What was your experience?
-
-
**clears throat in philosopher** it is of course false to think a person is required to believe all the logical consequences of their beliefs, consequently one is not required to believe any of the logical consequences of their beliefs
-
**philosophizing continues** which is another way of saying that a chud may say p, and that chud may also say if not-q then not-p, yet still to impute q to them would be unwarranted and wrong
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Since the status quo is inherently illogical and philosophically inconsistent, anybody attempting to defend it cannot hope to do so with any higher order of coherence Arguments get counterarguments, but any cross-examination of counterarguments must be against the rules
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And a lot of them also seem to be utterly incapable of understanding that other people might be holding sincere beliefs that just don't align with their own assumptions. Because that level of density can't be an act, especially not when they're so consistent about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well that’s what you get when you have no consistent moral principles, just a gut level disgust reaction you mistake for a moral impulse.
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.