DingoJones

The key difference being that an atheist wouldnt be doing it based off of atheism while the theist is basing it on their theism. It bears repeating: g...

You must have missed this one. Interested in your response.

Fair enough.

I agree, ”what is best” is the question. Just to reiterate my point one last time, what isn’t best is doing things only one way. “Whats best” is going...

Ok, so sometimes we decide to take rights away and sometimes we do not. Sometimes we do collectivism and sometimes not, depends on whats best. This wa...

Whose “we”? Can “we” not choose when and where to afford these rights, or take them away? For example, if someone is jailed because they committed a c...

Rights? As defined by what?

Yes, it seems like a false dichotomy to me. Like you must choose individualism or collectivism. I think you can use either or depending on what goals ...

Jesus Christ, it really not that complicated. When the moderators tell you to stop breaking a forum rule, listen and stop breaking the rule and you do...

Sure, it is possible to have genuine civility. I remarked on how it is more often not the case in the context of debate or argument. The pressure of d...

Civility is highly overrated. It is good for smoothing social transactions with strangers but in the context of a discussion or debate its more often ...

He wouldnt have anyway, thats his trick. Discourse with Bartricks was an illusion imo He would have ignored anything he didnt directly use as a vessel...

I sincerely hope neither of us is bothered by this exchange. Im just goofing on ya a bit cuz you think Barticks was a worthwhile poster. You’re beggin...

Well Clark, the end game of quibbling about word meanings was an insult (couple of dunces I implied) so it was still in the right tone I thought. Sorr...

You don’t know what “projecting” means. Look it up. It doesnt just mean identifying traits in others that you yourself possess, its attributing traits...

Whose pummelling the guy? This is a thread about bannings, we are discussing the banning of Bartricks. Besides, you like it when I call you an idiot. ...

His arguments were not coherent. They were at times internally consistent but all based on logical fallacy. You just can’t be paying attention if you ...

Whoa whoa whoa champ, when was I mean? You got a problem with being a twat? Kinda sexist. :chin:

Obnoxious doesn’t cover his behaviour. The bad acting was also utter lack of engagement bordering on proselytizing, disruptive influence on all discus...

Lol, well come on. He NEVER misses an opportunity to express his self righteous condemnation of other posters, especially mods.

You’re just lucky they don’t ban for self-righteous twat-ness. Celebration of the banning of a bad actor like Bartricks reflects badly on no one.

oh ya? Which half? :shade: Obviously we are talking about all the experts, not half of them. What you said makes no sense in the context of this discu...

“Conclusive” according to other academic standards. I previously used a geology example: in geology there is disagreement about specific details, as w...

I dont know about everything. You could still accomplish a lot working within the confines of already existing systems as well, like by providing scie...

You are selling yourself short if you think you couldn't improve things with omnipotence. It would be easy. Also, of course reset button. Youre god. W...

How do you know they have been correctly solved? How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?!

Im not saying philosophy is science. I'm talking about academic value. Im open minded as to what would constitute a fair comparison, as some academic ...

Well that is my point…if philosophy is so easy to dispute, so easily justifying of opposing views, isnt that a bit of a joke academically speaking? An...

I would say that says more about Pinker than in does about academia. I think you are talking about whats being brought to academia from outside its co...

What? I felt like those were fair points.

No need for a survey, such is the obviousness of the examples in other disciplines. We would first have to agree which other disciplines are fair comp...

I agree, that is why ive attempted a distinction between all of that and academic philosophy.

All of which are accomplished with careful thought, academic philosophy isnt necessary. Its not like there are a minority of disputes like in other fi...

That depends on the purpose of the survey. A survey doesnt have to be philosophically interesting ( assuming thats what you mean by interesting) , gen...

Hilarious how many major philosophical inquiries are pretty close to an even split despite being discussed and debated for centuries. So academic phil...

I was talking about the lies about Trump. The lies Trump tells are pretty obvious.

Im not in possession of special knowledge about Trump, no. Its not hard to find lies or dishonest spins on the things Trump says and does, any more th...

I would guess its pretty close but who knows. I do think its rampant enough on both sides to be the responsibility of both sides.

Its not though, its seems nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about Trump, with either side. “He’s the worst evil!” “Hes the saviour that ...

Ya, I didnt mean it as an actual psychological condition, more of a social phenomenon. Its derangement in the layman's sense.

I intended to also include derangement of the type where Trump supporters are blind to his flaws, think he is fighting secret cabals of baby eating ri...

Trump Derangement Syndrome. As prevalent on the right as the left…roughly.

It would be real swell if all discussions on this forum were like his one, nice job comrades that was a worthwhile read. Thanks.

Nope

Can we consolidate some threads into a “beating a dead horse” thread? We can start with this one. :wink:

No more, no less. Humans just can’t be trusted.

Because you can’t be trusted.

You arent paying attention to what you are reading if you think this is the counter argument Isaac is offering. Answer that. This is a counter argumen...

Oh. Please explain then.