Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:42 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:40 pm Right so you meant to put your own offspring out of their misery that you caused. Ok so how is that protecting them from dying or being murdered or killed?

Yes, Of course I meant to put my own offspring out of their misery.



(Ask anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence to interpret the eyeroll emoji for you)

But why would you want to cause your own offspring the misery of coming into existence just to put them out of it? Isn’t that a bit cruel?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:45 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:42 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:40 pm Right so you meant to put your own offspring out of their misery that you caused. Ok so how is that protecting them from dying or being murdered or killed?

Yes, Of course I meant to put my own offspring out of their misery.



(Ask anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence to interpret the eyeroll emoji for you)

But why would you want to cause your own offspring the misery of coming into existence just to put them out of it? Isn’t that a bit cruel?

I don't think so. It seems like the sort of things loving parents do for their children. Especially if they are having a difficult time adjusting.

Emphasis on the

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:22 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:19 pm Most likely you have no reason to believe because you have a reason to disbelieve. No reason to believe is not the same as knowing something is false.

No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways. You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:51 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:45 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:42 pm
Yes, Of course I meant to put my own offspring out of their misery.



(Ask anybody with a modicum of emotional intelligence to interpret the eyeroll emoji for you)

But why would you want to cause your own offspring the misery of coming into existence just to put them out of it? Isn’t that a bit cruel?

I don't think so. It seems like the sort of things loving parents do for their children. Especially if they are having a difficult time adjusting.

Emphasys on the

So loving parents knowingly have children knowing they are putting their children in harm’s way that is the risk of living only to put them out of their own misery caused by their parents decisions to risk putting them in harm’s way…yep sounds like what any loving parent would do.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:22 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:19 pm Most likely you have no reason to believe because you have a reason to disbelieve. No reason to believe is not the same as knowing something is false.

No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:22 pm
No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

Is that your philosophy?

I think you should practice what you preach and throw it in the trash can.

There’s no one who knows or doesn’t know.

There’s just not knowing knowing.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 11:04 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

Is that your philosophy?

I think you should practice what you preach and throw it in the trash can.

There’s no one who knows or doesn’t know.

There’s just not knowing knowing.

Really?

So how is it that you don’t know if I am a policeman and I do?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:22 pm
No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

You’ve become exhausting.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 11:14 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:58 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm

OK, let me put it this way:

Let’s say you have no reason to believe something and you know that you have no reason to believe it. You also have no reason to disbelieve and you know that. You can’t not know that you lack reasons both ways.

I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:56 pm You have what is called a fielder’s choice. You can believe or disbelieve, but you can’t not know what you know.

I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

You’ve become exhausting.

No shit! You keep asking questions.

This is it - the words have been exhausted. There is nothing more to know.

You should accept the disappointment of the answer.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 11:20 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 11:14 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 10:58 pm
I don't know that I lack reasons both ways. I know that I lack reasons to move me off my default position which is - I don't know either way.


I can neither believe nor disbelieve. This is the agnostic default.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is beer in the fridge.
I neither believe nor disbelieve that there is no beer in the fridge.

I assign equal weight to either possibility - I am not swayed either way.

That's what "I don't know" means.

You’ve become exhausting.

No shit! You keep asking questions.

This is it - the words have been exhausted. There is nothing more to know.

You should accept the disappointment of the answer.

Will do.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:52 pm OK, so we’re still stuck at either everyone has guns or no one (except the police and the military) has guns.

We are ONLY so-called 'STUCK' here IF people WANT TO BE so-called 'STUCK HERE'.

No one wants to be stuck, but stuck we are, nonetheless.

BUT 'I' am NOT 'stuck', so therefore 'we' are NOT 'stuck' AT ALL. Although, obviously, some of 'you' may well be, and some OBVIOUSLY ARE here.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:52 pm If everyone has at least one gun, theoretically everyone would be able to protect himself from someone else who has a gun.

And, CONVERSELY, IF NO one HAD a gun, then there would NOT be ABSOLUTELY ANY who would NEED to PROTECT "them" 'self" FROM someone WITH a gun.

My sentiment exactly. You cut my sentiment in two. See next.

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:52 pm If no one has any guns, then theoretically there would be no need for anyone to protect himself.

Correct.

As I said, this is my sentiment.

GREAT, so 'we' ARE NOT 'stuck', and what 'we', REALLY, NEED MORE OF is a continual DECREASE of guns in society, that is; IF 'we' REALLY do WANT to live in Peace and Harmony together, right?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:52 pm In practice, lots of people have guns in the US.

WHY, they are ALL REALLY UNNECESSARY?

I’m just stating an obvious real life fact: lots of people have guns in the U.S.

In the days when this is being written, YES.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm And you are correct: the guns are unnecessary (unless lots of people have guns).

But I did I EVER SAY here that guns ARE UNNECESSARY?

I JUST ASKED a CLARIFYING QUESTION, ONLY. Which, by the way, 'we' are STILL WAITING an ANSWER for.

Also, WHY do you SAY and CLAIM here that guns are UNNECESSARY, UNLESS LOTS of people already have guns?

WHEN, EXACTLY, is there some so-called 'tipping point' when guns are NOT NECESSARY to when guns are, supposedly, NECESSARY?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 3:52 pm Therefore, on the whole it would be theoretically and practically more sensible to permit everyone to have guns.

