What has religion done for humanity?

[Grenartia]

Converting the brain's electro-chemical impulses to electromagnetic states on silicon doesn't really seem that far-fetched to me. They're both forms of electromagnetic energy organized into a pattern.



Sure, I'll grant you that part is supernatural, according to the known laws of nature.

Being able to do that though does not necessarily mean a transferal of consciousness, only a copying of consciousness. The process may result in a being with the same thoughts, emotions, and memories as the original, but that doesn't mean it is literally the same being, though that's kind of getting into phenomenology. What you get might just be a very impressive algorithm that is extremely good at simulating Kilobungya, but not Kilobungya himself.

It is getting into phenomenology. If you copy a file from your computer to your phone, and then delete the copy on your computer, and then you copy that copy from your phone back to your computer, other than the fact that there was a finite span of time where that file did not exist on the computer, what fundamentally changed about that file to make it different from the original?

Also, at what point of accuracy does a simulation stop being a simulation and start being the real thing?

Say you have a child watching you bake a cake, and said child begins to imitate you. At first, the child's attempts are laughable and inedible, just some lumpy mix of sugar, flour, and raw eggs. But the child does not stop imitating you, and indeed, eventually succeeds in baking a cake that is indistinguishable in a double blind taste test from a cake you can make. In essence, the child's simulated cake baking became indistinguishable from real cake baking.

[Punished UMN]

There are in-fact many times where that has happened.

And there’s plenty of times where it’s happened in the modern period too— you’re not going to convince me there’s a serious qualitative difference here, unless you’re arguing that the modern period is in fact more peaceful (as borne out by the data on violent deaths)

Also this argument kind of give support to me given that the Americans thought that dropping the atom bomb on Japan would be easier than negotiating terms and conditions on Japan's surrender (which the Japanese were entirely willing to do and had indicated they were willing to do).

You’re shocked and horrified that the victors weren’t willing to indulge their thoroughly beaten enemies with lenient peace terms? Yeah, that’s a unique historical evil, never happened before modern times lmao

It was the people who dropped the atomic bomb (the Americans) who refused to negotiate, not the people who had it dropped on them.

It LITERALLY was not lmao read abt what was going on w the Japanese war council (a thoroughly weird and dysfunctional body throughout the war, and whose misaligned administrative structure let military extremists stall peace and get loads of people needlessly killed at the end)

I have actually read quite extensively about it, the Japanese were open to negotiations and even the extremists were willing to engage in dialogue on terms. The American insistence on unconditional surrender was what prevented Japan from surrender.

It's not that it's a unique historical evil, it's that the atomic bomb removed any and all potential negative consequences from being able to exact that slaughter. If my options are "negotiate an end to the war I may not be entirely satisfied with" and "wage a protracted military campaign that may leave tens or even hundreds of thousands of my own citizens dead", I will be more inclined to go with the former than if the latter option is "just incinerate a few hundred thousand women and children to force them to surrender on all of your terms."

[Kilobugya]

As seen all throughout history when humans chose to settle down at the table and work things out instead of butchering thousands or millions of people with their bare hands— oh, wait

Modern wars kill far more people than wars in pre-modernity did.

One part of that is that weapons are simply more efficient in killing now, that was what made the Civil War, WWI and WWII deadlier than all previous wars. Secondly, there's the development of the concept of Total War- where the entirety of society is geared towards the war effort and thus civilians suddenly become a valid target, which is why Dresden and London were bombed to hell when such things never happened before, even in WWI.

That's actually not true. Modern wars kill more people directly through weapons, but the death toll of pre-modernity wars was mostly due to famine and diseases provoked by the wars, things which are much less true in modern wars (except in a few situation like Yemen). And you also have to consider the size of populations, of course.

[Senkaku]

As seen all throughout history when humans chose to settle down at the table and work things out instead of butchering thousands or millions of people with their bare hands— oh, wait

Modern wars kill far more people than wars in pre-modernity did.

More people are alive to be killed! Again, this is fucking stupid! Violent deaths per capita are way down!

One part of that is that weapons are simply more efficient in killing now, that was what made the Civil War, WWI and WWII deadlier than all previous wars. Secondly, there's the development of the concept of Total War- where the entirety of society is geared towards the war effort and thus civilians suddenly become a valid target, which is why Dresden and London were bombed to hell when such things never happened before, even in WWI.

In pre-modernity, such as the Middle Ages, battles typically weren't nearly as bloody because soldiers would simply route once they saw the battle going the wrong way.

