go back and correlate through the sources, but it'd literally be replotting the graph, and you guys probably still have the excell source of the graph, right? (If I had to guess, I'd say Washington for the former and Minesotta for the latter). Great video, btw.

Hey junglecat, I can only speak from personal experience. The realisation and acceptance of my own finality was a trying time from a psychological standpoint. Many a sleepless night accompanied it. I had long abandoned the church at this point but I was still clinging onto the ideas of soul, of energy conservation, of one big bowl of energy where we get to integrate once we die, the usual dribble. I can't say that I was even actively preoccupied with theism at this point, in life. One day, around noon, I just came to the immovable realisation that I will die someday and that it will be for real. From there, logic kind of took over and as I accepted the immovability of the fact that I will die, I found all the little cobwebs that I had around the subject about death not being final, just faded away. Two days later I had the best sleep of my adult life. I guess if I were to characterise it, it was a sobering experience since the acceptance of the fact made me see things much clearer. However I can't say that it was morbid or saddening before or after, and the thing is that once I've accepted it, I found I haven't given it much thought since. Personally I think we all go through the five stages of dying (DABDA) ever since we first see death on the horizon. Atheists, I have found, get to the final A with a lot more life to live than others, and I think that's an overall positive. Progeny, bloodline and the species have never been part of my thoughts, but I guess I'm also no Bergman either. As far as the original poster and my obvious avoidance of the question, it all had to do with the fact that he was a 13-year old boy, who wasn't even looking for the answer himself, but was looking for talking points to take back to his priest, which is something I felt should be discouraged if the boy is ever to evolve into a free thinker at all.

Will, can you go back to my cat question? I feel ignored

Will, say one cold rainy evening you pick up a cat off the street and bring it into the house. You feed it for about a week and then you leave for vacation for two weeks somewhere else, while leaving the cat locked in the home with no food. Would you consider that moral/immoral/morally neutral? Have you broken any obligations?

Hi Merrifield, 1. No, otherwise they wouldn't record "time of death" after the plug is pulled. 2. Not in the case that I have laid out. I'd even go so far as to argue that you can't initiate force against a non-sentient entity. I mean you "could" technically, but does it count? Is it any different from punching the side of a mountain? If your aggression is not perceived (in the moment or in the future), is it even an aggression? (And no, you can't kill someone in their sleep either, because 1 they are still sentient, 2 you cannot establish for sure that they do not perceive dying at all, 3 you are violating their reasonable expectation of waking - self ownership derived - when they have voluntarily gone to sleep). 3. Not in the physical sense. Certainly that is a question for DNA. In the psychological or in the moral sense? That's a complex topic, but I don't think that's what you were asking. In any case, that's not at all what I was saying. I was saying that sentience is a requirement for murder to exist.

Hi TIG, I think the part that is missing from your presentation is wether or not Murray & Herrnstein's 1994 book is referencing the very same studies debunked by Joseph or not. If you had that, you'd have a bulletproof case. Personally, I think that the conclusion that IQ is a predominantly genetic trait is extremely counterintuitive, however, since the discovery of the "warrior-gene" that Stef references at the end of this presentation: I have to give a larger leniency as to genetic theories.

Yes I did. Because the discussion was over because AFK chose to retreat from the thread entirely, not because anyone had actually convinced anyone of anything. His last post ends on Which translates into I don't have any desire to carry the conversation forward. I made an observation as to what may have been the reason behind his desire to retreat, while stating that on the base arguments, I don't agree with AFKs point of view, but somehow that was perceived as attack? I'd love to take you up on that challenge, dsayer, but for now it is your behaviour that is driving our conflict forward. So I'll counter-issue a challenge for you: Try and answer at least three of the following questions: 1. what are you asking me to do, in order to prove to you that he's just trying to argue his position? 2. the behaviour that I have observed would be described by what better word so as to not "poison the well"? 3. How would you call then encouragement to disengage? 4. Can you point out a single logical fallacy in any of my previous comments? 5. Where have I done any of the following: personalisation, ad hominem, and/or lashing out. 6. What is your null hypothesis for "poisoning the well", for "begging the question" and for the accuracy of your description of my behaviour? And the reward I will give is that the following post I make on this thread will not be about you.

Hi shrigall, is pulling the plug on the braindead ending their life? You are introducing force into the debate when it is not necessary. It's a level of complexity higher than the base process. No one is performing the abortion against the mother's will in my theory and the foetus doesn't have a will if they're not sentient. You're also reversing the argument: when is killing justified?". The position in the theory is that it is morally neutral. The theory I'm pointing to is in a comment that was a reply to Des, that will appear above your post, once it clears moderation. Please indulge the process before replying. (The magic of timeline discontinuity thanks to "moderation" strikes again. I won't restate the theory here, since that's probably what triggered the moderation in the first place) I'm sorry if you feel I am addressing you unfairly, since you did make your comment while unaware of the theory I put forward (even though it is just a rehashing of the position I have defended all throughout the thread).

