Another reason to avoid debating creationists »« Friday Cephalopod: So, I failed the test, like, twice. Now what do I do?

Comments

  1. chigau (違う) says

    *sniff*
    *Well, I never…*
    .
    Stopped by the liquor store on the way home.
    In the bag I find an offer for something that I interpret as a Frequent Boozer Club.
    *contests* *discounts* *special events*
    I don’t know if I should be saddened or if I should join up.
    I will drink on it.
    .
    *so there*

  2. chigau (違う) says

    I just re-watched a bunch of the Peggy Seeger “I wanna be an engineer” videos and I’m so angry I may puke.
    I think I’ll read a book.

  3. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    chigau,

    This wasn’t an example I should have followed, especially since I put the song on repeat while tidying.

  4. minusRusty says

    Not sure what Bride of frankenSteil is thinking, but she is.

    Be warned:-?

    -R

  5. Bob Dowling says

    Looks like the oh-so-persecuted Xtians are getting into the movie business big time. Apple trailers have popped up the movie Persecuted where the evil atheists frame a fundamentalist TV evangelist.

    This follows hot on the trail of God Is Not Dead about an evil atheist philosophy professor flunking a student who won’t renounce his faith.

    I see a trend here.

  6. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    exi5tentialist,

    In the hands of religionist whingers … always.

  7. Nick Gotts says

    Apple trailers have popped up the movie Persecuted where the evil atheists frame a fundamentalist TV evangelist.- Bob Dowling

    Really, why would atheists go to all that trouble? All we need to do is wait.

  8. Bicarbonate is back says

    Watched Firefly when I was in the hospital this past month, loved it.

  9. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    chigau @1:

    Stopped by the liquor store on the way home.
    In the bag I find an offer for something that I interpret as a Frequent Boozer Club.
    *contests* *discounts* *special events*
    I don’t know if I should be saddened or if I should join up.
    I will drink on it.

    One of my local cigar stores just started something similar. They call it the Smoldering Club.

    Bob Dowling @8:

    the movie Persecuted where the evil atheists frame a fundamentalist TV evangelist.

    Why would we have to frame them? Just wait long enough and probability approaches 1 that they will be caught violating most of the 10 commandments. And a few federal laws, as well. No framing needed.

  10. jnorris says

    This follows hot on the trail of about God Is Not Dead an evil atheist philosophy professor flunking a student who won’t renounce his faith.

    Many of the film’s viewer will be middle and high school age, I want to see the reaction of these True Christian ™ hatchlings when they actually attend a real philosophy class at a public university

  11. kenbakermn says

    jnorris @18: Yeah, those kids are going to get to their first college philosophy class spoiling for a fight, thinking “I’m ready for that evil athiest professor, he’ll never get me to renounce my faith.”

    How disappointed they’ll be when they find out the prof doesn’t give a flying fuck what they believe.

    “But, but, but, … aren’t ya gonna try to convert me? Please, please try to convert me so I can write a blog post about how I defeated the forces of evil.”

    “Sorry kid, you’ll have to find a way to be a victim without my help.”

  12. says

    Bleh, Dean Stockwell is in Persecuted. Has the Right Wing Brain Eater gotten to him, or is he just going for a quick paycheque?

  13. ChasCPeterson says

    I can’t believe I didn’t see this before, but it turns out that there were exactly 139 (or possibly 140) species kinds of frogs on Noah’s Ark. Nothing like precise and accurate data!
    Gotta love this scientifical conclusion:

    Whatever the number actually was, it is clear that frogs and toads represent the amazing diversity that is consistent with the Creator’s triune character and the creative wisdom required to build fascinating creatures with the ability to persist and thrive, in a fallen world.

    Because clearly a non-triune God would not give a shit about biodiversity. Obviously.

  14. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    the amazing diversity that is consistent with the Creator’s triune character

    Wait. 1+1+1=1 means biodiversity? What the hell kind of math is that?

  15. says

    Here’s someone you’ll find amusing for a minute or so. The boy who cried wold has nothing on this guy. Predict an attack on the Daytona 500, and it doesn’t happen? Who cares, it’s on to the next bogus prediction.

  16. minusRusty says

    Wait. 1+1+1=1 means biodiversity? What the hell kind of math is that?

    Probably a simplified methodology that makes 1 + 2 + 3 + … = – 1/12

    -Rusty

  17. David Marjanović says

    Bizarre. A long comment of mine was repeatedly held up on the glibertarian thread because the word discussed was in it.

  18. Owlmirror says

    I started watching the Ham-Nye debate. I just got through the first opening five minutes.

    Does Ham ever have chutzpah.

  19. ChasCPeterson says

    yeah, of all the traditional track & firld events, it’s the discus that teh ECO hates the most.
    discuss.

  20. Owlmirror says

    Hamslide:

    Public school textbooks are using the same word science for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students.

    Where to begin?

    Hey, Ham, what does “supernatural” mean? What would supernatural science look like? What observational science is supernatural?

    And what makes naturalism/atheism a religion?

    What are all the Christian/religious geologists, cosmologists, and biologists who disagree with YEC? Chopped liver?

  21. Owlmirror says

    I guess that Gus does feel disgust
    When the discus is discussed.
    Cuss the discus if you must,
    but don’t diss Gus for his disgust.

  22. minusRusty says

    Hey, Ham, what does “supernatural” mean? What would “supernatural science” look like? What observational science is supernatural?

    No, dude, it’s http://WWW.SuperDuperNatural.com where you’ll get the answer!

    That -Rusty dude might give you some info in understanding consciousness, after all.

    What the hell, I had a consciousness death on 2/15, and the nearly complete resurrection on 3/1.

    Details, details…

    -R

  23. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Part of me wants to wade back in to the libertarian thread and, once more, tear apart Tom J’s total misunderstanding of the economics of railroading. Then again, I did the same thing with his total misunderstanding of Gilded Age labour suppression and he ignored that, as he did everyone’s refutation of his simplistic right-wing regurgitation. I just don’t have the spoons today. Sorry.

  24. says

    Ogvorbis
    No fear, if he comes back I’ll have a go at taking your place. I can’t possibly match your knowledge of the topic (or labor history either, although I come closer on that one), but I should know enough to school the likes to Tom J; he doesn’t really require a maestro of your caliber.

  25. Nick Gotts says

    On another topic, why does Daniel Fincke adopt that odd pose in the advert at left? He looks as if he knows he’s got sweaty, smelly armpits, and is trying to dry them out before meeting his class/boss/date. But maybe it’s something recommended by Nietzsche for the aspirant Übermensch.

  26. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Nick Gotts,

    Looks like a cropped picture of him leaning on something.

  27. Owlmirror says

    Hamslide:

    Creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today’s modern scientific era.

    *facepalm*

    *headdesk*

    ow.

  28. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Shit. Sorry. Didn’t mean to dehumanize.

    Heeeeee’s Baaaaa-aaaaaaack!!!!!!

    Much better.

  29. David Marjanović says

    You know how some Morally Repugnant Assholes ignore everything a woman writes?

    I think I know how that feels now. Spent all night in the glibertarian thread, wrote a long comment, posted it in 6 parts because the spam filter acted up, and Tom J clearly hasn’t read any of it. He’s there right now, we’re commenting at the same time, and he doesn’t react. Other people had to correct a mistake of fact I had made; the correction favors him, but he doesn’t notice.

  30. minusRusty says

    Good question, chigau.

    I am actually having a lot of very lucky fun, that could be misinterpreted as some form of ‘Intelligent design’, but is really related to random draw, thinking selection, dumb luck, etc etc etc.

    Go to YouTube, look up minusRusty, and there is a video where I talk about how my perception ha changed, but it is not a weird gOd did it, but it might be a start to understand the complexity I’m thinking if.

    -Rusty

  31. minusRusty says

    Sorry for some of the misspellings. This is really weird, but I think once the stuff is all reviewed, and add’l background data analyzed, if will become clearer.

    I really do have brain cancer, but what has been going in these last two weeks gas been …… Interesting.

    -Rusty

  32. minusRusty says

    I understand why you think I am trying to suck you into bullshit. But if will start to make sense.

    -Rusty

  33. David Marjanović says

    Here’s one for Ichthyic and any other piscophile: Fish Love

    Bizarre… and few if any have anything to do with “deep-sea fishing in the Northeast Atlantic”. There’s a pike in there, FFS…

    Video0145.

    Provide feedback.

    I watched the first 3 minutes. As you say, something is wrong with your brain. Show the video to your neurologist.

  34. minusRusty says

    The neurologist will get a lot more than just that video.

    So what should be the next steps in our discussion, eh?

    -R

  35. says

    I was going to wade back in on the Libertarian thread now that I’m done with my errands for the day, but I’m not sure I have the heart. It’s really kind of pathetic at this point; It’s like a rabbit charged up to a bunch of beagles, introduced himself as the big bad wolf, implied that their ancestry contained rodents, and then offered to fight all comers, one at a time or all together, come on if you think you’re hard enough. And now he’s still there, flailing away as the pack gorges on his intestines and making like the Black Knight from Monty Python.

  36. chigau (違う) says

    I would like that everyone who does NOT agree with me to … jeez.. dunno… cookies?

  37. rq says

    Can I alert someone to the presence of a ‘pitter impersonator in the Lounge? I would like to do so. Where’s the paperwork?

  38. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    Alert already sent rq. If you need to contact a monitor in the future the link is labeled as such in the Profile box in the left sidebar. Unfortunately, it’s likely that PZ is busy with life type stuff given how closely he was monitoring the “Oh, lord, the Stupid” thread earlier today.

  39. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    Or alternatively, it’s 3:44 am or thereabouts in PZland. Sigh, I give people shit about timezone failure all the time and here I am…

  40. FossilFishy(Anti-Vulcanist) says

    That xkcd tool is about two hours out for my location. Not that that matters, it simply hadn’t occurred to me that it was night in NA.

  41. anteprepro says

    Oh Christ.

    The Wisconsin Republican has zeroed in on the subject in a comprehensive analysis that points to repetition and inefficiencies in federal poverty programs.

    Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and a possible 2016 presidential candidate, released the 204-page report one day before President Barack Obama was due to unveil his budget blueprint for the next fiscal year.

    Released the report one day before the budget was released? Obviously Paul Ryan is trying to be Helpful. So very Helpful of you, to provide this information right when nothing can be done about it and its existence can only be used as an excuse to complain about the budget. Helpful.

    “For too long, we have measured compassion by how much we spend instead of how many people get out of poverty,” Ryan wrote said in a statement. “We need to take a hard look at what the federal government is doing and ask, ‘Is this working?'”

    Dishonest fuck is pretending that these programs exist to get people out of poverty. Imagine how much he and his ilk would be crying about THAT bill, if that was actually what these programs did?

    Pro-tip for conservatives: Welfare and such are basically financial life support. They do not combat poverty, they do not alleviate poverty, it simply prevents poor people from dying in the streets. As often. If you really wanted to eliminate poverty, the bill would be much bigger. And to do that, we would have to level the playing a lot more i.e. reduce income inequality i.e. tax the fucking ridiculously rich. Who was it that was opposed to that again?

    Because “benefits decline as recipients make more money – poor families face very high implicit marginal tax rates. The federal government effectively discourages them from making more money,” the report says.

    Oh look, a true thing! And the implications of this are? And the way to work around this is…?

    It does not detail any solutions or alternatives;

    Of course.

    identifies the programs, their cost and sites reports and studies on each program, with many concluding that the programs due more harm than good.

    Of course.

    For instance, in his analysis of the Social Security Insurance program for disabled, Ryan points to a report that says: “At age 18, approximately two-thirds of beneficiaries remain on adult SSI benefits.”

    Can someone explain to me how that is even a fucking issue?

    For instance, Ryan cited numerous reports analyzing assistance for low-income families for child care found the program was effective in helping women enter the work force or enroll in education or job training programs.

    Holy fucking shit, the end is nigh.

    The Democratic National Committee quickly pounced.

    This report is just a rehash of a failed economic agenda that Americans keep rejecting,” DNC spokesman Michael Czin said in a statement. “Republicans just don’t get it. Their plan is to block a minimum wage increase, cut access to higher education, slash early childhood programs, voucherize Medicare and shred the social safety net — a safety net that lifted 45 million Americans out of poverty in 2012 alone.”

    Yes, the DNC pounced. Paul Ryan is just a perfectly reasonable, unbiased man, and the Democrats are viciously, rabidly claiming that he has an agenda.

    Because liberal media.

    The report was laced with partisan political ideas. For instance, it identified “the breakdown of family” as a main cause of poverty – a common Republican talking point that rankles Democrats.

    Oh noes, it “rankles Democrats”. I can’t imagine why liberals might be upset about an argument or term that is commonly used to argue against gay rights or against the freedom of people to seek divorce!

    Well at least the Liberal Media admits that the term is a talking point and partisan! That’s a start.

  42. zenlike says

    82Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/04/the-scary-part-is/comment-page-1/#comment-759175

    I’m rather surprised. Now if he’d only apply that thinking to the Pope…

    And in related news, the fantastically great new pope who is totally going to clean out the church etc has done an interview today in which he stated

    “no-one else has done more” to root out paedophilia.

    “The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility. No-one else has done more. Yet the Church is the only one to have been attacked,”

    Meet the new pope, same as the old one.

    http://news.yahoo.com/pope-no-one-done-more-church-against-sex-081855123.html

  43. ChasCPeterson says

    So the kids youth who live in the apartment on the other side of the vacant lot from mine often throw parties on a Friday or Saturday night–no problem–during which they play, very loudly, the sort of horrible insipid dance music that one is occasionally unlucky enough to hear on somebody’s radio these days. Again, no big deal; I enjoyed parties when I was a yout’ and since essentially nobody has musical taste as good as mine (ahem), I’m used to hearing plenty of crap. Rock on, yout’.
    But tonight is a Wednesday, and instead of the thump-thump-thump-thump disco thing, they are instead blasting accordion-driven Mexican polka/mariachi stuff. WTF? thinks me. It’s March fifth. Do they think it’s Cinco de Mayo??
    Because that would be pretty funny.

    I can’t wait for St. Patrick’s Day.

  44. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Ow!

    That was my kidney.

  45. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Chas:

    And you would’ve done it, too, if not for us pesky kids!

  46. chigau (違う) says

    Sorry, Chas.

    theophontes
    Did you, at least, notice the top pic on Lounge #453?

  47. ChasCPeterson says

    One of my all-time favorite Doonesbury strips was re-printed today (this one goes back more than 40 years!)
    da link

  48. Dhorvath, OM says

    I have been discharged from bankruptcy. This means my non-secured debts are wiped as of this week. What a load. Especially frustrating given the roller coaster of answers I have received from my trustee over the past three months. Take care all, sometimes things work out okay.

  49. chigau (違う) says

    Dhorvath
    I don’t know what that means, really, but *yay* and have some beer.

  50. minusRusty says

    Hating everything when you’re fuckin’ old sucks, doesn’t it, chigau?

    That’s ok, though. I left a cookie over in PZed’s post on Cosmos, but I’m sure you wouldn’t want to click a link or do a Google search, either.

    That’s okay, though. I’ll survive. At least a couple of weeks though. Years would be better, though… Heh.

    -Rusty

  51. minusRusty says

    And I do seem to be coming across a bit pissey myself, so I’m sorry about that.

    We’ll get a start-over, and you can shoot me, too. I’ll let you take our a … … FrankenSteil brain tumor!

    Peace, dude!

    -Rusty

  52. Dhorvath, OM says

    Chigau,
    It means that aside from owning a share of the mortgage on my house, I am now debt free. Two years ago I owed close to 100k related to a business that went south. And I did have some beer. And wine. And gin.

  53. Pteryxx says

    Leaving this here as it’s OT for the Christ I hate these people thread:

    Re the Comedy Central autoplay problem: a bunch of folks in Mano Singham’s comments cracked it recently. See discussion and followup

    Basically it’s caused by a Freewheel script on Comedy Central that turns autoplay on *when an adblocker is active*. Here’s a specific fix: link to comment thanks to Tomewyrm.

    Note: this only works on Firefox, with AdBlock plus or AdBlock edge.

    Either left click on the AdBlock icon (should be close to one of the corners of your browser) and go to Filter Preferences
    Or you can left click on an empty portion of the page (some text works fine as well), then ctrl+shift+f to bring up your filter preferences for AdBlock

    Make sure you’re on the “Custom Filters” tab
    In the upper right there should be an “Add Filter” button, click that.
    Paste the next line into the text entry box which should appear in the window
    @@||v.fwmrm.net^$object-subrequest,third-party
    Then hit enter and make sure the filter is enabled (via the check box to the left) and refresh this page.

  54. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Daz,

    THANK YOU!
    That’s brilliant, and it appears that yes, BBC radio 4 is available abroad. Yay!

  55. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Listened to the first episode.

    They also left in the beginning of a horror story that followed it. I’m sorry not to be able to listen to that one too. It seemed good. :(

  56. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Ah, found it on the Schedule (should have been obvious). There’s also reading of Pratchett books!

    I think I’m going to really like BBC4.

  57. morgan ?! epitheting a metaphor says

    minusRusty:

    Do you actually have brain cancer? If so, you have my profound sympathy. Several of my family members have died of this horrid disease.

    If you don’t have brain cancer and you are just being a smart ass, don’t. Brain cancer is nothing to joke about. I am particularly sensitive to the topic because there seems to be a genetic component in some brain cancers and it is one I statistically am subject to.

    Either way, I wish you well.

  58. minusRusty says

    Yes, I have been diagnosed with stage 3 Astrocytocys (sp?).

    Surgery is being excluded, but radiation and chemist together for 6 weeks or so starting in a little over a week. Timing & decisions are to be made.

    But I am interested in feedback on the video discussing perception and consciousness.

    But if no one here is at all interested, well, … … so goes it.

    -Rusty

  59. ekwhite says

    Rusty, I am sorry to hear about your illness. I just looked up astrocytosis, AKA astrogliosis, on Wikipedia. It doesn’t look pleasant.

  60. says

    Kroos Control from the Lounge

    Card kind of contrasts this to humans as individuals with genetic potential.

    Card is a devoted Mormon, and ‘argues’ from that perspective. He is not a good choice for someone to try to make your case, but given that you think WLC is a brilliant philosopher I’m not surprised you’d use Card as a source too.

    Is this a coincidence ? Or is “genetic potential” some long running thing that I just never heard of?

    It’s a rephrasing of the ‘unique DNA’ bullshit, and has as much weight, i.e. none.

    Also are alien bugs who follow a queen a thing?

    Yes, aliens based loosely on the social organization of ants/bees/termites are a thing, with many, many, many examples throughout speculative fiction. Examples of various flavors can be found (warning, tvtropes links) here, here and here, but there’s a shitton more too.

  61. Kroos Control says

    Thanks Dalilama!
    have you read any of the Ender’s game books?
    I thought the movie was great , so I recently started reading the books.

  62. says

    I haven’t read anything by Card for ~20 years, due to a combination of extremely spotty quality and the aforementioned poisonous bigotry, which seeped into his writing more and more blatantly over the years. I haven’t seen the movie and don’t intend to, for the above mentioned reasons.

  63. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    Ender’s Game is a charming book about child soldiers, fascism, and racism.

    Fun for the whole family!

  64. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Many of us have read OSC, but stopped doing to since he became more religious with age, and it seeped into his books as pure prejudice. OSC recently represented the NoM, who was vigorously opposing gay marriage where it came up for votes. That should tell you all you need to know about him, unless you are also a homophobic bigot. In which case, we will have your number….

  65. Kroos Control says

    the movie is really good. Ender’s Game makes a lot of great points about the morality and horror of war and child soldiers and genocide. I didn’t know about his views on gay marriage , but the book and movie are great.

  66. Owlmirror says

    @Amphiox @#377 on the thread “The knights errant sally forth against the Hitchens dragon, end up toast”:

    It should be noted also that since philosophy by definition is the study and discipline of human thought, and since human thought, standing on its own, is by definition subjective, IF morality is objective, then morality lies in the realm of science, not philosophy, and no philosopher like WLC, whether good or bad, has anything cogent to say about it, and no philosopher can be legitimately considered to be an authority on morality in any way whatsoever.

    This is a derail from the thread, so I’m posting this here:

    I think I have to disagree with this. There are philosophers of science, even though science is the study of objectively true facts about the empirical universe. There are philosophers of mathematics, even though mathematics is the study of objectively true facts about quantities and dimensions.

    So even if morality was about objectively true facts about normative behavior, there would still be legitimate philosophers of ethics.

  67. consciousness razor says

    It should be noted also that [1] since philosophy by definition is the study and discipline of human thought, and [2] since human thought, standing on its own, is by definition subjective, [3] IF morality is objective, then morality lies in the realm of science, not philosophy, and no philosopher like WLC, whether good or bad, has anything cogent to say about it, and no philosopher can be legitimately considered to be an authority on morality in any way whatsoever.

    Owlmirror is right that #3, your conclusion, is wrong. Philosophers of X don’t need to only study subjects X which are themselves philosophy. That there are philosophers of physics doesn’t mean that the physics they study is not science but philosophy: it’s both because both are concerned with the subject. It’s also the case that scientists aren’t “legitimately considered to be an authority” either: authoritativeness isn’t a legitimately scientific measure of anything whatsoever.

    So it’s wrong. But I also want to add some things about #1 and #2. This definition of philosophy in #1 is either confused or too vague to be of any use. They don’t “study thought” itself, certainly not in the sense that a psychologist could be said to “study thought.” And notice that psychologists, neurologists, etc., are studying it objectively (as much as that’s possible for a person to do for any topic), despite it being supposedly “subjective” according to your definition. That’s probably because your definition blows. But maybe “standing on its own” carries some special meaning here, which isn’t quite being expressed explicitly or literally…. Do you mean to say that when I am thinking or experiencing something, you aren’t necessarily thinking or experiencing it too, nor is anyone else, because our brains work independently of one another? Is that all “subjective” means here; and if so, how would that be relevant in any way? To break it down as cleanly and as simply as I can, I’m not seeing the logic behind this: our brains work independently of one another, therefore…. it’s not true/false (or isn’t known “objectively”) that murder is wrong? How the fuck could anyone make that leap?

    Now let’s think about #2. It seems like you’re effectively claiming that thought is subjective: all thoughts which humans collectively have, because that’s the most reasonable interpretation of “human thought” I can think of, despite the confusion I already addressed above. This is presumably some kind of observable feature of the universe, which anyone has potential access to — the very same kind of access as everyone else does. It also isn’t something about one specific human with their thoughts, or another specific human with theirs; it’s about how any specific human (with their specific thoughts) relates objectively to the rest of the world. In other words, it’s about all humans, and the result you get (of what it’s about) doesn’t depend on which person you ask, because it’s presumably some real, tangible thing in the world which can be known about, or else you yourself don’t know it either. So how can you claim this is subjective? What do you even think it means to say that sort of thing is “subjective,” while some other kind of thing is “objective”?

  68. Nick Gotts says

    minusRusty@113,

    My apologies for asking (not seriously) whether you were a chatbot. I’ll remember in future that if someone’s comments appear bizarre, this may be due to a medical condition.

  69. minusRusty says

    No worries, Nick. I’m still trying to get some feedback on the video and the ‘cookies’ post on my blog, but it’s clearly gone south since no one has bothered to research and then post an analysis. Not a biggie. I know there are jerks laying down bullshit trails, but this was a different sort of a tract.

    Maybe you’ll review the whole 9 minute video, and the ‘cookies’ blog post, and maybe not.

