Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 456 457 [458] 459 460 ... 465  Next >
9141
Why should a 15 year old teen receive an adult punishment if he is not an adult?

9142
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: You are selfish.
« on: January 11, 2014, 01:40:04 AM »
Maybe, which means that it does not benefit him, but rather the future. This is not selfish. You should also not write as if you are certain about his motivation. It's rather dishonest.

Sacrificing yourself to ensure the future of your genes seems selfish. He got something important in return for it. Do you think he would have done the same thing for his lawyer?

Quote
Quote
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8962591

It also happens with strangers.

He thought he would have enough time to save the old man and himself. I doubt he would have saved the old man if he knew his own death would be certain.

People do such stunts for various reasons. Often times they quote Karma, an expectation that something equally good will happen to them -- a selfish reason.

Often they also cite an instinctual impulse to help. In fact I have never seen an interview with a newly minted hero where they cite karmic payback as the reason. Either way, the door is still open for selfless sacrifice.

Well, the guy in the article mentioned something about God and religion at the end. He probably thought he was doing God's work and assumed he would be rewarded justly in his act. Religion ingrains it pretty hard into you that you should do good to others so they may do good to you, and that all good acts are rewarded by God, etc.

This guy didn't save the man with intent to sacrifice himself. It says pretty clearly in the article that the situation was such that he had time to help the man to safety, and get back to the wall to climb up, which he did with some assistance.

9143
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: You are selfish.
« on: January 11, 2014, 01:24:00 AM »
What about someone who jumps on a grenade for others

Jumping on a grenade for others isn't entirely selfless. You want to protect your friends and troop mates from harm because they mean something to you. War is a team effort. You want YOUR team to win. You want YOUR friends to survive. Selfish.

Why don't we see any battlefield reports of people jumping on grenades or sacrificing themselves to save their enemies?

9144
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: You are selfish.
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:36:10 AM »
Why? There has to be a reason for this. You don't just accidentally help people out.
Because I believe in helping other people. People gotta look out for each other. And, for the record, it's very easy to accidentally help other people. I believe altruism is good for the sake of altruism.

A belief that people will look out for you if you look out for them sounds like a pretty selfish reason to me. You are suggesting that you did it because you want to promote altruism in society so that everyone will look out for you and/or the people you care about.

9145
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: You are selfish.
« on: January 11, 2014, 12:31:19 AM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2091084/Father-sacrifices-life-leaping-road-save-disabled-son-run-down.html

How was this a selfish act?

The father was 61. The likelihood of him fathering additional children is small. He sacrificed himself to save his son so that his lineage could live on.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8962591

It also happens with strangers.

He thought he would have enough time to save the old man and himself. I doubt he would have saved the old man if he knew his own death would be certain.

People do such stunts for various reasons. Often times they quote Karma, an expectation that something equally good will happen to them -- a selfish reason.

9146
There is an argument to be made for fine detail voting, however. There are plugins which would allow multiple polls in one thread.

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1586


9147
Quote
The Zetetic council shouldn't be there to chew over every stupid little thing.

It appears that your opinion is that votes should be for broad proposals, then, and so you should vote for that accordingly.

9148
Personally, I think we should focus our initial efforts on spreading the message of FET.

We have a great forum, a wiki we can edit, a bunch of people who can help generate content. What we don't have are new users to the site. We need new users to replace those who move on, and also to grow the Society. Without new users, this site will die.

I think the initial work should be to discuss and implement ways to get this site known about and to entice people here. Be that media ideas, organising links with big sites (backlinks), viral videos or viral advertising (the legal kind of course) and basically getting this society moving.

I will be around more in the next few weeks, but if anyone has some great ideas in the mean time, float them, vote them and implement them.

Well, when we come up with a plan to 'Spread the Message of FET' should we vote on every single detail of a plan with many threads, or should we vote on broad proposals by members, which themselves encompass many details, which the council will vote yay or nay on to institute?

Can I make a poll with a laundry list of things to be done to gain members, and can we vote on that to institute it all, or do we need to discuss and vote on each item in that list?

Can I make a poll about a single little subject and list 10 different options for it, even though there are only 5 voting members?

These are all questions which need to be answered before the council can work efficiently as a team.

9149
It has come to my attention that any non-council member can vote in these polls, making the poll invalid. We will have to manually post our vote.

9150
A downside for 'broad proposals' may be that members will have less individual control. An upside to 'broad proposals' is the forum wouldn't be spammed with polls, and the polls will all be Pass/No Pass, rather than one poll of 10 options, which does not lend itself well to 5 voting participants.

Under 'broad proposals', the voting procedure would be more like how Congress and Parliament operates. They don't vote on every single detail of every bill. If a member has issues with 'Thork's Voting Standards' they would vote no and either submit a proposal of their own for a vote or give their criticism to Thork for revision.

9151
Flat Earth Projects / Should we vote on fine details or broad proposals?
« on: January 08, 2014, 04:02:40 PM »
Would we rather vote on the fine details of a subject, or a broad proposal drafted by members?

