zurew

She did throw it, watch back the videos in slow motion. At this point, this is almost inarguable. You do know that you can still accept this point and still condemn the cops, right?

@Princess Arabia watch this from 18:30 You can even see when the water lands on the floor.

She did throw it and you can see the pot flying towards the cop and inferring from the steam you can see that from the pot the boiling water managed to immediately land at the cop's feet. How did it get there if it wasn't thrown?

Given all the context "rebuke you in the name of Jesus" does mean throwing the boiling water on you, but regarldess watch the video from the timestamp of 28:25 with 0.25 speed. You can see that she is throwing it.

Here is how it looked like from the shooter cops's pov (I time stamped it, its starts from 28:25 If you put the speed at 0.25 you can see that she did try to throw the boiling water on the cops. The other thing is that she did say a few second before the throw "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" while holding the boiling water in her hand. That all being said, he shouldn't have shot her in the head.

Leo keep increasing the standard until you only have people left who are worth interacting with. I gave you some points in the other thread about how I personally think you could do that , but obviously you can enforce more rules or different rules. You have a bunch of mods who would probably be happy enforcing new rules if they could see how those rules could elevate the quality of the forum. Its your forum dude, you can do whatever you want with it, you don't need to conform to anyone. There is not much to gain from letting people destroy your mental health and letting people create absolute garbage threads that are 4chan quality. When you have people who cant respond with an argument and evidence when pushed on a set of claims they made and they refuse to let go or concede said claims, there is no reason to keep those people around. We ideally should strive for an environment where people are repulsed from responding with speculation and are highly motivated to source their claims (in a way where they can defend the claims made in that source, not in a way where we overwhelm people with sources that we haven't read ourselves) ; to validate the claims that are said in their source, and to reflect on their thoughts 2-3-4 times, before they click on the 'submit reply' button or before they create a thread. People are addicted to this forum and I think some of these people would be willing to change, because some of them absolutely have the capacity to do it, they are just not motivated enough right now. Maybe banning people for a short period of time (and then progressively increase that time, if they refuse to change) from visiting this forum would be enough negative movitation for people to start to change. I think it would be worth it for you to try to enforce a new standard. You can always reverse things, you can always apologize (if you think you fuck up) you can always ask for feedback and then change accordingly, but I think at the end of the day, it would be a good move.

yep, you got it.

I agree that its not necessary, I didn't try to suggest that it is necessary, but I just made a value comparison between bringing substance while being mean and not bringing substance while being nice. Obviously being nice is compatible with bringing substance and being mean is compatible with not bringing substance. The whole idea was just to focus on the substance rather than focusing on the rhetoric or on the niceness/mean-ness that a person brings . Judge based on substance and focus on the substance not on the delivery thats the key point and the other point is - don't value the delivery more than the substance.

This is just my value system right now. I would much rather be corrected by mean people than mislead by nice or fake nice people.

Just because someone can say things in a calm way and just because someone don't insult anyone, that won't make that person concious or a worthy person to make comments about politics. I would much rather engage with educated people who shit on me and insult me , but who are honest about their own biases and who are educated or more educated than me on a given topic/subject. If you bring substance, you can insult and namecall me as much as you want, just bring that substance and don't ramble. If you don't bring substance, I don't care how nice you are, you can still do a lot of damage. Btw these guys are playing into the exact same teamsports as all of us here, so none of them are above any of us. Notice how they use the law of one language to frame politics (negatively polarised side tried to kill trump, trump has good karma, the negative side is against trump etc). They take sides and they bring a lot of baggage into their analysis.

I can relate, but you can say things, just be aware and qualify before you give your opinion, how much knowledge you have on that particular topic and be aware of your own biases. At least thats what I do or strive to do - you need to have a map in your mind about your own knowledge and track, on what set of assumptions and on what set of values and biases a given opinion of yours is based on and that way it will be easier to update your beliefs if you learn more about a given subject. "Given this set of assumptions and given these values, my opinion on this particular topic is this, for this set of reasons" - if you manage to have that much specificity and clarity on a given topic, that on its own is a huge success.

They would have lost their minds completely and would have rambled again about the deepstate.

Appreciate the link, when I will have time I will look into it. I have no strong position on this, cause Im not read up on any of this. However, the reason why I was passive agressive is because your statement sounded really reductive and a simplistic analysis. Raze's statement sounded more nuanced and more honest. Im not sure if any of the books that you referenced agree with your conclusion or not, but regardless appreciate the source.

I see, thanks for the example. Is the argument that if there wouldn't have been any funding the extremisim wouldn't have increased at all, or the argument is that it wouldn't have increased this much?

Sounds really reductive. Can you ground that statement in any emprical data, that actually shows a causal relationship or are we just going by our biases and assumptions?

