Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You apparently didn't read the attached journal article abstract. No one is claiming what you are arguing against. There is a word for making up an opposition view that your opposition doesn't actually hold. And stop wearing other peoples' shoes.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

It would make sense if one of the authors stated that it is unknown for sure. They said right in their intro that this is merely the first national estimate concerning the issue. The methodological challenges to the paper are called "tenuous at best" by detractors, but without an explanation other than that survey respondents probably accidentally hit the wrong response. I find that challenge tenuous at best, given that challenge undermines every survey ever.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
2 points

That's certainly as good as your abstract, no?

No. The abstract provided comes from an article in a reputable scientific journal where the authors derived their opinions from data rather than hunches.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
0 points

primarily conceived to benefit the elite and keep the slaves and peasants from taking back the fruits of their own labor.

You’re always so fucking stupid. It’s hard to take your historical misreadings as honest ignorance. It’s a contradiction to pit property rights against fruits of labor, which is another concept you can’t grasp as demonstrated in your miserable loss in the debate on Marx’s labor theory.

“Hunter gatherers” were not a singular culture, but on the whole, their lives were much nastier, more brutish, and shorter, bullshit Rousseauian sentiments notwithstanding.

humans will go from having no social constructs

Language is a social construct, and even pre-humans have it. I wonder if you will ever understand the terms you use.

to having them and then one day replacing them with reason.

“Social construct” doesn’t mean “lacking reason”.

You will be a speck of horse feces trapped under the horseshoe of history, as it is removed from old Silvester the social construct steed and hung as a decoration in the motor vehicle of reason which will run you over and then back up on you.

That’s entirely unreasonable.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

And this is why the world hates Americans.

A false supposition. Travel some. You’ll get along fine.

1 point

don't snigger and brag about it like it's something you're proud of

The first part of your post suggests I do what I want, but the second part suggest I will do what you want. I won’t. Nor will I pretend the UN is worth a damn. It’s not.

Rule of law talk is pretty rich coming a guy who can’t understand property rights.

0 points

So you were really hoping the king of the world would arrest the president. Do you ever listen to yourself?

-1 points

Some regard treaties as the most important source of international environmental law

International law is a myth to lend greater weight to diplomacy.

1 point

You can't reneg on a legal contract whenever you feel like it.

UN members are bound by a treaty. We can and have broken those. And the consequences are the same as for any other diplomatic breach. That’s because the UN is a tool of diplomacy and nothing more.

What, you thought the King of the World would order a US President to jail? Only if we allow it.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

We are subject to our treaties because we say so. We can say otherwise whenever we choose. Signing a treaty has never served to relinquish the sovereignty of any nation. That’s not how treaties work. Besides the US is the teeth of the UN. They are all bark (or hapless fuckups) unless the US decides otherwise.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

But, when they added the words "under God", it EXCLUDED me because I don't think a belief in God is REQUIRED to proclaim your allegiance to your country.

It’s meant to articulate sovereignty. Under whom/what does the US fall? Under the crown? No. Under the UN? No. The US is one nation under none but the highest conceivable authority, whether or not you believe the authority conceived of actually exists.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

That's EXACTLY what it means...

You suppose the system is only imperfect on conviction? No, that’s NOT what that means

The appeals court is made up of judges - not a jury.. And, they grant new trials based on MISTAKE, not on how tough or lenient the sentence was..

“After a criminal trial ends in a conviction, the defendant can file a motion for a new trial. Courts grant these—though rarely—to correct significant errors that happened during trial or if substantial new evidence of innocence comes to light.” motions-new-trial.html

How would you know that a jury wrongfully acquitted an offender?

Because I know why the jury decided to find “not guilty”, and it wasn’t because the person was not guilty.

IF a jury found somebody INNOCENT after a trial, then according to our system, he IS innocent..

People are found “not guilty”, they aren’t found “innocent”. And again, if you think a finding of not guilty is 100% valid, but findings of guilt are not, you’re inconsistently naive.

IF a jury acquits someone KNOWING that he committed the offense, that's called jury nullification. It's LEGAL

I didn’t say it was illegal. You know that an incorrect finding of guilt is also legal right? Are system doesn’t allow for a “guilt project” for retrying those wrongly acquitted. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

1 point

I’ll try to use it more often.

“you need to understand that this is an example of a sentence adverb, not an adverb of manner or an intensifier. That means that it applies not to a single verb, adjective, other adverb, or preposition, but rather to the entire sentence as a single syntactic constituent.”

“The sentence adverb is clearly a grammatical structure to native speakers”

0 points

And the death penalty is not the act of killing a baby .

1 point

Not for anything he did so far.

Mueller was asked point blank if his investigation was interfered with in any way, and he said no. No obstruction occurred.

Mueller was asked point blank if they found that Trump colluded and he said they didn’t have enough evidence in a 2 year investigation to determine any kind of Trump collusion.

But yeah, if he commits a crime and there’s prosecutable evidence, he can go to jail after leaving office.

1 point

They are different issues .

1 point

Having a finding overturned doesn’t necessarily mean the person was wrongfully convicted. Sometimes it’s just a more lenient jury. Anecdotally, I’m aware of 2 recent local cases where lenient juries wrongfully acquitted the offender.

1 point

Like I said, perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. Some cases have certainly used DNA and other modern techniques for prosecution. You won’t read about them on the innocence project, because there’s no changing their case.

You mentioned progress. Better evidence is progress, so that’s good. I don’t see how letting criminals free is necessarily progress. Given high recidivism, it may be the opposite of progress. Crime reduction would be progress, but I don’t see that coming out of these reforms. Maybe Trump is just as regressive on reform as he is on the death penalty, making him not schizo.

1 point

If children are innocently put in timeout, the problem isn’t time out. If an adult is incorrectly issued a speeding ticket, the problem is not traffic fines. If anyone is punished to any extent when they are innocent, the punishment isn’t what’s wrong. The innocence project uses DNA and other new methods to introduce reasonable doubt to criminal cases. That tells me that we can now be more sure in some cases than ever before. Though perhaps the death penalty needs a different threshold of proof. The evidence project uses some very useful tools to meet that threshold.

Getting better at finding evidence doesn’t equate to throwing out punishment. It can be an argument in favor of it.

1 point

Isn’t a reinstatement also a reform ?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

You’re still overlooking the importance of the fact that all of your suppositions come from a position of ignorance (non-omniscience). Not only can you not know what an omniscient god would know, but you also can’t know the nature of omnipotence or omni-benevolence. Why should all-powerful mean impossible power? Why should all-goodness mean goodness according to mortal you?

