Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:31 am I have heard a number of news accounts and reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary, I didn't keep a record of those accounts or a source.

Maybe they weren't dead...just very, very slow.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:31 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:43 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:21 pm

Are you implying that you would rather put another criminal in office?
As if Bill and Obama weren't bad enough.

I'm asking you about what your source is that leads you to believe that there are 'many dead people' that voted for hilary clinton; I have no idea how you got that from what I just said.

I have heard a number of news accounts and reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary, I didn't keep a record of those accounts or a source. I was satisfied at the time and didn't pursue it further.

So you don't have any firm numbers, and you don't remember the source. Just that there were 'many' cast specifically for hilary clinton.

The only concrete study I'm able to find in recent time is a Pew research paper back in 2010, which stated 1.8 million dead people were still registered to vote. It's not to say any of those votes were actually cast, or the party affiliation of those individuals.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:38 am

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:03 am We, as part of the body of humanity on the body of biology built on the bones of geology, actually think and feel almost identically, like microbes and ants, yet our solipsism blinds us to this obvious fact.

I have no idea what conclusion you're trying to draw here, so I can't really formulate a reaction. It just looks to me like fulminating about an "IS," (bones, geology, whatnot) and hoping to get an "OUGHT" to jump out of it...like "we ought not to be solipsistic," or something. But there's no logical connection to suggest how that's supposed to happen, if that's it.

I really cannot tell. Sorry.

I find it helps to read posts before replying to them:

I'll let you in on a little secret - atheists are almost exactly like you and you like them. The difference is a small belief-based line in the sand that is ultimately meaningless in the face of much larger realities to which we are subject. We, as part of the body of humanity on the body of biology built on the bones of geology, actually think and feel almost identically, like microbes and ants, yet our solipsism blinds us to this obvious fact.

It appears that you are are leery of the idea that reality structured in fractal layers as I am of your belief in demons and angels.

I see parallels in the relationships between molecules and cells, cells and individual plants and animals, individuals and colonies, colonies and ecosystems, ecosystems and the biosphere, etc. We are very much subject to to larger layers of reality that we comprise, just as any of your cells or their molecules can't do much if you decide to take up base jumping, organised crime or heroin.

I do reject your portrayal of atheists as mindless animals, which is ironic given that atheists tends to be more intelligent than theists. Yes yes, intelligence isn't the be-all-and-end all but, if you are going to portray atheists as unthinking then you are just trying to have it all ways.

Perhaps we should just settle for a more generic Immanuel opinion? That seems to be that all atheists are inferior to all theists in every respect. I see such a view as akin to an ant that doesn't like the smell of an ant from another colony and reflexively attacks.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:48 am I think you're more right than you even seem to feel comfortable to say. Social planning in small doses does seem occasionally to do some good. But there has not been a single Socialist country in this world that has not produced misery, corruption, injustice, rights abuses, folly, weakness and economic decline. So I think you can be even more confident than you are about its inadequacies.

Well, some people would consider places like Denmark or Sweden to be socialist countries. If we're talking about the places that are borderline social-communism like north korea or china that allow for little to no capitalism, and not just with some socialist policies sprinkled in, I'd of course agree.

But regardless I think it's pretty clear that even something that seems moral will not necessarily work out in politics. I think you get the point.

You see, it really doesn't matter what criterion we use -- intelligence, ability to feel pain or pleasure, health, wealth, talents, strength, youth, language, culture, self-control, experience...and on and on. These things are ALL parcelled out to the human race unequally. So on what basis do we select ANYTHING, and then declare that "all men are created equal." Equal in what sense? It's certainly not "self-evident" that they are.

Now, please understand that personally, I believe in equality of value. But my reasons will not do for secularists, I recognize, and they won't accept them. So, setting aside all that a Theist could say, on what basis do we have to continue to believe in equality? I see no secular criterion that will justify that conclusion, and a host that will argue for inequality being inherent.

I think they can declare "all men are equal" as a rule to apply to the law of land, and not as a moral paragon. As in, all men should be treated equally under the law, because it's what works. I can see why you would be disheartened by a moral philosophy that goes against our intuitions, though that's not a line of reasoning I like to use. But even in this case, I actually think it's clear that some people's lives will end up doing more or less good than another. And yes, it would be a bigger tragedy if a certain person died over another.

While I think a sort of 'absolute equality' as you describe sounds nice and a lot of people repeat that phrase, most people wouldn't hesitate to say that Pol Pot's life is worth less than mother Teresa.

