What is a Fact?

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:19 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:17 pm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn3hlyCv_f8

"NORMAL" is tyrany
Well, the NORMAL distribution of people prefer life to death.

If normal is "tyrany" - go kill yourself. Youtube it as proof.
Skepdick is not normal.
Go fuck yourself
You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron
Skepdick
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:20 pm Skepdick is not normal.
Go fuck yourself
Sure. Right after you kill yourself I'll have a celebratory wank.
Skepdick
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:20 pm You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron
Watch me!

Racism is normal.

Between a world with racism and a world without racism the latter is better.

Racism OUGHT NOT happen.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:25 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:20 pm You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron
Watch me!

Racism is normal.

Between a world with racism and a world without racism the latter is better.

Racism OUGHT NOT happen.
Poor confused little boy.
If you spent more time thinking and less time putting your nose into other people's conversations you might learn to be a nicer person.
Skepdick
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:30 pm Poor confused little boy.
If you spent more time thinking and less time putting your nose into other people's conversations you might learn to be a nicer person.
I am a nice person. I have no time for idiot-philosophers.

"Thinking" is the very thing I am trying to explain to you.

I think therefore I am.

You can't think - therefore you are not.
Impenitent
Posts: 3038
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Impenitent »

indisputably...

"fact" is a four letter f word

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:44 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:11 pm
Prof is unable to measure them too, all of his nonsense is pretty much the same as yours. There is nothing with which to measure moral outcomes as if quantifiable objects.

What you do is apply your faith. You make an observation of something that can be quantified, and then you decide to have faith that it represents something else that you cannot. That's all Prof's thing is, and it's all yours is too.

That's unfortunate. Wise and intelligent people will just tell you that effective quantification of moral outcomes or inputs is impossible and you should stop pretending that they are better than estimates.
What do you mean by 'impossible'? as if there are absolutely absolute measurements.
There are no absolutely absolute measurements.
All measurements even if claimed to be 'absolute' [e.g. absolute temperature] are fundamentally relative and justified estimates.
Even in Science, whatever is ultimately measured is at best 'polished conjectures' [Popper].
I just Googled that phrase "polished conjectures" and all I got was your posts on two forums and a youtube comment in your giveaway P1 P2 C3 format that demonstrates you think premise and conclusion is just an order to put sentences in. I'm not saying you made the phrase up, but I am saying nobody else seems to think it's as important as you do.
Note,
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge is a book written by philosopher Karl Popper. Published in 1963 by Routledge, this book is a collection of his lectures and papers that summarised his thoughts on the philosophy of science.
Popper suggested that ALL scientific theories are by nature conjectures and inherently fallible, and that refutation to old theory is the paramount process of scientific discovery. Should any new theory survive more of such refutations, it would have a higher verisimilitude and therefore,
Popper concluded, closer to truth. (Wikipedia)
https://nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/0/ ... r-1953.pdf
I had an article by Popper [as I can recalled] he used the term 'polished conjectures'.
In any case, if you are of average intellect and philosophically minded, you would understand, the scientific process is merely polishing 'hypothesis' [conjectures] till they are justified and accepted by peers' consensus.

The term 'polished conjecture' is critically as applied to scientific theories to prevent them [scientists and others] from being trying to be like God as in Scientism, the logical positivists, and other ignorant idiots.
Imperfection of physical measurement of quantities and distances and so on is incredibly slight, sure the job is never complete with limitless precision, but that's just part of the game. Nonetheless, when I get out a ruler and measure my computer desk to be 14mm thick, you, at great distance, can measure your computer desk thickness and determine it to be 16mm thick, and then you can say with justification, that you have a thicker computer desk than I do.****

The same can never be said of a "moral truth". no matter which measurable analogue you insert in place of the moral truth you are pretending to measure, there is no tracking between them. We use volumetric sounding terms to describe our emotions and so on, but you have allowed that to mislead you into imagining actual quantities love and loathing and so on.
I am confident any normal average person will intuitively sense the great contrast between an evil act of murder and the evil act of a petty theft or petty violence.
If I rate the act of murder with a grade of 100 of evilness, the normal person, I am confident will accept petty violence as rated 5-10/100 evilness.
And that's before we mention that if you say "this desk is thinner than that one, but it's fatter too" about physical measurement, that is clearly understood as a direct contradiction. But if you say "I love it but I hate it", "it's nice but it's sort of nasty", "that dress is classy but only a prostitute would wear it", these obvious contradictions are permissable in normative language. Spititual woo-woo like Yin Yang has nothing to do with it, normative judgments are just not the sort of thing where we apply the same rules as we do to physical objects.
Your above is a strawman.
I did not argue with 'love it' or 'hate it', jealousy and the likes.

I am referring to moral standards re degree of evilness of evil acts.
The extremes of evil acts can be reasonably measured if say we fixed a base for one extreme, note the example I provided above.
The degree of evilness can also measured by the number of people killed or how serious is the injuries to people who are alive.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am I agree it is easier to measure physical objects while it is more difficult with abstract things.
It's not more difficult, it's strictly irrational. To measure a thing, the thing must be there to be measured. Abstract things are not there, therefore they are not there to be measured. If you can't grasp this simple a priori truth you are hopelessly delusional.
Nope, you are hopelessly ignorant.

While many abstract things cannot be measured as precise as physical things, they can still be measured relatively and the best justified estimates can be obtained for further actions of improvement to one's well being.
So much of such measurements is done in science, economics, psychometrics, psychiatry, psychology, etc. which had contributed much to the well being of individuals.
How can you be so ignorant of the above?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am But nevertheless, my point is everything is quantifiable and measurable as long as the Framework of Measurement is established rationally and steps are taken to ensure it is fool proof, and there is consensus.
You also have no hope of getting any consensus. Everyone except you and Prof understands that that things like Gross Domestic Happiness are very limited easily gamed fake indexes. But you two just insist that such things measure an immeasurable phenomenon and that's never going to work for you. The consensus will be that you are a pair of loons.
Gross Domestic Happiness is merely an extreme example which indicate possibility of even measure emotions. But in general I am not in favor of this at present.

What I am more interested in is moral facts and its valuations to be used as GUIDES only, and which will contribute to the well being of individuals and humanity.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am Note I never claimed to measure 'moral outcomes,' to me that is Ethics not morality.
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.

It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.
Euthenasia is mercy and mercy is a moral good. You can't apply your system, it's too easy to reject it as a premise and ignore its findings.

I'm saving you a lot of work here, you could devote a lifetime to trying to polish this turd like Prof has and just waste your life because you can't see the weakness of the foundations on which your edifice is constrcted but everyone else can.
Nope Euthanasia is morally wrong in the absolute sense, i.e. no exception.
But note this is merely a moral standard/policy, thus a guide only.

Given the present psychological and various states, euthanasia will be necessary, but why should we accept it forever. We should find solutions to reduce it.
It is only that we have a justified fixed moral standard and moral policy on euthanasia as a GUIDE that we can be triggered to preventive actions.

Thus instead of being hopelessly resigned to accept euthanasia, the fixed moral policy of ZERO euthanasia should drive humanity to find FOOLPROOF solutions to prevention euthanasia from need to be decided in the first place. This will force humanity to look into other fields of knowledge to ensure older people can die peacefully without terrible sufferings in the later stage of their life. There are so many avenues to prevent euthanasia.

There may be extreme cases where euthanasia has to be done despite all the preventive measures. At least, at this point, we can be happy we have done our bests.
Whereas, YOU as an ignoramus is merely hopelessly resigned to it and let the state of euthanasia get worse and worse instead of doing something about it.

But note, if you ever come to your senses to find solutions to deal with the problems of euthanasia you need to established grounds to justify whatever actions you take, thus you will have to establish moral facts as grounds to support whatever actions you take re dealing with euthanasia.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am
You have not. You are never going to be able to show that money tracks some particular sentiment (i.e, when trust in the US government increases the dollar rises by the same amount). You can get about as far as this: If the Fed or the ECB promises to create as much money as it takes to reach a specific monetary outcome, the markets usually believe them and respond appropriately.

If you are measuring something that is not the thing itself and extrapolating via that measurement, the thing being measured needs to track the thing being being measured by proxy.
Yours is a strawman.
I am not arguing about specific sentiments, e.g. fear, love, trust, confidence, etc.
Well that's worse. If you buy some pills from the drug store and the contents is listed as "100% assorted medicines" then the fact that the concents have been measured only to contain some medicine is not helpful with your heart condition. You want to know which medicine is there no?

But here you are happily claiming to measure an undifferentiated mass of "sentiment" without separating hate from trust from itchiness.
More strawman again.
You are so insistent, a fact cannot be mixed with values.

My point re the USD is 100% sentiment, is to prove you are wrong, i.e.
-the USD is a fact that is of high utility
-the USD as a fact is grounded on 100% sentiments.

From the above, my attempt is to justify, moral facts based on sentiments are also facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am My point is, it is a fact, the US Dollar is totally [100%] based on sentiments, no gold equivalent like the past.
Thus my point, this fact of the USD is fact of value that is based on 100% sentiment.
Your point is, a "fact" cannot be a value nor be evaluative.
Can you dispute this?
Of course I can.
Currencies are priced by supply and demand same as any commodity.
The relevant sentiments drive demand.
The dollar is not a measure of sentiment, a rising dollar does not mean there is "more sentiment" and a falling dollar does not mean there is "less sentiment".
Strictly, it tracks behaviour, and sentiment informs that, but each participant in the bond market is working according to their own sentiment, which is basically fear when the dollar goes up, and optimism when it goes down.
Also greed, honor, pride and all the others, in a unique blend for each person.
Let be clear what we meant by 'sentiment':

Sentiment
Your opinion that most comedies are terrible and that you'd rather watch any other kind of movie could be described as your sentiment, or your attitude, about films.
Sentiment means a view or opinion, but it can also mean an emotion. Maybe you prefer tragic movies because you enjoy the sentiment of sadness.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sentiment

What I meant by 'sentiment' is not being sentimental, e.g. nostalgia, sadness,.

My meaning of 'sentiment' mean the person's feelings from a combination of the various primary and secondary emotions.

When you said,
The relevant sentiments drive demand.
It thus followed that the final price or value [intersection of supply and demand] is grounded on sentiments.
And don't be so ignorant, 'supply' is also effected by 'sentiments' of the supplier to hold back or flood the market based on his sentiments [as defined above].

And greed, honor, pride and all the others are reducible to the secondary and thence to the primary emotions, i.e. sentiments.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am Nevertheless, it may not be practical to track every sentiment, but if say, Trump is assassinated and suddenly there is anarchy in the US, then next day the US Dollar dropped by 20% against all other currency. We can estimate the 20% drop is due mostly to the sentiment of fear.
Estimate. Estimate what? 20% more fear than yesterday? 20% less enthusiasm for TBills? 20% more desire for the Euro? 20% more
Yes, net* 20% more fear than yesterday.
* the currency market is played by millions or even billion of people, what is a value of the USD at any time is the net resultant.

Your intellect is to low to apprehend the complexity of the above.

Once the principles of the role of sentiments contribute to the final price, then one can manipulate the market price by changing the levels of these sentiments.
Are you that ignorant of how big market players has manipulate the market with fake news or real news to amplify the fear factor to trigger a fall in Share Price, then they went in to buy the lower price shares and then when the truth is revealed, the share price will rise and then they will sell, that is how they make their quick bucks.

There are various strategies market manipulators used sentiments [emotions] to manipulate the market to make quick bucks.
How come you are so ignorant of this whilst you are claiming yourself as an expert in economics?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am
None of those things has resolved the controversies of ethics before. Just presenting a chart with worst_crime=Maximum Naughties; least_crime = Minimum Naughties is no use. That's tautologous. You have provided no new method to resolve controversy.

You can put abortion wherever you like on your chart, and somebody is well within their rights to just say you put it in the wrong place. And then what? When you come back at them with your bullshit measurement? They are going to say you measured wrong, or they will say that these things cannot be measured at all.
Your don't have any idea of what morality-proper is.

Note I stated, morality is about establishing moral facts and principles.
The following moral facts as standard is established via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
From above;
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
this is extended to babies in the womb.

This moral fact is independent of any individual's opinion and belief, thus, it is objective, albeit relative.
Everything you do badly you just append a "-proper" on the end of, instead of improving. Morality-proper is a meaningless expression of faith.

Any idiot can make a chart with blaming a fart on the dog at zero and genocide at 100. Only an idiot would find it inspirational.
You are ignorant and exposing yourself as the real idiot.

A lot of words are very loose term. As such we have to use the term 'proper' plus to justify the term 'proper'. In this case, what is morality-proper is linked to the inherent moral function within the human mind which can be justified by the neurosciences.
All those related to moral decisions, trolley cases [casuitry], God commanded morals are all pseudo-morality.

What do you think the law makers have been doing all this while when they assign life imprisonment or capital punishment for 1st degree murder while sentencing a minor thief to a few days in prison?
Obviously they had intuitively rate 1st degree murder at 100 of evilness and a minor theft at say 3/100 degree of evilness.

