This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 808182 8384 ... 212
2431
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:22:52 PM »
If theyre still doin the mega evo thing they should at least give it to pokes that need one. Not ones that are already in OU and Ubers.
but you just know the staff meeting is going to be like "lol Deoxys and Arceus and Lugia need a mega, and don't forget Mega Mega Rayquaza"
2432
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:11:23 PM »
Adube Photoshop
2433
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:10:25 PM »
Who Wrote Holden Caulfield? by Green Day
pls no h8
We're no longer friends.
>liking Tool >being a tool
2434
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:07:57 PM »
Who Wrote Holden Caulfield? by Green Day pls no h8
2435
« on: September 09, 2015, 09:03:37 PM »
Just a reminder that episode two airs tonight, same time.
2436
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:59:08 PM »
Maybe people are just picking and choosing to fit their agenda, I don't know.
Basically any time science meets politics.
Apparently biological sciences have a really terrible time getting funding in Norway because of the generally-progressive political climate.
Ugh.
2437
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:34:13 PM »
never
2438
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:29:35 PM »
2439
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:27:02 PM »
Maybe people are just picking and choosing to fit their agenda, I don't know.
Basically any time politics meets science.
2440
« on: September 09, 2015, 08:26:04 PM »
gen 6 was ass because it was based on france
and no one likes france
hon hon hon hon oui oui
2441
« on: September 09, 2015, 04:03:07 PM »
There are no facts that support the concept of morality being anything more than subjective.
The point is that there are if you can identify the best definition of morality.
...I feel like we're going in circles here. Sorry, just needed to get this in. I didn't think you'd reply so fast >.> From my atheistic (and, well, nihilistic) perspective, there's no intrinsic purpose to life without a higher power defining one for us. The existence of morals depends on life having a purpose, because morals are based around said purpose. Wouldn't my definition of morality be subjective itself? Because if it was objective, there would only be one definition, the 'true' definition. But even if it wasn't subjective, what 'facts' would there be, anyway?
2442
« on: September 09, 2015, 03:48:57 PM »
Fusions
Technically, its been done with White/Black Kyurem
Well nigga, I meant more of them. Like a whole title focused around it.
The first thing I thought of was... hybrid Pokemon?
2443
« on: September 09, 2015, 03:48:01 PM »
But do you have an interior crocodile alligator? Do you drive a Chevrolet movie theater?
2444
« on: September 09, 2015, 03:45:32 PM »
I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about the fact that good health would still exist even without bad health. Uh, how? The whole idea of "good" is based on inequity; that's what qualitative propositions are in their entirety.
You just said physics isn't based in facts... Physics is not based on facts; it's based on a defined epistemology. Physics identifies what we might call facts. This is a naive notion of what truth is which doesn't account for the perceptional and linguistic barriers which stop us from ever being totally, epistemologically objective due to the fact we can't actually know if the reality we perceive is actual. It's called the 'correspondence theory of truth' and it basically says that we know something is true if it corresponds to reality, but it falls down in that "truth" simply cannot be an intrinsic property of sentences.
Truth is not a property--or some abstract object--of propositions; it's a measurement for how well propositions perform within a certain epistemology. If Alvin Platinga, for instance, defines his epistemology on the basis of presuppositionalism and literal Biblicalism he could say "The proposition that Gensis is true, is itself true" and he wouldn't be wrong within the context of his epistemology.
The point, however, is to overcome this relativistic barrier and actually identify the best bases on which we can build our epistemology: physics being the best example.
But if I can simply define my morality, how is that in any way objective? You could say exactly the same about epistemology; the point is that there are not incorrect and correct ways to define either morality or epistemology, but better and worse ways of defining both of these. An epistemology based on a schizophrenic is not actually wrong in that it can be described as factually incorrect, because an epistemology is the very thing we filter propositions through; it can be described as bad, however. It's a philosophically poor basis for your epistemology.
Uh... most of that went over my head. Or I'm just being impatient. I'll give it a read (and watch the video) after I think about it for a bit. Off to class for now. (Yeah, yeah, I know I said after lunch, but I've been busy today.) What I'm stuck on here is the sense that, however we define epistemology and the semantics of truth... well, objectivity implies truth, which requires facts. There are no facts that support the concept of morality being anything more than subjective.
2445
« on: September 09, 2015, 01:08:07 PM »
Lions because they're more kawaii
2446
« on: September 09, 2015, 01:06:02 PM »
The entire concept of health requires inequities in health to exist in the first place. There would be absolutely no relevance to such a concept otherwise. I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about the fact that good health would still exist even without bad health. Okay? That doesn't contradict a single thing I said. It's a fact that you would return to Earth. You just said physics isn't based in facts... which would defeat the purpose of physics in the first place. Did you watch the video? You can't apply evidence or logic to reach facts until you presuppose the values of those very things. You have to define your epistemology before you can even begin drawing conclusions. Sorry, I didn't yet, actually. I need lunch first. Because, like epistemology, you have to define your morality before you can begin drawing conclusions. But if I can simply define my morality, how is that in any way objective? This philosophical diversion is avoiding the problem that there is no way to factually and objectively prove morality.
