|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 21:57:46 GMT
It's not like you're going to employ any truth is it? Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to. Aren't you special? Again! What if I had the same attitude? What if I said until you admit you cannot "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a lack of belief you have nothing worth listening to"? It was you thinking you're special that got you into this trouble in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 21:58:46 GMT
Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to. Aren't you special? Again! What if I had the same attitude? What if I said until you admit you cannot "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a lack of belief you have nothing worth listening to"? It was you thinking you're special that got you into this trouble in the first place. Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 22:13:12 GMT
Aren't you special? Again! What if I had the same attitude? What if I said until you admit you cannot "show that their reasons were not good ones" from a lack of belief you have nothing worth listening to"? It was you thinking you're special that got you into this trouble in the first place. Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to. You might be an expert on being a tedious bore, so there's that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 22:25:47 GMT
Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to. You might be an expert on being a tedious bore, so there's that. Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 9, 2018 22:34:12 GMT
You might be an expert on being a tedious bore, so there's that. Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 22:45:47 GMT
Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to. Even your snores are a lie, lol. Until you retract your lie, you've nothing to say worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 9:48:10 GMT
Thank you for making clear what the problem is here. You are a "grunt." That is a disparaging term, I know, I'm sorry. [QED] I couldn't believe Sigourney Weaver (as "Ripley") used the term in the movie Aliens. How rude! And against people her life depended on! It means a person who only follows orders because he isn't capable of independent thought or articulate speech. He depends entirely on what he believes is "authority" for all his thoughts and decisions. ... You are just a grunt. Grunts accuse their opponents of "fallacies" because it is a simple and seemingly powerful alternative to actually engaging in the argument and building a case. There may indeed be times when arguing that something is not good because it seems unnatural will not be effective in convincing reasonable people of anything. However there can also be times, as with ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and many other types of arguments, that such an argument works very logically. You are obviously not capable of knowing the difference, which is why I recommend you don't ever try. I see that you have largely given up addressing my point-by-point answers, and now you simply make disparaging comments about me, still thinking it will do in lieu of disputation. It won't. But I can see why you might wish to avoid engaging with things. Despite the special pleading implied and non-sequiturs shown in the above paragraph, I will continue to flag up common fallacies whenever you use them. But thank you again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2018 11:35:09 GMT
Thank you for making clear what the problem is here. You are a "grunt." That is a disparaging term, I know, I'm sorry. [QED] I couldn't believe Sigourney Weaver (as "Ripley") used the term in the movie Aliens. How rude! And against people her life depended on! It means a person who only follows orders because he isn't capable of independent thought or articulate speech. He depends entirely on what he believes is "authority" for all his thoughts and decisions. ... You are just a grunt. Grunts accuse their opponents of "fallacies" because it is a simple and seemingly powerful alternative to actually engaging in the argument and building a case. There may indeed be times when arguing that something is not good because it seems unnatural will not be effective in convincing reasonable people of anything. However there can also be times, as with ad hominem, ad populum, ad potentiam and many other types of arguments, that such an argument works very logically. You are obviously not capable of knowing the difference, which is why I recommend you don't ever try. I see that you have largely given up addressing my point-by-point answers, and now you simply make disparaging comments about me, still thinking it will do in lieu of disputation. It won't. But I can see why you might wish to avoid engaging with things. Despite the special pleading implied and non-sequiturs shown in the above paragraph, I will continue to flag up common fallacies whenever you use them. But thank you again. And you will likely continue to be wrong until some authority you recognize sets you on the right path. That's how it works with grunts. Again I am sorry to use such a disparaging term, but someone needs to clue you in and this is a virtually anonymous place to do that. You have given no "point-by-point" response. You appear to be suffering from the delusion that humans cannot learn anything from nature ever, which of course only a grunt would believe. You appear to have no appreciation for the need to live in harmony with nature, again because you are a grunt. I said the same thing to @graham (same person?), your understanding of the meaning of words, rules of debate and logic is so tenuous that it can be difficult to guess what you are about. I don't believe either of you know yourselves what you are about most of the time. You have never as far as I know called anything a logical fallacy correctly, and are not likely to ever do that, again because you are a grunt. However since you cannot make any convincing arguments yourself you have no choice but to claim victory because you believe some authority dictates you are victorious, because that is how it is with grunts.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 11:43:02 GMT
And you will likely continue to be wrong until some authority you recognize sets you on the right path. Something such as standard reference works like the Encylopedia Britannica that I used, just earlier? Or the dictionaries we are told you argue with and win? Or, just perhaps, you mean your authority of a purported deliberate supernatural, such as for which you are never, ever, able to offer any positive evidence? I see. And, once again, you are addressing me disparagingly rather than the points I have raised lately. Which is still a shame. But I am still not surprised. By this time rudeness, of a repetitive nature too, is all you have left lol
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2018 12:00:42 GMT
And you will likely continue to be wrong until some authority you recognize sets you on the right path. Something such as standard reference works like the Encylopedia Britannica? Or the dictionaries we are told you argue with and win? Or, just perhaps, you mean your authority of a purported deliberate supernatural, such as for which you are never able to offer any positive evidence? And, once again, you are addressing me disparagingly rather than the points I have raised lately. Which is still a shame. But I am still not surprised. By this time rudeness, of a repetitive nature too, is all you have left lol The Britannica might be correct insofar as it goes. The likely culprit is your interpretation of what Britannica says. I have given details, you have not. It is however possible that even "authorities" of past repute have fallen sway to the grunts responsible for the lie that any agency found in nature could have initiated life on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 12:19:33 GMT
The Britannica might be correct insofar as it goes. Yes, it goes even so far as correctly defining a fallacy. QED. The first thing you said was that "there is no "fallacy of nature", and I showed that there was, remember? The details of the case was that you said originally "the subject of modern religious activities and might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics . The term "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" can be used to characterize inferences of the form "Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable." So, QED again, and I hope that helps. All that is required, Arlon, is for one to assert that in the case of the origins of life on earth, presently at least, nature works in mysterious ways. This always seems to be perfectly satisfactory for any of the devoutly-challenged who cannot explain what their preferred deity is up to. For my own part, it is hard to take any lessons in understanding from one with extreme credulity in supernatural alternatives and who, moreover apparently does not know how old the cosmos is - or discounts quantum physics, come to that. But we've been here before.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 10, 2018 12:30:39 GMT
The Britannica might be correct insofar as it goes. Yes, it goes even so far as correctly defining a fallacy. QED. The first thing you said was that "there is no "fallacy of nature", and I showed that there was, remember? The details of the case was that you said originally "the subject of modern religious activities and might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics . So QED again, and I hope that helps. All that is required, Arlon, is for one to assert that in the case of the origins of life on earth, presently at least, nature works in mysterious ways. This always seems to be perfectly satisfactory for any of the devoutly-challenged who cannot explain what their preferred deity is up to. For my own part, it is hard to take any lessons in understanding from one with extreme credulity in supernatural alternatives and who, moreover apparently does not know how old the cosmos is - or discounts quantum physics, come to that. But we've been here before. As I predicted you still do not understand what you're talking about. You saw the words "nature" and "religion" in the same paragraph and decided there must be some "fallacy." Red flag that. We both know you only have to see the word religion in a paragraph to decide it must contain a fallacy. There are indeed examples of failures in logic, all of your attempts are. You are the one guilty of any "fallacy of nature." See how that works? Now you try and get out of it. Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance are also not really rules and not helpful in deciding the winner of any argument. They are just "made up" by grunts who can't win any other way than claiming some rule requires it. You need such "rules" because you are losing so bad.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 13:18:34 GMT
you still do not understand what you're talking about. You saw the words "nature" and "religion" in the same paragraph and decided there must be some "fallacy." Red flag that. We both know you only have to see the word religion in a paragraph to decide it must contain a fallacy. Religion has nothing to do with it (even though you first asked people to check out your site to see your vague definitions of god). As the emphases in my last replied showed, the fallacy found was in asserting that nature was essential in establishing ethics, i.e. where your words were just a variant of the idea that "something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or it must be a guide for ethics. So, QED again. I still hope this helps. But it won't, since you are not accepting the obvious. Then please show where I have entertained the naturalistic fallacy in my arguments. I shan't hold my breath. Yet as a rule, one often discovers them in your arguments, Arlon LOL. 'Winning' and 'losing' are your terms of reference for this sort of discussion not mine. I commonly, and I think more realistically, see the disputations on this board at most leading to the impression, on balance, of one side being likely more correct than another. But, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 11, 2018 2:33:13 GMT
you still do not understand what you're talking about. You saw the words "nature" and "religion" in the same paragraph and decided there must be some "fallacy." Red flag that. We both know you only have to see the word religion in a paragraph to decide it must contain a fallacy. Religion has nothing to do with it (even though you first asked people to check out your site to see your vague definitions of god). As the emphases in my last replied showed, the fallacy found was in asserting that nature was essential in establishing ethics, i.e. where your words were just a variant of the idea that "something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or it must be a guide for ethics. So, QED again. I still hope this helps. But it won't, since you are not accepting the obvious. Then please show where I have entertained the naturalistic fallacy in my arguments. I shan't hold my breath. Yet as a rule, one often discovers them in your arguments, Arlon LOL. 'Winning' and 'losing' are your terms of reference for this sort of discussion not mine. I commonly, and I think more realistically, see the disputations on this board at most leading to the impression, on balance, of one side being likely more correct than another. But, whatever. I understand that nature can inform ethics. Geography can inform ethics. That seems to have escaped your attention for the moment. I will try to explain why. Most of this has already been covered by me for years, but here it is again anyway. Formal debates do not argue over definitions. Definitions are considered mere labels that contain no truth in themselves. Definitions are not right or wrong. They are useful in their application or not. They fit as applied or don't fit. All definitions are in fact arbitrary. Therefore both sides of a formal debate choose definitions before the debate starts by mutual agreement. You might have one definition of "good" and I might have another. In order for us to have a debate whether some plan XYZ is "good" we would have to agree to one definition of good in the first place, or the debate would be pointless and unending. The reason many debates online about the existence of god are pointless and unending is that the two (or more) sides have failed to agree on the definition of a god. The existence of one depends entirely on what you mean by one. If you mean an entity that grants a million dollars to anyone who asks, then that god probably does not exist. If you mean a god who symbolizes some set of higher ideals, then that god probably does exist. Until both sides agree to one and the same definition of a god, the debate over its existence can never resolve anything. The Britannica article on the "naturalistic fallacy" is about one definition of "good." It is saying that there is no "true" definition of good. Notice that is what I just said. No definitions of any words are true. All definitions are arbitrary. The meaning of the word "good" is whatever the speaker intends it to mean. People who claim they have "the" definition of good are not justified, since there is no such definition. Notice others on this board often proceed on the assumption that they have "the" definition of a word, the "right" definition of the word. The "naturalistic fallacy" is saying there is no such definition of the word "good," but I have told you there is no such definition of any word. That means that if we are going to have a debate whether plan XYZ is "good" it is necessary for us to agree what we mean in this context by the word "good" before we begin the actual debate. That does not mean that we must proceed with no definition at all or one based on your use or one based on my use. We may mutually and arbitrarily decide to define "good" anyway we want for the purpose of assessing whether plan XYZ is "good." Our choice may be informed by nature. It may be informed by geography. There is no "fallacy" in a definition that is mutually agreed upon. Got all that? Now back to how nature does in fact inform belief systems, even ethical belief systems. The "naturalistic fallacy" does not permit the automatic definition of "good" by some natural phenomena, however notice that it does not provide any other definition. That is a big problem. We need some definition of "good" or some definition of "ethical" or some definition of something before we can begin developing a system. This definition may be informed by nature and probably should be. Gender roles in the past and still today are informed by the differences in the nature of men and women. Still today men are preferred to fulfill military roles. Women are preferred to assume custody of children. Technology has enabled people to escape these roles somewhat, but not entirely. The "Equal Rights Amendment" intended to make men and women "equal" in all respects failed. It will always fail because the courts are not capable of making the military half men and half women. The courts are not capable of awarding custody of children half the time to the father and half the time to the mother. Nature defies it. You must recognize nature. You must obey. It is ethical and it is logical. There is no fallacy. Geography informs the laws of the many states in the United States of America. Indeed what is "right" or "wrong" in one state can be different in another state with a different landscape. It is totally ethical and totally logical. Because you never learned anything I taught you and probably never will, you took the position that nature cannot inform ethical systems, that it would be a "naturalistic fallacy" to attempt that. Yours is the totally ridiculous, illogical position.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 13, 2018 12:01:21 GMT