"Stealing is good" is not computed to be unworkable because it produces the effect "I can't be good so I'll stop caring", it is unworkable because through the definition of the act of theft it precludes all people from being moral at the same time, thus making morality non-universal. Whatever happens after this first and closest derived contradiction is irrelevant. Syllogistic reasoning stops at the first contradiction of the truth it encounters. As far as wether or not abortion is immoral, my whole position throughout this thread is that we have an evidence where wilfully ending another life is not morally reprehensible (the case of the brain-dead) and that the only variance between the brain-dead and those for whom ending their lives is morally reprehensible is sentience (that means the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively). We also know for a fact that the foetus does not develop sentience for a while (certainly not before some kind of brain is developed) in the womb. Therefore I would argue that abortion during this period of time, would have to fall under the same moral rule applied when pulling the plug on the brain dead. The principle used here is murder has a moral quality (it is immoral) while pulling the plug doesn't (it is morally neutral). Therefore it must follow that murder has to be connected to sentience (which is the only difference between the two subjects of the respective actions). The are problems with this position on abortion, in that we do not have a clear cut line of when this change in status occurs for the foetus (from non-sentient to sentient) and that it is very hard to determine empirically anyway which makes most people (on both sides of the debate) that prefer to hold on to their "religious" (both pro and against abortion) beliefs discourage investigating the matter further. There would be, I think, a second tier debate wether or not abortion would be moral even after that line is crossed, depending on certain characteristics (I'm not even sure of this position, but I can't flesh it out with anyone because no one will let go of their religious beliefs long enough to even go on an exploration with me), but until we can reach an agreement, at least for the purpose of the debate, going down that path would complicate things even further.

Ok, I see you don't respond to reason. Let's see if I can make you respond to your theory, instead. No they do not. All of what you say doesn't exist, because I don't want it to, so my world view is the only one that can exist for me. How can you still be talking and disagreeing with me, when I don't will you to?

What is your null hypothesis, dsayers? How are you not married to your own conclusions? Why would I, by your own example, first have to prostrate myself to you ("you are right to say"/"i feel frustrated") in order to elicit from you an example of an alternate behaviour than the one I have employed and that you have judged as lacking in integrity? Let me reiterate the "conflict" here just so there is no doubt what I am talking about (and also to illustrate the flow of ideas that I have received from this conversation, in bold are my open ended questions that you have not responded to, in underline are your characterisations of my actions that I do not agree with): Just to sum it up from the top: What is your null hypothesis for "poisoning the well", for "begging the question" and for "accurately described"? How am I not displaying the acceptance for capacity for error when I am literally asking you to correct my behaviour time and time again where it fails to meet your standards? And judging by your last comment, you are bypassing all of these questions because "I am not asking you properly" ?? Do you have any idea what a discussion between equals entails? I cannot agree with you without first knowing what you would expect of me. I don't think that's unreasonable in any way.

This is the logical fallacy again: "there is no existence apart from consciousness, since everything we experience is" It's called a cause/effect reversal. Things that you don't experience still exist (you experience them because they exist, not the other way around). The world didn't become round all of a sudden because Magellan circumnavigated it. There is no relationship between the existence of arbitrary things and one's perception of them or not. To sum it up, from Stephan's Introduction to Philosophy: either reality exists independent of our senses, in which case we can have a discussion and a debate because there is an external standard of correctness, either reality is subordinate to our senses in which case debating is completely pointless. You (or this bishop) cannot attempt to convince me of anything, if reality is moulded by perception, because your/his reality is subjective (dependant on perception) and therefore just as valid as my reality (whatever that may be). There is no external standard of correctness in your/his scenario by which I would be constrained to accept your/his position because your/his position is that my position is just as valid if not more valid for myself regardless of what my position really is.

Debating people assumes the existence of a standard, the capacity for error and the capacity for correction. I would assume that once he engaged in debate with me (I certainly didn't single him out with my first comment) he invested himself for his own benefit. I wasn't aware I needed a life coach. I was under the impression this was a free exchange of ideas between equals.

So, you don't have the time to show someone the error of their ways and show me where my integrity faltered where I genuinely asked for your help? I find it illuminating that you shine the spotlight immediately back on your qualities and away from whatever comments I was making. If you can point out a single logical fallacy in my previous comment, I will certainly appreciate it. On the question of integrity itself, if you look up the Miriam-Webster dictionary, it is a more common sense of the word that it is a characteristic of a person, rather than a characteristic of a behaviour. That makes my misunderstanding of your original reply excusable. Furthermore, you admit yourself that I have misunderstood your comment ("I was referencing behaviors, not a person"), but instead of addressing the misunderstanding and the good will of not calling out an ad hominem (based on that misunderstanding), you just tax me with another thumbs down for "doubling down". Next you are calling me out that I have resorted to "personalisation, ad hominem, and lashing out". Where have I done any of that?

You're a very quick to judge person aren't you, dsayer? Ever wonder if in that quickness you might lose track of certain issues that, when taken into consideration, might not make judgement that quick and easy? You have accused me, as of your last post, of lack of integrity? How exactly would I be more integer? I can't argue his point, because I happen to think he doesn't have a point. Would you like me to quote his "arguments" back to you? You have already read them. What use would that be? He is advocating for something in his original post, he is pushed to action by a "manipulating" comment ("why don't you start?") but the rest of his comments are debate. They are not insulting, they are opinions which he tries to argue. If he were speaking in a vacuum and quoting the scripture of Baal as his reasons, I might have agreed that he makes no effort to argue, but at this point I have no clue what you are asking me to do, in order to prove to you that he's just trying to argue his position. Second, I poison the well and beg the question because I use the word "hounding"? It was my opinion that not all of his posts in this thread deserved thumbs down. I tried to highlight that all of his posts in this thread GOT thumbs down regardless of the point he was making in them. I further asserted that this type of behaviour, if it's true, will have the effect of encouraging disengagement, if someone were to care about the amount of down-votes they received. As such, the behaviour that I have observed would be described by what better word so as to not "poison the well"? Third, "forced" is another poison the well argument? How would you call then encouragement to disengage? Finally, your argument about manipulation would have had so much more weight had I been proven wrong with my prediction. Lastly, I'm genuinely sorry that you fell prey to this kind of behaviour (that I have described in my "poisoning the well posts) in another thread, just as I feel sorry for AFK. All I can say in reply to your question is that perhaps I wasn't an active member of the board back then, but had I noticed you encountering the same type of behaviour I would have probably spoken out then.