🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@Ponygirl

> I think we're in agreement about capitalism. It has the capacity to being a thriving economic system; however, it must be governed to avoid where we're at now-

I assume you mean USA's capitalist government, as opposed to europe, which is also capitalist of course but with their own take?

> a guilded era where economic injustice is proving Dr. King to have been spot on over a half century ago.

We certainly have quite a few economic issues that could be address. I'd imagine the devil is in the details so im not sure if we agree on the points (since we didnt dig that deep) but i certainly agree on the principle that there are economic issues that need addressing, many of which revolve around poverty and prosperity.

> Just wondering, your statement about morality and law enforcement, do you mean laws should be enforced morally, or that laws should legislate morality itself?

My view is that law should enforce the "objective morality" as a guiding principle. When I saw objective morality I mean "That which reduces suffering to its utmost" which to me is really all morality is, a societal agreement on some rules designed to minimize the overall suffering of society, to effectively minimize unhappiness and maximize happiness. So I think all laws should be designed with that principle in mind.

@bonifartius @louis

@stux

Seems you made some mistakes. I cant speak to all the points but just did some research ont he company out of curiosity. They appear to exist, and the USA division was formed in 1988 and have sold games ever since then. The company that made paradise is their Hong Kong office. They have made tons of famous games.

@bonifartius

I think you may just be particularly senative to anti-capitalist discussion because so often it devolves into nonsense, and I do get that. Might I suggest we give ponygirl the benefit of the doubt here that it wont go that far based on how reasonable she has been in debate so far?

That said while, as you know, I have no issues with capitalism, and even think its good when implemented properly, I kinda agree with ponygirl on this one. While you are right that it is perfectly ok for the wealthy to do more or have more than the poor, I dont think that should carry over to the law. The law is one place everyone should be equal, and being wealthy should not make you immune to some laws while the poor not. Laws should be about morality, and enforcing it. Something doesnt become right just because you have more money to get around the rules. Now I wouldnt blame the wealthy person, they are just working within the system. But it certainly is an indication that there is a failure in the law when that happens.

@Ponygirl @louis

@Ponygirl

Oh so sorry. I should have checked. I have a very bad habit of defaulting to "he" online for some reason, particularly if i dont know someone. IT can be very rude and not intentional though, my apologies. Ill try not to make that mistake again.

@bonifartius @louis

@Ponygirl

I too have enjoyed the respectful debate and so long as it remains respectful you are always welcome on my feed.

In Boni's defense im not sure she is ignoring class warfare so much as agreeing with you to an extent. At least thats how I read it. Like anything solved via threat of arrest is violence and cant solve this problem, so seems she at least agrees with you that outlawing abortion under threat of arrest is not the answer (though if i had to guess I suspect she might be against abortion morally).

@bonifartius @louis

@bonifartius

Just to be clear he is more than welcome on my threads. He has been nothing but polite and if he wants to look through my threads and jump in, so long as he remains respectful, it is more than welcome.

@Ponygirl @louis

@Ponygirl

You mean int he current system, in which case I agree. Obviously if it is blanket outlawed than those scenarios would still mean jail time, so in that scenario your point isnt valid, but with the current state it is entirely valid.

@bonifartius @louis

@evacide

That pretty much describes the last 8 years.. 4 more years of the same I guess. But I agree it is gonna keep getting worse.

@GreenFire

Assuming we are talking about a multifaceted discussion then id agree with that

@Ponygirl

I agree with this given the current situation where a person can just go get the procedure in some other state.

Though if it were a total ban, and even illegal to go out of your area to get one, then even the wealthy wouldnt be able to get an abortion. But thats not the case, so what we have right now what you are saying is certainly true, and a bit issue IMO.

@bonifartius @louis

@Ponygirl

> I believe the goal posts are moving here.

There are no goal posts here, that would presume an adversarial attempt to prove you wrong or me right, I dont engage in those conversations. This is an exploration of the topic and I expect the "goal posts" on both sides to move in the sense that as we each learn from the conversation that we adjust our position to match what we learn.

