Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:36 am Thus when fully implemented, my FSK will be highly objective.
And with that the turkey basted himself and climbed back into the oven.

You've already admitted that your FSK relies upon itelf to provide the validity of everything it says.
You've claimed it is credible, and is comarable with the sciences in present tense.
But now we see that you are faking it until you make it.

Your FSK isn't objective, you hope it will one day pass as such (even for that, depending on a weak definition of objectivity). Why have you been making claims on it as if it already is ojbective?
I wonder you understand how philosophical proposals and discussions work within the philosophical community.

What I have presented is a model [not a full model in this forum] with features that are objective similar to the scientific FSK.

I did not claim my model is already practiced fully in real life.
However there are already model of moral systems [they are pseudo] parallel to my model that are already in practice at present which are working to a degree but they are not as efficient as the one I am proposing.

Can you show me where in the world has the Utilitarian model of morality worked successful as a complete model
amidst all the criticisms loaded upon it?

Btw, I did not claim my moral model [FSK] will work immediately at present.
Whilst my moral model is valid and "sound" on paper it cannot be implemented fully and efficiently at present until some of the expected scientific research has a critical mass. Note example I mentioned the potentials of the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/.
Whilst it may not be fully practical at present, we can discuss the feasibility of my moral system which I believe is objective and productive.

Show me why the moral model [FSK] I have presented [re the details in various posts] is not objective?
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Apr 10, 2021 5:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:13 am
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].
So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
You missed my point.

I claim the following;
1. Within the common and conventional sense, there is a independent objective external reality,
2. Within the ultimate sense, there is no independent objective external reality.

As for the truths of any FSK,
A. Within the conventional sense, any credibility claimed by individuals based on their opinions and beliefs are subjective.
B. Within any FSK [collective consensus], the credibility of any FSK is independent of the individuals opinion and beliefs thus are objective as conditioned by 2 above.

Here is a simple analogy;
Say you are in a management meeting.
While in discussion of what is the new vision & mission of the company should be, various individual members will present their beliefs & opinions and provide their reasons. What you proposed as the new vision & mission is accepted by the management via majority vote [i.e. consensus].
But once the final vision & mission is confirmed by the majority, "minuted", and adopted as official, it is then the company's vision and mission which is independent of the individual opinions and beliefs.
But the new vision and mission is not independent of the company and human conditions in the ultimate sense.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:09 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:13 am
You tell me, I NEVER claim knowledge or reality is independent of the human conditions [beliefs].
So then re this: "What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria listed in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs." --you'd have to say that there is no such thing, because there is no reality independent of beliefs on your view.
He doesn't formulate it that way, he specifies that a shared belief meets his definition of objectivity because it is independent of any particular person's beliefs, but he doesn't specify that any components other than belief are required for this 'belief independence'.

It has the outcome that the KKK has an objective belief that black people are morally inferior to white people because more than one Klansman believes this to be the case. Others might not agree that this meets a reasonable definition of objectivity.
In principle any shared-belief within a large group is in a way "objective" within a "continuum of objectivity" because it becomes independent of the individuals in the group.
It is not wrong technically to state a mixed paint of 1cc of black mixed with 100cc of white is a 1% black paint or 99% white paint which in either way is very realistic.

But objectivity can be presented in a continuum degree of credibility and confidence level to its truth.
But generally in practice we would not consider what is less than 50% objective within the continuum as 'objective'.
Note my explanation of the continuum from opinions to beliefs to knowledge, thus based on this concepts, we have,
  • 1. opinions - 0-25% objectivity - no verification and justifications done, merely a hunch.

    2. beliefs - 26- 50% objectivity - "personal objectivity" with personal justification

    3. knowledge - >50% objectivity, i.e. knowledge as verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Since the KKK's 'objective' belief is not verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK, it would be at most an opinion.

Theists where >80% of humans on earth has a shared-belief 'God exists as real' is perhaps reasonable at >26%, thus would in terms of the continuum it is objective but only perhaps >26% objectivity which in general would not be termed objective.

That is nothing wrong with the above analysis, else, show me if otherwise.

