Gen Z | Pro-America | Pro-Life | Pro-Reason | Pro-Liberty | Gnostic Atheist | Moral Non-Naturalist | Property Dualist | Moderate Realist
Puyallup, WA
Joined September 2024
- Tweets7.3K
- Following52
- Followers86
- Likes112K
What is with people blocking someone then immediately making a post clearly meant for them to see.
I mean I know what it is for, they want to insult without risk of a response, but it is just so immature.
And this because I:
1)Said normalizing vigilante political assassinations was worse than normalizing the death penalty for terrorists.
2)Asked how far his espoused pro terrorists suffering sentiments went.
And
3)Pointed out a basic contradiction in his condemnation of others.
And this because I:
1) Said normalizing vigilante political assassinations was worse than normalizing the death penalty for terrorists.
2) Asked how far his espoused pro terrorists suffering sentiments went.
3) Pointed out a basic contradiction in his condemnation of others.
P1) Natural objects or systems exhibit high degrees of specified complexity.
P2) Empirically, specified complexity are exclusively the product chiefly of the processes minds go through, not their status of being a mind.
1/2
Isn’t it funny how infuriating it can be for people you share a common belief with to making incompetent arguments for said belief/against competing beliefs?
Like this dude claims I an atheist has faith because they know Christian theology, straight up lies, and then hides away.
Any moral system that alone values prevention, not propagation, values destruction, not creation.
Those which value destruction, not creation, will always conclude that total destruction is called for.
Those who seek to totally destroy you and yours can never be tolerated.
Save this.
The consent test. Apply it to anything:
- Who is being forced?
- Could they actually say no?
- Did they genuinely agree?
Forced = immoral.
Everyone agreed = moral.
One test. Every moral question.
Find a case it fails. @julianbaggini @CosmicSkeptic
Logical dependency, I thought my repeatedly saying it wasn’t temporal would have communicated that by now, and if you were uncertain why did you assume I meant it temporally rather than just asking?
Even now you continue to say I meant it temporally while saying I was vague.
How dishonest and bad faith must one be to respond to another pointing out a car drove straight into a person by arguing that if they didn’t turn the car would have just kept going straight infinitely into a house and couldn’t have possibly turned right after the collision.
unavailable
I really hate people who say goodbye then return over and over again because they both want to shut the conversation down *and* have the last word.
Especially when they block you after to prevent you from replying because they have such fragile egos.
Modal Unity
I’ve been thinking recently about the separation of existence into necessary and contingent existences and have concluded that such separation is flawed on fundamental level. Let me explain.
1/18
I(x) = x is an impossible property
E(x) = x exists (ontologically)
D(x, P) = Property P is included in the definition of x)
O = All ontological existences
C = Contingency itself
Modalities:
I(x) ↔ ¬◇E(x)
N(x) ↔ (◇E(x) ∧ ¬◇¬E(x))
C(x) ↔ (◇E(x) ∧ ◇¬E(x))
2/3
…(which includes all possible combinations of sizes, positions, and orientations) from being necessarily existent.
Note 2: Ontological existences are those that actually exist in reality independently. Properties and ontological existences are separate. …
17/18