-
"And why would you be bothered about your own demise? 'Death is nothing to us' Epicurus. So really, if you want to take that approach then it is rational to go round eating people, I mean, you will get pleasure from it, and so if pleasure for yourself is your end, then go for it! Rights are equally subjective." 1) Because being bothered
-
It's interesting to note that, because of these very reasons, superstring theory is nothing but a highly complex example of begging the question. Please explain." There are X number of dimensions. How do we know? Because we can show it mathematically. Why can we show it mathematically? And the answer, according to superstring theory, is because
-
Whether morality can be explained as evolutionary phenomena or not is unimportant in the debate. I think at the very least it is obvious that a certain level of intelligence is required to contrive a moral theory. But that does not mean that everyone will have the same morals. As far as eating people goes, this isn't necessarily something related
-
"I'm not trying to dismiss logic or math per se." Nope. You weren't. You were actually pretty spot on except for the generalization bit. Just clarifying. It's interesting to note that, because of these very reasons, superstring theory is nothing but a highly complex example of begging the question.
-
First the quote. A will equal A, but it can also equal B, if B is equal to A. We can apply that logic to the apple thing. Firstly, an apple is not made up of different kinds of apples, but since this is obviously a wording mistake, we'll skip it. You CAN say you have an apple, because an apple is something that refers to an actual thing...the apple
-
Hey, did you hear about how they want to raise the debt ceiling again? How much you wanna bet they'll play the "no unemployment/welfare benefits" card? It is such marvelous fun to watch this country eat itself alive sometimes. However, I have not yet made the hyperinflation proclamation, so no worries there. Single digits for the time
-
Actually, Mises did bring rationale into it. For a very good reason. He was making the case for unpredictability and inability to centrally govern market forces by pointing out that what may seem irrational to one person can seem quite rational to another. Think of the phrase "I can't believe that idiot invested in DuPont". Well, it seems
-
Sure. I'm game. I deny that NATO murders children. My denial: NATO is an organization of many individuals. A collective is incapable of murder on the grounds that someone commits the act directly at some point. It is entirely possible that through the chain of command, the final actor was not, in fact, even a member of NATO. However, assuming they
-
"I have not used reductio ad absurdem . You have accused me of it without any evidence.what you have ointed out is not reductio ad absurdem." My apologies. I seem to have to spell this one out. It's not that I have provided no evidence. It's that you are making the assertion that I didn't. I shall show now precisely where my evidence
-
"The idea that beings are deserving of protection because they are productive is unreasonable unless there are people here who would honestly eat mentally disabled people or the physically incapable. It is my belief that beings need protection according to how they suffer. Oysters don't need protection they appear to have no ability to feel