Affirmative Action for Conservative Professors

[Berzerker]

This is the reason I do not support it. That latter distinction is difficult. I see no conclusive evidence for one side or the other, and unless you can show unequivocable, absolutely and unquestionably that a foetus or anything else is conscious, a human or whatever, and not merely some subjective definition, then abortion is murder imo. Of course, this whole issue here is sidetracking, except to say that I don't see why it has to be split down liberal/conservative lines. I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about abortion because it has implications that run deep into my own philosophical system that is wholly irrelevant here.

If you didn't want to debate it, you shouldn't have jumped into a debate between me and OB about that subject.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not what this thread is about.

Not the issue. Should people be allowed to show pictures of dismembered children on campus if such images are true? That's the question.

I'd post the pictures in question, but I can't do that because of forum rules. It should not matter whether it is abortion, or the war in Iraq, people should be allowed to show these pictures, provided they are true.

That's the real issue, and I wanted to fire a shot at Agathon, for waffling.

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

We have natural rights and the state exists to prevent man from injuring man (which was Thomas Jefferson's words), but then we get into the socialistic nonsense than an activity can be made illegal - i.e., legalising man in the form of the state injuring others

I put that part in just for you. I agree, that there is conflict. Which is why you get into differences over how is it best to respect liberty, while at the same time protecting people? For this reason, they control certain substances, to which I am sure you will have plenty more to say about.

I would argue, that in some cases, it is best for the state not to intervene, or to pass a law, not because the action should be done, but because it is impossible to enforce. Sodomy restrictions fall under this category.

It is not a contradiction, but rather tension between competing responsibilities, that require creative solutions.

e.g., your prostitution example.

Prostitution can be restrained in a variety of fashions, one approach which is to make it illegal. I think the first question we need to ask is whether or not such restriction can be enforced, to some significant degree, as well as some addressing of the causes. With prostitution, at least the visible portions, I think this can be done.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

So conservatism, in your opinion is merely bull****?

Gee, I wonder how long it took you to figure that out,



At least, by not addressing my arguments, you demonstrate the weakness of your own liberal convictions.

Surely, each liberal ought to be gaged by his familiarity with Conservatives, eh?

[Fake Boris]

Funny thread, Agathon. First we have to prove why free will is a religious concept and, consequently, why is it that most conservatives are still upholding a religious ideology.

Then, we can't even define what is a "conservative", even less why is it that they are almost inevitably dumber than liberals.

High-quality troll, perhaps one of the best I've ever seen.

[Ben Kenobi]

we can't even define what is a "conservative",

Berz is the only one to address my post which tries to make a definition.

Why don't you give it a shot, OB, if you don't like my definitione, eh?

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Oncle Boris

No. Free will is about a human being making decision in a way that nothing was influenced by the laws of nature. Put Kant-like, it's the ability to become a 'legislator' yourself.[/q]

Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

So, atomic determinism is not determinism? In any case, it does have some serious philosophical implications.

WTF is "atomic" determinism? Determinism means the universe operates according to certain unbreakable rules. Probabilism means that the universe operates based on chance, and the chances of various events may or may not be determined by certain unbreakable rules.

I am scientifically illiterate, so I can't discuss this. Can you give an understandable link?

A link? Just google "quantum physics" or something.

The point of free will, is that rules concerning your actions are made up by yourself.

No, the point of free will is that your actions are made up by yourself.

If my definition of free will is not used, then free will cannot exist, as the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic - there is nothing else.

Plausible. Still, if none of these 'set of rules' come from the rational subject, it's not free will.

Yes it is - my mind OPERATES according to those rules. It uses them to come to a DECISION. It doesn't matter whether or not my mind decided on the rules it uses to make the decision.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Skywalker:

Since you asked, OB is right about the decision thing.

Let me say again that you appear to be a compatibilist, so most of the arguments against free will are not aimed at you since they are aimed at the incompatibilist understanding of free will.

What is the difference between "compatabilist" and "incompataibilist"? I don't know all that much philosophical terminology

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker


What is the difference between "compatabilist" and "incompataibilist"? I don't know all that much philosophical terminology

Why don't you look it up?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
False. Very, very false. There is a qualitative difference between your mind and that of an ant (or a computer), and that is that your mind is self-aware. I obviously know that I am self-aware.

Quantative difference leads to qualitative difference. Consider fissible material. If the quantity present is under the critical mass. it just sits there emitting all sorts of interesting things. However, if you push the quantity to over critical mass, it goes boom.

Besides, just because you are self-aware does not mean you do not follow a very complex algorithm.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

Consider a train running on a track. Is its movement coerced or not?

[Kuciwalker]

Did the train make a decision?

Quantative difference leads to qualitative difference. Consider fissible material. If the quantity present is under the critical mass. it just sits there emitting all sorts of interesting things. However, if you push the quantity to over critical mass, it goes boom.
Besides, just because you are self-aware does not mean you do not follow a very complex algorithm.

So? Wouldn't you say that the distinction between "critical mass" and "not critical mass" would be useful logically (rather than some arbitrary number)? In the same way, the distinction between "self-aware" and "not self-aware" is also useful, and it exists (obviously).

