Topic: Catherine Flick spreads FUD on bitcoin and dual use (Read 5721 times)

If I was to make an introduction video explaining how and why to use the ignore button, it would feature the above post.

I know it's not easy to understand, because we are trained (by immoral institutions) to believe that morality is a matter of opinion.

Let me tell you: Your mistake is a dangerous one; it is the root of moral relativism (which, in turn, feeds violent institutions).

Unbelievable.

Anyway you're too deep under so I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread.

I suggest you show Stef's argument and my points about it's flaws to an impartial 3rd party who hasn't yet been exposed to the argument and listen to their opinion which might perhaps wake you up and perhaps you can also report back to me what they tell you

"Preferable" is for anyone: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable to head to the west.

That doesn't mean that you must prefer that. It only means that if you prefer to go to the east and act accordingly, you will not get by car to Los Angeles from New York.

Maybe you should learn that they mean one and the same but are not synonymous with required. 

pre·fer  (pr-fûr)
tr.v. pre·ferred, pre·fer·ring, pre·fers
1. To choose or be in the habit of choosing as more desirable or as having more value: prefers coffee to tea.
2. Law
a. To give priority or precedence to (a creditor).
b. To file, prosecute, or offer for consideration or resolution before a magistrate, court, or other legal authority: preferred the suit in a higher court.
3. Archaic To recommend for advancement or appointment; promote.


pref·er·a·ble  (prfr--bl, prfr-)
adj.
More desirable or worthy than another; preferred: Coffee is preferable to tea, I think.




Like I said, the spell Stef keeps you under is truly astonishing.

You are not paying attention. Again: You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required in this example) to head to the west.

May be you are confusing "prefered" with "preferable".

Oh and I'd like you to address the bold bit:

Bwahahahaha you can't be serious.. Do you not see you just contradicted yourself while pretended that preference = requirement when you said it is universally preferable(required) to head west? It's not preferable, it's required! Period.


Look, I see Stef confused you about the meaning of both words so I'll explain them to you. Pay attention!

A preference expresses your desire to pick something from either group A over something in group B (from options: west AND east) but INCLUDES both groups. A requirement expresses the only choice available between group A or group B and excludes the one over the other(from options: west OR east).

For example if you say you prefer going west over east, you are saying you'd like to go west most of the time but not necessarily always. Sometimes you might reluctantly go east.
But if you say you are required to go west, then you are saying you don't have a choice but must always go west. East isn't an option. And this is a simple logical operation of AND and OR. What Stef and you are doing is pretending AND = OR, 2+2=5 5=4, preference = requirement. As soon as you do that anything else you utter is invalid.

Therefor saying "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west." IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

The correct example would be "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is required to head to the west." Or you could say "In order to get by car anywhere from New York, it is preferable to head to the west as opposed to south or north even though you still might go those directions.


It's truly astonishing over how many people Stef manages to hold this spell where he convinced them that somehow, because he pretended it's true, preference = requirement.


p.s.: So I want get accused of dodging anything:
A) Yes I have a preference for truth, but it's my own subjective preference.. just because I have it, it doesn't mean every single human being has it, ask any liar.
B) No, in order to find the truth(a subjective goal) using logic and evidence is REQUIRED behavior, just as in order to stay alive as a human being, eating is a REQUIRED behavior.
C) Just because anyone wouldn't take me seriously, doesn't mean I'd never prefer a lie over the truth, I mean come on, this is kindergarten stuff

Can't you see what's happening?

A) You are arguing for what you believe to be true, ie you have a preference for the truth.

B) In order to find the truth, using logic and evidence is universally preferable behavior, just as in order to stay alive as a human being, eating is universally preferable behavior.

C) If you say that you don't have a preference for truth, you can not expect anyone to take seriously anything you say.

If you don't get it, that's ok, but you should recheck your personality type (specialy this: "Tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason").

Last attempt:
Nobody said preference = requirement. You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west.

BTW it's so hilarious how religiously you'll defend an invalid argument just because it came from a person who you clearly look up to. Why can't you put your objective hat on for a moment and truly examine his argument instead of blindly making illogical excuses for it.



One final time. Preference != requirement, do you understand this? Cause I'll explain it to you if you don't understand how preference isn't the same as requirement. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the flaw in Stef's argument.. As long as you think preference = requirement his argument will appear valid and that's where you're still making the mistake.

It doesn't matter if you hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable in a debate, or if you have a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints in a debate or if you have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers in a debate or if you have a deliberation/consideration in a debate: the concept of "debate" is valid in all of those cases(it fits every possible debate).

Yep I get it.

p.s.: there is no such thing as universally preferable, since preference is always subjective it can't possibly be universal, what is universal is a requirement, but a requirement != preference and this is something you wont even address..

It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things).
It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).

Get it now?

If I stretch my definition of furniture a bit, and agree to your definition of chair, a horse is a chair.

Definitions contain further terms that also need defining.  You'll never finish defining everything.

Ok I guess you're too involved with your own subjective definition of the concept of a debate to see my point so I'll stop here..

Just remember preference != requirement, just like 2+2 != 5 and 5 != 4.

Concepts do not exist; concepts are valid or invalid. Number two does not exist, but it is a valid concept.
Regarding the chair, you can say many things about a chair, but if your definition is valid (like "a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person") and we agree on it, I can't say later that a chair is a mammal (I can, but it would be a contradiction).

Ehehehehehehe 

And there you go, by your own admission what constitutes to a debate depends on agreement. Does what is gravity depend on agreement? No.

Btw yes you are right, if I don't agree to your definition I'm not interested in finding the truth, however that doesn't mean we aren't having a debate. Being interested in finding the truth and calling it a debate is your thing, for me and lots of other people it could be something else. Exhibit A: The presidential debates on TV. You can ask a 100 million Americans if their candidates are having a debate and I guarantee most will say yes. Now according to you, they're not but according to them they are.

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now? 

Nice.

I think I'll keep a copy if this post handy for next time I come across Stef's writings (I always suspected serious logic flaws, but never cared enough to dig into his material and find it.)

As to the OP, I don't think the intent was to spread FUD. That said, her perspective, IMO, still wound up causing it to happen to some degree.

I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself.

But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.