You seem to suppose the the most powerful being should be so powerful that they can do what’s impossible, rather than merely all things that are possible. You seem to suppose that an omni-benevolent god would do good according to your mortal estimation. But “good” according to your mortal estimation requires logically impossible things, and there is no reason to suppose that “all-powerful” means “beyond all-powerful”. There is similarly no reason to think an all-knowing being would know what a round square looks like.

I believe these suppositions are rooted in an idea of god as magical, rather than god as ultimately natural. Magical god tends to be the target of atheists, while ultimately natural god is often god to theists.

If omnipotence means powerful enough to do all possible things, then impossible things are irrelevant. Perhaps creating a universe according to god’s own logic is the most powerful and good thing a god can do. Perhaps this is the best of all possible worlds, and your mortal preferences against bad things are merely mortal preferences. This would mean that it is better that people can murder than if people could not. Only an omniscient god could know all the consequences of disallowing evil in a universe where disallowing consequences is logically impossible and thus a non-alternative.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I’m not arguing about existence. I’m saying that Paul never knew the living Jesus. His biblical interaction with Jesus comes after the crucifixion. That’s the same as Joseph Smith, who is not an accepted figure outside of Mormonism. My contention is that Paul should not be accepted either.

Much of what Christians believe comes from a guy who never met Jesus. Much of what Mormons believe come from a guy who never met Jesus.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Your position is just as valid as the opposite position.

What position is it that is opposite mine in this case?

1 point

You like to pretend that you believe morality has no basis, that’s why you put it in scare quotes all the time. But you cant logically believe that there is nothing that a person ought or ought not do. You can’t actually believe that any given behavior is equivalent to any other given behavior. That’s what it would mean for morality to not exist, and if actions reflect beliefs, you don’t believe it.. If you believed it, you would have died long ago for lack of any preferences.

0 points

So using your logic, since Jesus never mentioned Pedophilia, then it must also be ok?

In his day it pretty much was ok. Glad I’m not a Christian, but that explains some issues in the church.

God did speak to the sin of Homosexuality!

And of mixing cloth! Drop the holier-than-thou act. There’s a bit in the Bible that you don’t follow. That puts you exactly on par with a repentant gay Christian. Exactly on par.

Read Roman's in the New Testament to see what God had to say

You mean Paul. That was Paul who said that. He never even met Jesus. Joe Smith has his own little Road to Demarcus moment in America. I bet you’re not Mormon.

Your arguments do not hold water.

You’ll have to present an argument then. Address mixed cloth and the fetish of kissing.

How about speaking to something that actually has some substance... ahhhh maybe the science of Biology?

I did. Kissing is counter to biology.

Our bodies are designed for a man and woman.

Yeah, I get that. I’m not even arguing that. I’m saying that on biology terms, you have your own unnatural fetish sanction by tradition (kissing), and on sin terms you mix cloth.

What's your excuse for denying Science?

You know how babies are made, right? Not with your mouth.

I will wait for those verses from Jesus, talking about the importance of the material in our clothing.

Jesus left cloth and gayness to the Old Testament. I guess they are both that important.

1 point

Do you know what you are doing right now? You are making the case for people into Bestiality, Necrophilia, etc. etc.

That slippery slope doesn’t hold if consent and harm avoidance is maintained as a moral principle. I’ve said nothing against either of those principles.

You, on the other hand, seem to support the principle of tradition above all else. Kissing is acceptable because of tradition. Never mind that it checks the same boxes as other sexual perversions, it is acceptable tradition. If necrophilia were around long enough, your argument against kissing would hold against necrophilia as well. There isn’t one.

You are saying that the manner in which people choose to use their sexual organs, or lips, etc. is ok no matter what other's think. Everything goes no matter how unnatural.

I’ve literally made a case against kissing for being unnatural. Why do you support it?

Rational people understand the difference between kissing between a man and woman, and a man and man.

Yeah, one is gay and one is straight. But both are an unnatural sexual fetish. I bet there’s gay and straight foot fetishes too. Both are perverse. I’m not arguing that gayness is natural, I’m arguing that your kissing is unnatural and that you mixed clothes are against the Bible.

A man and woman are scientifically and Biologically designed for each other.

A mouth is literally the beginning of the digestive system. It is designed for food and verbal communication. Sexual pleasure from kissing is an unnatural fetish, and so far you have denied this.

I'm starting to think you must be Gay to not admit the obvious.

It may suit you if I was (like it would suit Nom for me to be a Jew), but I’m not. Neither am I a Jew. Neither am I a racist. But you and Nom can knock yourselves out.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

This demonstrates that Paul had no interaction with the living Jesus. Paul’s word is as valid as that of Joseph Smith’s.

How much of Christianity is a church of Paul; and how much is a Church of Jesus?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Paul’s affiliation with Jesus is posthumous, even according to the Bible. That seems to put Paul’s work on par with Joseph Smith’s.

1 point

Why do you post such pointlessly ridiculous trash?

Nom said to the mirror. It was the last time he ever spoke.

1 point

And he never told her to go back where she came from. .

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I did not dispute this, I merely asked if such characterizations of god would be possible and how can it is known these characterizations are possible.

I restated the two alternatives, not because you disputed them, but because you accepted one for argument and ignored the other. True characterizations of God cannot be known. In dealing with the ultimate nature of reality, all is speculation.

I stand on the position that evil is either something that objectively exists or it is something that subjectively exists. If it objectively exists what blocks mortal beings from being able to observe objective morality?

My position was that the existence of evil from our mortal perspective, could conceivably be in the service of an ultimate good which we cannot perceive, but which an all-knowing god would. For example, many positive virtues are developed only in the struggle against badness and evil. Thus a god who does not allow for evil would be failing to allow for higher achievements of good.

It does necessitate a malevolent god if that god exists and if that god has the knowledge of evil and the ability to stop evil, but opts to allow evil to persist.

What if it were the necessary nature of the universe that humanity is the means by which God combats evil? It would then be a contradiction of God’s own logic to intervene.

If it is necessary for humans to combat evil, then it is necessary for God not to.

You’re applying human morality to God, who is not a human. The human perspective is one of partial-knowledge, partial-power, and partial-goodness. If there is an Omni-benevolent-good-knowing god, your moral reasoning is too limited to be applicable. Again, you just don’t have all the necessary information to make your judgment.

1. Mortal Evil exists.

Ok. Agreed.

2. There is an ultimate good that can arise as a product of mortal evil.

Ok. Worth considering.

3. If God lacks the power to reach this ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omnipotent.

Unless the logic of the universe is the omnipotent power of God expressed in the ordering of what is otherwise randomness and contradiction. Then evil must be combatted through the logical process, as an example of God’s omnipotence.

