Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Exactly right! The question is: What are we going to do about it?
vm.tiktok.com/ZM8SexV3Y/
English
Openly Reasoned
32.7K posts
Openly Reasoned
@OpenlyReasoned
Independent & reasonable opposition to the Twitter Outrage Machine. What could possibly go wrong? #FactsMatter
Katılım Temmuz 2020
454 Takip Edilen352 Takipçiler
@VINNUSAURUS What do you mean “start.” India has been buying oil from Russia in rupees. The problem is that Russia isn’t able to do much with them: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
English
As soon as India starts buying oil in rupees from west asian countries too, then tabla bajna of Indian Americans will start in a big way.
GIF
English
@AMOarcaverde @EmmanuelMacron There is no BRICS currency to trade oil in.
English
@EmmanuelMacron Trade oil in Euro and Rupee..or Brics currency..goodbye bully dollar..
English
Thank you, my dear friend.
India and France are working closely together to reduce tensions in the region and to keep diplomacy at the heart of our efforts for peace.
Narendra Modi@narendramodi
Spoke with my dear friend, President Emmanuel Macron, on the situation in West Asia and the urgent need for de-escalation, as well as a return to dialogue and diplomacy. We look forward to continuing our close coordination to advance peace and stability in the region and beyond. @EmmanuelMacron
English
@SMohsinWaheed Except Hormuz is still there, I is still for India, and why would India or Brazil ever want to adopt the yuan as their currency?
(Note: China doesn’t currently allow enough yuan to leave its territory for any but a tiny country to adopt the yuan.)
English
Hormuz is gone, prestige of dollar along with that of USA has also taken a severe bashing. NATO which was already fragile is now a broken alliance. Domination of the west is over and power of BRICS (I for Iran not India) is established with Yuan as its currency...
إيران بالعربية@iraninarabic_ir
🔺مستشار ومساعد قائد الثورة الاسلامية محمد مخبر: سنفرض على الغرب العقوبات باستخدام الموقع الاستراتيجي لمضيق هرمز و بعد انتهاء العدوان ومع وضع نظام جديد لمضيق هرمز سترتقي إيران من موقع الدولة المعاقَبة إلى موقع الدولة القوية
English
@z8000783 @nestroydiggers1 @darwintojesus The meaning of “right” and “wrong” aren’t anymore subjective or objective than the meanings of other words.
WHAT is right and wrong is a subjective determination.
It literally can’t possibly be otherwise.
English
If there is no such thing as objective morality, then the meaning of right and wrong will be subjective.
I can quite legitimately say that rape is wrong and that will still mean something under subjectivism unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Which, BTW, you still have not done.
There is nothing incorrect about that.
English
@Reaver749735 @_Ochiedike Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any clue about the viability of potential universe outcomes. Maybe they’re all equally viable. Maybe one outcome was inevitable.
The point remains: Only after falsely assuming a specific outcome can you argue for a fine-tuned universe.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike Your logic is flawed because you treat all outcomes as equally viable. But physics suggests most values give no atoms, stars, or stable structure at all. That’s not “a different winner”; it’s no winners. Your lottery analogy fails because a lottery guarantees one.
English
@Reaver749735 @_Ochiedike This is simply not true! Change the Cosmological Constant by 10~20~100% and you’d still have stars. Decrease it by 1,000,000% structure would be way longer lasting, not shorter. Multiple, massive changes would be required to not have atoms.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike That claim assumes any outcome was equally viable. But physics suggests most possibilities don’t yield any lasting structure at all, no stars, atoms, or observers. It’s not just “different,” it’s nothing stable exists. That’s why the specific life-permitting range stands out.
English
@DevolutionBegin @Lilith_Atheist 2/ Likewise, you can have a “relationship” with a person or a group👇or, I’d say, any sentient being that can independently react to you. Eg you can have a relationship with your dog. But you can’t have a relationship with creativity.
You can, however, be creative.
English
@DevolutionBegin @Lilith_Atheist 1/ Perhaps this just comes down to how we are using words. With respect, I think I’m using them closer to both the dictionary definition and colloquial usage.
Eg “Worship” is showing reverence specifically to a divine being or supernatural power. It isn’t meditating on love👇
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike I have. Grok’s counter-arguments were terrible. Not just poor, obviously wrong. The one you picked as the strongest wasn’t even relevant.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike Grok based its wording on the examples he gave. Grok didn't just say, No, wrong, go home. Ask it and read what it tels you.
