Hi, I'm Mick

[FBM]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

No, it means you have to do your own homework.

I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.

[Seth]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

No, it means you have to do your own homework.

I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.

Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.

[FBM]

I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.

Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.

I'm pretty sure that he would have presented it if he had it.

[Mr.Samsa]

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.

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

More seriously though, there aren't really any good arguments against the naturalistic fallacy. The ones presented in the wiki link are mostly word games or attempts to debate semantics but the core concept remains. Ignoring that debate for now, the bigger problem is in rejecting the naturalistic fallacy as it contains a whole load of other problems for people and it's difficult to remain consistent.

For example, since what is natural means that it's also good (like having sex for procreation), then that means you can't use condoms. It means you can use medicine, you can't have surgery, you can't drive a car, you can't own property, etc etc. It also means that, depending on the truth of some research, it means that you think rape is a good thing.

When people try to use arguments like normative claims about what's "natural" by appealing to procreation to justify their distaste for gay sex, I find that very rarely do they hold the same view towards lesbian having sex or sterile people having sex. I find the inconsistency weird - if I were to be a bigot, I'd go whole hog.

[pErvinalia]

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.

You lie like a rug.

I would suggest using "go fuck yourself" a little less often.

I would suggest you do your fucking job and keep other people from forcing me to do so.

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.

It's not and you know it perfectly well. It's an appropriate response to personal attacks on me and I'll continue to use it when it's appropriate to do so.

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.

Well, I'll tell you what, sparky, if it makes you feel better I can use "fuck off" or the smiley to the same effect. But if you would spend half as much time smacking everyone else who provokes those insults by insulting me first you'd have an easier job to do.

I would think by now you'd have noticed a pattern here. FYI, when somebody else makes it personal, I make it personal right back at them and will continue to do so, particularly when you mods studiously ignore those personal insults just as you always have, here, at RatSkep and at RDF before that.

I can't even recall how many years I've been saying the exact same thing to the exact same people with the exact same result.

So fuck off!

As for "pointless polemics", once again, fuck off. My posts are never pointless and are very often much better thought out and articulated than yours or most other people's posts because I take the time to make them that way. You think they are pointless because of your own inherent bias and bigotry and because you know full well that I make a lot of sensible, rational and logical arguments that you absolutely hate but haven't the gumption to rebut in a reasonable adult manner, which is true of many other members here, particularly rEv.

So fuck off again!

Way to go, Seth. Why not just calm down instead of getting yourself banned from yet another forum?

Oh, and you forgot to call him a Marxist!

[pErvinalia]

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.

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.

[JimC]

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.

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

More seriously though, there aren't really any good arguments against the naturalistic fallacy. The ones presented in the wiki link are mostly word games or attempts to debate semantics but the core concept remains. Ignoring that debate for now, the bigger problem is in rejecting the naturalistic fallacy as it contains a whole load of other problems for people and it's difficult to remain consistent.

For example, since what is natural means that it's also good (like having sex for procreation), then that means you can't use condoms. It means you can use medicine, you can't have surgery, you can't drive a car, you can't own property, etc etc. It also means that, depending on the truth of some research, it means that you think rape is a good thing.

When people try to use arguments like normative claims about what's "natural" by appealing to procreation to justify their distaste for gay sex, I find that very rarely do they hold the same view towards lesbian having sex or sterile people having sex. I find the inconsistency weird - if I were to be a bigot, I'd go whole hog.

It is certainly naive to go directly from a biological "is" to an ethical "ought". However, the background of a biological picture of humans as a species whose characteristics are partly determined by millions of years of natural selection is too valuable to be dismissed. Any view of humans, and how they behave or should behave that views them purely as a tabla rasa is doomed to failure.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.

Yep. Of the four horsemen, he's the most instantly recognisable, the way he rides side-saddle and keeps shouting "Woah!!"

[Mick]

Mr. Samsa said:

For example, since what is natural means that it's also good (like having sex for procreation), then that means you can't use condoms. It means you can use medicine, you can't have surgery, you can't drive a car, you can't own property, etc etc. It also means that, depending on the truth of some research, it means that you think rape is a good thing.

When people try to use arguments like normative claims about what's "natural" by appealing to procreation to justify their distaste for gay sex, I find that very rarely do they hold the same view towards lesbian having sex or sterile people having sex. I find the inconsistency weird - if I were to be a bigot, I'd go whole hog.

You're not understanding the theory here.

Medicine is fine, since it corrects the natural function of whatever or preserves the natural function of a higher good. This is also the same for surgery.

Driving a car is fine. This is looked at as an extension of a natural function. Yet, the middle line is emphasized. If you drive so much that you neglect to exercise your legs, that they become weak and frail, then that's an issue.

Why the fuck can't you own property?

Rape is a good thing? What?1?!

I hold the same for lesbians.

A sterile, heterosexual couple who do not use contraception do nothing to frustrate the end of sex. So, it is not an issue.

[Mick]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.

[JimC]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.

Easy!

The reason is that no one has ever produced evidence that deserves the word evidence...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Yup.

Moving on...

I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).

Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.

I think there is no evidence for god because I have never seen any. Care to enlighten me?

[JimC]

Many theists end up recognising that there is simply no credible empirical evidence for the existence of god. They retreat, fairly happily, to say that all they need is faith. Certainly they may have that cosy little personal state, as long as they realise that any attempt on their part to project their imaginary friend to having any relevance to the actual universe is doomed to failure...

[Mr.Samsa]

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.

I think most people do. You might enjoy this:

http://i.imgur.com/1PjSMwz.png

http://i.imgur.com/RqcAgVa.png

http://i.imgur.com/d2JZGKx.jpg

It is certainly naive to go directly from a biological "is" to an ethical "ought". However, the background of a biological picture of humans as a species whose characteristics are partly determined by millions of years of natural selection is too valuable to be dismissed. Any view of humans, and how they behave or should behave that views them purely as a tabla rasa is doomed to failure.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, as ethics doesn't really play into anything related to blank slatism. You can have a perfectly valid ethical system which completely rejects all known biological facts and that wouldn't be a case of blank slatism.

You're not understanding the theory here.

I understand fine, I think you might be referring to natural law, not the naturalist rejection of is-ought Seth is advocating.

Medicine is fine, since it corrects the natural function of whatever or preserves the natural function of a higher good. This is also the same for surgery.

How are you defining "higher good"?

Driving a car is fine. This is looked at as an extension of a natural function. Yet, the middle line is emphasized. If you drive so much that you neglect to exercise your legs, that they become weak and frail, then that's an issue.

Why isn't having sex for fun or having sex with other men an extension of natural function?

Why the fuck can't you own property?

Because ownership of property isn't natural and if someone argues that we should conform to natural standards, then you're in a bit of a pickle there.

Rape is a good thing? What?1?!

There is evidence that rape is a natural mating strategy and has been good in promoting the survival of our species.

I hold the same for lesbians.

Then good for you, many don't.

A sterile, heterosexual couple who do not use contraception do nothing to frustrate the end of sex. So, it is not an issue.

But they are using sex without procreating.

[JimC]

Mr Samsa wrote:

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, as ethics doesn't really play into anything related to blank slatism. You can have a perfectly valid ethical system which completely rejects all known biological facts and that wouldn't be a case of blank slatism.

Any ethical system which ignores the biology of the beings it is deigned for will not be a good fit. Pragmatic ethics takes what is there, and tries to find ways to maximise a variety of parameters, such as health, fulfilment, safety and many others. This is easier if you don't start by pretending that society and/or parents can mould individuals to suit any given social theory. The clay is somewhat obdurate, so you need to work around it...