    It won’t affect my treatment, since I have doctors working it. This was just a side discussion about perception and consciousness.

    It’s a conversation that will continue or due. That’s life. :-/

    -Rusty

  70. chigau (違う) says

    There is whole lot of stupid in our little corner of the internets this evening portion of the diurnal cycle.

  71. chigau (違う) says

    just a generic rant
    *ahem*

    WHAT IS SO FUCKING HARD ABOUT COPYPASTING THE THE NYM OF THE COMMENTER AND THE NUMBER OF THE COMMENT?
    You’ve copied the comment, take three more seconds…

    To anyone who is tempted to say that I should just scroll or do a ‘find’
    Fuck You
    You could identify the PERSON you are responding to, not just the wordsonascreen.
    you selfish, self-centered egomaniac.

  72. Owlmirror says

    Confusion is the path to the dark side!
    Confusion leads to anger.
    Anger leads to hate.
    Hate leads to suffering.
    I sense much confusion in you.

    (
    Suffering leads to Schadenfreude.
    Schadenfreude leads to pie.
    The more confusion, the more pie.
    Mm. Pie.
    )

  73. chigau (違う) says

    Owlmirror #132
    Where is your … uh … place?
    I’d like to subscribe…
    Well, at least your newsletter.

  74. Seize says

    My Fisk talents needed a stretch so I’m taking on the annoying ramble by varady72 in Lounge #454 comment 15.

    From a straight dispassionate reading of life’s pleasure and pain balance sheet, as Benatar says, we see chronic pains, but pleasures are always fleeting; a lifetime’s learning can be wiped out in a second but we cannot gain a lifetime’s learning so easily. There are always an infinite number of ways in which things can go wrong, but very few in which they can go right.

    This statement isn’t consistent or testable. You and Benatar do not define pleasure or pain reproducibly or how to quantify either the duration or magnitude of these two subjective states. Thus I can’t substantiate your claim that “pain” is more frequent than “pleasure.” Nor can I assess the not necessarily equivalent statement that things “go wrong” with less frequency than they “go right.”

    So, the observation that we mostly feel upbeat about life calls for an explanation I think.

    Who is “we” in this statement? Millions of Americans if not billions of humans feel depressed about their daily circumstances. It’s a function of circumstances being fairly miserable for many people and it’s also most likely a natural state of neurodiversity for far more folks than you realize.

    I think we all still carry some of that pre-Darwinian illusion about life being rosy in our heads. The universe is a chaotic place and as humans trying to create order out of chaos, we have the odds stacked against us from the outset. That we exist at all is highly improbable. What Benatar does in his piece is a little bit of telling it like it is, it cuts through our illusions, in the same way that an atheist cuts through theist illusions about a loving fatherly God and an afterlife in Paradise.

    Why is a rosy outlook necessarily pre-Darwinian? Why is a rosy outlook – a subjective interpretation which impacts no one but the beholder – an illusion? Why do you suggest that humans should be depressed by our inability to organize the universe, when awe and indifference also seem totally appropriate? Why do you assume atheism always replaces faith, instead of sometimes being someone’s natural state of belief? If Benatar’s message seems like a true thing to you then you and Benatar most likely share some subjective perceptions about your life experiences. This is utterly ungeneralizable to the rest of the commenters on this blog, let alone the human race.

    Theism is the mother of all psychological strategies, a mindset that people cultivate to enable them to believe in an impossibly wonderful future, thus mitigating the harsh realities of their lives.

    Theism is just one of the billions of ways a sentient lifeform might construct a working theory about their subjective reality. It might seem popular among humans but when you get down to it there are as many gods as there are believers. Monotheists in particular try to claim “theism” as a unitary universal human trait. Really, “theism” is a concept representing a ponderous diversity of beliefs about reality.

    But I think we all cultivate such delusions, on some scale or other; it’s all part and parcel of being human.

    Your perception as an organism is so vague and flawed that you can’t verify anything about reality with any degree of precision that doesn’t need to be triple-checked by instrumentation and clever experimental design. If you’re saying that someone’s hormone balance or their very psychology can be incorrect, then by your logic your outlook on life, your brain chemistry, and your culturally-dependent set of psychological set-pieces for coping with daily stimuli are all “delusions.”

    These strategies combined with elevated endorphin levels keep us artificially happy when by rights we ought to feel wretched.

    Happiness is a subjective state. There is no such thing as being artificially happy. If there is, it is for sale on many street corners and in some pharmacies. Second but more important: no one should feel anything. Feelings are a private matter and people are entitled to feel as they may.

    Looked at “neutrally” I think Benatar is mostly right. Life doesn’t seem worth the candle and, rationally, it would be difficult to justify bringing more children into it.

    What is “neutral?” Do you mean logical? Because neither you nor Benatar have yet to put forward a logically testable claim about reality.

    However we don’t normally operate in that neutral fashion.

    If I tentatively paraphrase you so that you actually make some kind of sense: we are not logic-based computers, that is fairly accurate.

    Our hormones usually override actual experience….

    This is about the point where I usually break out the gifs. Our hormones are part of actual experience, just like the neurotransmitters in our synapses and the electrical impulses that travel down our axons. What do you think perceives “actual” experiences if it’s not biochemical in nature?

    …and, at some point or other, most people feel that it’s a good idea to have children.

    This is not factual; many choose not to reproduce, and more are choosing this path every day as birth control and other options become more accessible around the globe.

    In fact, as I’ve mentioned before on these fora, we are evolved to have an optimistic bias and to experience things spiritually so that we feel that our lives are meaningful!

    This is not true. Many people have no experience of spirituality; I am one of them. You will find many on this site who have never had any sort of mystical or spiritual aspect to their psychology.

    There is no particular reason to think that life is going to teach you anything or should or will be an enjoyable experience, it’s only that if you do you might feel better about getting through it, and may have kids who will keep this pyramid scheme going.

    You’re designating one adaptive psychological approach as “correct” and another as “incorrect” based 100% on personal bias. This is just insulting to anyone who happens to not feel the same way about life that you happen to.

    If you take one thing away from the responses in the Lounge to your posts, please let it be this: you represent just one neurotype, and your outlook, particularly the emotions with which you face your world, is subjective. It’s damaging to everyone to insist on a normative neurotype or mandatory emotions or the idea that anyone can take a “neutral” position on matters of feeling. It’s fine to struggle with what meaning you want to give your life, but you can do so without trampling all over other people’s right to experience life they way they do naturally.

  75. says

    Not directly related to any of the threads ongoing, except maybe the Silverman ones, but from a discussion elsewhere:

    I hate, with a fiery blazing passion, when people try to argue in favor of the ridiculous U.S. military budget by claiming that it’s important to defence’. Defence against who or what they are never able to reasonably articulate. Even more do I hate the argument that the military does XYZ humanitarian thing (here it was aircraft carriers shipping drinking water to disaster areas and using their power plants as generators, but the Army Corps of Engineers gets a lot of citations too, plus assorted miscellaneous stuff). They can never explain why we shouldn’t have a specific government group devoted just to humanitarian aid, without all the focus on killing people and breaking things that the military keeps spending on.

  76. Valde says

    Does anyone know an atheist philosopher who goes by the nym of ‘ockraz?’

    I came across him on a secular pro life board, and he made my skin crawl when he said that, in regards to menstruation, the ‘bed is made’ for the zygote, and that the woman ‘invites it in’ because of this.

    I ask because he appears to be familiar with Pharyngula, when someone mentioned PZ’s article on how menstruation evolved out of self-defense from the greedy embryo.

  77. David Marjanović says

    I change my nym once a month.

    …um. Here on Pharyngula?

    If so, does PZ know that? Because if not, he just might get really angry. :-S

  78. Valde says

    “””You’re nothing more actually. If you were a baby factory, then you would be at least that. But you are not even that.

    From your own words: you are a brainless animal, without the ability to breed. What are you then?

    And from my own observations: you are a spineless lying bitch. Instead of answering questions, you escape, lie, avoid.

    Oh, and on that “birth is a death sentence”, eat it you bitch: -Alexander P”””

    ———————-

    Don’t you love misogynist forced birthers?

  79. Valde says

    @David

    No, on Disqus. I haven’t posted here in over a year. I know kitty from Patheos blogs.

  80. David Marjanović says

    You’ve copied the comment, take three more seconds…

    No, I’ve copied a sentence or two from somewhere in the middle of the comment, not the whole thing. To copy the name, I’d need to scroll up and down twice as often.

    And, really, I don’t reply to a person, I reply to what they said. It’s really counterintuitive to me to make it personal. I honestly don’t understand why you want to know who wrote the stuff people are responding to.

  81. says

    In reply to David Marjanović’s #144, which quoted chigau’s #131…

    If you have to search more than a dozen comments adrift to find where the quoted post was, then it’s usually seen as being a service to the reader to identify what name and comment number they should scroll to if they want to see for themselves where it originated from. You should be candid to at least admit that this involves a bit of work which you are unwilling to do yourself, and which by default is transferred to the reader if they come into the conversation later, and are trying to reconstruct who answered who.

    (Also, quoting only a snippet obviously removes context, which will tend to change the emphasis at the very least. Obviously the general aim should not be to misrepresent the quote by selective quotation.)

  82. Dhorvath, OM says

    David M,

    No, I’ve copied a sentence or two from somewhere in the middle of the comment, not the whole thing. To copy the name, I’d need to scroll up and down twice as often.

    Okay. That’s fair. Please consider that some of us attempt to have ongoing conversations and having someone mention our name allows us to quickly search a thread to see who, if anyone, has responded to things we have said. I guarantee that I read slower than you do and so hope to at least read any responses to things I have said. (Yes, it would help if my nym weren’t consistently mis-spelled, that’s a different issue.)

  83. Dhorvath, OM says

    And I see that I can work on the comment number thing. Brains are funny things.

  84. Dhorvath, OM says

    Daz,
    I have always done similar, (although skipping the comment number, (which ought to change, (so this is in response to 148.))) After briefly flirting with the commenting box I quickly learned to use an external text editor because of Scienceblogs’ atrocious behaviour.

  85. consciousness razor says

    David Marjanović, #144 (here I am, behaving myself):

    And, really, I don’t reply to a person, I reply to what they said. It’s really counterintuitive to me to make it personal.

    I agree with some of this, but I think you’re mischaracterizing the motivations behind this (some of the motivations, though of course this could be an attempt to “make it personal” or avoid substantial points).

    So you should reply to what they said, but it is still the case that you are also unavoidably replying to a person. What I think that means is generally that you’re trying to communicate with them (and others) as people in a way that makes the communication go smoothly, as well as whatever interpersonal relationship that interaction entails (unless you have good reason for it to not go smoothly, I suppose). The logic of the argument itself isn’t affected by that, not usually at least; but the fact is that we aren’t dealing with a bunch of disembodied arguments floating in a vacuum, because there are no such things. We’re dealing with people.

    I honestly don’t understand why you want to know who wrote the stuff people are responding to.

    I can understand there are multiple reasons why someone would want to know it.

    For example, if there are many people involved in a conversation, it can be much easier to follow who is making which claim. It doesn’t always matter to the argument itself, but it matters to the people in the discussion that they can more readily comprehend where everyone stands. If I make claim P, then lots of other people make claims A or B while I don’t make any such claims, it should be clear to readers later on that when you quote me with my claim Q, they ought to check for its internal consistency with my other claim P. They don’t necessarily need to check how it works with A or B; but then again, internal consistency is not all that matters. If A and B are true or false, then it makes no difference whether I’ve explicitly said anything about them. I need to either be on board with them, even if that goes unacknowledged, or else show that they’re actually false. But it simplifies things if that basic information (who said it) is right in front of you, whenever a bit of text is quoted.

    It also tends to matter because I have some background knowledge about the person in question. Suppose PZ says something in a brand new thread. Even if it’s a subject that’s unlike anything else he’s ever talked about, I can justifiably compare his new statement to any other thing he’s ever said about anything else. If it’s such a different subject, it may not exactly be relevant, but it could be. Perhaps there is some connection to be made between the topics which PZ hasn’t yet considered, or the comparison might just be about shedding some light on his thought process (or the opposing sides’, or my thought process in trying to figure out what the hell he’s saying), or that might inspire a comment about how similarly or differently the subjects should be treated (which PZ either is or isn’t doing). It might only be to say “this reminds me of something else you once said…” which is simply to say there is a larger pattern at work, whatever that may be. I don’t think it’s too much to claim that the context of the argument matters too, not just “the argument” itself, if only because thinking about that sort of thing can lead to productive new arguments. And we like arguing. The point is, it doesn’t need to affect some critical part of the argument or claim he’s making (the “relevant” part you happen to care about), in order to be useful or offer some insight about something. However, if you don’t know who said it, you simply can’t do that, because you’ve lost that bit of the context/history/environment in which we find the argument.

    Somewhat related to that last point is the principle of charity. I think it’s often stretched too much to force us to deal with claims people simply aren’t making. People do sometimes outright reject the “more reasonable version” of the argument you think you ought to be dealing with, so you might have to live with being considered uncharitable in order to avoid irrelevance. However, if you know where the person is coming from, the general perspective they have on things, you’re on safer ground to assume they’re working with some basic concepts rather than others. PZ probably isn’t going to offer (as valid) a Christian or Islamic perspective on death, for example. If something he says could be interpreted that way, it’s better to start with the assumption that it ought to be interpreted non-religiously (based simply on who we’re taking about). However, after trying to sort it out that way, it looks like perhaps he is using some background religious assumption, that is worth pointing out too, because we know who said it not just what was said. Indeed, to everyone’s surprise, he might have even stumbled onto something that is right about a religious view (not likely but possible), which would mean we ought to change our views about it. More likely is that we use this to show what is wrong about his statement.

    One final reason: people like to whine about stuff, so if there’s nothing substantial to whine about at the moment and they’re feeling whiny, they come up with things like this. :)

  86. chigau (違う) says

    David Marjanović #144 (it’s really very easy)

    I honestly don’t understand why you want to know who wrote the stuff people are responding to.

    Because I consider that the words-on-the-screen were written by a thinking, feeling person who merits being treated like a person, not like a bunch oh pixels placed for my amusement.
    Asshole.

  87. consciousness razor says

    You know, chigau, I think that’s pretty assholish of you. But this is the Thunderdome, so that not be a huge problem.

    I mean, David does raise a significant point about how we ought to think and interact with material rationally. It shouldn’t be about the people, when “it” is the specific claims that are quoted. I think he’s simply applying the concept in a place where it just stops working as intended. And that doesn’t suggest “asshole” to me. It suggests “error” to me. In fact, that’s why I bothered to address it as I did, because the problem almost certainly isn’t that David’s just being an asshole. There are very good reasons for doing it even when the focus is on how best to understand and address an argument — even from that perspective (which is a good one to have and not assholish!) things like people and context don’t just fall off the radar. Did you miss that?

    There’s also something to be said about how “easy” this supposedly is. You make a substantial contribution to a thread (even just one, let alone many), which isn’t just sniping at the sidelines with a few pointless or joking one-liners, then see for yourself how easy it is to keep something like a formatting convention at the front of your attention.

  88. chigau (違う) says

    consciousness razor #153
    Treating the people who comment here like they are people is “a formatting convention”?
    .
    On the very rare occasions that I do more than just sniping at the sidelines with a few pointless or joking one-liners, I use a text editor, not the comment box.

  89. consciousness razor says

    Chigau, why would you ascribe that much significance to writing out their name/pseudonym in a comment? If I respond to someone as rationally and empathically and thoroughly as I can, yet I neglect to address them directly by name, that is somehow not treating them like they’re a person? I’m dehumanizing them? I don’t think so. (How do expect I would respond to a chatbot?) It’s just a name which isn’t there, not their very identity as a person. It’s important to do at least for practical reasons, as I’ve already argued; but it isn’t as if not doing it means I’m implicitly failing to recognize their humanity or whatever. That’s just coming way out of left field, from where I’m standing.

  90. ChasCPeterson says

    I don’t reply to a person, I reply to what they said. It’s really counterintuitive to me to make it personal.

    .

  91. Jacob Schmidt says

    I learned about the word “hembrism” today. Apparently, it means “female superiority” or some such. I wonder if it will ever overtake “feminazi” as a way to demonize feminists.

  92. chigau (違う) says

    consciousness razor #155
    If one is already copy/pasting a bunch of text, the effort involved in also copy/pasting the nym and num is trivial.
    So why not?

  93. says

    David

    No, I’ve copied a sentence or two from somewhere in the middle of the comment, not the whole thing. To copy the name, I’d need to scroll up and down twice as often.

    And, really, I don’t reply to a person, I reply to what they said. It’s really counterintuitive to me to make it personal. I honestly don’t understand why you want to know who wrote the stuff people are responding to.

    Several reasons
    1. Language is imperfect, communication is fraught with hazzard. You are NOT replying to what somebody said, you are replying to what you think somebody said. Errors can occur on the side of the sender (sloppy wording, language fuck-ups) and on the side of the receiver (same thing plus triggers). Including the name makes it easier to clear up simple missunderstandings.

    2. You know we all love that big gorgeous brain of yours, but most of ours are not that good at remembering everything. It might be that the next day we don’t recognize that these are indeed our words. Go back to 1.

    3. Somebody might not have time to read up on a whole thread but is interested in specific responses to them (see 1 again). Including a nym makes it easy to do that.

    4. Especially in social threads it IS usually a reply to the person. If A says “my car is broken” and B says “I’m sorry to hear and I hope the repair isn’t too expensive” it’s not a comment about cars and repair costs as such but an expression of sympathy with A.

    5. Pattern detection. Is this in line with that person’t general writing? If not, is there a missunderstanding? Has the account been hacked? Do I have reason to suspect that maybe this person has just been triggered and therefore it’s the right thing to ignore SWOTI and just shut up?

    6. Convenience
    It’s much easier to follow for the reader, especially in a post with several quotes.

  94. brianpansky says

    hi all,

    i’ve been thinking about that whole thing where conservatives are “lock step”, but progressives and radicals are all pulling in different directions. does anyone know any attempts to resolve this (or it’s hindrance on progress, at least) in theory or in practice?

  95. minusRusty says

    Hi brainpansky (#163).

    does anyone know any attempts to resolve this (or it’s hindrance on progress, at least) in theory or in practice?

    Uhm, yeah. Two methods I think of would be (1) research, and (2) spoon-feeding. There also seems to be (A) “Just say ‘No!'”, and (B) “Sorry for your condition!”.

    I think my next step will be to work a little bit on (A) & (2), since (1) and (B) hasn’t seemed to produce much of a result. I’m a fan of consciousness, after all, as well as perception, but apparently that isn’t coming through as a research project, even if the marketing campaign was a little bit weird.

    It’s not like I said previously,

    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk

    Several reasons

    Yep.

    Quotes from me in this thread:

    [blockquote]Good question, chigau.

    I am actually having a lot of very lucky fun, that could be misinterpreted as some form of ‘Intelligent design’, but is really related to random draw, thinking selection, dumb luck, etc etc etc.

    Go to YouTube, look up minusRusty, and there is a video where I talk about how my perception ha changed, but it is not a weird gOd did it, but it might be a start to understand the complexity I’m thinking if.[/blockquote]

    But “No!” And then,

    No worries, Nick. I’m still trying to get some feedback on the video and the ‘cookies’ post on my blog, but it’s clearly gone south since no one has bothered to research and then post an analysis. Not a biggie. I know there are jerks laying down bullshit trails, but this was a different sort of a tract.

    Maybe you’ll review the whole 9 minute video, and the ‘cookies’ blog post, and maybe not.

    It won’t affect my treatment, since I have doctors working it. This was just a side discussion about perception and consciousness.

    It’s a conversation that will continue or [die]. That’s life. :-/

    That’s life. We’ll see.

    -Rusty

  96. says

    @Valde

    Don’t you love misogynist forced birthers?

    But I’m sure the reasonable pro-life people are out in force to push back against such nasty comments, right?

  97. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Another point, regarding David’s style of commenting specifically:

    You usually quote really short snippets of conversations, so it’s really difficult to get the context. Combined with replying to several people without in any way distinguishing which quote is from which commenter… your comments are sometimes really confusing and make little sense to me. Sorry.

    Totally agreeing with chigau here. I’m guilty of forgetting to add names or comment numbers too, but it’s something that just seems like a decent thing to do in order to make communication easier.

  98. Valde says

    #166 LykeX

    This guy, Alexander P, went on to accuse other posters of being FEMINAZIs

    Love it

  99. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    I was awoken by a cramp in my quad.

    The open area in the middle of campus?

    =========

    I think that some asshole out there has set up some kind of programme that looks for my ‘nym as a commenter (not sure if it works if someone else uses my ‘nym in a comment) and then dumps an email to me through anonymizing software. I think. The good news is, I have worked it out through our IT people down in the big city and the threats, accusations and invitations to suicide are being dealt with by others. So, whoever you are, knock it off. You are no longer annoying me. You are now annoying IT and security people down in DC.

    Think about it.

    (yes, this did include explaining, to two different people, what is going on and why. no details, but enough to show that the accusations are bullshit.)

  100. chigau (違う) says

    Ogvorbis #170
    That is very good news.
    I think I will start mislepping or HTMLing your nym, just in case.

  101. chigau (違う) says

    Og, I think I’ll continue, what I call you in a comment should have no effect.

  102. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    chigau:

    Sorry. Not you. I put a space in my ‘nym on the profile. Taken back out at the request of IT.

  103. Quinn Martindale says

    PZ’s comment about the word ‘idiot’

    Hi, it’s been a while since I’ve posted here, but I’d like to bring something up. In the linked thread Zachary Smith made a throw-away comment about the word idiot being a slur while tone-trolling. I understand PZ’s response, but I think the point deserves to be taken more seriously. This is an issue that has arisen on a few different sites in the past month, and I haven’t heard a good answer yet.

    There are a number of terms in common usage that are past terms for people with mental or physical disabilities that are presently used as a general term of disparagement, ‘idiot’ being one of them. What makes those okay while present terms are considered problematic?

  104. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Also, Janine? Got it covered.

    ====================

    I was really hoping someone else would taken on future chemist, but alas, apparently the thread isn’t as active and it ain’t going to happen.

    I feel like I should hold off and play nice, but I’m not feeling much like doing that. If xe responds to my relatively nice chiding of his hir hyperskepticism by doubling down, I aint’nt waiting for a third post.

    I just felt the need to rant, and this is the place for it. No response required.

  105. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Chas?

    Isn’t that outlet a little too reputable to be putting out EvoPsych speculation? My faith in their scientific reliability just took a hit.

  106. chigau (違う) says

    minusRusty
    I will probably never go to yutoob so you might try using words here.

  107. minusRusty says

    Ok, so my reply to brianpansky @179 is being zapped for a third time, with various corrections.

    I’ll add one more post with one question and answer, and then I’ll probably call it a wrap.

    -Rusty

  108. minusRusty says

    Questions asked to me online, and some of my answers:

    1) Can you elaborate on what feeling wrong means when you position your arms in different ways.

    It turns out that the depth perception processing in my brain has turned on, and needed to be ‘normalized’. It was way off. So that my right hand ‘felt’ a normal distance from my left hand, but only so when it was about 6 inches away. Putting the two hands the same distance away, the left hand felt ‘too far’, and putting the left hand ‘too far’ felt way, way off!

    When this processing started, and I don’t know if it was due to surgery or not, I had to walk with The Bride, holding on to her shoulder so that I didn’t lose perspective walking and possibly trip and fall. At the time, I didn’t know it was due to depth perception. You see, I didn’t have regular depth perception for 50+ years!

