My conversation with @ScottAdamsSays is now available on YouTube:
"Triggered"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKIJvOJDrs&feature=youtu.be …
-
-
"People should not kill children" is not a phrase that needs to be reasoned from first principles to be patently obvious.
-
Same applies to" A head of state's tendency to lie pathologically should not be excused because people 'feel' his false statements are true"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
-
Framing it as 2 movies implies there will be 2 endings. There won't.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Then all law and ethics are reason free. So be it.
-
What to do when one person's ethics don't allow for murder of one to save many but another person's do. Who decides who is right. You?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Individual reason defines self-created absolutisms. Just like your arbitrary definition of how to interpret the use of "should."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1. Someone with kids should feed them. 2. Sam has kids. 3. Sam should feed them. An argument in the modus ponens (that's reason). Wut? LOL
-
What do I win Scott? LOL.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And any argument that makes an pithy absolute statement like that is the same. Fuckin' hypocrite.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.