4. If God lacks the knowledge to reach the ultimate good without mortal evil then he is not omniscient

Your expressing a mortal preference against mortal evil with no reason to suppose that a good god should have that same preference. Especially given an omniscient god would have the big picture knowledge to know if mortal evil is actually evil.

5. If God has both the power and knowledge of a way to achieve the ultimate good without pain, suffering and mortal evil--he is not omnibenevolent.

I’ve challenged points 3 and 4. It seems the crux of the matter is that you are applying mortal preferences to an immortal god. If god had your same mortal preferences, then I wouldn’t expect god to have immortal characteristics such as those being discussed.

On the other hand, I am fully willing to accept the proposition that whatever the characteristics of God, the nature of reality is acceptable to God. Thus, mortal evils are acceptable to God.

My push-back is on the conclusion that God’s acceptability itself derives from evil rather than good, given we only have a humans eye view. Supposing that God should like what you like or hate what you hate in order for God to be good seems as shortsighted as one might predict from a mortal perspective.

1 point

In pretty much every Disney movie with human characters, the romantic couple kiss. The prince kisses the princess. This is a mild form of sexual interaction, but it is sexual interaction nonetheless, and does nothing for the reproductive process. It is thus, unnatural. Biologically, mouths are for food consumption. Yet this mouth fetish is not only widely accepted, probably even by you, but children are constantly exposed to it.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

What do the words "inspired by God" mean to you?

To most people, it means that every word spoken, was inspired by God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

That includes Jesus, the Son of God!

If I tell you that all my words are inspired by god, that does not make all my words inspired by god.

It takes some analysis to even come to the conclusion that God and Jesus are the same. So it is perfectly reasonable to ask for the words of Jesus in quotes that are distinct from the words of the father in quotes.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus was on this planet for over 30 years and never found homosexuality an important enough issue to comment on.

To compare the materials in our clothing, to Homosexuality

The Bible admonishes mixing cloth twice. How many times does it admonish homosexuality?

makes it time to IGNORE!

You already said you know I’m not a Christian. But I am addressing the issue with Christian source material. You clearly feel more strongly about homosexuality than you do about mixing cloth, but both are in the Bible. So why the difference in emotional content?

I have read nothing in the Christian New Testament concerning cotton. Give me the verses....

Jesus talks about mixing cloth as much as he talks about homosexuality. Homosexuality is not mentioned by Jesus, nor by any disciple who knew him.


No they aren’t. That’s because pretty much everyone, likely including yourself, has already fully adopted and accepted mixing cloth as standard practice.

1 point

Idk, he seemed a little animated about Warren’s bigotry .

-1 points

the answer is god can create a puzzle that he cannot solve. However, now we must ask if it is possible for something to live beyond the limitations of logic and ask how do we know God lives beyond logic.

The two arguments I gave is that God created the logic of the universe, or God is the logic of the universe. If God is the logic of the universe, then we need not look for the ways in which God is beyond logic. It would be God’s omnipotent nature that created the existence of logical impossibility.

However, these things are objectively evil, evil does exist.

If you are saying this from the perspective of a mortal human, this is not an argument. A mortal human isn’t in a position to make the claim you’ve made.

Even so, let’s assume that we do know objective good from evil. It does not follow that any evil necessitates a malevolent god. That’s the same faulty logic that implies the existence of any good necessitates the existence of a benevolent god. Since some good is not sufficient to imply an all-good god, some evil is not sufficient to imply a malevolent god.

If evil necessarily exists as a logical contrast to the good, then the all-powerful nature of logic, as embodied by God, necessitates the existence of evil as a contrast to an all-good God. The existence of said evil cannot be justified except by one who is all-knowing, and can see the ultimate good that arises as a consequence of mortal evil. Without omniscience, you just don’t have all the facts.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

God says that every word written down by men in the Bible was inspired by God!

Which words in the Bible did Jesus day about gayness?

Just because people do things that the Bible says we should not do, does not mean God is ok with it. Some things were spoken to as issues of the time.

My point is t that people sin, my point is that you do. Are your clothes all 100% Cotten? So you eat corn grown in fields that also sow soy beans? There is no explanation of an issue that needed addressed with these things back in the day, thus there is no way to say it no longer matters.

How many times did the Bible speak against gayness? How many times did it speak against multiple cloth clothes?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

The last I knew, kissing is not given special appreciation days in our schools or Disney World

My point about kissing is that it is unnatural, in that it is a sexual act between romantic partners and does nothing for sexual reproduction. People at Disney can openly kiss each other. They kiss in almost all the movies and cartoons.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I’ll concede the point that gayness is not likely to be a natural population control. That was a stretch. But my point is this, we don’t actually know the workings of any kind of divine plan. There are gay Christians who would really like to know why they are attracted in ways they would rather not be. Saying “don’t do that” isn’t a sufficient answer for them when they can’t shut it off.

As for biology, we obviously know how reproduction works and gayness doesn’t fit the bill. But neither does kissing. By design, we derive quite a bit of pleasure from all manner of things associated with reproduction that are not actually reproduction. Which is unnatural then? The pleasure; or the act that causes it? Do you kiss your wife? Why?

Of the apparently unnatural things humans seem to do, gayness would be one among many. I’ve never seen you crusade against smoking, or tattoos, or air conditioning. Or mixing of clothe for that matter.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

God has already told us in the Bible that Homosexuality is a perversion.

God also told you not to mix clothe. God also told you not to have various plant stuff in the same field. But we do these all the time. What did Jesus say about gayness?

1 point

I would love to talk with a Gay person who admits his sexual orientation is not natural.

What if homosexuality increases in human populations when our numbers get high, and it is a natural mechanism designed to reduce reproduction? What if it is natural, from a God’s eye point of view which you don’t have?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
2 points

If you are saying Gay people are so shallow that they would support killing babies just so they can get married?

If all Republicans are like you, then a gay person who believes their marriage is a civil right will have only the Democrats to turn to, even if they agree with Republicans on everything else. As for abortion, it’s very clear that voting Republican isn’t going to reverse Roe, that takes an unelected Judge. So if voting Democrat means a chance at attaining his marriage, and voting Republican still means not reversing Roe, it’s not too shallow to vote Dem.

Fortunately, now that gay marriage is a thing, and most Republicans aren’t kicking and screaming about it, you’re starting to see a little bit of a shift in that demographic. All I’m saying is let that shift happen. The sanctity of your marriage is in tact, regardless of tax policy.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
0 points

A counterargument here is that this is not what is meant by omnipotence. Instead, omnipotence refers to god being able to do all logical things. Yet, if god's power is limited by the realm of logic, is that true omnipotence?

