The Student Room Group

Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Scroll to see replies

Reply 540
Original post by reallydontknow
But these are assumptions. You claim you are real, you cannot prove it therefore you are not real. Burden of proof.

Who are you to say people should care less about money?
Who are you to dictate what people should and shouldn't care about?
Who are you to dictate what is and isn't "importent"?

People can do as they like. If you want to live a broke life then by all means do so, but don't try and force other people to, because some other people (well a lot) like money.

Posted from TSR Mobile

They are assumptions that any philosopher would ratify. And yes, all I know is that I am real and you can only know that you are real because what is real is only what is perceived...

So I take it you worship money and hate you fellow humans:rolleyes:

people should do what is right and they can't do what they want due to the law, unless you want no laws?
Original post by Aph
They are assumptions that any philosopher would ratify. And yes, all I know is that I am real and you can only know that you are real because what is real is only what is perceived...

So I take it you worship money and hate you fellow humans:rolleyes:

people should do what is right and they can't do what they want due to the law, unless you want no laws?


Philosophy is bs, there I said it. It's about as much as a joke in my opinion as psychology.

I don't worship money. I regularly partake in charity, volunteer and help the homeless, but I'm not gonna work in a society where I'm paid the same as a cleaner. Or something stupid like that.

Until the point of harming somebody else of course and other boundaries.

But me buying a Bentley is not hurting you. Sure I may not be helping you but I don't have to.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Aph
They are assumptions that any philosopher would ratify. And yes, all I know is that I am real and you can only know that you are real because what is real is only what is perceived...

So I take it you worship money and hate you fellow humans:rolleyes:

people should do what is right and they can't do what they want due to the law, unless you want no laws?


No. Only post modernist philosophers, who aren't real philosophers.

Sane analytic philosophers say lets assume the world is the way every medium of human understanding suggests it is (ie, induction/science and deduction/mathematics).
Reply 543
Original post by KingStannis
No. Only post modernist philosophers, who aren't real philosophers.

Sane analytic philosophers say lets assume the world is the way every medium of human understanding suggests it is (ie, induction/science and deduction/mathematics).

But every medium of unman understanding is different to every human. What I think is blue you might think is green.
Original post by reallydontknow
Philosophy is bs, there I said it. It's about as much as a joke in my opinion as psychology.

I don't worship money. I regularly partake in charity, volunteer and help the homeless, but I'm not gonna work in a society where I'm paid the same as a cleaner. Or something stupid like that.

Until the point of harming somebody else of course and other boundaries.

But me buying a Bentley is not hurting you. Sure I may not be helping you but I don't have to.



Posted from TSR Mobile


No, only post modernist/continental philosophy is bs. The more mathematical branches of philosophy provide useful clarification on problems that can't be solved through empirical means.
Original post by KingStannis
No. Only post modernist philosophers, who aren't real philosophers.

Sane analytic philosophers say lets assume the world is the way every medium of human understanding suggests it is (ie, induction/science and deduction/mathematics).


Sorry I should have clarified that. I agree.
Proper philosophers I would say study another subject but use philosophy.

The ones I mean are useless are ones that use philosophy to study nothing and get nothing as a result. Post modernist essentially yes.



Original post by Aph
But every medium of unman understanding is different to every human. What I think is blue you might think is green.


Erm nobody cares what you think is blue and green.

Blue is a defined term as is green. Nobody cares what you see, it is defined as a specific wavelength of light and has its own colour signature.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Aph
But every medium of unman understanding is different to every human. What I think is blue you might think is green.


We have systems of knowledge such as science which are verifiable, ie two people can look at that system and come to the same conclusions.

That system cannot 100% be verified in terms of producing knowledge, but the fact that the knowledge it produces behaves exactly as you'd expect it to assuming it correlated correctly to a fixed reality outside of it renders the assumption that it isn't true utterly irrational.

I'm sympathetic to skepticism about absolute certainty of knowledge. However, I laugh at the idea that because there's a tiny chance our knowledge might be unreliable, therefore we should ignore it and assume the most unlikely, ridiculous possibility; that reality changes from person to person and doesn't exist. There's no reason to assume that. And to apply it to economic policy?? laughable.
Reply 547
Original post by reallydontknow
Erm nobody cares what you think is blue and green.

Blue is a defined term as is green. Nobody cares what you see, it is defined as a specific wavelength of light and has its own colour signature.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That was simply a mundane example, my point is all my senses are different to everyone else's senses thus all our realities are different.
Original post by reallydontknow
Sorry I should have clarified that. I agree.
Proper philosophers I would say study another subject but use philosophy.

The ones I mean are useless are ones that use philosophy to study nothing and get nothing as a result. Post modernist essentially yes.



Posted from TSR Mobile


I disagree with the bold. Philosophy is a highly technical, wide and specialized area. It's not some additional caveat to other disciplines, but a huge area of study itself. There have been many mathematician-philosophers in the past true, but with academic specialization as it is this is rare.
Original post by Aph
That was simply a mundane example, my point is all my senses are different to everyone else's senses thus all our realities are different.


Okay so your example was wrong. Yet your pint is still valid, is that your point?

No my friend. It doesn't work like that, I agree with the person above you. There is a chance that anything is wrong. But that doesn't mean we can discard everything. That's ridiculous.

Occams razor. Read about it.

I can say that it will not rain hamburgers and ketchup tomorrow. Now that isn't 100% as these hamburgers could materialise out of nowhere but physics and probability say that they will most likely not. So you can exclude this.

For arguments like yours razors are the way forward.

And please stop being such a try hard hipster postmodernist

Original post by KingStannis
I disagree with the bold. Philosophy is a highly technical, wide and specialized area. It's not some additional caveat to other disciplines, but a huge area of study itself. There have been many mathematician-philosophers in the past true, but with academic specialization as it is this is rare.


I get what you're saying but to me that's semantics, like arguing over what maths is. It is useless. (not maths but the arguing :tongue:)

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 550
Original post by KingStannis
We have systems of knowledge such as science which are verifiable, ie two people can look at that system and come to the same conclusions.

That system cannot 100% be verified in terms of producing knowledge, but the fact that the knowledge it produces behaves exactly as you'd expect it to assuming it correlated correctly to a fixed reality outside of it renders the assumption that it isn't true utterly irrational.
aye, I don't deny science I have almost absolute trust in it

I'm sympathetic to skepticism about absolute certainty of knowledge. However, I laugh at the idea that because there's a tiny chance our knowledge might be unreliable, therefore we should ignore it and assume the most unlikely, ridiculous possibility; that reality changes from person to person and doesn't exist. There's no reason to assume that. And to apply it to economic policy?? laughable.
my main point was that we can define reality however we want, and as he is talking about society (which we make) we can redefine social reality.
Reply 551
Original post by reallydontknow
Okay so your example was wrong. Yet your pint is still valid, is that your point?

No my friend. It doesn't work like that, I agree with the person above you. There is a chance that anything is wrong. But that doesn't mean we can discard everything. That's ridiculous.

Occams razor. Read about it.

I can say that it will not rain hamburgers and ketchup tomorrow. Now that isn't 100% as these hamburgers could materialise out of nowhere but physics and probability say that they will most likely not. So you can exclude this.

For arguments like yours razors are the way forward.

And please stop being such a try hard hipster postmodernist

Posted from TSR Mobile
my example was right (albeit mundane)


I never claimed that anything was wrong just that it might.

And I am only stating my honest opinions.
Holy ****, they are actually bat **** crazy.
Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?
Original post by El-Presidente
Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?


Because they live in a bubble

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 555
Original post by El-Presidente
Look how many TSR people plan to vote for them! 20%. The Tories only poll 22% as well. Worst of all is Labour on 35%, people have really short memories.

Why are young people stupid when it comes to voting?

We aren't, we just aren't as hum-drum as the elderly. The only limit is your imagination:yep: and left means progress and change, right means staying still and victim blaming


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Aph
We aren't, we just aren't as hum-drum as the elderly. The only limit is your imagination:yep: and left means progress and change, right means staying still and victim blaming


Posted from TSR Mobile


I think most people would call what you call imagination, idealistic naivety.

Also, victim blaming? Wut!?
I wouldn't vote for them because of their views on immigration. UKIP imo are a moderate party who would at least keep their promises.

Face it the major parties are corrupt as hell they cannot be trusted with anything. I'm still amazed how many have gotten over the war in Iraq, but even immigration many were mad at Labour for that. But what have the Conservative party done? nothing, they've lied on immigration AGAIN. Yet people still vote for them it makes no sense.


Why does the negative effect immigration has on the native population never come into consideration? I'm not talking money and jobs here because I think immigration pays for itself. The history of immigration, it's pretty much always been destructive to native populations but despite this it's always immigrant rights, never native rights. Of course a lot of migration has been to escape war, famine so it's hard to blame people who left to survive (Irish famines for example)
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 558
Original post by QuantumOverlord
I think most people would call what you call imagination, idealistic naivety.

Also, victim blaming? Wut!?

And I'd say they are stuck in the past,

blaming the poor for being poor, ill for being ill. And blaming the weak for all our problems.
Original post by Aph
my example was right (albeit mundane)


I never claimed that anything was wrong just that it might.

And I am only stating my honest opinions.


No it wasn't. I proved it wrong with basic science.

Colours exist and have been defined. Doesn't after what you see blue is a certain thing as is red.

Cba because you still think you're right after me showing you you're wrong.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest