Dear Worms. SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

[Black Rose]

So it's not so much that logic is perfect, but in the past, people like you and @EndogenousRebel wanted a system of logic which was perfect, and encouraged and supported many people to do just that, until they got one that people like you and @EndogenousRebel were happy with.

People like me?

Are you referring to my race my gender my religion?

You mean people you hate because they disagree with you on certain kinds of premises you clearly violate every time you say "people like you".

Clearly, your only motivation in this discussion is to base it on prejudice. People like me are people who dislike it when others are motivated by hate. You hate people like me so you assume I believe things I do not so you can attack me in ways that seem neutral but in fact are self-serving.

Go ahead and describe your assumptions about "people like me" so we can discuss why it is false and why you are motivated by emotional dislike for "people like me" What does a "person like me" believe and what does that entail.

Now, you and @EndogenousRebel are now claiming that logic is imperfect, when your counterparts in the past would say that logic is perfect.

So what has changed, that caused you and @EndogenousRebel have done a 180 U-turn on your previous attitudes?

Who are my counterparts? You make big assumptions in order to hate "people like me".

I just think that what @EndogenousRebel said was not part of logic in the first place.

ok, that is a legitimate disagreement, you should not hate people for believing this.

Well, either you are talking about an entirely different subject to me, in which case, you are arguing with a strawman

I believe you falsely assume that we are making arguments we are not.

That means you are creating a reverse strawman.

Can I use logic to claim that the Sun is just a clever hoax, that the Sun goes aroung the Earth, that electricity doesn't exist, that racism, sexism and homophobia are wonderful, that slavery should be legal, that murder, rape and torture are all moral and beneficial for society?

In the example of Kenya people often make false statements and often do so without intending to lie. Maybe the people actually believe he saved the world from exploding by not going to Kenya. The fact is that an unverifiable claim SHOULD NOT be part of logic but often is in some people's minds.

In other words, is logic such a stupid way of thinking about things, that a child of 10 could prove it's completely worthless, and thus anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that logic is wrong, and no-one with any brains ever suggested such a thing?

@EndogenousRebel amd @Black Rose seem to say "yes".

false

I and @LOGICZOMBIE say "no", and have a reason to think so. From my perspective, as such arguments are so obvious, such arguments would have ruled out by the rules of logic. If logic didn't rule out silly and obvious arguments like that, every smart and honest person around would have never agreed with it in the first place, and no-one here would have even heard of logic.

This again assumes logic is perfect because people will always come to the same conclusions. This is not true for several reasons. One people use language differently, Two people come from different cultures and make different assumptions about reality, Three even when some people are honest some people will be driven by their emotions such as you are to demonize people.

The fact is that the Kenya argument is not meant to be believed it is an example of unverifiable logic. Unverifiable logic is not going to make you a logical thinker and this means logic has problems. That is the whole point, @EndogenousRebel never said that the Kenya example was correct in reality you assume as he did and so hate him and now you hate me for defending the fact that you have a false assumption about him in your mind. Only if we can absolutely prove the Keanya argument to be false can we say logic has no problems, there is no logical way to prove a negative. God does not exist is an example of trying to prove a negative, and it cannot be done.

You believe that this is not true, that you CAN prove a negative, so you believe it is ok to hate me and him.

I am perfectly fine with logic as a system as long as people stop trying to prove negatives which means "people like me" should be allowed to speak freely about it and not be compared to people who are violent nihilistic radicals as you have been doing @scorpiomover

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Empirically verifiable, and or logiccally necessary. What does logically necessary mean?

for example

dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum

the fact that i doubt

proves that i think

and this makes a thinker logically necessary

I doubt, therefore, I think, therefore, I am.

Lots of assumptions are baked into that.

You have to define existence. You have to define doubting, a prove that criteria fits existing. Same for thinking.

For instance, how do you know YOU are doing the doubting. What if this is just fed to you through some other process. Furthermore how do you know YOU are a unit of existence. When you are made up of so many moving parts what is YOU.

Then it might be circular reasoning. What is the difference between doubt and thinking, they basically are equivalent and thus it's redundant.

Also this doesn't clear up what is "logically necessary". If you mean that it truth is preceded by logical evaluation, that is fine, but logic has truth values. They say nothing about reality.

 

[Old Things]

@Black Rose, you are being far too sensitive. @scorpiomover does not hate you. He would not be talking to you if he hated you. He would just ignore you.

 

[Black Rose]

@Black Rose, you are being far too sensitive. @scorpiomover does not hate you. He would not be talking to you if he hated you. He would just ignore you.

I do not like being associated with epistemological nihilism.

Maybe I should ask you misleading and mischaracterizing passive-aggressive questions based on your sensitivities?

That has been his modus operandi for a long time.

 

[scorpiomover]

So it's not so much that logic is perfect, but in the past, people like you and @EndogenousRebel wanted a system of logic which was perfect, and encouraged and supported many people to do just that, until they got one that people like you and @EndogenousRebel were happy with.

People like me?

Well, people. But both of you seem to hold the same attitude, that seems to be as if you think that you can just ignore 2,000 years of history. So I expect that if would have said "people", you and he would have probably said something like "those people are nothing to do with us. They're idiots. We're super-smart geniuses."

So I said "people like you", so you realise that if you were back then, you'd also have been one of the people who wanted a system of logic that is the way I described, and not the way you described logic.

Go ahead and describe your assumptions about "people like me" so we can discuss why it is false and why you are motivated by emotional dislike for "people like me" What does a "person like me" believe and what does that entail.

You're claiming that logic is flawed. What else is there in Western thinking to figure out which things are true and which things are false? Are you suggesting that there is no way to determine truth?

If you believe there is no way to determine truth, then how can you know anything? How can you write all your posts, when you believe you don't know anything?

Now, you and @EndogenousRebel are now claiming that logic is imperfect, when your counterparts in the past would say that logic is perfect.

So what has changed, that caused you and @EndogenousRebel have done a 180 U-turn on your previous attitudes?

Who are my counterparts?

People who are no different to you, but existed in previous centuries when no-one was saying that logic was flawed.

You make big assumptions in order to hate "people like me".

I just think that what @EndogenousRebel said was not part of logic in the first place.

ok, that is a legitimate disagreement, you should not hate people for believing this.

If it is acceptable for people to say that logic is flawed, then every time they disagree, one of the parties can always say "logic is flawed. So I don't need to agree with your reasoning, even when it's correct." Then anyone can say whatever they want.

The Far Right are then perfectly entitled to their view and even far more extreme views than that. You might as well start picking up an axe and chopping little children into pieces, because it's only a matter of time before someone starts using your claim to do just that. Should I be happy that you wish to promote such atrocities?

Well, either you are talking about an entirely different subject to me, in which case, you are arguing with a strawman

I believe you falsely assume that we are making arguments we are not.

You are making arguments that logic is flawed, yes?

In the example of Kenya people often make false statements and often do so without intending to lie. Maybe the people actually believe he saved the world from exploding by not going to Kenya.

That's why people in your country are so easily persuaded by cunning liars, because they can make any claim they want, and then other people actually believe them.

The fact is that an unverifiable claim SHOULD NOT be part of logic but often is in some people's minds.

His claim is VERIFIABLE, because it can be verified by him going to Kenya.

In other words, is logic such a stupid way of thinking about things, that a child of 10 could prove it's completely worthless, and thus anyone with even a modicum of intelligence would say that logic is wrong, and no-one with any brains ever suggested such a thing?