God would either have created or God is the logic of the universe. If God created it, then God can manipulate it. In which case God can create a puzzle God can’t solve and yet solve it, because the law of non-contradiction won’t apply. If God is the logic of the universe, then it’s Gods all powerful existence which set the standard by which you present your logical challenge.

The counterargument here is that God is willing and able, but does not wish to interfere with free will.

There is another counter argument. The limited mortal perspective is not sufficient to judge what is truly evil. The big picture, from the perspective of eternity may find that, in fact, no evil exists beyond our mortal perspective which is necessary and of infinite benefit which we do not understand.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

If two people decide to divorce, Government dictates that no matter who is at fault, the money will be divided equally.

Any kind of prenuptial is protected in the contract. If there is no stipulated prenup, then of course government would have to decide the standard for that kind of contract.

It is not something to take lightly

No one is implying it is.

Tax payers are forced to support spouses with healthcare, social security, etc. etc. etc.

That’s a tax allocation issue, not a marriage issue. I don’t believe private healthcare is required by law to cover spouses. If that’s the case, it shouldn’t be. If public healthcare covers spouses that’s just a healthcare policy issue, not a marriage issue.

How would you like to support the healthcare for 30 wives on one man's healthcare policy?

I don’t even want to cover that one man’s policy. Nothing is stopping each of his 30 wives from getting covered individually by my taxes, just as he is covered.

Under the precedent of Gay marriage, there is no group that could not demand marriage right's


My biggest concern is how LGBT activists have taken control of the Democrat Party, and forcing their agendas into our public schools

That’s a separate issue.

This is the slippery slope when activist groups control our Government through big money donations and votes.

I think people tend to support politicians who push their agenda more than politicians are bought for agendas. They all answer to the ballot box.

Maybe you are not concerned with what is happening to our culture, BUT I SURE AM!

Oh, I am. So are a lot of gay people who actually agree with you about a lot of things....except for this. And if you make this the hill to die on, then you keep a whole bunch of people who would otherwise be on your side, excluded to the side where they have no choice but to support abortion.

Gay pro-lifer wants to get married, is he accepted into your party? Or does he have to support baby killers just to seek what he sees as a civil right? Why don’t you give him the easiest choice?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

A few topics of depth come through every now and then. And a few debaters of depth come through every now and then. And on rare occasions the two even match up.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
-1 points

You should know better than to take any of his debate topics at face value.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I didn’t think he could get the funding to build more facilities. And if he could, I would expect it to go toward conditions in the current facilities.

1 point

Yes. A church can ban gay marriage from their congregation without running afoul of the Constitution.

1 point

What’s the contradiction ?

1 point

Trump Opens Yet More Concentration Camps For Migrants And "Undesirables"

Did he? I didn’t see that article. Where is it?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

That’s a bit of a different issue. Con isn’t the Liberals, he is a liberal, and his comment concerns gay marriage, not abortion.

Freedom of association is considered a right protected by the 1st Amendment.

Marriage as a governmental/legal matter is about the preservation of contracts. The government overreaches when it assumes varying tax arrangements for people living under a marriage contract. If the government had never committed this over-reach, there wouldn’t be a gay marriage agenda today.

Marriage as a religious matter is a different issue than marriage as a legal matter, as it should be. “Render unto Caesar” and all. The same protection of the freedom of association that allows for gay people to form contracts also protects your church from being forced to associate religiously with those same gay people.

Furthermore, regardless of laws about marriage, no one has ever banned gay people from having private ceremonies and then simply saying they are married afterward. Their freedom of speech, and of religion has always allowed for this. Thus, the sanctity of marriage was never protected by law.

So what’s your greatest concern with gay marriage laws? Tax codes?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

I will, thanks .

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Yes, but a lefty proposing a new tax isn’t new or special. .

1 point

Elizabeth Warren says Government should be Allowed to Confiscate Citizens Property

That’s what it means to tax people. The article doesn’t indicate confiscation of anything other than wealth, which would be a due process problem.

1 point

It only became necessary to explain that the present persists because I was dealing with a retard who thinks it’s clever to say that “there is nothing but the present” but at the same time, “the present is gone”.

No matter how many times at least three gaping holes in your position all you can say is “you’ve never answered”.

I’ve been talking to someone who literally looks at an article about 6 month infants comprehending quantity difference and determines “babies are born knowing math!” Sure dumbass, right along with their name which they respond to.

You are too fucking thick to grasp this simple point, that your position that “the entire future is entirely unknowable”, derives from the fact that some of the future is unknowable, which makes your position an INDUCTION! And not a valid one you fucking moron.

Hey, did it ever occur to you that it is circular to validate validity? Well, I suppose validity is now irrational. Oh wait, can you rationalize rationality? No?! Then it’s not valid?! OH THE NIHILISM!!

2 points

What a pile of typically interminable bullshit

No valid response from you, per our usual arrangement.

Better luck next time.

2 points

A priori knowledge, is knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences.

Which can only be derived with tools learned through experience. Keep ignoring that.

What parts of the future are known to you as you’ve claimed this several times?

I’ve provided a couple different answers to this now. Do you remember hydroge? Rules of logic? Ring any bells?

You’ve also totally backed yourself into a corner by admitting more or less everything is based on induction which you also admitted was an educated guess

The only thing I said about educated guesses is that, according to your view, they can’t be made any more reasonably than a completely absurd guess. I get it now, someone else is reading this to you, right?

so how do you justify your “educated guesses”?

Exactly. My point was that you cannot claim to make educated guesses because according to you they cannot be justified. It’s ok with me that you attack your own position as if it were mine, so long as this old ass topic moves a little bit.

You also cannot explain what persistent present even means

Of course I can, if you had ever asked. The present isn’t something that happens for a moment and then is gone. The present doesn’t go away, it persists. If you don’t know what that word means, ask for help with the online dictionary.

You deny innate knowledge exists as in your insistence regarding what scientists accept as fact regarding babies and math skills.

No they don’t. No research on the matter even studies new born babies. Your own example studies 6 month olds. 6 month old babies already know a whole world of things that they weren’t born knowing. But I’ll go into more detail where you posted your source (that proves my point).

Of course I can , persistence has nothing to do with my present moment evaluations

It has everything to do with it. You cannot observe the rules of logic at every given moment while simultaneously knowing them to be true and additionally applying them to subjects in no greater time frame than the present. Logic itself rests on the assumption that it’s own (unprovable) assumptions continue to be true (uniformity of nature).

I keep saying and you keep ignoring that humans do indeed accept fundamental assumptions but the whole point is logically it's irrational to do so

I responding and you keep ignoring that accepting such fundamental assumptions is necessary even for rationality and logic. It is no more irrational to accept the rationality of induction than it is to accept the validity of logic and reason. To call fundamentals irrational is to ignore the fundamental nature of rationality itself.

