Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - babyeatsdingo

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17
31
Incoming 1Ls / Re: Planet Law School..is it worth the read?
« on: July 23, 2007, 11:48:11 AM »
I've nearly finished Law School Confidential. The checklist and study method are together worth the price of the book. I plan on reading Getting To Maybe before school starts.

My aim in reading is just to get a general sense of what the first year will probably be like.

32
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Religion in today's world
« on: July 19, 2007, 04:34:55 PM »
Quote
And do you think the rights we call inalienable are truly inalienable?

Yes. If, for example, human beings do not possess the objective moral property "dignity" or "worth" then there can be no such thing as a real crime against humanity (cf. Nuremberg). Men may not be unjustly deprived of dignity unless they really have dignity in the first place. If human dignity and the right to life are things we merely choose by fiat to ascribe to ourselves then these things are nothing more than "useful fictions".

Quote
Assuming we are an accidental arrangement of atoms, we are also an accidental arrangement of atoms that is conscious of ourselves, cause and effect, and capable of evaluating the effects of our actions. We also are an arrangement of atoms that has only recently begun to see the possibility that we are not inherently relatively significant. These factors are why we believe our arrangement takes precedent.

I'll get to this later. I've got to go.

33
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Religion in today's world
« on: July 19, 2007, 03:02:42 PM »
Does the state create the rights of men or merely protect the rights men are endowed by their Creator? If there is no Creator, no God, then men create rights for themselves that they do not possess in virtue of what men are or how men have come into existence.

Unless and until we find a non-arbitrary secular basis for inalienable rights the religious voice will always be present in the public square.

Why must it be non-arbitrary?

What makes you think organized religion, especially Christianity, does not have an arbitrary basis?

Any rights we make for ourselves can be unmade relatively easily (i.e., they are alienable). Further, if God did not make men then men are what some say we are: accidental arrangements of atoms. Why should one arrangement have "rights" other arrangements don't? Etc.

34
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Religion in today's world
« on: July 19, 2007, 02:56:14 PM »
Does the state create the rights of men or merely protect the rights men are endowed by their Creator? If there is no Creator, no God, then men create rights for themselves that they do not possess in virtue of what men are or how men have come into existence.

Unless and until we find a non-arbitrary secular basis for inalienable rights the religious voice will always be present in the public square.

Oh sh*t. Where have you been?

Here.

35
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Religion in today's world
« on: July 19, 2007, 02:50:46 PM »
Does the state create the rights of men or merely protect the rights men are endowed by their Creator? If there is no Creator, no God, then men create rights for themselves that they do not possess in virtue of what men are or how men have come into existence.

Unless and until we find a non-arbitrary secular basis for inalienable rights the religious voice will always be present in the public square.

This statement's as baseless as the argument that without God a person cannot be moral.

Is it? Would you then please supply a non-arbitrary secular basis for inalienable rights?

On an aside, I'd argue that we cannot give substantive meaning to the term 'moral' on an atheistic view. But perhaps we should just focus on the issue I raise above for now.

36
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Religion in today's world
« on: July 19, 2007, 02:28:35 PM »
Does the state create the rights of men or merely protect the rights men are endowed by their Creator? If there is no Creator, no God, then men create rights for themselves that they do not possess in virtue of what men are or how men have come into existence.

Unless and until we find a non-arbitrary secular basis for inalienable rights the religious voice will always be present in the public square.

37
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: July 10, 2007, 10:40:54 AM »
If knowledge is merely what (1) one believes that (2) happens to correspond to one's experience then knowledge means anything at all and so means nothing at all (meaninglessness is the fate of all open definitions). This in turn means we can't know that knowledge consists of points (1) and (2).  If we know anything at all, we know that knowledge is more than (1) and (2).

What does this have to do with science and religion?

If we don't know what knowledge is then how do we know whether science and religion give us knowledge? If there is no such thing as knowledge then what is science anyway? What would it do?

38
I am not comparing A to F.

39
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 01:24:22 PM »
Folks sometimes say QM shows bivalent logic to be weak sauce. That depends on whether the implications of QM are ontological, epistemic or both.

Gotta go.

Pace.

40
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Science vs Religion
« on: June 25, 2007, 01:21:52 PM »
Quote from: GraphiteDirigible
I can say that classical logic is not absolutely valid.

Quote from: babyeatsdingo
Classical logic must be absolutely valid in order for this statement to be true which means your statement is false.

Consider the proposition P: "classical logic is absolutely valid". I say P is true. You say ~P is true. If you are correct then it must be true that either P or ~P obtains (i.e., law of excluded middle) and must be false that both P and ~P obtain (i.e., law of non-contradiction), which is to say that classical logic is absolutely valid.

How does the movement of small particles bear on the above?

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17