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: 12385
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:50 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:21 am
Did you do that move because you know it is true that there are exactly zero persons who aren't you that think your FSK is credible?
So you decided that you wished I had written something else.
Are you familiar with Framework and System, i.e. of Knowledge [FSK], Reality [FSR] or if you prefer Beliefs [FSB].

It is obvious scientific knowledge are generated within a scientific FSK and the majority believe the scientific FSK is credible in general. But there is no guarantee of credibility in particular cases due to biasness because of funding, and cheats.
Let say we rate the credibility of the scientific FSK at 90/100.

The majority of theists also insist their claims from a divine based framework and system are spiritual knowledge, thus the theistic-FSK. You cannot stop them from using the term FSK. Theists will rate the credibility of their theistic-FSK at 100/100.
But for the more rational people, the theistic-FSK so claimed is not credible and rational non-theists would likely rate the credibility of the theistic-FSK at 5/100.

At this stage I do not expect anyone to rate the credibility of my FSK.
Since my moral FSK is similar [not exactly] with the features of the scientific FSK at 90/100, I would personally rate it >80/100.
Features of the Scientific FSK to support its credibility
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Since my FSK is similar to the scientific FSK it cannot be the same as the theistic-FSK.

Based on inference if anyone were to rate my moral FSK it would be at least be rated at >50/100, thus my moral FSK is credible based on the above inference.
But the credibility of the FSK is a factor of the number of people who believe it is accurate in describing reality.
Your FSK has one person only who believes any such thing, everyone else thinks it is stupid.
Your arguments, by which you hope to persuade people that your FSK does describe a reality all depend on the FSK itself.
Therefore people who don't already believe the FSK don't have any reason to believe them.
Therefore the FSK can never be credible.
And therefore none of the arguments which depend on a credible FSK can be true.

Other belief systems which provide argument that can only persuade existing believers have the same problem, but they at least benefit from having some believers. You don't even have that. You are a one man cult.
The majority of theists believe their divine-FSK is credible, surely you are not agreeing with that?

What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.

You think just because Peter, Sculptor and Terrapin agrees with your views, they are deemed to be credible?

In the absence of other people agreeing to my FSK, its credibility can still be rated objectively based on the criteria listed above.
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 07, 2021 8:39 am
What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.
You just said that nothing is the case outside of human invention, so how would there be anything independent of people's beliefs?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:21 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:50 am
Are you familiar with Framework and System, i.e. of Knowledge [FSK], Reality [FSR] or if you prefer Beliefs [FSB].

It is obvious scientific knowledge are generated within a scientific FSK and the majority believe the scientific FSK is credible in general. But there is no guarantee of credibility in particular cases due to biasness because of funding, and cheats.
Let say we rate the credibility of the scientific FSK at 90/100.

The majority of theists also insist their claims from a divine based framework and system are spiritual knowledge, thus the theistic-FSK. You cannot stop them from using the term FSK. Theists will rate the credibility of their theistic-FSK at 100/100.
But for the more rational people, the theistic-FSK so claimed is not credible and rational non-theists would likely rate the credibility of the theistic-FSK at 5/100.

At this stage I do not expect anyone to rate the credibility of my FSK.
Since my moral FSK is similar [not exactly] with the features of the scientific FSK at 90/100, I would personally rate it >80/100.
Features of the Scientific FSK to support its credibility
viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

Since my FSK is similar to the scientific FSK it cannot be the same as the theistic-FSK.

Based on inference if anyone were to rate my moral FSK it would be at least be rated at >50/100, thus my moral FSK is credible based on the above inference.
But the credibility of the FSK is a factor of the number of people who believe it is accurate in describing reality.
Your FSK has one person only who believes any such thing, everyone else thinks it is stupid.
Your arguments, by which you hope to persuade people that your FSK does describe a reality all depend on the FSK itself.
Therefore people who don't already believe the FSK don't have any reason to believe them.
Therefore the FSK can never be credible.
And therefore none of the arguments which depend on a credible FSK can be true.

Other belief systems which provide argument that can only persuade existing believers have the same problem, but they at least benefit from having some believers. You don't even have that. You are a one man cult.
The majority of theists believe their divine-FSK is credible, surely you are not agreeing with that?

What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.

You think just because Peter, Sculptor and Terrapin agrees with your views, they are deemed to be credible?

In the absence of other people agreeing to my FSK, its credibility can still be rated objectively based on the criteria listed above.
Your "FSK" asserts that various things become empirical claims after being filtered through a "credible FSK" and uses that to describe itself as performing the functions of a credible system similar to science.

Science deals with actual empirical claims, claims which are empirical regardless of your opinions about science.

That's why your FSK system of belief has a circularity problem. And with it, an eternal, inescapable credibility problem. Your theory isn't similar to science as a system. It is similar to religions which also make a bunch of claims that can only make sense to existing believers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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 07, 2021 8:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:39 am
What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.
You just said that nothing is the case outside of human invention, so how would there be anything independent of people's beliefs?
When beliefs is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion. But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:39 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:21 am
But the credibility of the FSK is a factor of the number of people who believe it is accurate in describing reality.
Your FSK has one person only who believes any such thing, everyone else thinks it is stupid.
Your arguments, by which you hope to persuade people that your FSK does describe a reality all depend on the FSK itself.
Therefore people who don't already believe the FSK don't have any reason to believe them.
Therefore the FSK can never be credible.
And therefore none of the arguments which depend on a credible FSK can be true.

Other belief systems which provide argument that can only persuade existing believers have the same problem, but they at least benefit from having some believers. You don't even have that. You are a one man cult.
The majority of theists believe their divine-FSK is credible, surely you are not agreeing with that?

What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.

You think just because Peter, Sculptor and Terrapin agrees with your views, they are deemed to be credible?

In the absence of other people agreeing to my FSK, its credibility can still be rated objectively based on the criteria listed above.
Your "FSK" asserts that various things become empirical claims after being filtered through a "credible FSK" and uses that to describe itself as performing the functions of a credible system similar to science.

Science deals with actual empirical claims, claims which are empirical regardless of your opinions about science.

That's why your FSK system of belief has a circularity problem. And with it, an eternal, inescapable credibility problem. Your theory isn't similar to science as a system. It is similar to religions which also make a bunch of claims that can only make sense to existing believers.
My FSK is similar to the scientific FSK but is more like a credible legal FSK.
I have stated before, a legal-FSK gets its input from science and various sources and therefrom enable legal knowledge, i.e. "X is convicted of murdering Y in accordance to the conditions of that specific legal FSK."

In my case, most of the critical inputs for my moral FSK are from science.
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 07, 2021 9:01 am When beliefs is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion. But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.
So in your ontology,

(a) Somehow literal beliefs exist that aren't instantiated in individual persons. (How do such beliefs exist? What is the ontological nature of them?)

(b) There are things that can be the case independent of humans, after human invention births them, yet if humans ceased to exist, somehow those independent things would also cease to exist. (Just how does that work ontologically?)
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:39 am
The majority of theists believe their divine-FSK is credible, surely you are not agreeing with that?

What I am referring to is credibility with an objective basis based on the criteria Iisted in the links above, i.e. it can be independent of people's opinions and beliefs.

You think just because Peter, Sculptor and Terrapin agrees with your views, they are deemed to be credible?

In the absence of other people agreeing to my FSK, its credibility can still be rated objectively based on the criteria listed above.
Your "FSK" asserts that various things become empirical claims after being filtered through a "credible FSK" and uses that to describe itself as performing the functions of a credible system similar to science.

Science deals with actual empirical claims, claims which are empirical regardless of your opinions about science.

That's why your FSK system of belief has a circularity problem. And with it, an eternal, inescapable credibility problem. Your theory isn't similar to science as a system. It is similar to religions which also make a bunch of claims that can only make sense to existing believers.
My FSK is similar to the scientific FSK but is more like a credible legal FSK.
I have stated before, a legal-FSK gets its input from science and various sources and therefrom enable legal knowledge, i.e. "X is convicted of murdering Y in accordance to the conditions of that specific legal FSK."

In my case, most of the critical inputs for my moral FSK are from science.
But there is no scientific question of what is right or wrong. To add that layer on top, you had to perform a move to make questions about values empirical. You did that by filtering through an FSK. And all arguments that result do indeed require somebody to first accept this FSK.

Your FSK is an article of faith. Nobody has any reason to believe in it. And nobody except you ever has believed in it. And nobody except you ever will believe in it.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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 07, 2021 9:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:01 am When beliefs is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion. But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.
So in your ontology,

(a) Somehow literal beliefs exist that aren't instantiated in individual persons. (How do such beliefs exist? What is the ontological nature of them?)
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E-MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK not any individual person.
(b) There are things that can be the case independent of humans, after human invention births them, yet if humans ceased to exist, somehow those independent things would also cease to exist. (Just how does that work ontologically?)
Note conventionally, those things will still exists after human cease to exist.

Thought it can be explained albeit very tedious, I am invoking the claim 'If humans cease to exists then all mind interdependent things cease to exists'.

