I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.Seth wrote:No, it means you have to do your own homework.FBM wrote:I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).Mick wrote:Yup.
Moving on...
Hi, I'm Mick
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.FBM wrote:I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.Seth wrote:No, it means you have to do your own homework.FBM wrote:I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).Mick wrote:Yup.
Moving on...
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- FBM
- Ratz' first Gritizen.
- Posts: 45327
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
- About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach" - Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
I'm pretty sure that he would have presented it if he had it.Seth wrote:Evidently he was looking at evidence you didn't find.FBM wrote:I did it years ago. It's time for Mick to catch up.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
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).Seth wrote: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.
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.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 59838
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Way to go, Seth. Why not just calm down instead of getting yourself banned from yet another forum?Seth wrote:You lie like a rug.Xamonas Chegwé wrote:
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 you do your fucking job and keep other people from forcing me to do so.I would suggest using "go fuck yourself" a little less often.
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.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.
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.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.
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!
Oh, and you forgot to call him a Marxist!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 59838
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.Mr.Samsa wrote: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).Seth wrote: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.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73433
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
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.Mr.Samsa wrote: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).Seth wrote: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.
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.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Yep. Of the four horsemen, he's the most instantly recognisable, the way he rides side-saddle and keeps shouting "Woah!!"rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.Mr.Samsa wrote: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).Seth wrote: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.
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Mr. Samsa said:
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.
You're not understanding the theory here.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.
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.
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.FBM wrote:I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).Mick wrote:Yup.
Moving on...
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73433
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
Easy!Mick wrote:Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.FBM wrote:I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).Mick wrote:Yup.
Moving on...
The reason is that no one has ever produced evidence that deserves the word evidence...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
- Xamonas Chegwé
- Bouncer
- Posts: 50939
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
- About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse. - Location: Nottingham UK
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
I think there is no evidence for god because I have never seen any. Care to enlighten me?Mick wrote:Right after you post reasons to think that there is no evidence for God.FBM wrote:I guess this means we don't get any evidence for god(s).Mick wrote:Yup.
Moving on...
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73433
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
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...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
I think most people do. You might enjoy this:rEvolutionist wrote:Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.Mr.Samsa wrote: 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).
http://i.imgur.com/1PjSMwz.png
http://i.imgur.com/RqcAgVa.png
http://i.imgur.com/d2JZGKx.jpg
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.JimC wrote: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 understand fine, I think you might be referring to natural law, not the naturalist rejection of is-ought Seth is advocating.Mick wrote:You're not understanding the theory here.
How are you defining "higher good"?Mick wrote: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.
Why isn't having sex for fun or having sex with other men an extension of natural function?Mick wrote: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.
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.Mick wrote:Why the fuck can't you own property?
There is evidence that rape is a natural mating strategy and has been good in promoting the survival of our species.Mick wrote:Rape is a good thing? What?1?!
Then good for you, many don't.Mick wrote:I hold the same for lesbians.
But they are using sex without procreating.Mick wrote:A sterile, heterosexual couple who do not use contraception do nothing to frustrate the end of sex. So, it is not an issue.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
- JimC
- The sentimental bloke
- Posts: 73433
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
- About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Hi, I'm Mick
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...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.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!
And my gin!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests