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

User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
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: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:11 am
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.
Then you should do that.

Until then, you have no credibility, no credible FSK, and no grounds for any of your arguments which all depend on the credibility of the thing you aren't telling anyone.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

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

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Terrapin Station wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:19 pm You appear to have much more confidence than I do that he's ever going to bother shoring any of this stuff up. :wink:
Well, I have total confidence he has more, but realistically it's just going to be more of the same circular turd.

I fear he thinks he will shame us all by publishing a magnum opus, which would be a long wait for everyone while he collects rejection letters from every book publisher that exists.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
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: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:11 am
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.
Then you should do that.

Until then, you have no credibility, no credible FSK, and no grounds for any of your arguments which all depend on the credibility of the thing you aren't telling anyone.
I have already stated my present focus is on Peter's challenge,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

I understand his focus is at the moral systems of the theists and platonists which I agree cannot be real and objective.
I have countered that morality is objective with the existence of justified and verified true moral beliefs [truth] which is represented by its physical referent.

Generally as a hint, 56% of philosophers [not the public] agreed with moral realism in one poll.

Condemn whatever which ways you like, I will not waste my time presenting the full model of my moral FSK especially in a place like this which is infested by bigots, dogmatists of the likes of you and gang.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
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: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:55 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 10:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:11 am
I am confident when I present my fully described model or FSK, most who understand it will definitely agree with it.
Then you should do that.

Until then, you have no credibility, no credible FSK, and no grounds for any of your arguments which all depend on the credibility of the thing you aren't telling anyone.
I have already stated my present focus is on Peter's challenge,
What could make morality objective?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

I understand his focus is at the moral systems of the theists and platonists which I agree cannot be real and objective.
I have countered that morality is objective with the existence of justified and verified true moral beliefs [truth] which is represented by its physical referent.

Generally as a hint, 56% of philosophers [not the public] agreed with moral realism in one poll.

Condemn whatever which ways you like, I will not waste my time presenting the full model of my moral FSK especially in a place like this which is infested by bigots, dogmatists of the likes of you and gang.
Well you don't have an aswer for Pete unless you have a credible FSK. Which obviously you don't. You aren't ever going to answer anything by hiding your work and calling me names for not believing in your hidden genius.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.

Any fact proposed as a premise - such as a fact of human nature - can't entail or induce a moral conclusion, without begging the question.

For these reasons, morality can't be objective. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - how ever rational and widely-held they may be.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:56 pm The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.
The existence of "facts" and "states of affairs" is axiomatic in realism.

Therefore a matter of choice.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:56 pm The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.

Any fact proposed as a premise - such as a fact of human nature - can't entail or induce a moral conclusion, without begging the question.

For these reasons, morality can't be objective. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - how ever rational and widely-held they may be.
WHO ARE YOU to conclude the above?
You are begging the question with confirmation bias because you assumed and is stuck dogmatically with the bastardized ideas from the LPs and CAPs that 'there are no moral truths' period!

The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Verifiable and justifiable only where empirically possible.

I have already verified and justified an empirical moral reality i.e. 'no humans ought-not to kill humans' within a credible FSK. Thus moral realism is real and objective upon the above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

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

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:56 pm The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.

Any fact proposed as a premise - such as a fact of human nature - can't entail or induce a moral conclusion, without begging the question.

For these reasons, morality can't be objective. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - how ever rational and widely-held they may be.
WHO ARE YOU to conclude the above?
You are begging the question with confirmation bias because you assumed and is stuck dogmatically with the bastardized ideas from the LPs and CAPs that 'there are no moral truths' period!

The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Verifiable and justifiable only where empirically possible.

I have already verified and justified an empirical moral reality i.e. 'no humans ought-not to kill humans' within a credible FSK. Thus moral realism is real and objective upon the above.
No, you haven't demonstrated that a moral reality exists. You've claimed that humans are programmed not to kill humans, which, even if that's true, doesn't entail the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

And the truth-value of conclusions has nothing to do with who asserts them. For example, even you could make a true assertion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

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

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:32 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 4:56 pm The premises or axioms or goals of a moral system can only ever be matters of choice.

Any fact proposed as a premise - such as a fact of human nature - can't entail or induce a moral conclusion, without begging the question.

For these reasons, morality can't be objective. There are no moral facts, but only moral opinions - how ever rational and widely-held they may be.
WHO ARE YOU to conclude the above?
You are begging the question with confirmation bias because you assumed and is stuck dogmatically with the bastardized ideas from the LPs and CAPs that 'there are no moral truths' period!

The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
Verifiable and justifiable only where empirically possible.

I have already verified and justified an empirical moral reality i.e. 'no humans ought-not to kill humans' within a credible FSK. Thus moral realism is real and objective upon the above.
No, you haven't demonstrated that a moral reality exists. You've claimed that humans are programmed not to kill humans, which, even if that's true, doesn't entail the moral assertion 'humans ought not to kill humans'.

