Graham Seth Moore

@bennycarlyle @RichardHanania If you rotate the camera to point west, then south, then east, you will see that the vast majority of vancouver is single family homes.

@RichardHanania This might be an unfollow. What are you even talking about? Pure ignorance.

A Canadian court ruled that part of Vancouver still belonged to the Squamish. The Canadian government settled with the tribe by giving them 10 acres that used to belong to a branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Squamish are now building high-rises in their village, which is called Senakw, putting the rest of the city to shame. Vancouver is mostly single family housing. The new buildings tower over their neighbors. A Vancouver city councilman complains that the high-rises don't reflect “an Indigenous way of building.” But there's nothing they can do. Not the biggest indigenous rights advocate, but we need to give the Indians everything if this is what they'll do with the land.

@PAHoyeck When students ask me "why do we accept a definition of validity that counts such bizarre arguments as valid?" I tell them "look, you *can* rig up an alternative definition of validity that doesn't have that consequence, but I think you'll find it's more trouble than it's worth."

@PAHoyeck and paraconsistent logics have a seat at the table.

A lot of you failed yesterday's logic quiz, so here's a make-up quiz. I made this one a bit easier. Is this a valid argument? P1. There is a God. P2. There is no God. C. Therefore, all atheists have blue hair.

@pierslangland @PAHoyeck Technically all arguments with inconsistent premise sets are valid. If the premises are inconsistent, then the argument trivially meets the condition for validity: it's impossible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false.

@PAHoyeck Invalid because it's self-contradictory? Those three premisses can't go together.

Surprise logic quiz!!! Is this a valid argument? P1. There is a God. P2. If there is a God, then morality is objective. P3. Morality is not objective. C. Therefore, atheism is true.

@jt_kerwin Theres a weird genre of public-facing academic that is PhD-in-one-thing-so-they-can-posture-as-expert-in-another-thing

Periodic reminder that Jason Hickel has a PhD in anthropology, and there is no evidence that he has ever taken an economics course in his life

@jaskirat Surrey is sweatpants

Vancouver uniforms: Yaletown - Lululemon Kits - athleisure and a Stanley cup Downtown - Patagonia Coal Harbour - business casual with rich dog Main Street - vintage jacket and tote bag Commercial Drive - thrifted everything UBC - hoodie, sweats, dead eyes Surrey - puffer jacket and Air Forces Richmond - Arc’teryx and car keys North Van - hiking shoes, even at dinner

Speaking as the local legend of the Stanley park seawall on Strava, I can offer some unique insight on this question.

@Aaronpete_ Sweet. You've become my source of BC news lately :)

Exciting news! I just interviewed the Minister for Indigenous Rights & Reconciliation Spencer Chandra Herbert. We talk about the Cowichan decision, private property rights, DRIPA, and whether there’s an end to reconciliation. Coming soon.

@2Philosophical_ But like, no philosopher since the 1970s thinks that the internal consistency of an idea implies the metaphysical possibility of its instantiation. (Water that isn't H20, heat that isn't molecular motion, etc.)

An Ontological Argument 1. If the idea of God is internally consistent, then God is metaphysically possible. 2. If God is metaphysically possible, then God exists. 3. The idea of God is internally consistent. So, 4. God exists.

@darwintojesus The funny thing is that it's not even circular to use one kind of test to demonstrate that another kind of test works. That's called corroboration.

Atheists using a test to prove that tests work.

@DrScotMSullivan Take any necessary proposition, P. The necessity of P is explained by it being true *at* all worlds; that is, for all worlds w, things in w are as P represents them to be. This does not imply that P itself exists necessarily. Hence, P need not be grounded in a necessary mind.

For centuries, philosophers have offered different “ways” to reason toward the existence of God. I have been developing what I think of as a modern philosophical “Five Ways”: 1. The Ontological Argument: God as Necessary Being 2. The Cosmological Argument: God as First Cause 3. The Teleological Argument: God as Supreme Intelligence and Designer 4. The Deontological (Moral) Argument: God as the Foundation of Objective Moral Obligation 5. The Veritological Argument: God as the Ground of Necessary Truth and Rational Intelligibility Each argument begins from a different feature of reality itself: Being. Causality. Order. Morality. Truth. The progression is important. The arguments ascend from existence itself to mind itself. Is the existence of God rationally self-evident? Why is there causality and contingency? Why is the universe rationally ordered? Why do objective moral obligations exist? Why do necessary and immutable truths exist at all? The final argument especially interests me: the argument from necessary truth. Eternal truths seem difficult to explain within a purely material and contingent universe. Necessary truth appears to point beyond matter toward eternal mind. In many ways, this is deeply Augustinian: Truth itself becomes a road to God.

@morallawwithin People on the internet understanding how analogies work challenge ....

lmao

@PAHoyeck Wittgenstein

Who is the philosopher with the most annoying fanbase?

@Sturgeons_Law 100% of the time when people say "how dare you compare X and Y", it's because they can't distinguish between analogical reasoning, and counter-examples or examples of general principles, and so they try to moral grandstand rather than follow the argument.

@Sturgeons_Law It's not even functioning as an analogy in the OP. It's an *illustration* of the inconsistency between "X is wrong" and "we should reduce, rather than eliminate X".

There's literally nothing wrong w this comparison unless you specifically mean to dehumanize people, which requires starting w a low view of animals. But it's not vegans who see animals that way. It's anti-vegans who want to preserve the conditions for that kind of dehumanization

@ColdEmpanadas Poor reading comprehension. The post's point is that it's inconsistent to admit that "X is wrong" while calling for the reduction of X without elimination. Slavery was used as an *illustration* of that type of inconsistency. It was not to say farm animals are comparable to slaves

vegans stop comparing farm animals to human slaves challenge (impossible)

@morallawwithin "Your problem isn't with X, it's with capitalism" is so quaint. We're not in the late 2010s anymore.

“Your problem isn’t with eating animals, it’s with capitalism” no my problem is definitely with eating animals

@cachavaa It will make nearly zero difference to animals crammed into the cages of a factory farm whether that factory is owned by workers or capitalists. The suffering is caused by the demand for meat products; not the ownership structure of its production.

veganism is not inherently a morally superior position. the vegetables and fruits you consume are also harvested via immense cruelty & exploitation, not to even mention indigenous practices or food deserts. if you care about animals, the position to take is anti-capitalism.

@JeremiahDJohns I saw this and instantly thought of you.

It feels like cheating to put Bryan in the bad takes bracket, but how can we possibly exclude "here is my wife's vaginal microbiome report card"