2447
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:57:40 PM »
müh łædÿ
2448
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:47:31 PM »
2449
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:44:28 PM »
Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health. Of course it wouldn't; we wouldn't have developed a concept of health at all because it would be totally irrelevant. "Good health" and "bad health" are entirely relative to one another; in the future, it could be considered a crippling disability to not live to 250, or to not be able to run a marathon every weekend. The world could be configured such a way, in the future, so as to make our current conceptions of health starkly unhealthy in every respect; yet inequities would still exist. If we literally managed to abolish poor health, there would be no point in the concept whatsoever other than some kind of historical artefact.
If there were no such thing as disease, for example, there would be no need for the biological processes that take care of disease. Good health does not require bad health in order to exist. No, it isn't. Physics reaches 'provable' (or, more accurately, high-probability) conclusions on the assumed bases of things like physicalism, naturalism and empiricism; which we assume entirely because they are rational to assume. It's a fact that if you were to jump right now, the Earth's gravity would pull you back to the ground, assuming there are no other unmentioned factors at play, such as you using a jetpack. You can't objectively prove right from wrong. What's 'wrong' to you is always going to be 'right' to someone else. Not at all:
Try and ignore the religious context of the video and focus on the epistemological considerations. The very purpose of the truth is that it is not subjective, but objective, given the overwhelming evidence, logic, and most importantly, facts that support it. I have trouble figuring out how all three of those requirements fit into morality, because there is no such thing as a provable moral fact. And that's the biggest problem with objective morality, at least from my atheistic perspective--it cannot be proven in the absence of a divine creator. I suppose I should ask--do you believe in a higher power?
2450
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:12:46 PM »
hell if I know
2451
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:10:33 PM »
*whew* Okay, five page thread while I was mostly asleep. Well it's not subjective.
Yes, obviously.
How so?
Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.
Defined by who or what?
EDIT: derp, double post
Well I'm a Christian, so I'd say by God, but even that has quite a bit of interpretation. For a non-theistic explanation, some people look to naturalistic explanations, seeing evolution as a means of expressing greater degrees of morality in life. I have trouble with that ideology since evolution is almost entirely based on some species killing and eradicating all others; evolution is a system of suffering.
Without a deity though, asking who or what defines morality is like asking who defines the laws of physics.
Alright, I can understand that. I do believe that some sort of higher authority is necessary for morality to be objective. Because we have defined health as "not being ill." We have defined morality as "the difference between right and wrong" but fail to define "right and wrong" with any objectivity.
But that criticism still applies to health. "Not being ill" is reductive to "The difference between wellness and illness"; there is no illness without wellness as a point of reference. We define one by referencing the other, and it's exactly the same case with morality. We define good and evil by using each one as a reference point; in the same way we have a general notion of well-being for "health"--because nobody wants to be not in a state of gratuitous anti-well-being--we should also have a general notion of well-being for morality--for exactly the same reason.
I don't understand this comparison--we know from science that we have white blood cells that fight off disease and foreign invaders. For that reason, there's a very clear line between healthy and unhealthy, our biology knows that (except when it doesn't), and science is devoted to deducing the facts of what that line is. Good health would still exist even if there were no such thing as bad health. Why is that the only sane definition?
Because it's literally the only one that makes sense; the only one that is rational. Defining morality by any other standard would be like defining physics as something other than the study of physical phenomena.
I don't understand the comparison. Physics is based on provable facts, and you can't objectively prove morality. Truth comes from definition.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of truth?
2452
« on: September 09, 2015, 12:09:36 AM »
It already finished airing like half an hour ago.
IMO it was funny and a lot more like the Report than I expected, but it hit a brick wall when Jeb Bush kept changing the topic to himself and how he's not Obama. blah blah blah I don't care anymore at 12:30 in the morning
2453
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:33:55 PM »
Well it's not subjective.
Yes, obviously.
How so?
Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.
Defined by who or what? EDIT: derp, double post
2454
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:33:15 PM »
Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?
I'd say gratuitous suffering.
Alright.
2455
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:27:48 PM »
IIRC about 20-22 hours.
2456
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:26:15 PM »
I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.
Some people are mentally ill. Either way, it was consensual, so that nullifies that point.
I'm not sure how a mental illness nor consent would make any difference. The idea of 'abnormality' is subjective, and isn't murder objectively wrong regardless of the matter of consent? Or am I missing something here? I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.
Hence it's not a negative sensation.
Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?
2457
« on: September 08, 2015, 08:12:41 PM »
Is health objective?
I'd think that health is based in factual information, whereas morality is a human construct. Apples and oranges, so to speak. Yes, obviously. How so?
The presence of negative sensation in the universe mandates that we curtail it. That which prevents the most negative sensation in the universe is, therefore, objectively good.
There's no way that could be anything else but good.
I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.
2458
« on: September 08, 2015, 07:58:26 PM »
Well it's not subjective.
Yes, obviously.
How so?
2459
« on: September 08, 2015, 07:51:44 PM »
There exists a belief that the world we inhabit contains inherent rights and wrongs, regardless of religion, personal beliefs, and the laws of men.
Does it?
2460
« on: September 08, 2015, 06:54:44 PM »
Banned from it. Thanks, FDA.
You uh... know you can lie on that one box and nobody will hate you, right?
Even if I did, or were to know someone who did, I wouldn't admit it publicly.
Pages: 1 ... 808182 8384 ... 212
|
Show Posts
