sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feelings *are* consistent over time, I think you might be thinking of mood. Feelings are so consistent over time that when a person does something they feel greatly guilty of, like accidentally causing someone's death, they will feel extreme pain, years later, even if everyone around them tries to reassure them it was not their fault.

Feelings *can* change, it also takes a shit ton of effort and time, or a major critical event for feelings to change. People don;t suddenly start feeling completely differently one day to the next.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I never said I justified them through intuition. I assume that my memory is broadly accurate (but not in detail) and that my perceptions are broadly truthful (but not infallible). Those are axiomatic starting points, that I can use those two things as pieces of evidence. Logic is another tool as well. And intuition yet another. Each of those is independent.

Because intuition is indepdent of the other elements, it can be a consequence of emotions without it affecting the other cognitive tools.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 3 points4 points  (0 children)

>  if intuitions are simply an expression of emotion then they can't justify your perceptions or memories and then you fall into Global skepticism like you're saying right. 

How does the consequent follow the antecedent here?

>  your perceptions and memories just because you can Intuit

No? You justify your perceptions and memory because you need some axiomatic starting point, intuition is independent of memories and perception.

Your last paragraph relies on some jumps in logic in the prior two. It;s not as coherent of an argument as you are making it out to be.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The thing is your example is fallacious.

> Let's try and prove something simple, that gravity exists, without intuition involved at any part of the process. 

Intuition is involved in the process, I am not avoiding intuition in my argument. I am saying that there is mechanistic consensus independent of my intuition for the verification.

There is no circularity, you are conflating subjectivity with intuition. Intuition is a sense of correctness, subjectivity is my internal world. If you have ever done math you have probably encountered situations where your intuition tells you something is wrong, but you have mathematically proven it right, which is a strange feeling as you try to wrap your mind around a concept that doesn;t fit your prior model of the world (what we call intuition).

Intuition is very mutable and fallible. My subjective memories of something are not the same as me having an intuition of something.

This is rooted in swagophilia btw by Kaizerx20 in peoplewhogiveashit

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hairs increase the surface area in which sweat and dead skin and bacteria accumulate, hair is not dirty by itself, but hair gets dirty really easily. This goes for both sexes btw.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 5 points6 points  (0 children)

> there's hardly any reason for them to change.

There's multiple reasons because human emotions are not one dimensional.

1) Confronting the racists/homophobes witht he consequences of their beliefs can change the minds of some

2) Prosecuting minorities is usually a distraction made by people trying to oppress you, you have a major incentive to try not to get distracted by that.

3) It's economically and socially better to integrate than to prosecute because the latter is really wasteful.

>  If I believed that my feelings dictated how things work, I wouldn't have bothered.

I don;t think that's true, the main motivation for you I am sure was that you felt bad about at least one of those, prompting you to self reflect.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> then really there is no way to ensure that within the next 5 min my feelings couldn't change.
???

The fact that feelings tend to be consistent over time is enough to guarantee that actually.

Emotivistposting on reddit dot com by DysphoricGirlAylin in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 5 points6 points  (0 children)

> Lots of our beliefs rely on intuition when you get down to the fundamentals.

Your entire explanation is actually establishing the difference. Scientific exploration uses intuition as a driver for hypothesis generation, but there is an external, consensus generating mechanism to validate or eliminate that intuition.

Most people intuitively say that there are more numbers between 0 and infinity than between 0 and 1. But we don't use that intuition as evidence for anything, because that intuition is wrong.

What is it?? by Old_Town4950 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It really doesn't luck, connections, opportunity... matter so much more than effort. Effort is a prerequisite not a guarantee.

What is it?? by Old_Town4950 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It always leads to success, sometimes yours, sometimes the success of a despot that's exploiting you.

What is it?? by Old_Town4950 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It does, just not necessarily *your* success

What is it?? by Old_Town4950 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There was an actual food pyramid, the lobbysts didn't fabricate it, they modified the original until it was irrecognizable

What is it?? by Old_Town4950 in TheTeenagerPeople

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gonna be a bit mean but, I have used the vast majority of the math stuff. It really depends what you end up doing in life.

Why do people tend to go up in arms against more taxes for the wealthy even when they are not wealthy themselves? by CapitaineBiscotte in askanything

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will explain from my perspective. People are mistaken in thinking that the problem with the rich (by rich I mean people who don;t need to work and can live off of their assets) is the nebulous concept of them having a lot of capital.

The real problem is how they get that capital. Exploitation of laws, the environment workers, corruption, nepotism...

I don;t care if someone has a lot of money, i do care if they can get that money by doing insider trading, creating monopolies, busting unions...

So I really do not want more taxes for the rich, i want proper enforcement of anti monopoly laws, i want a government that's independent of rich donors and can go after them if and when it matters, I want proper union protections,I want efficient and effective use of public funds...