WHY?

If lots of people in fact have guns, which they do, then everyone else needs a gun for protection from aberrant gun owners.

But WHO is suggesting or making the CLAIM that just because LOTS of people have guns, then among them' there ARE so-called 'aberrant gun owners'? Who is NOT to SAY that ONLY the following ones to obtain guns WILL BE the ACTUAL 'aberrant gun owners'?

Or, conversely, could it NOT be a fact that if just one or two people owned guns, which would be very FEW people in say the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written, who one of or BOTH were actually 'aberrant gun owners', now would it be WISE for absolutely EVERY one to go out and obtain guns, just because of one or two here? Would it NOT be smarter and WISER to just RID these people of those guns, COMPLETELY?

Also, WHY ONLY STOP at guns? For example, if there ARE 'aberrant gun owners', in society, WHY NOT 'the rest' get rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear warheads, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from 'those aberrant gun owners'? For SURELY 'you' would WANT TO DO ALL 'you' COULD to 'protect' 'you', and a VERY SELECT 'few' around 'you' right?

Would 'you' REALLY be doing the 'Right thing' if 'you' STOPPED at buying just guns ONLY to 'protect' 'you', and a FEW "others" only, from 'those' types of 'aberrant gun owners'?

WHERE is 'your' "american spirit" here. Load "yourself" UP WITH MORE and BIGGER WEAPONRY than what THE "other" has, is the 'right way' of thinking and doing, correct?

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm WHY do you think or BELIEVE that absolutely EVERY one HAVING a gun would be MORE 'sensible'?

See previous.

So, FOR 'protection' ONLY.

'This', REALLY, WAS the 'mentality' that human beings are D/EVOLVED TO.

Some of 'these people, BACK in those OLDEN DAYS, when this WAS being written, had ACTUALLY come to BELIEVE and THINK that absolutely EVERY one SHOULD get a gun TO 'protect' "themselves", FROM "themselves".

Human beings had ACTUALLY BECOME SO ABSOLUTELY STUPID that 'they' HAD, ACTUALLY, "justified" to "themselves" ALONE that 'they' ACTUALLY NEEDED 'weapons' to 'protect' "their" OWN 'selves' FROM "their" OWN 'selves" who HAD 'weapons'.

commonsense wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:27 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 1:33 pm And,
WHY do you think or BELIEVE permitting ALL children to have guns would be MORE 'sensible'?

As long as everyone has a gun, no child will be able to get away with murder.

So, 'you' think or BELIEVE that by permitting ALL children FROM birth TO adult hood to have GUNS would be MORE 'sensible' BECAUSE then NO child will be able to get away with MURDER.

Just so you become ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here, I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE, AT ALL, how 'this' follows AT ALL, let alone follows LOGICALLY AT ALL.

I do NOT even KNOW what QUESTION to ASK here, for CLARITY.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:25 pm Your word about me required evidence.

WHY does "another's" word about 'you' supposedly require evidence, BUT, 'your' word about 'you' supposedly does NOT require evidence?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:01 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:00 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 7:52 pm
Do you personally know that I am lying?

Because if you don't then why won't you take me on my word?

The word of a liar is worthless.

So you claim to know that I am lying, but you won't produce any evidence of my crime.

Are 'you' here 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that 'you' NEVER lie, "skepdick"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:01 pm Is it because you are lying?

WILL 'you' produce ANY evidence for such a CLAIM?

If yes, then GREAT.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:10 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:06 pm I can believe or disbelieve you. But my beliefs would only be a representation of a truth, not an actual fact. Facts are presentations as they are being witnessed in realtime as actual and real.

Me being a policeman is a fact. Whether you believe it or not.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:06 pm There is only YOUR philosophy.

I don't have one. Philosophy is bullshit.

Is 'this' an ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, or just some 'thing', which 'you' made up and/or BELIEVE is true?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:10 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:06 pm We've already been over the (truth or lie) philosophy umpteen times already, and it seems you are still on that mental treadmill going nowhere.

I am not the one going in circles - I know that I am a policeman.

So, to 'you', the ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'? IS 'I am a policeman', right?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:10 pm You are the one who can't decide (despite me having told you) what's true.

Because philosophy is bullshit.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:17 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:15 pm I kind of just know you are, and yes, that's all I've got.

And that's why you are a dumb philosopher and not a scientist.

You aren't even entertaining the hypothesis that you are wrong,

What part of, 'I kind of just know ...', are 'you' NOT UNDERSTANDING and FOLLOWING here "skepdick"?

'I kind of just know' IS SIGNALLING that 'that one' IS entertaining the hypothesis that 'i' could be wrong.

WHY could 'you' NOT SEE 'this' here "skepdick"?

Is it 'you' who IS HOLDING some sort of BELIEF here, which is STOPPING or PREVENTING 'you' FROM SEEING what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURRING here?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:17 pm let alone favouring it given the evidence.

LOL WHERE IS the so-called 'evidence' here?

If 'you' do NOT PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL 'evidence', then, OBVIOUSLY, there is ABSOLUTE NO 'thing' to 'favor' here.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 15, 2023 8:17 pm So strange that your secret source didn't tell you the truth.