Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quoting with proper context - yes.
Quoting without proper context - no.
Paraphrasing or interpreting - no.
I have seen what happened when you paraphrased Eudaimonist´s statement recently.
Thanks for asking for permission beforehand.
It is probably best if we call done done. I have no idea why my question caused you such problems, but I apologize. It was, in my opinion, a question and no more.
I look forward to perhaps discussing other matters with you in a different thread at a future date. Have a great holiday season.
So on that do you base this assertion?No I do not have to have scientific papers regarding free will to know that I have the capacity to make choices and decisions in my everyday life.
Do you also apply this to women? children? Those born with Rhys or Down syndrom? What about those that suffer from brain trauma, disease, tumors? What about Phineas Gage?I am 100% responsible or culpable for the choices I make in my life, whether good or bad. Its called being a man and taking responsibility for my actions.
You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."
Do you count yourself among the ranks of Watson and Crick (DNA), Einstein (physics), and Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain (the transistor effect, on which the computer you are using is based)?
So on that do you base this assertion?
Do you also apply this to women? children? Those born with Rhys or Down syndrom? What about those that suffer from brain trauma, disease, tumors? What about Phineas Gage?
In what manner are you asking if I count myself among their ranks? Am I famous? No. Have I contributed as much as they have to mankind? I do not think so. Do they have more credentials than I? Yes. Is it at all possible that I could be just as qualified in my field? Yes. Without knowing what you are asking, I cannot truthfully answer your question.
The subject was scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution, which incorporates the work of Watson and Crick.
You said, "They now have a theory. I have some too."
You are the one that made the association. You tell me how your theories warrant comparison.
I see now that you are just playing with definitions to suit your purposes. From dictionary.com:The subject of the discussion was pacifism. During the course of the discussion, you brought up scientific theories, and now you appeal to authority.
As long as we are talking about theories, we are talking about things absent proof (in my view), and as long as we are not dealing in proof, I say all theories warrant comparison. Yours, mine, and theirs are all on equal footing. Since you brought them into our discussion, you might start by telling me what they have to do with our discussion, and if I agree, we can continue. If they have nothing to do with it other than offer theories, I cannot see how they will benefit you or your point unless you contend that the popularity, age, or general acceptance of a theory adds something to its validity.
Is that your contention?
Nevermind; you said you did not have support for your assertion.Did you mean to ask on "what" do I base my assertion?
That you take responsibility for your actions does not demonstrate what you mean by 'free will'.I apply it to myself. I said that I am 100% responsible for my actions.
So, do these persons lack the 'free will' that you have?However, I will say in general that a person is culpable for their actions to the degree that they are capable of discerning that they are accountable for said actions. This differs from person to person according to one's cognitive and decision making capacity.
In courts of law throughout the world, it is generally held that children, especially those who are preteens, are not held to the same degree of culpability as adults are. This is just one example of course.
Whatever your intent was by doing this, it is a discussion killer for me.
I see now that you are just playing with definitions to suit your purposes.
From dictionary.com:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.
I am sorry you feel this way, but I hope you will reconsider.
I am not playing with definitions. I hope you can understand that my agnosticism does not allow me to subscribe to the same conclusions you have reached regarding some definitions. It is not a game to me.
The problems with the definition are that it states "more or less verified" which to me means the same as "not verified" therefore not proven; it states "established explanation" which to me means nothing since being the established explanation does not mean proven; it states "known facts or phenomena" which requires proof but does nothing to tell me how this proof is to be known. To me it seems that it is nothing more than a guess.
I simply do not agree with the definitions. There is no more to it than that.
I should try that. I am meeting with my bank manager next week. I will tell him that I do not agree with his definition of 'compound interest', and that I should have tens of thousands of dollars where their records show only thousands.
I have no idea what form you think these 'proofs' might appear in. You may live in a small wooden shack in the woods, and have never had access to modern medicine, driven in a late model vehicle, or used a internet-enabled computer.
It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.I think we can agree that this is not the same thing. I say it is different unless you actually have trouble agreeing with his definition of compound interest. I am not merely arguing over the definition of words rather the accuracy of the definitions. I think it always comes back to an understanding of that which one accepts as proof.
May I paraphrase you?I wish I could tell you, but since I do not know if I have ever encountered a proof, I do not know what one might look like. All of these things you mention may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong.
It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.
As I said before, science does not do "proofs". You sound like someone complaining that pop-up toasters will not bake cupcakes.
May I paraphrase you?
"The scientific theories on which the internet-enabled computer with which this post was made may in fact be correct, but I suspect that they are not. It appears as if they are wrong."
To you take issue with this statement?
It is the same thing. You are merely arguing over the definition of words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?