Thus using both extremes as bases of extremes, we can assign value to those in-betweens. With justified polishing we will be able to establish a scale of evilness that would be very inspirational and useful to the well being of humanity, like what the secular laws has done with crimes and justice.
="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=458950 time=1592197776 user_id=7896]
Thus from the above, 'abortion' is morally wrong!
But the above standard is only a GUIDE, there will be no enforcement.

In practice, at present many people, being human, will not be able to control their sexual lust [inherent] and thus resulting in the need for abortion for various reasons [justified or unjustified].
Within the Moral Framework and System, there is no enforcement nor punishments for abortion.

However the establishment of the moral standard as a moral objective, i.e. a GUIDE, when contrasted with what is actually happening, i.e. abortions need to be performed, a moral variance is generated.

The task for humanity is establish strategies on HOW to reduce the moral variance re abortion progressively and optimally.
Moral fact: more anal = less abortion. Cool. You have fallen between the stools a little and I can't see the abolitionists agreeing that abortion is a minor tragedy to be slowly eased out. And I don't want to unpack your lust comments because you seem like somebody not to discuss sexual congress with under any circumstances.
Again you are ignorant and has limited knowledge on the above.
Note 'impulse control' is a serious topic- which has been developing with Eastern Philosophy since 10,000 years ago.
The improvement of impulse control within the average person can lead to less abortion.
Now with the exponential expansion of knowledge within the neurosciences there is a potential for humanity to make great headway and improvements in this subject and practices.

I am not advocating in practice, no one is permitted to have an abortion.
Rather, individuals must strive to prevent abortion instead of lust first and having to decide on an abortion later.
People, being humans who are naturally fallible, will have to resort to abortion for various reasons, but when we have a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics, then we can claim we exercise responsibility and done our best to reduce the number of abortion to the optimal best in alignment with the moral facts.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am
Oooh, excellent. Once you have determined the experts to decide what everyone should think, you will wash our brains to make sure that we do.
Again you are ignorant of what is going within the human brain since 100,000 years ago to the present.
It is very evident, for example, the dormant mirror neurons within the average human brain is unfolding and being activated.
Total fucking gibberish. What are you trying to say, and how does it relate to what I said?
That is why you are ignorant and cannot link what I have been trying to point out.
You think I am proposing brainwashing.
Nope what I am proposing is the development of the inherent potential moral function within your brain.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am
Your work is shit though. You never learn from your mistakes. You are endeavouring to do something unintelligible.
What I am doing is, given the current state of humanity, I have a concern for humanity, thus taking the responsibility to generate and proposed solutions.
What is critical is whether what I presented is supported by empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.
You have not show any of my premises are false or illusory.

All you do is to stir the shit of others from a very ignorant state.
Dude, I am not even the only one. Loads of people have shown you that YOUR PREMISES NEVER SUPPORT YOUR CONCLUSIONS
You are completely shit at philosophical reasoning.

*** Admit it, you are all proud of me for not measuring something more interesting than a fucking desk.
Which premise of mine is false?

I admit due to time constraints some of my premise were hastily syllogized but they can be easily rearranged.

Btw, I am giving up discussing with you since your approach is too rude for me and it is not worth the time I have to sacrifice.
This post itself took me two hours and I have to reread and edit every now and then.

In any case, I have to be the one who has to provide knowledge which you are ignorant of and as the discussion goes deeper I have to provide more of it.

Note the case of Yin-Yang and its fundamental which Bohr had borrowed for his Quantum Theories which is of significant utility to humanity at present. That is not religious - it is philosophy, yet you are so ignorant and insist it is woo woo.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am What do you mean by 'impossible'? ...

...
The following is impossible
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.
....
It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

https://exitinternational.net/about-exit/history/
A movement devoted to do what you claim is "100%" not the case.
You are too hasty.

Note I qualified 'normal' before 'human being'.

If a person has suicide tendencies, that is a psychiatric issue {DSM-V}, thus not normal.
In other cases, those who seek death are not 'normal' e.g. in case of terminal illness, and for various reasons which has a psychological or theistic basis.

But a "normal" person who do not have any specific abnormal condition will not want to die.
Just ask yourself [assuming you are normal] and your normal spouse, kins, relatives, friends, etc.

Then from the Framework and System of Morality, the following moral fact is established, i.e,
No human ought to kill another human. [period]
FALSE.
Legal warfare is a massive exception to this.
Capital punishment is a massive exception to this.
You are hasty again.
Note I qualified my point to a Framework and System of Morality
What you referred to, i.e. political matters are independent of morality.
...this is extended to babies in the womb.
Again. NO, NO, and No.
Fetuses are not babies.
and are legally and morally terminated regularly, and justifiably.
I am not arguing fetuses are babies.