    It wasn’t until a couple of weeks after the 9-1-1 incident that I had other perspective shifts (e.g, visual perspective on movies that then related to associative perspective on neural-pathway firing), and eventually I was able to determine that the depth-perception was causing ‘issues’. Then I started wearing a patch for a couple of days, and now, the depth perspective has normalized (post 50.50 -Rusty), and I can walk normally without needing a patch.

    -R

  109. Desert Son, OM says

    Response to Kroos Control at #73 in the Missing the Point of Giordano Bruno thread.

    Kroos Control at #76:

    Lets say hypothetically

    There has been a great deal of this in recent posts about issues where the hypothetical necessarily takes so far back a seat to the actual reality that the hypothetical is not even sitting in the vehicle, but still back in the parking lot.

    Four counties over.

    The very real historicity of extremely powerful and wealthy religious organizations crushing others means that “Lets[sic] say hypothetically” is not so much adding to, as diverting from, the crux of the discussion.

    Who are we to judge this society with our subjective opinions?

    Some things you might consider:

    Morals are human artifacts, and as such, are complex. Morals arise out of complex processes among complex humans.

    Your proposed hypothetical presupposes an an insufficiently complex condition when you highlight a particular moral system advocating immolation and ask “who are we to judge?”

    Well, actually, there are some answers to that.

    First, consider that any cross-section of population is unlikely to capture a single moral system, yet your hypothetical proposes exactly that. Just because Christianity was dominant in Europe at the time in question does not mean that other moral systems—including moral systems eschewing autos da fe—were not also extant. Your hypothetical is based on the premise that there was Christianity and nothing else. It’s also based on the premise that there was only one variety of Christianity, incidentally.

    So, one answer to your hypothetical is examine other options to see if there is something demonstrably better. Lo and behold, something else was tried (questioning the authority of the churches, looking for other ways to resolve issues of faith, asking testable questions about the universe and seeing what the tests showed, and so forth). In fact, to go back to the cross-section component again, many things were tried, and continue to be tried concurrently to this day, including within Christianity itself, like, say contemporary Quakerism.

    Second, consider that any cross-section of population is unlikely to capture a single moral system that is static, and really, that’s just extrapolation from my previous paragraph. Humans are complex and dynamic, and artifacts of same contain those complexities and dynamics.

    Note, however, that dynamicism in moral systems does not necessarily mean lack of agreement. In fact, development and adoption of moral systems means precisely that enough large-scale agreement has occurred.

    So, a second answer to “Who are we to judge?” is moral systems change, especially because no single moral system is ever likely to exist at any one time, and human communication continues to transmit socio-cultural change.

    These changes rarely occur rapidly. Consider that today, in parts of the United States the death penalty is still used as a criminal punishment. There’s much less burning, sure, but there’s much more injecting. Some states are still very much holding onto cultural artifacts from 400 years ago.

    Which brings us to a third answer to “Who are we to judge?” We’re people alive in our own cultural age, connected through communication, dynamic, and yet with enough significant, aggregate consensus to recognize that the moral system that we have been evolving has reached a point to recognize some deeds of the past as abhorrent.

    The interesting thing being, that even back in the past, there were moral systems that considered those same deeds abhorrent, too.

    We already have centuries of reality and evidence that have led enough significant aggregate perspectives to develop and support a moral system decrying and rejecting burning people alive as punishment for dissent, or even just difference. Judgement passed. No hypothetical needed.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  110. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply Robert. KC is now limited to the Thunderdome. I hope he reads and understands *snicker* your post. *sharpens titanium fang*

  111. anteprepro says

    Reposting for the Quarantined One:

    Kroos Conartist:

    I’m usually really good at keeping people on topic and establishing a premise before moving on when I talk to people in real life.

    Are you good at staying on topic yourself in real life? Because I think it is pretty clear your strategy is this:
    1. Say Stupid Shit
    2. Say More Stupid Shit.
    3. Complain that refutation doesn’t address Stupid Shit from 1.
    4. Say Nuh Uh.
    5. Repeat Stupid Shit.
    6. Return to 1.

    1)distinguish between state-state and agent-state causation- a timeless cause would give rise to a timeless effect. The only way to get a temporal effect from a timeless cause would be the free action of an libertarian agent

    Since “timeless cause” is bafflegab and libertarian free will is nonsensical, I get the strong sense that the above is bullshit. I can perceive its bullshittiness directly, in fact.

    (Impersonal explanations usually involve reference to laws of nature and initial conditions. Causally prior to the universe there were no laws and initial conditions

    So NOW we suddenly acknowledge that causes can’t possibly exist before time and space existed> Only so that we can use ridiculous pseudologic to prove that the cause you claimed was logically necessary is fucking impossible unless it is also a magical entity that defies logic? Slow-fucking-clap.

    Timelessly existing entities that could have caused the universe- The only such kinds of entities are minds and abstract objects.

    Minds are not timeless. Ergo: There is no such thing as known “timelessly existing entities” aside from abstractions. Ergo, using your logic, whatever the fuck “abstract objects” are created the universe. Congratulations on your new god.
    .

    True , but we can clearly conceive of causes being simultaneous with their effects and have examples of such.

    Aaaaaand bullshit. I doubt that your examples would hold water.

    it is possible for God or for a disembodied mind to exist. All you need to affirm is that such a thing is metaphysically possible. And it is possible , there’s nothing logically self-contradictory of about the implication.

    If all that is required for something to “metaphysically possible” is that it isn’t self-contradictory, than “metaphysical possibility” is an incredibly low threshold for holding an idea to be true or false.

    Also: a world where the problem of evil holds makes an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent interventionist deity “metaphysically impossible”. Again, congratulations on your new god.

    Craig has a nice analogy

    For fuck’s sake, are you applying for a position as president of his fan club?

    And of course while it might be difficult to understand God bringing something into being, the alternative is that something came into being from nothing which is metaphysically impossible.

    You have not established that metaphysical impossibility. Most likely because you are a clueless sophist regurgitating the talking points of a slightly less clueless sophist.

  112. anteprepro says

    Ah, and here’s a brilliant snippet from Lane Craig from an article Kroosy linked to:

    On why modern day “miracles” suck:

    I think these stupendous miracles were given at special junctures in salvation history to dramatically reveal God’s saving acts at that particular point in history. When you look at the miracles in the Bible, you find that they tend to cluster around the Exodus in the Old Testament – think of the ten plagues upon Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of smoke by day and fire by night and so forth, the manna from heaven. And then in the New Testament they cluster around the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth – he was born of a virgin, healed various people, exorcised demons, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. These stupendous miracles of God were given at these special junctures of revelation history to indicate God’s mighty acts of deliverance in bringing his people out of bondage in the Old Testament and then bringing the savior of the world into history in the person of Christ. Therefore, these are unique, and these kinds of miracles are not repeated today.

    So basically, God was just showing off in the Bible times. In real life, in the modern day, God really just doesn’t give a shit. He already gave out all of his revelations and all that shit so just fuck off you guys. Get off God’s case, Jesus Christ!

  113. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    KC:

    First off, presuppositionalism: Early scientists in Europe were Christians. They sought to discover the greater glory of god and sought enlightenment. They began with the presupposition that god exists. Scientists, over time, discovered that natural explanations, explanations that did not require any god, were the more parsimonious explanations for all phenomena, from speciation to nuclear decay, geology to quantum mechanics. Scientists did not start out with a presuppostion that god does not exist — they followed the evidence. William Lane Craig, however, does presuppose that god exists and seeks to shoehorn his version of god into anything. That said, scientists have found evidence — evidence which can be examined, tested, shared — for naturalistic explanations. Where is evidence — evidence which can be examined, tested and shared — for the existence of any god?

    Second, objective morality. We have demonstrated, and you have agreed, that different times had moral codes that are different than ours — witness the Bruno case. If morality is an absolute, objective, why have morals changed as society has changed?

    I will not get into cause as that is outside my reading. Save to point out that much of quantum mechanics is absolutely bizarre. And things happen without direct cause and effect.

    This, by the by, is what I referred to when I introduced the phrase, “Gish Gallop.” You refuse to actually answer any question, and, when pressed, go off in a whole new direction. That is a Gish Gallop. Anyway, please actually answer the two questions that I have asked. Questions I have asked multiple times. And you have ignored. And then galloped off in a different direction.

  114. anteprepro says

    Kroos Control is the bullet of the Texas Sharpshooter: Wherever Kroos ends up, that’s the One True Topic. It’s not so much a Gish Gallop as a “Holy Shit Will You Guys Stop Gish Galloping By Bringing Up Topics I Originally Brought Up”.

  115. woozy says

    Kroos Control brings up a nice little linguistic logical trap. It’s fun.

    I think burning people alive is immoral. But what do you base that moral conclusion on? Gee, it’s not self-evident? Well, shucks, I think it is immoral based on opinions I have about things in general. But suppose there is a society that thinks burning people alive is moral; how do you know you are right and they are wrong? Well, we can’t know that I am right and they are right but I am right and they are wrong. But if you can’t know then you can’t judge them on your morality, can you? … gee, guess not … but gee, Okay, my morality is better than theirs because it’s based on human experience and pain and desires and theirs is …. well, theirs is just wrong. Ah, then you are saying there is an objective viewpoint in which your morality is superior and correct and absolute? Um, I guess so…? All right then. I’ll have to ask you to turn in your atheist membership card because when you took you atheist initiation pledge you swore there was no absolute authority. Aw, man……

    Anyway. There’s a lot wrong with that. First of all, of course we can judge the morality systems of others … *IF* we can defend our our beliefs. All a lack of an absolute framework means is that in time of dispute there is no authority to which we can turn which will prove I am correct and you are not. That doesn’t mean I can’t with every ounce of my being believe burning people alive is bad. It just means my viewpoint doesn’t exist in a vacuum outside of my experience. So what? It means I can’t force you to see it my way but I couldn’t do that anyway; even if I *did* have god on my side.

    Then there’s the practical side. I’ve never actually taken the atheist pledge to reject the concept of absolute morality. When I was at my local atheist chapter and we were engaging in our secret initiations I was distracted by a squirrel when I was supposed to swear that there were no absolutes. Absolutely. So I don’t know if I don’t actually believe in universal morality. I don’t *want* to believe in any universal but I do believe a sense of the “rightness” of altruism is a fundamental human condition and that this is pretty much the basis of all cultures’ sense of morality. I don’t want to say that “do not kill innocent people” is an *absolute* morality but I’m okay with saying it’s a universal value … for the most part. *I* never claimed that there were no absolutes. That was another atheist.

    The point being there isn’t any society that thinks it’s morally acceptable to burn people alive. There are people and institutes within society that manipulate and come up with reasons to attempt to justify why it’s necessary and good to burn people alive but is not within their society morals to burn people. And yes, I can judge their actions.

    And finally, this *isn’t* an alien society. It’s our society 400 years ago. We have shared history and shared and conflicting perspective. I can certainly argue and judge from a perspective that shares a historical founding.

    I said some oblique things in the Bruno thread about lack of absolute morality does not mean an arbitrary morality (“I can’t prove objectively whether it’s okay to eat shellfish so therefore it’s morally okay for me to rape and kill this ten year old girl”) but I’ll have to practice my rhetoric to develop that more fully.

  116. Kroos Control says

    @Og
    1) I don’t believe all questions can be answered with respect to empirical evidence. There a great deal many philosophical questions that can’t , which is why empiricism/verificationism has universally failed as a philosophy.
    2) Morals haven’t changed. People’s awareness of objective morals has changed. And as I pointed out, some morals are pretty much almost universally perceived, like “it is wrong to kill babies for fun”.
    3) They’re debating whether to call it a cause or precondition or whatever. The whole point is , you can’t get something from nothing. Nothing is the absence of being. It has no properties or attributes. Nothing doesn’t have the potential to become anything or do anything the way a piece of wood has the potential to become a chair or an unstable nucleus has the potential to release radiation or a quantum vacuum has the potential to make virtual particles. Somehow everyone got hung up on the fact that the process in the quantum vacuum/radioactive decay was probabilistic and they missed the whole point
    I actually made an argument from the PSR/knowledge of empirical truth that none of the “somthing from nothing” guys has bothered to address. (The PSR is basically the causal principle)

    This argument is based on the ideas of Robert Koons (1997), although I am simplifying it. Starting with the observation that once we admit that some contingent states of affairs have no explanations, a completely new skeptical scenario becomes possible: no demon is deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all, with no prior causes. Moreover, objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature or objective tendencies, and so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies. Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact.Thus, we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. Consequently, someone who does not affirm the PSR cannot say that Koons’ skeptical scenario is objectively improbable. It may be taken to follow from this that if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we would not know any empirical truths. But we do know empirical truths. Hence, the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.

    (from Alexander Pruss)

    I’m pretty sure I answered all these at one point or the other and I was dealing with objection from a lot of different people and a lot off similar objection (everything I’ve said here I’ve said in some form in the previous thread) , so I might not have gotten to you directly. I was’t refusing to answer anything as such.

  117. anteprepro says

    . There a great deal many philosophical questions that can’t , which is why empiricism/verificationism has universally failed as a philosophy.

    “Failed as a universal philosophy” =/= “Universally failed as a philosophy”.

    Also, I think we should all take the assertions about the state of philosophy from you with a grain of salt. Or a tablespoon full. Or a coffee table full. A William Lane Craig fanboy/fangirl isn’t the most reliable source, after all.

    People’s awareness of objective morals has changed. And as I pointed out, some morals are pretty much almost universally perceived,

    The first sentence contradicts the second. You are not becoming less wrong by repeating your same ill-found assertions over and over. You fucking arrogant and ignorant douchebag.

    The whole point is , you can’t get something from nothing.

    Bald assertion not established by evidence or logic.

    I actually made an argument from the PSR/knowledge of empirical truth

    For fuck’s fucking sake. Adding even more to the Gallop, with even more bilge from billcraig (though actually it is bilge that billcraig quoted, rather than being straight from the ass’s mouth). You are an absolute fucking joke. Again, do you know anything about philosophy outside of what Billy Lane tells you?

  118. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m pretty sure I answered all these at one point or the other and I was dealing with objection from a lot of different people and a lot off similar objection (everything I’ve said here I’ve said in some form in the previous thread) , so I might not have gotten to you directly. I was’t refusing to answer anything as such.

    The important topic you keep forgetting to answer is there the fuck is your conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Metaphysical means imaginary. You have to progress your imaginary past metaphysical to physical. Only the, does your fuckwitted presup arguments become no longer presup. If they are presup, they can and are dismissed as such.

  119. Kroos Control says

    @woozy
    (as an aside I use objective instead of absolute to avoid confusion)
    The point is are we living in a world were right and wrong are just conventions or preferences , like what side of the road we should drive on or what kind of ice cream we prefer.
    Drive on the left or drive on the right , its just a particular set of conventions in a country and nothing is objectively wrong with either .
    Is it just convention? I certainly don’t perceive it that way , and you seem not to perceive it that way either.
    And either way people certainly don’t speak that way or act that way when they talk about ethics.
    People will criticize the burning of Bruno at the stake or the oppression of women in certain countries because they have strong beliefs in certain moral values rooted in perception. No-one says “that was just the convention of that time/ that culture , so we can’t really say it was wrong.”
    Most people I’ve talked to in person seem to agree that at least certain things are objectively immoral.

  120. Al Dente says

    Kroos Control @200

    Morals haven’t changed. People’s awareness of objective morals has changed. And as I pointed out, some morals are pretty much almost universally perceived, like “it is wrong to kill babies for fun”.

    If this is true, then answer the question I asked you on the knights thread: If killing babies for fun is wrong, then why does your god do it? Are you going to retreat into your hero Billy Craig’s asshole and bleat “but if God does it then it’s good even though if anyone else does it it’s evil”?

  121. chigau (違う) says

    Kroos Control #203

    Most people I’ve talked to in person seem to agree that at least certain things are objectively immoral.

    Do they support you in emails?

  122. brianpansky says

    i hope kroos kontrol isn’t trying to use morality as evidence that a god exists. (i haven’t read the tons of stuff already posted by kroos).

    this common perception about killing babies comes from a few things, such as our compassion computations in our brains, and our reasoning about the repercussions, as well as our desires etc.

    anyways, here is richard carrier alking about objective morality. (the section titled “breaking it down into easier to follow units” really defines morality quite well):

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4498

  123. Amphiox says

    i hope kroos kontrol isn’t trying to use morality as evidence that a god exists. (i haven’t read the tons of stuff already posted by kroos).

    Reality can be cold, harsh, and hope-crushing, my friend.

    Morals haven’t changed. People’s awareness of objective morals has changed.

    Naturally, KC no sooner gets to a new thread than he dissembles about his output on other threads. His FIRST argument was that the ability to perceive objective morality was proof that objective morality exists.

    But of course if people’s awareness of objective morals can change, then people cannot perceive objective morals at all. Which leaves open the question of how one could ever know if what one perceived as moral was truly objective or not.

    And that which cannot be perceived cannot be presumed to exist.

  124. Amphiox says

    Most people I’ve talked to in person seem to agree that at least certain things are objectively immoral.

    Not anywhere on this forum. In fact, other than Sastra, who presented a definition of “objective” that was really very different from the definition of “objective” that KC has kept dishonestly dancing around, NO ONE actually agrees that certain things are “objectively” immoral.

  125. brianpansky says

    Reality can be cold, harsh, and hope-crushing, my friend.

    how…disappointing ( :<

    @208

    actually, consciousness razor (and maybe some of the other commenters there) seems to hold to moral realism over here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/12/16/but-mr-craig/

    i was opposed in that thread, but, thanks to richard carrier (which i linked to in 206), have since come to hold a realist position (which happens to be hardly distinguishable from the position i had when i was opposing consciousness razor back in that other thread).

  126. Amphiox says

    @208

    actually, consciousness razor (and maybe some of the other commenters there) seems to hold to moral realism over here:

    True, but unless he was sockpuppetting, I don’t recall KC having been there to “talk in person”.

  127. anteprepro says

    The point is are we living in a world were right and wrong are just conventions or preferences , like what side of the road we should drive on or what kind of ice cream we prefer.

    If you actually fucking listened, you would realize that we don’t think that the only available options are:
    1. Your asinine “objective” transcendent morals that are built from iron by a timeless bearded wizard in another plane of existence, and that are obtained in such a way that they are indistinguishable from firmly held, dogmatic fever dreams.
    2. Your disingenuous alternative of absolute moral relativism.

    There is plenty of room for argument in between those two extremes, and your lack of comprehension and imagination doesn’t change that. Your incredulity proves jack shit. The gap in your knowledge is not a gap in everyone’s. And regardless, any gap is not evidence of your Phantasm of Choice.

  128. Amphiox says

    People’s awareness of objective morals has changed. And as I pointed out, some morals are pretty much almost universally perceived, like “it is wrong to kill babies for fun”.

    It was once almost universally perceived that “heresy is immoral and should be punished by burning at the stake”. And since that changed with time it can never be said that the moral perception that “it is wrong to kill babies for fun” might not also change.

    Ergo, it is still a SUBJECTIVE perception of morality.

    But even if that never changed, that the vast majority of human beings would perceive it so is only an indication that human brains, sharing an evolutionary history, have evolved certain innate, hard-wired biases that influence the perceptions morality that have gone to near-fixation within the human population. It in no way shape or form can be said to suggest that said perception is anything but human subjectivity, or that it would in any way be likely to represent any sort of universal or objective morality. A species of intelligent aliens with a reproductive biology more like lions, or more like oophagous sharks may well perceive a very different moral imperative.

    To presume that that there is an “objective” morality which one can actually perceive, is the height of arrogance.

    Thus the most that anyone can say is that perhaps there is subjective morality that applies

  129. Jacob Schmidt says

    The whole point is , you can’t get something from nothing. Nothing is the absence of being. It has no properties or attributes. Nothing doesn’t have the potential to become anything or do anything the way a piece of wood has the potential to become a chair or an unstable nucleus has the potential to release radiation or a quantum vacuum has the potential to make virtual particles. Somehow everyone got hung up on the fact that the process in the quantum vacuum/radioactive decay was probabilistic and they missed the whole point

    The funny thing is that I addressed all of this in the other thread:

    What it does mean is that there exists some prerequisite for the event. It means the event can’t ‘come from nothing,’ so to speak, and that something (i.e. a necessary but insufficient set of conditions) must come before it.

    Here’s the problem when this is applied to the universe: we don’t understand the nature of the universe’s beginning. We don’t know if the universe has any sort of necessary precondition; we don’t know of the universe has any sort of sufficient precondition.

    Even if we accept that the universe has a cause (it seems reasonable, after all), we can’t say anything about the nature of that cause. We don’t know. Any sort of leap from that point to ‘the cause was personal and transcendental'; to ‘the cause was a deity of some sort'; or to ‘the Christian god was the cause'; is nothing but an assumption. An assumption about the nature of a conclusion that, at best, came from sloppy inductive reasoning. The argument gets us nowhere.

    Somehow this flew right over KC’c head, which is rather odd, since KC responded my comment immediately after the italicized quote above.

    Starting with the observation that once we admit that some contingent states of affairs have no explanations, a completely new skeptical scenario becomes possible: no demon is deceiving you, but your perceptual states are occurring for no reason at all, with no prior causes. Moreover, objective probabilities are tied to laws of nature or objective tendencies, and so if an objective probability attaches to some contingent fact, then that situation can be given an explanation in terms of laws of nature or objective tendencies. Hence, if the PSR is false of some contingent fact, no objective probability attaches to the fact.Thus, we cannot even say that violations of the PSR are improbable if the PSR is false. Consequently, someone who does not affirm the PSR cannot say that Koons’ skeptical scenario is objectively improbable. It may be taken to follow from this that if the PSR were false or maybe even not known a priori, we would not know any empirical truths. But we do know empirical truths. Hence, the PSR is true, and maybe even known a priori.

    Were it not for the hour, I’d be laughing. As it is, I’m disappointed, both in this ridiculous argument and myself for foolishly expecting a better one.

  130. Dhorvath, OM says

    Kroos Control

    Most people I’ve talked to in person seem to agree that at least certain things are objectively immoral.

    Most. That’s a telling word. Does this ‘most’ agree about the specific things which are objectively wrong? What percentage of dissent do you require to say that something is subjective? This reads as horribly convenient.
    If I used most in a way that is consistent with how I generally (mostly) encounter its use, I can name a number of things which I find no reason to object to that are a viewed by the people I encounter as being worthy of villifiication. Who is wrong? I mean, I am sure that doing these things is okay, but most of the people I know think they are objectionably. How to navigate these waters?

  131. Desert Son, OM says

    Responding to Paul Brown at #186 in the Missing the point about Giordano Bruno thread:

    What has SallyStrange actually said about what I’ve written? Other than say:

    So, you fired a few counter posts, and then brought up the issue of anonymity and exhibited some privilege blindness in doing so.

    To which I’ve tried to respond with humor, cookies, Goon Show references and “Noah” movie irony.

    And then, finding that those efforts delivered no results to your personal satisfaction, brought up anonymity in the context of implied character flaw, and exhibited some privilege blindness in doing so.

    I’m used to communities where identities are what they are.

    And thus assumed, perhaps, that your particular experience applied wherever you go, and so commented from that assumption, and exhibited some privilege blindness in doing so.

    I’m also very familiar with arguments for online anonymity and supportive.

    And nevertheless cited anonymity in a manner suggesting questionable character of a poster, and exhibited some privilege blindness in doing so.