For example, when making standards for voting, we would either create individual polls for deciding conditions when a vote is passed, what should happen before a pole is created, contingencies for an absent voter, whether users should be allowed to change their vote, what happens when there are conflicts with previous polls, etc; or we could vote on "Thork's Voting Standards", which outlines a suggestion for all of this in a single written proposal.

Absent a formal voting procedure, voting will conclude when all 5 participants have voted.

9152
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Zetetic Council
« on: January 07, 2014, 05:21:10 AM »
I approve of setting up the forum.

9153
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 05, 2014, 09:36:04 AM »
So, if someone introduces as a first claim, that there is no evidence that ghosts exist, it is their burden to prove that ghosts don't exist?

9154
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:44:41 AM »
If we are talking about a formal debate, and someone has said ghosts exist, and has provided some evidence, then once you claim "Ghosts do not exist" you must either provide contradicting evidence or debunk the positive sides evidence.

Correct. The conversation proceeds once evidence is presented.

Saying "I don't believe that" is also disagreeing with with the claimant. You are making an assertion that ghosts do not exist.
Not necessarily.  Saying "I don't believe that" is not the same as saying "you are wrong".  It's saying that the claimant hasn't provided sufficient evidence to change the person's mind. 

If I say "water is wet" and you respond with "I don't believe that" then your statement is asserting that water is not wet. How could it not?

9155
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:33:11 AM »
No, saying I don't know keeps me from making a fool of myself when there is insufficient data to come to a logical conclusion.

Sure there is. I have never seen evidence for ghosts, and the source claiming that they exist is unable to provide evidence of existence, so this is evidence that they do not exist.

I am not burdened to prove that ghosts do not exist.

Please tell me that I need to prove that ghosts do not exist if I disagree with someone who claims that ghosts exist, so we can all see how stupid you sound.
Then state it as abelief. I don't believe ghosts exist is much different that saying ghosts don't exist.

If someone shows you a picture of a ghost, that is their evidence.  You cannot then claim ghosts don't exist until you demonstrate that the picture is not genuine.  So please tell me you still don't understand the difference between a truth claim and a statement of belief.

Saying "I don't believe that" is also disagreeing with with the claimant. You are making an assertion that ghosts do not exist.

For example:

Person 1: The Ancient Egyptians have made successful limb transplants.
Person 2: I don't believe that. I don't agree that they would know how to do that.

Person 2 is asserting that the ancient Egyptians have not make successful limb transplants. In his disbelief, he is making the claim that it did not happen.

9156
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:23:10 AM »
Bj, Rama, I have never seen evidence for ghosts, and the source claiming that they exist is unable to provide evidence of existence. This is evidence that they do not exist.

I am not burdened to prove that ghosts do not exist.

Please tell me that I need to prove that ghosts do not exist if I disagree with someone who claims that ghosts exist, so we can all see how stupid you sound.

9157
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:13:55 AM »
If you are not looking at a window you have no evidence of it. The only honest claim you can make is "I do not know." Anything else is semantic play.

If there is no available evidence of the window, that is evidence that it does not exist. All truths are made from available evidence.

"I don't know" is not a claim at all. It is an avoidance of claim. It is a refusal to participate, and has no place in the weighing evidence and honest debate.

9158
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:09:46 AM »
There were predictions made regarding magnitude of error sources and results were plotted against the actual sources of error. How does this not qualify as a control?

The variables involved were not controlled. Please look up how a controlled experiment is performed.

9159
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 04:06:02 AM »
Nice double speak there Tom.  You should try to be a polotician.

If you cannot know for certain the state of the window you cannot make the truth claim that the window is not open.  That is a claim that requires support of some sort.

If you do not know, what is the hang up about admitting that you do not have enough evidence to make a claim.

There is support for the claim 'the window is not open'. The support for the claim that the window is not open is the absence of evidence that it is open. The statement that 'the window is not closed' is equally valid for the same reason.

All truths are determined with available evidence. "I don't know" is an excuse to not answer what the available evidence shows. The available evidence concludes that the window is NOT open. If there is no evidence, it is a not.

9160
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 03:58:06 AM »
You refute the evidence by claiming that the satellite did not take into account all the variables it needed to, it is YOUR claim.  You need to back up your claim that the evidence is not adequate.  You cannot simply say "Nope, that doesn't prove anything" and walk away.  You need to back it up.

There was no claim that it was a controlled trial. As it is described from the sources presented on this forum, there were no mention of controls. This is evidence that there were none.

Quote
Also, where is your evidence backing up your positive claim that only positive claims need to be backed up?  I have shown you that ALL claims need to be backed up.

So the person who disagrees with a lunatic claiming that ghosts exist needs to prove, beyond an absence of evidence, that ghosts do not exist?

No way. The person claiming that ghosts exist needs to PROVE THEY EXIST. The conversation stops there once he is unable to provide the evidence for his claim.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 456 457 [458] 459 460 ... 465  Next >