I understand that nature can inform ethics. That may or may not be the case, but this is not at all the same as your claim - to which the objection remains - that "the subject of modern religious activities ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" where the supposed necessity of 'lessons from nature' is fallacious. Don't make me repeat this again. OK, then: I'm listening... (although it takes a while for you to get to it..) It does not take a mastermind to discover that the idea of 'god' varies from person to person and from culture to culture. However, most people take a fairly predictable and conventional view of what they mean as surveys have shown. EG Stateside is the conventional God of the Bible. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/april/we-believe-in-god-what-americans-mean-pew-survey.html Just as you have been told before. However, as you have also been told before, conventional or traditional ideas of god fall away the better educated a person is and especially among physical scientists. Atheists commonly only concern themselves with the deliberate supernatural God, since more nebulous notions of a cause which is random and a 'god' which can be anything are less controversial. In which case your earlier quoted words, concerning the supposed "complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics." fail, together with any purported system of ethics because, well, as you cannot define anything of which you speak from the outset how can be sure of what is necessary?Unfortunately the use of nature, by way of creating ethics is not ever "mutually agreed on" at all - which is exactly why it is a fallacy. As Britannica says, the thinker G.E. Moore presented in Principia Ethica a standard argument against the naturalistic fallacy, with the aim of proving that “good” is the name of a simple, unanalyzable quality, incapable of being defined in terms of some natural quality of the world. In short you are being disingenuous; if 'natural good' (as well as all other words) cannot be defined in the first place then, ultimately, the only "mutual agreement" possible is in agreeing with this supposed fact. So not only is there is nothing in nature "required" to build ethics, but not even anything everyone agrees on, not least since you can't have it both ways! See how it works? I have, yes; but you still need to think it through some more, I guess... Er, that's exactly why referring to nature as a standard for 'good' is a fallacy, is it not? A big problem indeed since earlier you have assured us that "there is no such definition of any word" your hopes immediately above notwithstanding (so which are neither here nor there.) Have you thought this through? This is rather one of your regular non-sequiturs, and you appear something of a social dinosaur, since it would only be the most social conservative commentators who would seek to define gender roles in society based on what is "natural" and would fall under our favourite fallacy in doing so. I am not sure what you mean by "nature defies it" when it comes to child custody either; it is changes in society: economic, legal and cultural, and not 'nature' which has led to the new structures of family life in the west recently. But I think you really know all this. But I can well imagine you being the sort of commentator to tut at stay-at-home dads, or women who want to enter previously male-only professions, or bewail the decline of "the weaker sex", so nothing surprises me with all this. With this last paragraph of yours I think I can see why you need to play down the Naturalistic Fallacy so vigorously. For you often need it as one rhetorical prop in the arguments against feminism, wider equality and the modern society. It's logical that ethics are decided by geography (rather than say, equality of treatment for all wherever they live) so that, for instance abortion is legal in one state and not next door? How's that then? However you wriggle my friend, the fact is that 'good' is just not a natural property - especially so when you agree that the word cannot be defined in the first place! It remains fallacious to explain that which is 'good' reductively in this way. But go on...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 13, 2018 12:24:49 GMT