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
Uh, no, where did you get that idea? Free will is - get this - "freedom" of "will". Since I'm obviously not being mind-controlled or anything, my will is free (uncoerced).

I got this idea from Immanuel Kant, one of the most respected philospher the world has known. The problem of 'mind-control' is an interesting one- most would argue that since a natural inclination does not come from your will, but rather determines it from your birth, that's not 'free will'. The uncoercion idea shows, IMO, that you are confusing free will and liberty.

The principle of free will- (Agathon correct me if I'm wrong)- is that your reason can overcome natural desires and act on behalf of itself only, thus creating its own set of rules that have not been inherited. It's not about following your will- it's about CREATING it from the ground up, using the principles of logics.

WTF is "atomic" determinism? Determinism means the universe operates according to certain unbreakable rules. Probabilism means that the universe operates based on chance, and the chances of various events may or may not be determined by certain unbreakable rules.

I think atomic determinism is related to my "separate big bangs" example. Bascially, it says that two universes, if they were identical at day 0, could only evolve in the exact same way. On the probabalistic issue, read on-


I talked to my friend about this, who is quite good in science. He told me that the universe is probabilistic, not because it really is random, but because of our own precision limits in describing it. So, if we had the ability to describe the universe with an infinite precision, we could end up with some deterministic rules.

No, the point of free will is that your actions are made up by yourself.

As Agathon said, it looks like you are a compatibilist.

If my definition of free will is not used, then free will cannot exist, as the universe is either deterministic or probabilistic - there is nothing else.

And since your definition is wrong, you are a compatibilist, which means you support only an half-assed version of free will.

[Kuciwalker]

I got this idea from Immanuel Kant, one of the most respected philospher the world has known. The problem of 'mind-control' is an interesting one- most would argue that since a natural inclination does not come from your will, but rather determines it from your birth, that's not 'free will'. The uncoercion idea shows, IMO, that you are confusing free will and liberty.

The principle of free will- (Agathon correct me if I'm wrong)- is that your reason can overcome natural desires and act on behalf of itself only, thus creating its own set of rules that have not been inherited. It's not about following your will- it's about CREATING it from the ground up, using the principles of logics.

I use logic in my decisions. So?

I think atomic determinism is related to my "separate big bangs" example. Bascially, it says that two universes, if they were identical at day 0, could only evolve in the exact same way. On the probabalistic issue, read on-

You just mean determinism then. There's nothing particularly "atomic" about it

I talked to my friend about this, who is quite good in science. He told me that the universe is probabilistic, not because it really is random, but because of our own precision limits in describing it. So, if we had the ability to describe the universe with an infinite precision, we could end up with some deterministic rules.

He's BSing you. It is possible that the universe is deterministic underneath, but so far all evidence points to it actually being random (not just our perceptions). Here's an example (a very famous quantum physics experiment):

Take an opaque sheet of some material, and poke a hole in it (a very, very small hole). Set up a screen behind it that measures the number of photons that impact each part of the screen (basically a photographic plate). One of the properties of a wave is that when it travels through a hole that has a width of a certain relation to its wavelength, it turns into a "new" wave - that is, it propogates from that point. If you shine a beam of light at the hole, it will do this and you will get an expected pattern on the photographic plate - a circle fading at the edges. Now, wouldn't you think that if you put a second hole, you'd get more light? Wrong! If you add a second hole, the waves end up cancelling each other out, and you get a patten of stripes. This happens even if you send the light one photon at a time. This means that each photon is actually going through both holes, and is interfering with itself.

And since your definition is wrong, you are a compatibilist, which means you support only an half-assed version of free will.

How is my version of free will "half-assed"? It's the only one that can POSSIBLY exist.

[Whaleboy]

My questions expose the flaws in your arguments, but there was no politics involved in the quote you used, so why did you draw that conclusion?

My arguments? I was saying how such things are most likely not genetic. Bricks and architecture. What flaws?

So what events in your life "caused" you to be a "coward"? Ever hear of Sgt York? He was a pacifist and a war hero, what events in his life prepared him for that path?

I'm not going to divulge information about my past that is unnecessary, but lets say cause and consequence. Go back in time, change the cause, different consequence. And I dont know of Sgt York, I cannot comment. Our events in our lives are all different, one should not attempt to categorise them.

And what about the choices you made to help create your "upbringing"? Were those choices determined by genes?
If two children are beaten by their parents, will both those children grow up to beat their children? Why are 2 children who were raised ~equally behave differently?

I'm not saying that a cause will always lead to the same consequence because of various confounding factors, including genetics, or to use my analogy, the properties of the building material. You imply that it is knowable, whereas I state that is not the case, knowability is not a pre-requisite to any refutation of free-will.

So conservatism, in your opinion is merely bull****?

Gee, I wonder how long it took you to figure that out,

It took years of intense philosophical inquiry...

At least, by not addressing my arguments, you demonstrate the weakness of your own liberal convictions.

Ben: Please elaborate.