I’m should make a bet with someone that you still won’t grasp this basic concept.

Regarding my opinions about such matters you scoffed when I said they’re based on an educated guesss yet this is precisely what you do

I scoffed because your position does not allow for “educated guesses”. No guess can be more “educated” than another. Thus, making educated guesses is contradictory to your own position.

While educated guesses are not contradictory to my position, I do more than that. I accept, for example, the truth of fundamental assumptions of logic (such as the transitive principle and tautological truth) which I have learned through education, but which are nonetheless not guesses. They are fundamental truths.

sun rise blah blah still cannot justify this belief

I have thoroughly justified induction. You saying otherwise is not an argument. Even when I answer questions directly, you come back with “but you still won’t answer”. You’re bullshit.

You claimed part of the future is know to you but refuse to answer what part or parts?

Oh, case in point. Hydrogen, carbon, rules of logic, nature of reality. I have explained the answer to this question constantly.

Your belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow does not supply the slightest grounds for supposing this true

In the first instance, I stated why it is perfectly reasonable to believe the sun will rise tomorrow, and I also presented some circumstances under which it could possibly not happen. The existence of possibility does not undermine belief in the overwhelming probability. But in your view, probability can’t even be figured or legitimized.

When you present a tautology, such as A=A, you cannot prove that this is true. You don’t have evidence that this is valid. Does this make you reliance on rationality somehow irrational? The answer is no in case you had to think about it.

My defence is perfectly logical persist means to continue , you know this how?

Again you assume to know the future how so?

If you utilize logic, you assume this as well. You also assume that A=A is true, you assume that A=-A cannot be true. You assume a whole host of fundamentals upon which rationality relies. Again, but probably not for the last time, it is not irrational to assume the truth of fundamentals. It is necessary to rationality itself. You’ve never addressed this point.

Clarify your “persistent present “ as in how does the present persist?

Your posts repeat themselves. I answered this in your other post. From here forward I will ignore questions I literally just answered in a post you literally just made.

I said certain reasoning ie inductive is based on assumptions in many cases which cannot be justified

ALL REASONING, including deduction, is based on assumptions that cannot be reasonably justified. Again, because “justification” itself relies on fundamental assumptions. Does that make fundamental assumptions circular? No.

But again you avoid what I actually said regarding the Uniformity of nature and how you justify such?

I literally answered directly. The very idea that you can “justify” things relies on the uniformity of nature. Your inability to grasp this fact does not disprove it.

This is entirely again to misrepresent what I’m actually saying

No, I’m not. And since your memory is so fuckin short, I’ll quote what you said

“How do you know that nature is uniform when your observations are based on locality?”

But again for the slow one, It is your local experience that has taught you that observation is local. Your local experience has taught you that you do not know everything. But it is an argument from ignorance to presume that the future is thus unknowable. Your position is, in fact, an incorrect INDUCTION!

Honesty, that’s probably all that needs to be said. The rest will just be me continually proving that I haven’t ignored anything (by referring to quotes and repeating myself). I’m tired of defending against that kind of baseless attack.

However, I will address your baby bullshit, because that is pretty funny.

Do you deny that humans possess innate knowledge?

Making you wrong again yet I bet you will say science is wrong .....again ....

I don’t deny they possess innate knowledge, I never have. Newborns know, for example, how to breath air (knowledge produced by the naturally inductive outcomes of evolution).

What newborns do not know is any math. They don’t know any language, they don’t know their ass from the floor or their hands from the ceiling. However, by 6 months, they have learned quite a lot. For example “New research indicates that infants as young as 6 months can understand the meaning of many spoken words.” Don’t be confused Jody, babies aren’t born knowing how to talk.

A 6 month old knows other things too. It:

“Knows familiar faces and begins to know if someone is a stranger”

“Responds to other people’s emotions and often seems happy”

“Responds to own name” (Holy shit Jody! Babies are born knowing their own name!)

“Begins to pass things from one hand to the other”

“Begins to sit without support”

And according to your own article, is attracted to the screen that shows significant dot variation (doubled from 10 to 20). That’s not fucking. Math and they aren’t fucking born with it. That’s simply awareness of quantity. Given all the other shit they’ve leaned, we shouldn’t be surprised. NOTHING in your source indicates we are born with innate math skills. You were duped by a click bait headline and you should have read further. The only thing this proves is that you and I would respond very differently to Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority.

4 points

The Rs had the House for the first half of the Trump presidency, and the world ended. So yeah it will be the end of the world again.

2 points

What would be Noms tone toward Hitler if he hadn’t betrayed Communist Russia a third of the way into the war?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
2 points

Plus they weren't armed with machine guns and didn't have any tanks.

Is that some kind of pro-second Amendment argument?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Do you know that the rules of logic persist ?

1 point

“ All men are mortal” is literally an inductive statement. That’s not gibberish, it’s perfectly comprehensible to the average mind, but apparently not to you.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

You don't

If you don’t know that the rules of logic persist, then you cannot know they apply, and you cannot reasonably utilize the rules of logic for your argument. Do you know the rules of logic persist?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

All men are mortal

This is an inductive premise. Keep trying.

1 point

So you have two options appeal to experience to what you have observed or justify the assumption independently of experience.

The ability to justify is learned through experience. Thus your two options are to accept fundamental assumptions (including the validity of learning) or fall into complete nihilism.

When you say that you cannot presume the rules of logic persists, it is a contradiction attempt a logical defense of this proposition. You cannot reasonably argue that reason is invalid, which is what you are attempting.

How do you know that nature is uniform when your observations are based on locality?

It is your local experience that has taught you that observation is local. It’s a true statement, but it cannot be used to invalidate itself. Knowing that knowledge means accepting that you cannot know everything through observation. It is your old straw man that supposes that the inability to know everything by experience means the inability to know anything.

You observe nature is uniform around here at the present time , then you infer that nature is like that at all those other times and places . Correct?

No. I’m not making inferences about the inside of a black hole. And if anyone makes a deductive statement about the inside of a black hole, they are assuming deduction is still valid there.

That's your whole argument and your justification is totally circular

No, You’ve restated your own argument, not mine. You don’t seem to understand yet that experience is fundamental even to logic and deduction. You rely on a logical progression only because you’ve learned that logical progressions are valid. You weren’t born with this. There is no scientific observation that says you were.

Actually you cannot so there goes another of your assertions put to bed

I can say “science agrees with me” just as surely as you can say it. Science agrees with me. Oh look, I said t again.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Have a nice night.

Thanks. You too. There’s always next time.

1 point

If it isn't true then why is my head wet?