I understand that nature can inform ethics. That may or may not be the case, but this is not at all the same as your claim - to which the objection remains - that "the subject of modern religious activities ... might mean just the complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics" where the supposed necessity of 'lessons from nature' is fallacious. Don't make me repeat this again. OK, then: I'm listening... (although it takes a while for you to get to it..) It does not take a mastermind to discover that the idea of 'god' varies from person to person and from culture to culture. However, most people take a fairly predictable and conventional view of what they mean as surveys have shown. EG Stateside is the conventional God of the Bible. www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/april/we-believe-in-god-what-americans-mean-pew-survey.html Just as you have been told before. However, as you have also been told before, conventional or traditional ideas of god fall away the better educated a person is and especially among physical scientists. Atheists commonly only concern themselves with the deliberate supernatural God, since more nebulous notions of a cause which is random and a 'god' which can be anything are less controversial. In which case your earlier quoted words, concerning the supposed "complex and nebulous forces in nature and society required to develop a system of ethics." fail, together with any purported system of ethics because, well, as you cannot define anything of which you speak from the outset how can be sure of what is necessary? Unfortunately the use of nature, by way of creating ethics is not ever "mutually agreed on" at all - which is exactly why it is a fallacy. As Britannica says, the thinker G.E. Moore presented in Principia Ethica an argument against what he called the naturalistic fallacy, with the aim of proving that “good” is the name of a simple, unanalyzable quality, incapable of being defined in terms of some natural quality of the world. In short you are being disingenuous; if 'natural good' (as well as all other words) cannot be defined in the first place then, ultimately, the only "mutual agreement" possible is in agreeing with this supposed fact. So not only is there is nothing in nature "required" to build ethics, but not even anything everyone agrees on, not least since you can't have it both ways! See how it works? I have, yes; but you still need to think it through some more, I guess... Er, that's exactly why referring to nature as a standard for 'good' is a fallacy, is it not? A big problem indeed since earlier you have assured us that "there is no such definition of any word" your hopes immediately above notwithstanding (so which are neither here nor there.) Have you thought this through? This is rather one of your regular non-sequiturs, and you appear something of a social dinosaur, since it would only be the most social conservative commentators who would seek to define gender roles in society based on what is "natural" and would fall under our favourite fallacy in doing so. I am not sure what you mean by "nature defies it" when it comes to child custody either; it is changes in society: economic, legal and cultural, and not 'nature' which has led to the new structures of family life in the west recently. But I think you really know all this. But I can well imagine you being the sort of commentator to tut at stay-at-home dads, or women who want to enter previously male-only professions, or bewail the decline of "the weaker sex", so nothing surprises me with all this. With this last paragraph of yours I think I can see why you need to play down the Naturalistic Fallacy so vigorously. For you often need it as one rhetorical prop in the arguments against feminism, wider equality and the modern society. It's logical that ethics are decided by geography (rather than say, equality of treatment for all wherever they live) so that, for instance abortion is legal in one state and not next door? How's that then? However you wriggle my friend, the fact is that 'good' is just not a natural property - especially so when you agree that the word cannot be defined in the first place! It remains fallacious to explain that which is 'good' reductively in this way. But go on... You do not seem to be aware of the fact that you have no definition of "good" at all. This should not be surprising since we know science is incapable of dealing with most issues in society. The issues arise because people disagree what the problem is. Science has nothing to deal with that, partly because you have no definition of what is good. I have shown you why people searching for a necessary, mutually agreed definition of good often (not always) find some (not all) lessons in nature what is best practice. All you have to offer is that there is no "automatic" or inherent definition of good as anything natural, which no professional disputes. You have no definition yourself. It is really not necessary to interrupt the debate to announce your complete incompetence participate. You could save time and embarrassment by simply staying home. If nature may not inform definitions of good, what informs your definition? Why should anyone use your definitions? I suggest that anything you can find will be less sensible for defining good.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 13, 2018 13:17:41 GMT
You do not seem to be aware of the fact that you have no definition of "good" at all. Whether or not this is true - and it is not, as I give a broad one below - that does not invalidate the standing observation that nature cannot, logically speaking, be used to provide an example of 'good', and to presume so - as you do in your article ("the complex ... forces in nature ... required to develop a system of ethics" etc - is a fallacy. Since I have not been discussing science, and science would not be expected to deal with such matters in any case, I am not sure of the relevance of this. It is interesting, though, to see a purported Christian (and one of your ilk, too) being unable to define good, lol And I have shown you what constitutes the Naturalistic Fallacy, to which the observations obtain. QED then. But you have not asked me. As it happens I can think of quite a few working definitions, a more general example of which I give below. Remember what I said about ad hominem fallacies? I do.
