Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

Topic's author

#151

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.15.2019 08:08PM

3

4

9

10.15.2019 08:08PM

-->

@Athias

You're extending merely the reputation of Eugenne and arguing that his words are threatening without any solid connection. (While that makes for good drama, it doesn't necessarily convey anything.) Now if Eugene were to have encountered Danny and shot a man in front of him and afterwards stated "this man didn't do the 'right thing'" then Danny can presume he was threatened because he can then associate "the right thing" as a statement of intention to initiate aggression since the statement of "the right thing" is immediately tied and embodied in the initiation of aggression (the shooting of the aforementioned individual.)

This is a simple matter of Standards-of-Evidence.

Topic's author

#152

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.15.2019 08:15PM

3

4

9

10.15.2019 08:15PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Outside morality. I am simply saying did x occur because of x's fault or because of something else.

In a hypothetically deterministic universe, EVERYTHING is the "fault" of the initial-singularity (Big Bang).

Imagine a world exactly like the one you currently know.

Everything is exactly 100% identical.

Now imagine that every human and every animal is a robot.

These super-lifelike-robots are indistinguishable from real-human/animals, even to the world's greatest scientists.

How would you define "morality" in super-lifelike-robot world?

#153

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.15.2019 08:58PM

4

9

11

10.15.2019 08:58PM

-->

@3RU7AL

How would you define "morality" in super-lifelike-robot world?

You can't because everyone is the same. That wasn't my question. I was making you a thing outside the world you currently existing seeing a cog in a machine that breaks. Would you say that is at fault if you believe in determinism?

Topic's author

#154

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.15.2019 09:04PM

3

4

9

10.15.2019 09:04PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Would you say that is at fault if you believe in determinism?

The only "fault" is the Big-Bang.

The cog is not "responsible" for its own creation, function, or failure.

#155

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.15.2019 09:33PM

3

9

10.15.2019 09:33PM

-->

@3RU7AL

This is a simple matter of Standards-of-Evidence.

This is tautological; in any discussion of moral framework, the arguments are clearly normative.

#156

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.15.2019 10:52PM

4

9

11

10.15.2019 10:52PM

-->

@3RU7AL

The only "fault" is the Big-Bang.

The cog is not "responsible" for its own creation, function, or failure.

What would you call yourself a determinist or person who takes the position of free will?

Topic's author

#157

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 12:04PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 12:04PM

-->

@Athias

Try this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84VqqCPI7w

Topic's author

#158

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 12:17PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 12:17PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

What would you call yourself a determinist or person who takes the position of free will?

I believe in tautological (in)determinism.

Free-will is logically incoherent (provably false).

Topic's author

#159

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 01:11PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 01:11PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

The Standard Argument Against Free-Will (TSAAFW)

1) Determinism is incompatible with free-will (an inevitable outcome is not a willful choice).

2) Indeterminism is incompatible with free-will (a random or probabilistic outcome is not a willful choice).

3) No clever mix of the two solve either incompatibility.

Therefore, free-will is an incoherent concept.

#160

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.16.2019 01:37PM

4

9

11

10.16.2019 01:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I believe in tautological (in)determinism.

Free-will is logically incoherent (provably false).

cool.

Do you the example you use that states tautological determinism?

Topic's author

#161

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 01:59PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 01:59PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Do you the example you use that states tautological determinism?

Perfect-determinism is unprovable.

In order to prove perfect-determinism, you would have to perfectly predict all future events.

The fact that we cannot currently predict all future events does not in-itself disprove perfect-determinism.

HOWeVer, we can predict some future events and it is conceivable (although not actually provable) that there may be some "fundamental quantum unpredictability" in the otherwise concrete-causal-chain.

And since perfect-determinism (without perfect predictions) is FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to indeterminism, tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.

#162

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.16.2019 02:09PM

4

9

11

10.16.2019 02:09PM

-->

@3RU7AL

"fundamental quantum unpredictability"

Don't you think we would see something breaking the cause and effect rule by now or maybe Quantum researchers don't have the evidence yet to state that?

tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.

I didn't see the tautological part of it. Do you want to explain that?