Yeah, and because there were just less soldiers fighting them. seriously, this is so fucking dumb— yeah, less people died, because there... were less people!

As for per capita body count and atrocities— cities were routinely burned to the ground and had their populations raped, massacred, enslaved, and deported; countrysides were set ablaze by marauders, and famine afflicted besieged cities, besieging armies, and devastated rural areas. Modern technology and populations may accelerate or scale up some of this, but it doesn’t introduce some fundamentally new evil to the way we practice violence against one another.

[Kilobugya]

Well cities were deliberately destroyed in medieval and ancient times but that was more from looting than as a deliberate war aim.

Cathars would say otherwise. And I'm pretty sure they are not the only ones.

[Punished UMN]

Modern wars kill far more people than wars in pre-modernity did.

More people are alive to be killed! Again, this is fucking stupid! Violent deaths per capita are way down!

One part of that is that weapons are simply more efficient in killing now, that was what made the Civil War, WWI and WWII deadlier than all previous wars. Secondly, there's the development of the concept of Total War- where the entirety of society is geared towards the war effort and thus civilians suddenly become a valid target, which is why Dresden and London were bombed to hell when such things never happened before, even in WWI.

In pre-modernity, such as the Middle Ages, battles typically weren't nearly as bloody because soldiers would simply route once they saw the battle going the wrong way.

Yeah, and because there were just less soldiers fighting them. seriously, this is so fucking dumb— yeah, less people died, because there... were less people!

As for per capita body count and atrocities— cities were routinely burned to the ground and had their populations raped, massacred, enslaved, and deported; countrysides were set ablaze by marauders, and famine afflicted besieged cities, besieging armies, and devastated rural areas. Modern technology and populations may accelerate or scale up some of this, but it doesn’t introduce some fundamentally new evil to the way we practice violence against one another.

Less violence per capita is not in-fact any measure of moral wrong. If some guy goes into Andorra and kills 600 people with bombs, that killed more Andorrans per-capita than the Holocaust killed of the minorities killed in it, but that doesn't mean that it was more horrific.

[Punished UMN]

I gotta go to get my dog's stiches out at the vet, but I'll be back. Just don't want you guys to think I'm jumping ship or anything and I feel like it would be rude to leave Sen or anyone else on a cliffhanger if they reply to my posts while I'm gone.

[Senkaku]

And there’s plenty of times where it’s happened in the modern period too— you’re not going to convince me there’s a serious qualitative difference here, unless you’re arguing that the modern period is in fact more peaceful (as borne out by the data on violent deaths)


You’re shocked and horrified that the victors weren’t willing to indulge their thoroughly beaten enemies with lenient peace terms? Yeah, that’s a unique historical evil, never happened before modern times lmao

It LITERALLY was not lmao read abt what was going on w the Japanese war council (a thoroughly weird and dysfunctional body throughout the war, and whose misaligned administrative structure let military extremists stall peace and get loads of people needlessly killed at the end)

I have actually read quite extensively about it, the Japanese were open to negotiations and even the extremists were willing to engage in dialogue on terms. The American insistence on unconditional surrender was what prevented Japan from surrender.

“If America had simply negotiated with the fascists who surprise attacked them and their allies after starting to massacre their way across China”— let me stop you right there.

It's not that it's a unique historical evil,

So once again the goalposts move because you’ve embraced a silly maximalist position on something without thinking it through, what a surprise

it's that the atomic bomb removed any and all potential negative consequences from being able to exact that slaughter.

Don’t know what this sentence is supposed to mean

If my options are "negotiate an end to the war I may not be entirely satisfied with" and "wage a protracted military campaign that may leave tens or even hundreds of thousands of my own citizens dead", I will be more inclined to go with the former than if the latter option is "just incinerate a few hundred thousand women and children to force them to surrender on all of your terms."

Okay? So I guess it’s good the US wasn’t fighting the war with machetes and quadriremes, then, since ending the war on American terms appears to have prevented a second one, and using the bomb was a lot better than a ground invasion.

You are all over the place and this is a threadjack anyways.

[Salus Maior]

Also, this tangent on whether or not modernity is bad doesn't have much to do with the thread question.

[Aguaria Major]

hey aguaria would you mind explaining why you plagiarized spark notes for your nonsensical diatribe? https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... /section12
am i to take it that you have neither read kant nor hume and now have to resort to straight up copying text from quick internet references?