As you can see your thinking is too narrow, shallow and loose.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:47 am Say you are in a management meeting.
While in discussion of what is the new vision & mission of the company should be, various individual members will present their beliefs & opinions and provide their reasons. What you proposed as the new vision & mission is accepted by the management via majority vote [i.e. consensus].
But once the final vision & mission is confirmed by the majority, "minuted", and adopted as official, it is then the company's vision and mission which is independent of the individual opinions and beliefs.
No, you're missing my point. HOW does it become independent of individual opinions and beliefs just because a bunch of individuals agree on it, just because there's a consensus and just because it's different than outlier opinions and beliefs? Opinions and beliefs don't become something else just because a lot of individuals have the same ones and agree on them.
Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:24 am No, you're missing my point. HOW does it become independent of individual opinions and beliefs just because a bunch of individuals agree on it, just because there's a consensus and just because it's different than outlier opinions and beliefs? Opinions and beliefs don't become something else just because a lot of individuals have the same ones and agree on them.
Consensus is literally what makes THIS EXPERIENCE MEAN RED, instead of THIS EXPERIENCE MEANING RED..

Consensus is literally what makes this distance be 1 centimeter: |---|, instead of this distance: |-----------------------------------|.
Consensus is what makes a particular interval be "1 second" instead of some other particular interval being "1 second".
Consensus is what invented the kilogram.
Consensus is what ensures that your "yes" and my "yes" mean the same thing.

Semiotics requires consensus for effective/reliable communication.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2943
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:09 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:23 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:36 am Thus when fully implemented, my FSK will be highly objective.
And with that the turkey basted himself and climbed back into the oven.

You've already admitted that your FSK relies upon itelf to provide the validity of everything it says.
You've claimed it is credible, and is comarable with the sciences in present tense.
But now we see that you are faking it until you make it.

Your FSK isn't objective, you hope it will one day pass as such (even for that, depending on a weak definition of objectivity). Why have you been making claims on it as if it already is ojbective?
I wonder you understand how philosophical proposals and discussions work within the philosophical community.

What I have presented is a model [not a full model in this forum] with features that are objective similar to the scientific FSK.

I did not claim my model is already practiced fully in real life.
However there are already model of moral systems [they are pseudo] parallel to my model that are already in practice at present which are working to a degree but they are not as efficient as the one I am proposing.

Can you show me where in the world has the Utilitarian model of morality worked successful as a complete model
amidst all the criticisms loaded upon it?

Btw, I did not claim my moral model [FSK] will work immediately at present.
Whilst my moral model is valid and "sound" on paper it cannot be implemented fully and efficiently at present until some of the expected scientific research has a critical mass. Note example I mentioned the potentials of the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/.
Whilst it may not be fully practical at present, we can discuss the feasibility of my moral system which I believe is objective and productive.

Show me why the moral model [FSK] I have presented [re the details in various posts] is not objective?
You have presented a framework and system that is considered credible only by its author. You have persuaded exactly nobody else that it has credibility at all. By your own reasoning, that makes it non credible. You give yourself all these excuses that nobody agrees with you because we are all dogmatic, but excuses are like arseholes as the saying goes.

Pretty much everything else you have written requires a "credible FSK" to filter various claims through. Yours is not a credible FSK, and thus it cannot sustain your arguments which depend upon one of those. Which is all of your arguments tbh.

All that you actually do have is faith. You have faith that your FSK will somehow persuade billions of people. Faith that science is going to do what you need and so on. But until those things have already happened, what you don't have, is the fabled "credible FSK".

And therefore, whenever you have written anything like this...
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK
You don't have a credible FSK to do any of that within.

The objectivity thing is just one such casualty. All of the fact calims that you make require the FSK to support them. All of the objectivity claims are supported only by those. Your FSK is required for that silly breathing argument you keep pasting.

You have a circular dependency for all of this stuff, all if it goes back to this non-credible FSK that you can't persuade anyone to believe in. And that includes Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC. All of those people are moral objectivists as far as I can see. None of them is buying your FSK any more than us non-objectivists are.
Skepdick
Posts: 8004
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:12 pm You have a circular dependency for all of this stuff
Everybody has a circular dependency! ALL beliefs are contingent. We know this - you are boring us by pointing out the obvious.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:12 pm all if it goes back to this non-credible FSK that you can't persuade anyone to believe in. And that includes Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC. All of those people are moral objectivists as far as I can see. None of them is buying your FSK any more than us non-objectivists are.
You've already "bought it", retard. You already believe it in all the senses that matter in practice, but for the philosophical act/language games you choose to play when you do Philosophy. You are merely disagreeing on how we express/narrate that which you are acting out.