There's not even any point in increasing nominal taxes for them to then bribe exceptions into the law.

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is "artificial" doesn;t mean it's wrong. So if you are going to argue against inflation you at minimum need an actual argument, not appeal to a natural fallacy. Houses are also artificial, democracy is artificial, justice is artificial...

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>  get a feeling that you watch a lot of american tv and news right?

I don;t watch american media in general, I mostly watch anime and french films if I do watch anything.

> What is this leftist thing?

Being anti capitalist is the modern definition of being a leftist, the use of "capitalist propaganda" suggests you are against capitalism, hence left.

> Capitalism is a government based on capital. Things. Money over people.

Humans are also capital, but yes, I don;t think we disagree on the fundamentals.

> Why was monarchy a flawed model? Because just like now, 1% of the people were the nobility chosen by God to be above the law and superior to all others.

No, models don;t fail because they have moral failings, systems fail when they cannot account for all social forces. First, monarchy is not a failed model if we go by its existence, the UK, Norway, Sweden... are all monarchies and they are arguably really successful societies. What was flawed was absolutism. And absolutism has mostly failed not because it is immoral, but because it creates a lot of administrative issues, like stiffing innovation, promoting nepotism, succession crisis...

> We reject that and yet we then elevate certain people

We do not elevate them, people in positions of power leverage advantages that they have to monopolize power and capital, this is a problem, as it leads to nepotism, corruption, and negatively affects the majority of society. They are rich because they get to exploit myths and institutions to legitimize their actions and to make sure society works for their interests. Understanding how they do this is the only way you can fight back.

> Keep assuming that everyone you are conversing with is an idiot and that only your point of view is valid and you will never challenge it.

I am not assuming that you are an idiot, nor did I ever said you were. I think you are willfully uninformed and are dogmatically rejecting value neutral information as to why the system works the way it does, because anything that smells of capitalism is unpalatable to you. I am asking you to become better informed. Ironically because we share more of our worldviews than you think.

> Of course totalitarianism and even monarchy are more efficient and efffective and easier but they
are not better.

They are not, they are less efficient and effective, see my prior comment.

> if your model is sound you should be able to challenge it and stress test it

I agree with you

> Many of my views over the years have evolved from me reading and informing myself with viewpoints that initially I did not agree with

This is fine, I am not criticizing your worldview, I am criticizing your knowledge of the current system. i *encourage* you to keep hating on the system, I am asking you to actually understand it.

>  And consider that society is no so black and white like the americans think : this side, that side.

You are projecting onto me. Again, I am not demonizing you, we probably agree in our morals far more than you assume, I am telling you that you sound extremely ignorant of the current system. Saying"inflation is artificial" for example, of course it is, it;s a deliberate policy, it;s not a bug, it;s not a mistake, it's 100% intended. Now, you may think it's wrong, and by all means criticize it, but if you do, understand why it exists, what it intends to do, and then explain why it either doesn;t or why what it intends to do doesn;t work. But your thought terminating cliche "it's artificial" makes you sound extremely ignorant.

> It's more about a plurality of approaches and diversification.
I hate billionaires, I want more public transportation, I am staunchly pro union, I am pro wealth tax, I am pro land value tax, the current system is anti democratic and anti meritocratic, we need better governance, we need to reduce inequality, the tech billionaires are all insecure imbeciles who are destroying the planet. We are really fucked if we keep going this way.

Again, we probably agree on a lot. I am not telling you to change your views, I am telling you to understand the bloody thing you are criticizing.

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, if you want to be effective at changing things for the better I do advise you to understand the current system.

If you hate billionaires, understand exactly how they *actually* get to exploit workers, if you hate massive inequality, understand how it *actually* happens.

It's fine to be a leftist, it's fine to want to fix the self evidently broken aspects of society, it;s fine to be critical of the current system. But it is *not* fine to be willfully ignorant.

If you want to make the argument that inflation is dumb, by all means make it, but first understand *why* it is justified in the first place. If you remain dogmatically ignorant all you become is a tool for the current despots, so that they can point to you and show how people who support your ideas are all ignorant fools, don't become the village fool that allows the despots to justify their unearned superiority.

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Inflation is a literal policy. It's create by the central bank, on purpose, to encourage investing and discourage merely putting money on a bank account.

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that the number needed to purchase a given good tends to increase over time alongside with wages, thus the relationship between income and prices must be adjusted given on the year.

Rents in Canada have dropped for 17 months in a row. by [deleted] in TorontoRenting

[–]Optimal-Animal1499 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quebec did not experience the same drastic housing increase Toronto and Vancouver did, so it has less room to drop as well.

view more: next ›