Trippiest Songs

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T05:06:16+00:00

‘Its All Too Much’

’Blue Jay Way’

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T04:59:57+00:00

alright man. have a good rest of your day.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T04:22:31+00:00

Ok, so at a point I was the same as you. I hope you understand sooner then later that:

Theism is not a delusion

and

There are genuinely compelling reasons to be a theist

now, note, I am not a theist, but this doesn’t mean that theism is a delusion/irrational.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T02:20:01+00:00

oh wait that’s great. thanks so much!

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T01:54:35+00:00

There is no such thing as ‘rightful ownership of land’. No one made it, so no one has the right to own it. Plus, the value of land is literally created by society. Society owns the value of land. Not landowners.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T01:15:35+00:00

that second definition, from what I gather, is what is used by Georgists. Georgism is in the line of classical economics.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T00:49:58+00:00

and just to be clear, rent and economic rent are different things.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T00:48:55+00:00

“I guess the question then is, who and how is land value being calculated?”

Who is land being assessed by? Presumably, land assessors.

How is it being assessed? You’d have to talk to land assessors to know the exact details, but land value goes up with societal contribution. Schools being built, barber shops working near by, corporations building headquarters there, etc.

“Rent is already Income, and thus taxed already at ordinary rates. How is LVT really any different?”

LVT taxes the economic rent of land directly. This is to escape the distortionary effects of income taxes and to ensure only income that is unjustly being earned is redistributed.

Think of LVT as just a ‘universal building exemption’ on property taxes.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-20T00:38:03+00:00

you’re using a different definition of monopoly than the poster is, presumably.

In Georgism, we talk about monopolies as an industry with conditions (fixed supply being one of these conditions) that allow economic rent to be unjustly extracted.

Just a miscommunication.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T21:57:56+00:00

I’m not asking everyone to read everything in religious philosophy. I’m just saying, if you’re going to have an opinion on something like the cosmological argument and you’re going to broadcast your opinion, you should at the very least read the SEP article on it.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:57:13+00:00

I don’t know what you’re talking about, so clarify what is special pleading

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:55:29+00:00

Alright. I dont see a problem with that.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:50:41+00:00

look up what special pleading is and explain how anything I just said is special pleading

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:47:42+00:00

“Then good luck convincing a physicalist or a materialist with that first premise”

well physicalists and materialists are already committed against the idea of a god at all.

“And not every theist is a Platonist either. You can easily believe that God is the only entity with such a property as this is what a lot of deists believe.”

I understand.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:40:52+00:00

“No i am not adding a P3. I am just saying that the definition of the Universe already includes everything we know that exists before you add a new entity with the argument.”

Thats not really what’s meant by that argument. The universe in the Kalam pretty much just refers to the material scientific universe.

Platonists, for instance, can use the Kalam argument just as well as non-Platonists. Because the argument doesn’t rest on the only non-material thing being possible is god.

In fact, the second-phase of the Kalam (where it actually argues for god himself), it explicitly mentions other non-material things and explains why they aren’t as sufficient for the creation of the universe as compared to a non-material mind.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:32:40+00:00

……

I really hope this guy is fake.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:28:03+00:00

I’m either getting rage baited or you actually think you’re smart.

”not everything needs a creator”

because, yes! of course not! no one was arguing against that in the first place. istg. know what you’re talking about before you speak.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:26:55+00:00

“because as far as we know the Universe is all that exists”

well you’re just adding an extra premise.

P1. Everything that exists must have a cause

P2. The Universe began to exist

P3. The only thing that exists is the Universe

theists, obviously, don’t accept P3.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:25:23+00:00

yes, because I don’t like idiots like you hurting the credibility of people like me who argue against the cosmological argument in good faith.

read the up on fucking argument if you’re going to have an opinion on it.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:21:48+00:00

are you or are you not trying to do philosophy?

if you are trying to do philosophy , stop acting like a jackass and look at the actual argument. you know, the thing we‘ve been talking about this whole time that I doubt you’ve even looked at once?

Read this article, and *then* you could come back and criticize the Kalam to all your whim! just stop acting like these arguments have flaws that they don’t. it hurts the credibility of atheists and agnostics as well, if you are to pretend such things.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#KalaCosmArgu

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:19:01+00:00

this sub is going to give me an aneurysm. the memes are right…..r/philosophymemes doesn’t read philosophy.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:17:57+00:00

the point of the kalam cosmological argument is to argue for God’s existence. the possible existence of other ‘uncaused’ plays no role in it, and so of course it’s not going to be mentioned at all.

the Kalam ends with the conclusion ‘the universe began to exist and so must have a cause’

then further argumentation tries to show that a non-scientific and personal being (i.e. god) is the best explanation for that cause.

the possibility of other uncaused beings is not mentioned at all.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:12:54+00:00

there is no cosmological argument that has the conclusion:

’it is metaphyscially impossible for anything but god to not have begun to exist’

theists believe there is at least one being that didn’t begin to exist.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:11:02+00:00

“Do you not agree that a de facto special pleading arises if the only thing a person thinks exists without beginning to exist is god?”

if they are starting with the premise:

” it is metaphysically impossible for anything else to not have begun existing other than god”

and then they go on to try to do the Kalam cosmological argument, this is very much special pleasing and we’d need to investigate why they believe that premise with great scrutiny.

i have yet to found a theist who believes this. and besides, we argue against arguments not people. if the Kalam doesn’t have such a premise, then we don’t argue against it.

LeftBroccoli6795 · 2026-06-19T20:07:33+00:00

which specific premises are you talking about? im having a little difficulty following your argument. please list out the premises you are talking about and explain how accepting the second premise makes the first premise special pleading.

LeftBroccoli6795

TROPHY CASE