| ▲ | qarl 3 hours ago |
| > That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category. But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"? EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often. EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing. |
|
| ▲ | paimapi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works |
| |
| ▲ | qarl 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts. | | |
| ▲ | paimapi 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :) | | |
| ▲ | qarl an hour ago | parent [-] | | Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yndoendo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements. Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable. Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power. |
| |
| ▲ | RunSet an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg | |
| ▲ | qarl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures. > mathematical axioms are immutable I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate. | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth. | | |
| ▲ | pixl97 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >ergo no social construct predates wealth. How wealthy is your dog? | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-] | | Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan. If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value. | | |
| ▲ | qarl an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think you missed his point - that social behaviors exist outside and before human societies. |
|
| |
| ▲ | qarl 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans. | | |
| ▲ | zdragnar an hour ago | parent [-] | | Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water. Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth). | | |
| ▲ | qarl an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting? |
|
|
|
|
|