English
And they will always repeat the same sin after confession.
Very dangerøus people.
African mind@Africanized3
Christians are a very funny specie of People. Imagine confessing your sins to a fellow human who might have even committed worse than you.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike Which ignores my question: Do you think Grok is always right?
As I mentioned, Grok’s counter-arguments were terrible. I’m happy to discuss them if you like.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike If there was no explanation for its reasoning, I wouldn't even have bothered.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike Your 2nd point is you continuing to argue with your straw man and not with my actual claim 👇
I’m not arguing causation!!! How many times do I have to tell you that? I’m not saying the future is known because knowledge dictates it. I’m not saying the future is known at all.
Openly Reasoned@OpenlyReasoned
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike 1️⃣ The existence of infallible foreknowledge (by God or anyone else!) over a choice you haven’t made yet. 2️⃣ The existence — in reality, not in illusion — of your free will over that choice. I’m saying 1️⃣ and 2️⃣ can’t logically exist simultaneously! That’s it. That’s my claim.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike To the first point:
I said “future choices” and have said many times that it SEEMS like we have free will. “Seems” being the operative word.
But if what SEEM like choices are inevitable events, then those choices are illusions.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike To my knowledge, no robot is saying I’m wrong.
Grok is a Large Language Model. Are you claiming that everything Grok says is correct?
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike And I am telling you, you are wrong, and a robot is telling you you are wrong. I and the robot explained to you why. You didn't explain anything. You just use your statement as proof of its claim.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike Knowledge doesn’t shape reality. I never once agued it did.
I’ve explained multiple times why 1️⃣ and 2️⃣ can’t both simultaneously be true, literally including in the tweet you are replying to.
Your answer is right here! 👇
Openly Reasoned@OpenlyReasoned
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike The existence of infallible foreknowledge means your future choices are inevitable. If your future choices are inevitable before they are made by your will, then your choices could not possibly be made by your will. Thus, free will wouldn’t exist.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike No, you at one point even concede that someone knowing what you will do does not interfere with the process of making a choice. You even acknowledge that knowledge does not shape reality; reality shapes knowledge. So how can they intersect?
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike I’ve explained this to you over and over. And every time I have, you ignore it. And then falsely claim I offer no explanation.
Want to move this discussion forward. Then please tell me what you find wrong with this basic, logical, explanation👇
Openly Reasoned@OpenlyReasoned
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike The existence of infallible foreknowledge means your future choices are inevitable. If your future choices are inevitable before they are made by your will, then your choices could not possibly be made by your will. Thus, free will wouldn’t exist.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike The existence of infallible foreknowledge means your future choices are inevitable.
If your future choices are inevitable before they are made by your will, then your choices could not possibly be made by your will.
Thus, free will wouldn’t exist.
English
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike The statements don’t interfere with each other, beyond the fact that they can’t both be simultaneously true (for the reason you gave).
Similarly, 1️⃣ and 2️⃣ (👇) don’t interfere with each other, beyond the fact that they can’t both be simultaneously true (for the reason I gave)
Openly Reasoned@OpenlyReasoned
@cristia90677654 @_Ochiedike 1️⃣ The existence of infallible foreknowledge (by God or anyone else!) over a choice you haven’t made yet. 2️⃣ The existence — in reality, not in illusion — of your free will over that choice. I’m saying 1️⃣ and 2️⃣ can’t logically exist simultaneously! That’s it. That’s my claim.
English
@OpenlyReasoned @_Ochiedike And I explained to you why this explanation is not like the other. Biological birth can only occur once. No matter when he was born, once he is born, he cannot be born again because of the definition of birth. The statements interfere with each other. (1/2)
English
@davidwill62 @JeffreyLuscombe Joining BRICS wouldn’t mean abandoning the petrodollar.
Joining BRICS wouldn’t mean anything, really. It’s a talking club, not a treaty organization or alliance or common market.
English
@JeffreyLuscombe So, you want Canada to join BRICS? Thus abandoning the “Petroleum Dollar”?
PMMC is further weakening our Fiat currency with his TRILLION$$$$$’s debt.
English
English
The USD will still remain the global reserve currency — at least until 2032.
English
