BlueBanana

The value of x could be different and f(x) depends on x, therefore for any given f(x) there exists no objective value of x. The issue is that the argu...

But there exist theories as well that make the claim there is an objective universal morality. How are the theories that make a claim but then don't c...

I don't say that is my belief, I merely recognize it as a theoretical possibility. How so?

An objective morality can't just "not exist". It must exist in some way independently of us, and then the description of that way of existing would be...

One of my favourite quotes - always worth sharing.

Because I define knowledge so that it can be false. It's the most correct definition because most things called knowledge aren't certain. Knowledge is...

I mean it's still knowledge. There's correct knowledge and false knowledge, and the word knowledge refers to both, yet they're not "worth" the same. T...

How not? False knowledge is worse than correct knowledge because it's false.

The logical conclusion we can draw from that is that either all claims are equivalent, OR all knowledge is NOT equivalent. Since knowledge can be eith...

And why is that usage odd? Because, (Gettier claims,) b is not knowledge.

Gettier argues he doesn't know that. I consider that knowledge also requires the believer considers their beliefs knowledge, or at least objectively c...

I didn't say that the "justified" part was the problem though. I think both "true" and "belief" are bigger mistakes with the definition. First of all ...

Except if we claim Gettier was incorrect and Smith does know that the person who gets the job has ten coins in their pocket. Yes, by JTB-definition. W...

If we consider the first case for example, the meaning of "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket" changes if the person "the man wh...

By beliefs I only meant the final conclusions that turn out to be true. The premises for them are "Jones will get the job" and "Jones owns a Ford", wh...

The US government deleted it.

And more things reach Wikipedia than OED reaches people. I wouldn't consider reaching Wikipedia to mean anything.

And cannabis is worse than alcohol and should be illegal because it's an illegal drug. Law is not moral, and the age of consent only matters to whethe...

t=the sign is true. t?((p?q)?(¬p?(q?¬q))) (¬p?(q?¬q))¬?t

There's a conspiracy theory about that?

Are there other theories about them than UFOs?

Interesting - can the treaties or agreements be interpreted, therefore, to "own" the land (but mayhaps only in respect to their parties)?

Of course you are in respect to the other people, but are non-living objects? I'd say not (but then again they are objective as well). The question be...

I kind of feel like starting to throw ad hominems around after reading that, but then again the inclusion of humans confuses my insultedness. I guess ...

Ah yes, we can't communicate with animals so let's take the lowest estimate for their mental capacities. Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be of...

Isn't that the point and the goal of de-platforming? Whether it works is a different thing.

It's de-platformed -> the people opposing it talk less about it -> the people opposing it argue less against it -> less rational and logical arguments...

Both are more important than "what's the weather like?" which is still relevant, so I don't see what conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison.

No we don't. If the ideas are only de-platformed and not rationally argued against, they become more attractive from the rational point of view.

So now you're only considering people who believe in each other's existence? That's essentially saying that people who agree agree. But they haven't.

Seems to me more like the universal subjects of agreement are the superficial ones, rather than those of disagreement. By the way, there's not even ag...

How are these connected? The direct conclusion of this is that there's disagreement. Where does the agreement come in? Also, the conclusion does not f...

No single individual can affect the laws, so they're under the power of their authorities. And that the authority (state, society, laws) is chosen dem...

It's fine in the faith school, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be tolerated here.

That doesn't mean anyone that twists certain evidence to support their belief and ignores other evidence that contradicts their belief is delusional.

Religion does not discourage critical thinking. "Absolving of moral responsibility to an authority" is neither a strictly negative thing nor one cause...

Why not?

It's turtles all the way down.

If you're making illogical jumps from companies to the areas of services they provide, you're the silly one. Take the prostitution or beggars for exam...

Adding "quite obviously" in your comment is not an argument - quite obviously.

Cavacava already posted that link alongside with quotes, which I refuted in the comment immediately above the one I'm replying to right now. The fact ...

As I said, give me a quote of Soros criticizing social media. Not the social media companies.

Then give me a quote where Soros says anything against social media.

The article nowhere states that internet or social media are dangerous. It only talks of the big corporations. They influence and brainwash and exploi...

It won't be, because it's infinite.

3) You could assign every number n from the set A to number n+10 in the set B, or you could assign that to n+11 and have a number left over from B. 4)...

Incorrect. That only holds for natural numbers. When A or B equals infinity, that's not true. Does not follow. Does not follow.

[ No, that is another reason why you think the abolition of belief not supported by evidence is a good idea.

Cars generally speaking are not purple. My car is purple. Therefore my car is not a car.

That's correct, the example isn't. What's relevant is whether the belief is correct, not whether the person has it.