    I suggest you contact the admin . . . and ask ‘em for my name.

    I’m hard-pressed to describe the extent to which I don’t care about your name. In my previous post, I asked what business it is of yours what anyone else’s name is, and what that has to do with the quality of the interaction in the thread, or the character of the commenters with whom you interact.

    But when someone makes 5 postings without contributing anything of substance, and from a position of online anonymity accuses someone who’s identity is public of “trolling”? That’s paranoia

    That’s your benchmark for making the diagnosis of paranoia? Out of curiosity, how long have you been familiar with members of the Pharyngula community and the communication that goes on here? Did you take that length of time and familiarity into account when you did your differential, doctor?

    Still learning,

    Robert

  132. Paul Brown says

    #216

    OK. Took me a bit to find this place. *checks wallpaper* Mmmm … bloodstains.

    So apparently, you’ve no problem with my facts. Good-oh.

    So you fired a few counter posts, and then brought up the issue of anonymity and exhibited some privilege blindness in doing so.

    Ummm … OK. I was … what, exactly? Wrong to reply? Wrong to offer what I hoped was a playful olive branch?

    Oh. I get it. You don’t like that I used the word “anonymous” as part of “sad, anonymous paranoid”.

    OK. I retract completely. I should not have labelled “SallyStrange” as “anonymous”

    That’s your benchmark for making the diagnosis of paranoia?

    Well … persecutory belief, (“Could a mod send up a troll alert?”), false accusations (“Trollin’ trollin’ trollin’”), assigning intentionality to accident (“Meta-trolling: trolltastically pretending to not understand what trolling is. Novel! I award troll points.”).

    But you’ve no objection to “sad”?

    Out of curiosity, how long have you been familiar with members of the Pharyngula community and the communication that goes on here? Did you take that length of time and familiarity into account when you did your differential, doctor?

    So let me get this clear.

    There’s a thread discussing a TV show. You make a single comment of an anti-clerical flavor with which we can all noddingly agree. Fair enough.

    Then there’s some argy-bargy down-thread where you re-direct something that’s off-topic to here. Also, fair enough.

    Then there’s more argy bargy lower, where I responded to someone contributing one, ignored post and then zip-nada-zilch except “troll!” spammage. Your interrogation here drips with contempt. And I ask you to please point out to me where I expressed the least curiosity about “what anyone else’s name is”. ( I did use the word ‘anonymous’.)

    How long have I been familiar? I remember reading PZ in talk.origins (I preferred kibo … but I was young). FtB is one of my regular blog-stops. I don’t agree with everything here … I’m a shade closer, for example, to Sam Harris’ position on a scientific framing of ethical questions and I’m happy to make common cause with conservative atheists on church/state separation even as I disagree with them on school funding.

    Let me flip the question around? When was the last time you got someone new in your community? Or am I being put through “the usual hazing”?

  133. Desert Son, OM says

    Paul Brown at #217:

    Ummm … OK. I was … what, exactly? Wrong to reply? Wrong to offer what I hoped was a playful olive branch?

    I don’t think you were wrong to reply. I think you mistepped when you went directly for “playful olive branch” rather than a simple request for information, request for clarification, straightforward explanation of motive, or straightforward apology. It’s presumptuous to assume flourishes you consider playful will read the same way to everyone, in particular the person to whom you direct the comment. And then, when neither your replies nor your “playful” olive branch garnered a response that let you know “Hey, all is o.k.,” you moved to “anonymous” and “paranoia,” failing to recognize your privilege in the way you held up “anonymous” as indicative of “paranoia.” I was hoping to draw your attention to that.

    Oh. I get it. You don’t like that I used the word “anonymous” as part of “sad, anonymous paranoid”.

    Close. I was hoping you would recognize the use of “anonymous” as insufficient to characterize “paranoia,” especially since you singled SallyStrange out when other anonymous handles didn’t elicit similar accusation.

    OK. I retract completely. I should not have labelled “SallyStrange” as “anonymous”

    I would encourage you to direct that to SallyStrange. Anonymity is commonplace, and a simple statement of anonymity wouldn’t have been anything remarkable. Pairing it specifically with “paranoia” is the kind of thing that requires better evidence.

    Well … persecutory belief, (“Could a mod send up a troll alert?”),

    Not sure how a request for a moderator to look into whether or not someone is trolling counts as persecutory belief. People request moderators to look into whether or not someone is trolling all the time. Do you think everyone who does so is paranoid?

    false accusations (“Trollin’ trollin’ trollin’”)

    And yet that’s not the only call of trolling you have received in the other thread, but that is the only call that prompted you to suggest paranoia and, now, to categorize as false accusation.

    assigning intentionality to accident (“Meta-trolling: trolltastically pretending to not understand what trolling is. Novel! I award troll points.”).

    It’s not clear to me what was accidental, but I also have no idea how anyone else feels about it. It struck me as yet another example of unnoticed privilege to proceed as though your playfulness or accident is readily understood to be exactly that.

    But you’ve no objection to “sad”?

    I don’t have an answer for you about this. I’m puzzling over whether this was mere insult, or also emerged out of unexamined privilege. I don’t know.

    Your interrogation here drips with contempt.

    I have been feeling that strongly. Your responses—the ones you consider “playful”—struck me similarly.

    And I ask you to please point out to me where I expressed the least curiosity about “what anyone else’s name is”. ( I did use the word ‘anonymous’.)

    You did not wonder after anyone’s name, and my post at #216 in this thread indicates that I asked what business it is you knowing anyone’s name. I was incorrect. That is my error, and I apologize.

    In my post at #185 in the Missing the point of Giordano Bruno thread, I asked:

    what business is it of yours whether a commenter—any commenter—chooses anonymity?

    which is a different question, a question related to your highlighting anonymity, not a question indicating that you asked for a name. I should have reread my post at #186 from the Bruno thread more carefully and transcribed it into my post at #216 in this thread more accurately.

    Let me flip the question around? When was the last time you got someone new in your community? Or am I being put through “the usual hazing”?

    I apologize again, as I was unclear once more. That error was mine. I wasn’t asking about your familiarity as a kind of gatekeeping, a la, “If you haven’t been a part of the community here long enough then you’re not in the cool club.” I was asking about your familiarity because I wondered if you had taken your knowledge of this community into account when you singled out a specific participant as exhibiting “paranoia.”

    My indignation and concern resulted from reading what appeared to be an accusation of paranoia that is not only unwarranted, but also feels like unexamined privilege. I desired to call your attention to the unexamined privilege in hopes that you might consider in the future, and I was attempting to challenge you on your evidence for leveling the label of paranoia.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  134. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    KC:

    1) I don’t believe all questions can be answered with respect to empirical evidence. There a great deal many philosophical questions that can’t , which is why empiricism/verificationism has universally failed as a philosophy.

    Which does not, in any way, shape or form, answer my actual question. I asked that you provide evidence that a god, any god, exists. Instead, you decide to attack what I did not ask. Nice.

    2) Morals haven’t changed. People’s awareness of objective morals has changed. And as I pointed out, some morals are pretty much almost universally perceived, like “it is wrong to kill babies for fun”.

    Did the people who put Bruno to death think they were acting morally? Did they think that they were acting in accordance with gods’ morality? Why do you assume that the morality of today is the absolute morality of gods, when it could have been the morality of the inquisition? Why not the morality expressed in Kings — some kids mock a bald man and he calls down bears to kill/maim 43 of them — rather than the morality of today? Morality changes as society changes. What we consider moral today (capital punishment, imprisonment for the use of recreational drugs, denial of human rights to members of the GLBTQ community, using drones to kill suspected terrorists, invading other countries) will, hopefully, in the future be immoral. It will change.

    Okay. Now it is your turn to take what I have written and springboard off of it into a whole new realm of arcania.

  135. chigau (違う) says

    If morals are external to us, did they exist before god created us?
    If so, isn’t that really fucking weird?

  136. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    KC, liar and bullshitter:

    which is why empiricism/verificationism has universally failed as a philosophy.

    Gee fuckwit, you are saying science, a subset of philosophy using epiricism/verification, is a failed philosophy? Look around you. It is spectacularly successful, the most important thing devised by philosophy and useful to humanity, unlike your theology, going in circles of mental masturbation, going nowhere and not helping humanity forward in any form whatsoever.

  137. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    This seems like as good a place as any to discuss the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous.

    None of us here are anonymous, as PZ is uninterested in dealing with that. Instead, we are all – with a few exceptions of people who sign themselves with their meatspace names – pseudonymous.

    Many of us – including myself, for the record – use the same pseudonym elsewhere on the internet. I am Esteleth here. I am Esteleth on Twitter. I am Esteleth a few other places, including when I comment on other non-FTB blogs. I am not, however, Esteleth on either DeviantArt or Tumblr (those are other people).

    What that means is that if you run into me on those places, you know who you’re dealing with as surely as if I signed my full meatspace name.

    Having a consistent pseudonym allows for people to get to know each other – people here know that I’m a twentysomething lesbian with a sarcastic streak and a love of speculative fiction. Because I’ve commented here long enough for them to figure that out.

    If I was anonymous, they’d know that the anonymous who posted comment #222 was whatever they said they were. There’d be no way of knowing if the same anonymous posted comment #221 – after all, maybe Nerd and I am the same person!

    So, in addition to your ridiculous assertion that “anonymous” and “paranoid” go together, you committed a category error in describing anyone here as anonymous.

  138. says

    Look around you. It is spectacularly successful, the most important thing devised by philosophy and useful to humanity

    My thought exactly. I grant I’m not a major philosophy buff, so it’s possible I’ve missed some subtle distinction, but it seems to me that empiricism is quite remarkably successful.

    Of course, empiricism can’t be used on questions that are inherently subjective, which may be why moral questions aren’t immediately resolved with reference to empirical evidence. Seems to me that KC is so attached to the idea of objective morality, that they have decided to just throw empiricism out the window, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

  139. says

    Assuming it’s not hard-wired into our brains (’cause that would be “instinct,” not “morality”), how is objective morality perceived? And what is the medium of transmission?

    It’s all very well to say that it’s “grounded in God,” but that, to use an analogy, merely tells us who the deejay is: it doesn’t tell us how the sounds get from her studio to our radio.

  140. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Seems to me that KC is so attached to the idea of objective morality, that they have decided to just throw empiricism out the window, rather than accept the obvious conclusion.

    Empiricism can have a place in developing morals/ethics. By looking at the consequences of various moral beliefs from various cultures, and how well they work at keeping the society together, versus the amount of freedom they give individuals. See what works and what doesn’t. But this consequentialist approach is an anathema to those, like KC, who want to impose what they see as “god given” morals, never mind that their holy books are not necessarily consistent, and often are self-refuting.

  141. Amphiox says

    1) I don’t believe all questions can be answered with respect to empirical evidence. There a great deal many philosophical questions that can’t

    If you cannot verify if an answer is actually correct or incorrect, you haven’t answered anything. When it comes to fact claims about the real world, empiricism/verification is the only method of thought that can do this. While there may be some things that it cannot answer, those questions cannot be answered by anything else either.

  142. Amphiox says

    Objective reality is the domain of empiricism.

    If morality is objective, it’s questions can be answered with empiricism/verification.

    If moral questions cannot be answered with empiricism/verification, then moral questions are not subjective.

    Thank you, KC, for once again admitting, obliquely albeitly, that you have already conceded the argument.

  143. Paul Brown says

    #218 Desert Son OM

    So we’ve arrived at some degree of mutual understanding.

    My response–“paranoia”–was the consequence of what I felt was a prolonged–5 spammed posts–and unjustified assault on my character and intentions–“troll!”. If that’s normal around here, then I amend. “Forgive me, Venerable Jorge. My remarks were truly out of place”

    #222 Esteleth

    Thanks for the explanation.

  144. says

    Paul Brown,

    One thing to understand is, this community has been around a long time. We have developed understandings of each other. Like any community with history, especially one that attracts trolls and douchecanoes of all kinds, we are a little suspicious of the motivations of newcomers. Our immune system may be a little aggressive, but it’s successfully maintained a cohesive community with a lively discourse.

    I do not believe you were trolling in the least. I felt you didn’t have a feel for the community, but nothing more. Your playfulness was completely tone-deaf — you wouldn’t be playful to a bear you stumble across in the woods, would you? (You might, of course. I don’t know you enough to predict.)

    I’m not going to presume to tell you how to act. I will offer a suggestion, though, and it’s the same suggestion Desert Son offered: be direct, clear, and respectful. And by respectful, I just mean, the same kind of respect you’d give to a competent peer.

    You probably won’t get reciprocal respect until you’ve proven yourself a competent peer. Also, there are going to be some folks you just rub the wrong way no matter what, and vice-versa. You learn to avoid engaging those folks. You seem an intelligent person. I suspect you’ll learn your way around, should you decide to stick around.

    And should you decide to stick around, I suspect you will learn to love this community as much as I do. This an intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded group (though the later aspect may be hard to discern through the tangle of our prickliness). They are willing to call bullshit when they see it. As long as you are prepared to have your ideas challenged, and called bullshit when someone perceives them as bullshit, you’ll do fine.

    Conversely, if you see someone talking bullshit, call them on it, like you did me last night. Now, I don’t think I was talking bullshit, and I think I was able to mount a rousing defense. And, I got the feeling from the exchange that you are willing to discuss your ideas, and even modify them based on logic and evidence. The major difficulty in the Bruno thread was that much of your argument was based on opinion and personal preference, where it’s harder to argue, harder to draw in concrete facts. Not that opinion isn’t important or relevant — it is. It’s just a difficult to defend an opinion, and emotions often interfere with clear, intelligent discourse. Also, it didn’t help that you initially presented your opinion as, “This is the way they should have done that sequence,” as a statement of empirical fact.

    In any case, I hope you stick around, take time to learn the culture and the individuals here, and figure out how to adapt your own personal style to our community.

    Just try not to piss off SallyStrange in the near future. You cannot win.

  145. Desert Son, OM says

    Esteleth at #222:

    Thank you. I apologize for confusing anonymity with pseudonymity in my own discussions.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  146. Paul Brown says

    #229 Avo, also nigelTheBold

    To the substance … I think you’re correct about the difficulty of the discussion on the COSMOS thread. I was trying to engage the show critically, examine it’s editorial/artistic decisions (why Bruno? why the calendar-metaphor-for-time not a walk-across-america-metaphor-for-time?), etc. There aren’t a lot of concrete facts to be analyzed here, but there are, as I was trying to describe, reasons to support an opinion that the show missed a trick by picking (the mystic) Bruno over other examples. The counter-argument is also quite reasonable: the alternatives might be better from a pedagogical perspective (a point also made in #32 by anuran and defended in #49) but they’re not as good as artistic choices.

    And the entire thread has by now tangled the “mebbe Bruno wasn’t the best choice for COSMOS” discussion with the “hey .. the RCC wasn’t that bad … look at these other guys” nonsense.

    Just try not to piss off SallyStrange in the near future. You cannot win.

    Apparently.

  147. says

    Paul Brown

    why Bruno?

    Because, as was explained endlessly countless times in the thread already, this episode was about FUCKING ASTRONOMY, and pulling in someone who was persecuted for things relating to a TOTALLY DIFFERENT FIELD would have broken with the theme of THIS PARTICULAR EPISODE, which is about FUCKING ASTRONOMY. Why do you seem to have such a hard fucking time grasping this, you nitwit?

  148. Desert Son, OM says

    Paul Brown at #228:

    So we’ve arrived at some degree of mutual understanding.

    I’m not so sure about that, so evidently we don’t have mutual understanding on the point of having arrived at mutual understanding.

    You pointed out errors in my post where I was inaccurate or insufficiently clear. I own those errors and apologize for them.

    I think I’ve been doing a poor job of illustrating and responding to the aspects of your posts I found problematic in the Bruno thread and here, but my concerns about the content of your posts remain undiminished.

    I think I am going to step away from posting in Thunderdome for a bit. I have some anxiety about it, and I don’t think I’m being very effective here. Esteleth at #222 already crafted a razor-sharp post in reply to some of what I found uncomfortable about your commentary in the Bruno thread. Avo at #229 had an insightful follow up as well, highlighting the importance and challenge of navigating community geography rather than just proceeding as if the communication map you have is the correct one and everyone else is lost, regardless of how long anyone has been a member of the community.

    Finally, PZ’s post at #195 in the Bruno thread really pinpoints much of my discomfort with your commentary, and I wish I had been more effective expressing that.

    Still learning,

    Robert

  149. ChasCPeterson says

    Sally Strange, you’re a fucking idiot. You can believe me or not, we’re way beyond that, but the truth of the matter is that my comment was obviously a reaction to the frankly bizarre sentiment expressed in the OP’s title. If I had wanted to comment in an “abortion thread” I probably would have said something about, you know, abortion.
    PZ thinks all atheists “ought to” think just like he does about politics. Silverman does not.
    But it’s totally uncool to tell anybody else what they “ought to” think about abortion.

    The funny thing is, I actually do think pretty much jexactly ust like PZ about politics. It’s one of the reasons I’m still here, long after there was much biology to talk about.
    It’s just that I hate bad arguments and sloppy reasoning, even, no especially if they lead to conclusions with which I agree.*
    Also, sometimes I try to put myself in other people’s shoes sometimes, like, say, Silverman, and actually understand why, from his perspective as head of an organization called ‘American Atheists’, might be willing to deal with people who don’t 100% share his politics.
    I apologize if that hurts your zero-grayscale brain.

    *example: the Amanda Marcotte piece linked in the OP where I am not to comment. Everybody’s praising it because it sez just what they already thought, only in actual sentences, but as a piece of reasoned argument it’s crap. (You’ll excuse me for passing on explaining why. Exercise for the reader.)

  150. ChasCPeterson says

    Rey Fox, oh yes, Silverman was in fact quoted as addressing several issues beyond just abortion. You weren’t paying attention?

    Anthony K; just fuck you, that’s all.

  151. says

    Calling Paul Brown a troll was a compliment of sorts. The mistakes he were making, and the half-assed arguments he was making, in the Bruno thread, seemed at odds with his language use and level of perception he showed. IOW, the arguments he was making and the misconceptions he claimed to hold were so elementary that I thought it was more credible that he was lying about what he believed just to see what sort of reaction he could provoke, for shits and giggles. I.e., trolling.

    My honest opinion is that he is still trolling, i.e., lying about his motivations just to fuck with people. For example: his assertion that his creepy remarks towards me were “playful flourishes.”

    But maybe he really is that challenged at basic reasoning. I don’t know for sure. I just know what seems more likely to me.

  152. ChasCPeterson says

    yes, I know, Sally. That’s what I meant by “we’re way beyond that”> You see? It’s totally mutual!

    And now that I’ve gone and found PZ’s request, I need to point out that the reason I hadn’t seen it previously is because I actually fucked off from the thread I said I would.
    And so: Fuck you, too, Louis. Sincerely.

  153. ChasCPeterson says

    …last thing, Sally, since I just now saw it on the other thread. I might tell you when I think you’re being a fucking idiot, but I will never, ever, yell at you to shut up. Certainly not on somebody else’s blog. Seriously: who the fuck do you think you are?

  154. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    It’s just that I hate bad arguments and sloppy reasoning, even, no especially if they lead to conclusions with which I agree.

    Chas, you wouldn’t know recognize correct reasoning if it bit you on the ass.

  155. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    re my 240, erm…pick your poison between ‘know’ and ‘recognize’ *ahem*

  156. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    (crossposted from “I’m not willing . . .” thread)

    chas @30:

    Then you could laugh at his total lack of slightly different values, as well as at religion, without feeling conflicted.

    He is actively supporting a group that is killing people. Killing them deliberately. Killing them for profit (and for prophet). I am not laughing.

    @33:

    My evidently extremely unpopular thing is to think for myself and venture to express some opinions where it looks to me like a valid point of view is being ignored or unjustly ridiculed.

    Right. I don’t think for myself. I guess I’m just one of the baboons of the hivemind echochamber.

  157. says

    Paul Brown:

    There aren’t a lot of concrete facts to be analyzed here, but there are, as I was trying to describe, reasons to support an opinion that the show missed a trick by picking (the mystic) Bruno over other examples.

    Unlike morality, I think reason is a matter of the time described. It’s a lot easier to excuse Bruno for mystic thinking when much science was being done by those practicing mystic subjects, like astrology and alchemy. In that regard, Bruno wasn’t nearly as different from the people who came after who made great discoveries. The difference was, he had a great insight, but no tools to investigate that insight. Mystic that he was, he might not have investigated anyway, but that’s neither here nor there, especially with regards to the artistic merit of his story in context of the beginning of modern astronomy.

    Mysticism may have led him to the conclusion that space was infinite (as he thought God was infinite). But it was solid extrapolation that allowed him to conclude that the stars in the sky were other suns. It may have been intuition, but hey, intuition led to the invention of the cloud chamber, so I’m not going to second-guess what was solid conscious reasoning and what was subconscious.

    The artistic merit is entirely on the producers of the show. And this is exactly where the divergence of opinion comes in. You’re attempting to argue pragmatism with a clear idea of your own goals, but without a clear idea of the scope or goals of the series. The show introduced what we know about the cosmos, in very broad strokes. But it also introduced how we began to know what we know, and placed that in the proper historical context: the beginning of the Age of Reason. They chose the most dramatic story from that time, one that is not as well-known as Galileo, and so might be more interesting to viewers.

    Telling us how you would’ve done it differently is one thing, and perfectly acceptable (even understandable). Telling us the Cosmos producers should have done it your way, and arguing about it ad nauseam, is another entirely. One is saying how, as an artist, you would do things differently. The other is telling someone else how to do art.

  158. Louis says

    And so: Fuck you, too, Louis. Sincerely.

    OH NO WHATEVER WILL I DO!? Someone on the internet I think is an utterly pointless pissant doesn’t like me? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! HELP! HELP! I’M BEING OPPRESSED!

    Bless your heart.

    My evidently extremely unpopular thing is to think for myself and venture to express some opinions where it looks to me like a valid point of view is being ignored or unjustly ridiculed.

    Awww lookit the substance free assertions from the closet bigot. How SWEET!

    What’s this valid anti-abortion point of view then, Chas? Care to articulate it? Come on Fucky the Miserable Clown, let the dog see the rabbit. Or are you too oppressed? Care to place a wager on the fact that it is just going to be yet another instance of an already disproven series of warmed over anti woman horseshit? Surprise me. Actually express this oh so VALID point of view that has been UNJUSTLY ridiculed.

    Bet you can’t manage it.

    Oh and before I fuck off into the night for a while to do something edifying, one little thing:

    Think for yourself? Really? So other people can’t come to conclusions different to yours and express them in a forum where other people have come to similar conclusions by thinking for themselves? Who fucking knew!? “Echo chamber” is the cry of the permanently fucking clueless when there is no evidence to support it nor reason to claim it other than personal pique. You’re not oppressed, your claims are shallow, transparent and wrong. Deal with it like a big boy.

    Have fun.

    Louis

  159. consciousness razor says

    actually, consciousness razor (and maybe some of the other commenters there) seems to hold to moral realism over here:

    True, but unless he was sockpuppetting, I don’t recall KC having been there to “talk in person”.

    Yes, we’re lurking among you. Look out! But I’ve been trying to avoid jumping into these discussions with theists (especially when WLC rears his ugly head) because it only seems to cause more confusion. “Realism” to me doesn’t mean anything like the nonsense Kroos Control is peddling. So it just doesn’t matter. And watching theists flail about like that is just painful.

    Ergo, it is still a SUBJECTIVE perception of morality.