There are a number of reasons, other than rain, that your head could possibly be wet. “It’s raining” is no more a tautology than “it’s not raining”. The fact that it’s not raining is enough to counter your incorrect observation that it is raining. Regardless of the weather, the post has nothing to do with induction, deduction, or the relationship between induction and deduction.

It's very boring, Amarel.

Tell me about it.

1 point

It's raining.

An observation that happens to not even be true, hence not tautological.

Let me help you out with the terms.

“Deductive reasoning moves from generalities to specific conclusions. Perhaps the biggest stipulation is that the statements upon which the conclusion is drawn need to be true.”

Its a simplistic website, just for you.

1 point

That's called remote viewing

No it’s not, it’s called inductive reasoning.

If you want to prove me wrong then I propose you tell me what next week's lottery numbers are. In part.

There’s a lot of predictions in that question. You predict there will be a lottery, that it will be next week, that it will have numbers. I bet you’re right. And I predict that the universe will include carbon. And I know I’m right.

1 point

That's great, but it still doesn't enable you to predict the future.

Induction allows us to, in part. And yes, that conclusion relies on induction. If you’re fine with the fact that logic cannot be validated without the logic of validation, then you should be fine with this too...if you’re logically consistent.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Hey nom, why don’t you take a crack at this. Make a deductive statement concerning the real world that does not have a premise based on induction. Jody seems to think that mathematical equations ore found in the physical world.

1 point

Even if they did, you have no idea what the rules of logic are in the first place. I've never once seen you write something which doesn't directly contradict itself.

This has been my point. If you don’t inductively reason that the rules of logic will persist, then you cannot make any logical argument. Induction is fundamental.

1 point

What’s a graph of the 5 year trend look like ?

1 point

how do you know the future as you keep claiming you do

I know that the rules of logic will remain from one moment to the next. Your own position relies on this fact, so in theory you know this too. If you didn’t know this, you couldn’t make your argument, or any argument.

Science agrees with me regards my statement

False. Science agrees with me.... Hm, I guess anyone can say that.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

The anti-Nazis are the Nazis

Tell us again how all of the actual historical communists were actually not communists.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Yeah but he killed probably close to a hundred or something like that...or was it some other number... I mean, he didn’t actively campaign against them, or rally crowds against them, but... or did he...oh who really knows how Hitler felt about the Jews. Some things are mysterious.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Their feelings towards Jews were not as clear cut

Lol! Can’t take the cognitive dissonance eh Nom? What a puke you are haha.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Hey you finally attempted to get to the point. Without your avoidance tendency, I don’t think “bitch” quite fits anymore. Let’s get to it.

1: Your rebuttal to this point is that “there is nothing but the present. The present moment is all there ever is”. When I previously asked you how long the present is, you responded that “the past is gone”. Well, that pretty much leaves nothing then.

While it’s true that we are always only in the present, thus cannot be taken to ignore the fact that the presence persists. That extended persistence gives us causation, and a sense of “before” and “after” which are real phenomena. This persistent present has a consistent nature which is known to us by our extended exposure to the present. That’s induction. This exposure allows us to learn other things too. Things such as math, language, the rules of reason, and the fact that these rules remain (induction).

2: Your response to this point was to accept it, and to characterize it as as admission that “that induction is indeed circular”. Of course, if you accept this point, then you accept the necessary correlate, that tools of reason (such as induction) require the self-same tools to carry out tasks of reason such as validation. Thus, no position validated as rational (because rationality cannot be validated), or rationality is as valid as induction. I’m sure you will reject that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of rationality, while accepting the contradicting position that there is a problem with the “circular” nature of induction. I, for one, don’t maintain your contradiction. Nor do I expect you to understand what I’ve just explained, it’s hardly the first time.

3: To this point you maintain your failure to provide a deductive statement of the real world that does not rely on induction. You’ve also failed to articulate how you came to learn deductive reasoning without learning it in the past. You’ve further failed to address the fact that this deductive reasoning (and any other fact based in reality) you’ve learned in the past is expected to apply in the future.

On a truly truly unrelated topic, some babies learn to respond to verbal cues remarkably early, but this doesn’t mean that newborns know how to talk. Guess what! They can’t do math either! No one, including yourself, has provided reason to think they do!

If you’d like to attempt again to address these holes in your position, you’re welcome to, and I’ll be happy to respond to such addresses. But I won’t be wasting my time on the long posts of re-hashed, warmed over shit your becoming accustomed to.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

another Nazi tactic you plagiarised directly from Adolf Hitler. When someone disagrees with you accuse them of hating the country, or Jews, or small children, or fluffy animals.

Well, Nazis hated this country, Jews, and small children. So when you call someone a Nazi, that fits the bill for “another Nazi tactic you plagiarised directly from Adolf Hitler.” Hm.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

He and now Nom too send me the most horrific things on PM I actually think I can be sued if I post it to imgur etc so I will not.

Sued for what?

1 point

Right , seeing a warrant in the U S involves putting one in a.....cage .....

Yeah. I suppose jail has a more peaceful connotation to you?

Amazing the way tough Muricans call everyone “bitch” you’re real scary .....but wait you’re carrying you’re good ole gun

Don’t misunderstand me. Your designation as a bitch is based entirely on your online behavior and ability. It carries with it no physical threat, as that would be ridiculous. It’s just that “bitch” is a lot easier than “intellectual coward of inferior capabilities”.

The present is gone dummy

Sigh. No bitch, that’s the past. You said that there is not past or future, but only the present. If you think the present is gone to, it’s no wonder you’re so full of absurdity.

You can try that one again if you like

1 point

Don’t call me what your slut of a mother reared

Ah the old “I know you are but what am i defense”, I would expect nothing more. Maybe I should explain my use of such distasteful language. I thought it important to express in the most concise terms you mental inferiority to a kindergartner coupled with your complete intellectual cowardice. That coupled with your consistent dishonesty has earned you little more than my disrespect. While I have no desire to hurt your feelings by my articulation of your qualities, I hope you know that I don’t particularly care.

I may address and correct your latest pile of shit tomorrow and correct it

I’ll save you some time bitch. At the root of it is 3 simple points yet to be addressed. Since you can’t manage that one, bitch you might as well not waste your time.

1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise.

1 point

Oh and bitch, just in case you forget:

1. Time is not independent.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises.

1 point

1: Serving a warrant on someone is an extreme act of violence

I still don't know what you think is peaceful about forcing a person into a cage.

2 eggs plus 2 eggs is an unknown unless the eggs are identical

It's weird that your powers of observation are so weak that you never noticed that eggs vary in size.