Your disagreement is merely over language/style/expression. You behave exactly like a moral objectivist would.
You agree with the semantics, but you are bickering over the syntax.
You disagree with the theory, even though you agree with the conclusion.

That's what philosophical "disagreement" amounts to if you are not willing to take behaviour into account. Vacuous theorizing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 9:24 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:47 am Say you are in a management meeting.
While in discussion of what is the new vision & mission of the company should be, various individual members will present their beliefs & opinions and provide their reasons. What you proposed as the new vision & mission is accepted by the management via majority vote [i.e. consensus].
But once the final vision & mission is confirmed by the majority, "minuted", and adopted as official, it is then the company's vision and mission which is independent of the individual opinions and beliefs.
No, you're missing my point. HOW does it become independent of individual opinions and beliefs just because a bunch of individuals agree on it, just because there's a consensus and just because it's different than outlier opinions and beliefs? Opinions and beliefs don't become something else just because a lot of individuals have the same ones and agree on them.
I am not sure what is in your mind.
I guess the following..

It is not "bunch of individuals" agreeing on it like in a poll, survey or any random group of people.
In this case, there is an institution that is conditioned by its constitution [implied or explicit] like a FSK or in the analogy, a legal corporate entity.

How?
When a belief is institutionalized within an institution [FSK], that belief becomes independent of the individual members [not just any person but members] of that institution.

In that case, that belief or knowledge [verified and justified] is grounded on the constitution of the whole organization or FSK and has nothing to do with the individual members.

Get it?
If not, ask more questions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:09 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:23 am
And with that the turkey basted himself and climbed back into the oven.

You've already admitted that your FSK relies upon itelf to provide the validity of everything it says.
You've claimed it is credible, and is comarable with the sciences in present tense.
But now we see that you are faking it until you make it.

Your FSK isn't objective, you hope it will one day pass as such (even for that, depending on a weak definition of objectivity). Why have you been making claims on it as if it already is ojbective?
I wonder you understand how philosophical proposals and discussions work within the philosophical community.

What I have presented is a model [not a full model in this forum] with features that are objective similar to the scientific FSK.

I did not claim my model is already practiced fully in real life.
However there are already model of moral systems [they are pseudo] parallel to my model that are already in practice at present which are working to a degree but they are not as efficient as the one I am proposing.

Can you show me where in the world has the Utilitarian model of morality worked successful as a complete model
amidst all the criticisms loaded upon it?

Btw, I did not claim my moral model [FSK] will work immediately at present.
Whilst my moral model is valid and "sound" on paper it cannot be implemented fully and efficiently at present until some of the expected scientific research has a critical mass. Note example I mentioned the potentials of the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/.
Whilst it may not be fully practical at present, we can discuss the feasibility of my moral system which I believe is objective and productive.

Show me why the moral model [FSK] I have presented [re the details in various posts] is not objective?
You have presented a framework and system that is considered credible only by its author. You have persuaded exactly nobody else that it has credibility at all. By your own reasoning, that makes it non credible. You give yourself all these excuses that nobody agrees with you because we are all dogmatic, but excuses are like arseholes as the saying goes.

Pretty much everything else you have written requires a "credible FSK" to filter various claims through. Yours is not a credible FSK, and thus it cannot sustain your arguments which depend upon one of those. Which is all of your arguments tbh.

All that you actually do have is faith. You have faith that your FSK will somehow persuade billions of people. Faith that science is going to do what you need and so on. But until those things have already happened, what you don't have, is the fabled "credible FSK".

And therefore, whenever you have written anything like this...
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK
You don't have a credible FSK to do any of that within.

The objectivity thing is just one such casualty. All of the fact calims that you make require the FSK to support them. All of the objectivity claims are supported only by those. Your FSK is required for that silly breathing argument you keep pasting.

You have a circular dependency for all of this stuff, all if it goes back to this non-credible FSK that you can't persuade anyone to believe in. And that includes Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC. All of those people are moral objectivists as far as I can see. None of them is buying your FSK any more than us non-objectivists are.
Btw, I have not presented the the full, completeness and total of my moral FSK in this forum. There are a tons of materials that I will have to present if I were to convince any one that my FSK is credible.

