DonVolaric
Member

Another way to think about it, is that the word "Cow" is pretty well defined. To the extent that it isn't, we have a species/subspecies classification system to remove the ambiguity of which "Bos taurus" you might be referring to. There is no reason that "murder" couldn't be classified in a sufficient manner accordingly to remove ambiguity. The existing classifications are clearly lacking. But if the same level of scientific robustness was applied to classifying murders as we do classifying species, I am sure we could come up with a system that defines "murder" in such a way that it is scientifically rigorous to the same level of species classification. The reason people disagree about what a "murderer" is, is less about the definition, and more about the consequences, and the morality. The morality of the many different types of murder and its associated consequences is something we will be absolutely never all agree on. But there is no physical limitation in the world that is preventing us from having a shared understanding of the meaning of the words that we use. Ambiguity in the word "murder" is a deficiency in our language, but similar to species classification, it is not something that can't physically be overcome.

Everything was philosophy before it was science. Science became science because we came to a shared understanding and developed a shared framework. It is entirely possible - though extraordinarily (cannot be emphasized enough) unlikely - that in the future, we will have a shared framework that "is agreed upon by all reasonable people" that defines the words "crime" and "law" in a manner that is objectively testable within that framework. One could certainly argue that we shouldn't. And that would be a strong argument to make. To say that we can't, is technically not true. To say that we won't, is a very strong bet. One of the reasons people might reasonably reject that, is because there is no shared common definition. If there was a clear definition, built with terms that were also clearly defined, it would be more reasonable for people to agree. To the extent that there is any ambiguity in terms across different social groups (e.g., "state", or "anarchism") simply provide different words and definitions for every meaning, or simply avoid using existing words that have any ambiguity at all. Eventually every known meaning of every word would be defined and ambiguity would be near non existent (to the point of "science"). It would be a difficult language to learn certainly, and not very practical, but it's not theoretically impossible.

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393151656243680 & https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393156769034602 SCOTUS’s VanDerStok Case Isn’t Just About Ghost Guns The justices are set to hear oral arguments in a challenge to the Biden administration’s ghost gun ban. If overturned, the ruling could have a chilling effect on federal regulators. https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-kits-vanderstok/ {Alain Stephens | 07 October 2024} The U.S Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 8 to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped in effectively outlawing certain kits used to make homemade, untraceable ghost guns.

https://x.com/Mick_O_Keeffe/status/1843332428171227581 1843332428171227581

ETA: Beat me to it. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

https://x.com/Timcast/status/1843255567298773154 1843255567298773154 https://x.com/nbcsnl/status/1842778056781422660 1842778056781422660

The concept underlying the expression "1 + 1 = 2" is necessarily true for all people in all places at all times. The concept underlying the expression "Joe is a murderer" is not necessarily true for all people in all places at all times. All reasonable people, for all times and all places, must necessarily accept, accede to, and agree with the meaning expressed by the statement "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of whatever other particular set of symbols and system of nomenclature might be substituted at the "surface level" to denote the abstractions underlying the elements of the statement. IOW: It is always and everywhere unreasonable to reject the "ship" (i.e., the underlying meaning) of the expression "1 + 1 = 2", regardless of how the semantic deck chairs might be arranged. On the other hand, when it comes to normative and/or transcendental matters (such as those relating to the concepts of "law" and "crime"), reasonable people can and will disagree - on an essential level much more fundamental than the transient contingencies of mere symbols and nomenclature - about what "ought" to be, or about how such things "ought" to be understood. With regard to such matters, one can certainly adopt presuppositions and definitions such that - from within the context of those "axiomatic" elements - certain propositions must necessarily hold true. But other reasonable people who do not share those presuppositions and definitions will not necessarily be compelled to accept, accede to, or agree with those propositions (or the "axiomatic" elements from which they are derived). IOW: One cannot reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "1 + 1 = 2", but one might reasonably reject the concept presently denoted by the expression "Joe is a murderer". To put things in terms of Feynman's empirical/positive/non-normative discussion of magnetism, one cannot reasonably dispute that the opposite poles of magnets attract (regardless of what symbols, labels, and nomenclature one might arbitrarily adopt in order to describe or express the fact). The question of whether the opposite poles of magnets attract (and under what circumstances they might not) is an "objective" one, and is existentially bound up with the essential identity of "magnets" as distinct from other things - but the question of why they attract (in the sense in which Feynman means "why" in this particular instance) is not. To address the former question is to engage in "science" (specifically, "physics"). To address the latter question is to engage in "philosophy" (specifically, "metaphysics").

