zurew

My main point bringing up the picture was to demonstrate that I did read the source that you provided - and the point of that is to counter your general claim about people not reading the source that is being provided. And to be clear, before someone misinterprets me - I am not claiming that Im the only one on this forum who read the provided source(s). But regardless, I don't care about that specific debate in terms of how much of it is environmental vs genetics - I do care about though when someone make confident empirical claims about something without any evidence and I do think that you are making a lot of confident empirical claims about a wide variety of topics without backing up with the needed evidence and that makes interactions with you hard. Unless you can make a sound deductive argument where you know with 100% confidence that your starting premises are true and where you can exclude all the logically possible explanations different to yours, you should drop this idea of trying to prove empirical claims with only using logic .

That framing of that past debate and interaction is false. It wasn't a 100 page document it was a regular wikipedia page, that disagreed with the specific point you were trying to make. It wasn't like "well look, your own source disagrees with you on this irrelevant point that doesn't have any effect on your main argument at all" - no it disagreed with you on the very point that you were trying to prove by using that source. Its like using a study claim that vaccines are unsafe and then in reality that same study saying the exact opposite - that they are safe. I agree , my usage of the word "disprove" there is not correct. Thats false - I havent made that fallacy, you have a confusion about how that fallacy works. Merely asking for evidence is not a fallacy. If I would have made the argument , that "Look you haven't provided evidence for your claim, therefore it is false" - then you could say that I made that fallacy. Yes I agree and have never disagreed with the idea that - things can be true without any need to demonstrate/prove that they are true. But in the context of a debate and in the real world, when someone makes an empirical claim or a claim that can't be substantiated by mere reasoning (data needs to be showed) - then that person needs to provide evidence for that claim ,because otherwise we are left with making claims without ever needing to substantiate anything and the other part of it is that why make strong empirical claims when you don't have the necessary evidence to back up the level of confidence that you have in said claim(s)? How do you know those claims are true, if you don't have evidence to back them up?

If you are not willing to provide evidence for your claim(s) - then you need to walk them back its very easy. Don't make a claim that you are not willing to defend or just clarify that it just a guess or a belief of yours but nothing serious. The claim about "No one even takes the effort to go through the proof even if it's provided" is false and you and me had our debates in the past, and I showed you how your own source disagreed with you https://imgur.com/a/oAa23Ws - that clearly demonstrates that I did gave enough fucks to read through what you sent. But even if it is true, that most people won't go through your source , that doesn' t give you a free ticket to just make any claim about anything without any need to back up that claim. I can generate 100 false claims, but that doesn't mean that its on you now to disprove them - no I need to demonstrate how each of them is true. Throwing around sources is not an argument. Its not even clear what your argument supposed to be. First it seemed that you try to imply that Destiny is a demagogue ,and then you talk about him being disingenous - its unclear which of those you want to say with your chest (willing to defend) and its unclear which one of those claims support which part of the video. - hence why you should have spell out the argument from the get go. Also, do you think if I provide you a 1000 page pdf and say "what about this" without clarifying where the relevant info is and without clarifying which example(s) I agree with and why, that automatically means that you need to disprove that whole 1000 page document? No, If I try to be good faith even the slightest - then I will at the very least make it clear if I agree with everything in the document or if not , then clarify which points I agree with so that the other side potentially won't waste time questioning points, that I don't even plan on defending. and If I try to be actually good faith not just slightly good faith , then I will spell out the arguments myself and then showcase which piece of evidence is connecting to which part of my argument - that way I can showcase that I actually did go through the document that I sourced, and I don't just want to make you engage with something ,that I haven't gone through myself . So which one of those are you willing to defend? Are you willing to defend all those 3 (disingenuous, uninformed, or extremely biased) and that Destiny is a demagogue or you want to modify your claim before we dive into it? Now that it is clear that you agree with all of the examples in the video - we are going to go through step by step each of them. But first you will need to clarify what you mean by disingenious and extremely biased. For example: How do you differentiate between being unclear vs being disingenious?

If there would be a 100% chance that suicide will eliviate suffering, would you agree with it, or do you have a principled stand against it?

Well, all these arguments are probablistic and not 100%. Its all based on what you think you know and coming from that I think its more probablistic that it will eliviate pain rather than not. But even if we go with the 50-50, 50% chance of eliviating pain is pretty high, and that is probably much more higher chance compared to waiting in real life for someone to find a cure for you - my main point with all this is that I don't think that it is irrational to commit suicide in certain contexts , if your main goal is to get rid of your suffering.

Thats a slimy move there - thats not how this going to work. If you think that bait is going to work on me - (shifting the burden of proof) , where I need to lay out why I disagree with any kind of criticism that is made in or outside of the video - you are mistaken , Im not going to do the work for you. You have made a claim and then you linked an almost 1 hour long video, without clearing up which criticism in that video you agree or disagree with. The question is, do you have any criticism that you agree with in the video or do you have any critique that is not even in the video ? Pick one that you agree with or create one, that you think can substantiate your claim about him being disingenious. I will engage with the source that you linked - if you clarify which criticisms you agree with in the video.

Can you lay out what he has been disingenious about? You can't pretend that using an Ihypocrite hitpiece video as a source is a good faith way to try to critique him.

I see, interesting. Well, good luck on your journey!

can you elaborate on what you mean by 'developing this' ?

The interesting part of the conversation would be about why we want the things we want. It seems to be a pretty fucking complex problem and I don't think there is any scientific theory that actually explains in a precise manner - why we want the things we want. - so I would be careful to take on any strong position on this topic.