@EndogenousRebel amd @Black Rose seem to say "yes".

false

So you don't say that logic is flawed? Why can't someone make a similar argument about almost anything?

If they can make a similar argument about almost anything, then everything in logic can be disproved. Then almost nothing can be part of logic. So then logic is entirely wrong, and entirely worthless, which was what @EndogenousRebel was leading to.

I and @LOGICZOMBIE say "no", and have a reason to think so. From my perspective, as such arguments are so obvious, such arguments would have ruled out by the rules of logic. If logic didn't rule out silly and obvious arguments like that, every smart and honest person around would have never agreed with it in the first place, and no-one here would have even heard of logic.

This again assumes logic is perfect because people will always come to the same conclusions.

No. This assumes that the point of logic was so that we could have SOME things which can be proved true to everyone.

This is not true for several reasons. One people use language differently,

That can be corrected by making sure their terms are the same. When that doesn't happen, all too often, people argue so much they end up in violence.

Two people come from different cultures and make different assumptions about reality,

Again, that can be corrected by making sure their assumptions are explicitly declared and are thus not assumptions. When that doesn't happen, all too often, people argue so much they end up in violence.

Three even when some people are honest some people will be driven by their emotions such as you are to demonize people.

People who argue emotionally, all too often end up killing people.

The fact is that the Kenya argument is not meant to be believed it is an example of unverifiable logic.

It's VERIFIABLE, because if he goes to Kenya and the world doesn't explode, then it has been verified that his claim is false.

Unverifiable logic is not going to make you a logical thinker and this means logic has problems. That is the whole point,

No. It means that certain people claim that logic has major problems, and want to make reasonable arguments without logic, which cannot be done, which means you become completely untrustworthy on any subject which matters, which includes voting, being able to make any sort of decisions in any job, and things like that.

You believe that this is not true, that you CAN prove a negative, so you believe it is ok to hate me and him.

Really? So who said this:

2) "I have never gone to Kenya." Is that true? How do I check? I've never met you. I don't know where you've gone. Also, even if I could get a copy of your passport with all your travel destinations on it, it's very difficult to prove a negative. You could have been flown by the CIA on a special plane, or used a different passport, or even been in the Witness Protection Program, and all records of your visit to Kenya have been erased. I don't have any way to validate that statement.

What is the name of this poster? What connection does he have to do with me? What does this post tell you about whether I believe that you can prove a negative or not?

 

[Black Rose]

@Black Rose, you are being far too sensitive. @scorpiomover does not hate you. He would not be talking to you if he hated you. He would just ignore you.

I do not like being associated with epistemological nihilism.

Maybe I should ask you misleading and mischaracterizing passive-aggressive questions based on your sensitivities?

That has been his modus operandi for a long time.

It is not even about why he is mad at me, he simply is mad at everyone I think in my opinion.

 

[scorpiomover]

I am perfectly fine with logic as a system

Then tell me all the situations where someone cannot make an argument like the one @EndogenousRebel made. Because I don't believe that his argument had anything to do with travelling to Kenya, or going anywhere, or even the world exploding. He seemed to only be giving a general example, that anyone could make a similar argument about just about anything. So if his argument is valid, then anyone could make a counter-argument about almost anything, and then there wouldn't be any case where logic would be valid.

So you tell me where logic would be acceptable to you, because right now, I can't think of ANY situation where it would be acceptable to you.

 

[scorpiomover]

X (I have gone to Kenya)	Y (The World Explodes)	if X then Y (If I go to Kenya, the World Explodes)
True	True	True
True	False	False
False	True	True
False	False	True

This is a standard use of a truth table.

However, this is just pointing out the well-known rule of "If X then Y" equals "(NOT X) OR Y", as if you do the same truth table for "(NOT X) OR Y", you also get "true, false, true, true". It's a rather trivial result, as it's very well-known.

So you don't seem to be saying anything here.

That other truth table is just process of elimination >.> the truth table quoted is where all the attention can go.

This is an if then statement.

If X is false, then If X then Y is true.

If X is false, then if X then Y = not X then Y.

Sooooo. There is only one instance where X is true and Y is false, thus if X then Y is false.

By the way we can also get this.
not( X AND (not Y) ) = not(X) OR not(not Y) = not(X) OR Y

Any time X is false, if X then Y is true.

---

You are the one that is trying to make logic appear to be something it is not from my perspective.

Then this is where you might have a point.

When we are trying to deduce something, and we aim to prove it true in logic, we are usually trying to say that it is definitely true in all cases. If there's a flaw in the argument, then at the moment, we cannot say that it is definitely true in all cases.

It might still be definitely true in all cases because of a different argument.
It might still be definitely true in some cases.
It might be sometimes true in all cases.
It might be sometimes true in some cases.

Often, when something is not proved true, they often say that means it is false. But that would not be accurate, because that means that it is never true in all cases, which has not been proved yet.

You can get confused and think, that because we have not proved that the world will never explode whenever you go to Kenya, that means that it's not false and so true.

But that's very misleading, because by saying it's true, you are implying that your claim is definitely true in all cases.

This is precisely the lack of clarity that can be considered a flaw.

The solution is to be extremely pedantic, which is how I was trained by my maths degree.

However on forums, I'm not pedantic in this respect, because most people don't have that kind of training.

If I am that pedantic, I'll annihilate almost every statement, every argument, every sentence, and even every clause ever written by someone who isn't that precise about logic.

I would not be able to annihilate the arguments of @LOGICZOMBIE, because he adheres to the same principles of logic that I stand by, which is the much higher level than you stick to.

But you are not as precise as him. So every post you write would be blasted into oblivion by me.

 

[Black Rose]

Well, people. But both of you seem to hold the same attitude, that seems to be as if you think that you can just ignore 2,000 years of history.

false

Are you suggesting that there is no way to determine truth?

no

People who are no different to you, but existed in previous centuries when no-one was saying that logic was flawed.

examples, please.

The Far Right are then perfectly entitled to their view and even far more extreme views than that. You might as well start picking up an axe and chopping little children into pieces, because it's only a matter of time before someone starts using your claim to do just that.

What did I claim?

Should I be happy that you wish to promote such atrocities?

This is a personal attack and has been reported.

I do not support atrocities.

You are making arguments that logic is flawed, yes?

In some ways yes, not all.

Am I wrong?

That's why people in your country are so easily persuaded by cunning liars, because they can make any claim they want, and then other people actually believe them.

This happens in all countries.

Why are you overgeneralizing?

His claim is VERIFIABLE, because it can be verified by him going to Kenya.

yes.

So you don't say that logic is flawed? Why can't someone make a similar argument about almost anything?

If they can make a similar argument about almost anything, then everything in logic can be disproved. Then almost nothing can be part of logic. So then logic is entirely wrong, and entirely worthless, which was what @EndogenousRebel was leading to.

No not entirely wrong, a subset is wrong, that subset being the untrue logic set.

No. This assumes that the point of logic was so that we could have SOME things which can be proved true to everyone.

what is the point of logic?

That can be corrected by making sure their terms are the same. When that doesn't happen, all too often, people argue so much they end up in violence.

yes.

People who argue emotionally, all too often end up killing people.

yes.

It's VERIFIABLE, because if he goes to Kenya and the world doesn't explode, then it has been verified that his claim is false.

but why would we want this? should we try to verify all such irrational claims?

sophistry is the set of logic that is untrue by default.