What I had argued is what a credible FSK entails and that my model of the moral FSK has all these features.

So far what I have been arguing [as I had stated many times] is specifically against Peter claims in his thread that challenged
"What could make morality objective?"
where he thinks the platonic and theistic moral realists cannot prove their claims. This I agree with him.
But I am confident there are moral truths that make moral realism true.

What I have argued is there are inherent physical moral 'ought-not_ness' in the brain. I have already demonstrated why the above is possibly real.

I have also argued how the above is related to morality-proper and that implied an essential process of the moral FSK.

When I mentioned a credible moral FSK, that is an enhancement and reinforcement which is not necessary at this stage.
It is just like when scientists present their scientific conclusions they do not mention or refer to any scientific FSK in its explicit details at all.

However I have on hand the full details, the organizations, the structure, the constitutions, the principles, the processes, etc. that qualify as to what is a credible FSK. I have not present such is full details [to do so I will need to explain in hundreds of pages] and I do not intend to go into the full details, but nevertheless I have clued the credibility of my moral system is similar [not exactly] to that of the scientific one.

But so far, what I have presented is sufficient to meet Peter's challenge,
"What could make morality objective?"

Btw, 56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism is a clue [not affirmation] moral realism and objectivity is more tenable than moral subjectivism and I have given detailed arguments to support that.

Where did I ever expect or insist Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC to agree with me.
We are discussing and arguing on a point to point basis.
I believe Belinda agreed with the concept of FSK [or FS-Beliefs] merely on the principles I presented of what is an FSK and not my personal moral FSK which I have not presented in detail for consideration.

On the matter of circularity, you are ignorant of the difference circularity in the broad sense and the narrow sense.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:07 am It is not "bunch of individuals" agreeing on it like in a poll, survey or any random group of people.
In this case, there is an institution that is conditioned by its constitution [implied or explicit] like a FSK or in the analogy, a legal corporate entity.

How?
When a belief is institutionalized within an institution [FSK], that belief becomes independent of the individual members [not just any person but members] of that institution.
You write "how" there, then repeat the claim as if that explains it. Repeating the claim doesn't at all explain how this supposedly works. How about giving a specific example and we'll walk through the details of how this supposedly works for that example? I'll let you pick the example you'd like to use unless you want me to pick one, but if you want me to pick one don't then complain that it won't do for an example (or in other words, how about you just suggest an example that you feel would best work to illustrate how you believe what you're claiming here can happen).
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2943
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 4:09 am
I wonder you understand how philosophical proposals and discussions work within the philosophical community.

What I have presented is a model [not a full model in this forum] with features that are objective similar to the scientific FSK.

I did not claim my model is already practiced fully in real life.
However there are already model of moral systems [they are pseudo] parallel to my model that are already in practice at present which are working to a degree but they are not as efficient as the one I am proposing.

Can you show me where in the world has the Utilitarian model of morality worked successful as a complete model
amidst all the criticisms loaded upon it?

Btw, I did not claim my moral model [FSK] will work immediately at present.
Whilst my moral model is valid and "sound" on paper it cannot be implemented fully and efficiently at present until some of the expected scientific research has a critical mass. Note example I mentioned the potentials of the http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/.
Whilst it may not be fully practical at present, we can discuss the feasibility of my moral system which I believe is objective and productive.

Show me why the moral model [FSK] I have presented [re the details in various posts] is not objective?
You have presented a framework and system that is considered credible only by its author. You have persuaded exactly nobody else that it has credibility at all. By your own reasoning, that makes it non credible. You give yourself all these excuses that nobody agrees with you because we are all dogmatic, but excuses are like arseholes as the saying goes.

Pretty much everything else you have written requires a "credible FSK" to filter various claims through. Yours is not a credible FSK, and thus it cannot sustain your arguments which depend upon one of those. Which is all of your arguments tbh.

All that you actually do have is faith. You have faith that your FSK will somehow persuade billions of people. Faith that science is going to do what you need and so on. But until those things have already happened, what you don't have, is the fabled "credible FSK".

And therefore, whenever you have written anything like this...
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK
You don't have a credible FSK to do any of that within.