The concept of good denotes that conduct which is to be, or should be, preferred or approved of when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions, and is the opposite of evil. Most good will refer to the greatest benefit, especially to all. Dictionaries and philosophical encylopedias are, typically, replete with definitions of the word (most usually without the phrase "as found in nature") so your idea that such a thing is 'not possible' is, strictly speaking, false, although feel free to argue with them and win. Of course it is understood that what is good for one may be bad for another. But that is not an issue of a necessary definition, just a confusion of context. I hope that helps.
If not, then you can just look it up in your Bible - which is conspicuously not so chary of definitions as you apparently are...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 13, 2018 20:59:36 GMT
You have not been discussing logic either. Dictionaries provide synonyms; favorable, attractive, suitable, preferred, approved et cetera and antonyms; evil, bad, et cetera, none of which are any use in establishing whether any specific object (insects, goats) or event (rain, winds) is good. Curiously "diseased" as an antonym of good does derive from nature, is found in dictionaries, and there is no such thing as the "fallacy" you imagine. The greatest good for the greatest number is likewise no use in establishing whether any specific object or event is good. In its utter simplicity it is argumentum ad populum which is known to be fallacious in most matters of religion and science, if not politics. If you have 400 people in a room you could have 400 different notions of what is the greatest good for the greatest number. That is much like your other totally useless definition of "gnostic." You are not connecting to reality. A definition, to have any value, must connect to reality since that is the only way it is "right." It cannot be "right" while disconnected from reality like "gnostic" or "what most people think." Because of your extreme simplicity you might imagine you have answers in extremely simple formulations. You do not. In a room of 400 people, 395 of them would probably recommend "the greatest good for the greatest number,' and yet have 395 different ideas what that is. You have not been at all logical in providing any other basis than nature for good. You're like a small child who defines "good" as "what people like." That is not a definition connecting to anything in reality. It is merely a different set of words. You have no definition. You have employed "fallacies" (ad populum) yourself in trying to find a definition. Many years ago many people did not understand "ecology." Older people can remember when there was no such term. Today we have the term and we know how interdependent our lives are on the other living things in our "ecosystem." It is essential that our policies and ethics are sculpted to live in harmony with nature. If you do not understand that you are severely mentally retarded. The "greatest good for the greatest number" (as I see that) indeed demands that we consider nature in defining good. Obviously some things in nature can be "bad" in the immediate, like lightning. That can mean that we be careful what lessons we take from nature, that is all. The so called "fallacy of nature" simply means that some things in nature are bad in the immediate and no definition exists outside our mutual and arbitrary efforts to form a definition. It does not and cannot forbid learning from nature what is good.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 14, 2018 9:09:28 GMT
You have not been discussing logic
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 14, 2018 14:02:31 GMT
Go back and read my explanation of the fallacy again For what purpose? You have no clear idea yourself. What you have accomplished here with all your efforts is to thoroughly establish time after time that A) You are the problem here. B) That is because you have a remarkably elementary (underdeveloped) understanding of words, their meanings, and the world around you. (You are a grunt.) C) You fail to construct any case whatsoever and expect to defeat your opponents' case by claiming there is some "rule" they did not follow. D) That is because you typically follow "rules" yourself without ever understanding any rules. (You are a grunt.) I advised you to avoid that practice since it only highlights in public that you do not understand any rules, and are not fit to apply them. Rather I recommended you show step by step what failure of logic you notice and why it is a failure. Had you followed that advice you wouldn't be making an idiot of yourself here. Had the Republicans followed my advice they wouldn't have elected Donald Trump. ~~~~~=*=~~~~~