    Reality doesn’t care much about our perceptions, does it? So is there any reality to talk about? Do humans actually suffer? Do they actually seek pleasure and avoid unwanted pain? What is the most likely explanation of that? One thing that needs explaining is that what we “value” derives from facts about the physical state of the world: namely, what happens in people’s minds when they experience pain, pleasure, freedom, slavery, etc. Those experiences can vary from person to person (some people enjoy certain forms of pain, for example), just as much as people can be wrong about what they most want or what they believe is right or true. Of course, they can also reason about it quite well and convince others to change their minds. But none of that is even remotely mysterious, and the same could be said of our relationship to the sciences: people are sometimes wrong or ignorant, there is sometimes progress (or regress), and stuff we see in the world certainly follows patterns, which isn’t to say it’s completely uniform everywhere no matter what you look at or how you look at it. It’s not hard at all to see those parallels, but nobody seems to think that means there’s some big problem with science. Yet people do continually toss up these inane talking points as if they mattered somehow when it comes to ethics.

    It in no way shape or form can be said to suggest that said perception is anything but human subjectivity, or that it would in any way be likely to represent any sort of universal or objective morality.

    I’d like to understand what you think that means. Is epistemology, for example, something that isn’t “universal or objective,” because in some sense it depends on the perceptions and minds of individuals? Perhaps what we can know isn’t objective, if somehow it still makes sense to talk about it being “knowledge.” But what would that tell us about the truth? If we can’t know things objectively, does that mean the truth isn’t objective, or that we don’t know the truth even while it remains objective (and unknown)? Or what it could possibly mean? Which level of this problem do we think we’re talking about?

    But, sure, there’s all sorts of subjectivity. Fine with me. However, I reject the very concept of a form of “subjectivity” which is (2) an actual thing in the world, yet (2) which is also somehow supposed to be isolated from science or rational thought, or without corresponding to something actual, observable thing in the world. If there’s such a correspondence, then there isn’t a difference between talking about these “subjective” features and the actual things to which they refer. To claim otherwise amounts to the same kind of contradictory crap that people have been saying about “consciousness” and the like (also “mental,” “spiritual”) for years and years. They routinely talk about it as if it’s somehow both real and not real at the same time. Because of some principle a person invented or because of a definition they just made up, with no evidence in sight. And that’s really all they’ve got to work with. Underneath the surface, the problem seems to be that some people very strongly resist the idea that there isn’t some special piece of “reality” that you get all to yourself, and that’s compounded by the fact that they really don’t like the idea that they might actually be immoral or that their views about morality might be wrong. Those are, unsurprisingly, much like the problems a lot of people have with epistemology. They want their own facts, or they don’t even want to be dealing with facts in the first place (just with reinforcing their own preexisting views).

  160. Gen, Uppity Ingrate and Ilk says

    *example: the Amanda Marcotte piece linked in the OP where I am not to comment. Everybody’s praising it because it sez just what they already thought, only in actual sentences, but as a piece of reasoned argument it’s crap. (You’ll excuse me for passing on explaining why. Exercise for the reader.)

    No, do go ahead and explain, because I think this is part of the core of what’s going on here.

    Chas, part of the problem of your obsession with “well thought out and reasoned” (according to Chaz TM) arguments is that it creates the impression that a good enough argument, you’ll happily throw lives (and I mean that literally, as in people killed) under the bus and insist that you’re being reasonable and logical about it.

  161. carlie says

    It’s just that I hate bad arguments and sloppy reasoning,

    But Chas, the thing is that you never explain what makes the arguments bad and the reasoning sloppy from your point of view, you just say they are so. Even when asked, you don’t explain what it is you dislike about it.

    but as a piece of reasoned argument it’s crap. (You’ll excuse me for passing on explaining why. Exercise for the reader.)

    And there’s an example, right there.

    and actually understand why, from his perspective as head of an organization called ‘American Atheists’, might be willing to deal with people who don’t 100% share his politics.

    There’s a difference between “don’t 100% share” and “completely oppose”. And then there’s a huge difference between “completely oppose” and “completely oppose in a way that legally removes my ability to be an autonomous human being. Me, personally, in real life, not in a hypothetical thought experiment world”.

  162. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Everybody’s praising it because it sez just what they already thought, only in actual sentences, but as a piece of reasoned argument it’s crap. (You’ll excuse me for passing on explaining why. Exercise for the reader.)

    This is what pisses people off. You’re constantly making pronouncements about the poor quality of other people’s reasoning but you never explain what’s wrong with it. That’s just piss poor argumentation. You have no right to expect to be taken seriously when your method of defending a position is to REFUSE TO FUCKING DEFEND IT.

  163. says

    <Chas

    (You’ll excuse me for passing on explaining why. Exercise for the reader.)

    No, asshole, we won’t. This is exactly the same threadshitting that got PZ to tell you to stay out of the abortion threads in the first fucking place. You blather on about groupthink and PC and how we’re supposedly ignoring oh so logical and valid arguments for opposing views, but you never state what they are or why you think they’re valid. So fuck you again, you threadshitting troll.

  164. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    . . . why, from his perspective as head of an organization called ‘American Atheists’, might be willing to deal with people who don’t 100% share his politics

    Chas, you do realize, of course, that a large segment of the GOP/CPAC crowd, including many of their leaders, have stated publicly that atheists cannot be Americans, or should leave the country? That is not a political disagreement. That is denying my right to live in the USA.

  165. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    Chas’ issue, as near as I can tell, is that he doesn’t get that some arguments are not purely for the sake of argument and that there are in fact people whose very lives depend on arguments ending in a specific manner.

    Doesn’t get, or doesn’t care. I’m not sure which.

    I don’t care much which it is. I just wish he’d stop acting like the rights of everyone who isn’t a cishet white man with money and status are bargaining chips and that their ability to live decent lives isn’t a thing up for debate.

  166. ChasCPeterson says

    you guys want to play? I’ll play for a little while.

    Chas, you wouldn’t know recognize correct reasoning if it bit you on the ass.

    content-free

    He is actively supporting a group that is killing people.

    He’s actively supporting them? We have different definitions of active support.
    And again, I share your political viewpoint. Especially the killing people part. But it has zip to do with [dictionary] atheism. Is the point.

    I don’t think for myself.

    Did I say that?
    I did not. Please spare me the sad-sack misattributions.

    you do realize, of course, that a large segment of the GOP/CPAC crowd, including many of their leaders, have stated publicly that atheists cannot be Americans, or should leave the country?

    The “crowd”? I’m going to just guess that those members are not the ones with whom Silverman was trying to make contact.

    What’s this valid anti-abortion point of view then, Chas? Care to articulate it?

    I have tried. It’s in the threads.
    tip, asshole: “valid” does not mean “must be agreed with”. As I have tried to articulate–in those threads–the whole issue hinges on ethical opinion. The whole point of of ethical opinion is that there can be no one right–or uniquely “valid”–viewpoint.

    So other people can’t come to conclusions different to yours and express them in a forum where other people have come to similar conclusions by thinking for themselves?

    What…the…fuck.
    Who the hell ever said anything like that? You’re just making shit up now, man.
    But go ahead, back up the stupid sarcasm truck and dump it yet again. Be sure to put your name at the bottom. And have a nice day.

    it creates the impression that a good enough argument, you’ll happily throw lives (and I mean that literally, as in people killed) under the bus and insist that you’re being reasonable and logical about it.

    Well, that is an incorrect impression. As I’m pretty sure I’ve said, explicitly, several times now. “100% pro-choice” I think is what I keep sincerely averring.
    Lots of people insist on having a different argument; I blame poor reading comprehension and crappy thinking. I do.

    You blather on about groupthink and PC

    actually, dude, I don’t. Really. I never do. You’re making shit up too.

    No, asshole, we won’t [excuse me for passing on explaining why]

    I am so tempted to just say “tell it to the judge“.
    But here: speaking of Dr. Dr. Dr. Pigliucci, with whom I often disagree btw, read his reply to PZ and Greta Christina.
    It serves to address my problems with Marcotte as well.
    Briefly, and incompletely (sorry, done playing), she equivocates being “against abortion” (what Silverman said) with being “anti-choice”, and argues against the straw man instead of the actual issue, and she attributes to her political opponents incorrect, unfair, and in some cases ludicrous intentions instead of taking them at their (in at least some cases, the valid ones) sincere word. Read Pigliucci.

  167. ChasCPeterson says

    Esteleth, please talk to me instead of about me. I am still permitted to comment here. Thanks for that courtesy.

    I just wish he’d stop acting like the rights of everyone who isn’t a cishet white man with money and status are bargaining chips and that their ability to live decent lives isn’t a thing up for debate.

    you are making shit up.

  168. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    My evidently extremely unpopular thing is to think for myself

    Chas, if you think you are unpopular because you think for yourself, the clear implication is that the rest of us don’t think for ourselves. Which, again, is why nobody takes you seriously. You either don’t understand the implications of your own words or you think we’re too stupid to scroll up a few posts and see you saying exactly what you claim not to have said.

  169. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Everybody’s praising it because it sez just what they already thought, only in actual sentences,

    Here’s another example of you implying people don’t think for themselves. The fact that you avoid using certain specific phrasings does not mean you’re not expressing the concept.

  170. Kroos Control says

    Looks like the argument died with that thread. Which is fine , because people were repeating some of the objections I had previously addressed and not bothering to tackle my arguments. I think when you get at the point where your opponent says something can come from nothing the debate is probably over. He can just say any piece of evidence that contradicts his views popped into existence from nothing and he doesn’t need to explain anything.
    \

    @Daz
    I think this is wrong-headed. I don’t necessarily know how humans perceive objective morality. But do you need to know exactly how the mchanisms on a bus work to ride it? You can acknowledge you recognize something without knowing the mechanism by which it works.
    You believe in logic and maths right? If a person says something self-contradictory , they are objectively wrong. If a person says 1+1=3 ,, they are objectively wrong.
    I’d say we have innate knowledge of certain of objective truths.

    @others
    IDK why anyone would want to hold to an outdated and self-refuting philosophy like empiricism.. Maybe pick up an introductory book on epistemology and see what a good epistemology needs and why empiricism/verificationism have failed.

  171. carlie says

    So other people can’t come to conclusions different to yours and express them in a forum where other people have come to similar conclusions by thinking for themselves?

    What…the…fuck.
    Who the hell ever said anything like that? You’re just making shit up now, man.

    Chas, what do you think ” unquestioned adherence to Correct Doctrine” is, as you said here, if not claiming that people aren’t coming to their conclusions by thinking for themselves?

  172. vaiyt says

    At this point, it comes down to which card in the Troll Bingo Chas hasn’t filled yet. What’s next? It’s all a social experiment? Claiming you win by getting a rise out of others? Begging to be banned?

  173. vaiyt says

    As I’m pretty sure I’ve said, explicitly, several times now. “100% pro-choice” I think is what I keep sincerely averring.

    If you think there are valid arguments on the anti-choice camp, that means you’re necessarily NOT “100% pro-choice”, you asshat.

  174. Amphiox says

    re #245;

    My post was primarily aimed at the troll, and therefore uses the same limited absolutist authoritarian definition of the terms in question as the troll does. When it comes to the far more nuanced and rational arguments that use far more sophisticated definition of those terms that you and others sometimes debate about, I’m much more interested in just observing the action.

    You may or may not have been in that thread, but my description in that post actually closely resembles arguments mades by Sastra in that thread in which she called it a version of “objective” morality. I happen to prefer not calling that objective, but substantively there isn’t much difference in detail between what I described and what she described.

    Reality doesn’t care much about our perceptions, does it? So is there any reality to talk about?

    I do not believe humans are capable of perceiving reality in the absolute sense, whether we are talking morals or anything else. We are imperfect evolved creatures, and our perceptions of reality have evolved to be as reliable as it was necessary for survival within the limited range of environments in which we have lived, and to devote no further unnecessary resources to be more reliable than that. And no matter how sophisticated we make our instruments to extend our senses, we must still inevitably come up to the barrier that are the evolved limitations of our own brains and minds.

    What we can do is empirically determine whether our perceptions of reality are practically useful in achieving tasks and goals that rely upon an accurate understanding of reality. We can ascertain if our perceptions are accurate enough for those tasks and goals, or not. We can therefore set a threshold for “close enough” reliability for practical utility. And if a perception exceeds this “close enough” threshold, then for practical purposes we should act as if it were true.

    But I will always strive to keep in mind with humility that it is possible my perception could be wrong, that the thing I choose to act as if it were true may turn out not to be true, and I will be prepared to change my choices and my behavior accordingly, in that event.

    In the moral arena, history has already seen far too much of people insisting with arrogant confidence that what they have chosen to believe is certain to be absolutely true.

    If someone wishes to make an argument that beyond a certain point of “close enough” we may as well call it an “objective” perception or result, I don’t actually have a problem with that. It’s just terminology, which is arbitrarily invented by humans anyways.

  175. says

    Kroos #257
    You’re wrong. Some unnamed book demonstrates how you’re wrong. I’m not going to tell you what book it is, but if you don’t find it, that just proves I’m right. If you quote any other book than the one I have in mind, I’m going to dismiss whatever you say with the argument that you’re quoting from the wrong book.

    Are you convinced now? Why not? It’s your own argument repeated back to you.

  176. says

    Chas’ dishonesty is the thing that sticks out the most at this point. After multiple references to political correctness correct progressiveness and other similar phrases and stating several times that the only reason people don’t like him is because he thinks for himself (unlike everyone else or else they’d appreciate his wanking, right?), he has the gall to claim that he’s never claimed that he’s the only not succumbing to groupthink around here.

  177. Rey Fox says

    So Chas, care to share any words about what you actually DID supposedly say?

    (sorry, done playing)

    No, I guess you’d rather be smarmy and evasive.

    she equivocates being “against abortion” (what Silverman said) with being “anti-choice”

    In the real world, being “against abortion” might as well be “against choice”, because the people who are “against abortion” rarely ever really stick up for the right to choice, and they sure as hell haven’t stemmed the slow and constant rollback of reproductive rights. As a practical matter, they’re worthless, possibly worse than worthless.

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    KC, fuckwitted idjit:

    youtube

    Afraid to speak for yourself, since you are totally and utterly refuted?
    (I never click on supplied links since a godbot sent some of folks to a malware site, and I have no doubts on your lack of honesty and itegrity)

  179. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Chas @253:

    He is actively supporting a group that is killing people.

    He self-identifies as a conservative. Which, I have to assume, means that he supports conservative political ideals. Do I need to go on?

    Did I say that?
    I did not. Please spare me the sad-sack misattributions.

    You are correct. I have no idea if you said that I don’t think. You did, however, write,

    My evidently extremely unpopular thing is to think for myself

    You think for yourself. Which means that the rest of us, since we disagree with you, do not.
    And the ‘sadsack’ crack? Knock of the ablist insults. Yes, I am depressed. Yes, I have serious issues. Yes, I have failed at being human. That does not make me a ‘sadsack’. Shove that.

    The “crowd”? I’m going to just guess that those members are not the ones with whom Silverman was trying to make contact.

    He self-identifies as a conservative. Which, I presume, means that he supports the political ideals of conservatives. And, by extension, CPAC. Conservative policies kill people. And he supports that.

  180. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Kroos Control:

    Please provide actual evidence that a god, any god, doesn’t even have to be the Abrahamic ones.

  181. says

    Briefly, and incompletely (sorry, done playing), she equivocates being “against abortion” (what Silverman said) with being “anti-choice”

    It seems to me that unless “against abortion” is taken simply to mean that the person would personally refrain from having one (a position quite irrelevant to anyone else and therefore equivalent to saying you prefer strawberry ice cream over chocolate), it must necessarily imply some degree of anti-choice (i.e. that the woman should not be allowed a free choice in the matter).

  182. says

    Ogvorbis:
    But dontchaknow that asking for evidence is biased towards empiricism, which Kroos has definitively shown is outdated, by reference to… some books… somewhere… written by… someone.

    So clearly, you’re wrong.

  183. says

    It seems to me that unless “against abortion” is taken simply to mean that the person would personally refrain from having one (a position quite irrelevant to anyone else and therefore equivalent to saying you prefer strawberry ice cream over chocolate), it must necessarily imply some degree of anti-choice (i.e. that the woman should not be allowed a free choice in the matter).

    At this point, it’s been ~3 years since the renewed assault on women’s reproductive rights began in earnest, and I have no patience with EITHER actual anti-choicers, OR with wankers who want to pontificate about when it’s “immoral” to get an abortion (code for when it’s okay to shame a woman for getting an abortion, since they’re almost always male). If you’re pro-choice, then you need to be writing letters to the editor of your local paper, calling your representatives, donating to Planned Parenthood or a similar pro-choice cause, and/or volunteering as a clinic escort. If you can’t manage any of that, then you need to shut the fuck up about your philosophizin’ ideas about the ethics of abortion. Anything else IS supporting the Forced Birth Brigade whether you want it to or not.

  184. Louis says

    Chas old son, you neither read nor think so good do you?

    Oh and just for you, I’ll put my name at the bottom twice. ENJOY! Why on earth you would think that a criticism is beyond me. Your complaint is on the level of “your hat is rubbish”. Trenchant stuff. I’ll take note. Although I did kinda get beyond worrying about such things in infant school. But hey, thanks for sharing. {Wink and gun}

    Others have explained the obvious (and pathetically denied*) implications of your words well but I saw a particularly egregious example of what you’re doing tonight on the telly. I saw (watched is too strong, I was doing some work) Top Gear (yes I know**) with Jeremy Clarkson*** and they’d built a bridge over some river in Thailand. When the bridge was complete they were admiring their handiwork and commented that there was one small problem. There was, and I quote “a slope on it”. In shot, a Thai man walking along the bridge towards them. They then said “yes, it’s a bit higher on that side” or words to that effect. Now, I am probably not alone in noticing that comment, or the use of a racial slur as deliberate double entendre, so there will likely be complaints. Who’s willing to bet that the Top Gear presenters plead political correctness gone mad, claim people are looking for offence, opt for plausible deniability and generally notpologise like fuck if/when confronted?

    You’re doing the exact same thing. You’re a transparent fuckwit who cannot cope with the idea that a) he’s wrong, and b) people about him are not as dim as he likes to think and in fact, in many cases, are a fuck sight more intelligent. Lots of people commenting here, Chas, see straight through you. Hand waving and pretending outrage doesn’t hide the fact that you’ve got caught with your pants round your ankles on this one. Why not admit it and move on? Ego too fragile to admit error?

    All you had to do was outline this much vaunted VALID point of view, this VALID anti woman argument that has been UNJUSTLY ridiculed. Emphasised words very much yours by the way. But you can’t can you? All hat and no cattle. All mouth and no trousers. So what do you do? You pretend your words don’t have the meanings and implications they do and you blame everyone else. Well done. What a prize pissant you truly are. Pathetic.

    Oh, incidentally, and this may shock you because you are a resounding muppet, I could not give less of a shit who David Silverman courts as prospective atheists for his clubhouse. I think the CPAC thing was pretty subversive and could have played well, if he hadn’t made such a terrible own goal over the abortion comments. There’s a lot to be said for being intelligently nice to people that hate you. Undermines them amusingly. Dear FSM, am I dangerously disagreeing with the PC brigade at Pharyngula? Or is it possible, juuuust possible, that they don’t exist?

    Something to think about, Chassy-Wassy.

    Louis Louis (Oh baby…etc…okay that is the one time I am allowed to do that. Never again. I think over a decade and a half of pissing about on the Internet is enough time to be permitted that joke once. At least I think it’s once…maybe the joke was there ALLLLLLL THE TIME. Who knows? Who cares? Who is the masked man? Okay now I am simply amusing myself…maybe that’s all I do…ZOMG…this is so meta…what the hell was in that rum?)

    * “your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.” Finding the source of the quote is left as an exercise for the reader. Pompous wanker.

    ** ZOMG unapproved media! I’m such a rebellious freethinker that thinks for himself. Not for me the group think of Pharyngula. Not for me the “correctly progressive” views of the Hivemind. I dare to watch shitty over budgeted-because they’re-profitable car shows with the middle aged quasi bigots just because I’m dangerous that way. I even laugh at some of the antics. Unironically. This means I hate women, gays and foreigners. No, really. All of them. Especially Americans. Because Top Gear.

    *** There is, to my knowledge, one redeeming feature to Jeremy Clarkson. He punched Piers Morgan. Whilst I attempt (and fail) to be a pacifist intellectually and in practise, Piers Morgan tries my willpower. The man is the most egregious excrescence.

  185. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    While I don’t want to dogpile Chas, there are some considerations that need to be addressed.
    The concept of dissent for example. How one argues is actually the most important thing here. We have dissent by the ‘pitters, which involves invective, snide remarks, mischaracterizations, and other bullshit, but doesn’t ever seem to involve simple statements like “this is what I believe, and this [link] backs me up”.
    We have dissent by the passive-aggressive, where “you are ignoring something important”, but what is important is never stated, nor elaborated on.
    Then we have dissent by those with well defined concepts, provide links to evidence, and try to provide good arguments other than their word to back up those concepts. Guess which gets the best treatment.
    I will also add, that with certain topics, like abortion, where the opposition (dissent) has no intent of listening or modifying their stance, and will say or do anything to get us to move, I see no legitimate reason for the horde not to the same. The nature of the arguments back and forth won’t be nuanced discussion, as it can’t be. Any attempt at nuance is seen as a concession to the forces of absolutism. So slogans are exchanged, and it simply can’t be any other way. Unfortunately, some folks see this as not showing proper respect for a more nuanced and Vulcan like response.

  186. Louis says

    Nerd,

    Why not dogpile Chas? He is very happy to do his part when he thinks things are going his way. Give the fucker a taste of his own medicine sayeth I.

    Louis

  187. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    As far as KC morals arguments (sic) go, there are several methods out there for quality control and continuous improvement, like cGMP manufacturing, and six-sigma manufacturing.
    A key to both concepts, it constantly check your SOPs, processes, and administrative practices to see if they are doing what you want them to do. I work at a cGMP facility, so all SOPs are reviewed every two years. All manufacturing processes are reviewed every five years. Same for all analytical methodology. Our CAPA system checks to see if problems are resolved before they become chronic.
    So KC, why isn’t your “objective morals” subject to the same quality control scrutiny with time? After all, if in 500 BCE, girls got married at 14 with their ownership changing from the father to the husband, became fertile at 16, and stood a large chance of dying in childbirth by 30. This logically leads to certain standards. But does those same standard apply when the girls become fertile at 14, have sex by 18, and don’t get married until 26, and no male owns them? Nope, the whole concept of morality over this topic needs a serious revision. This is your problem with your objective morals you need to address. We don’t have to address the revisions as circumstances change, you have to show your biblical morality is still applicable including all presuppositions going into the morality *snicker*.
    Keep in mind, your deity is imaginary, and your holy book is mythology fiction, as you haven’t/can’t show otherwise with solid and conclusive physical evidence.

  188. says

    KC:

    IDK why anyone would want to hold to an outdated and self-refuting philosophy like empiricism.. Maybe pick up an introductory book on epistemology and see what a good epistemology needs and why empiricism/verificationism have failed.

    Because empiricism has proven effective? Seems like a good enough reason for me.

    Philosophy is good and all, but really, it’s only as good as long as it sheds light on, y’know, reality. Any basic, modern introduction to epistemology should explain that.

    Now, if you’d like to explain exactly how empiricism have failed (which, near as I can tell, is the exact opposite of reality), feel free. If you have an epistemology that has demonstrated itself more effective at discovering knowledge, please enlighten us.