No. It means that certain people claim that logic has major problems, and want to make reasonable arguments without logic, which cannot be done, which means you become completely untrustworthy on any subject which matters, which includes voting, being able to make any sort of decisions in any job, and things like that.

minor problems not major.

agreeing on anything requires more than logic but trust also, trust that cannot always be verified thus faith is needed.

What is the name of this poster? What connection does he have to do with me? What does this post tell you about whether I believe that you can prove a negative or not?

Good sophistry on your part when you claim logic is important to trusting others.

I am not a sophist but you assume I am because you hate me.

I am perfectly fine with logic as a system

Then tell me all the situations where someone cannot make an argument like the one @EndogenousRebel made. Because I don't believe that his argument had anything to do with travelling to Kenya, or going anywhere, or even the world exploding. He seemed to only be giving a general example, that anyone could make a similar argument about just about anything. So if his argument is valid, then anyone could make a counter-argument about almost anything, and then there wouldn't be any case where logic would be valid.

So you tell me where logic would be acceptable to you, because right now, I can't think of ANY situation where it would be acceptable to you.

In all sets of true logic, we must assume that others will not be sophists in its presentation, I can trust people I know who rationally tell the truth by my intuition and faith in them, and if that trust has not been broken. To be honest you are way too emotional about this subject. You fear the consequences of some discounting of a subset of logic will lead to horrible things, that has not happened and is not true but you fear it anyway.

 

[scorpiomover]

I do not like being associated with epistemological nihilism.

Then why say things that are epistemologically nihilistic?

It is not even about why he is mad at me, he simply is mad at everyone I think in my opinion.

I'm mad, because this is forcing me to take a general approach of demanding that you all have to come up to the standards of clarity that I was trained in, that you don't stick to.

You're asking me to find every flaw in your posts, be a giant jerk to you, and make your experience on this forum a living hell. I don't want to be that nasty to you. But I know I can be, because I was trained to be that way for years, until it was second nature. Now you're pushing me into being that unpleasant to you.

 

[Black Rose]

I do not like being associated with epistemological nihilism.

Then why say things that are epistemologically nihilistic?

We have not come to an agreement because of 1. language 2. culture. 3. our personal assumptions and internal logic.

It is not even about why he is mad at me, he simply is mad at everyone I think in my opinion.

I'm mad, because this is forcing me to take a general approach of demanding that you all have to come up to the standards of clarity that I was trained in, that you don't stick to.

You're asking me to find every flaw in your posts, be a giant jerk to you, and make your experience on this forum a living hell. I don't want to be that nasty to you. But I know I can be, because I was trained to be that way for years, until it was second nature. Now you're pushing me into being that unpleasant to you.

I am sorry about this.

I was not trained in logic but empathy.

My standards are somewhat different.

 

[scorpiomover]

Are you suggesting that there is no way to determine truth?

no

Were you aware that you might be suggesting such a thing without realising? Do you have a perfectly logical proof that you weren't making a mistake?

People who are no different to you, but existed in previous centuries when no-one was saying that logic was flawed.

examples, please.

There were 1 billion people not that long ago.
IIRC, there were 250 million people from the year zero to the year 1500.
Are you that unique? If so, then you probably don't even speak the same language as anyone else, and then you couldn't communicate with anyone here. But you have posted posts that others have at least partially understood. So quite clearly, you are not that unique, and thus we can expect with that many people, some of them were like you.

The Far Right are then perfectly entitled to their view and even far more extreme views than that. You might as well start picking up an axe and chopping little children into pieces, because it's only a matter of time before someone starts using your claim to do just that.

What did I claim?

That @EndogenousRebel's argument is valid.

Should I be happy that you wish to promote such atrocities?

This is a personal attack and has been reported.

I do not support atrocities.

I do not disagree that you would not explicitly say to kill lots of people. But then, you may not realise. You pointed out earlier that people can be wrong without realising.

You are making arguments that logic is flawed, yes?

In some ways yes, not all.

Am I wrong?

Can you prove you aren't wrong? If so, state your proof.

That's why people in your country are so easily persuaded by cunning liars, because they can make any claim they want, and then other people actually believe them.

This happens in all countries.

Why are you overgeneralizing?

I'm not. It can happen in all countries. But as long as everyone agrees that there is a system that can verify matters, and accept the rules of that system, then we have a possibility of it not happening to you a thousand times a day.

If we don't have that, then it's open season on everything.

His claim is VERIFIABLE, because it can be verified by him going to Kenya.

yes.

So you don't say that logic is flawed? Why can't someone make a similar argument about almost anything?

If they can make a similar argument about almost anything, then everything in logic can be disproved. Then almost nothing can be part of logic. So then logic is entirely wrong, and entirely worthless, which was what @EndogenousRebel was leading to.

No not entirely wrong, a subset is wrong, that subset being the untrue logic set.

But for every statement of the untrue logic set, there's another statement that is true, as if X is false, then NOT X is true, and we can construct a similar argument as @EndogenousRebel raised, just in reverse, that works equally well to prove the true statements are flawed as well.

No. This assumes that the point of logic was so that we could have SOME things which can be proved true to everyone.

what is the point of logic?

I just said. So that we can have SOME things which can be proved to everyone, so there's no dispute, no arguments, and no people going about killing millions of people over it.

If we don't have that, then people go to war and/or kill over EVERY possible opinion. Every forum topic becomes a lethal threat. Then we have to shut you down and stop you from saying anything.

That can be corrected by making sure their terms are the same. When that doesn't happen, all too often, people argue so much they end up in violence.

yes.

People who argue emotionally, all too often end up killing people.

yes.

That's what happens when it's OK to accept illogical arguments.

It's VERIFIABLE, because if he goes to Kenya and the world doesn't explode, then it has been verified that his claim is false.

but why would we want this? should we try to verify all such irrational claims?

If we accept your argument, then we have no choice.

sophistry is the set of logic that is untrue by default.

Then by that definition, sophistry is invalid logic.

However, unless you can actually prove with 100% certainty that all of sophistry is definitely false in all cases, then you can be wrong about the definition of sophistry, and thus also wrong about everything you've ever said about sophistry.

Can you prove it? If so, where is your proof?

No. It means that certain people claim that logic has major problems, and want to make reasonable arguments without logic, which cannot be done, which means you become completely untrustworthy on any subject which matters, which includes voting, being able to make any sort of decisions in any job, and things like that.

minor problems not major.

agreeing on anything requires more than logic but trust also, trust that cannot always be verified thus faith is needed.

Good sophistry on your part when you claim logic is important to trusting others.

Quite the reverse. Without logic, humans are forced to trust others, or reject what everyone says.

I am not a sophist but you assume I am because you hate me.

You keep writing that I hate you. I admit I got a bit heated. But I don't recall ever writing that, or anything like that. Have you considered that your anxieties and your problems with being able to process thoughts rationally, like your inability to do many mental tasks because of your condition, has led you astry?

Can you prove that didn't happen? You can't prove a negative.

So how do you know that your illness has not led you into false conclusions? You can't.

So it could easily be that your illness has not led you into false conclusions.

In all sets of true logic, we must assume that others will not be sophists in its presentation, I can trust people I know who rationally tell the truth by my intuition and faith in them, and if that trust has not been broken.

That's nice. But your intuition and your faith can be wrong. Has everyone you ever trusted always fulfilled your trust in them? Your father? Your mother? Your siblings? Other people you know? Have they ALL been completely faithful to your intuition and your faith in them, in every way, for every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of your life to this moment?