Because I'm typing this on my phone on the fucking El train;

I have read Kant and don't feel like typing out his entire long-winded praxis with my thumbs. Your points thus far have required relatively short responses, but 'summarizing' Kant in my own words would require at least 2 hours of my time sitting in front of a full-on keyboard computer.

And though I have not read Hume directly, his work was integrated into discussions of Kant in my philosophy classes in college for reference to the Critique of Pure Reason several times.

I also noticed that you can't refute any of my claims logically, so you're attacking them not based on substance, but on ethos. Nor, mind you, have you actually enumerated the beliefs of any of the philosophers you claim endorse your points; for a Christian, I would've thought you'd be familiar with the phrase, "judge not lest ye be judged."

If you're such a regular homme de salon, then why don't you enumerate, in great detail, your own knowlegde of the works of Kant and Hume?

I am not wrong in my assertions either way, and you evidently cannot refute that.

[Aguaria Major]

hey aguaria would you mind explaining why you plagiarized spark notes for your nonsensical diatribe? https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... /section12
am i to take it that you have neither read kant nor hume and now have to resort to straight up copying text from quick internet references?

That's also pretty big talk for someone who has done everything short of admitting that he can't refute any of my earlier claims, buddy.

If you think you are in any way the victor in this exchange, you are not. It has been obvious for a while now that you are out of substantive posts.

[Cekovia]

hey aguaria would you mind explaining why you plagiarized spark notes for your nonsensical diatribe? https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... /section12
am i to take it that you have neither read kant nor hume and now have to resort to straight up copying text from quick internet references?

Because I'm typing this on my phone on the fucking El train;

I have read Kant and don't feel like typing out his entire long-winded praxis with my thumbs. Your points thus far have required relatively short responses, but 'summarizing' Kant in my own words would require at least 2 hours of my time sitting in front of a full-on keyboard computer.

I also noticed that you can't refute any of my claims logically, so you're attacking them not based on substance, but on ethos. Nor, mind you, have you actually enumerated the beliefs of any of the philosophers you claim endorse your points; for a Christian, I would've thought you'd be familiar with the phrase, "judge not lest ye be judged."

I am not wrong in my assertions either way, and you evidently cannot refute that.

have you considered simply waiting to get home instead of plagiarizing random portions of sparknotes articles. i also have only invoked hume and you're the one who brought up kant (who i personally disagree with anyway); and as you say, i have no interest in typing up the entire philosophy of david hume - but one would think that had you read kant, you would understand that rationalism in no way stems from empiricism.

[Cekovia]

hey aguaria would you mind explaining why you plagiarized spark notes for your nonsensical diatribe? https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/p ... /section12
am i to take it that you have neither read kant nor hume and now have to resort to straight up copying text from quick internet references?

That's also pretty big talk for someone who has done everything short of admitting that he can't refute any of my earlier claims, buddy.

If you think you are in any way the victor in this exchange, you are not. It has been obvious for a while now that you are out of substantive posts.

imagine caring about declaring victors and losers on freaking NSG oh my god get a life

[Grenartia]

That's also pretty big talk for someone who has done everything short of admitting that he can't refute any of my earlier claims, buddy.

If you think you are in any way the victor in this exchange, you are not. It has been obvious for a while now that you are out of substantive posts.

imagine caring about declaring victors and losers on freaking NSG oh my god get a life

You said, without an ounce of self-awareness.

[Cekovia]

imagine caring about declaring victors and losers on freaking NSG oh my god get a life

You said, without an ounce of self-awareness.

i dont believe i have ever once on this site declared myself to have won an argument.

[Punished UMN]

I have actually read quite extensively about it, the Japanese were open to negotiations and even the extremists were willing to engage in dialogue on terms. The American insistence on unconditional surrender was what prevented Japan from surrender.

“If America had simply negotiated with the fascists who surprise attacked them and their allies after starting to massacre their way across China”— let me stop you right there.

It's not that it's a unique historical evil,

So once again the goalposts move because you’ve embraced a silly maximalist position on something without thinking it through, what a surprise

it's that the atomic bomb removed any and all potential negative consequences from being able to exact that slaughter.

Don’t know what this sentence is supposed to mean

If my options are "negotiate an end to the war I may not be entirely satisfied with" and "wage a protracted military campaign that may leave tens or even hundreds of thousands of my own citizens dead", I will be more inclined to go with the former than if the latter option is "just incinerate a few hundred thousand women and children to force them to surrender on all of your terms."