Whats the evidence for this?

Yeah, but that point is not really in the domain of science thats much more of a problem in philosophy. People who are into science (and people in general) very rarely know anything about philosophy and they conflate a bunch of things and have no idea what certain terms or philosophical expressions mean. They don't know the difference between physics and metaphysics and just from that they get super confused when it comes to any philosophical discussion. + They probably have certain heruistics regarding people bringing up philosophy and because most people are super bad at philosophy - (this is gonna be my assumption) when people on the sub see philosophy brought up, they probably just assume that you are a whacko or you don't know wtf you are talking about, just because they probably have had a lot of negative experience with people who bring up philosophy.

I think increasing the standard is good. I would personally increase the standards much higher, because the quality of the conversations are generally horrible. I have seen discord servers that are much higher quality than this forum regarding debates and conversations - and the reason is because they have much higher standards and they don't tolerate dishonest people and weaseling. If you make a claim and you are pushed on it, you either need to present an argument for it or you need to concede that it is just an opinion and be honest, that you don't really have a defense for it. Regarding info sharing, and reporting on an event - I would push people to use primary sources and not tiktok and twitter or instagram as a source where you have the best propaganda agents and where you have most people using jokes and irony all around the place and where you have info that goes through 2-3-4-5 filtering processes before it gets to you (not too long ago I got misinformed by one of these tweets and I shared that link here, but thankfully I got corrected on it). Even with certain studies sometimes, people will share a twitter link that goes back to an article which just then goes back to the primary source. If you read the tweet's summary about the article, it will be wildly different from the article, and the article's summary of the study will be different from the content of the original study. Also when you make a claim that someone said x or did x, you should be ready to provide the source for the claim when pushed on it, or if you can't, then again, take back that claim. If you are too lazy to source your claims, then those claims are probably not worthy enough to be shared with other people. Also it might be a good idea to reward good behaviour (maybe taking away warning points or with a different approach) - When someone concedes a point or when someone is honest and open about the limitations of their knowledge on a given topic or when someone is capable to sign a probability to a specific arugment/claim or when someone directly and honestly tells you how they could be persuaded or when someone is seeking clarity before he/she attacks your position or when someone can accurately represent your argument/view to the point that you can agree with his/her summary. Creating an environment where people (at the very least) are socially rewarded when they engage in some good behaviour (in some behaviour that I listed above) , and creating an environment where people are punished for being dishonest or for not sourcing their claims or for not being able to defend a given claim, would make this place much higher quality (imo).

@Danioover9000 Im done interacting with you buddy, you are on my ignore list (just for you to know so that you won't try to respond to any of my posts in the future). You are bad faith and you don't even try to respond to the points that I made. Read back the whole conversation and you might realize that you were incapable to respond to any of the points that I made. You made a claim about universal morality, then I directly responded to that claim and then you completely pivoted away from your original claim and tried to change the subject and started to ramble about secularism and about other things , none of which have anything to do with the original claim. You didn't contextualize anything, you started to go off and started to spiral out about a completely different subject . For you to contextualize what I said, you would have to have some concept of objective morality, but based on the responses you made, you don't have the slightest concept of what objective morality is . Your long ramblings about birth rates and secularism and immigration have nothing to do with the topic of objective morality and have nothing to do with whether objective morality can exist without religion, but go off king, Im sure in your head you managed to connect all that rambling back to your original claim. You do realize when you say x morality is better than y , that statement is completely meaningless, right? The term "better" there means nothing unless the context or the goal is specified . X is better than Y with respect to achieving goal Z. Filling that template out would make your statements more meaningful, but I know you have a habit of gibberating around while thinking you are making some deep point. None of your questions have anything to do with objective morality. I could answer all of your questions and we would literally progress nothing in answering objective morality. Its all just obfuscation and pivoting on your part. Even if all of society sourced their morals from Christianity that still wouldn't change anything related to whether objective morality is true or not or related to whether religion is necessary for objective morality. Asking the questions that you asked, is as useful in progessing answering the question of objective morality as if I would ask you how much money do you think I have in the bank or how much I managed to shit in the toilet yesterday - 0 relevance in changing or in figuring out the the truth value of the original proposition.

You do realize that you wrote all of that and none of that intereacts with the paragraph that I wrote? Again atheism or theism or secularism has nothing to do with whether objective morality exist or not. Theism can be true and objective morality can be still false and atheism can be true and objective morality be true as well. The truth value of objective morality is independent from theism and from atheism. Sure but that has nothing to do with objective morality, that just about what is pragmatically better or best for a given goal. Speaking of goals, this is goalpost moving . The original claim or objection about atheists not being able to ground morality would have to be conceded. You can do all those things without objective morality. You can punish people and you can create laws and ethical codes. Objective morality doesn't change anything and it doesn't give you any good reason not to go by your own preferences and with your own moral intuitions. IF you don't want people to commit certain things, that just gonna be a psychological question about how to change behaviour, it isn't a moral question. Again remember: objective morality means there are moral facts that are stance independently true (that are true, regardless of the attitude of any subject - regardless what any subject thinks or feels about those facts) If there is an objective moral fact that "killing people is good", I wouldn't care about it, because my subjective moral intuitions go against it .

