You must log in or # to comment.
I have opinions but I’m not confident to argue about them.
“You prefer strawberry ice cream to all of chocolate, mint chip, and French vanilla.”
No, I don’t! But you do seem very sure of yourself. Maybe you’re right, fuck my strawberry allergy, bring on the strawberry ice cream!
Any argument against online Piracy.
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
Why your mom is the best.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from
fossilcapitalism.Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here’s a list for you
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs (“new” meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
I don’t think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It’s people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
The Midwest already has a lot of biogas facilities. But they employ like 2 people each and are owned by huge corps.
What I ate for breakfast.
Is it… MY PRECIOUS?!?
That’s not fair! It’s against the rules!
Why privacy is important
I got 2:
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
Define winning.
I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That’s just how humans work.
Bringing me back to the question. What even is ‘winning an argument’?
It’s as simple as asking why over and over. Toddlers do it.
What is? Me or them?
Asking is natural and usually makes you know more about the world, it’s what science is built on.
I meant you can win an argument against theism by just asking why repeatedly.
Bitch about downvotes? Straight to downvote.
I think you misunderstood. Go ahead!
Don’t tell me what to do.
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
lol no I just think what you said is wrong and arrogant about being able to win that argument from even a logic perspective. Arguing the absence of lowercase-g god is a Sisyphian task if ever there was one. It reads like a teenager who binged Dawkins videos wrote it.
60% of Lemmy users are that teenager but they’re 35 and still haven’t grown out of it.
So many people here don’t even accept historian consensus that Jesus was a real person
I don’t care how it looks and it would take time etc sure, but I am convinced. I could go on ranting about arrogant views of neurotypicals always assuming the wildest stuff but I simply don’t care.
Just rest assured this is not an edgy teenager statement.
(I’m used to being called arrogant. That comes with the specialist field I am in and also due to the double empathy issue)
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
Nothing. I’ve spent my life arguing and several years arguing professionally. There are not many bigger wastes of time. I still do it, just to speak my peace, not because I’m hoping to change a bunch of minds.
That being vegan is an ethical choice compared to not being vegan.
they’re both ethical choices. like in the trolley problem, pulling the lever or not.
Curious to hear your explanation for how being non-vegan can be more ethical than being vegan. I’ve heard some people make interesting cases for this, by the way, but I’ve yet to see one that can be practically applied as an alternative to our current food system.
your explanation for how being non-vegan can be more ethical than being vegan
boy, that’s not what i said.
Help me out here then. You said being vegan and not being vegan are both ethical choices, like the trolley problem.
In the trolley problem, an ethical case can be made for pulling the lever or not, so I thought you were saying an ethical argument could be made for both being vegan and not being vegan. I was curious to hear your argument for the latter.
Can you elaborate on what you actually meant?
I thought you were saying an ethical argument could be made for both being vegan and not being vegan
right. that’s not the same as saying one is more ethical.
What’s your ethical argument for not being vegan?
there is no ethical duty to be vegan. so not being vegan is a valid choice. the choice to be vegan is amoral.
Sure, if you don’t mind breeding vegetables for your own greedy enjoyment, I guess you can get on a high horse just because you don’t also abuse animals.
By the amount of times I had moderators act bratty to me for: proving the Roman Catholic Church had control of our world since 538 AD or earlier.
Arguments are for children and those with the mental maturity of a schoolyard bully.
Conversations are where the mature people duke it out, and the point of a conversation is not to win but to see each other on equal ground, understand the position of the other party, and come to a conclusion that benefits both parties.
so… semantics?
Semantics are for children. Straight up contradiction is where mature people say “No it isn’t” to each other to really practice being annoying.
Semantics are for children.
https://academic.oup.com/jos?login=false
Journal of Semantics covers all areas in the study of meaning, with a focus on formal and experimental methods. It welcomes submissions on semantics, pragmatics, the syntax/semantics interface, cross-linguistic semantics, experimental studies of meaning, and semantically informed philosophy of language.
“When he was eating his juice and crackers at lunchtime, Jonathan enjoyed a little light reading.”
I’m glad there are people into that, but it sounds unbearable
deleted by creator
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It’s not.
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It’s encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn’t expect to see as many others here as I have.
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I’d define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That’s why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