Okay? So I guess it’s good the US wasn’t fighting the war with machetes and quadriremes, then, since ending the war on American terms appears to have prevented a second one, and using the bomb was a lot better than a ground invasion.

You are all over the place and this is a threadjack anyways.

This argument only works if you do what you did in the first sentence, which is just accept that the slaughter is your only option and then just look for ways to do the slaughter. Negotiation was in-fact an option as Japan had lost the war and was willing to negotiate. The insistence on unconditional surrender is what made the slaughter inevitable, and your entire post here does nothing to address that. It basically admits it by just dismissing it outright with a "just let me stop you right there." The Japanese position in international affairs was extreme but reasonable, they weren't the Nazis who were waging the war out of basically spite. Every major American military leader of the Pacific Theater, including Admiral Halsey and Douglas MacArthur, maintained that neither the atomic bombing nor an invasion of the Japanese islands were necessary to bring about an end to the war, and the American secretary of state would later say the same. You're setting up a false dichotomy between "slaughter with more efficient technology" and "slaughter with bayonets" when there is a third option and that is to be willing to accept surrender on the same terms that virtually every other country in human history has.

What I mean by "removed any and all negative consequences for that slaughter" should be pretty obvious. There is no price for dropping an atomic bomb on people who can't fight back. There is a price for engaging in a protracted military campaign. You say it's worse because it requires just more motivation to kill, but you have not acknowledge that, if it requires high motivation to wage an extended military campaign, that you may just not have the motivation to do that. Dropping an atomic bomb requires far less motivation and thus makes one more willing to kill large numbers of people.

Your approach is entirely correct if we assume that a political actor's motivation to commit war crimes is sufficient to do them regardless of the costs of doing so, but this is not an assumption that can be taken for granted, and there are many cases where actors have limited their gains in order to limit the efforts and costs of achieving those gains.

[Punished UMN]

And yes, Sen, it is very easy to portray my argument as being "all over the place" when you break it down clause-by-clause without acknowledging the larger thrust of the post or the context from which I am making said post.

[Evanston Enclave]

Although religion has united and separated many, I think that it’s main contribution to humankind is morals. Many large religions we have had mold a mindset based on being humble, kind and encourage people to do good things in their lives. Religion has had a better effect on humanity.

[Aguaria Major]

Because I'm typing this on my phone on the fucking El train;

I have read Kant and don't feel like typing out his entire long-winded praxis with my thumbs. Your points thus far have required relatively short responses, but 'summarizing' Kant in my own words would require at least 2 hours of my time sitting in front of a full-on keyboard computer.

I also noticed that you can't refute any of my claims logically, so you're attacking them not based on substance, but on ethos. Nor, mind you, have you actually enumerated the beliefs of any of the philosophers you claim endorse your points; for a Christian, I would've thought you'd be familiar with the phrase, "judge not lest ye be judged."

I am not wrong in my assertions either way, and you evidently cannot refute that.

have you considered simply waiting to get home instead of plagiarizing random portions of sparknotes articles. i also have only invoked hume and you're the one who brought up kant (who i personally disagree with anyway); and as you say, i have no interest in typing up the entire philosophy of david hume - but one would think that had you read kant, you would understand that rationalism in no way stems from empiricism.

No, I haven't because I have work to do once I get home. If you truly want me to flex Kant on you, the response will have to come sometime tomorrow.

No, I haven't read David Hume and I admit that in the edit^.

Empiricism and rationalism disagree, primarily, about whether there is an innate component to how we gain knowledge. Empiricists say no, citing the sensory experiences taken at face value to be the only reliable ways on which to formulate knowledge, whiel rationalists say yes. However, not all rationalists are equal. The type that you're thinking of espouse the innate knowledge and innate knowledge theses, but the type of rationalist I am basing my praxis on is one who believes in the intuition/deduction thesis. Leibniz, being a mathematician, argues that the experience of the senses, while useful for formulating conclusions about the world, is not enough, as there must, given the consistent nature of mathematics in measuring the universe, must be a reason behind it that cannot be flushed out through pure operation.

He does not fully necessity of the senses in coming to reasonable conclusions.

Kant directly name-dropped David Hume several times in the Critique of Pure Reason, and while he does not reject the idea of Hume's that there are some things which are not determinable through what he called "relations of ideas", he rejects the idea that "matters of fact" as Hume puts it, are discernable only through sensory input, writing that our abilities to perceive the world are innate, with us from birth, therefore every judgement is innate. This would effectively render empiricism a mere illusion that exists within rationalism, as I understand it.