3 things that I would have done differently. 1) I personally at the very least would have made it clear, that Tucker can maintain his religion without needing to deny evolution (He doesn't have to be a creationis in order to be a Christian) 2) I would have checked or would have done a little research about some of Tucker's controversial claims in real time on google (just like how Joe did when Alex Jones was on his podcast and he checked some of his outrageous claims) 3) I would have pushed for more clarity about what Tucker's actual disagreement is with the scientific consensus and I would have pushed for confidence (how confident he is regarding a specific claim and I would have asked - what he is basing his confidence in)

So is your position, then that you are completely agnostic (you give 50-50) about whether committing suicide will eliviate ones suffering or not?

Arguments like that don't work. The main premise is that you have unbearable suffering right now, and you know that if you don't end your life you will continue to suffer. Lets say it is a fact, that there is plenty of suffering after you die. That isn't an argument against suicide, because you will die either way, so by living you would just delay the suffering that will come after your death - but in this case you are not really delaying suffering because you are suffering right now. The argument could possibly work if you could establish with certainty either that guaranteed suffering awaits you after you commit suicide (but you won't suffer if you don't commit suicide ) OR you would have to establish that there is a guaranteed suffering that will await you after death (regardless if you kill yourself or not) ,but that kind of suffering will be greater than the suffering you are experiencing right now. The gamble arguments don't work unless you can demonstrate that a negative outcome is more probable than the opposite - if you can't do that , then your argument isn't an argument for anything ,because it can go either way (in this context maybe not killing yourself will for some random reason make you suffer more in the afterlife).

People shouldn't downplay the seriousness of mental illness. No matter what you think right now about how strong your character or mind is - a bad enough psychedelic trip can tear your mind apart. For some people with mental illness is like this: You either have a never ending very bad psychedelic trip or its a frequently scheduled very bad psychedelic trip .

Ty, appreciate it.

Okay noted. This is good, because this gives a lot of clarity for how to make sense of your statements about truth . Speaking of convergence - this is random and not related to this thread, but Im going through again some of the meaning crisis videos and convergence and multi-aptness or elegance (when a theory transfers to many different domains) came up and Im wondering if you know any good literature that talks about either how to create theories that are trustworthy and elegant at the same time or literature that specifically focuses on either trustworthiness or elegance.

Fuck, I got ackhsuallyd . But you probably don't think that all frames are equally correct, no? (by correct I mean corresponding to reality)

Joe didn't push back enough there. There was a slimyness from Tucker where he pretended that he cares about evidence and about rational explanation for evolution, when the real reason why he rejects it, is because of his fundamentalist religious worldview. Even if there would have been a phd scientist there, who could have given a perfectly rational response to every question that Tucker has about evolution, Tucker still wouldn't have accepted evolution, because his fundamentalist religious view simply doen't allow him to do so.

@Carl-Richard You missed your opportunity to drop "Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being."

@Carl-Richard Do you have any thoughts about the original debate (the Dr K vs Dr Mike one) ?

There is no rigor or intellectual honestly to how he approaches the topic. His claim about "mostly what we are seeing here is either placebo or open placebo" is also a thing that he can't substantiate - he just assumes it to be true. Also his comment about there shouldn't be alternative medicine research is also based in a thoughtprocess that is not really as rational as he thinks it is and Destiny pointed out perfectly why. Dan would have said 30 years ago, that doing research about meditation would just be a waste of time and a waste of money. So if we would have gone with his way of thinking, we would have missed out on all the research and knowledge that we scientifically know about meditation right now. So there is an obvious bullet that he should have bitten there, which is that his framework will miss out on a certain set of things that works (including alternative methods and alternative medicine) , because he just assumes that they are wrong or that they won't work. Dan was also being unclear or slimy with jumping between empirical and theoretical critiques. There is a big difference between saying this x alternative medicine won't work, because of the current theories we know about medicine right now vs actually doing empirical research about said alternative medicine and being able to demonstrate that it actually doesn't work. Its true, that because of the lack of resources and money, researchers can't just freely research everything - so there is an interesting discussion that could be had there about whats the best way of choosing. For a theoretical critique to be actually valuable , one would need to be very well-versed in that specific area of research, because the probability you can sign to a claim like "this x alternative medicine won't work because of this y set of reasons" - that probability will be completely depended on the quality of that y set - and if you have a lack of knowledge and if the quality of knowledge you have is bad or unclear how bad it is, then whatever probability you come up with won't give a clear picture about anything. Also, words like can and can't and possible and impossible are all modal claims. So regarding Dan's theoretical critique, I don't think he could showcase or spell out why something is impossible regarding the alternative methods or alternative medicine. Does he mean logically impossible (like can he point to any law of logic violation) or physically impossible (Can he specifically point out which law of phyiscs is being violated by which alternative medicine or method), because if no the answer to all of that, then he either needs to stop using the word impossible or he needs to tell us what he means by impossible other than the things I mentioned.

If you accept that argument then it deletes itself, because whats the justification for the epistemic regress argument? ( you are still inside the regress problem) + there are responses to that argument ie coherentism and foundationalism.

@Rafael Thundercat Im sorry man, but even this thread became a shitfest lol. This unironically perfectly proves your point about this forum still running the exact same circles and debates around certain topics and it proves the point that almost every thread eventually turns into a philosophy or spiritual debate.

I see. Do we know how rules of engagement is conducted in general ( Im specifically asking in terms of what kind of and how international law(s) restrict rules of engagment) edit: It seems that it is self-imposed generally speaking.

Is that rule of engagment is unique to the IDF or that rule of engagement is standard when it comes to wars in general?