In elementary school this practice of adapting definitions to immediate purposes is discouraged because it is necessary that students first acquire a foundation or base of knowledge from which later to more interactively engage the world around them. They are not introduced to critical thinking and their criticism, if any, of their education is usually not tolerated. There is no debate in elementary school (much) because students are not adequately prepared. In later levels of elementary school there is a very gradual introduction to the necessity of critical analysis of the things they are told. Many high school students are ready to engage in meaningful and constructive debate, but sadly many of them are still not. No one should go to college unless they have developed some skill for meaningful and constructive analysis. You are still not adequately prepared for debate. Grunts are not. That's what makes you grunts. Your only contact with the world is at a very elementary level. In "your mother's basement" with a "dictionary" (kids playing on the internet) you have no idea what you are doing and brazenly confront people who can show what idiots (grunts) you are. ~~~~~=*=~~~~~
Perhaps you have met one of those "fundamentalist" Christians who felt strongly that you need to "accept Jesus." Perhaps you were confused or disturbed by their compulsion to such an ill defined commitment. Perhaps you asked them what that means. Many novice Christians indeed have no idea what it means. It is just a word, J-e-s-u-s. It could mean anything. Their own understanding of its meaning is rather elementary. Many of them are thus members for the sake of membership alone. Sadly many of them never develop any exact idea what difference it makes to "accept Jesus." Those are the people later who when they do it, it's fine, when anyone who is not a member does it, its evil. Lately the term "tribal" has been used to describe them. "Nationalists" can also have an inappropriate focus on membership. Notice that their definition of "Jesus" and your definition of anything, especially those words frequently at issue here, are remarkably inadequate to engage the world in any debate. Their concept of "Jesus" is remarkably anthropomorphic. I have explained, or perhaps I should say suggested, that children in elementary school are not yet prepared for the abstract concepts of religion and still require a "person" to engage their attention. The New Testament provides such an anthropomorphic convergence point in Jesus, but merely as an accommodation to children. You call me a "Christian" quite without my ever having given you a reason to do that. Your reason is that you need to put me in a convenient category that you can label as illogical and dismiss my arguments by invoking what you believe are rules. The remarkable thing is how much like some Christians you are. ~~~~~=*=~~~~~
Synonyms are not "definitions" of the sort required for meaningful and constructive debate. They do not typically advise how any label should be attached to any particular object or event. They are merely another label with the "same" purpose, whatever that is. That can point some people toward some meaning but it is not what formal debate requires. You have provided other labels for "good" but no definition whatsoever. Thus you are in no position to criticize mine. Formal debate requires criteria for definitions. You still fail to understand the concept of "criteria." In order for a definition to be meaningful for the purposes of debate there must be some standard readily recognized and accepted by all parties to the debate. Exceptionally abstract criteria such as might be involved in definitions of "gnostic" are insufficiently recognized by the wide world, thus no definition develops. Your "definition" of good is likewise without any criteria. ~~~~~=*=~~~~~
I have offered a "definition" of religion as system concerned with abstract forces in nature and society that develops an ethical system. There is nothing illogical about that. That you believe so highlights what a complete imbecile you are. Nature and geography have defined our policies and ethics. The "Equal Rights Amendment" will never be ratified because nature defies it. Various states have various laws because their geography is different. Our dependence on nature has lately been more thoroughly understood through ecology. "I" have already won the use of nature in informing policy. It has been won. There is nothing your silly whining can do about that. As wonderful a thing as science is, and I have enjoyed and appreciated science all my life, it cannot address most issues in society. It has no definition of good and cannot obtain one, as you have thoroughly shown. The arts of religion and debate can.
|
|