//

He never left - and apparently, he's never going to ... Migrant King Deported After Insulting Americans BUT Venezuela Says No Return. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmANBcMCGGs {Nate The Lawyer | 06 October 2024}

And sometimes, a cigar hurricane is just a cigar hurricane. Especially in the midst of hurricane season. No, that wouldn't be "crazy", either. File under "Crises, Never Letting Good Ones Go to Waste".

Live in about 5 hours: Super Mayor Board Meeting After Eviction & Massive Legal Loss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSx9tvbwCQ {Nate The Lawyer | 07 October 2024} Dolton Board Meeting

Corrupt "Super Mayor" Goes FULL Ghetto TRASH https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/corrupt-super-mayor-goes-full-ghetto:f {Actual Justice Warrior | 07 October 2024} In this video I discuss the Super Mayor losing her mind at a Thorton Township board meeting after she inadvertently proposed an investigation into herself. Sources: Full Super Mayor Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLklYRErBEt_fh66U6iIlakqVGYz1cHanx Full Meeting: https://youtu.be/bi3RkgtIbzI

"Wouldn't it be crazy if one of the richest lithium deposits in the world was right outside of Asheville North Carolina?" Why would that be "crazy"? :confused: "Wouldn't it be crazy if the largest lithium mining company in the world 3 days before the flood began, submitted the permits for their mine right outside Asheville North Carolina?" Why would it be "crazy" for a company that mines stuff to submit permits to mine that stuff in a place where lots of that stuff is at? And how would it be any more "crazy" than if the permits had been applied for a week - or a month, or a year, or whatever - before the flood began? For that matter, how would it be any more "crazy" than if the the permits had been applied for a week - or a month, or a year, or whatever - after the flood began? If "3 days before" is "crazy", then at what point (before or after) would it not be "crazy"?

Seconded.

My thoughts exactly

Why would a Pro-Ukrainian message get a community note? At least back when I was following this (pre-Musk-takeover), it was only pro-Russian messages that got censored (post would be removed and author usually banned, certainly not a "community note")

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how he's channeling Ron Paul. Is there a clip with additional context that I'm missing? My understanding is that when Trump says that "it wouldnt have happened" under his Presidency, its because Trump believes he is intimidating and other countries are scared to cross him. And that may or may not be true, but what is true, is that the 2nd Minsk agreement was broken during his Presidency, which is what directly led to the war in Ukraine. He certainly didn't seem to care about any of this back then. Either way, I'm totally missing the Ron Paul vibe on this one.

Sure, it's clear now that you've explained it. I hope it's also clear that whatever deflections AF may or may not be guilty of, does not really have much relevance to my posts? The point still stands that when white people shoot up schools, they are universally demonized (universal minus AF who apparently deflects on the issue).

Ah, the Jews. Something we can agree on :cool:

Apparently. But in my defense, your point made very little sense - and still doesn't, and requires clarification. I'm not gonna try to decode whatever hidden meaning you were trying to imply. Just say what you meant to say.

Well I certainly agree with their first, and presumably most important point, that people should be allowed to unify based on self determination. (At the time, such unification was prohibited by Treaty of Versailles and some other treaty(s))

Ok so "white people" basically. That's not a very specific club. But I guess at the end of the day, white people as a group are ultimately responsible for everything in the world (not even being sarcastic) based on the group's wealth and influence. If you really want to get specific about wealth and influence, we could start talking about "the Jews" but I'm sure we can leave that tangent for another thread.

What deflection are you referring to, besides perhaps your own? Where have I deflected? I made a point about the black culture of violence, you deflected and tried to make it about white people, I addressed your points, and then again you deflected and tried to make it about white people again. Who's funding it? White people. Who's doing it? Black people. Who is more responsible for it? I don't give a shit but the culture of violence needs to stop and both parties need to be called out on it.

If the Jews were anything then like they are now, perhaps they were right to place at least some blame on that particular ethnicity.

Two separate foundations, as far as I can tell.

The difference is, no one is making excuses for the white kids who shoot up schools. They are universally demonized. If people universally demonized black communities culture of violence, perhaps there wouldn't be so many black thugs killing each other in the hood.

Matthew 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Which people is that?