To be honest you are way too emotional about this subject. You fear the consequences of some discounting of a subset of logic will lead to horrible things, that has not happened and is not true but you fear it anyway.

You are assuming it has not happened. In Germany in the 1930s, a man called Adolf Hitler said that the problems of the Germans were caused by a certain ethnicity, and that on that basis, the problems of the Germans would be removed, by removing those people, even though that had not happened completely yet, as some of those people were still in Germany.

Same sort of argument. Resulted in genocide of millions of people.

 

[scorpiomover]

We have not come to an agreement because of 1. language 2. culture. 3. our personal assumptions and internal logic.

How do you know that? Perhaps that isn't true. Can you prove that we aren't coming to an agreement because of other reasons?

It is not even about why he is mad at me, he simply is mad at everyone I think in my opinion.

I'm mad, because this is forcing me to take a general approach of demanding that you all have to come up to the standards of clarity that I was trained in, that you don't stick to.

You're asking me to find every flaw in your posts, be a giant jerk to you, and make your experience on this forum a living hell. I don't want to be that nasty to you. But I know I can be, because I was trained to be that way for years, until it was second nature. Now you're pushing me into being that unpleasant to you.

I am sorry about this.

I was not trained in logic

Well, you're asking me to treat you as if you are. Were you consciously aware that that's the consequence of your posts?

but empathy.

My standards are somewhat different.

Then why were you not empathetic to me?

 

[Black Rose]

Are you suggesting that there is no way to determine truth?

no

Were you aware that you might be suggesting such a thing without realising? Do you have a perfectly logical proof that you weren't making a mistake?

There is no way to know what I intended, I viewed what was said as empirical not rational. When logic cannot prove things in real life then empirically logic has problems and did not see the intents behind it as bad.

People who are no different to you, but existed in previous centuries when no-one was saying that logic was flawed.

examples, please.

There were 1 billion people not that long ago.
IIRC, there were 250 million people from the year zero to the year 1500.
Are you that unique? If so, then you probably don't even speak the same language as anyone else, and then you couldn't communicate with anyone here. But you have posted posts that others have at least partially understood. So quite clearly, you are not that unique, and thus we can expect with that many people, some of them were like you.

so I support atrocities like they did?

The Far Right are then perfectly entitled to their view and even far more extreme views than that. You might as well start picking up an axe and chopping little children into pieces, because it's only a matter of time before someone starts using your claim to do just that.

What did I claim?

That @EndogenousRebel's argument is valid.

empirically logic can't prove everything. if it could then we would communicate perfectly.

Should I be happy that you wish to promote such atrocities?

This is a personal attack and has been reported.

I do not support atrocities.

I do not disagree that you would not explicitly say to kill lots of people. But then, you may not realise. You pointed out earlier that people can be wrong without realising.

the argument was not about promoting atrocities as I saw it.

You are making arguments that logic is flawed, yes?

In some ways yes, not all.

Am I wrong?

Can you prove you aren't wrong? If so, state your proof.

empirically no and rationally I don't know.

That's why people in your country are so easily persuaded by cunning liars, because they can make any claim they want, and then other people actually believe them.

This happens in all countries.

Why are you overgeneralizing?

I'm not. It can happen in all countries. But as long as everyone agrees that there is a system that can verify matters, and accept the rules of that system, then we have a possibility of it not happening to you a thousand times a day.

If we don't have that, then it's open season on everything.

Are you saying my country has a collapsed system where everything is open season?

Are you saying this is what will happen if we cannot empirically prove all truths?

His claim is VERIFIABLE, because it can be verified by him going to Kenya.

yes.

So you don't say that logic is flawed? Why can't someone make a similar argument about almost anything?

If they can make a similar argument about almost anything, then everything in logic can be disproved. Then almost nothing can be part of logic. So then logic is entirely wrong, and entirely worthless, which was what @EndogenousRebel was leading to.

No not entirely wrong, a subset is wrong, that subset being the untrue logic set.

But for every statement of the untrue logic set, there's another statement that is true, as if X is false, then NOT X is true, and we can construct a similar argument as @EndogenousRebel raised, just in reverse, that works equally well to prove the true statements are flawed as well.

You said undecidable truths exist, does this mean logic has no problems in what it can do? on any human level, I cannot verify all truth claims of all time.

No. This assumes that the point of logic was so that we could have SOME things which can be proved true to everyone.

what is the point of logic?

I just said. So that we can have SOME things which can be proved to everyone, so there's no dispute, no arguments, and no people going about killing millions of people over it.

If we don't have that, then people go to war and/or kill over EVERY possible opinion. Every forum topic becomes a lethal threat. Then we have to shut you down and stop you from saying anything.

people do go to war because of disagreement because not everyone is at war I do not see why you must defend logic if logic will best ensure us and not those who use it deceitfully. Your approach can lead to more tensions than resolutions.

That can be corrected by making sure their terms are the same. When that doesn't happen, all too often, people argue so much they end up in violence.

yes.

People who argue emotionally, all too often end up killing people.

yes.

That's what happens when it's OK to accept illogical arguments.

then what prevents that from happening?

It's VERIFIABLE, because if he goes to Kenya and the world doesn't explode, then it has been verified that his claim is false.

but why would we want this? should we try to verify all such irrational claims?

If we accept your argument, then we have no choice.

my argument is that we cannot verify any and all things, positives negatives, or anything beyond human limits, I'd call that a big problem with logic because we still have disagreements on huge levels in society. I saw that as the true thing that was being discussed not just some small argument about the empirical relation between Kenya and the world exploding. I have no way of knowing empirically if this is true or not that would satisfy my value system. I cannot accept it as true and I do not want to test it.

sophistry is the set of logic that is untrue by default.

Then by that definition, sophistry is invalid logic.

However, unless you can actually prove with 100% certainty that all of sophistry is definitely false in all cases, then you can be wrong about the definition of sophistry, and thus also wrong about everything you've ever said about sophistry.

Can you prove it? If so, where is your proof?

If the Kenya argument is sophistry and not all sophistry is untrue then we cannot know if the Kenya argument is true until tested and this means if true we would be making a big big mistake. I trust it is untrue.

No. It means that certain people claim that logic has major problems, and want to make reasonable arguments without logic, which cannot be done, which means you become completely untrustworthy on any subject which matters, which includes voting, being able to make any sort of decisions in any job, and things like that.

minor problems not major.

agreeing on anything requires more than logic but trust also, trust that cannot always be verified thus faith is needed.

Good sophistry on your part when you claim logic is important to trusting others.

Quite the reverse. Without logic, humans are forced to trust others, or reject what everyone says.

untrue, we can trust sometimes and use logic other times because empirical claims cannot always be verified and we need to allow room for doubt.

I cannot trust others' logic one hundred percent of the time. If I did I would dig a hole and always question why people did what they did requiring them to mathematically proof they are not lying and poisoning me and conspiring against me.

I am not a sophist but you assume I am because you hate me.

You keep writing that I hate you. I admit I got a bit heated. But I don't recall ever writing that, or anything like that. Have you considered that your anxieties and your problems with being able to process thoughts rationally, like your inability to do many mental tasks because of your condition, has led you astry?

Not always but definitely I have been able to infer when things are true in general.

Can you prove that didn't happen? You can't prove a negative.

I think none of us can prove by any standard what you wish me to admit to other than what we have seen on this forum. I would need a lawyer.

