Hi, I'm Mick

[Svartalf]

Catholicism boasts some of the West's greatest thinkers, just so you know.

It's easy to boast.

and a real waste of thinking... just to think what Thomas Aquinas could have accomplished had he done real science rather than glossing on nonsense...

I do like Aquinas on aesthetics; he had some rather profound observations. At least, as filtered through Joyce and put into the mouth of Stephen Dedalus.

(BTW, Happy Bloomsday 2 days late, everyone! )

Never actually read either Aquinas or the Joyce Book you refer to, could you expand on it?

[Seth]

I defended homophobia? This mod is something else. This TWOTH feller.

Jackasses over there cannot understand the distinction between being "homophobic" (afraid or fearful of homosexuals) and a distaste, disapproval or dislike of homosexual sexual behavior. Of course neither can most people here, and far too many people in the real world.

[Hermit]

Never actually read either Aquinas or the Joyce Book you refer to, could you expand on it?

Dedalus actually appears in three of Joyce's books, although he is not actually named in Dubliners. I only ever read bits of all four of them myself, and I don't think I've missed out on much by dropping them.

[Seth]

Here are the "trolling" posts he exemplified:


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2013310

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2006577


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... l#p2016238

They are idiots over there. Don't try to make any rational sense of their judgments, they have none.

[Seth]

Seth has been suspended for 48 hours for a variety of personal attacks on members, in this thread and others, coming after a recent 24 hour suspension.

Hey, I made more than $250 driving for Uber and Lyft in the last 48 hours and didn't think about you lot even once.

When does rEv get his vacation?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I defended homophobia? This mod is something else. This TWOTH feller.

Jackasses over there cannot understand the distinction between being "homophobic" (afraid or fearful of homosexuals) and a distaste, disapproval or dislike of homosexual sexual behavior. Of course neither can most people here, and far too many people in the real world.

That's because homophobia does not mean "afraid or fearful of homosexuals". It means "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people". Which is closer to your second point.

You are assuming that, because the word has etymological roots similar to many other "-phobias", which are indeed irrational fears, it itself describes a similar fear of homosexuality. It does not. It is badly named, for sure, but that doesn't make it mean something that it doesn't. If we take its Greek origins absolutely literally, it actually means "fear of the same".

[Seth]

You owe me. He came back and wasted more time as predicted. With even more words, which means even more time. He has no self control.

My bad, I meant the opposite, I'm with you. I was utterly certain he couldn't. Why didn't 914 get a vacation?

[Seth]

I defended homophobia? This mod is something else. This TWOTH feller.

Jackasses over there cannot understand the distinction between being "homophobic" (afraid or fearful of homosexuals) and a distaste, disapproval or dislike of homosexual sexual behavior. Of course neither can most people here, and far too many people in the real world.

That's because homophobia does not mean "afraid or fearful of homosexuals". It means "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people". Which is closer to your second point.

You are assuming that, because the word has etymological roots similar to many other "-phobias", which are indeed irrational fears, it itself describes a similar fear of homosexuality. It does not. It is badly named, for sure, but that doesn't make it mean something that it doesn't. If we take its Greek origins absolutely literally, it actually means "fear of the same".

If it's badly named, and it is, then I'm justified in criticizing its improper use. The term as you define it has been inserted into our modern lexicon by homosexuals themselves because of the fear component of the phrase. It is intended as a not-so-subtly mendacious characterization of anyone who might find homosexual sexual behavior to be distasteful or who might, for whatever reason, decline to celebrate and support homosexuality as a "normal" sexual activity.

If someone says "I don't like the idea of one man sticking his penis up the anus of another man" that person is automatically labeled as a "homophobe" and therefore implicitly a fearful, hateful bigot against homosexuals in a very Alinsky-like personal attack and demonization of the individual for expressing disgust or dislike of a specific sexual act.

One can have a personal aversion to some particular sex act without hating or fearing the individuals involved. A person who feels that way about anal sex between men may feel that way about ALL anal sex and consider it to be "unnatural" and "perverted" on the perfectly rational basis that male-female heterosexual penis-vagina sex is the only "natural" form of intercourse. This belief may be based in religious belief, but it can also be based in science, because quite obviously the evolutionary purpose of sex organs is procreation and nobody's seen an anally-delivered baby yet.

Now I'm sure rEv will claim that I'm stating a "naturalistic fallacy," but in fact he will be stating the "Naturalistic Fallacy Fallacy" or "anti-naturalistic fallacy."

The reason he will wrong when he inevitably states this fallacy as a way to dismiss the discussion as being merely "homophobic" is because, as we see below, in some, if not many such cases, the "ought" is inherent in the "is," as seen in McInerny's clock argument.

But it's also incorrect of him to do so because he fails to distinguish between philosophical morality as applied universally to mankind and personal preference or personal moral beliefs, which by right may vary widely from one person to another without either person being inherently or provably "wrong" in their belief, much less being inherently "something-phobic" merely because one person expresses distaste or dislike for one thing or another.

We would most likely agree that a personal distaste or dislike of clinical pedophilia cannot be rationally classified as "pedophiliophobia" but rather as a personal expression of distaste or dislike for the practice of pedophilia and those who practice it.