    I do have to warn you, if it involves revealed knowledge in any way, I’m going to laugh my ass off, and taunt you mercilessly.

  189. Louis says

    Also, I think I said what I think about Vulcan Discussions here.

    I also noted a curious thing, Chas said he found the underpants on head simile offensive. Hmmm offensive. There’s more than one way to take that comment. PCINO (pronounced “Pacino”). Pro choice in name only. Perhaps. After all he seems to be putting a lot of effort into telling people that VALID anti woman arguments exist and are being UNJUSTLY ridiculed.

    No no. That is a very uncharitable thought. Naughty naughty Louis. How dare you think someone’s claimed views when contradicted by their actions is a source of dissonance. It’s clearly all about the flaws in the pro-choice arguments, flaws yet to be explained if memory serves (it doesn’t always), and the careful, logical, reasoned, evidence based, ethical (or VALID for short) arguments of the anti-woman lobby. Have we seen those arguments either yet?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

    Gosh, isn’t being unrelentingly unpleasant to someone for little reason fun? I can see why Chas does it.

    Louis

  190. Louis says

    Rey Fox,

    Louis is pronounced “Looee”. Ask the French.

    It’s a bit of a toss up here in the UK. I’ve met a few Looisses (PITY THEM) with the Louis spelling. I’m a Looee. Which is Correct and Right and Proper. Other people are wrong. Because I say so.

    Louis

  191. Amphiox says

    IDK why anyone would want to hold to an outdated and self-refuting philosophy like empiricism..

    There are lots of things KC does not know.

    But that doesn’t actually tell us anything informative about empiricism one way or another.

    It only tells us that KC is a fool.

  192. carlie says

    The first is a Lou-eee, the second is a Lou-eye.
    Then you have to go “UNH! Yeah yeah yeah yeah…”

  193. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Other people are wrong. Because I say so.

    Louis

    ROFLOL.

  194. says

    SallyStrange:

    I have no patience with EITHER actual anti-choicers, OR with wankers who want to pontificate about when it’s “immoral” to get an abortion (code for when it’s okay to shame a woman for getting an abortion, since they’re almost always male).

    OR those who insist that yes, there are such ethical deepities when it comes to abortion, that every single woman that ever had one (or will have one) must be deep in the throes of angst-ridden drama over making the decision to terminate. Because every single woman ever really truly wants to be mommy, y’know.

  195. nich says

    Louis@279:

    Louis is pronounced “Looee”. Ask the French.

    What’re you on ’bout? Any good Kaintuckian can tell ya that Louis is rightly pronunciated “Luh” as in the great city of Luh-ville, Kaintucky! And if you even try tellin’ me that Versailles rhymes with lie, we’re goin’ tuh war! Versailles rhymes with bells and that’s the way we likes it!

  196. Louis says

    Nerd, #282,

    Don’t laugh, it’s true. My mummy told me so. She said it’s because I’m special.

    Louis

  197. Louis says

    I like the angst argument about abortion. It means I should be really ashamed of myself after a proper good wank. Granted I shouldn’t be doing that in meetings at work, but really, those people were just being over sensitive.

    Mind you now I think of it, shouting “bang and the dirt is gone!” at my happy moment was probably going too far.

    A bit.

    Still, the CEO’s tie has a much more interesting pattern on it. Did I get any thanks? Did I hell. No gratitude some people. If I was an internationally renowned artist that tie would be worth a lot of money. Philistines.

    Louis

  198. Jacob Schmidt says

    Maybe pick up an introductory book on epistemology and see what a good epistemology needs and why empiricism/verificationism have failed.

    Says the twit using a series of machines built entirely with empirical knowledge.

  199. vaiyt says

    IDK why anyone would want to hold to an outdated and self-refuting philosophy like empiricism..

    Throw your computer out of the window and try having this conversation via praying to god and asking him to deliver your message to us.

  200. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Says the twit using a series of machines built entirely with empirical knowledge.

    OOh, and don’t forget the drugs/medicine relying on empirical knowledge, since there is no mention of even penicillin mold, sulfanilamides or even blood pressure drugs in your mythical/fictional babble.

  201. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    Re: “Louis”

    I’ve always heard that “Louis” is pronounced à la Française (i.e. Looee), while it’s cognate “Lewis” is pronounced “Loo-iss.”

  202. Amphiox says

    If there is a book about epistemology that dismisses empiricism, then it is that book that I would throw away. If epistemology itself contradicted empiricism, and I had to choose between them, I would pick empiricism every time. Give me a proven method that delivers real world results over some abstract philosophy about knowing stuff.

    One needs to have a good meal to eat first before one can worry about knowing if it is a chicken or an egg.

  203. screechymonkey says

    I wonder what it’s like to be around these “philosophy geek”/Devil’s Advocate dudebros who really really want you to know about all these arguments they don’t really believe in.

    “What do you want to eat for dinner? I’m up for anything but Chinese food; I had that for lunch.”
    “Well, you know, there are many good arguments for having Chinese food again for dinner. Chinese cuisine is very broad and encompasses many ingredients and flavors, so you could have something completely unlike what you had for lunch. And really, there’s no logical problem with having the same or similar meals twice in one day….”
    (sigh) “Ok, fine, if you really want, let’s get Chinese.”
    “Oh! I don’t want to have Chinese food. I just wanted to share those arguments with you.”
    “Ah. Well, right about now, I want to share my fist with your face.”

  204. anteprepro says

    Kroos:

    Looks like the argument died with that thread. Which is fine , because people were repeating some of the objections I had previously addressed and not bothering to tackle my arguments.

    *twitch*

    I think when you get at the point where your opponent says something can come from nothing the debate is probably over.

    Way to keep an open mind, dipshit. I’m pretty sure that if we said “when your opponent say everything comes from supernatural magicks the debate is probably over” you would start a rambling screed about biases and assumptions or what not. In fact, I’m pretty sure you did issue some such arguments in defense of Craig’s Bilge.

    He can just say any piece of evidence that contradicts his views popped into existence from nothing and he doesn’t need to explain anything.

    When did that happen. What evidence contradicts our views. Every single piece of evidence that you presented (very little, aside from blustery pseudo-logic) didn’t actually contradict our views unless you were using Craig’s spin on it. In fact, once you look at what the current scientists ACTUALLY SAY about the evidence you presented, in the present day, they all contradict you and Craig! A fact that you and Craig never acknowledge! Because you are both snake oil salesmen!

    I think this is wrong-headed. I don’t necessarily know how humans perceive objective morality. But do you need to know exactly how the mchanisms on a bus work to ride it?

    Oh my fucking God. You have already had it brought to your attention that people DO NOT RELIABLY PERCEIVE your supposed objective morality. Yes, we need to know the mechanism in order to confirm that it actually is objective! Or that they are actually “perceiving” something! Or any of the shit that you claim to be the case without any fucking evidence or logic to support you! Fucking wankstain.

    .
    You believe in logic and maths right? If a person says something self-contradictory , they are objectively wrong.

    I knew this would happen. And it is a superb Own Goal.

    You know how we figure out logic and maths work? METHODS. We know the mechanisms. The very thing you keep claiming is irrelevant. You know what the shittiest possible way to do math and logic is? Just claiming that you “perceive” things. You do not “perceive” mathematic or logical truths: You determine them. Calculate them. You can show your work and obtain them. You do not just go out and “directly perceive” them. Like you claim you are doing with “objective morality”.

    IDK why anyone would want to hold to an outdated and self-refuting philosophy like empiricism

    I don’t know how you can manage to still be such an incredible fucking hypocrite. I hope some day you grow some self-awareness and finally feel the well-deserved shame you have earned for the bullshit you’ve spewed, at length and in excess. I have a similar wish for Chas as well.

  205. says

    Regarding Louis:

    Other people are wrong. Because I say so.

    I once called Louis “Lewis” to his face. I barely survived the mocking!

    Regarding Chas:
    I can’t even get angry at him anymore. This “I’m more rationaler than you!” bullshit has been going on for AT LEAST the 5 years I’ve been commenting, but it does seem to be getting worse as time goes on. A couple things:

    1) Being emotional about a subject does not mean that someone is being irrational. Being pissed off that Silverman specifically courted the anti-choicers* is an extremely rational reaction. Anti-choice conservatives wield a god awful amount of power and have not hesitated in taking our rights away.

    2) I’ve yet to hear any (religious or secular) ant-choice argument that doesn’t boil down to BABIES ARE MAGIC. There’s no other time in my life that I’m compelled to use my body to support another (including my one-and-a-half year old), so what makes a fetus so damned special?

    *I refuse to use the term “pro-life”. If anti-choicers were actually “pro-life”, my life would matter to them. It doesn’t.

  206. anteprepro says

    I refuse to use the term “pro-life”. If anti-choicers were actually “pro-life”, my life would matter to them. It doesn’t.

    It also doesn’t help that “pro-lifers” are often wingnuts who don’t give a shit about the livelihoods of poor people, don’t give a shit about lives of furriners, don’t give a shit about the lives of Criminals, don’t give a shit about the lives taken by Absolute Gun Freedomz, and don’t give a shit about preventing unwanted pregnancies. All on top of not giving a shit about women in any way, shape, or form. The term “Pro-life” is like something straight from fucking Orwell.

  207. A. Noyd says

    Inaji (#283)

    OR those who insist that yes, there are such ethical deepities when it comes to abortion, that every single woman that ever had one (or will have one) must be deep in the throes of angst-ridden drama over making the decision to terminate.

    The more I think about it, the more it strikes me as a failure on the part of the angst-pushers to examine the deeper values of how and why we value human life. Seems a lot of atheists are still reading from the script Abrahamic religions set us up with, only with explicit reference to god whited out. Without souls, what is so damn precious about unwanted embryos/fetuses? Without women’s bodies being created according to a plan, why should we say abortion goes against what is meant to be? Without a holy patriarchy to preserve, why not get rid of the idea of the male body as the standard by which human rights are formulated and the female body as a deviation in need of special consideration? Without Eve having brought about the fall, why do we still consider women untrustworthy by nature and in need of oversight?

    The angst-pushers want to pretend they’re asking hard questions, but they don’t notice how they’ve failed to question the foundation of their wankery and how much their framing depends on a whited-out god.

  208. Howard Bannister says

    Re: Louis, and pronunciations thereof

    I live in a state within America that draws its name from the French. Many place-names are French.

    This is the state where you come to mispronounce the French.

    Any Louis you meet from here will pronounce it Lewis.

    Calais? “Kahl-as.”

    Worcester? Leicester? “Woostah.” “Listah.”

    Many languages DIED in this place to bring you these pronunciations.

    That was a little Lounge-y. Hmm. Must sling fire.

    LykeX@270

    Ogvorbis:
    But dontchaknow that asking for evidence is biased towards empiricism, which Kroos has definitively shown is outdated, by reference to… some books… somewhere… written by… someone.

    So clearly, you’re wrong.

    It’s a self-proving pattern, you see. If he provides reference and evidence, that’s empiricism. So he has to prove that the evidence is out there… with epistemology.

  209. screechymonkey says

    I think there’s a very good argument that Louis is pronounced mekka-lekka-p’tang-p’tang-olay-biscuit-barrell. I’m not saying I agree with, just that it’s a very good argument that independent thinkers like me can really appreciate. But I’m not going to go into it here because the sheeple in this echo chamber can’t handle it.

  210. Howard Bannister says

    Dammit, blockquote fail. That was supposed to blockout the bit that I was quoting from 270…

    Well. You can probably get the gist of it. (only the last graph is my own attempt at humor, and not LykeX, who did it better, anyway.)

  211. chigau (違う) says

    screechymonkey #307
    I am having a hard time arguing against that.
    .
    .
    always hafta check in that one last time….

  212. anteprepro says

    Inaji’s link is fine. It goes to the comment where SallyStrange discusses and links to an article by Secular Woman about The Friendly Atheist.

  213. kittehserf says

    Delurking to applaud Seize’s comment #134. I roll my eyes so hard at the notion that pessimism/dismal/nihilist must be right and anyone not subscribing to those feelings is living in some sort of la-la land.

  214. says

    Kroos Control #257

    Assuming it’s not hard-wired into our brains (’cause that would be “instinct,” not “morality”), how is objective morality perceived? And what is the medium of transmission?

    It’s all very well to say that it’s “grounded in God,” but that, to use an analogy, merely tells us who the deejay is: it doesn’t tell us how the sounds get from her studio to our radio.

    @Daz
    I think this is wrong-headed. I don’t necessarily know how humans perceive objective morality. But do you need to know exactly how the mchanisms on a bus work to ride it? You can acknowledge you recognize something without knowing the mechanism by which it works.
    You believe in logic and maths right? If a person says something self-contradictory , they are objectively wrong.

    For starters, yes, I do know how a diesel engine works, thanks. And even if I didn’t, I know that it’s possible to find out.

    If a person says 1+1=3 ,, they are objectively wrong.

    What is this, Kindergarten?

    Provided we have a mutually-agreed understanding of what we mean by 1, 2, 3, 4, etc…
    Take an apple and add another apple. Call this group A.
    Take an apple, add another apple and add another apple. Call this group B.
    Compare the two groups.
    You can then say that if a person says 1+1=3, they can be shown empirically to be wrong.

    I’d say we have innate knowledge of certain of objective truths.

    I don’t care what “you’d say.” That’s just a guess. Show how it can be tested. (And show me how “innate” isn’t merely a synonym for “instinctual.”)

  215. anteprepro says

    Ah. Yeah, I run into similar problems sometimes. I’m glad I haven’t ditched my ol’ computer. As convenient as my cell phone is, it fucking SUCKS at interwebbing. Especially on this site, for some reason.

  216. Amphiox says

    I think this is wrong-headed. I don’t necessarily know how humans perceive objective morality. But do you need to know exactly how the mchanisms on a bus work to ride it?

    “Riding the bus” would be equivalent to saying “humans can perceive morality”.

    Claiming that “humans can perceive OBJECTIVE morality” is equivalent to insisting the bus is pulled by trolls.

    If you do not know how humans perceive it, then you cannot claim it is “objective”.

    Thanks for conceding the argument get again, you poor fool.

  217. minusRusty says

    Hmmm.. Lots of interesting comments, NONE of follow-up even to my slightly more in-depth one here.

    kthxbye.

    I’ll just read PZed like I used to.

    -Rusty

  218. says

    Kroos Control @257:

    I don’t necessarily know how humans perceive objective morality.

    Finally! An answer. After all this time, you’ve given an answer to the simple fucking question: How do humans perceive objective morality?

  219. A. Noyd says

    Sent an alert about the return of the stupid, obsessive troll.

    And no, stupid, obsessive troll, lack of moderation in Thunderdome is not a lie if PZ bans you again. The blog rules still apply in here. But nice try! (Not really.)

  220. A. Noyd says

    Did someone just let a tour bus full of ignorant shitbags off outside the gates to FtB? We’ve got the stupid, obsessive troll in here, we’ve got Pitchguest over on Biodork arguing that anti-abortionists aren’t misogynists because most clinic protestors are women, and Hybernia86 on B&W accusing Jamie Kilstein of racism and sexism against white men for speaking out against rape jokes.

  221. Amphiox says

    Why is any attempt at debate met with vile abuse and insults?

    Dishonest “debate” is met with exactly the amount of abuse and insults that it deserves.

  222. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Why is any attempt at debate met with vile abuse and insults?

    I’ve disagreed with practically everyone here. I’ve said some things that can easily put someone on the defensive and I’ve said some things as part of an offensive: I’m not met that way, nor was I even met that way at the time.

    If you are met with vile abuse and insults, given the body of evidence that debate isn’t universally met with these things, perhaps it isn’t that you’re attempting to debate. Try instead to think of the identifiable common factor.

    That might get you somewhere.

    Then again…

  223. Badland says

    Orly? Sounds like more of PZ ‘s lies. Let’s see.

    Hello children!

    Alert sent, wake up Pėèzus, save us from the unpersons who say forbidden and harmful things. The absolute horror of it all is too much.

    Poor thing, There there, things at least will be ok here when the real shitbag wipes any dissent from his “no holds barred” pussydome.

    ‘present a contrary view’

  224. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    This whining about wanting to present a secular anti-choice argument is dishonest in the light of the diminishing assess to abortions in the US. The violence against providers scares people out of the trade and scares even more from actually joining it in the first place. And conservative christians have enacted trap laws that closes down clinics.

    And the pitters are now howling about some of we skeptics are not skeptical enough to debate reasons to restrict and/or end assess to abortions.

    Blow it out your ass, cnut (How fucking clever!). It is you guys who are dishonest. A talk about abortions in the US cannot be had unless the violence done by the anti-choice side is included.

  225. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Slyme, you do not get to complain about name calling when this is your opening remark.

    Orly? Sounds like more of PZ ‘s lies. Let’s see.

  226. says

    Just another troll here to earn his “I got banned by PZ” merit badge. Not the first, not gonna be the last.

  227. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    No. I wasn’t called a bag of shit or told to go fuck myself. I was not told to shut the fuck up forever.

    Does it sound familiar to me? Sure. I see those kinds of comments all the time, but only directed at those who have

    1. been perceived to have said something truly oppressive and/or violent
    or
    2. proven themselves to be dishonest and/or repetitive and useless while being at least marginally oppressive

    And in case 1, where such a perception is not reasonable, other commenters will often gently intervene to defend the person being called a bag of shit. I have been one of those interveners, and I have also witnessed a number of others attempting to sort out things that were misunderstandings.

    If you have been subject to such and no one stepped in to defend you, I find that strong circumstantial evidence that you’ve been acting badly here.

    It’s not your space, it’s PZs. He gets to set the rules for his house. If he doesn’t like you coming over, he asks you to leave. If you don’t, he bans you. Putting on a costume to sneak back in is a jerkwater move. It proves that you don’t respect others’ consent, space, property, and/or privacy.

    Now, it’s not bad that we know you’re the kind of person who disrespects people and things, but since I have no idea who you are IRL, and since you have been banned, I would suggest you take this opportunity to consider your self-deprecating point made and beat feet. Anything else you do can only change our quantitative judgement of you, not our qualitative one.

  228. A. Noyd says

    It’s so funny when reactionary idiots think their views are somehow novel and edgy and not just iteration #69238948234872 of the same shit that’s held humanity back for thousands of years at least.

  229. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Oh dear, some obsessive random on the intertubes has made a bunch of utterly unevidenced assertions. BRB, reevaluating my entire life.

  230. vaiyt says

    I am pro choice myself, but I still think that a debate can be had by people of differing views without one side resorting to accusations of dishonesty and the usual nonsense that occurs regularly on pharyngula.

    There is no “debate” to be had on this issue.

  231. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    What is the point of having a debate when the right to abortions in the US have been highly curtailed in the last thirty years?

    You statement remains dishonest.

    Also, asshole, thank you for accusing me of being racist.

    Blow it out your ass, you lying assclam.

  232. rorschach says

    Have the slymers run out of other web forums to spew their drivel, or what is it with this recent not so subtle invasion of the fuckwits here? Annoying like the russian spambots on twitter, just not as sophisticated.

  233. Badland says

    I’m not a slymepitter by the way. Do you think that Asians all look alike?

    Because trolling for shitz and gigglez happen amongst people with similar physiognomies. Oh, wait, no. It happens because you are empathy-deficient shitstains.

    Hello piegasm, why don’t you post on the A Plus forums? You’re still listed as a global moderator, but it’s been over a year since your last input.

    Nope. Not slymey at all. Nope nope nope

  234. vaiyt says

    Hello vaiyt, you sound like a religious fundamentalist declaring there is no debate on the trinity or Jesus being god. You might wanna have a look at your stance.

    Only to an ignorant shitstain who treats every argument as equally valid. Content matters more than form, idiot.

  235. vaiyt says

    Debate? Yeah. “Let’s debate on whether women deserve to have full human rights!”. What about not?

  236. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    The slymie one declines to address what is happening actually happening with assess to abortion.

    I guess it is much more important to make sure that true skeptics keep questioning why abortions are needed.

    Also, feisty? Too bad you are too disingenuous to actually answer questions.

    Keep blowing your one note butt trumpet.

  237. vaiyt says

    A major problem this blog has is with its policy of engaging trolls, while at the same time assuming that any newb expressing a “forbidden” opinion is a troll.
    You’re not a newbie and definitely a troll, so your attempt at deflecting criticism just rings hollow and looks like a derail.

    If you all behaved in a more normal way, them there would be much less of a troll problem.

    Yeah, I’m sure dishonest shitstains, bigots and straw Vulcans would just cease being blights in the face of humanity if only we pretended they weren’t fucking idiots.

  238. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    You are hardly a “newb”. And you came in snarling. Yet you call me nasty?

    Also, you refuse to answer my questions. Why have a debate about “secular anti-choice argument” when women are losing their right to abortion. And I will add this; how secular is this argument when it is filled with religious buzz words?

    But you will not answer these question. You have to prove how “toxic” PZ is and show off how brave you are to enter the “hivemind”

    Blow it out your ass, slyme.

  239. vaiyt says

    Janine, I am pro choice. I am not interested in debating abortion.

    This from the genius who called me a “fundamentalist” ten posts ago FOR SAYING EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You’re a bad liar.

  240. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Janine, I am pro choice. I am not interested in debating abortion.

    Yet we are suppose to debate with secular anti-choice people.

    Fuck you.You demand something of us that you will not do your self.

    Thank you for being a willful waster of time.

    You have earned your troll badge.

  241. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Hello piegasm, why don’t you post on the A Plus forums? You’re still listed as a global moderator, but it’s been over a year since your last input.

    I’m sorry, I must have missed the meeting wherein I agreed to provide you with justification for why I do or don’t do anything, random internet fuckwit.

  242. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    I do think though that someone who disagrees with that should be able to debate it if they wish without being insulted and vilified.

    Says the assclam who villified and insulted PZ with their very first statement.

    Also does not want to debate abortions but thinks that the rest of us should take it seriously.

    Tell you what, cnut, you back up your words and you go forth and debate the secular anti-choice people.

  243. says

    Just as evolution is a fact, and there is no rational debate to be had on this point.
    and,
    just as climate change is a fact, and there is no rational debate to be had on this point…

    no one has the right to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. There is no rational debate to be had on this point.

  244. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Badland, cnut is here to demand something from us that cnut is unwilling to do; endless debate over a topic that does not need to be debated and done with out insults.

  245. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    I would actually support PZ if he wished to exhibit control of his blog to prevent newbs for example from acting like jerks etc.

    Self-awareness: you’re doing it wrong.

  246. vaiyt says

    I myself am not interested in debating abortion because I am 100% pro choice and believe it should be available to all women, whatever the circumstance. I do think though that someone who disagrees with that should be able to debate it if they wish without being insulted and vilified.

    Sorry, as long as this “debate” has any chance of affecting public policy, it should NOT be welcome in polite society.

  247. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    It’s amazing how you guys twist words and take the least charitable view of anything I’m saying.

    Piegasm, I was saying that if the commentariat treated newbs reasonably, then PZ would be justified in banning them if they were excessively insulting etc. The current situation is the opposite. Polite newbs are insulted, belittled and then banned for disagreeing.

    I know what you thought you were saying, shithead. Obviously, we’re operating with different definitions of words like “reasonable” and “polite.” You, for example, think it’s reasonable and not at all impolite for someone to express the view that my humanity is up for debate.

  248. Louis says

    Cnut (ancient English king or….?),

    Why should anyone treat someone who is demonstrably disingenuous with anything other than the contempt they deserve? Equally why should all discussion fora on the Internet fit the criteria you deem fit for them?

    Why do you bother? Seriously. You, and those like you, are transparently behaving in bad faith, why does any person acting in good faith have to treat you otherwise? Perhaps, just perhaps, you’d get better treatment if you weren’t so obviously acting in bad faith. Try an actual argument, well set out, evidenced if possible, try it without the preemptive accusations about people here, maybe you’ll get a different response. Hint: tone trolling gets short shrift here, that’s a terrible place to start.

    Another thing to note is you are not acting in a vacuum, you’re not trying to comment in a forum with no known history or culture. Take for example the broad topic of women’s rights (since abortion has come up), this place has been inundated over the last few years with a number of people saying identical stupid things in a variety of ways and failing to learn when their arguments have, for the want of a better word, been crushed out of all existence. The first three hundred (pick a number, there’s been a lot) anti-woman commenters were dealt with substantially more delicately than the subsequent cohorts of three hundred anti-woman commenters. And they really are anti-woman. Don’t fool yourself into thinking they’re not, their actions speak very loudly despite their protestations. That has lead to a culture evolving here of little to zero tolerance for the generally bad faith behaviour and arguments of the people who come here espousing anti-woman views.

    There’s the two key things to note: people largely get short shrift for arguing in bad faith, and people have to demonstrate a good deal of good faith on topics that pertain to certain things like women’s rights. Even then, people here are very sharp as spotting a dehumanising claim and shredding it.

    And these are GOOD things. If Pharyngula didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent it. Don’t like the atmosphere? Go away. It really is not the only place on the web, or even a significant part of it, you never have to know it exists.

    Louis

  249. Louis says

    Who said someone with a different opinion is necessarily disingenuous? Not me. Disagreeing is good. Being wrong about something is not a crime. Arguing in bad faith is a different thing entirely.

    The bulk of people arguing a certain way against certain topics here have been doing so in bad faith, a few have not. When someone like yourself demonstrates the hallmarks of someone arguing in bad faith, they get treated as such. False positives occur, but much more rarely than you might think.

    Try to argue with what has been said, not what you want to have been said.

    Louis

  250. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    He genuinely believes that, so he isn’t being disingenuous and we can discuss it without insulting each other.

    Congratu-fucking-lations for being able to debate other people’s status as human beings under the law with your brother without insulting each other. How very big of you.

  251. Badland says

    Cnut has convinced me! Of…um, of their brilliantly-constructed viewpoint. Regarding something. Regarding…being nice to newbies?

    Well fuck me. Turns out cnut has offered nothing whatsoever of substance. I am surprize!

    Cnut fails Troll 101. Toddle off chappie, I shall tearily lament your peach when it is frozen by ¡CENSORSHIP!

  252. Badland says

    Cnut

    If you cannot clearly express your point, the failure is yours. I am currently putting my three year old child to bed. She has far more humanity in her than you have displayed here, and just by existing she makes a better argument of why her rights should never be up for discussion than you ever could. But, y’know, hivemind and all that

  253. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Badland, I’m sorry you can’t comprehend what I’ve been saying. That’s not my failure, it is yours.

    You’re just trolling, you can’t say anything, which goes like this: This is what I believe, and this [link] is the evidence to back it up. Since you have nothing, you say nothing
    cnut—>>>hushfile for termininal trolling.

  254. Seven of Mine, formerly piegasm says

    Badland, I’m sorry you can’t comprehend what I’ve been saying. That’s not my failure, it is yours.

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how language works. Things you say mean what other people hear, not what you’re thinking in your head. This may come as a surprise to you but people are not, in fact psychic. If the meaning everyone around you is taking from your words is not what you wanted to get across, the failure is most definitely yours.

  255. Badland says

    *sutures*
    Sorry Janine, I should have listened. Nerd has it right.
    *sutures burst*

  256. opposablethumbs says

    Jolly good show, cnut old chap. Frightfully civilised of you. Now why don’t you tootle off and have a nice long chat about equality and human rights with your brother, who must be almost as charming and civilised a chap as you are. Because you’re vitiating the very air around here.

  257. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Comment by cnut blocked. [unhush]​[show comment]
    See, you and your idiocy is dismissed without reading. As it should be.

  258. Kroos Control says

    Oh that youtube link was just a song about saying goodbye , Cause I was leaving. SIWOTI pulled me back in though.

    Is that ban on commenting incontrovertible? What if I pinky swear not to derail any other thread?

    Anyway the point I was trying to make in that thread is how moral subjectivism is completely at odds with how people do moral discourse. Lets imagine if moral subjectivism was true .If we wanted to determine whether it would be moral to burn a heretic at the stake , we’d have to look at the opinions of the society back then and see if teh majority opinion was in favor of brning him.
    However PZ appeals to a certain moral that he believed to be objective , that we shouldn’t kill people for being freethinkers , to show it was morally wrong.
    In the same way , if we wanted to find out if it was moral to say allow abortions in Afganistan, we’d have to ask what the cultural opinion of the practice was , what the majority opinion was. However most people don’t do this. They’ll say that women have some sort of objective right to bodily autonomy that people in all societies should recognize because of its objective nature.
    If moral subjectivism was true people would have to fundamentally change the way to do moral discourse.

    And people here seem to be promoting a fundamentalist viewpoint here that if objective morals were true everybody at all times would know them all and always behave morally. However no moral realist/ethicist actually says this. I’ve said this several times before. We are open to the fact that some people may be wrong about objective facts. Some people believe the external world is a subjective illusion. This does not mean that the external world is not objectively real. Its just means they are mistaken. Some people hallucinate. Does that mean the world isn’t objectively real? Or that some people are just mistaken. And of course some people do perceive objective morals correctly , but for selfish/sinful reasons like greed/lust chose to do wrong.

    @Avo, also nigelTheBold
    This paper by Quine was widely considered to have led to the downfall of empiricism http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
    There are several reasons empiricism is no longer considered a viable philosophy
    1) “All beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence” is itself a belief that needs to supported by empirical evidence. However it can’t be , so the philosophy is self-refuting.
    2) The inability of it to justify things outside of sense experience http://thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/a-very-short-argument-against-empiricism/

    I hold to something like Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology , which is a modified version of foundationalism. If allows certain properly basic beliefs to be held without evidence and certain truths to be known a prior while also allowing for empirical evidence.

    and lol @ antepropo
    I’m teh one who’s within mainstream science and you are the guys who are grasping t straw

  259. says

    I hope Kroos Control is grateful that cnut showed up to make him look intelligent in comparison.

    This one is probably going to be showing up every night for a while, puking up the same tired obsessive complaints, so in the future, just ignore him. I’ll come along in the morning and bin all of his noise.

  260. Lofty says

    cnutter

    he needs all the sycophants he can get.

    Hahahohoheehee you are the rational little troll, aren’t you? You will never learn what it is to be a rational caring compassionate human being. Too full of your own misconceptions. Your bad, not mine.

  261. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    We are open to the fact that some people may be wrong about objective facts.

    That’s your mistake. Your “objective morals” can never be wrong, only how people apply them. What we say is that your “object morals”, which are given by your imaginary deity, are bullshit, since your deity doesn’t exist. You have no argument without your deity. Which has been painfully obvious all along, and we simply will not allow you to pretend we agree with something that requires acknowledgement of your imaginary deity. So, either put up or shut the fuck up on your imaginary deity.

  262. Louis says

    I wonder what tomorrow’s troll incursion will bring? It’s all so exciting!

    No, wait…it’s not that. It’s that other word. Boring. That’s it.

    Ah well, if I’m being a good boy, I won’t be around to notice.

    Louis

  263. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Kroos Control:

    You are mistaking moral subjectivism for moral relativism. Moral subjectivism does not require determining the morality of an act by use of the social moral framework of the time/place in which it occurred.

    Further, moral subjectivism is not the only alternative to moral objectivism.

    If you don’t understand these arguments, then feel free to shet up on the topic.

  264. Kroos Control says

    @Crip Dyke
    morals are either subjective (dependent on opinion) , objective (not dependent on opinion) or they don’t exist at all (nihilism). It seems you are the one who misunderstands.

  265. says

    So, has anyone presented a secular argument against abortion that doesn’t come down to BABIES ARE MAGICAL yet?

    No?

    It’s getting a little tiresome hearing the insistence that there are compelling arguments against granting me full rights without anyone actually telling me what they are. One would almost think that even atheists want to see women punished for having Ess-Ee-Eks.

  266. chigau (違う) says

    Kroos Control #407
    morals are either subjective (dependent on opinion) , objective (not dependent on opinion) or they don’t exist at all (nihilism).
    Bullshit.

  267. vaiyt says

    A few points for KC:

    Moral subjectivism is not “majority opinion rules” and does not preclude the use of rationality. In contrast, your “objective morality” consists on nothing but your own bias presented as things that people can “just perceive”. Have you considered the possibility that you are mistaken?

    Plantinga’s “properly basic” beliefs are a transparent attempt to handwave some pressupositions (namely, God) as independent of physical evidence. How fucking convenient! I’m going to declare my status as Emperor of The World as “properly basic” too, and you don’t need to worry about evidence, just pay tribute to me!

    3) Empiricism does not rely purely on direct experiences of the senses. Any scientist worth their salt knows their senses are limited and their brains are flawed, hence why the scientific method asks for multiple lines of evidence and constant testing of empirical findings against the external reality. Empiricism works, and no amount of hand-wringing can deny its history of success.

  268. says

    Kroos Control:

    morals are either subjective (dependent on opinion) , objective (not dependent on opinion) or they don’t exist at all (nihilism)

    I’m sure aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaany minute now you’re going to produce a citation for these assertions.
    .
    .
    .
    (and I have confidence it won’t be from WLC)

  269. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    morals are either subjective (dependent on opinion) , objective (not dependent on opinion) or they don’t exist at all (nihilism). It seems you are the one who misunderstands.

    And you again show you are nothing but a presuppositional nitwit. Objective morals require your imaginary deity. Which only exists as a delusion in your mind. It exists nowhere else.
    Morals are what humans define them to be. It has been that way for a couple of hundred thousand years. You ignore history for your inane and irrelevant presuppositions.

  270. Kroos Control says

    @Alexandra

    Have you heard the deerhunter/sharpshooter type analogies?
    It doesn’t assume babies are magic. It just assumes humans have intrinsic moral worth.
    The idea is that we agree that newborn babies are persons with intrinsic moral worth. And we should not kill them. Development is a continuum , so at some point in the process the fetus would become a person with moral worth.
    Tom Gilson explains it this way

    Suppose you were at a shooting range with a gun, and in front of you was a large cardboard panel with a target painted on it to look realistically like a small girl (though obviously not one). You have nine minutes in which you may fire the gun, or you can choose not to fire it at all. But you’re told that at some unknown, indeterminable point during that nine minutes a real little girl is going to step behind that target and stand there until the cardboard panel drops and reveals her at the end of the nine minutes; or that she might already be there when the timer starts. You don’t know when they’ll be there. All can do (as you said in your comment) is speculate.

    When do you fire? If you guess it’s safe to fire in the first three seconds, but the girl was already there, are you free of culpability?

  271. says

    Kroos Control:

    And we should not kill them. Development is a continuum , so at some point in the process the fetus would become a person with moral worth.

    So?
    The fetus still resides in the body of the woman, infringing on her right to bodily autonomy, which is a right every human being has. Any attempt to deny women that right results in women being less than human. I find all forced birther arguments to be misogynistic at their core and have no interest in debating them.
    Like many others who want to attribute moral worth the fetus’, you are granting the fetus rights no other human being has: the right to make use of the body of another human being regardless of their consent. No human-from infant to senior citizen-has this right. You cannot force someone to give blood or donate organs-no matter what the reason. And here you are arguing that “yes, the fetus should have this right”, while providing no justification (I suspect if you attempted to justify your position, it would boil down to “babies are precious bc god”, which would be met with howls of laughter, just like everything else you’ve uttered you dishonest douche).
    Moreover, as with other forced birthers, your attempt to elevate the fetus to Sooper Human with Special Rights necessarily involves reducing the human rights of women. That’s abhorrent and completely inexcusable.
    You should be ashamed of yourself, but for some reason I don’t think denying women their human rights ranks as something you feel ashamed about.

  272. Kroos Control says

    @Tony!

    I don’t need to be able explain something to be able to use it.

    Phlosopher are still debating the nature of knoweldge and the Gettier problems are hard. Does that mean people should never claim to have knowledge if they can’t fully explain knowledge?

    I haven’t even said anything about the bible , Tony.

  273. says

    As for your quote from Tom Gilson, please note that the girl is not residing within the body of a pregnant woman, and therefore is not violating anyone’s bodily autonomy. In addition, bc of the girl is a human being with all the rights entailed-including bodily autonomy-his scenario is *nothing* like abortion.

  274. says

    You don’t know how to perceive your “objective moral values”.
    You don’t know how any humans can perceive your “objective moral values”.
    You can’t explain what these “objective moral values” are.
    You can’t explain where these “objective moral values” come from.
    You have no evidence these “objective moral values” exist.

    But it’s TOTES reasonable for you to assert they exist and claim that we should follow them.
    ::eyeroll::

    And I know you didn’t mention the bible. I’m speculating that your horrid mythology book is the source of your claim. It’s not like you offer anything else.

  275. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    Here’s what you aren’t getting, Kroos.

    Let me posit something that I do not believe: that a fetus is a person in every metric that matters.

    Even if that were true, I’d still 100% support abortion rights.

    Because women have the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

    Because women have the absolute right to determine the manner and timing of when they have children.

    Full stop.

    Wanking on about whether or not fetii are “persons” is beside the point. Because fetii are – by definition – inside uteri.

  276. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t need to be able explain something to be able to use it.

    Phlosopher are still debating the nature of knoweldge and the Gettier problems are hard. Does that mean people should never claim to have knowledge if they can’t fully explain knowledge?

    I haven’t even said anything about the bible , Tony.

    Sorry presuppositional fuckwit. You do need to explain it to use it here. What you do in private is your business. But here, you either back up your inane assertions, or you back off those assertions. And your imaginary deity and mythical/fictional babble are totally behind all your presuppositional assertions. Quit acting like you are the first godbot who tried your line of bullshit on us.

  277. anteprepro says

    Anyway the point I was trying to make in that thread is how moral subjectivism is completely at odds with how people do moral discourse.

    1. Still banking on a false dichotomy.
    2. Oh no, not “moral discourse”! It simply cannot be that “moral discourse” relies on false assumptions! Unthinkable!

    However most people don’t do this…..
    And people here seem to be promoting a fundamentalist viewpoint here that if objective morals were true everybody at all times would know them all and always behave morally.

    So you get this folks:
    1. Subjective morality is disproven based on how most people talk about morality!
    2. Objective morality is of course obviously true even though most people don’t actually abide by or agree upon these supposed objective morals!

    Congratulations on remaining a disingenuous fuckwit.

    Some people believe the external world is a subjective illusion. This does not mean that the external world is not objectively real. Its just means they are mistaken. Some people hallucinate. Does that mean the world isn’t objectively real? Or that some people are just mistaken.

    You just claim that objective morals are objective by fiat. You have yet to establish it. Proof by analogizing it to real, physical things just proves how much you are assuming, not that you are right.

    And of course some people do perceive objective morals correctly , but for selfish/sinful reasons like greed/lust chose to do wrong.

    What are these objective morals? Fucking tell us. Shit or get off the pot.

    Is killing absolutely immoral in all circumstances? If not, why are supposedly objective morals built in with caveats? Isn’t it problematic that objective morals are contingent upon the situation, and thus heavily based on human judgment?

    Is homosexuality moral or immoral? If it is moral, why are so many good Christian folk vehemently opposed to it. If it is immoral, WHY.

    There are several reasons empiricism is no longer considered a viable philosophy
    1) “All beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence” is itself a belief that needs to supported by empirical evidence. However it can’t be , so the philosophy is self-refuting.
    2) The inability of it to justify things outside of sense experience….
    I hold to something like Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology

    Do you ever think, for a moment, that you are strawmanning? Do you ever think for even the slightest moment that you aren’t as smart or informed as you think you are? You are an absolute dumbass, citing the most facile and distorted arguments. It’s so ridiculous and disturbing that I can’t look away.

    I’m teh one who’s within mainstream science and you are the guys who are grasping t straw

    1. Your arguments about morals are simplistic and contrary to the morality we actually observe that people have.
    2. Craig’s conception of time is inconsistent with relativity.
    3 Craig ignores alternative models of the beginning of the Big Bang and even distorts the model that he claims supports his argument, according to the authors themselves.
    4. Your argument from “something can’t come from nothing” is either an unfounded assumption on the border of sophistry or contradicted by virtual particles.
    5. You ignore that we know that minds are not timeless, immaterial objects disconnected from the physical world.

    And then we get into the actual content of religious dogma you and Craig claim is propped up by this nonsense, that you wisely distance yourself. “Mainstream science” supports you? Ha!

    It doesn’t assume babies are magic. It just assumes humans have intrinsic moral worth.
    The idea is that we agree that newborn babies are persons with intrinsic moral worth. And we should not kill them.

    You assume humans have intrinsic moral worth sufficient that they are forced to carry around other human beings against their will inside their bodies and then let other human beings violently erupr out of them.

    It’s because of assholes like you that I wish Chestbursters were a real thing. We could then implant you and your ilk with one and then we can all rally for Chestburster Rights if you suddenly change your mind on the subject of how much control you should have over your own body. We can advance medical science in a way that makes it less likely to be fatal, just for y’all too! That way everyone can be happy!

    I don’t need to be able explain something to be able to use it.

    For the thousandth fucking time: You are allegedly proving that it exists under the assumption that you can detect it. HOW is the entire fucking point. You cannot dodge that.

    I haven’t even said anything about the bible , Tony

    Yes, except to smugly say that we were wrong about our criticisms about it, and then continuing to evade it just like you evade 90% of everything that has been said. Gibbering fuckwit.

  278. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Development is a continuum , so at some point in the process the fetus would become a person with moral worth.

    Try real evidence, not your presuppositional meaningless mental wankings. There are several irreversible processes that occur at birth, and the two most important are that the fetus no longer resides in the woman, and the air it breathes jump starts the brain. So there is a blip in the development continuum that is birth. And that is why it is universally considered the start of human life, with full protections.
    Anything else is bullshit.

  279. Amphiox says

    Development is a continuum , so at some point in the process the fetus would become a person with moral worth.

    That point is birth.

    Anyway the point I was trying to make in that thread is how moral subjectivism is completely at odds with how people do moral discourse.

    No that was not your point, you pitiful liar. And it is not like people cannot just go back and read your words archived there to know you are lying now. Your point, such as it was, was that moral objectivism is real and that how people do moral discourse was evidence for that.

    (Which of course it isn’t.)

    I don’t need to be able explain something to be able to use it.

    Except you are not trying to use it, which is plainly evident in your repeated and unrepentant displays of intellectual dishonesty. You are claiming a property for it, the property of “objective”, and to do that requires that you explain it. Otherwise all you can honestly claim is that “people use morality”, or “people use their perception of morality”. You CANNOT put “objective” in those phrases without explaining how you know it is truly objective.

  280. says

    KC:
    So what is so magical about a fetus that its life is deemed more important than mine?

    I’ll reiterate: at no other point in my life am I obligated to keep another person alive by using my body (even if that person is my child). Why is a fetus granted a special exception?

    Since you’re willing to erase my life from your argument against abortion, you haven’t said anything other than BAYBEEZ ARE MAGICKAL! Until you can show a compelling argument why the life of a fetus is more important than my bodily autonomy (good luck with that), you haven’t answered my question.

  281. Kroos Control says

    So what are your views on bodily autonomy Alexandra ? Are there any limits on it?

  282. Amphiox says

    Phlosopher are still debating the nature of knoweldge and the Gettier problems are hard. Does that mean people should never claim to have knowledge if they can’t fully explain knowledge?

    HONEST people should never make claims of absolute objective knowledge. They can talk about practical, RELATIVE, objective knowledge, which would mean “I am certain enough about this that I think acting as if it were provisionally true would be a good idea.”

    You wouldn’t understand this, KC, because you are not an honest person.

  283. Amphiox says

    So what are your views on bodily autonomy Alexandra ? Are there any limits on it?

    Another dishonest, absolutist question.

    It seems that dishonest, absolutist thinking is the only kind of “thinking” KC is capable of.

    The question is not are there “any” limits on bodily autonomy. It is non-sensical to even ask such a question alone and in the abstract, without reference to any competing interest that delineates that limitation.

    The question is “what reasonable limit on bodily autonomy could be sufficient to justify denying a human being abortion access?”

    And the one who is obligated to answer the question is not Alexandra, it is YOU, KC.

    Of course this has already been asked of you, and of course you have tried your best to ignore it, pitiful dishonest dissembler that you are.

  284. Kroos Control says

    Of course they are various philosophical theories about people can be aware of morality. I like Ethical intuitionism. But this isn’t relevant to what we’re discussing. We can agree that people can gain knowledge without trying to come up with a philosophical definition for it. Same way I can agree with objective morality , without debating the “how”.

  285. says

    You’re dodging my question, KC. Poor form.

    I’ll ask again: Since I am not morally or legally obligated to use my body to perserve another’s life– even of my own child– why is a fetus granted special exception?

    Not only are you giving a fetus more rights than me, you’re giving it more rights than every born person, both living and dead.

  286. Howard Bannister says

    Lets imagine if moral subjectivism was true .If we wanted to determine whether it would be moral to burn a heretic at the stake , we’d have to look at the opinions of the society back then and see if teh majority opinion was in favor of brning him.

    No, if moral subjectivism was true, we most certainly would not.

    BUT WE DO, ANYWAY.

    Or do you not understand how voting and democracy work (or are supposed to work) in most places?

    Is capital punishment right or wrong under your Delivered Always True objective morality?

    If so, why do people disagree so strongly on the subject?

    If objective, delivered morality were a thing, then why do we all disagree about it?

    How come your objective morality looks a lot like subjective morality from where I sit?

  287. says

    I like the angst argument about abortion. It means I should be really ashamed of myself after a proper good wank.

    1. Wash your hands!
    2. Have fun
    3. Wash your hands!!!
    If you follow those three easy steps your problem should disintegrate

  288. consciousness razor says

    Kroos Control:

    There are several reasons empiricism is no longer considered a viable philosophy
    1) “All beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence” is itself a belief that needs to supported by empirical evidence. However it can’t be , so the philosophy is self-refuting.

    That claim in quotes is not required for empiricism. That’s logical positivism. Here’s a claim you might actually hear some people here making: empiricism is a valuable way of finding out things about the world. The evidence of that? All of the knowledge empiricism has demonstrably provided. You want tangible empirical evidence that empiricism works, try starting with the computer you’re using to communicate to us. Or if we hadn’t yet invented computers, look at your telephone. Or if we hadn’t done that yet, look at a steam engine or a microscope or a telescope. Fuck, as long as you aren’t somehow stuck in the 13th century, you will probably have no problem finding plenty of evidence that empiricism works, all on your own, without us needing to provide you syllogisms or whatever the fuck you’re looking for.

    So you have two options: (1) find anybody who still holds to logical positivism, and tell them they’re being inconsistent, or (2) come up with a relevant criticism which is actually about empiricism.

    morals are either subjective (dependent on opinion) , objective (not dependent on opinion) or they don’t exist at all (nihilism). It seems you are the one who misunderstands.

    This is what’s so funny about your position: it requires near-total ignorance of moral philosophy, including the terms used and what they actually mean. That gap gets filled by an irrelevant and incoherent religion.

