My opinion has nothing to do with this. Billions of empiricists/scientists (humans!) agree.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
Really? Because tht clock thing you wrote seems to imply they are sort of compatible.
I am implying precisely the opposite! They are incompatible. I have given you an example of incompatible yet tolerable facts.
What I am pointing my finger at is that the facts of GR don't demonstrate QFT to be "wrong".
And the facts of QFT don't demonstrate that GR is "wrong".
Even though you keep insisting that's how facts are supposed to work.
Your entire framework of thought is a colossal, ideologically-driven fuckup that can achieve nothing in practice.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
I fail to see how Vertable Aquarium's MORAL FACT BUT ONLY FOR A GUIDE that it is always wrong to kill a human being is compatible in any way with Henry's moral fact that revenge killings are justified.
One or both of them are wrong! Exactly like QFT and GR!
But guess what? It's OK to have mutually-contradictory facts. It's. just a contradiction/paradox - nothing bad actually happens.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
Their shared moral fact that moral concern cannot extgend to animals is outright detestable, so if I were in the game of concocting moral fact, I would have incompatible facts with the both of them anyway.
And then? You'll have two opposing views. You want me to tell you how this will play out? In a few hundred years where synthetic meat is as economically viable as real meat (or when real meat becomes unsustainable to produce) it would be morally unacceptable to kill animals for food.
And that would be a moral fact. And it would be inconceivable and socially unacceptable to kill for food when the option to NOT kill is available to you at no cost.
Exactly the same shit that is happening with renewable energy. Just because you don't want it doesn't mean you have the power to stop the bus, at which point you get to fit into the new "normal" or fuck off.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
What is the point of using this Fact word in this context? It doesn't mean anything more than opinion means unless it comes with an expectation of resolving conflicts.
I don't know dude. It's your word. I am mirroring your use. I could just as easily function in the world without the fact/opinion distinction.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jul 04, 2020 10:37 pm
That's clearly not an objective fact. Infant mortality rates are objective data, you can cite such objective data to support your belief that the world has improved. It's still a matter of opinion.
Can you even tell the difference between me and you? I am not reporting that the world has improved.
I am reporting that YOU are reporting that the world has "improved"; or that you think the world is "better" (I happen to share that view, but whatever).
You are a relativist, right? Tell me how you tested for "betterness". And if you didn't test for it then tell me how you know it's "better"?
Now look who's trying to play the "control the narrative" game.
Fuck your language/protocol/framework dude - I don't care for it
I am not "claiming" anything that you can't read for yourself in a history book; or you can't find on Google. Either society has improved or it hasn't.
Either you like modern medicine, air travel, the internet; or you'd prefer to hunt buffalo wearing a loin cloth and dying of sepsis at 35.
If you would prefer to live in a pre-modern shithole - say so.
Are you saying the world would be a better place if you abort it? If not - why are you wasting of your precious energy on it?