What I stated, the moral policy or moral standard re killing or abortion is justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning used as a GUIDE ONLY, is extended to fetuses.

Read my point re abortion above, i.e.
  • "I am not advocating in practice, like, no one is permitted to have an abortion.
    Rather, individuals must strive to prevent abortion [at source] instead of driven by sexual lust first and having to decide on an abortion later.
    People, being humans who are naturally fallible, will have to resort to abortion for various reasons,
    but when we have a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics,
    then we can claim we have exercise responsibility and done our best to reduce the number of abortion to the optimal best in alignment with the moral facts."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4666
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:20 pm You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron
You are very ignorant.
I am about to raise an OP on:

"Ought[ing] from IS" is a fact and the process generate facts, which are evidently a state-of-affairs in reality independent of individual's opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:52 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:09 am What do you mean by 'impossible'? ...

...
The following is impossible
What I claimed are moral facts and principles based on justified empirical evidences and philosophically reasoning.
....
It is a moral fact, no [100% none] normal human being would want to be killed by another human. This can be tested empirically.
FALSE.
You are simply WRONG.
There are numerous examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film) , is based on numberless accounts of people wanted assisted death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Lif ... %3F_(film)
Fought legal battles for the right to have someone assist her death.

https://exitinternational.net/about-exit/history/
A movement devoted to do what you claim is "100%" not the case.
You are too hasty.

Note I qualified 'normal' before 'human being'.
Rendering everything you day subject to anyone's definition of what you might want to call "normal" today.
Therefore you have no right to press for conclusions in which you insist on universal, absolute, or wide-ranging moral laws. And your excessive use of "100%" Is rendered laughable.

If a person has suicide tendencies, that is a psychiatric issue {DSM-V}, thus not normal.
It's not for you to judge another person. A person facing a terminal illness with a painful short future - it is PERFECTLY normal to want to die, and have another assist in that. It is perfectly normal to want to help another achieve this.
[/quote]
In other cases, those who seek death are not 'normal' e.g. in case of terminal illness, and for various reasons which has a psychological or theistic basis.

But a "normal" person who do not have any specific abnormal condition will not want to die.
Just ask yourself [assuming you are normal] and your normal spouse, kins, relatives, friends, etc.
[/quote]
It is also perfectly normal to kill human beings in warfare.
It is also perfectly normal to want to abort a foetus
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:01 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:20 pm You can't derive an ought from a normal, moron
You are very ignorant.
I am about to raise an OP on:

"Ought[ing] from IS" is a fact and the process generate facts, which are evidently a state-of-affairs in reality independent of individual's opinions and beliefs, thus objective.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29580
Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.
Skepdick
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:36 am Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.
Intellectual fascists and tyrants are commonly in the practice of pretending it can't be done.

If murder exists, is a world without murder better than a world with murder?

Intellectual fascists and tyrants commonly insist the above cannot be answered with a yes
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2237
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Sculptor »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:34 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:36 am Fascists, and tyrants are commonly in the practice of rendering ought from is.
If murder exists, is a world without murder better than a world with murder?
There you go again! Confusing terms.

All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Here's some simple basic Logic you might like to educate yourself with.
I know you have problems with this sort of stuff, so here's a vid with humour (you DO know what that is I hope?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ2FeXwMyFI
Skepdick
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:16 pm There you go again! Confusing terms.

All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.

Here's some simple basic Logic you might like to educate yourself with.
I know you have problems with this sort of stuff, so here's a vid with humour (you DO know what that is I hope?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ2FeXwMyFI
Idiot. Attempting to philosophise even when cornered.

If killing exists, is a world without killing better than a world with killing?

Are you going to try and one-up me now by saying "All killing is a quantum state transition, not all quantum state transitions are killing"?

Let me help you with the "logic" (because unlike you, I understand it...)

If humour exists, is a world with humour better than a world without humour?
If X exists, is a world without X better than a world with X?

Intellectual Yet Idiot.
uwot
Posts: 5044
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What is a Fact?

Post by uwot »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:40 pmThe English description "Philosophers are idiots" is a factual account of the idiocy of philosophers.

Any competent English communicator can see that, even if English speakers can't.
Lemme see if I've got this right Skepdick. An "English communicator" is someone who can't communicate redness without pointing at something red, a feat "English speakers" can achieve simply by using the word 'red'. Yours doesn't seem like a great innovation. Still, if you're in ever of need of an example of idiocy, at least you will always have yourself to point at.
Post Reply