What I am insisting upon is this thesis;
  • 1. Reality is all-there-is.
    2. All-there-is comprise humans
    3. Therefore reality cannot ultimately be independent of humans.
Philosophers has raised the above question long time ago to seek things in reality [from the crudest objects to the thing-in-itself] that are independent of the human conditions but had failed.

Note substance theory,
  • Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
    -wiki
Show me at what location you can stand on to make view a reality that is independent of the human conditions? i.e. the God's eyes view of reality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:52 am
Your "FSK" asserts that various things become empirical claims after being filtered through a "credible FSK" and uses that to describe itself as performing the functions of a credible system similar to science.

Science deals with actual empirical claims, claims which are empirical regardless of your opinions about science.

That's why your FSK system of belief has a circularity problem. And with it, an eternal, inescapable credibility problem. Your theory isn't similar to science as a system. It is similar to religions which also make a bunch of claims that can only make sense to existing believers.
My FSK is similar to the scientific FSK but is more like a credible legal FSK.
I have stated before, a legal-FSK gets its input from science and various sources and therefrom enable legal knowledge, i.e. "X is convicted of murdering Y in accordance to the conditions of that specific legal FSK."

In my case, most of the critical inputs for my moral FSK are from science.
But there is no scientific question of what is right or wrong. To add that layer on top, you had to perform a move to make questions about values empirical. You did that by filtering through an FSK. And all arguments that result do indeed require somebody to first accept this FSK.

Your FSK is an article of faith. Nobody has any reason to believe in it. And nobody except you ever has believed in it. And nobody except you ever will believe in it.
You are lost.

I have to keep repeating what is right or wrong has nothing to do with morality-proper.

My basis is the empirically possible evidence that the physical ought-not_ness of 'no human ought to kill humans' exist in humans. This is represented by neurons, chemical and mental algorithms.
This knowledge is then input into the institutionalized moral FSK to enable a justified moral things in the brain.

Btw, I am not expecting you to believe it.
What I am doing is presenting my arguments for any one to counter it then I will recounter it since I am confident my argument is justified as true.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:15 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am
My FSK is similar to the scientific FSK but is more like a credible legal FSK.
I have stated before, a legal-FSK gets its input from science and various sources and therefrom enable legal knowledge, i.e. "X is convicted of murdering Y in accordance to the conditions of that specific legal FSK."

In my case, most of the critical inputs for my moral FSK are from science.
But there is no scientific question of what is right or wrong. To add that layer on top, you had to perform a move to make questions about values empirical. You did that by filtering through an FSK. And all arguments that result do indeed require somebody to first accept this FSK.

Your FSK is an article of faith. Nobody has any reason to believe in it. And nobody except you ever has believed in it. And nobody except you ever will believe in it.
You are lost.

I have to keep repeating what is right or wrong has nothing to do with morality-proper.
That can only be true AFTER you have persuaded everyone. Until then you have neither consensus nor credibility in that matter. Whatever you are describing as "morality-proper" is just some thing that only you have any interest in and which nobody except you can have any faith in.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am My basis is the empirically possible evidence that the physical ought-not_ness of 'no human ought to kill humans' exist in humans. This is represented by neurons, chemical and mental algorithms.
This knowledge is then input into the institutionalized moral FSK to enable a justified moral things in the brain.
There is no scientific grounds to describe "oughtness" as a property of a neuron. Therefore you have added this bit via your Framework of Faith.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am Btw, I am not expecting you to believe it.
What I am doing is presenting my arguments for any one to counter it then I will recounter it since I am confident my argument is justified as true.
You don't understand any of the objections.
And your faith in your talents is not really credible either, you just replied to Terrapin with a false syllogism that any idiot can spot.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12385
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:15 am
But there is no scientific question of what is right or wrong. To add that layer on top, you had to perform a move to make questions about values empirical. You did that by filtering through an FSK. And all arguments that result do indeed require somebody to first accept this FSK.

Your FSK is an article of faith. Nobody has any reason to believe in it. And nobody except you ever has believed in it. And nobody except you ever will believe in it.
You are lost.

I have to keep repeating what is right or wrong has nothing to do with morality-proper.
That can only be true AFTER you have persuaded everyone. Until then you have neither consensus nor credibility in that matter. Whatever you are describing as "morality-proper" is just some thing that only you have any interest in and which nobody except you can have any faith in.
I have done a literature review on the full extent of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Thus I have the background to differentiate my morality-proper from pseudo-morality.
Do you accept theistic morality as reasonable morality.
It is the same with all the existing major moral systems, they have their limited pros but are all heavily criticized for their cons from all angles.
I'd ensured what I proposed as morality-proper do not have the cons of the pseudo-moral systems and I can anticipate whatever objections knowable and possible.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am My basis is the empirically possible evidence that the physical ought-not_ness of 'no human ought to kill humans' exist in humans. This is represented by neurons, chemical and mental algorithms.
This knowledge is then input into the institutionalized moral FSK to enable a justified moral things in the brain.
There is no scientific grounds to describe "oughtness" as a property of a neuron. Therefore you have added this bit via your Framework of Faith.
That is only your mantra taken blindly from Hume.
Note Hume admitted his ignorance [due to his time] and I have gone beyond that.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6269
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:56 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:47 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am
You are lost.

