Girl at my uni put a Wiimote up her fanny and sent it to the campus security. She got kicked out. Here is her tumblr... NSFW

oswaldow · 1 month

Deep seated.

dhooke · 2 months

Do some research if you're interested

I have and I don't know how you can make mass-murder factories that killed millions of people sound worse than it is. It's pretty much rock bottom for humanity.

The holocaust doesn't justify Israel's actions in Palestine, and no-one is saying it does. So that is a strawman.

dhooke · 2 months

It is most certainly not a "denial" of the Holocaust (in any sense of the word), to question facts, figures and possible exaggerations.

What exaggerations? To deny that 5-6 million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis is holocaust denial.

dhooke · 2 months

Get real, they would have terrorized Germany.

Evidence for that assertion?

dhooke · 2 months

The Jews were systematically sent to extermination camps. They were not legitimate Prisoners of War. Your ignorance is appalling.

dhooke · 2 months

What in pre-history compares to the holocaust? Yes there were murders, but warfare was very limited. People didn't live in large groups and they couldn't travel very far. Also, it is highly unlikely there was anything as chilling as purpose-built mass-murder factories.

dhooke · 2 months

It is a ridiculous notion. However, the laws against holocaust denial in fifteen or so countries are not there simply because holocaust denial is a ridiculous notion.

dhooke · 2 months

The Holocaust did happen, but probably not in the way we were told.

What way we were not told about do you think the six million Jews were killed?

29ghost · 2 months

I don't really see a parallel to Nietzsche, to be honest.

dhooke · 2 months

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Romania have explicit laws against holocaust denial. Are they fascistic regimes?

dhooke · 2 months

And most of the people that I've heard that could be considered holocaust deniers will admit that Hitler killed some jews but everything was exaggerated. Would a law punish those people, too?

I think that is holocaust denial, so yes it would be illegal to express such opinions in countries that have laws against holocaust denial.

dhooke · 2 months

Of course, we're not concerned here with unexpressed thoughts. To explain the post title, chapter 2 of On Liberty is "Of Liberty of thought and discussion."

29ghost · 2 months

"And what does he gain who possesses the good?" "Happiness"

If happiness is defined as the possession of the good, then happiness cannot help but be important in Plato's scheme.

Having taken this step, the rest of what is said about happiness is uncontroversial. Certainly it is desired by men. It is important to them.

If you want to drive a wedge between Socrates and Diotima and have a root around, I think you have to attack the premise that happiness is possession of the good. That takes you deeper into Plato's philosophy, because you are then examining why men should necessarily be built to desire the good. I would myself attack Plato's/Socrates' theology, though that takes you beyond the Symposium into other works.

dhooke · 2 months

Questions can encourage thought, so sure.

The point is that holocaust denial is the relevant historical factor. Obviously the law exists to thwart neo-Nazism, not just to prevent any dangerous group from forming. My question is relevant.

rILEYcAPSlOCK · 2 months

Certainly Darwin's theory was important in loosening the grip of religion.

Modernism in all forms was a great influence, and Modernism was largely a reaction to the erosion of theological and other certainties by science and the theory of evolution in particular. Although, factors other than science (e.g. Marx) were involved.

dhooke · 2 months

Should we prevent a holocaust denying state from forming?

dhooke · 3 months

it is impossible for G-d to exist without motive.

As long as God wills, even if he wills an act without motive, why is it impossible for him to exist?

dhooke · 3 months

Just because something is deterministic it doesn't mean it was pre-arranged. Natural selection is a process that can create order without any prior setting up. Here is a basic summary of evolution.

Advantageous traits are things that help the organism respond to the environment.

Over a long time, advantageous traits can accumulate to make something as good at responding to the environment as a brain.

If you want more, here's a video. And here's a website.

dhooke · 3 months

In the machine, yes. Not the metal and other materials though. They were haphazard until the machine organized them.

So it is with our brains, they are arranged. Except they were set up by natural selection not a person. The inputs to the brain (which, in our analogy, are like the materials the car is made of) are not necessarily arranged beforehand into the answer, the brain makes the answer from the inputs (just as the assembly line makes the car).

dhooke · 3 months

I won this a long time ago

In truth, I am not sure you were following my argument.

Stop if you want to. It is childish to ask me not to respond. Two people are involved in a semantic debate, not one. I am addressing the system. Your logical proof.

Rather than being boring, I think we are clarifying meaning. By "capricious" I meant an act without motive.

That an act without motive can be willful is shown by the fact that such an act can be sinful.

That an act without motive could be willful makes it possible for God, and stalls your logical proof.

That was my point and I leave you to mull it over.

dhooke · 3 months

A machine can take something disorganized and organize it. So you start with metal, plastic and glass on an car assembly line and you end up with a car. From relatively disorganized parts you end up with a highly specified output, even though the parts were not already correctly set up to make a car.

dhooke · 3 months

Yes it does. If there is no purpose, there is no will.

So you are still insisting that the capricious act is an act of no will.

Any decision that is taken on a whim is a capricious act. So let's say someone decides to get drunk on a whim - that is a decision, a choice, a volition, a willful act. One can only sin by act of the will. If a capricious act can be a sin, then a capricious act can be an act of the will. This does not mean that all capricious acts are sins.

If capriciousness can be a willful act, then Yahweh could, in principle, be capricious.

dhooke · 3 months

There are non-reductive physicalists who deny they are property dualists. But no matter, they are all physicalists.

dhooke · 3 months

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that the starting positions were carefully set up correctly from the beginning. Machines and organs are two examples of organizing systems.

dhooke

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login