So how do you know that your illness has not led you into false conclusions? You can't.

So it could easily be that your illness has not led you into false conclusions.

I see, I can only assume I am sain in some ways and not others, and if I am believed by others who are not going to gaslight me. Logic will not help me I can only have faith in THE SYSTEM.

In all sets of true logic, we must assume that others will not be sophists in its presentation, I can trust people I know who rationally tell the truth by my intuition and faith in them, and if that trust has not been broken.

That's nice. But your intuition and your faith can be wrong. Has everyone you ever trusted always fulfilled your trust in them? Your father? Your mother? Your siblings? Other people you know? Have they ALL been completely faithful to your intuition and your faith in them, in every way, for every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of your life to this moment?

If THE SYSTEM is corrupt then no one will help me.

My faith in it will be in vain. luckily I am not insane in such a way as to be criminally charged for thinking logic has problems. Thoughtcrime is not punishable yet.

To be honest you are way too emotional about this subject. You fear the consequences of some discounting of a subset of logic will lead to horrible things, that has not happened and is not true but you fear it anyway.

You are assuming it has not happened. In Germany in the 1930s, a man called Adolf Hitler said that the problems of the Germans were caused by a certain ethnicity, and that on that basis, the problems of the Germans would be removed, by removing those people, even though that had not happened completely yet, as some of those people were still in Germany.

Same sort of argument. Resulted in genocide of millions of people.

THE SYSTEM is a good system. I do not think thought crime is anything to worry about. Yes, logic has problems empirically but people will trust me because I know in a court of law I can say that I am entitled to the state of beyond reasonable doubt. If the laws keep as they are now I will not be prosecuted for claiming humans are not omniscient by a jury of my peers.

We have not come to an agreement because of 1. language 2. culture. 3. our personal assumptions and internal logic.

How do you know that? Perhaps that isn't true. Can you prove that we aren't coming to an agreement because of other reasons?

In a court of law, I can prove humans are not omniscient but if not I will go to jail.

It is not even about why he is mad at me, he simply is mad at everyone I think in my opinion.

I'm mad, because this is forcing me to take a general approach of demanding that you all have to come up to the standards of clarity that I was trained in, that you don't stick to.

You're asking me to find every flaw in your posts, be a giant jerk to you, and make your experience on this forum a living hell. I don't want to be that nasty to you. But I know I can be, because I was trained to be that way for years, until it was second nature. Now you're pushing me into being that unpleasant to you.

I am sorry about this.

I was not trained in logic

Well, you're asking me to treat you as if you are. Were you consciously aware that that's the consequence of your posts?

The consequences are that humans are not omniscient therefore logic is not always without problems.

but empathy.

My standards are somewhat different.

Then why were you not empathetic to me?

In many ways, I have been. I rationally discussed my point of view and my opinion as can be demonstrated in many instances on this thread.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's important to note that this discussion was in the broader context of free speech.

I'm mostly happy with the system that we as a culture have at the moment. However I worry that we don't disincentivize dishonest and or harmful speech enough.

Some might think that's a plus, but I feel like once we take out reasonable exceptions, art, intellectual exercises, etc it's kind of hard to justify why we should allow certain speech.

 

[Old Things]

It's important to note that this discussion was in the broader context of free speech.

I'm mostly happy with the system that we as a culture have at the moment. However I worry that we don't disincentivize dishonest and or harmful speech enough.

Some might think that's a plus, but I feel like once we take out reasonable exceptions, art, intellectual exercises, etc it's kind of hard to justify why we should allow certain speech.

The culture is going completely bonkers and you want it to go even more insane? What planet were you born on?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's important to note that this discussion was in the broader context of free speech.

I'm mostly happy with the system that we as a culture have at the moment. However I worry that we don't disincentivize dishonest and or harmful speech enough.

Some might think that's a plus, but I feel like once we take out reasonable exceptions, art, intellectual exercises, etc it's kind of hard to justify why we should allow certain speech.

The culture is going completely bonkers and you want it to go even more insane? What planet were you born on?

People can believe whatever they want. Doesn't mean they should.

 

[Old Things]

You fear the consequences of some discounting of a subset of logic will lead to horrible things, that has not happened and is not true but you fear it anyway.

There is 100% warrant for that. Think of any civilization that has gone by the wayside and been destroyed. Why did it happen? It was because they became a weak military. Why would that be? Because their social order was disturbed. Why was their social order disturbed? Because some people wanted to introduce completely new norms to the civilization. Why would people want to do that? And that is where we hit rock bottom. Either evil exists or it does not. And any rational person who has any moral character worth their weight at all can see that evil does in fact exist. It is people who cloud the judgment of others and obfuscate things so badly that you can no longer see the point that is the problem. It is all the same thing for me and @scorpiomover. We see that things are changing. Now, granted, he and I do not see things eye to eye on every single issue. But we both see that there is something stirring in the culture that is robbing society of accepting a correspondence view of truth. Once we leave that structure of a correspondence view of truth, it all devolves into might makes right, which is not good for anyone except those at the absolute tippy top. That's why.

Feel free to correct me on anything scorpiomover.

 

[scorpiomover]

There is no way to know what I intended, I viewed what was said as empirical not rational. When logic cannot prove things in real life then empirically logic has problems and did not see the intents behind it as bad.

Other people probably feel smilarly to you, only the things they feel have problems are not things like logic, but things like abortions.

so I support atrocities like they did?

No. They didn't support atrocities like you didn't support atrocities. But many of those people have different values to you, like if they have a different culture or belong to a different social class. What you call an atrocity, is not what many of those people call an atrocity.

They simply take the same attitude to things you care about not happening, that you took towards thing you don't care about, like logic.

empirically logic can't prove everything. if it could then we would communicate perfectly.

The whole point of logic is to have a way to prove things to other people. Not everything. But at least the things that matter to you. So then if logic is as weak as you suggest, then no-one has any way to communicate properly on the things that matter to you.

the argument was not about promoting atrocities as I saw it.

Well, that's not how it seemed to me. So you were unable to communicate that properly, before it became about promoting atrocities.

empirically no and rationally I don't know.

Well, you've smashed logic. So rationally, you can't prove you were right either.

Are you saying my country has a collapsed system where everything is open season?

In the past, it wasn't like that. But when you take down logic, that's exactly what you've convinced the entire world to do.

Are you saying this is what will happen if we cannot empirically prove all truths?

Empiricism can't prove anything.

You said undecidable truths exist, does this mean logic has no problems in what it can do?

No. I never claimed that logic was some magic wand that could solve every problem. But the point of logic, was to have some means of getting to the truth.

Now, thanks to arguments like this, you have no way to convince Muslim jihadists to not attack your country. They won't respect your rhetoric, or your empiricism. They would respect logic, because it's a part of their culture. But you smashed that.

on any human level, I cannot verify all truth claims of all time.

That means verification is flawed as well.

people do go to war because of disagreement because not everyone is at war

In the past few months, there's a been war in Gaza, a war in Yemen, a war in Pakistan and a war in Iran and a war in the Ukraine. Even the USA is involved.

I do not see why you must defend logic if logic will best ensure us and not those who use it deceitfully. Your approach can lead to more tensions than resolutions.

I know from personal experience that I have reached peaceful agreement with such people using logic. But I can't do that with you, because you don't even respect logic. So then there's no choice but war.

then what prevents that from happening?