Greta wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:20 amI do reject your portrayal of atheists as mindless animals...

This was not something I did. I never called them "mindless animals." That's your phrase. I don't own that.
Major straw man fallacy, G.

...which is ironic given that atheists tends to be more intelligent than theists.

Ah, that old myth. You can find triumphalist Atheist claims to that effect, but the data doesn't support it. In any case, Bacon, Newton, Shakespeare, Browning ...there have been a ton of highly intelligent Theists, and there are a ton around today, if you bother to look. Maybe you should get out more.

...if you are going to portray atheists as unthinking...

Again, I did not. Straw man again.

The closest I have come is to say that Atheism itself is irrational -- which, of course, it is. That is not a personal statement, but one about the ideology. Likewise, Atheism is amoral. But Atheists themselves say that, so your issue is with them.

If you want to argue rationally, you have to say what people actually have alleged...not make it up yourself.

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 2:29 am Denmark or Sweden

Have you seen how they're doing today? It seems Malmo's been completely written off, and Denmark's a mess over immigration. with a resurgent nationalist movement.

However, neither is really full-on socialist. They just play around with it, using it for some things, dumping it for others. It's not their exclusive political ideology.

I think they can declare "all men are equal" as a rule to apply to the law of land, and not as a moral paragon.

What evidence do they have that "men" are "equal"? What's their basis for even thinking it? That's the problem.

I agree they have immigration issues. They're far from perfect, but also far from a failed nation or third world country. As I said, they only dabble with socialism

What evidence do they have that "men" are "equal"? What's their basis for even thinking it? That's the problem.

It wouldn't be about proving it to actually be true, but using the concept for the efficiency and effectiveness of our nation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:13 amThe closest I have come is to say that Atheism itself is irrational -- which, of course, it is.

You can either use rationality to prove this assertion or you are just another touter, with no context to back up your words.

Immanuel Can wrote:Likewise, Atheism is amoral. But Atheists themselves say that, so your issue is with them.

Nice spin, Manny.

Atheists say that it is simply a disbelief in the supernatural deities of various cultural myths, although usually referring to Christianity. In that, atheism says nothing about morality.

This is not to say that atheists have no basis for morality. It just means that they don't rely on a 2,000 year-old book of myths written by early middle eastern extremists that is full of contradictions, ambiguities and cure- and era-specific ideas.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:31 am I have heard a number of news accounts and reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary, I didn't keep a record of those accounts or a source. I was satisfied at the time and didn't pursue it further.

Yes, of course you "heard" a number of "news accounts" (Fox News? Breitbart? Drudge?) and "reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary" (Fox News? Breitbart? Drudge?) but you didn't bother to check out the validity of these claims because you were satisfied that that they were true and saw no reason to "pursue it further."



Your Trump, and you, are the last, reactionary gasp of a dying America. Good riddance to both of you when you are gone!

davidm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:23 am

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:31 am I have heard a number of news accounts and reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary, I didn't keep a record of those accounts or a source. I was satisfied at the time and didn't pursue it further.

Yes, of course you "heard" a number of "news accounts" (Fox News? Breitbart? Drudge?) and "reports of voter fraud involving dead people voting for Hillary" (Fox News? Breitbart? Drudge?) but you didn't bother to check out the validity of these claims because you were satisfied that that they were true and saw no reason to "pursue it further."



Your Trump, and you, are the last, reactionary gasp of a dying America. Good riddance to both of you when you are gone!

Furthermore, doc, are you sure your hearing was accurate?

Those news accounts may have been referencing brain-dead people.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:49 am Maybe they weren't dead...just very, very slow.

Like Bernie?

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:02 am Furthermore, doc, are you sure your hearing was accurate?

Those news accounts may have been referencing brain-dead people.

My hearing and memory are very good.

The brain dead people are the ones who voted for Hillary.

Immanuel Can wrote:

What evidence do they have that "men" are "equal"? What's their basis for even thinking it? That's the problem.

Clearly men are not equal. The Socialist point of view is that the people who do the work should be the beneficiaries of the work, as opposed to the owners of the land or industry (i.e. the capital) benefitting disproportionately.

thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:47 pm The brain dead people are the ones who voted for Hillary.

And it seems most people outside your country think those who voted for Trump are insane. When you add em all up, that's a hell of a lot of mentally impaired Americans.

...speaking of mentally impaired Americans...

http://globalnews.ca/news/3659694/jimmy ... korea-map/