If we wanted to raise the average IQ, the addition of 33 million people wouldn't help much. What would help is if we let the south leave the union. Ofc, I am in favor of keeping the union together even if we have to terrorize and ruin them again. For the past 150 years, they have only behaved when the threat of federal troops was present. If anything, we need a strong federal government to keep those idiots in line.

One of my favorite moments in American history was when the hero of 1812, Andrew Jackson, told a few southern states at the time that he would march on them if they ever seceded from the union when he was president. lol.

Haha, Southern scum are reasserting their autonomy from the federal government again. It's time to give them another beating, Sherman style!

Naw it belongs in politics because he was a politics member 3 months ago.

> avogadro wrote

you did in the thread i pwned you in>

First, you didn't pwn me, and second you only think I defended an ought. You cooked it yourself just like you did in this thread.

> Phssthpok wrote:

So I suppose you're a rocket surgeon or something?>

wtf is a rocket surgeon?

> avogadro wrote:

you're self-defeating youself. you determine oughts through empiricism but admit you cant justify empiricism itself through your system, to follow your system is to go against it. you believe that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (you're determining oughts through empiricism); so how can you empirically prove that you should only believe things that can be empirically proven (which is also an ought that contradicts your first ought)?>

I'm not claiming any ought at all.

> Econ wrote:

Agreed. That's why we have to make do with things that we can observe/test to decide for ourselves (some people can't) as to whether or not to believe. If we can't test it, we can't observe it, and all we have is some guy telling us about it, then we get a very poor foundation.

edit: I welcome Phoenix or avo to talk about this.>

A few points of contention, but basically yeah .

Christianity isn't empirically testable, and therefore its epistemic value is about as equivalent as Zeus, the Spaghetti Monster, or cloaked aliens on the moon.

> Econ wrote:

It is pretty obvious that we are in the matrix.>

lol. You can be dismissive of the possibility, but it's an alternative explanation you can't disprove.

Red,

<<Fine.  If you are lazy.

The argument was:

Animals are indicative of what the "natural" process should be. 

Animals eat their young and the siblings inbreed.

It is natural that we inbreed and eat our young.>>

I see, but your counter example is vague. You could interpret that among the following ways.

1. Eco has not been specific enough in stating what things other animals do that makes them natural for us to do them.
2. The conclusion would be true if humans were animals, but we are not so it's false.

If I wanted to clearly support 1, I would have made the second premise "Animals fly. Therefore it's natural that we fly." But there seems to be an implication that you are defending the 2nd interpretation. Would you clarify that?

Red Phoenix,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying this argument for why humans aren't animals.

Every animal is violent, incestuous and extremely hedonistic etc.
Some humans are not any of the above.
___

Some humans are not animals.

> sKoE )= wrote:

> > &#9760;ARFeh&#9760; wrote:

> > Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Who? <

You should feel ashamed that an American knows more about an influential former PM of a commonwealth country than you.