The objectivity thing is just one such casualty. All of the fact calims that you make require the FSK to support them. All of the objectivity claims are supported only by those. Your FSK is required for that silly breathing argument you keep pasting.

You have a circular dependency for all of this stuff, all if it goes back to this non-credible FSK that you can't persuade anyone to believe in. And that includes Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC. All of those people are moral objectivists as far as I can see. None of them is buying your FSK any more than us non-objectivists are.
Btw, I have not presented the the full, completeness and total of my moral FSK in this forum. There are a tons of materials that I will have to present if I were to convince any one that my FSK is credible.
But you call everybody who doesn't believe it a dogmatist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I had argued is what a credible FSK entails and that my model of the moral FSK has all these features.
Well, no, you have been treating your FSK as entirely credible, and you have been calling me a dogmatist for not thinking so. Now it isn't working out, you want to gaslight us with some nonsense that you are just sort of predicting some future knowledge?

But that is an obvious lie VA. You have already used your FSK to validate several big claims, including that all OUGHTS are ISes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am So far what I have been arguing [as I had stated many times] is specifically against Peter claims in his thread that challenged
"What could make morality objective?"
where he thinks the platonic and theistic moral realists cannot prove their claims. This I agree with him.
But I am confident there are moral truths that make moral realism true.
Think about it for a second. Be honest here.... Have you been so confident that you got ahead of your argument and started making claims on it that aren't justified?

How many times have you ignored advice to get your shit together properly by going back to first principles?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I have argued is there are inherent physical moral 'ought-not_ness' in the brain. I have already demonstrated why the above is possibly real.
But you used your FSK that isn't credible "yet" to make that case, and then you called anyone who didn't buy that argument a dogmatist. You can't fix that argument before you make this FSK thing actually credible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am I have also argued how the above is related to morality-proper and that implied an essential process of the moral FSK.
Don't you realise that "morality-proper" isn't credible either yet?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am When I mentioned a credible moral FSK, that is an enhancement and reinforcement which is not necessary at this stage.
It is just like when scientists present their scientific conclusions they do not mention or refer to any scientific FSK in its explicit details at all.
You need that credible FSK thing. Don't start hoping that any crap you have presented works without your dream of future knowledge. This is your own fault for getting into a circle and trying to ignore it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am However I have on hand the full details, the organizations, the structure, the constitutions, the principles, the processes, etc. that qualify as to what is a credible FSK. I have not present such is full details [to do so I will need to explain in hundreds of pages] and I do not intend to go into the full details, but nevertheless I have clued the credibility of my moral system is similar [not exactly] to that of the scientific one.
If you aren't going to make tha argument properly, then stop. Stop telling me and Pete and Terrapin and Sculptor that we are bastard positivists for not believing in your unpresented arguments.

Also, let's be real here, you know every single one of us is going to dismantle this secret hidden argument if you ever do present it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am But so far, what I have presented is sufficient to meet Peter's challenge,
"What could make morality objective?"
In your opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Btw, 56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism is a clue [not affirmation] moral realism and objectivity is more tenable than moral subjectivism and I have given detailed arguments to support that.
I don't care. Not one of them agrees with your FSK, and your FSK has no credibility so it's irrelevant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Where did I ever expect or insist Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC to agree with me.
We are discussing and arguing on a point to point basis.
I believe Belinda agreed with the concept of FSK [or FS-Beliefs] merely on the principles I presented of what is an FSK and not my personal moral FSK which I have not presented in detail for consideration.
You have been trying to get out the problem that nobody in the world believes in your FSK with some silliness that you don't expect me to believe because I am a dogmatist. I figured you should start by persuading somebody who is already a moral realist. Sooner or later this little cult of yours needs a recruit, right?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am On the matter of circularity, you are ignorant of the difference circularity in the broad sense and the narrow sense.
You say that, but I am right. Your FSK needs itself to support it's own arguments that it should exist. That is problematic circularity. You can deal with it, or you can try to ignore it and call me names for pointing it out. Your FSK will never get better if you make the stupid choice.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:12 pm
You have presented a framework and system that is considered credible only by its author. You have persuaded exactly nobody else that it has credibility at all. By your own reasoning, that makes it non credible. You give yourself all these excuses that nobody agrees with you because we are all dogmatic, but excuses are like arseholes as the saying goes.