Either way, empiricism and rationalism do have some overlap that even their practitioners will admit to, and empiricism came first, with many rationalists, such as Kant, being reactionaries to empiricism. That's why I brought him up.

Rationalism as denoted by the intuition/deduction hypothesis is indeed an extension of empiricism in the same way socialism, an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to liberalism now just as rationalism is opposed to empiricism, is an extension of the same core values which ultimately birthed liberalism.

Either way, you are rejecting epistemiology if you believe in god.

[Aguaria Major]

That's also pretty big talk for someone who has done everything short of admitting that he can't refute any of my earlier claims, buddy.

If you think you are in any way the victor in this exchange, you are not. It has been obvious for a while now that you are out of substantive posts.

imagine caring about declaring victors and losers on freaking NSG oh my god get a life

He said, while making tit-for-tat repostes of literally every atheist in this thread.

If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

[Aguaria Major]

You said, without an ounce of self-awareness.

i dont believe i have ever once on this site declared myself to have won an argument.

You somehow equate believing in the possibility of victory in debate with being what determines when someone has wasted their life, when in reality, what determines that metric is how much devotion one has to the activity accused of life-wasting; I could believe in victory in a debate yet have an active social life and never participate in forums like this, for instance.

The un-self aware bit is where you are here, putting just as much effort into this as the person you are calling out, evidently unaware of the actual determinant of the life-wasting potetntial of a given activity.

[Cekovia]

have you considered simply waiting to get home instead of plagiarizing random portions of sparknotes articles. i also have only invoked hume and you're the one who brought up kant (who i personally disagree with anyway); and as you say, i have no interest in typing up the entire philosophy of david hume - but one would think that had you read kant, you would understand that rationalism in no way stems from empiricism.

No, I haven't because I have work to do once I get home. If you truly want me to flex Kant on you, the response will have to come sometime tomorrow.

i literally dont care but i think it would be chill if U simply avoided arguments where U would have to plagiarize things because that isn't cool .

No, I haven't read David Hume and I admit that in the edit^.

oh, ok, i missed the edit, well that explains a lot.

Empiricism and rationalism disagree, primarily, about whether there is an innate component to how we gain knowledge. Empiricists say no, citing the sensory experiences taken at face value to be the only reliable ways on which to formulate knowledge, whiel rationalists say yes. However, not all rationalists are equal. The type that you're thinking of espouse the innate knowledge and innate knowledge theses, but the type of rationalist I am basing my praxis on is one who believes in the intuition/deduction thesis. Leibniz, being a mathematician, argues that the experience of the senses, while useful for formulating conclusions about the world, is not enough, as there must, given the consistent nature of mathematics in measuring the universe, must be a reason behind it that cannot be flushed out through pure operation.

He does not fully necessity of the senses in coming to reasonable conclusions.

Kant directly name-dropped Joseph Hume several times in the Critique of Pure Reason, and while he does not reject the idea of Hume's that there are some things which are not determinable through what he called "relations of ideas", he rejects the idea that "matters of fact" as Hume puts it, are discernable only through sensory input, writing that our abilities to perceive the world are innate, with us from birth, therefore every judgement is innate. This would effectively render empiricism a mere illusion that exists within rationalism, as I understand it.

Either way, empiricism and rationalism do have some overlap that even their practitioners will admit to, and empiricism came first, with many rationalists, such as Kant, being reactionaries to empiricism. That's why I brought him up.

Rationalism as denoted by the intuition/deduction hypothesis is indeed an extension of empiricism in the same way socialism, an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to liberalism now just as rationalism is opposed to empiricism, is an extension of the same core values which ultimately birthed liberalism.

"joseph hume" LOL
anyway yeah thats certainly more accurate, albeit contradictory to what you originally said. thank U For clarifying what U meant.

Either way, you are rejecting epistemiology if you believe in god.

i dont think its as simple as that but i dont care to elaborate due to Exhaustion

imagine caring about declaring victors and losers on freaking NSG oh my god get a life

He said, while making tit-for-tat repostes of literally every atheist in this thread.

If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

second time you've made this mistake so i would just like to note that , if that wasnt clear , im female. but anyways i just find it more enjoyable to stay light on my feet and dance over arguments which r land mines of bad faith and arm chair logic , i dont care about 'winners' or 'losers' in the literal sense. not a very NSG attitude, i realize

[Cekovia]

i dont believe i have ever once on this site declared myself to have won an argument.