Staying away from saying anything that would get people emotional, such as by sticking to subjects designed to keep emotions out of it such as logic.

my argument is that we cannot verify any and all things, positives negatives, or anything beyond human limits, I'd call that a big problem with logic because we still have disagreements on huge levels in society.

That's not a problem with logic, as logic just is. If you can't verify things, then in terms of logic, that's just a reality. If people argue, in terms of logic, that's just a reality.

But that is a problem with verification, and is a big problem for anyone who really doesn't like all the disagreements on huge levels in society.

I saw that as the true thing that was being discussed not just some small argument about the empirical relation between Kenya and the world exploding. I have no way of knowing empirically if this is true or not that would satisfy my value system. I cannot accept it as true and I do not want to test it.

Well, you don't have a choice now.

If the Kenya argument is sophistry and not all sophistry is untrue then we cannot know if the Kenya argument is true until tested and this means if true we would be making a big big mistake. I trust it is untrue.

If you study history freely as I did, you'll discover that this very sort of argument is eerily similar to the ideological basis for many wars in history, and many massacres and genocides.

untrue, we can trust sometimes and use logic other times because empirical claims cannot always be verified and we need to allow room for doubt.

Why should they trust you?

If THE SYSTEM is corrupt then no one will help me.

Most people seem to think that the SYSTEM is corrupt, to the point where the SYSTEM is broken, and the only way to fix things, is to tear down the SYSTEM entirely. Bring in Sharia law, or Marxist communism, or something like that.

Thoughtcrime is not punishable yet.

It is in the USA.

THE SYSTEM is a good system. I do not think thought crime is anything to worry about.

How many times have you been stabbed? You only THINK that crime isn't a problem, because you haven't experienced it yet.

Yes, logic has problems empirically but people will trust me because I know in a court of law I can say that I am entitled to the state of beyond reasonable doubt. If the laws keep as they are now I will not be prosecuted for claiming humans are not omniscient by a jury of my peers.

Or, more likely, some lawyer will argue that you are bringing down society, and you are a threat to everyone, and then the jury will decide that you are guilty, out of the fear that comes from non-logical arguments.

In a court of law, I can prove humans are not omniscient but if not I will go to jail.

Being non omniscient isn't a "get out of jail free" card. Besides, "jail" is the term for where the police put you until you go to trial. You go to jail, and THEN get to a court of law. So then even if you were right, you'd still go to jail.

The consequences are that humans are not omniscient therefore logic is not always without problems.

I accept that argument applies to anything that humans are not omniscient about. So then everything that humans are not omniscient about, is going to have problems.

In many ways, I have been. I rationally discussed my point of view and my opinion as can be demonstrated in many instances on this thread.

I agree, that you thought you were being rational.
I agree that you thought you were being empathetic.

Were you though? The only way to prove that in this thread, is using logic, and you've said that logic is faulty.

 

[scorpiomover]

It's important to note that this discussion was in the broader context of free speech.

I'm mostly happy with the system that we as a culture have at the moment. However I worry that we don't disincentivize dishonest and or harmful speech enough.

Some might think that's a plus, but I feel like once we take out reasonable exceptions, art, intellectual exercises, etc it's kind of hard to justify why we should allow certain speech.

Sure. But Muslims believe that art is most definitely NOT a reasonable exception, as when some Dutch newspaper make some art (cartoons of Mohammed), they burned down several buildings. OTOH, they are fine criticising American liberal values.

You also had no problems using your definitions of free speech as a weapon in this thread. You were only doing that to make a point. So in order to make a point, you tried to smash everything that matters to other people.

It's kind of hard to justify why anyone who doesn't already agree with you about everything, would choose to agree with you. You'll just use it as a weapon against them, just to make a point. Even if you won't, considering how you've behaved in this thread, why wouldn't they think you would?

 

[birdsnestfern]

Weren't the same people who said that the 2020 election was not rigged and not stolen from the Republicans, were the same people who were saying that the 2016 election was rigged and stolen from the Democrats, and the same people who were saying that the 2000 election was rigged and stolen from the Democrats?

(From post #54 on page 2).

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election

The 2016 election was rigged, by Russian interference though. Hilary Clinton had the popular vote.

The 2020 election was almost rigged, due to the insurrection at the Capitol.
Remember when he locked himself in the bunker with access to the red button / nuclear weapons and everyone was sweating that he could do crazy things like start a nuclear war because he was so afraid of losing? Not normal. Couldn't accept defeat. Pressed election pollsters to change the vote, lied to his party that he won just to create misinformation and hell. Rudy G and all those republicans are known for being do nothings in order to keep the power. Thats what republicans are all about, being dishonest and not allowing progress, and making corporations richer and regular people into a slave class for them. They will say or do anything for the money and power of it. The corruption runs deep. It includes allowing foreign interference and getting favors in exchange for nuclear and war secrets in spilled documents. Trump has shown he is not worthy of anyones vote. Only the people who still believe the lies he promoted are still emotionally stuck on him. I am surprised that INTP's who are supposedly logical are blindsided by their emotional attachment still and not keeping their eyes wide open to it all. I want people to untangle themselves from the obvious propaganda of it all.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This again assumes logic is perfect

not all statements that claim to be logical are true

but logic is the only tool we have to determine accuracy and coherence

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This again assumes logic is perfect

imagine someone says they want to win the indy 500

and people say, well you need a car first

the car is like logic

winning the race is like ascertaining accurate information

now

you can't just pick any car

cars are not perfect

you need a really good car

and a really good driver

 

[scorpiomover]

The 2016 election was rigged, by Russian interference though. Hilary Clinton had the popular vote.

That's not the true picture.

After 2016, there were a lot of arguments about the 2016 election. A Democrat explained to me that the voters vote for electors, and then the electors of each state and usually decide to vote the same way. So really, in the USA, the voting is conducted on a per state basis. Votes for ECs count towards the election, which is allocated on the basis of each state's population.

So I spent time to get the popular vote in each state, and to compare that to who won each state. Turned out that in every state that Trump won, Trump had the popular vote, and in every state that Hillary Clinton won, Hillary Clinton had the popular vote.

So Trump did win by popular vote.

If you were to tally up all the voters, then Clinton got more votes. But California has enough voters to pretty much swing the election in favour of whoever Californians vote for. So if you switch to sticking with the national popular vote, then only California's voters matter, and your vote is pretty much irrelevant.

The 2020 election was almost rigged, due to the insurrection at the Capitol.

That was more of a farce. It could not have done anything. Congress had decided who they were going to announce as the POTUS, weeks before, and their assistants knew it. So there was no way that was going to change anything.

It was pure theatre.

Remember when he locked himself in the bunker with access to nuclear weapons and everyone was sweating that he could do crazy things because he was so afraid of losing?

No, I don't. We didn't have a 4-minute warning here.

You would have known if it was serious. You would have heard that social media had shut down for a few weeks, while the CEOs of social media in Silicon Valley drove to their hideouts in the countryside that they have in case of nuclear war.

Anyway, from watching a lot of American films, I get the impression that even the POTUS doesn't really have a "little red button" that can fire thousands of nukes in 1 second. He still has to refer the matter to the military, to get the people in the bunkers to fire, and even they need 2 people to press their red buttons at the same time.

This was also pure hype.

There are things that are believable, and there are things the media say. The two are not the same.

 

[scorpiomover]

This again assumes logic is perfect

not all statements that claim to be logical are true

but logic is the only tool we have to determine accuracy and coherence

Correct.