Yes, but not everyone agrees here with hard determinism and the concept of God is wildly differerent for each people. If you imply hard determinism then the kid not being able to kill Trump is not special at all, it had to happen this way and it couldn't have happened in any other way. If you don't imply hard determinism, then in that case that would actually make Trump special, because your claim then would essentially mean that God intervened in order to save Trump's life. But this kind of God would be different compared to what most people here would mean by God, , because in this context God would mean some kind of an outside entity who has the ability and the desire to stop certain things from taking place.

#God2024 who let that kid kill one trump supporter rather than stopping him from the attempt. The God cope about "its destined that Trump will win" is big. Trump might win, but you don't need to use this bullshit God narrative to make Trump more special than he is.

Andrew the "big debater" likes to debate college kids, but he has never had any debate with any philosopher ever. 1)Objective morality is the weakest ever argument he can ever come up with. God doesn't solve objective morality, because it is still dependent on a subject (subject being God) and not stance independently true, but Andrew is not educated on the subject enough to recognize that level 1 mistake. Objective morality would mean there are moral facts that are stance independently true meaning it doesn't matter what any subject (including God) feels about it, thinks about it, or prefers us to do in any given context. 2) Even if no atheist could come up with an answer to the question of how could objective morality be true, that alone doesn't establish that it is impossible to come up with an answer to that question , and it doesn't establish how being religious solves that question. 3) Why is there a need for objective morality? Even if we could establish that there are moral facts that are stance independently true, most people would still go with their preferences, and with their own subjective moral intuitions, because why wouldn't they?

The libs of tiktok account on x is insane. She manage to doxx at least 5 people so far and she managed to get them fired from their jobs. Other than that, yeah conservatives crying about violent rhetoric when they have been engaging in violent rhetoric is truly a masterpiece. Mainstream conservative figures have been spreading around and reposting multiple conspiracy theories that would make any person who genuinely believe in any of them , incredibly riled up and violent. No matter if they have 0 evidence for any of their speculations - they have an urge to spin literally every news or event or story and manage to connect them back to an adverserial narrative or explanation. There is no event in the world that they wouldn't connect back to some negative narrative. They lack the capacity to explain any news or event without there being something nefarious in the background. The vast majority of conservative figures have never cared about being responsbile with their speculation or messaging and they don't hold each other accountable for the tin foil hat level speculation, they rather rile each other up and push insane conspiracy theories. And the reason for that is because their audience don't care at all about holding those people accountable. They cant differentiate between an inference and a fact.and because of that they confuse their inferences with reality and they think their inferences are all pure undeniable facts. When 99% of your messaging is about that the election is stolen, all institutions are corrupt to the point where every member of each institutions and all secret service agencies are all behind the big plan; they want to kill you with the vaccines, they created a bioweapon and want to reduce down the world population by billions of people, they are using chemtrails and they are poisioning the water and your food to reduce down the fertility rate and to make you sick, they want to take away your rights and want to make you eat bugs, they will take away your jobs, they will take away your ownership , they will cancel you , they will groom your kids because they are pedophiles and groomers, they will forcibly put microchips and nanorobots in you, they will make your kids cut their genitalia off, they will make you depressed and put you on harmful medication , they are behind the assasination attempt of Trump, they are sacrificing kids and worshipping the devil and Moloch , I just couldn't care less about their tone policing. When you have a party that pushes a rhetoric like above and when you have a party full of people who genuinely believe in most of the things that I listed above,I don't see what possible standing they can have in tone policing the left in any shape or form. Not to mention, that the right is notorious for using racial slurs and making edgy jokes. The scary part is that people on the right couldn't get more insane with their rhetoric. How could they possibly elevate their rhetoric? They have been spouting the most insane conspiracy theories to the point where it would be hard to imagine a world that would be worse than the one that they have managed to dream up in their minds. The best fiction writer would have a hard time going against MAGA people. As much as conservatives mostly only value stem degrees and constantly shit on the value of an art degree and creative jobs in general, they should be fiction writers, because they are good at coming up with the most outrageous and insane narratives, stories and explanations.

That above and your ramblings about points against trump just being "fearmongering" while again being clueless about the facts. So yes, you did downplay Trumps rhetoric and I didnt just assume it