> Your original assertion was that atheism is faith-based and therefore a religion.

Happy to explain what happened, there, and you are right.

It will be more clear if we look at the two definitions for atheism:

1. a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2. a lack of belief in the existence of a god or any gods

Originally I was using definition 1, which I am not refering to as non-agnostic atheism. I realized you were trying to assert exclusively #2, which I called agnostic atheism. Since I didnt care much to debate definitions and the substance of the discussion is more important I deferred debating which of those definitions were valid at all.

So while I understand that may incorrectly look like moving the goal posts it was in fact simply an attempt to use better clarifying language and avoid any debate on definitions themself.

> You can apply different shades of agnosticism to atheism all you want, it still is not faith-based

You are certainly welcome to make that case, but so far you have not made a counter point to that assertion. Please feel free to make that case if you wish.

> Also, have you ever heard of the concept that one can not prove a negative?

I most certainly have, it is one of the most widespread fallacies/myths you will hear people state. I am a professional research scientist so "proving things" is kinda my whole thing (scientific journals are pretty

Rather than get into all the technicals of why its a myth I will give you a very simple example that proves it by contradiction:

present you with a box, I claim "there is no full size american quarter in this box", this is clearly a negative. You can easily prove the negative to be true by opening the box, looking, and seeing there is no quarter in the box. Negatives absolutely can be proven, and they are proven all the time.

> I can not prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. In fact, no one can.

Your language is misleading here. We can not prove a teapot is orbiting the sun **right now**. The reason for that is because the space is too vast and our equipment not sensative enough to detect it, not because it is an unprovable concept. It is perfectly reasonable to think that once technology reaches a sufficient point it would be trivial to scan the solar system and in fact prove that a teapot is not orbiting the sun. This in no way suggests negatives cant be proven, again, we prove negatives all the time in science.

@ryan

@Ponygirl

> I assure you, I'm not undecided about the existence of Thor et al.

If you are in no way undecided, presumably that you have determined therefore that Thor (and any god) does not exist, there is nothing wrong with that stance. It just happens to be a faith based position requiring the same amount of faith as any religion. That said, I'd agree you are, in fact, an atheist then.

> It is not my job to refute an assertion;

No one asked you to refute it.

> it's the job of the claimant to provide evidence,

Absolutely, that is not in question. The question is, when evidence is lacking to prove the lack of existence, or existence, of a thing (in this case god) do you take a faith based position and assume that means god does not exist, or do you take an evidence based approach and claim you do not have enough information to determine if god exists or not. Not being able to prove a thing exists is not proof it doesnt exist, thats the whole point.

> There is no credible evidence of deities;

Correct, that is my whole point, just as there is no credible evidence of the lack of deties. The whole point here is there is no evidence for either state.

> therefore, I live my life with No God/ess beliefs.

Also not what is in question. Both an agnostic atheist and a non-agnostic atheist will have this stance. The question is if you are an agnostic atheist (an evidence based approach that does not claim gods dont exist, nor do they claim they do, you simply dont have enough information to decide) or a non-agnostic atheist (a faith based position where despite a lack of evidence showing the non-existence of deities you take the faith based position that there are no deities).

> The literal definition of atheist.

As I said before the definition of the actual word is not the important part to me. There are two definitions of atheist, one that includes agnostics and one that doesnt. There is little doubt your one of these two types of atheist based on your answers, the question is simply if your an agnostic atheist (evidence based) or a non-agnostic atheist (faith based).

@ryan

@louis

Well technically metal is a type of rock so.....

@Gina Good to hear about the rants... I got worried there for a second, I can only take so much positivity! :)

@stux No need to single out fox. You can literally pick almost any major American news organization and this is true.

The vibe in the USA right now.

@Raccoon

It makes me happy to hear you say that on many levels... While Israel is an absolute disgrace and deserves to be shamed for what their doing, to equate that with Jews in general is deplorable and uncalled for!