FYI, to be more accurate, I have read literature from other cultures that shows that other cultures have other tools that they use. But Western culture only has logic.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Yes, even Milley was concerned about it:

Top general feared Trump would launch nuclear war, Woodward book reports

General Milley worried about Trump’s ‘trigger point’ after the election and monitored him to prevent catastrophic military strike

www.theguardian.com

He went off the deep end. Many of the people that worked with him had to prevent him from being super dangerous.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/woodward-book-trump-nuclear/index.html

And, what you posted is pretty much all part of the propaganda. Trump stands for NOTHING.
Any topic you can name that that party stands for? Its not set in stone, they will change stances on a dime just to prevent any actual progress.
Its about gaining popular vote, and money, bottom line. Its never about regular peoples benefit.

Trump all but confirms he told Johnson to tank border deal

Former President Trump wouldn’t say whether he had spoken to House Majority Leader Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the bipartisan border deal currently in negotiation in the Senate.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Black Rose]

Once we leave that structure of a correspondence view of truth, it all devolves into might makes right, which is not good for anyone except those at the absolute tippy top. That's why.

Both you and Scopiomover have a low opinion of me.

even if not explicitly stated you two cannot have a civil discussion without trying to make me look evil and bad so both of you feel the need to impose yourself on me via logic in such a way as to make truth impossible.

Once you have hate set in your heart as you two have then logic can be used to justify anything as you two demonstrate.

There is no way to know what I intended, I viewed what was said as empirical not rational. When logic cannot prove things in real life then empirically logic has problems and did not see the intents behind it as bad.

Other people probably feel smilarly to you, only the things they feel have problems are not things like logic, but things like abortions.

Your mischaracterization of me is unwarranted.

You do not know how I feel, you are using unwarranted arguments to make it look like I believe what I do not.

so I support atrocities like they did?

No. They didn't support atrocities like you didn't support atrocities. But many of those people have different values to you, like if they have a different culture or belong to a different social class. What you call an atrocity, is not what many of those people call an atrocity.

They simply take the same attitude to things you care about not happening, that you took towards thing you don't care about, like logic.

You are mischaracterizing me again.

You cannot say what I care and don't care about.

empirically logic can't prove everything. if it could then we would communicate perfectly.

The whole point of logic is to have a way to prove things to other people. Not everything. But at least the things that matter to you. So then if logic is as weak as you suggest, then no-one has any way to communicate properly on the things that matter to you.

There is no way to perfectly communicate with everyone.

I can only communicate with honest people who apparently you are not.

the argument was not about promoting atrocities as I saw it.

Well, that's not how it seemed to me. So you were unable to communicate that properly, before it became about promoting atrocities.

You have been reported again. I do not support atrocities.

empirically no and rationally I don't know.

Well, you've smashed logic. So rationally, you can't prove you were right either.

If logic depends on me then it is not a good tool as logic being a tool for proving things to others as you said was simply that I used it badly.

How do you propose we fix things so logic is not used badly?

Are you saying my country has a collapsed system where everything is open season?

In the past, it wasn't like that. But when you take down logic, that's exactly what you've convinced the entire world to do.

I have no idea how I personally am responsible for the dishonesty of others.

Stop trying to label me as the bad guy.

Are you saying this is what will happen if we cannot empirically prove all truths?

Empiricism can't prove anything.

you think it can, that is why you are labeling me as the bad guy

You said undecidable truths exist, does this mean logic has no problems in what it can do?

No. I never claimed that logic was some magic wand that could solve every problem. But the point of logic, was to have some means of getting to the truth.

Now, thanks to arguments like this, you have no way to convince Muslim jihadists to not attack your country. They won't respect your rhetoric, or your empiricism. They would respect logic, because it's a part of their culture. But you smashed that.

Just because I had questions about logic was not going to disprove logic if logic cannot be disproven. Again you are labeling me the bad guy because I defended a stance about humans not being omniscient and then you turned that into me destroying everything.

on any human level, I cannot verify all truth claims of all time.

That means verification is flawed as well.

problems exist

people do go to war because of disagreement because not everyone is at war

In the past few months, there's a been war in Gaza, a war in Yemen, a war in Pakistan and a war in Iran and a war in the Ukraine. Even the USA is involved.

You cut my quote in half right here.

I do not see why you must defend logic if logic will best ensure us and not those who use it deceitfully. Your approach can lead to more tensions than resolutions.

I know from personal experience that I have reached peaceful agreement with such people using logic. But I can't do that with you, because you don't even respect logic. So then there's no choice but war.

If you believe I am your enemy that is what you believe. I have no control over you so I suppose if you feel the need for violence I will need to contact the authorities if you pursue your violent tendencies. You do not know who or what I respect.

then what prevents that from happening?

Staying away from saying anything that would get people emotional, such as by sticking to subjects designed to keep emotions out of it such as logic.

So far labeling me as the bad guy has made me very upset.

my argument is that we cannot verify any and all things, positives negatives, or anything beyond human limits, I'd call that a big problem with logic because we still have disagreements on huge levels in society.

That's not a problem with logic, as logic just is. If you can't verify things, then in terms of logic, that's just a reality. If people argue, in terms of logic, that's just a reality.

But that is a problem with verification, and is a big problem for anyone who really doesn't like all the disagreements on huge levels in society.

If logic has no problems then it has no problems and is a tautology (true by default) therefore this whole conversation was not about if logic was true but about you not being able to defend it. Therefore you had something personal at stake. And that means you have values you wish to see happen in the real world. Meaning you cannot allow other people to stop those values. Meaning you might do unspeakable things to prevent them from stoping you.

I am not sure you want communication. I think you want to fight bad guys.

I saw that as the true thing that was being discussed not just some small argument about the empirical relation between Kenya and the world exploding. I have no way of knowing empirically if this is true or not that would satisfy my value system. I cannot accept it as true and I do not want to test it.

Well, you don't have a choice now.

If you force me to do anything against my will then as I said you will be reported to the authorities.

If the Kenya argument is sophistry and not all sophistry is untrue then we cannot know if the Kenya argument is true until tested and this means if true we would be making a big big mistake. I trust it is untrue.

If you study history freely as I did, you'll discover that this very sort of argument is eerily similar to the ideological basis for many wars in history, and many massacres and genocides.

You simply wish to label me the bad guy. Thus you can justify any unspeakable thing against me.

untrue, we can trust sometimes and use logic other times because empirical claims cannot always be verified and we need to allow room for doubt.

Why should they trust you?

What I said about trust applies to everyone not just me.

If THE SYSTEM is corrupt then no one will help me.

Most people seem to think that the SYSTEM is corrupt, to the point where the SYSTEM is broken, and the only way to fix things, is to tear down the SYSTEM entirely. Bring in Sharia law, or Marxist communism, or something like that.

That is what they think, is it true? I hope not.

Thoughtcrime is not punishable yet.

It is in the USA.

ok, then what it you believe they will do to me?

THE SYSTEM is a good system. I do not think thought crime is anything to worry about.

How many times have you been stabbed? You only THINK that crime isn't a problem, because you haven't experienced it yet.

You @scorpiomover have agreements with the Marxists and jihadists then?

You believe the system should be replaced?

you do not know if I am aware of crime in the system or not, my friend was recently stabbed.

Yes, logic has problems empirically but people will trust me because I know in a court of law I can say that I am entitled to the state of beyond reasonable doubt. If the laws keep as they are now I will not be prosecuted for claiming humans are not omniscient by a jury of my peers.