You somehow equate believing in the possibility of victory in debate with being what determines when someone has wasted their life, when in reality, what determines that metric is how much devotion has to the activity accused of life-wasting; I could believe in victory in a debate yet have an active social life and never participate in forums like this, for instance.

The un-self aware bit is where you are here, putting just as much effort into this as the person you are calling out, evidently unaware of the actual determinant of the life-wasting potetntial of a given activity.

wow you are waaaaay overthinking that comment

[Senkaku]

And yes, Sen, it is very easy to portray my argument as being "all over the place" when you break it down clause-by-clause without acknowledging the larger thrust of the post or the context from which I am making said post.

the whole is more than the sun of its (incoherent) parts; see that feels like an idea that maybe religion gave us (though idk if it’s good or bad)

[Aguaria Major]

No, I haven't because I have work to do once I get home. If you truly want me to flex Kant on you, the response will have to come sometime tomorrow.

i literally dont care but i think it would be chill if U simply avoided arguments where U would have to plagiarize things because that isn't cool .

No, I haven't read David Hume and I admit that in the edit^.

oh, ok, i missed the edit, well that explains a lot.

Empiricism and rationalism disagree, primarily, about whether there is an innate component to how we gain knowledge. Empiricists say no, citing the sensory experiences taken at face value to be the only reliable ways on which to formulate knowledge, whiel rationalists say yes. However, not all rationalists are equal. The type that you're thinking of espouse the innate knowledge and innate knowledge theses, but the type of rationalist I am basing my praxis on is one who believes in the intuition/deduction thesis. Leibniz, being a mathematician, argues that the experience of the senses, while useful for formulating conclusions about the world, is not enough, as there must, given the consistent nature of mathematics in measuring the universe, must be a reason behind it that cannot be flushed out through pure operation.

He does not fully necessity of the senses in coming to reasonable conclusions.

Kant directly name-dropped Joseph Hume several times in the Critique of Pure Reason, and while he does not reject the idea of Hume's that there are some things which are not determinable through what he called "relations of ideas", he rejects the idea that "matters of fact" as Hume puts it, are discernable only through sensory input, writing that our abilities to perceive the world are innate, with us from birth, therefore every judgement is innate. This would effectively render empiricism a mere illusion that exists within rationalism, as I understand it.

Either way, empiricism and rationalism do have some overlap that even their practitioners will admit to, and empiricism came first, with many rationalists, such as Kant, being reactionaries to empiricism. That's why I brought him up.

Rationalism as denoted by the intuition/deduction hypothesis is indeed an extension of empiricism in the same way socialism, an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to liberalism now just as rationalism is opposed to empiricism, is an extension of the same core values which ultimately birthed liberalism.

"joseph hume" LOL
anyway yeah thats certainly more accurate, albeit contradictory to what you originally said. thank U For clarifying what U meant.

Either way, you are rejecting epistemiology if you believe in god.

i dont think its as simple as that but i dont care to elaborate due to Exhaustion

He said, while making tit-for-tat repostes of literally every atheist in this thread.

If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

second time you've made this mistake so i would just like to note that , if that wasnt clear , im female. but anyways i just find it more enjoyable to stay light on my feet and dance over arguments which r land mines of bad faith and arm chair logic , i dont care about 'winners' or 'losers' in the literal sense. not a very NSG attitude, i realize

1) Plagiarism only applies if you use someone else's work for objective personal gain in some way. This is fucking NSG. Get over yourself. You have also readily admitted to being unwilling to type out entire philospohical praxes YOURSELF. My "plagiarism" is a result of the exact same phenomenon you have admitted to, hypocrite.

2) I may not have read him directly, but my familiarity with Kant means that I certainly understand him. Making the judgement that having directly read a person's work is the only way to understand it is certainly fitting given Hume was an empiricist, but this is why empiricism fails to fully explain the universe, and why rationalists have largely advanced science.

3) I guy I know really well is named Joseph Hume. They're both named Hume and have generic European biblical names. Sue me. I got David Hume's name right the other time I mention him by name in that post.

That is not contradictory to what I brought up at all. It's a clarification.

4) I explained why the "get a life bit" is hypocritical in my next post. Your defense there does nothing to disprove that fact and is only a fortification of the admission that you're out of actual substantive arguments.