Given that the definition of liberal is mutable, I wouldn’t be so sure.
-
No, it’s not. People do use citations in scholarly works, but people don’t respond to an article saying “source?”
-
An internet forum is not a scholarly article.
-
Who cares. People in France eat stinky cheese. Your point is not relevant to the discussion, any more than stinky cheese is.
2 Likes
So if the fact that facts is mutable, rendering a contradiction, hence and therefore requiring some facts to be immutable. So either some facts have to immutable, or the fact that facts are mutable has to be immutable, which still gives you the contradiction.
Either some facts have to be immutable, or there are no facts.
The statement ‘Facts are mutable.’ Has to be immutable to be true, rendering it false.
ing
You are being trolled @pat . He’s playing semantic games.
Fact: @pat is alive.
This is true up to and until the moment you pass away. Hopefully a long time from now. At that point “@pat is alive” is no longer a fact. Thus facts are mutable.
fact
fakt/Submit
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case.
mu·ta·ble
ˈmyo͞odəb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
liable to change.
I know I was seeing how hard he would stick to it, how far he would go. Was he going to fall strait into the hole or at least put his hands out. That’s why I asked so many questions to clarify his position.
Some facts are mutable, as in your example others such as 2+2=4 are immutable.
If he had said, ‘Many facts are mutable.’ Or even ‘Most facts are mutable.’ There would be no contradiction. But he simply said ‘Facts are mutable.’ Meaning ALL facts. Then he further stated, ‘The fact that facts are mutable is also mutable.’ Introduced the contradiction. The contradiction could have simply been avoided with a simple pronoun, ‘Some’, ‘many’, or ‘most’ avoids the contraction. But ‘Facts’ in general, meaning ALL facts requires at least one immutable fact to be true for all others to be mutable facts.
I figured you could see what I was doing there. “facts? ALL facts? Yes, all.” Okay, you’re wrong by default. The Law of Non-contradiction is a bitchy one to try and get around.
1 Like
Arguing for them is dumb, but thinking about them is not. It’s important for people to think about what makes for a perfect society. It’s equally important that people don’t take these thought experiments to seriously, or you end up with Marxism. People still think it’s a good idea in principle. And it is for some specie’s that has yet to come into existence if it ever will.
But after dozens of failed countries, extreme poverty and a body count in the millions, it’s one idea best finally put to rest.
But, out of these thought experiments, you get little nuggets of good ideas here and there. Mostly, dumb ideas, but a few golden nuggets.
Utopian thought experiments should never be put into practice without thorough scientific vetting.
People just want to do shit sometimes because it sounds good. Like ‘Hey let’s give everybody a “living wage”.’ I.E. money because you exist… Not thinking about the potential consequences of such a system. Damn, at least run some computer simulations or something. Not, “Screw it! Sounds good to me!” Yeah, it could be ok. Or it can cause the economy to melt down into scraps… I weary of folks wanting to legislate ‘Good ideas’ too fast.
We can test space-ships, but we cannot test social legislation? What the hell is science good for if you don’t use it for the most important shit.
1 Like
When something is ‘free’ you often get what you pay for. That’s why most free speech is garbage but it should never be illegal. The cost of restricted speech is a price we cannot afford.
1 Like
Actually some small cities/towns/countries are testing UBI right now. We’ll see how it goes.
Some very smart people are afraid of what happens to society in the next 50-100 years when AI/robots displace hundreds of millions of workers. Not just truck drivers and factory workers either, lots of white collar jobs will be deleted too.
Instead of capital and labor working together to generate returns, the capital will generate returns almost all on its own. That creates a very interesting set of problems, like: Who is going to buy the products and services that AI/Robotics create if so few people are employed?
4 Likes
Hey Man, if that means I get to sit around the pool in a toga drinking wine all day and philosophizing, I am down.
Never the less, I want this to be thoroughly vetted before wide scale implementation. If it works, great! But if it’s a poverty vortex that will suck us all down, no thanks. You cannot unring the bell on something like this.
1 Like
Your point is just as irrelevant since it had nothing to do with the discussion. It was simply you taking the opportunity to take a shot at a poster. And it turns out it was a baseless shit since you misunderstood the poster. I’ll take stinky cheese and skepticism over hypersensitivity and overreaction any day. That, makes my point relevant after all.
1 Like
I agree to a point. But we already basically have defacto UBI for those unwilling/unable to work.
It’ll get real interesting in the next 100 years. You think bernie and Trump are bad, just wait till you see the populists running when real unemployment is 50%. No matter how much of a hammock UBI is people like Pelosi will call it “crumbs”.
What ever gave you the impression that life came without contradiction? Do you really believe that on your deathbed you will suddenly say, “oh, I get it now”?
You are wrong. I am not trolling or playing a game. We live in a world where facts are mutable. It’s that simple.
Finland (maybe Sweden?) just announced they’re cutting their UBI experiment like 2 years short. Just saw it in the news the other day.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I didn’t read it on BBC, but I’m sure that’s it.
Interesting article. Not sure I can quite see where he says UBI will increase income inequality. If I had every citizen $100, then nothing changes as far as income inequality… right? Am I missing something?
Is the argument that the rich can save their $100, while the poor can’t? How’s that different from today?
Without reading it… Loss of earnings potential and loss of passive income are two ways I can think of.
This is literally the best shit I have ever read concerning using computing power to determine impacts of social reforms. Problem thought is the impossible task of predicting humaness and shifts of philosophy.
1 Like
Unless robots take over the world and forcibly enslave(or starve) mankind(I have my doubts that will happen), then people will retain some form of employment(maybe in their current fields; maybe in newly created fields). If robots are more efficient than people, then the prices of goods will drop. I doubt there has ever been an advancement that didn’t cause people to worry about jobs.
1 Like