dogman6126

I see that you changed your MBTI type. Can I ask you when you found this out and what made you decide internally, "This is enough evidence in favour of ENFJ"?

Good to see you here again! Did I bait you in with the philosophy thread? I hope so. How's the study coming along?

Enjoying your posts (dog)man looking forward to answering your question about Utopia but I'll have to think a bit first!

Is English not your native language?

Also your rep is a lie because I still see it downvoted. What is wrong with you.

Stop harassing me.

Us who? My first post wasnt even directed at you. You inserted yourself into the back and forth. If you want to personalize everything I say like its directed to you, that's fine but I dont have to justify myself to you.

Well there are a few definitions of reasonable--some closer to logic and others farther. One definition (which I'm not using) is reasonable simply means acceptable -- for example "my wife treats me reasonably well"--well, that just means one can come up with an argument which evokes a sense of feeling good about the treatment. Now here, this is reasonable in closer to the sense of Jungian feeling--that one's reason evokes a sense of acceptance/rejection, hence is subjective rather than objective.

OTOH, there's a stricter notion of reasonable, which says reason involves a truth-claim where one claims logic applies to experience in a certain way that can actually be checked. This is e.g. the claim that an equation reasonably explains the motion of an electron in certain situations. Here the difference between reason and logic does still exist, as there are many logical formulations of the roughly "same" reason, but the claim that one's explanation is reasonable does involve being able to check logic against experience. And if one cannot, one says the claim isn't reasonable: one can't reason logically about it!! One can only surmise it may be true or false, but that there's no reasonable way to check it--here "reasonable" refers to the capability of deciding the truth-value by logical means (still, again, distinguished from precise logical formulation). This is the version I was using.

Thanks!

Sorry IDK how to respond to those comments but on VM heh, so I'm doing so here. I think there's something for sure to your comment, and I'd say the key is reason=/= logic. Logic is much more certain and rigid.
Reason, less so, because reason involves applying logic to experience to make a claim often.

So really the question then becomes a matter of what type of experience one is pointing to -- where people can differ is in whether some line of logic actually met the experience they were talking of. In science, the experiences are highly sensorily precise facts, so we can tend to agree with higher frequency.
In philosophy often one is arguing what the framework "should be" in the first place, whence why philosophers rarely seem to agree on many things. And even worse in religion, where one goes outside the bounds of standard experience into mystical experience..

Don’t even get me started on the cost of education in the US.

The ultimate win would be to get as many people off welfare and food stamps as possible.
If someone is working 40+ hours a week, stuck in the cycle of poverty or even just the loss of the middle class and upward mobility…if someone is working full-time or more, then they should at the very least make a minimum amount of money to buy their own food, pay their own rent, etc, etc. - isn’t that what we are striving for here?

Minimum wage laws were originally created to set the minimum amount acceptable for someone to make in order to have the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, warmth, etc.
So in a way, they were yes…created for people to live on…not live well…but able to survive without taking food stamps, or welfare, or any other kind of assistance.
The problem with what you said about people with no skills earning a higher wage which is clearly a matter of “deservability” with you, is that when you pay them the bare minimum it takes away a consumer (in terms of non essential items), it takes away from that person’s ability to improve their situation through further education which cost money in both actual terms and in time.
The falsity that inflation will rise to levels that will not stabilize and has been proven wrong with places that have in fact raised their minimum wages…they are doing just fine.
Also…if the minimum wage goes up then it will give the rest of middle class America bargaining power to raise their own wages that it no longer has with then dissolving of the unions.

Lololol…okay…let me come up with a response for that incredibly well thought out and very thorough response!

My god man!

Well…let’s compare what someone on minimum wage could do with that money in the 60’s, 70, and early 80’s?
They could live on it for one.
People could afford to pay their their bills and put themselves through college.
It has by no means kept up with inflation for almost 30 years now…it’s time.
When the middle class has more money to spend - they spend it while the rich just hoard it.

No…it’s a compendium of PSI experiments and replicated experiments…it’s for you or anyone to peruse at their leisure.
Take a well earned break my friend!

It has multiple citations, to help satisfy the "replication of results” that is often used to dismiss PSI.

No, I’m not the author…just one with some interesting conclusions.