Probably. I'll accept what I can see and observe as fact (even if that isn't necessarily true, it's all I have), but for something vague like whether a god exists or not, it becomes more difficult to claim you know the answer. If there's no evidence one way or the other, how can you claim to know the answer (aside from personal experience)?
Which statements? I'm in no position to establish laws. And, as long as I didn't have supreme power over everything, I recognize that it's in my interests to not allow such abuses of power.
And I actually doubt many people wouldn't save the thing that they like best. My mother, for example, would probably save her dog over some random person that she doesn't know.
I don't believe in the Christian god. I don't believe in the ancient Egyptian gods. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I don't believe that a god exists.
There. That didn't seem so difficult. I merely stated my own beliefs. I can't (or at least I don't think I can) prove those things wrong, but I can still state what I believe. And I typically try not to state my beliefs as facts.
The onus is on the person who posits the model of reality with the greatest complexity, as per Occam's razor.
In your opinion?
It is generally agreed by philosophers and artificial intelligence researchers that simplicity of a model, given that it is compatible with observation, is evidence for its truth.
I don't care what they agree upon. I don't agree with them.
"It is a fact that God exists." "It is a fact that god doesn't exist."
If someone said either of those things, I would ask them for evidence to prove their claim (I'm an atheist, by the way). Why? Well, they're claiming to know something for a fact. I would think they would at least have some evidence to prove it (although, as someone else said, they might have experienced it themselves; but that wouldn't really be so convincing).
If you want to state a belief, then I think you should state a belief. What I don't think you should do is pass off your beliefs as facts.
If they can safely remove the baby without killing it, then I think they should go that route. If they can't, then continue with the abortion. I don't care how developed it is. If the mother wants it gone, then I think she should have the option to get rid of it.
the onus is on the religious to provide infallible proof.
I believe the onus is on whoever states something as a fact. That, to me, implies that you somehow know something, and if you know something to be true, then you probably should have evidence to prove it. Otherwise, how could you know?
I'd tentatively submit that the vast majority of people do see this 'magical' reason
So would I. But that doesn't mean that I agree with them, and that doesn't mean that there actually is an objectively correct reason.
and if we perceive agency from an intelligent animal most of us (certain disorders notwithstanding) will elect not to eat it given the option.
There are still people who eat and kill supposedly intelligent animals. If someone has a "disorder," to me, that merely implies that they are different.
I don't care. Being "unnatural" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to me.
is a default tendency in humans and obviously helps society to function more smoothly.
Not necessarily. Laws and logic can accomplish that. Just because you don't feel empathy for others (in my case, it's just people that I don't know) doesn't mean that you'll go out and murder people or believe that such a thing should be allowed. If you recognize that a certain action (or allowing certain actions) hurts society, then it's pretty easy to avoid doing it.
Maybe not, but to me it's nearly the same thing. Not everyone wants to deal with that garbage, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they're socially crippled, either.
It's unlikely that they won't have to deal with it eventually (as he said). But I see no reason for me to force it on them myself (I wouldn't do that for sports or hobbies, either).
When you don't let your kids go to school you are stunting their growth as a human being.
Don't "let" them go to school? As in, force them to be home schooled even if they want to go to school? Well, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate that. Or did you mean just home schooling them? If so, I doubt that. You don't need to be locked in a school building to 'grow' (whatever that means) as a human being.
If they associate, it's with others who are home schooled.
Oh? So it's impossible to find friends without being locked in a building with a bunch of people your age? You don't need to associate solely with people who are home schooled. You can do it with just about anyone.
They will never be required to deal with social interactions of differing social groups until they go to college
Required? No. I wouldn't force someone to, either. Some people are introverts. It might be difficult to believe, but not everyone cares deeply about socializing.
unless they happen to be lucky enough to have a parent that forces them into these situations.
Personally, I wouldn't call that "lucky." There is no reason that I see that you need to force them to hang out with other people. Either they want to or they don't. Maybe they're too shy or something such as that, but that's their own problem (and they still might want to associate with others anyway).
Too bad for you, then. I would likely save the one that I like the most. I know it's difficult to believe, but different people have different preferences (and this isn't a life or death scenario for yourself).
Say you are crossing the street, and a car swerves around the corner, threatening to hit you. Do you dive out of the way because it's your opinion or because of ingrained flight-or-fight responses beyond conscious control?
Probably instinct or something such as that. But not everything I do is based solely on that.
In your scenario, my life isn't in danger. I can choose which one I would like to save. I feel no emotion towards people that I don't know and do not care if they die.
you learn a real language that can help you be more employable.
Not everyone cares about being immediately employable. Others may just use it as a small starting language (and it's possible that they don't want to use any others). It's just a matter of preference.
Yeah and getting a paycheck is the fun side of working a job.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. What harm does teaching someone the "fun" side of programming bring? Why does that mean you must hand kids 20 dollar bills?
Which, in my opinion, doesn't prove much (since getting a good grade doesn't prove that you truly know anything). I think there's simply too many mandatory filler classes in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably. I'll accept what I can see and observe as fact (even if that isn't necessarily true, it's all I have), but for something vague like whether a god exists or not, it becomes more difficult to claim you know the answer. If there's no evidence one way or the other, how can you claim to know the answer (aside from personal experience)?
considering that by your own statements
Which statements? I'm in no position to establish laws. And, as long as I didn't have supreme power over everything, I recognize that it's in my interests to not allow such abuses of power.
And I actually doubt many people wouldn't save the thing that they like best. My mother, for example, would probably save her dog over some random person that she doesn't know.
"I state, as a fact, that God exists.
If you want evidence, you can go fuck yourself."
I don't believe in the Christian god.