3: A fetus is a person / baby / toddler / citizen

Well, a baby is a person, and a fetus is an unborn baby, ergo...Haha, don't sweat it bitch. We know your powers of reason don't extend even a nanosecond into the future or past. How long is the present again?

2 points

I will repost my piece yet again and attempt to respond to each point I made or fuck off

Well, since I actually did respond to you, I will address each of your bullshit comments with quotes from my own previous responses. This will demonstrate exactly how easy it actually is to respond if, in fact, you have previously done so. You haven’t. Mine points are laid out in 3 concise facts.

You didn’t you child molester

This is very clear ad hominem.

You addressed nothing , you avoided everything I asked

I’ve literally responded to everything.

Doesn’t work like that dummy you respond to what I asked first

You have to ask something. I’m waiting….

It’s not , you’ve still not responded

I am responding to all of this nonsense. And still waiting for you to actually defend the glaring holes in the premises of your position.

You’re beginning to bore me

Holy shit. I say “this is getting boring” and you mimic. I say “see above” and you mimic. I say “I’ve already addressed this” and you mimic. That leads me to believe that you are either lying about getting bored, or you have elevated me to the status of an authority, whom you can only respond to by mindlessly mimicking.

When you address what I asked point by point I may address you

What did you ask?

Once a child molester always a child molester have you no shame?

The evidence of your cowardice is dripping from this debate. The evidence of child molestation is non-existent. You really don’t understand reasoning, do you?

Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Harold is bald. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald."

Ok, this is a prime example of a point you have made that you suppose I haven’t addressed. I will quote exactly where I addressed it, and exactly how it does not in any way address what it is supposed to be a response to. I said that this is a “simplistic inductive statement and an argument that they can be inaccurate, which has never been a point of contention.” For the children in the room, that means I never said that inductive reasoning necessitates perfect knowledge of the future. I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a straw man. I have never argued against an inductive statement having true premises but leading to false conclusions.

Now lets look back on exactly what you were avoiding responding to with this irrelevant bit:

I said “All deductive statements about the real world necessarily rely on inductive premises.” Which is true. Your response was an inductive statement about grandfathers. That is blatant avoidance. I challenge you to something you have been unable to do, and you responded by doing something else.

Now, there’s the proof, in quotes, that I have already responded to your little bit of ignorance. It would take too much time to go though and figure how many times I made this particular challenge, or how many times you used this particular straw man. That’s why I shortened it up to 3 simple points that you have thus far hid from.

A good deductive argument has true premises , and must be valid as in the premises must logically entail the conclusion

All deductive arguments about the real world has inductive premises. Your above statement does not address this fact. It merely makes you feel better about your inability to produce a deductive statement without a generalized premise.

Has this now been thoroughly addressed to your satisfaction? Or don’t you know how to read?

Use your own idea of an egg then and see how that works for you maybe the conclusion will still be false (for you ) such is your cognitive dissonance

“The example doesn't concern some ideal egg, it concerns eggs. While we can conclude from experience that one egg is roughly the same as the next, closer examination shows they are not actually equal. Don't feel bad, your flawed induction simply proves your point that induction can be flawed. A point I never argued against.”

Now that I am literally quoting my previous response to this shit, will you continue to pretend that I didn’t respond? I expect you will if it allows you to avoid 3 simple points.

You are probably the only human alive who cannot in the comfort of his own armchair work out that 2+2 eggs equals 4 eggs because the eggs do not conform to the ideal form an egg should take in your attempt to justify your circular argument

This is a repeat of what is directly above. The example is real world, and thus does not include some ideal of an egg. What you want to say is that 2+2=4, and you just put in “eggs” to try to make it “real world”. But the nature of real world eggs are an induction from experience, which makes my point. And idealistic math must be learned, which again makes my point. And no, babies aren’t born knowing math nor does science claim it. Any assumption to that effect is an example of incorrect induction. If you could even hazard a source, I would point it out to you. Look past the click bait stupid.

Your first answer was this .....All evidence indicates that it will.

Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction

All evidence does indicate that it will. Your argument against induction is self-defeating as it relies on experience. This has been my point if you weren’t too thick to understand it. Induction is fundamental, even to your own position. Oh, and this is covered in my 3 simple points where I said “My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.”

There is no evidence to indicate it will , etc

There is all the evidence of all the experience of all human experience, which is valid evidence. If you think it is not, that is something you learned through your experience. You learned wrong. Incidentally, this was also addressed when I said “The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position.”

Nonsense, you don’t even know my position because you keep shifting the goalposts down other avenues in an attempt to avoid admitting the circularity of your deeply flawed position

I haven’t shifted any goal posts (Jesus Christ take a simple online class or something). I have thoroughly explained why induction in necessarily relied on in reason, including in your own argument. This isn’t because the argument is circular, but because induction is fundamental. I addressed this when I said “ Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.”

I am repeatedly showing where I have addressed your stupid shit. I am addressing it again, and applying quotes to show where it was addressed before. This is because I’m not a little bitch and a liar who can’t respond to 3 simple points while the opponent who made those points invalidates a mountain of monotonous repetition of absurd shit.

Nonsense, 2+2 does not rely on induction as it’s a priori ....still

2+2 isn’t anything. 2+2=4 is a tautology (as are all equations). You had to be taught these things. They are not a priori. The fact that reason can lead you to knowledge without experience rests on the assumption that the rules of reason learned in the past will persist into the future. I have addressed this as well, when I said “ Pure reason can provide knowledge without experience, but reason is learned and presumed to persist across time. Thus, it is not fundamentally independent of experience.”

Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills.

No they aren’t.

A priori knowledge, namely is knowledge that is based solely on a priori justification.

I guess no one ever taught you not to use the word you're defining in the definition. A priori knowledge is knowledge derive without the necessity of experience. This can be done through reasoning. I’ve addressed this before when I said “Even knowledge gained without direct experience relies on tools acquired through direct experience, in much the same way deductive reasoning relies on inductive premises.”

An ad hoc argument in an attempt to justify your opening remarks in this post

I’ll assume you mean post hoc. Yes, this is a justification of my opening post. You pointing that out is not an actual argument and does nothing to counter it. Keep hiding bitch. There are 3 simple points for you to respond to.

I’m not gifted with your psychic powers as yet

Nor are you very good at reason. Did you really want to insist that I reply to this? What a fucking distraction. Meanwhile bitch, there are 3 simple points for you to respond to. You haven’t yet.

You’re incorrect , circular reasoning is a violation of the rules of logic and reasoning , because the conclusion of an argument cannot be used as a premise of the argument

My conclusion is that induction is a valid form of reasoning. Your argument against induction relies on induction. Induction is fundamental and is a tool of reasoning. Thus, it must be relied on in reasoning just as with any other tool of reasoning. This is no more circular that logic as a validation for reasoning, which will necessarily rely on logic and validation. Now, I have said this before bitch. I think you’re incapable of grasping it. Nonetheless, here is a quote from earlier “This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.”