Topic's author

#163

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 03:26PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 03:26PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Don't you think we would see something breaking the cause and effect rule by now or maybe Quantum researchers don't have the evidence yet to state that?

I agree that our inability to predict quantum fluctuations does not necessarily mean they are "fundamentally-unpredictable", there may be some "hidden-non-local-variables" but at this point, we can't say 100% for certain either way.

tautological indeterminism is the most reliable, defensible, and most comprehensive position.
I didn't see the tautological part of it. Do you want to explain that?

A logical tautology is a statement that is necessarily true in all circumstances.

For example,

In the realm of logic, a tautology is something that is true in all circumstances. A common example of a logical tautology is the following:

The dog either has 100% brown fur, or the dog does not have 100% brown fur.

This sentence is always true because one or the other must be so. This is different than a statement that says, "The dog is either brown, or the dog is white," because dogs can be black, gray, or a mix of colors. Note that when you put both halves of the logical tautology together, it feels a bit redundant, just like a verbal tautology. [LINK]

Another common example of a logical tautology is something that is true-by-definition.

For example,

(P1) alligator is one of many sub-categories of crocodile

All alligators are crocodiles, but not all crocodiles are alligators. This statement is true-by-definition.

Back to the indeterminism example,

Tautological statement (1) (EITHER) determinism (OR) indeterminism is TRUE - this statement (1) must be true in all circumstances.

Tautological statement (2) In the absence of demonstrable god-like power to accurately and infallibly predict all future events, determinism is functionally identical to, and scientifically indistinguishable from indeterminism - this statement (2) must be true in all circumstances.

Tautological statement (3) Perfect-determinism is incompatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeterminism is compatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) perfect-determinism cannot be true. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) indeterminism is true - this statement (3) must be true in all circumstances.

Based on our current scientific understanding, indeterminism must be true.

#164

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.16.2019 03:45PM

4

9

11

10.16.2019 03:45PM

-->

@3RU7AL

we can't say 100% for certain either way.

What do you think is lacking:

Research into quantum mechanics

or

What people are able to do?

Tautological statement (3) Perfect-determinism is incompatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeterminism is compatible with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) perfect-determinism cannot be true. (IFF) the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is true (THEN) indeterminism is true - this statement (3) must be true in all circumstances.

Okay. Are you forced to use tautology because of the lack of things found out in quantum mechanics?

Topic's author

#165

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 04:36PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 04:36PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

we can't say 100% for certain either way.

HoWEver,

Since determinism and indeterminism are FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL (AND) the opponents of determinism (free-willies) incessantly argue in support of indeterminism it makes no sense to debate them on this point because there is absolutely nothing to be gained philosophically or practically by insisting that pure-determinism is true. Indeterminism has all the same philosophical and practical implications as determinism, EXACTLY like how DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.

DEISM (intelligent-design) does nothing to support any particular THEISM in the same way that INDETERMINISM does nothing to support FREE-WILL.

I guess it's more of a strategic tactic.

If it doesn't matter either way, meaning if there are no philosophical or practical implications, then the option that your opponent supports becomes common-ground and you've essentially turned what they thought was their sovereign territory into your domain.

I guess what I'm calling a "tautology" is when two ideas are "functionally identical", if the philosophical and practical implications are indistinguishable, then it seems to qualify as "true by definition" at that point.

Topic's author

#166

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.16.2019 04:42PM

3

4

9

10.16.2019 04:42PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Okay. Are you forced to use tautology because of the lack of things found out in quantum mechanics?

Those "lack of things" may be beyond our epistemological limits.

We may never find non-local-hidden-variables.

We may never be able to perfectly predict all future events.

However, that does not mean we can't grasp the philosophical and practical implications of determinism/indeterminism because one of them must necessarily be true and the philosophical and practical implications are identical.

I guess I should have said, I must believe in tautological-indeterminism/determinism. That would more conclusively cover all options.

#167

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.16.2019 07:08PM

3

9

10.16.2019 07:08PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Try this one, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84VqqCPI7w

What part of that scene illustrates a threat of any sort?

Topic's author

#168

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.17.2019 03:50PM

3

4

9

10.17.2019 03:50PM

-->

@Athias

I consider a veiled threat (perceived threat) an initiation of violence.

