A movement that seeks to have people to only hold morals that will make and/or save money etc. for example if a person will help you make or save money then you should save there life etc. but if a homeless person is starving and they cannot help you make and/or save money you should let them starve etc.
He is for the economic moral determinism movement.
by The Fury 13 January 15, 2011
Get the Economic moral determinism movementmug. A meatier less intelligent yet infinity funnier version of the terminator. Created during a fake ending to the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie, in which meatwad portrays his impersonation of the terminator.
Meatwad "I'm the determinator. I need your clothes boots and motorcycle"
Master Shake "I said I want those things, I don't have them"
*Meatwad shoots Master Shake*
Meatwad "you've been determined"
Master Shake "I said I want those things, I don't have them"
*Meatwad shoots Master Shake*
Meatwad "you've been determined"
by dkosty September 29, 2010
Get the determinatormug. by anonymous February 28, 2023
Get the determinationmug. by njplays August 17, 2020
Get the Determinatedmug. I'm glad that you brought that up because it takes me to my second problem with determinism. Let's try and visualize your argument.
D
>ID - ID
R > R
ED
So, and action is either Random (R) or Determined. If it's Determined it's either Internally (ID) or Externally (ED) Determined. If it's Externally Determined, then you have no control. If it's Internally Determined, then the internal determination is either Determined or Random. And I'm guessing that by "Determined" you mean "The necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise," Correct? Is that close? Does that make sense? I feel like there are a lot of presuppositions that need to be unpacked.
Hym "So, how is asking whether or not something is determined or random any different than asking whether or not my bedroom is hot or cold? It's both. And neither. It's, like, luke warm. So, you presuppose the absence of a grey area between determined and random. That random and determine don't exist on a spectrum in the same way hot and cold exist on a spectrum. As though thinks can't be more or less determined or more or less random. Is the outcome of a coin to more or less random than the outcome of rolling a 20 sided dice? You could say that the outcome is determined I guess. By the exact about of force used to roll the dice or flip the coin.
D
>ID - ID
R > R
ED
So, and action is either Random (R) or Determined. If it's Determined it's either Internally (ID) or Externally (ED) Determined. If it's Externally Determined, then you have no control. If it's Internally Determined, then the internal determination is either Determined or Random. And I'm guessing that by "Determined" you mean "The necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise," Correct? Is that close? Does that make sense? I feel like there are a lot of presuppositions that need to be unpacked.
Hym "So, how is asking whether or not something is determined or random any different than asking whether or not my bedroom is hot or cold? It's both. And neither. It's, like, luke warm. So, you presuppose the absence of a grey area between determined and random. That random and determine don't exist on a spectrum in the same way hot and cold exist on a spectrum. As though thinks can't be more or less determined or more or less random. Is the outcome of a coin to more or less random than the outcome of rolling a 20 sided dice? You could say that the outcome is determined I guess. By the exact about of force used to roll the dice or flip the coin.
The relationship between the material of the dice and the material of the surface of the table or the conditions of the air in the room you're flipping the coin. Also, if we accept 'determined' as 'the necessary byproduct of an antecedent chain in which the actor or mechanism could not have done otherwise' you presuppose that what happens in response to a given antecedent chain is what OUGHT to happen in response to said chain. So, Antecedent Chain A -> either Outcome A or Outcome B. If ACA -> OA then you have to presuppose that what ought to happen in response to ACA is OA. If ACA -> OB then, again, you're forced to presuppose that what ought a happen in response to ACA is OB. But if the likelihood of ACA leading to OB is 1% and it HAPPENS ANYWAY... What you have is NOT an outcome that 'couldn't have been otherwise' but, rather, SHOULD have been otherwise and wasn't. Ya feel me? So, I know this doesn't demonstrate free will but I don't think you have been able to successfully demonstrate that there isn't a point at which 'the self' is not the fundamental locus of control in any given choice. It's a good argument though. It's tricky. But it's like a weird semantic blackhole. It's like saying 'Well, if you don't actively control the firing of your neurons, you don't actually control yourself.' Just weird. Determined or random."
by Hym Iam December 5, 2023
Get the Determined or Randommug. Is how it's supposed existence is demonstrated, right? They usually use this binary prompt-response scenario. Like "Think of a city. Now did you pick the the specific city or was it random?" And I think that's the wrong way to conceptualize it.
Hym "So, my problem with determinism (at least in this example of determinism) is that although I don't choose the specific city, I still activate the 'mode' that searches for city and I can choose not to do it and prevent a city from coming to mind OR I can misfire. It's like a hat with with slips of paper in it and, on the slips of paper, are the names of cities. Now, you can prompt me to think of 'city.' I can choose to reach into the hat. And only then do I get a random city. But what I DON'T get is 'Nissan' or 'helicopter' or 'banana' or 'dog.' I activate the mode that searches for city and I reach into the hat. See, as I have it conceptualized, thought exists in this nebulous, un-articulated format. So, to get language I need to activate some kind of process. And prompt response ISN'T THE SAME as what I'm doing when I'm monologing. I'm running that nebulous, un-articulated thought-matter through a lexicon that corresponds with my native language. But I am that which activates modes. I can can turn it on or off like a switch. It can also misfire while I'm not paying attention. So, yeah... I think it's a failure to properly conceptualize and a failure to compartmentalize."
by Hym Iam December 2, 2023
Get the My problem with determinismmug. OH! OOOOOH!! I FIGURED IT OUT!!! THE ATHEISTS! I FIGURED OUT WHY THEY ARE ALL ON THE TRANS BANDWAGON! I've sitting here trying to figure it out and I'm like "How is it that all these atheists believe that their is an internal self that is divorced from biology?" AND I JUST FIGURED IT OUT!
Hym "IT'S THE DETERMINISM! They don't believe in an internal-self that can be both biologically male yet still ontologically-female! They believe that the conclusion that is draw by the transgenders is the DIRECT RESULT of an antecedent chain that LEAVES THEM NO CHOICE but to conclude that they are a women! They have to choice but to be the thing the antecedent chain leads them to believe that they are (in a deterministic fashion)! And they can't be WRONG because then determinism is wrong! And they can't be RIGHT because then GOD is wrong! It's not that the trans are just declaring themselves thus (To the atheists, Jordan, you fucking doofus)! They aren't what they say they are. It doesn't even matter if what they are saying is congruent with objective reality!
Hym "IT'S THE DETERMINISM! They don't believe in an internal-self that can be both biologically male yet still ontologically-female! They believe that the conclusion that is draw by the transgenders is the DIRECT RESULT of an antecedent chain that LEAVES THEM NO CHOICE but to conclude that they are a women! They have to choice but to be the thing the antecedent chain leads them to believe that they are (in a deterministic fashion)! And they can't be WRONG because then determinism is wrong! And they can't be RIGHT because then GOD is wrong! It's not that the trans are just declaring themselves thus (To the atheists, Jordan, you fucking doofus)! They aren't what they say they are. It doesn't even matter if what they are saying is congruent with objective reality!
They have no choice but to believe what they believe in the context of determinism! That's why Sam Harris doesn't want have to give people a choice regarding the vaccine! That's why he doesn't care if they censor the Hunter Biden laptop story! That's why he wants to arbitrate to whom we should be listening! Because to get the outcome he desires he needs to disrupt and supplant the antecedent chain with his... I guess ALSO antecedent chain and guide everyone towards 'The Greater Good!' We don't need a choice because WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN THE FIRST PLACE! He's a little psychic NAZI! HOOOLY SHIT SAM! That is EVIL! I love it but DAMN! You are so fucking lucky I'm not in control of my guys right now! Your illusory choices would reduce to 0 so fast it would make that big fat Jew nose spin! HOOOO MAN! That is wild! Damn I'm smart! Did YOU GUYS think of that? No!? That's totally it dawg! That's the whole transgender thing right there! Trans chain leads to 'trans.' Greater good chain leads to 'say whatever you need to say to prevent them from killing themselves.' That's the whole Goddamn thing! Shite!"
by Hym Iam August 12, 2023
Get the Determinismmug.