You know how you can tell the difference between scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments? Or between Aristotelian, Confucian, platonic, and Abrahamic?
The logic in Abrahamic supernatural, pseudoscientific, sophistry is consistent, as is logic in sciences consistent.
Reply addressees: @bishkebab3
Theme: Grammar
-
You know how you can tell the difference between scientific, philosophical, and
-
You know how you can tell the difference between scientific, philosophical, and
You know how you can tell the difference between scientific, philosophical, and theological arguments? Or between Aristotelian, Confucian, platonic, and Abrahamic?
The logic in Abrahamic supernatural, pseudoscientific, sophistry is consistent, as is logic in sciences consistent.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-30 01:13:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288643850525904898
Reply addressees: @bishkebab3
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288641495029780480
-
Well, I think the question is the premises. 😉 Limiting Constant Relations To: 1
Well, I think the question is the premises. 😉
Limiting Constant Relations To:
1. Actions: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Materialism (Science)
2. Speech: Idealism, Verbalism, Dualism (Philosophy)
3. Emotions, Imagination, Supernaturalism, Spiritualism: (Theology)
Reply addressees: @PoshMePretty -
Well, I think the question is the premises. 😉 Limiting Constant Relations To: 1
Well, I think the question is the premises. 😉
Limiting Constant Relations To:
1. Actions: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Materialism (Science)
2. Speech: Idealism, Verbalism, Dualism (Philosophy)
3. Emotions, Imagination, Supernaturalism, Spiritualism: (Theology)
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-29 23:40:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288620353514811392
Reply addressees: @PoshMePretty
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288618725927780355
-
We can let the people remain ignorant of terms, or we can educate people in the
We can let the people remain ignorant of terms, or we can educate people in the meaning of terms. I have to teach what terms mean so that they cannot be abused. Those two phrases mean very different things.
So no. Lazy words produce lazy minds.
Reply addressees: @WrongThink_er @TruthQuest11 @billtalts @JulieBorowski -
We can let the people remain ignorant of terms, or we can educate people in the
We can let the people remain ignorant of terms, or we can educate people in the meaning of terms. I have to teach what terms mean so that they cannot be abused. Those two phrases mean very different things.
So no. Lazy words produce lazy minds.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-29 13:34:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288467858817781760
Reply addressees: @WrongThink_er @TruthQuest11 @billtalts @JulieBorowski
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288419047789469696
-
“Non Aggression Principle” is an incomplete sentence, that deceives by suggestio
“Non Aggression Principle” is an incomplete sentence, that deceives by suggestion: any idiot will agree he wants to be free of aggression. But every idiot will also substitute his definition of property(interests) to aggress against. Ergo, the statement is absolutely meaningless.
Reply addressees: @JulieBorowski -
War, Law, Faith – P Is a Language of Law, Not Faith (or War)
War, Law, Faith – P Is a Language of Law, Not Faith (or War) https://t.co/mdBoqhajp8
-
War, Law, Faith – P Is a Language of Law, Not Faith (or War)
War, Law, Faith – P Is a Language of Law, Not Faith (or War) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/07/25/war-law-faith-p-is-a-language-of-law-not-faith-or-war/
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-25 17:45:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287081651206385664
-
War, Law, Faith – P Is a Language of Law, Not Faith (or War)
—“I recommend that you emphasize that P is a legal language and not a religious or metaphysical language, as a part of the attempt to bridge with the more religious side. Make them understand the distinction… They’re not offered a religious frame but they’re not denied their own preference as long as it doesn’t break the bounds of reciprocity. I would constantly put that out in front. It’s a secular legal language. Your religion isn’t actively catered to but nor is it denied or prevented (within the bounds of reciprocity).”– William Wallace
1. Deliver unto alexander (war),2. Deliver unto Caesar (law),3. Deliver unto god(faith) Unfortunately for the faithful, that is the correct order. War, Law, Faith. Why? Dependency.