What do you want to talk about pm!!
first of all it really depends on what you consider a win and a lose.
Type of shit niggas gotta do, just to talk to people
We can discuss this in pm if you are of course open for a debate
too lazy rn
What leads you to think you’re smart?
Partially correct, i do actually want to engage in conversations with people, sadly i can only do that onlineType of shit niggas gotta do, just to talk to people
130 point result from a free online iq test
Niggas the femtosecond they reach 100 iq
if you are open for a debate and seemingly you may have given a topic to discuss about, message me in pm!
What a high iq individual would do
I have done and paid for a real test, but i am not sure if the test was real at all relating to the questions they asked me, it led me here asking people to debate me about any topic. To directly answer your question, i scored above average iq scores but i am going to specify i am not sure. I expressed this thread in an egoistic or an aggressive way to get engagement. The iq does play part but i also wanted to talk with people, dont get confused i still think i am highly intelligent, not from scores nor from human feedback.
That’s not what the is-ought gap is lol. The is-ought gap is the inability to derive a normative claim from a descriptive claim. A descriptive claim and a normative claim can absolutely be plugged into a deductively valid syllogism to derive a normative conclusion
Pm me your discord
if a normative claim (some moral belief) cannot be derived from a descriptive claim, that means that a normative claim can be derived solely from other normative claims which in themselves need to be based on something. The deductively valid syllogism you are talking about requires a normative claim to result in another normative claim hence I will be able to just infinitely demand justification for every normative claim in the line rendering the whole debate unwinnable for the opposing party
Also, if they define winning as "not being convinced" That single-handedly collapses the debate into pure-stubbornness, also they seperated validity from persuasion. You already stated what i could have stated, The point from david hume is narrower than they're using it. It does not block exposing contradictions
Also, if they define winning as "not being convinced" That single-handedly collapses the debate into pure-stubbornness, also they seperated validity from persuasion. You already stated what i could have stated, The point from david hume is narrower than they're using it. It does not block exposing contradictions
I dont have discord, can we use org pms?
that is precisely why I wanted to know what you define as winning and losing
And this is precisely why i wanted to discuss this in pm, but you where lazy and thats okay!
most likely unintended but this feels weirdly familiar to the "sell me this pen" trope but using my pride and ego as a bait. but nah im good
I am going to clear it up for you, it was unintended
That’ll just end up in you questioning something absurd and probably something that goes against ur own position
"questioning something absurd" in the context of moral discussion is always purely subjective, even the most "obvious" stuff like killing is bad. And while i could misstep and go against my own position I rely on myself to be more careful than that
Agreed, but what IF a question requires logic rather than psychological persuasion?
To expand more a question that is moral-adjacent that still requires logic goes like this relating to the question i made. If a society claims to value both individual freedom and public safety, under what conditions can it justify restricting freedom without contradicting itself?
i believe that if we are talking about discussing moral beliefs, the logic can only be applied as a way to connect previously stated beliefs to the new one hence creating an opening for a misstep for me, for instance if i have stated previously that inflicting death is bad then I cant claim that killing isnt actually bad. But this can be easily mitigated by careful orchestration of my words and claims and paying full attention to the convo
Contradiction at its finest and you are right factually but yet to answer the other question, if you can of course. If a society claims to value both individual freedom and public safety, under what conditions can it justify restricting freedom without contradicting itself?
the question you mentioned is interesting yet invalid because there is no single opinion of the "society" as a monolith. It doesnt contradict itself because those who restrict freedom for the sake of public safety usually arent the ones who proclaim total freedom