The term "homophobe" as commonly use against anyone who expresses any sort of distaste, revulsion, dislike or merely criticism of homosexuals or homosexual behavior is in and of itself an attempt to impose moral judgments on such persons that is as much of a naturalistic fallacy, if not more so, than what rEv will likely complain of. The term presumes by its construction that there is an inherent and unarguable moral case for a societal presumption that homosexuality is "good" merely because it is "natural" (ie: homosexual attraction is caused by one's genes).

And this is why the use of the term is in and of itself nothing more than a slur and slander on anyone who does not subscribe to and support the homosexual societal agenda.

Criticism
See also: Is–ought problem § Responses

Some philosophers reject the naturalistic fallacy and/or suggest solutions for the proposed is-ought problem.

Sam Harris argues that it is possible to derive "ought" from "is", and even that it has already been done to some extent.[6][7] He sees morality as a budding science. This view is critical of Moore's "simple indefinable terms" (which amount to qualia), arguing instead that such terms actually can be broken down into constituents.

Ralph McInerny suggests that "ought" is already bound up in "is", in so far as the very nature of things have ends/goals within them. For example, a clock is a device used to keep time. When one understands the function of a clock, then a standard of evaluation is implicit in the very description of the clock, i.e., because it "is" a clock, it "ought" to keep the time. Thus, if one cannot pick a good clock from a bad clock, then one does not really know what a clock is. In like manner, if one cannot determine good human action from bad, then one does not really know what the human person is.[8]

Certain uses of the naturalistic fallacy refutation (a scheme of reasoning that declares an inference invalid because it incorporates an instance of the naturalistic fallacy) have been criticised as lacking rational bases, and labelled anti-naturalistic fallacy.[9] For instance, Alex Walter wrote:

"The naturalistic fallacy and Hume’s ‘law’ are frequently appealed to for the purpose of drawing limits around the scope of scientific inquiry into ethics and morality. These two objections are shown to be without force."[10]

The refutations from naturalistic fallacy defined as inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises[11] do assert, implicitly, that there is no connection between the facts and the norms (in particular, between the facts and the mental process that led to adoption of the norms), which – at best – is an unproven hypothesis, except, perhaps, for purely dogmatic norms that the anti-naturalistic fallacy has all the appearances of.

Source: Wikipedia

[Hermit]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

[Seth]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

Go fuck yourself. You won't report them because you didn't report them because you conveniently ignore insults and slurs hurled at me, just like you always have you hypocrite.

[Hermit]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

Go fuck yourself. You won't report them because you didn't report them because you conveniently ignore insults and slurs hurled at me, just like you always have you hypocrite.

Not one to learn, are you, Seth?

I give the mods permission to reveal to you what other posts I have reported in the past few months. Go ask them.

[Seth]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

Go fuck yourself. You won't report them because you didn't report them because you conveniently ignore insults and slurs hurled at me, just like you always have you hypocrite.

Not one to learn, are you, Seth?

I give the mods permission to reveal to you what other posts I have reported in the past few months. Go ask them.

"Go fuck yourself" is an approved insult that does not constitute a personal attack according to prior precedent and announced policy, so go fuck yourself.

[Hermit]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

Go fuck yourself. You won't report them because you didn't report them because you conveniently ignore insults and slurs hurled at me, just like you always have you hypocrite.

Not one to learn, are you, Seth?

I give the mods permission to reveal to you what other posts I have reported in the past few months. Go ask them.

"Go fuck yourself" is an approved insult that does not constitute a personal attack according to prior precedent and announced policy, so go fuck yourself.

...conveniently ignoring the other highlighted bit. Onya, Seth. You're true to form.

ETA: "Fuck yourself" is a bit unfriendly in some contexts, but not an insult. I have never reported a post for that expression.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When does rEv get his vacation?

You made six posts in less than an hour that contained personal insults, and that's just a few weeks after you were suspended for insulting people. I know that because I reported them. When rEvolutionist, or anyone else for that matter, does something similar, I'll report them too, and I expect them to be treated just like you were.

Go fuck yourself. You won't report them because you didn't report them because you conveniently ignore insults and slurs hurled at me, just like you always have you hypocrite.

Not one to learn, are you, Seth?

I give the mods permission to reveal to you what other posts I have reported in the past few months. Go ask them.

"Go fuck yourself" is an approved insult that does not constitute a personal attack according to prior precedent and announced policy, so go fuck yourself.

...which if overused, especially as an automatic response to a specific member, could be considered evidence of harassment and contravene our play nice rule.

There are NO "approved" insults here, neither are there "banned" insults. If the staff as a whole consider that your post was a deliberate, personal attack on another member, action will be taken. I would suggest using "go fuck yourself" a little less often. The staff are pretty much evenly split on whether it constitutes a PA on its own. I have never thought that it does and always argued against taking action but if it becomes the standard response to EVERY post that you disagree with, I could change my mind.

Just try making your point without the insults and pointless polemics. I kind of like having you around and would hate to see you serving one 6-month suspension after another.

[Hermit]

Just try making your point without the insults and pointless polemics.

That's a very sneaky way of asking Seth to stop posting.