I don't believe in the ancient Egyptian gods.
I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
I don't believe that a god exists.
There. That didn't seem so difficult. I merely stated my own beliefs. I can't (or at least I don't think I can) prove those things wrong, but I can still state what I believe. And I typically try not to state my beliefs as facts.
reasonable people would state as fact
What is "reasonable"? That sounds subjective. I'd say, "I don't believe that such a thing exists."
The onus is on the person who posits the model of reality with the greatest complexity, as per Occam's razor.
In your opinion?
It is generally agreed by philosophers and artificial intelligence researchers that simplicity of a model, given that it is compatible with observation, is evidence for its truth.
I don't care what they agree upon. I don't agree with them.
"It is a fact that God exists."
"It is a fact that god doesn't exist."
If someone said either of those things, I would ask them for evidence to prove their claim (I'm an atheist, by the way). Why? Well, they're claiming to know something for a fact. I would think they would at least have some evidence to prove it (although, as someone else said, they might have experienced it themselves; but that wouldn't really be so convincing).
If you want to state a belief, then I think you should state a belief. What I don't think you should do is pass off your beliefs as facts.
That's true. But if I just experienced it myself (and no one else had the same experience) I wouldn't be so quick to believe it.
Straw man. That isn't even what I said. If you don't want to believe that something exists, fine. State that you don't believe in it.
But if you state something as a fact, I think you should be prepared to back that up with evidence. That's all.
If they can safely remove the baby without killing it, then I think they should go that route. If they can't, then continue with the abortion. I don't care how developed it is. If the mother wants it gone, then I think she should have the option to get rid of it.
Baby or not, I think they're just parasites that can be done away with before they're born (if the mother chooses to do so).
the onus is on the religious to provide infallible proof.
I believe the onus is on whoever states something as a fact. That, to me, implies that you somehow know something, and if you know something to be true, then you probably should have evidence to prove it. Otherwise, how could you know?
I'd tentatively submit that the vast majority of people do see this 'magical' reason
So would I. But that doesn't mean that I agree with them, and that doesn't mean that there actually is an objectively correct reason.
and if we perceive agency from an intelligent animal most of us (certain disorders notwithstanding) will elect not to eat it given the option.
There are still people who eat and kill supposedly intelligent animals. If someone has a "disorder," to me, that merely implies that they are different.
That's actually quite unnatural.
I don't care. Being "unnatural" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to me.
is a default tendency in humans and obviously helps society to function more smoothly.
Not necessarily. Laws and logic can accomplish that. Just because you don't feel empathy for others (in my case, it's just people that I don't know) doesn't mean that you'll go out and murder people or believe that such a thing should be allowed. If you recognize that a certain action (or allowing certain actions) hurts society, then it's pretty easy to avoid doing it.
But you need to MEET them first.
Right. And it's not impossible to meet someone outside of a school.
Maybe not, but to me it's nearly the same thing. Not everyone wants to deal with that garbage, and that doesn't necessarily mean that they're socially crippled, either.
It's unlikely that they won't have to deal with it eventually (as he said). But I see no reason for me to force it on them myself (I wouldn't do that for sports or hobbies, either).
When you don't let your kids go to school you are stunting their growth as a human being.
Don't "let" them go to school? As in, force them to be home schooled even if they want to go to school? Well, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate that. Or did you mean just home schooling them? If so, I doubt that. You don't need to be locked in a school building to 'grow' (whatever that means) as a human being.
If they associate, it's with others who are home schooled.
Oh? So it's impossible to find friends without being locked in a building with a bunch of people your age? You don't need to associate solely with people who are home schooled. You can do it with just about anyone.
They will never be required to deal with social interactions of differing social groups until they go to college
Required? No. I wouldn't force someone to, either. Some people are introverts. It might be difficult to believe, but not everyone cares deeply about socializing.
unless they happen to be lucky enough to have a parent that forces them into these situations.
Personally, I wouldn't call that "lucky." There is no reason that I see that you need to force them to hang out with other people. Either they want to or they don't. Maybe they're too shy or something such as that, but that's their own problem (and they still might want to associate with others anyway).
The vast majority, however, need that human to get them through the rough patches.
Is that just your opinion, or can you back that up? Have "the vast majority" actually used something like Khan Academy?
I find that difficult to believe.
Too bad for you, then. I would likely save the one that I like the most. I know it's difficult to believe, but different people have different preferences (and this isn't a life or death scenario for yourself).
Say you are crossing the street, and a car swerves around the corner, threatening to hit you. Do you dive out of the way because it's your opinion or because of ingrained flight-or-fight responses beyond conscious control?
Probably instinct or something such as that. But not everything I do is based solely on that.
In your scenario, my life isn't in danger. I can choose which one I would like to save. I feel no emotion towards people that I don't know and do not care if they die.
you learn a real language that can help you be more employable.
Not everyone cares about being immediately employable. Others may just use it as a small starting language (and it's possible that they don't want to use any others). It's just a matter of preference.
But what if something is being taught? What if someone actually does learn something from it?
Yeah and getting a paycheck is the fun side of working a job.
I don't see what that has to do with anything. What harm does teaching someone the "fun" side of programming bring? Why does that mean you must hand kids 20 dollar bills?
Would you?
Depends on which one I liked more. If it was my pet mouse versus a baby that I did not know, I would probably pick the mouse.
Or is the choice made somewhere else than the part that has opinions?
Where else could it possibly be made?
Frankly, any electronic device given to children
I suspect that applies to just about anyone.
you got good grades
Which, in my opinion, doesn't prove much (since getting a good grade doesn't prove that you truly know anything). I think there's simply too many mandatory filler classes in the first place.