All logic is ultimately tautological , but is definitely not circular

Correct, logic is not circular. But no, all logic is not a tautology. Logic can be formal or informal. It can be deductive or inductive. While it has tautological axioms at it’s foundation, all logic is not a tautology. Sigh…

You said ”I can make an educated guess at what will happen next”. You said this because you are too fucking stupid to realize that your own position eliminates the possibility of an educated guess. I pointed this out when I said “Not if making claims about unobserved future events is irrational”. In response to this elucidation of the implications of your own position, contradicted yourself with “Which is why I don’t make irrational claims.”

You followed your contradiction with a question (look at that, I missed an actual question. Maybe that’s because I had literally answered it in the post you responded to with that very fucking question. Pay attention bitch!) The question was “Incidentally what makes one claim more irrational regards another regarding the future?. The answer which I already provided was that, according to your own position, “Any given guess is as valid as any other. Adding in your education is merely applying what was learned in the past, as if it has some connection to the future.” I followed that with another question that you have avoided. ”Does it (that past) have a connection (to the future); or are educated guesses irrational?”

Well, I guess that leaves one more question for you to address bitch. 3 simple points along with ”Does it (that past) have a connection (to the future); or are educated guesses irrational?”

I keep saying we are hard wired to rely on induction to justify belief in what’s more likely which is unjustified

It’s not just that we are hardwired little bitch. It’s that the reason which you invoke depends on it. It’s fundamental to reason itself. Now bitch, you have 3 simple points awaiting you. I won’t hold my breath. If you could answer them, you wouldn’t be the little bitch you’ve clearly been identified as.

1 point

1. Time is not independent.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises.

1 point

No you don’t. You keep saying that you already did it. As you did just now.

1 point

We’ve done that long winded shit long enough. It provides cover for you to hide from my challenges. That’s why I put them in clear terms. Now your avoidance is clear as day. Others would be embarrassed to demonstrate so openly their inability.

1,2, and 3. They’re waiting.

1 point

When you respond to what I asked in my last post

There is literally nothing asked in your last post. But I’ve invited you to make your points. You can’t.

I think that’s 3 irrational positions you’ve now fought for. You can’t handle gun statistics, you don’t understand that experience requires existence as a precondition, and now you think the future is unrelated to the past.

1 point

1. Time is not independent. The difference between past, present, and future is merely one of perspective. Your assumption to the contrary has no basis. This fact undercuts one primary premise of your position.

2. Induction is fundamental to reason, including your own position. The very fact that you know induction does not create certainty is based on your experience that induction has erred in the past and can be expected to err in the future. Induction is also fundamental to my position on the rationality of it’s use. This is because it is fundamental. It is as fundamental as learning from experience. My position is no more circular than the fact that reason based validation is necessary to validate reason.

3. Deductive reasoning depends on inductive premises. Deductive statements reason from general premises to a particular conclusion. On real world matters, general premises are necessarily an induction as that is how we get general premises. Even methods of pure reason are learned (induced from past experience to future expectation). This is why you have yet to provide a deductive statement about the real world without an inductive premise. Yes, the fact that eggs are similar relies on induction, just as much as the fact that the future will resemble the past, which is a counter-argument to your premise.

I’m done going into detailed examples and explanations of the above counters to your position only to have them ignored while you pretend at victory. Address them coward.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

Here’s my deal back , when you actually reply to the several points

That was literally my deal to you, but no matter. I am happy to reply to your points. What are they?

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

you’ve totally ignored what I asked you to address

I asked to to restate what you would like me to address. You won’t. You don’t seem to be capable.

Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

You can try a new defence if you wish?

It’s even numbered for you.

1 point

Says the idiot who bulldozed through my post and didn’t address one thing I asked

I addressed everything you dishonest little shit. But just in case I didn’t, I have invited you, now repeatedly, to list whatever I’ve missed in no unclear terms. Since you know I’ve addressed it all, listing it here won’t help you in the slightest, hence your refusal to engage.

It’s fucking simple. I’ve numbered concise points that you will not address. Saying you already have is a fucking lie. I’ve requested your position in clear concise points, so that I may address them (again). But you can’t help but bitch out.

Let’s see if inductive reasoning will predict the nature of your next post. You will neither address my numbered points, nor provide your basic points for me to respond to. Once an intellectual coward, always an intellectual coward. Prove me wrong.

1 point

They were listed one by one not numerically

No they weren't. If they were it will be easy for you to copy and paste them here. Of course that would make it very easy for me to respond to them, so I don't expect you to do it. I made it very easy for you to respond. I don't expect you to do that either.

So stop being a fucking coward. Respond to my numbered points and place your points here. Or keep running away.

1 point

Now that you have conceded that your defeat was as easy as 1,2,3, I will address some particulars here.

First, Your very first response is a great example of your avoidance. You quoted my challenge to formulate a deductive statement about the real world without using and inductive premise. Despite this being your actual quote, your response was an simplistic inductive statement and an argument that they can be inaccurate, which has never been a point of contention.

While it is the case that a good deductive argument about the real world will derive a true conclusion from true premises, the premises are general principles, which are necessarily inductions. If you through out induction as rational, you through out deduction as well.

I distinguish "real world" because it is known through experience of the world. That doesn't make it circular, just fundamental. "Pure reason" is a method which follows from the attributes of the real world. A method which are learned through experience.

Use your own idea of an egg

The example doesn't concern some ideal egg, it concerns eggs. While we can conclude from experience that one egg is roughly the same as the next, closer examination shows they are not actually equal. Don't feel bad, your flawed induction simply proves your point that induction can be flawed. A point I never argued against.

Circular argument from your first comment as it appealing to induction

All tools of reason are validated through tools of reason. I'm sorry your too thick to get that, but it doesn't invalidate tools of reason.

Yet new born babies are born with basic maths skills.

No they aren't. I know the studies you are likely referring to, and they do not actually show that newborns know any math. That's merely a flawed induction. Hey that makes that one point of yours I didn't disagree with!

Anyway, this is getting boring. I laid it out for you and numbered. I numbered it and kept it short just so I could demonstrate your inability to address the specific points I made. You indicated that you will not respond, which doesn't surprise me. If you do respond, you will no doubt avoid the points. But they are bolded and numbered, so it will be very easy for me to demonstrate your avoidance.

It was kind of a side point, but you said there is only the present, and no past or future. I asked exactly how long you think the present is. You ignored that one as well, but I'm curious. Do you think the present has duration?

1 of 89 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]