Pretty much everything else you have written requires a "credible FSK" to filter various claims through. Yours is not a credible FSK, and thus it cannot sustain your arguments which depend upon one of those. Which is all of your arguments tbh.

All that you actually do have is faith. You have faith that your FSK will somehow persuade billions of people. Faith that science is going to do what you need and so on. But until those things have already happened, what you don't have, is the fabled "credible FSK".

And therefore, whenever you have written anything like this...
whatever is claimed as 'fact' must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK
You don't have a credible FSK to do any of that within.

The objectivity thing is just one such casualty. All of the fact calims that you make require the FSK to support them. All of the objectivity claims are supported only by those. Your FSK is required for that silly breathing argument you keep pasting.

You have a circular dependency for all of this stuff, all if it goes back to this non-credible FSK that you can't persuade anyone to believe in. And that includes Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC. All of those people are moral objectivists as far as I can see. None of them is buying your FSK any more than us non-objectivists are.
Btw, I have not presented the the full, completeness and total of my moral FSK in this forum. There are a tons of materials that I will have to present if I were to convince any one that my FSK is credible.
But you call everybody who doesn't believe it a dogmatist.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I had argued is what a credible FSK entails and that my model of the moral FSK has all these features.
Well, no, you have been treating your FSK as entirely credible, and you have been calling me a dogmatist for not thinking so. Now it isn't working out, you want to gaslight us with some nonsense that you are just sort of predicting some future knowledge?

But that is an obvious lie VA. You have already used your FSK to validate several big claims, including that all OUGHTS are ISes.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am So far what I have been arguing [as I had stated many times] is specifically against Peter claims in his thread that challenged
"What could make morality objective?"
where he thinks the platonic and theistic moral realists cannot prove their claims. This I agree with him.
But I am confident there are moral truths that make moral realism true.
Think about it for a second. Be honest here.... Have you been so confident that you got ahead of your argument and started making claims on it that aren't justified?

How many times have you ignored advice to get your shit together properly by going back to first principles?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I have argued is there are inherent physical moral 'ought-not_ness' in the brain. I have already demonstrated why the above is possibly real.
But you used your FSK that isn't credible "yet" to make that case, and then you called anyone who didn't buy that argument a dogmatist. You can't fix that argument before you make this FSK thing actually credible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am I have also argued how the above is related to morality-proper and that implied an essential process of the moral FSK.
Don't you realise that "morality-proper" isn't credible either yet?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am When I mentioned a credible moral FSK, that is an enhancement and reinforcement which is not necessary at this stage.
It is just like when scientists present their scientific conclusions they do not mention or refer to any scientific FSK in its explicit details at all.
You need that credible FSK thing. Don't start hoping that any crap you have presented works without your dream of future knowledge. This is your own fault for getting into a circle and trying to ignore it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am However I have on hand the full details, the organizations, the structure, the constitutions, the principles, the processes, etc. that qualify as to what is a credible FSK. I have not present such is full details [to do so I will need to explain in hundreds of pages] and I do not intend to go into the full details, but nevertheless I have clued the credibility of my moral system is similar [not exactly] to that of the scientific one.
If you aren't going to make tha argument properly, then stop. Stop telling me and Pete and Terrapin and Sculptor that we are bastard positivists for not believing in your unpresented arguments.

Also, let's be real here, you know every single one of us is going to dismantle this secret hidden argument if you ever do present it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am But so far, what I have presented is sufficient to meet Peter's challenge,
"What could make morality objective?"
In your opinion.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Btw, 56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism is a clue [not affirmation] moral realism and objectivity is more tenable than moral subjectivism and I have given detailed arguments to support that.
I don't care. Not one of them agrees with your FSK, and your FSK has no credibility so it's irrelevant.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Where did I ever expect or insist Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC to agree with me.
We are discussing and arguing on a point to point basis.
I believe Belinda agreed with the concept of FSK [or FS-Beliefs] merely on the principles I presented of what is an FSK and not my personal moral FSK which I have not presented in detail for consideration.
You have been trying to get out the problem that nobody in the world believes in your FSK with some silliness that you don't expect me to believe because I am a dogmatist. I figured you should start by persuading somebody who is already a moral realist. Sooner or later this little cult of yours needs a recruit, right?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am On the matter of circularity, you are ignorant of the difference circularity in the broad sense and the narrow sense.
You say that, but I am right. Your FSK needs itself to support it's own arguments that it should exist. That is problematic circularity. You can deal with it, or you can try to ignore it and call me names for pointing it out. Your FSK will never get better if you make the stupid choice.
You appear to have much more confidence than I do that he's ever going to bother shoring any of this stuff up. :wink:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:55 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:07 am It is not "bunch of individuals" agreeing on it like in a poll, survey or any random group of people.
In this case, there is an institution that is conditioned by its constitution [implied or explicit] like a FSK or in the analogy, a legal corporate entity.