And the truth-value of conclusions has nothing to do with who asserts them. For example, even you could make a true assertion.
To you it doesn't entail a moral assertion because you are ignorant of what is morality-proper and the principles of how framework and system of knowledge or reality work and the latter is obviously inexcusable for anyone average in philosophy.

Note how the verified scientific truths are incorporated within legal FSK to enable legal truths to emerge.
Forensic science is simply defined as the application of science to the law or legal matters [1]. In today’s CSI and Forensic Files world, this area of science is much more widely known to the general public.
...
When the actual real-life judicial system needs science to resolve a question, the person who is called upon to bring science into the courtroom is often a forensic scientist. The law and science are strange bedfellows.
Science is an empirical method of learning, anchored to the principles of observation and discovery as to how the natural world works.
...
The law, on the other hand, starts out with at least two competing parties with markedly different views who use the courthouse as a battleground to argue factual issues within the context of constitutional, statutory, and decisional law.
....
Forensics involves the application of knowledge and technology from different scientific disciplines in jurisprudence. These are, for example, biology, pharmacy, chemistry, medicine, etc. [many more], and each of them applies in the present, increasingly complex legal proceedings in which the required knowledge and skills of experts from these areas to prove offenses.
https://www.peertechzpublications.com/a ... -4-111.php
At times, the scientific truth alone is the critical evidence with significant weightage, say >90% [e.g. DNA evidence] that enable the conviction of a criminal, where the conviction itself is then a legal truth qualitied to the specific legal FSK.

Like the legal truth above, when the scientific truth, "humans are programmed not to kill humans" it true scientifically, this truth when input into the moral FSK carries critical and significant weightage in enabling it as a moral truth and reality within the moral FSK.

You are of course entitled to be stuck to your dogmatic stance with your opinions as brainwashed by the LPs and CAPs. Don't expect you to come out of your thick windowless silo at all.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
General principle without bias??

Where would that be coming from? How would it be anything other than some persons' opinions/preferences?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
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: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
General principle without bias??

Where would that be coming from? How would it be anything other than some persons' opinions/preferences?
General principle without bias as with scientific truths and the likes.
Do you consider scientific truths which are verified and justified empirically and 'philosophically' within the scientific-FSK to be bias to some persons' opinions/preferences?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:58 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:05 am The general principle without bias is,
whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK.
General principle without bias??

Where would that be coming from? How would it be anything other than some persons' opinions/preferences?
General principle without bias as with scientific truths and the likes.
Do you consider scientific truths which are verified and justified empirically and 'philosophically' within the scientific-FSK to be bias to some persons' opinions/preferences?
I'm asking you about this specific principle: "whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK."
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12239
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: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:58 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 14, 2021 12:57 pm

General principle without bias??

Where would that be coming from? How would it be anything other than some persons' opinions/preferences?
General principle without bias as with scientific truths and the likes.
Do you consider scientific truths which are verified and justified empirically and 'philosophically' within the scientific-FSK to be bias to some persons' opinions/preferences?
I'm asking you about this specific principle: "whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK."
Note my detailed explanation of the above in this thread
Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32892
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
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: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:26 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:43 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:58 am
General principle without bias as with scientific truths and the likes.
Do you consider scientific truths which are verified and justified empirically and 'philosophically' within the scientific-FSK to be bias to some persons' opinions/preferences?
I'm asking you about this specific principle: "whatever the claim of reality [moral or otherwise] it must be verifiable/verified and justifiable/justified empirically and philosophically within a credible FSK."
Note my detailed explanation of the above in this thread
Conversion of Opinions and Beliefs into Knowledge
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=32892
That thread doesn't answer the questions I asked above.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:56 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:43 pm Trends are relative and not "objective". Morality is relative and subject to cultural, historical and personal norms.
Thank you for supporting my case.
Sorry that you have shot yourself in the foot.shot in foot.jpg
Hey [redacted]. You dodged my inconvenient question because it's inconvenient, but there's no harm in trying again.

Human longevity is trending towards 75 years average life expectancy, whereas it was about 40-45 years just 200 years ago.
It's trending upwards towards "living longer"

Are you trying to tell me that this trend is not objective?


[Edited by iMod

Be careful when trending data. There are often discontinuities in the data.

If the data points are 1203, 1196, 1374, 1282, 1596, 1638, 1745 and 1400, then you cannot fit a line to the data because there is a discontinuity and the fitted line will not explain the discontinuity. The average of the first 4 numbers is 1263.75 and the average of the last 4 numbers is 1594.75. The difference is 331. You can add 331 to each of the first 4 numbers to adjust for the discontinuity.

Is that the right thing to do? Only if you know what caused the discontinuity, can you be sure.

In the data for Covid 19 there are huge discontinuities. The analysts must understand the reasons for these discontinuities. If they don’t, their projections are reckless.

For longevity, the past trend is not linear and you cannot use a linear trend. The average life expectancy in 2221 will probably not be 115 on average.
Post Reply