| > Whoa there - why do you call what I've written "simplistic"? Because it does not appreciate complexities. This is the danger of confirmation bias; it reduces a complex reality down to a simple explanation by dismissing contrary evidence. > You can't say that a person has earned his brain, nor can you say that he hasn't. I've already explained why. And you're wrong. Your central claim is this: "A person has earned any given X if and only if this person has made a choice." We can say "A person has earned any given X" is P and "A person has made a choice" is Q. Thus, the claim is a simple P <-> Q, which is shorthand for P -> Q AND Q -> P. Your next claim, however, is "If a person has not made a choice, then this person has neither earned nor not-earned the given X." This looks like ~Q -> ~P, which is logically valid, but it's not. The claim depends on a statement which is completely new. You've defined a third category of existence. > Please stop with the insults. Earn my respect. That's a choice on your part, right? |
This is supposed to be a community where we all respect each other. There is no excuse to be disrespectful to other people here, especially over disagreements about politics and philosophy.
If you want to be part of a community where you are free to be disrespectful to people until they "earn" your respect, you should go somewhere else.
I'm not even commenting on how you made fun of me and maxharris, which is kind of irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument intellectually. I'm only talking about your explicit assertion that you don't have to be respectful as part of the bargain of being in this community.