How?
When a belief is institutionalized within an institution [FSK], that belief becomes independent of the individual members [not just any person but members] of that institution.
You write "how" there, then repeat the claim as if that explains it. Repeating the claim doesn't at all explain how this supposedly works. How about giving a specific example and we'll walk through the details of how this supposedly works for that example? I'll let you pick the example you'd like to use unless you want me to pick one, but if you want me to pick one don't then complain that it won't do for an example (or in other words, how about you just suggest an example that you feel would best work to illustrate how you believe what you're claiming here can happen).
I have already given you examples but you do not get the point.
In that case you should provide the example and with more details.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 6485
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:08 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Btw, I have not presented the the full, completeness and total of my moral FSK in this forum. There are a tons of materials that I will have to present if I were to convince any one that my FSK is credible.
But you call everybody who doesn't believe it a dogmatist.
You are not getting it.

A typical Framework and System of say a legal framework and system of say a country entails many things from the initiation of the full Constitution, the political FSK, the legislature, the legal profession, the judiciary, the enforcements authorities, etc.

Thus in my Framework and System of morality [proper], like the above example, there is a wide ranges of various sub-FSKs albeit of different contents.

Where I called anyone a 'dogmatist' is not related to the principles of the whole FSK but only to specific elements of the FSK discussed e.g. the specific issue of the existence of real physical moral things in the brain where you invoke your dogmatism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I had argued is what a credible FSK entails and that my model of the moral FSK has all these features.
Well, no, you have been treating your FSK as entirely credible, and you have been calling me a dogmatist for not thinking so. Now it isn't working out, you want to gaslight us with some nonsense that you are just sort of predicting some future knowledge?
I am confident my FULL model of moral FSK is credible based on the principles and features of credibility incorporated in my FSK.
My present position is just like an architect who is very confident his model and plans when executed accordingly will ensure the building will stand an earthquake on the richter scale of 8.0.
But that is an obvious lie VA. You have already used your FSK to validate several big claims, including that all OUGHTS are ISes.
It is like the architect who relied on the material-science-FSK to decide what material to use in his building to withstand a 8.0 earthquake.
When the relevant material are input into the building, it is then a building FSK.
I have done the same as the above.
What I have done with 'ougntness' is "is" is based on the its possibility from scientific FSK and various philosophical arguments. When input into my moral FSK, it will be a moral-physical-thing [avoiding use of moral fact].
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am So far what I have been arguing [as I had stated many times] is specifically against Peter claims in his thread that challenged
"What could make morality objective?"
where he thinks the platonic and theistic moral realists cannot prove their claims. This I agree with him.
But I am confident there are moral truths that make moral realism true.
Think about it for a second. Be honest here.... Have you been so confident that you got ahead of your argument and started making claims on it that aren't justified?

How many times have you ignored advice to get your shit together properly by going back to first principles?
Generally all the resistance from Peter, Sculptor and you [most likely] are based on dogmatism, driven by psychology which is influenced by the bastardized of the mafia Logical Positivists and the classical analytic philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am What I have argued is there are inherent physical moral 'ought-not_ness' in the brain. I have already demonstrated why the above is possibly real.
But you used your FSK that isn't credible "yet" to make that case, and then you called anyone who didn't buy that argument a dogmatist. You can't fix that argument before you make this FSK thing actually credible.
Note my explanation above re my overall moral FSK [not presented] vs the individual elements in that FSK.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am I have also argued how the above is related to morality-proper and that implied an essential process of the moral FSK.
Don't you realise that "morality-proper" isn't credible either yet?
Why not?
I have explained that, i.e. theistic morality, consequentialism, deontological and other current secular morality are not in high alignment with the inherent natural moral function as "programmed" in all humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am When I mentioned a credible moral FSK, that is an enhancement and reinforcement which is not necessary at this stage.
It is just like when scientists present their scientific conclusions they do not mention or refer to any scientific FSK in its explicit details at all.
You need that credible FSK thing. Don't start hoping that any crap you have presented works without your dream of future knowledge. This is your own fault for getting into a circle and trying to ignore it.
I am very confident of what I have presented based on very deep reflection of the issue and exhausting all [if not nearly all] of the topic of morality and ethics plus whatever is related to it.
You tell me, what you do think I would be ignorant off [that you know or whatever there is] re morality and ethics?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am However I have on hand the full details, the organizations, the structure, the constitutions, the principles, the processes, etc. that qualify as to what is a credible FSK. I have not present such is full details [to do so I will need to explain in hundreds of pages] and I do not intend to go into the full details, but nevertheless I have clued the credibility of my moral system is similar [not exactly] to that of the scientific one.
If you aren't going to make tha argument properly, then stop. Stop telling me and Pete and Terrapin and Sculptor that we are bastard positivists for not believing in your unpresented arguments.

Also, let's be real here, you know every single one of us is going to dismantle this secret hidden argument if you ever do present it.
It was only recently upon Sculptor's insult that prompted me to exhaust what is there to be known re morality and ethics to reinforce my full knowledge of Kantian morality.
It was from my extensive survey that you and gang were influenced by the bastardized philosophies of the LPs. Btw, I did not assert you and gang are bastard positivists by rather influenced by their sort of arrogance, dogmatism and resistance.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am But so far, what I have presented is sufficient to meet Peter's challenge,
"What could make morality objective?"
In your opinion.
Based on the extensive materials and arguments I have supplied.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Btw, 56% of philosophers in one poll agreed with moral realism is a clue [not affirmation] moral realism and objectivity is more tenable than moral subjectivism and I have given detailed arguments to support that.
I don't care. Not one of them agrees with your FSK, and your FSK has no credibility so it's irrelevant.
Note my analogy with credible an architect's plans or engineer's model which are credible objectively.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am Where did I ever expect or insist Henry, Skepdick, Belinda and IC to agree with me.
We are discussing and arguing on a point to point basis.
I believe Belinda agreed with the concept of FSK [or FS-Beliefs] merely on the principles I presented of what is an FSK and not my personal moral FSK which I have not presented in detail for consideration.
You have been trying to get out the problem that nobody in the world believes in your FSK with some silliness that you don't expect me to believe because I am a dogmatist. I figured you should start by persuading somebody who is already a moral realist. Sooner or later this little cult of yours needs a recruit, right?
I am confident when I present my fully described model or FSK, most who understand it will definitely agree with it.
I am not starting from scratch but mine [of completeness, systematicity, rational] is of significant improvements from existing moral systems that are already working and successful to some degrees.
You cannot deny for example the Christian moral system is very successful in aligning Christians to their natural 'no human ought to kill humans' re their moral maxim 'Thou Shalt not Kill' which agrees with mine in this ONE specific aspect of 'ought-not-to'.
However the Christian moral system whilst manage intuitively to align with this ONE naturally specific moral oughtness, it failed in many other aspects of natural morality, e.g. slavery, etc.
One of the critical feature of my moral FSK is idiot proofing, i.e. ensuring even an idiot will not make an error.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:36 am On the matter of circularity, you are ignorant of the difference circularity in the broad sense and the narrow sense.
You say that, but I am right. Your FSK needs itself to support it's own arguments that it should exist. That is problematic circularity. You can deal with it, or you can try to ignore it and call me names for pointing it out. Your FSK will never get better if you make the stupid choice.
Have you researched into what is circularity in the broad sense versus narrow sense?
I am very confident i.e. personal objectivity [also subjective] of my full architectonic moral FSK where I incorporated all known features that will ensure reliability and credibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectonics
Note one of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques besides 'analysis' there is completeness and systematicity, strategic management [Sun Tzu, etc.] which I ensure are covered within my moral FSK.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 5:16 am I have already given you examples but you do not get the point.
In that case you should provide the example and with more details.
Sure, so how about a belief that E=mc^2, since that's one example you suggested. Explain how as a belief, it becomes independent of the individual members of the institution via becoming institutionalized within an institution [FSK].
Post Reply