    Here’s the thing: the kinds of subjective experiences which human beings have are entirely what morality is about. (That is, unless it concerns non-human animals, then of course their subjective experiences are what matter, however different they may be.) It is also the case that the facts about their experiences depend on exactly what situation they are in, what they are experiencing or can experience, and so on — hence, it is not just “subjective” but also relative or situational.

    That does not in any way imply that these facts aren’t facts. It implies that you may have to take into account different facts in different circumstances, because there is such a thing as being in a different circumstance. What objectivity most certainly does not mean is that there must be rules/dictates/judgments/rewards/punishments handed down by some outside being like a god (who is supposedly a subject, and only a subject, I might add). Because we have no need for that hypothesis. We already experience these things and can think about them on our own, and if there’s a god who thinks something else, who cares? The god may well be wrong about it; and in any case, we are the ones acting upon this information, which affects us, because it is about our own feelings, experiences, pains, pleasures, and so on. So you should reconsider whether anything your religion has to say about morality is in any way relevant to anyone. It almost seems as if it were invented to be as wrong as possible when it comes to explaining the nature of morality.

  289. Kroos Control says

    Well , you’d have to answer my question first so I can get an idea of your views on bodily autonomy and how to respond.

  290. Kroos Control says

    @consciousness razor
    Did you see my original post?

    That claim in quotes is not required for empiricism. That’s logical positivism.

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.
    People responded and were like “Empiricism/verificationism is the best! and you’re wrong”.
    “empiricism is a valuable way of finding out things about the world”. I agree with this. Empirical evidence is not incompatible with my philosophy.

    Here’s the thing: the kinds of subjective experiences which human beings have are entirely what morality is about.

    I’m not sure how to interpet this. Certainly our moral experience is a big part of our life

    hence, it is not just “subjective” but also relative or situational.

    Moral realism isn’t incompatible with situational ethics. I think you’re conflating subjectivity with situational.

    What’s your moral ontology, CR?

  291. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Same way I can agree with objective morality , without debating the “how”.

    Except without the how, all you have is self-delusion. Which is why your ideas are incoherent and lacking reality.

  292. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.

    Any unsupported claim by you is automatically dismissed. Citatation needed liar and bullshitter.
    Science, works wonders. Mental masturbation called sophistry/theology goes in circles. Science wins.

  293. anteprepro says

    Well , you’d have to answer my question first so I can get an idea of your views on bodily autonomy and how to respond.

    What a fucking cowardly wanker you are, Kroos.

    Empirical evidence is not incompatible with my philosophy.

    Except for, you know, the empirical evidence that is incompatible with the arguments you claim are part of your philosophy. But I suppose those petty little things don’t matter much to such a vast intellect as yourself.

    Moral realism isn’t incompatible with situational ethics

    And yet if I recall earlier, you gave examples of objective morals that were highly situational. You have a very selective memory. It’s almost like you are a bullshitter blatantly lying to everyone including yourself! Heaven forbid!

  294. anteprepro says

    Oh look, here’s something just for Kroos and WLC! It shows the beautiful intricacies of the Kalam Cosmological and Argument from Morality, and how they mesh together in such harmony. The utter sophistication!

  295. Kroos Control says

    I know you’re not interested in discussion but do you even read what I post/

    What I said

    Moral realism isn’t incompatible with situational ethics

    what you said

    you gave examples of objective morals that were highly situational

    all this shows is that I’ve been consistent in how objective morals can be situational.

  296. says

    Well , you’d have to answer my question first so I can get an idea of your views on bodily autonomy and how to respond.

    My views have fuck-all to do with anything. I’m asking for your opinion as to why fetuses should be granted more rights than every other person. It does not matter if I feel that no one has the right to touch me without my direct permission ever OR if I feel that organ harvesting would benefit the greater good, with or without consent, or somewhere in between. I’m asking for your views.

  297. says

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.

    I agree that questions that are inherently subjective, definitional, or otherwise doesn’t deal with objective reality, cannot be addressed by empirical evidence.

    I don’t see how that constitutes a failure of the method, though. It seems to me about as relevant as criticizing physics for not telling us which of the Power Rangers is the coolest.

  298. consciousness razor says

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.

    And that doesn’t follow, because as I said and you apparently didn’t understand, empiricism is not about “all philosophical questions.” That there exist valid philosophical issues which are not usefully approached empirically does not imply that there exists a god. So what would this have to do with your belief in a god? Most philosophers are atheists, basically none of them are logical positivists, and the vast majority do think empiricism works quite well. What do you think that might say about your argument? If they’re wrong, why are they wrong?

    Nerd, I’ll note, is not a philosopher, and says a lot that a positivist would. Your arguments with each other are going to be irrelevant to me.

    Empirical evidence is not incompatible with my philosophy.

    It’s just incompatible with a large number of your beliefs. That you won’t examine those is the problem, even if you have no fundamental issue with empiricism itself. Let me ask this: could anyone conceivably provide empirical evidence that a god does not exist? If not, why not? And if they provide empirical evidence of anything else whatsoever, would your religious beliefs be more valuable to you than whatever value you do place on the evidence? And why would that be?

    What’s your moral ontology, CR?

    Morals are basically decisions we make, based on what causes suffering, in order to act in ways that cause less suffering. So they exist as ideas people have. So they’re a bunch of neurons firing, if you want me to give it the full reductionist treatment. But I don’t know why would that matter to you.

  299. Amphiox says

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.

    What a non-sensical assertion. By that metric ALL modes of philosophical thought are failures, since there are none of which it couldn’t be said that certain philosophical questions cannot be addressed by them.

    Divine Command Philosophy of course would truly take the cake, since the number of philosophical questions it can actually effectively address is zero.

  300. consciousness razor says

    So they’re a bunch of neurons firing, if you want me to give it the full reductionist treatment.

    I should go a step or two further, I guess. They’re fermions and bosons. That’s my ontology.

  301. Amphiox says

    Same way I can agree with objective morality , without debating the “how”.

    But you didn’t JUST “agree” with it. You kept insisting that it is true, and that your agreement with it was in fact evidence that it was true.

    And you cannot honestly argue that without debating the how.

    Your dishonesty is truly breathtaking, and stupid. Do you really think that we would not remember the previous lies you spouted in the last thread, that you can so blithely deny them here?

  302. Kroos Control says

    lol@Kent Hovind in the other thread. He seem less cogent in every email he said.

    Anyone feel a little sorry for Eric Hovind? He’s got all of his father’s scientific illiteracy , but none of the charisma that made his father popular. I can imagine anyone wanting to watch his DVD.

  303. Louis says

    Alexandra, #435,

    The special feature of a foetus? It might not be a woman. Glad I could edumacify you.

    HTH HAND.

    Louis

    P.S. {eyeroll}

  304. Kroos Control says

    @Alexandra
    I usually try to argue in ways that would be convincing to other people.
    If you thought there were certain valid restrictions on bodily autonomy , we could start the conversation somewhere about what it entails.

  305. Louis says

    Al,

    Womb ladies are only magic until they are no longer womb ladies. When they have been decanted from the ambulatory incubation units (or “women” to you and me) they become sluts who must be persecuted. It’s all there in the bible you know.

    Louis

  306. says

    So, you’re copping out?

    I’ve already given you all of the necessary information: No one can be compelled to use their body to preserve another’s life. Why are you willing to grant a fetus a special exemption?

  307. Louis says

    Al,

    Tragically not mine. Can’t remember where I picked it up. It’s an obvious satire of the anti-woman lobby though. This childbirth lark, I reckon you womenfolk make too much of it. I heard tell from those nice chaps at AvfM that apparently babies teleport out of the womb and require no maintenance at all. Childbirth is a conspiracy to take money of male taxpayers or something. It wasn’t very coherent so I might have got that bit wrong. ;-)

    Louis

  308. says

    Kroos is just fishing for a gotcha.

    If Al says, “I think there should be no infringements on bodily autonomy, period,” then Kroos will go for “But what about [fantastically implausible but theoretically possible scenario X?” and then you’ll be launched on a derail and Kroos will not have to detail the extent to which his views punish women just for being women.

    If Al says “Restrictions on bodily autonomy are acceptable under Y conditions,” then Kroos will pretend not to understand why a fetus is different from whatever born human persons Al is discussing, and he will not have to detail the extent to which his views punish women just for being women.

  309. says

    Louis:
    Oh, watch out! If I can teleport a baby out of my womb, then maybe I can also spermjack you from an ocean away!

    Sweet, sweet child support payments, here I come!

    KC:
    Honestly, if you can’t present your argument to a stranger, it must not have been very compelling in the first place. Obvious stalling tactics are obvious.

  310. Louis says

    Why Sally, it’s like you’ve seen this stuff before! Isn’t it all new and shiny and aren’t we terrible people for mocking the sincere, earnest, concerned folks who just want to have women be less than fully human in the eyes of the law and society?

    Louis

  311. Dhorvath, OM says

    Kroos Control,

    I usually try to argue in ways that would be convincing to other people.

    “Tip your hand so I can see which of my many good cards to play.”
    You know, it’s behaviour like that that makes us so antagonistic. You don’t want to learn about Alexandra, you want to convert her. Arrogant is a wonderful way to be.

  312. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    If you thought there were certain valid restrictions on bodily autonomy , we could start the conversation somewhere about what it entails.

    No, you could start wanking fuckwittery in hopes of moving that which has no reason to move. Bodily autonomy is a human right, and women are fully human with full human rights.
    If you want the fetus to be considered a person that must be carried to term, it is up to you to provide the conclusive physical evidence that the fetus is more of a human being than the woman, and therefore can subjugate her full human rights including bodily autonomy. And if it is more than a full human being, I should be able to do a simple test, like take a direct picture of it showing it separate from the woman.

  313. says

    Sally,
    A yup. If I answer, I cannot win, no matter what I say. Which is besides the point that I asked KC a direct question that they can answer without any input from me and my views can be reasonably assumed from what I’ve already written in this thread.

    I’m starting to sound like a broken record:
    Since I cannot be compelled to use my body to preserve another life (including the life of my one and a half year old daughter), why should I be compelled to support the life of a fetus? Why should a fetus be granted more rights than born people and corpses?

  314. Louis says

    Al,

    ZOMG TEH CHYLDE PAIMUNTZ ™ !!!! The Final Evil of the Feminazi Conspriraceh!

    {Raises Special Anti-Lady Cross}

    BEGONE SUCCUBUS! Take your wily womb-based ways and siren-superpowers away and do something Ladylike ™ . Like simpering and saying “Why, Sir! You do ASTOUND me!” whilst wearing white gloves. I’ve seen movies, I know my shit.

    Louis

  315. Dhorvath, OM says

    Google is your friend, top hit even. Not going to spell this out, who knows what kind of response it might generate.

  316. Amphiox says

    Poor KC actually thinks he argues on a way that is convincing to most people?

    Bwahahahah….!

    Well, if one is willing to imagine a transcedental intelligence dictating objective morality from outside of space and time, it is rather trivial to dream up a cadre of imaginary people that agree with you.

  317. Louis says

    Kroos Control,

    Google is your friend. I choose to waste my time mocking anti-woman people like you, among other things, I don’t choose to do your homework for you.

    Louis

  318. Louis says

    Dhorvath,

    Do we owe each other some coke? Did I get the meme right? Is this the right party? Will there be slippers?

    Louis

  319. Louis says

    Dhorvath,

    You passed the test of the Slipper Question. You may proceed to Level Two. Evil Atheist Corporation Black Helicopters are on their way to your location. Do not be alarmed or eat the baby all at once. ;-)

    Louis

  320. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    SallyStrange

    If Al says, “I think there should be no infringements on bodily autonomy, period,” then Kroos will go for “But what about [fantastically implausible but theoretically possible scenario X?” and then you’ll be launched on a derail and Kroos will not have to detail the extent to which his views punish women just for being women.

    Almost makes one long for joey and his ridiculous argument that an abortion can still happen when the fetus is out of the body but still attached by the umbilical cord because the woman is scared of “sticks sharp” in her body.

  321. Jacob Schmidt says

    Dear lord, I go to bed and wake up to this nonsense.

    For those that are unaware, “cnut” is a slimepit thing. I have no idea why, but the word pops up repeatedly over there.

    Is that ban on commenting incontrovertible? What if I pinky swear not to derail any other thread?

    Bans can be removed at the behest of PZ. Promises won’t get you far, though.

    I think maybe 2 people have been “unbanned”? SGBM and someone else. I don’t remember.

  322. Jacob Schmidt says

    @louis
    Who’s AvfM ?

    That is almost adorable.

    AVfM doesn’t have much reach beyond the MRA/PUA/MGTOW crowd; what reach they have beyond that is largely people mocking them.

  323. Jacob Schmidt says

    @louis
    Who’s AvfM ?

    That is almost adorable.

    AVfM doesn’t have much reach beyond the MRA/PUA/MGTOW crowd; what reach they have beyond that is largely people mocking them.

    (I offer post 483 to Tpyos; may Tpyos be ever merciful to the faihful, and ever vengeful to those who forget to use the preview button)

  324. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    Have to love how Kroos Control is trying to setting up an argument for at what point in a pregnancy does a fetus have integral worth. Never mind that most women will opt to have an abortion is quickly as possible if all options are open. And in the US, those options have been restricted. The reduction in the number of clinics, combined with the increased cost in care, the wait time and taking time off from work for travel and waiting means that most abortions, if they happen at all, are happening later.

    But never mind the real world when one has a convincing theoretical case.

  325. says

    Janine:

    Have to love how Kroos Control is trying to setting up an argument for at what point in a pregnancy does a fetus have integral worth.

    Which still fails until Kroos proves why a fetus deserves more rights than all born people.

    Hey, if they’re willing to argue that every person who isn’t on organ/tissue donor registries deserves to be in prison (or harvested against their will), I’ll give ‘em points for consistency. But somehow I don’t think they’ll go that far.

  326. says

    So, hey, the cold meds are wearing off and I realized one of my points was a little confused (but my overall statement still stands).

    There is no legal requirement for anyone to donate organs/tissue/blood to save another’s life (you’re not even compelled to perform CPR on a person dying right in front of you), no matter who they are. This extends to the deceased– in the US, you cannot take organs from a dead person without express permission from the family first*. This is where I was drawing “more rights than a corpse” from. It’s obviously confused and confusing and for that I apologize.

    So.

    If I am not compelled to use my body to save another person’s life, why does a fetus deserve a special exemption? If I am not obligated to give my blood, my organs, and my tissue to my own children, what makes a fetus different and special? Why do we preserve the “rights” of dead people** without blinking an eye, but my rights are up for debate?

    *Even if the deceased has their wishes in writing and is listed on organ donor registries, if the family says no, the organs are not removed.
    **I don’t think the deceased have rights. Piss on a corpse, see if I care.

  327. anteprepro says

    Oh shit! I am amazed. Kroos:
    1. Actually addressed what I was saying
    2. Was actually right!

    I didn’t notice the double negative of what I was addressing.
    Too bad it was a minor point and Kroos has still consistently failed to address the significant errors in their own arguments.

    Also:

    I usually try to argue in ways that would be convincing to other people.

    Comedy Gold.

  328. alwayscurious says

    Kroos,

    You want to make an argument for objective morals? Please go right ahead.
    You want to make an argument for the rights/value/status of a fetus? Go for it.
    You want to explain how a fetus’ rights don’t infringe on the mother’s rights? I’m all ears.

    However, I have every reason to believe that you will fail at every one of these things: a) I don’t think these are demonstrable points b) your attempts thus far are feeble. You have offered nothing coherent on these topics. You have wasted time declaring others to be wrong without presenting your own arguments. You sit around waiting to pick apart others’ arguments. If, for example, objective morals always existed (but it’s only recently that people have become aware of them), explain the methods whereby people objectively determine morality. Who are these people that supposedly recognize objective morality? And how does any of that connect with fetuses and mothers?

  329. says

    Alwayscurious:
    Kroos Control has made assertions several times but failed to provide any evidence or reasoning. For instance, he asserts that “Objective moral values exist’. His reasoning is nothing more than ‘objective morality exists bc I perceive that it exists’. At this point I seriously question his ability to make coherent arguments .

  330. says

    Kroos Control:
    I’m sure William Lane Craig has an answer for Alexandra’s question. You love using his poor arguments and bad reasoning as a substitute for you expressing and supporting opinions of your own.

  331. Louis says

    For reasons too painfully dull and pointless to go into, I just discovered I have an Erdős number.

    I realise a) it’s not a close link (my number is 5), b) if I have one, pretty much any published scientist has one, c) it’s just a bit of fun to illustrate networks/connections etc, but I had just assumed I would not have one. It’s fun to find out I do!

    Anyway, it’s not good enough. I need an Erdős-Bacon-Sabbath number. THAT is going to take effort!

    Louis

  332. Louis says

    I have just found out my wife’s Erdős number is 4. I am Jack’s seething envy! ;-)

    Louis

    P.S. I’m not really envious, bloody impressed actually!

  333. Louis says

    Al,

    We need to appear in a movie together. Actually, I need to use you to get on film with Bacon, then somehow play on stage with Black Sabbath. This is the only way I can beat Hawking (EBS # of 8).

    Louis

  334. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’m late to the party… and I haven’t seen these IMHO properly addressed yet, although I’m only 250~ posts in for that one thread. Reposting (with slight changes) from other thread so maybe Kroos Control can answer.

    @Kroos Control

    I think there are a lot of ethical assumptions we make that are difficult to justify on a materialistic/atheistic basis. Its not morally wrong for a lion to forcibly copulate with a female and kill the cubs of another lion. Why is it wrong for humans to do the same? Stuff like human dignity/rights/equality only really makes sense if you are coming from a view that humans are somehow special and have moral obligations/duties that other animals do not.

    I agree that there are some very important propositions which are difficult to justify “on materialism / without gods”. Impossible actually. However, your mistake is that the existence of a god helps in any way. It does not. “Might makes right” is a completely discredited moral “theory” – or at least it should be – and that’s all a god brings into the analysis. If such a thing exists, a god’s existence affects morality just as much as my existence, and a god’s commandments and preferences are just as important – and also just as irrelevant – as my commandments and preferences. Only with a “might makes right” starting point can you draw any difference, or some equally inane argument.

    You’re looking for justifications for our starting moral values. Sorry. It’s futile. It’s impossible, with or without a god. See wikipedia on the Münchhausen trilemma and Hume’s is-ought problem.

    However, note this: Anyone who sees a hammer released and fall a dozen times and expects it to float to the ceiling the next time it is released, is insane. Our inability to reason with a person who dismisses evidence and science in no way means that there is no truth about hammers and falling. Similarly, anyone who thinks that it’s ok to hurt others for no reason, who works against human happiness, safety, material wealth, self determination, freedom, human well-being, and the other values of humanism, is also insane. Our inability to reason with who a person who is evil in no way means that there is no truth about morality.

    @Kroos Control

    I believe there are compelling reasons to believe in objective morality […]

    First, you have to define your terms. There are many meanings of “objective” which you may be conflating.

    1- A rule system is objective in the sense that all (most) reasonable observer who is honestly following the proscribed judging rules will come to the same conclusion. Example: soccer is objectively judged, and figure skating is not.

    2- A system is objective in the sense that it is derivable from other already-accepted premises. – Here, it depends on what premises are allowed. Presumably you’re not going to allow an unjustified moral premise. You can take that and throw on Münchhausen trilemma and Hume’s is-ought problem, and it follows that no moral system is objective under this meaning.

    3- Something is “objectively true” if it exists in our shared reality apart from any consensus. I argue that this chair I sit on exists apart from any consensus. I’m still sitting on this chair no matter if we have a majority vote otherwise. I don’t know what it might mean for morality to exist in this sense. You cannot see morality in a microscrope. You can see people in the act of moral reasoning, and you can see the consequence of actions, but you cannot see morality. Challenge: If you think this world has objective morality in this sense, describe to me a world with humans where there is no objective morality. What would be observably different? Anything? If nothing would be different, then you are describing a non-thing. If you cannot describe such a world – if its nonexistence is incoherent – then its existence is also incoherent.

    Further note that it is my belief that god beliefs are generally invented by humans. IMHO, this belief in “objective morality” arose in a universe without “objective morality”. (However, again, “objective morality” is not only not right – it’s not even wrong. (Borrowing Wolfgang Pauli.))

    Even if we all had a special sense, like eyesight, that informed us with a gut feeling about which actions are good and which actions are bad, and even if we all got the exact same feelings, it would not follow that we should obey those feelings. Classic appeal to nature fallacy (frequently known as the naturalistic fallacy). You’re jumping from “it feels wrong to hurt babies” to “we shouldn’t hurt babies”, jumping the is-ought gap. From what I’ve seen you write thus far, you really should know better than to make this argument.

    4- Something is objective in the sense that it is absolute and non-relative. In other words, an objective morality is a morality that is the same across all human cultures. It may take into account local traditions and values, but it cannot do a 180 on basic stuff like valuing human happiness, freedom, material wealth, safety, self determination, and the other values of humanism.

    I’m probably missing some important meanings offhand, but this is a good start.

    I happen to hold to a system of morality which is: objective in the sense that soccer is objectively judged and objective in the sense that it is not completely culturally relative. I reject the possiblity of a coherent morality which is derived from some other, more basic, non-moral starting point. I reject moral realism (described in #3) as incoherent.

  335. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Alexandra (dammit, I typed Audley by reflex – working on consistency):

    LoveLoveLove! Hope not-Max is doing well! Hope you and Mr Alexandra are enjoying the tyke!

    I don’t think the deceased have rights. Piss on a corpse, see if I care.

    There’s actually a case that was featured prominently in our Crim class that turned on actus reus and statutory interpretation that involved a jerk using beer or yellow-dyed water or something to simulate pissing on jewish graves. He took pictures, and with his body turned slightly away from the camera, there was no way to know from the picture that it wasn’t urine. Then he apparently distributed them specifically to cause harm to the feelings of Jewish folk in the community (I think this was Ontario, but I can’t remember for sure and can’t find the case just now – it was never in our casebook, it was passed out photocopied during our first week).

    Me I agree that the deceased don’t have rights (or shouldn’t) as such, but I’m not immune to the effect of someone intending to cause harm with such actions. I’d have to look at the case again, though, to have an opinion on whether I really think criminal or tort law was the best way to handle that specific situation. In general, though, I’d prefer to give the crown *very* limited powers to prosecute expressive conduct. And if a jerk was a jerk to one of my relatives, I admit I’d rather ignore the jerk than take the jerk to court.

    No judgement on those who would sue such a jerk, however.

  336. A. Noyd says

    Kroos Control (#440)

    I claimed that not all philosophical questions could be addressed with empirical evidence and that’s why verificationism/empiricsm failed.

    Sure, just like evolution failed because it couldn’t address the origins of life.

    (Note: The above is to be read with much sarcasm.)

    (#458)

    I usually try to argue in ways that would be convincing to other people.

    HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  337. says

    Crip Dyke*,
    Ah, that is interesting. And not because I feel that the dead should have rights, but because the act was specifically targeting the living– I think that in NY, there could be a case for that to be prosecuted as hate crime. Ain’t antisemitism grand?

    Not-Max is doing great! She’s tall and smart (17 months old and already using sentences!) and although times have been a little tough for Mr Alexandra and I, we’re making the best of it.

    *tackle hugs!* I miss you and I wish I had more time to comment. I’m around today because I’m sick and my MiL is watching Not-Max today. Have I passed along my email?

    *My autocorrect want to changs your name to “dropsy”. O.o