What I’ve got in my pocket.
Your hand.
Is it… MY PRECIOUS?!?
That’s not fair! It’s against the rules!
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It’s not. And I’d start by questioning your understanding of the word “matter”.
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It’s encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn’t expect to see as many others here as I have.
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I’d define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That’s why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
There’s the crux of it. Problem is that science is the product of the human mind. Experience isn’t just the foundation of knowledge, it has to be the foundation of everything because to say anything about anything, nonsense or science, you need experience first. This includes any idea about what matter is or isn’t. We must first have an experience, and then we conceptualize it in some way - and then we try to desperately conceptualize it in a way that makes sense in the context of our previous conceptualizations. Because ironically, while some people insist on matter being prior, without realizing it they often make the human mind equally prior (“thoughts ARE the thing itself”). Bring them the map-territory problem and they get it, but it’s often hard to get them to apply the same idea onto their own mind.
To be sure, science is a great and reliable way to make predictions. However, ultimate reality will always be grander than anything the mind can capture, and as such, science will never be able to distill it either. That said, one hopes, eventually science will meet this realization (and indeed some scientists have). To put it very shortly, as long as one insists on a logical continuum, one can keep asking “and what’s beyond that” as logic necessarily requires a continuum of values to function. Foundation on which logic operates though, must be beyond what can be captured with logic.
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
I’m a woman who has slurs about her. Depending on who I’m arguing and what winning means I can’t win an argument about whether it’s raining as we slowly get drenched.
That said in a constructive discussion I’m really good at convincing people that comprehensive public transit is valuable, that public services are important, and that a general sense of cooperation is invaluable for society.
Nothing
I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court’s historical interpretation of it.
Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.
Ooh thats a good one.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people’s homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don’t hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
Magenta is a mass delusion. It has no wavelength, it exists only because of the boundaries in our perception.
We aren’t able to see the world as it is, and yet hubris is so baked into the very essence of our being that our brains invent something to deny it. That is majenta. It is an egregore of vision, something we have dreamed into being and subsequently found ourselves made hostage to. It is a stalwart guardian protecting our feeble minds from the unfiltered reality of the world.
If humanity has a god, then that god is Majenta.
And the printers want to take it from us!!
The fact that police can lie to your face in order to trick you into saying something they can label as “incriminating” leads to society having no trust for the police.
It’s pronounced gif
This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it’s impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.
So you agree that it’s pronounced gif.
I win
Masterclass.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs (“new” meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
I don’t think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It’s people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
The Midwest already has a lot of biogas facilities. But they employ like 2 people each and are owned by huge corps.
Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here’s a list for you
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from
fossilcapitalism.
Nothing. These days? Not because I don’t know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there’s not much arguing with that.
Nah man, you’re wrong. Just saying. /s
No I’m not!
(I was considering just posting the Monty Python argument scratch instead)
This parrot you sold me is dead.
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he’s a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
any topic, so long as I don’t need to commit to a positive claim. if someone else is willing to construct an argument, I can attack the premises.
My argument is simple: 2+2=4.
not true for larger or smaller values of 2
