> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

Its not about what you wear, its about attitude. We shouldn't dictate what people can and can't wear (excluding indecently exposed clothes).

Also i shouldn't get into trouble for back-handing some smart-arse. They know they can get away with it.>

Are you implying that clothing preferences have no connection with the values and subculture a person identifies with?

> tavius wrote:

> Death to the religious fascists.>

aye!

> Petrolstone wrote:
Lolololol. I hate it when they do that.>

I don't just hate it. I smack them for it. Deep down inside, hipsters are cowards and weak. Their macho attitude and rap music is just a cover for their weakness. Sadly, they infected our financial institutions like a virus, and it's time to remove them from the host.

> avogadro wrote:

how do you objectively give empiricism value? >

Because I can.

Xeno is a closet communist, and he is also the most successful troll on IC next to Flint. But since we're at it, lets talk about the theory central to communism, dialectical materialism. I see many potential problems with the model, but since you are advancing communism I will allow you to defend it so I can poke holes in it, or whatever essential idea(s) you are substituting dialectical materialism with. I don't want to concern myself with making a case against dialectical materialism unless I know exactly what your groundwork theories are on communism and your defenses of them.

Basketball is so stupid there shouldn't even be a league for it. It pretty much amounts to a game of black people bouncing a ball (no racist message intended).

> Acolyte wrote:

Also Justinian, I am surprised at you. Though you have indicated your skepticism before, I thought we went over the issue of absolute uncertainty and why it is an impossible standard of knowledge. You should get used to being in the company of Marxists for as long as you adhere to skepticism. The ability to deny man's ability to trust his own judgments, and rationally understand reality from an epistemologically sound approach, renders him a more docile and receptive pawn to Party ideology.>

Well, I have become an even greater skeptic than before. And no, I'm not a Marxist, nor ever will be. I consider the values of equality and justice (which are held by liberals) to be below the waste. I completely support meritocracy, personal excellence, being engaged in life, and the free market. While I think Marxism is impractical, more importantly I just don't share their values. This is why I especially don't get along well with Liberals, who also share the ideals of equality but to a lesser degree. The only thing remotely equal I agree with is equal opportunity. Finally, it's hard to be a Marxist when you're from an upper middle class family that rose to those ranks in one generation, and all you hear from poor people is how lucky you are and that you should give your inheritance to them. The idiocy and entitlement culture of poor people have made me actually quite elitist.

Anyway...

Admitting that knowledge is fallible doesn't really answer the skeptical problem. It presupposes that you have any certainty at all, but you have yet to establish that. If it worked like seeing a figure in the fog and the closer you came to it the more certain you were, it would be different. But in the case of knowledge it doesn't work that way. You have to first establish that our body of knowledge has made ANY progress to begin with.

But to be fair, I am a practical empiricist. I'm just not sure any of it is true, but since it seems to give me predictive success I stick to that.

No, he's absolutely right. Maybe he's a misguided fool for being a commie (or at least implying he is one), but he's absolutely right about the philosophy of science. To add to what he said, Hume illustrated that no matter what theory you propose, an unlimited number of alternative theories can be proposed that are equally justifiable. If you say that the sun will rise, the theory that the sun will rise except for tomorrow is equally justified on the facts. This is called the problem of undetermination. Second, we can't argue that science ever gets anything right, because we do not have independent access to reality to test that scientific models actually match with reality. They may make predictions, but that doesn't mean they ever can accurately describe them. Third, as he said about Kuhn, Kuhn illustrated that if there is any method of science it's "anything goes." So why science should be granted a monopoly over truth is unfair, because the God model is equally justified.

All in all, this is why I'm in agreement with the skeptics.

> EmperorHez wrote:

> The Special Relationship is BS you only ever hear from London. The US don't care about the UK as long as we back them.>

The US should have a monarch just so they could marry Beatrix to symbolize a special relationship.

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

What happens if the two new neighbours, upon being attacked themselves, stumble onto
your property looking for help? The home owner has just MURDERED two innocent people
which is quite different to self-defense.

Its all well and good to take a theory on a home owners rights, but what of the home owners
responsibility? Care must be taken in the practical sense, which almost never equates to the
theoretical side of things.>

I realize there are problems for identifying who exactly is a burglar or thief. But I still don't care if one is shot, assuming that they actually are one.