Someone pointing a gun in my face is an explicit threat.

Someone showing up at my home at strange hours with a gun strapped to their hip is a veiled (implicit) threat.

#169

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.17.2019 04:17PM

3

9

10.17.2019 04:17PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I consider a veiled threat (perceived threat) an initiation of violence.

I concur if and only if the threat is immediately tied or embodied in the initiation of aggression. If it's anything like your earlier examples, then I would disagree.

Someone pointing a gun in my face is an explicit threat.

I agree. In the case with Tommy and Henry from Goodfellas, it's clear they're joking around, so Henry used discretion.

Someone showing up at my home at strange hours with a gun strapped to their hip is a veiled (implicit) threat.

What if it's a sibling or a friend? I'm not suggesting that a sibling or friend can't threaten you, but would it change your approach?

Topic's author

#170

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.24.2019 03:19PM

3

4

9

10.24.2019 03:19PM

-->

@Athias

Here's a good example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy4THHeRJX8

In your opinion, who started it?

#171

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.27.2019 08:29PM

3

9

10.27.2019 08:29PM

-->

@3RU7AL

In your opinion, who started it?

This is rather simple since it's chronological. Since the U.S. placed missiles on the Turkish border first, the U.S. "started" it. Now, if you're asking who "initiated aggression," they both did. And a simple analogy will suffice:

I'm the Turkish border soldiers. and I have a gun pointed at you. You, Russia, take this as a threat as you should. You manage to call your friend Cuba, and tell him to point a gun at my friend, the U.S. (The mention of these countries are for location, not necessarily affiliation.) What happened? Two threats have been initiated.

Topic's author

#172

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.28.2019 03:49PM

3

4

9

10.28.2019 03:49PM

-->

@Athias

Two threats have been initiated.

But isn't the second threat merely defensive (and thus morally pure)?

#173

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.28.2019 04:12PM

3

9

10.28.2019 04:12PM

-->

@3RU7AL

But isn't the second threat merely defensive (and thus morally pure)?

No. If it were defensive, then disarming the missiles and/or rendering them useless would've been imperative. In other words, the Russians should've been aiming for the Turkish boarder. The Russians' placing missiles in Cuba was a threat of retaliation (revenge.)

#174

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.28.2019 04:29PM

4

9

11

10.28.2019 04:29PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Where do you think life starts?

Topic's author

#175

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.28.2019 04:34PM

3

4

9

10.28.2019 04:34PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

Where do you think life starts?

Life is a chemical process.

Are you asking when citizenship starts?

Traditionally, citizenship (with its associated rights and legal protections) starts when a birth certificate is issued by the proper governing authority.

#176

TheRealNihilist

Debates: 44

Posts: 4,920

4

9

11

TheRealNihilist

10.28.2019 04:42PM

4

9

11

10.28.2019 04:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

When do you think life should start?

I don't really want the law just what you would like the law to be.

#177

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

10.28.2019 04:42PM

3

9

10.28.2019 04:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Traditionally, citizenship (with its associated rights and legal protections) starts when a birth certificate is issued by the proper governing authority.

Rights, in your judgement then, are created when a government issues a birth certificate?

Topic's author

#178

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.28.2019 05:13PM

3

4

9

10.28.2019 05:13PM

-->

@TheRealNihilist

When do you think life should start?

I don't really want the law just what you would like the law to be.

Please be more specific.

At conception, a living cell combines with another living cell and their dna is mixed together and the hybrid cells begin to multiply.

This is true for nearly all living creatures.

I believe the real question is, "at what point is it anyone else's (other than the mother's) business or concern?"

The zygote/embryo/fetus is comprised of roughly 99.999% cells produced by the mother's body and, according to the principle of personal sovereignty, the mother alone has sole jurisdiction concerning what happens inside her own body.

Topic's author

#179

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

10.28.2019 05:15PM

3

4

9

10.28.2019 05:15PM

-->

@Athias

Traditionally, citizenship (with its associated rights and legal protections) starts when a birth certificate is issued by the proper governing authority.
Rights, in your judgement then, are created when a government issues a birth certificate?

I'd say "bestowed" upon issuance of a birth certificate.

#180

TheDredPriateRoberts