Or, more likely, some lawyer will argue that you are bringing down society, and you are a threat to everyone, and then the jury will decide that you are guilty, out of the fear that comes from non-logical arguments.

You think it is likely? you have severe paranoia if that is the case. no, I am on disability welfare checks and have been long time. Punishing me would draw attention to the corruption if it exists because I have done nothing wrong by stating my views and opinions here on this forum.

In a court of law, I can prove humans are not omniscient but if not I will go to jail.

Being non omniscient isn't a "get out of jail free" card. Besides, "jail" is the term for where the police put you until you go to trial. You go to jail, and THEN get to a court of law. So then even if you were right, you'd still go to jail.

If humans are not omniscient then Black Rose will be punished.

I do not follow how you come to that conclusion.

Who are these people who wish to punish me? Do they have legal powers?

The consequences are that humans are not omniscient therefore logic is not always without problems.

I accept that argument applies to anything that humans are not omniscient about. So then everything that humans are not omniscient about, is going to have problems.

ok, this means in court you cannot have me punished because there is reasonable doubt.

In many ways, I have been. I rationally discussed my point of view and my opinion as can be demonstrated in many instances on this thread.

I agree, that you thought you were being rational.
I agree that you thought you were being empathetic.

Were you though? The only way to prove that in this thread, is using logic, and you've said that logic is faulty.

Humans are faulty. you demonstrated that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Any topic you can name that that party stands for? Its not set in stone, they will change stances on a dime just to prevent any actual progress.

that's true of every party and or individual

even if they don't technically "change" their position on a list of topics

they often suddenly and arbitrarily reshuffle their priorities

sending some issue that was comfortably sitting at maybe twenty-something on the priority list

straight to the moon

like abortion rights for instance

or sanctioning torture

or ukraine

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

even if not explicitly stated you two cannot have a civil discussion without trying to make me look evil and bad so both of you feel the need to impose yourself on me via logic in such a way as to make truth impossible.

you are very obviously intelligent

and always add an interesting perspective

 

[birdsnestfern]

that's true of every party and or individual

Not to such a large extent.
Republicans act like screaming emotional bullies to prevent progress and democrats act like adults that solve real issues and they do - usually except for the bullies that are trying to stop the progress.

 

[Black Rose]

that's true of every party and or individual

Not to such a large extent.
Republicans act like screaming emotional bullies to prevent progress and democrats act like adults that solve real issues and they do - usually except for the bullies that are trying to stop the progress.

Hiding your emotions is a way of coping with things just as much as expressing them is.

Progress is not even possible if what we say will make things better does not.

Three stike rule.

War on drugs.

War on terror.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and democrats act like adults that solve real issues and they do

please present an example

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So in order to make a point, you tried to smash everything that matters to other people.

If you let your feelings get in the way of what is being said, then don't engage in conversations where it will come up.

You also had no problems using your definitions of free speech as a weapon in this thread. You were only doing that to make a point. So in order to make a point, you tried to smash everything that matters to other people.

I am the only that has to bring up free speech because you, logiczombie, and OldThings got caught up in an example.

YOU THREE conflated what logic was with argumentation. I can show reference parts in the thread where YOU obviously did this. Once you realize that NO I was being PRECISE in what I was talking about, you guys are like "well obviously logical valid is an easy ect"

I can admit I don't know enough about logic to write complex proofs or even understand proofs. Sure you are the superior logician. I did however know enough about logic to know what I was saying was true. YOU just had to accept what I said about logic and move on.

What I was saying was PERFECTLY in the bounds of what I was trying to represent. YOU MUDDY THE WATERS because YOU were too confident in what you thought we were talking about.

 

[Black Rose]

@EndogenousRebel

I am not sure how we can limit speech that is inappropriate for functioning society any more than we already do? No one is doing bad things more than usual with it are they?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"well obviously logical valid is an easy ect"

so, it looks like we are now in agreement

 

[EndogenousRebel]

@EndogenousRebel

I am not sure how we can limit speech that is inappropriate for functioning society any more than we already do? No one is doing bad things more than usual with it are they?

Would you say that we are ready for MORE disinformation than we already have with the advent of AI?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Would you say that we are ready for MORE disinformation that we already have with the advent of AI?

do you have any ideas for a censorship framework beyond simply, "trust the mods" ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Once you have hate set in your heart as you two have then logic can be used to justify anything as you two demonstrate.

this claim is demonstrably false

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There is no way to perfectly communicate with everyone.

this is true

but if you throw out logic

communication is impossible

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Would you say that we are ready for MORE disinformation that we already have with the advent of AI?

do you have any ideas for a censorship framework beyond simply, "trust the mods" ?

In the context of this forum.

I am a visitor. I gain nothing material from this place. I lose nothing from this place except my time. I suppose I could quantify how much of my internet bill is used to access the site as well.

The way I contribute to this forum is taking up space on the server where this site is hosted with content I post.

So when you bring up censorship and the mods, I find it hard to justify they owe me the right to express myself however I want.

Example:
@cultsmasher god rest their soul, was a public nuisance. I regret that they were banned so quickly because I wanted to peel back the union of his brain, but he obviously was a public nuisance.

Do I trust the mods to determine when someone is a public nuisance. Well I think they made the right call. So I wlll likely trust their judgment of it in the future. Does that mean I will blindly accept their judgement? No.

"Censorship framework" I think it's a pretty easy application of common sense. The problem is the legal system can quickly complicate things.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If logic depends on me then it is not a good tool as logic being a tool for proving things to others as you said was simply that I used it badly.

How do you propose we fix things so logic is not used badly?

if a hammer depends on the carpenter then it is not a good tool as a hammer being a tool for building things for others as you said was simply that the hammer was used badly.

how do you propose we fix hammers so they are not used badly ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So when you bring up censorship and the mods, I find it hard to justify they owe me the right to express myself however I want.

sounds like a "NO"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

So when you bring up censorship and the mods, I find it hard to justify they owe me the right to express myself however I want.

sounds like a "NO"

So the why to my answer isn't relevant at all?

 

[Black Rose]

Would you say that we are ready for MORE disinformation that we already have with the advent of AI?

I think that people will adapt.

I know that I have had to become smarter because not everything I see on social media is true.

 

[Old Things]

Both you and Scopiomover have a low opinion of me.

No, not at all. We can disagree with your IDEAS without thinking low of your worth as a PERSON.

 

[Black Rose]

If logic depends on me then it is not a good tool as logic being a tool for proving things to others as you said was simply that I used it badly.

How do you propose we fix things so logic is not used badly?

if a hammer depends on the carpenter then it is not a good tool as a hammer being a tool for building things for others as you said was simply that the hammer was used badly.

how do you propose we fix hammers so they are not used badly ?

strict environmental protection rules.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So the why to my answer isn't relevant at all?

the only salient portion is your reference to the "legal system"

which suggests that all rule based systems "are flawed" and should be rejected in favor of "trust the mods"

which is, quite obviously

glorifying tyranny

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I think that people will adapt.

I know that I have had to become smarter because not everything I see on social media is true.

bingo

 

[Black Rose]

Both you and Scopiomover have a low opinion of me.

No, not at all. We can disagree with your IDEAS without thinking low of your worth as a PERSON.

I reported scopiomover but I did not report you.

I only did so when he said I was promoting ideas intentionally to lead to atrocities.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

strict environmental protection rules.

who exactly is going to determine if this conversation is "rated E for everybody" ?