Jump to content

Dr. Love

Member
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Good

About Dr. Love

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 04/27/1913

Profile Information

  • Name
    abungu nkosazana
  1. So are you dead or something?

  2. "we" >I'm an LDer like pedophilia
  3. The NCFL 2012 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic is Resolved: The United States ought not to intervene in the political processes of other sovereign nations. shoot me now.* *note: this is at least better than the "on balance, labor unions do more good than harm" one. Why would they even suggest that? It literally was a PF resolution a while back. I hate CFLs
  4. because I hate the native americans almost as much as I hate extratopical burdens
  5. <3 this is the douchiest interp I've ever run, except for that squirrel case where I defined 'domestic violence' as violence within states and then said repressing internal insurrection was permissible by governments
  6. party hard http://www.mediafire...ao6swwk1yve216d The AC might be a bit too long, it's my Harvard iteration- I fit it in, and I don't think I'm much over 300 WPM
  7. “It is a wretched subterfuge to seek to evadethis[determinism] by saying that the kind of determining grounds of his causality in accordance with natural law agrees with a comparative concept of freedom, according to which that is sometimes called afree effect, the determining natural ground of which lies within the acting being, e.g., that which a projectile accomplishes when it is in free motion, in which case one uses the word "freedom" because while it is in flight it is not impelled from without; or as we also call the motion of a clock a free motion because it moves the hands itself, which therefore do not need to be pushed externally; in the same way the actions of the human being, although they are necessary by their determining grounds which preceded them in time, are yet called free because the actions are caused from within, by representations produced by our own powers, whereby desires are evoked on occasion of circumstances and hence actions are produced at our own discretion. Some still let themselves be put off by this subterfuge and so think they have solved, with a little quibbling about words, that difficult problem on the solution of which millennia have worked in vain and which can therefore hardly be found so completely on the surface, That is to say, in the question about that freedom which must be put at the basis of all moral laws and the imputation appropriate to them, it does not matter whether the causality determined in accordance with a natural law is necessary through determining grounds lying within the subject or outside him, or in the first case whether these determining grounds are instinctive or thought by reason, if, as is admitted by these men themselves,these determining representations have the ground of their existence in time andindeedin the antecedent state; and this in turn in a preceding state, and so forth. These determinations may be internal and they may have psychological instead of mechanical causality, that is, produce actions by means of representations and not by bodily movements; [still] they are always determining grounds of the causality of a being insofar as its existence is determinable in time and therefore under the necessitating conditions of past time, which are thus, when the subject is to act, no longer within his control and which may therefore bring with them psychological freedom (if one wants to use this term for a merely internal chain of representations in the soul) but nevertheless natural necessity; and they therefore leave notranscendental freedom, which must be thought as independence from everything empirical and so from nature generally, whether it is regarded as an object of inner sense in time only or also of outer sense in both space and time; without this freedom (in the latter and proper sense),which alone is practical a priori, no moral law is possible and no imputation in accordance with it.†-Kant
  8. MAYBE FEMINISM IS WRONG THEN also no- whole books have been written by feminists who come to different conclusions than the people who came to the initial different conclusions, both sides have literature but depth>breadth, bro
×
×
  • Create New...