Philosophy Now Forum

What are you assuming I assumed you meant? If society is going to call and label human beings from 16 to 18 years of age as 'young persons', then any human being younger than a so-called 'young person' could not rationally and logically be called 'a person', as to do so would be not just absurd but...

They’re demonizing more than half of the American people, Correction: ALMOST half the American people who voted in the presidential elections. The latest polls say it's much more than half. The latest showing in the Bronx would underline exactly how much of their core the Dems have actually lost to...

That is exactly what I thought you meant. Thank you for confirming it, however, that is NOT what *I* meant. As I stated in my reply ALL children are "young persons". All adults are not "young persons", but they are, nevertheless "persons". I made no claim that children...

Age, I am having issues with uploading here, with DropBox and with by Google Drive to link you to 3 JPGs. The 3 JPGs, are excerpts from the book Be Here Now. Pages #68, #69, and #70. The section is called "Appearance of the Witness". You can either PM me here and I will share with you my ...

How does one rationally and logically arrive at the definition of a 'young person' is 16-18 years of age? To do so would obviously imply that those younger than 16 are not even persons. Which is just beyond all sense of absurdity. Not necessarily, Age. A child is a young person IMO. All children ar...

"attofishpi" not just approves but even actually endorses and promotes the "british law" that adult human beings of any age are permitted to have sex with some children. To some this is very much endorsing 'pedophilia'. By "some children" do you mean young persons (chi...

Once more you have completely and utterly missed what I meant . So, I made it more clearer. Yet you are here promoting the permitting of you being allowed to have sex with some children no matter what age you live to. you already provided it Age, it doesn't sound to me like Atto endorses or is endo...

Also, you seem to keep forgetting that it is you who is here promoting and supporting "british law", which permits you to have sex with some children well past you are the age of 80. Er, Age - all children are younger than 80. Once more you have completely and utterly missed what I meant....

That's a bit absolute. For sure there are no colours in nature, but I find it hard to deny that there is such a thing as light and that light can be measured in terms of varying wavelengths - which give us the experience of light. Unless you are trying to pretend to yourself that there is nothing &...

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 10:52 pm I say this because, here, everyone tells the truth as they see it.

No truer statement has ever been made.

SO what you seem to be doing is privaleging a certain type of organisation of matter. The ground, presumably the tree itself, millions of bacteria; but only things with an ear and neural matter to "interpret" that as sound. Waves of "energy"(I am avoiding "sound waves"...

Hi Gary, There is a lot of material here. I'll just touch base on a few things as I see it. Justice and fairness. If you believe in karma, then all will be fine. Justice and fairness on a universal scale will playout as it will. It is a byproduct of our being here. If everyone always did the right ...

There's certainly nothing special about a man in a frock. He doesn't even necessarily have any expertise at all...just a frock. So a man with a frock who has not read his Bible is no "expert," and has no "expertise." He's just a man in a frock. By contrast, an ordinary man who h...

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2024 6:30 pm Get a grip.

Same to you.

Especially before they post about it. You'd think Gary would google something before he posts about it. Yes. I know it's also called the "Higgs boson". :roll: That's not the problem with your unresearched post, it's this: And when science gets sloppy in its naming conventions If you read ...