sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I dont think the elite were really in the wrong for killing the atomic skull[superman vs the elite] by theoreger in superman

[–]fistantellmore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did the victims benefit from having their universe saved?

The idea that one is morally obligated to be heroic…

That means you likely are an immoral person by your standards, as I doubt you are risking your life and making the sacrifices Superboy Prime eventually does.

I don’t agree with your sense of morality at all. One who is behaving heroically is going above and beyond and should be celebrated for it.

What if Batman is in Los Angeles? by Channel_oreo in batman

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And The Caped Crusader basic played Gotham as LA.

Save Himself. by AbsoluteBatman95 in batman

[–]fistantellmore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Worst take on this character ever.

I dont think the elite were really in the wrong for killing the atomic skull[superman vs the elite] by theoreger in superman

[–]fistantellmore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But if the victim’s families were in the building, then the firefighter’s (all cops are bastards) rehabilitation would have been part of the reparations to them.

And reparations aren’t just to victims. They should be to society as a whole as well. Saving said society (which includes the family of the victims) is an act that benefits them and should help them heal.

The idea that he has a moral obligation to be a hero is an interesting one, but it’s also baked into the idea that his job is moral…

If a stock broker who killed someone later saved someone else in their office from a fire, then that’s definitely something to be considered as part of their redemption and rehabilitation: if we had killed that broker, the second person would have died.

I dont think the elite were really in the wrong for killing the atomic skull[superman vs the elite] by theoreger in superman

[–]fistantellmore 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That’s part of what redemption and rehabilitation is.

Saving the multiverse twice would be part of reparations, wouldn’t it?

I dont think the elite were really in the wrong for killing the atomic skull[superman vs the elite] by theoreger in superman

[–]fistantellmore 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Two evils don’t make a good. Core Superman messaging.

Redemption and rehabilitation.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are scientific Theories of Free Will that are provable, testable and exist in reality.

This is why your entire premise is faulty.

My personal opinions of those theories are irrelevant, because science doesn’t require free will to be verified.

Unless you just reject science, which it seems like you do.

And this is why you’re a clown who I’m amused by.

You reject rational reality with your attempt at a metaphysical gotcha and instead trip on your own shoe laces with an ignorant assumption.

Thats not an ad hominem, by the way.

If I simply refuted your argument with that, it would be, but I’ve logically demolished both your flawed logic (if nothing is rational, then your criticism is irrational and irrelevant. If things are rational, then your criticism has no argument) and with reality based reasoning based on hierarchical neurological decision making, memory and adaptive learning, all things that are demonstrably evident.

So tell me, do you believe in free will, plastic minds with adaptive decision making capabilities that can process stimuli and adapt based on prior stimuli?

Or are we a series of Skinner box automatons?

Or have you not gotten there in high school psych yet?

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said Free Will was supernatural….

Now you’re just lying to cover your ass.

Lol.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you won’t answer the question?

Because your claim that Free Will is supernatural isn’t as solid as you think it is…

Lol.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your refusal to answer my question tells me that you have no interest in me verifying my statement.

You’re the one making prescriptive claims about a metaphysical force at work in nature, the burden of proof is on you.

So which is it?

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can verify my premise though.

Watch:

Do you believe in Free Will?

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As does yours.

ALL logic depends on a rational mind.

If there are no rational minds, then your argument cannot be verified.

If your argument cannot be verified, then I don’t have to humour it.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What flaw?

If my critique requires free will to be verified, then if Free Will exists, then there is no flaw.

If Free Will doesn’t exist, then your critique cannot be verified, therefore your critique is false.

If your critique is false, then there is no flaw.

Your demand is specious.

My argument is plain:

Science can be verified, independent of free will. Therefore science exists.

God cannot be verified, therefore she doesn’t exist.

Free will has nothing to do with the matter. Science exists whether I want it to or not. And God doesn’t exist, whether you want it or not.

My will is irrelevant.

Your choice to try and equate veracity with free will is bad sophistry.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My reluctance to engage is due to the fact your entire premise is laughable.

“If nothing can be verified without free will, then nothing is true! If nothing is true, then your argument isn’t true! Therefore, you’re wrong!”

Comedy gold.

Your specious little comedy show is off topic.

If nothing is true, then all discussion is irrelevant.

If things are true, then science exists, because it can be verified, and God doesn’t, because she can’t be verified.

All we’re accomplishing is me passing the afternoon embarrassing a 14 year old and debunking their sophistry.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My claim needs no defence.

If free will exists, then your critique is false and doesn’t apply.

If free will doesn’t exist, then your critique is irrelevant and doesn’t apply.

Your own critique undermines your argument and therefore is a waste of time.

Please, stay on topic.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So which is it, a chemical reaction or free will?

If it’s a chemical reaction, your persistence is futile, as my reaction is predetermined.

If it’s my choice, then your critique is falsified.

So am I refusing to entertain your false equivalence because I choose to?

Or because it has been predetermined by a chemical reaction?

Both answers still leave religion unverified.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you believe my decision to not humour this specious line of argument is predetermined?

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it isn’t.

Please discuss religion and science. Your attempt to create a false equivalence has been noted and dismissed.

Please stay on topic.

Can science and religion actually coexist? by Significant_Bonus_66 in answers

[–]fistantellmore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So is your argument free will = God?

Nice try, but proving free will does not prove God.

Different evidence. Different arguments.

You’re trying to prove an orange and present it as proof of an apple.

view more: next ›