I have to keep repeating what is right or wrong has nothing to do with morality-proper.
That can only be true AFTER you have persuaded everyone. Until then you have neither consensus nor credibility in that matter. Whatever you are describing as "morality-proper" is just some thing that only you have any interest in and which nobody except you can have any faith in.
I have done a literature review on the full extent of the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Thus I have the background to differentiate my morality-proper from pseudo-morality.
Do you accept theistic morality as reasonable morality.
It is the same with all the existing major moral systems, they have their limited pros but are all heavily criticized for their cons from all angles.
I'd ensured what I proposed as morality-proper do not have the cons of the pseudo-moral systems and I can anticipate whatever objections knowable and possible.
Well that's just adorable. But it's bullshit, everybody knows that morality is about what is right and what is wrong. If everybody knows it (and everybody does know it) then it is truth, it is fact, and you are wrong to deny it.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:56 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:34 am My basis is the empirically possible evidence that the physical ought-not_ness of 'no human ought to kill humans' exist in humans. This is represented by neurons, chemical and mental algorithms.
This knowledge is then input into the institutionalized moral FSK to enable a justified moral things in the brain.
There is no scientific grounds to describe "oughtness" as a property of a neuron. Therefore you have added this bit via your Framework of Faith.
That is only your mantra taken blindly from Hume.
Note Hume admitted his ignorance [due to his time] and I have gone beyond that.
Show me a sicentist who thinkgs they can measure rightness and wrongness.
Don't show me skepdick, he's a fuckwit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

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

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:01 am Show me a sicentist who thinkgs they can measure rightness and wrongness.
Every single person who has a moral opinion is measuring rightness and wrongness.

What you are disagreeing about is the "correctness" of those measurements.
What you are disputing is the (mis)calibration of the instruments and the fact that they produce different results.

One says water is hot. Another says water is not hot.

You have absolutely no idea what measurement is, and frankly - I think you are too stupid to understand any explanation.
You believe what you want to believe and then you fault others for being unable to persuade you when you can't even persuade yourself.

The irony, of course, if that the self-proclaimed intelligentsia can't persuade itself on the nature of scientific measurements - what chance does the general population have?

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:01 am Don't show me skepdick, he's a fuckwit.
I am a fuckwit, but a lesser fuckwit than the collective of Philosophers - that's for sure.
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 07, 2021 9:27 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:07 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:01 am When beliefs is institutionalized within a FSK, it is then independent of the individuals' beliefs and opinion. But what is institutionalized within a FSK is still fundamentally not independent of the human conditions.
So in your ontology,

(a) Somehow literal beliefs exist that aren't instantiated in individual persons. (How do such beliefs exist? What is the ontological nature of them?)
Note E=MC2 is a scientific knowledge and it exists.
But E-MC2 is only valid within the Einsteinian-Physics FSK not any individual person.
(b) There are things that can be the case independent of humans, after human invention births them, yet if humans ceased to exist, somehow those independent things would also cease to exist. (Just how does that work ontologically?)
Note conventionally, those things will still exists after human cease to exist.

Thought it can be explained albeit very tedious, I am invoking the claim 'If humans cease to exists then all mind interdependent things cease to exists'.

What I am insisting upon is this thesis;
  • 1. Reality is all-there-is.
    2. All-there-is comprise humans
    3. Therefore reality cannot ultimately be independent of humans.
Philosophers has raised the above question long time ago to seek things in reality [from the crudest objects to the thing-in-itself] that are independent of the human conditions but had failed.

Note substance theory,
  • Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
    -wiki
Show me at what location you can stand on to make view a reality that is independent of the human conditions? i.e. the God's eyes view of reality.
You didn't address anything I asked you.

Start with (a). How do such beliefs (or how does such knowledge) exist? What is the ontological nature of it?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
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: Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:21 pm You didn't address anything I asked you.

Start with (a). How do such beliefs (or how does such knowledge) exist? What is the ontological nature of it?
You aren't asking anything coherent that anybody can address.

How does your belief about "ontological natures" exist?
Post Reply