- Any law, except this one, may be subdivided into smaller sections;
- No law may alter the first law or this law;
- Now, let’s get to business: …
Stage is set
- Crush your enemies
- See them driven before you
- Hear the lamentations of their women
No violence
No dishonesty
No malice
I guess I won’t be paying my taxes then.
Idgi
E: oh, no threat of violence?
- Hydrate
- Move your limbs
- Sleep
Do to others as you would have done to you
Do to others as they would do to others
Nothing should be forbidden if it harms no one
1st and 2nd contradict.
Say, 2nd, if someone harms others, then I should harm him/her, right?
But then, 1st, I wouldn’t wanna harm myself, so…
LIMBO
treat someone the way you would want to be treated; if that person is a rabid idiot that spews things like “death penalty now” , then make an exception since they don’t deserve good treatement; they deserve what they would do to other people, it’s ok to make an exception for these people.
I think harm needs to be clearly defined.
There’s a sweet monologue by George Carlin about the ten commandments.
I can’t find it quickly right now but he reduces them to three.
No, Carlin wasn’t religious but I love that monologue and it fits right in here.
UPDATE: https://youtu.be/CE8ooMBIyC8
-
Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins (metaphorically speaking)
-
“Facts” and “Beliefs” do not share equal weight in ANY policy discourse.
-
Whatever your religious beliefs (and you are welcome to them) stays at home when you are doing business or in any other way interacting with the public.
good luck defining where facts end and beliefs begin. ultimately science is a belief, even if it is evidence-based
Science is not a belief, nor is it a fact. It’s a set of tools for building knowledge by methodically separating models that work from models that don’t. Facts can certainly fall out of scientific work, but it’s a mistake to pick up any scientific work and label it “Fact”. It’s a constant work in progress.
Facts aren’t that difficult to define, the real problem is finding universally accepted sources to communicate facts. None of us are going to be able to critically examine every single claim made by every single scientific theory, journalist, blogger, podcast host, ChatGPT instance, preacher, prophet, etc. And did that politician mean to say the words that came out of their mouth, or did they actually misspeak and their real intention was something else?
I think the argument here is that you are going to have to draw the line somewhere. Instead of replicating every experiment yourself, you’re just going to have to take someone’s word for it.
You may trust a particular scientist, publication, journal, school book or another source. You may believe that what they say is reliable and… well true? Or maybe you believe it’s close enough, or at least it’s the best info we have at the moment, but who knows if it’s actually true or not. Either way, people choose to believe something about these sources, because you have to draw the line somewhere.
facts actually are very difficult to define. imagine telling an alien about the fact that people stop at stop signs, when the alien potentially has never seen a road, car, or stop sign
Science is not a “belief”. It’s a “deduction”
One is based on logic. The other is based on
gut feelingemotion.edited: I feel like emotion is a better contrast in my analogy.
yeah except that logic relies on base assumptions, which are ultimately chosen based on gut feelings
Logic does not rely on assumptions. It relies on making deductions about what is probable when faced with the current knowledge.
I see what you are meaning, but it’s a misunderstanding of how the scientific method works. Base Assumptions never come into play.
The hypothesis comes from the existing evidence, not the other way around.
For example, Eratosthenes didn’t have an “assumption” that the earth was round and then said, “hmmm…how shall we test this?” Rather, he had heard from someone or other that at noon is a certain city, there was no shadow. While in another city, there was a shadow being cast by objects. He started to logically deduce why that could be. He had his evidence, that in one city to the south, no shadow, and in another city, a shadow of 7 degrees at the same time of day. He knew the distance between the two cities and deduced not only that the earth was round, but it’s size as well.
No gut assumptions necessary.
Which makes it a fact? Facts can change too
can you elaborate? I’m not sure what your point is
The difference is that one belief is evidence-based, and hence a fact, while the other isn’t
-
•Try not to be a dick
•No means no
•An additional elusive third thing. I’m a big fan of the laws of thermodynamics. Maybe those.
- Do unto others, etc…
- Don’t punch down. Ever.
- Hydration is key.
- Disputes can be brought to tribunal
- Everyone of full age and sound mind gets a vote
- Previous tribunal decisions can be applied without voting again if the dispute is similar enough
Basically some sort of democratic case law
- you must make more rules
- you mustn’t make more rules
- you mustn’t question the rules
- Don’t kill (see below for exceptions)
- Don’t steal
- Don’t be a billionaire or you’ll get curb stomped
be excellent to each other
party on dudes
pay me, specifically me, tribute in gold and silver on the last day of every month
- Don’t be a dick
- Don’t be a pussy
- Don’t be an asshole
- An object at motion stays in motion
- An object at rest stays at rest
- Don’t push the big red button
- Entropy must always increase with time in a closed system
Always ask about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.
