Comments

1

PerfectSociety wrote (edited )

Fair points.

EDIT: What if we just mirrored every leftist sub on reddit? And then try to get the leftists to come here. How do you feel about that? u/ziq

2

PerfectSociety wrote

tell me more, i've only started reading about dialetheism and stuff.

Same.

isn't the sum of infinite zeros still zero?

So that's the question at hand. The Arrow Paradox involves looking at instants of time, i.e. when the interval of time is 0 rather than some incredibly small number like Planck time. At a particular instant in time, the Arrow does not traverse any distance. So the problem that the paradox brings forth is that if at each instant in time the distance traversed is 0, then how can it be that when you add the distances traversed from all the instants together you get some non-zero answer? (This is basically your question.)

I've been told by another person that measure theory resolves this, because we can prove in math that a line segment is comprised of an infinite number of points and each point has 0 length and 0 width. If this is the case - that an infinite number of points each with 0 length can, when added together, create a non-zero length (the length of the line segment) - then the same kind of logic could apply to the Arrow Paradox thus resolving it.

I don't find this particularly intuitive, but that's why I'm asking about it here to see if others can take a crack at it.

3

PerfectSociety wrote

This seems to avoid the fact that the Arrow Paradox involves looking at instants of time, i.e. when the interval of time is 0 rather than some incredibly small number like Planck time. At a particular instant in time, the Arrow does not traverse any distance. So the problem that the paradox brings forth is that if at each instant in time the distance traversed is 0, then how can it be that when you add the distances traversed from all the instants together you get some non-zero answer?

2

PerfectSociety wrote

rioting is literally just selfish instant gratification and it helps nobody

Not true. Rioting is an example of "propaganda of the deed", and as such its target audience is other oppressed/marginalized people who are at or near the breaking-point.

I'm not disavowing rioting as a tactic when it makes sense

When does it "make sense"? What would be the right circumstance? Government will always use rioting as a scapegoat in the manner you worry about. So if that's your main reason to oppose rioting, it would seem that there would never be an appropriate circumstance in which to riot.

riot because we already lost

Again, you seem to be unaware of rioting as a form of "propaganda of the deed". By this understanding, rioting is a way to encourage the spread of insurrection. It can be a tool used to bring on insurrection/revolution rather than a nihilistic reaction to having accepted that one has lost.