|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 15, 2018 11:26:30 GMT
You are the problem here. That is because you have a remarkably elementary (underdeveloped) understanding of words, their meanings, and the world around you. (You are a grunt.) You fail to construct any case whatsoever and expect to defeat your opponents' case by claiming there is some "rule" they did not follow. That is because you typically follow "rules" yourself without ever understanding any rules. (You are a grunt.).. idiot ... 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. Personal attacks like this are, still, not adequate substitute for an argument, Arlon and, as you really ought to know by now, thinking such is just the tired old ad hominem fallacy. But at least you have now dropped the offensive 'retard'. Yes, it is a real shame if all your letters and calls went unanswered. Fascinating stuff I am sure, but.. another non-sequitur noted. This perhaps is not entirely surprising since Jesus - at least as I have been strongly assured by the faithful when it has come up - was an historical personage. So, duh. Which is nonsense since the NT provides, among other things a detailed picture of a man, his followers, and his sayings and not as 'an accommodation to children'. On second thoughts though the idea that half of scripture is merely for children (or perhaps the childish of mind) is an interesting one and I will certainly bear it in mind lol My mistake. I did not know you are not a Christian and don't give any reason to think you are, apparently. That would explain a lot. But are you a Christian then? Remember these words before replying, my friend: "Matthew 10:33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." No, the reason was that you have, for instance, frequently advanced the notion of a deliberate supernatural Creator as the only explaination for reality and, famously, plan to appeal the landmark Dover verdict - a trial which was predicated around the teaching of creationism, er ID in public schools where the context was entirely that of fundamentalist Christian belief. (A point noted by the judge). So you can see how one might easily draw conclusions on such a basis... Since, you say, you cannot define words, then I am sure 'Christian' is now something you don't recognise. I am certainly not to, at least as far as you are concerned, I am now to understand. In which case, er, how would you know what I am liken to? (Or my question directly above notwithstanding, be able to recognise yourself as such?) See how this works? And here you confuse, again, the strict definition of a word found easily in reference books and the principle, or standard, by which something may be judged or decided as such over which examples and instances there may be disagreement. Just as I made clear to you before, just because many people cannot agree on something experienced does not mean that they do not have, or cannot have an idea of what it is. For instance, all have a (in your words) meaningful idea of justice. But in the courts, opposing sides will disagree on whether it has been served. I hope that helps. But it won't. There certainly is when you have told me, that all definitions are impossible ("I have told you there is no such definition of any[my emphasis] word.") Remember the ad hominem fallacy, Arlon? I still do. How does 'nature' 'defy' the idea of equal rights, Arlon, when it comes to political and social issues? Is this where you argue that women are the weaker sex? Are you sure this is not just convenient and fallacious arguing from conservatives? And please reference where nature (I exclude the phrase 'natural justice') have 'defined' ethics. Given the fallacious nature of attempting this, for reasons already patiently explained, it will be hard to find modern ethical thinkers who would argue this. Never the less, a postcode lottery as far as treatment under the law, or by health services for instance, is not usually considered either a necessary or welcome thing. Since you cannot define, or agree on words, apparently, then how can one know what on earth you refer to? I didn't know your policies had had such a success at the highest levels of government. Congratulations. As already pointed out, science has nothing to say on morality either defining or measuring (except perhaps for some of the soft sciences). So there is no need to keep making this entirely redundant point. However since, apparently, religion cannot define what is 'good' (and neither can you it seems) then it is doubtful that, by your own measure it will prove any use. But keep going. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2018 13:02:27 GMT
How well I know, PKB. This is another in the long list of flaws you see in others, but not in yourself though you certainly do the same thing, or in this case worse. That is a very serious and dangerous personality flaw. If this were real life authorities would be alerted. My understanding of, and relationship with, divinity does not require your comments. Perhaps you should only comment on things you understand. It does in fact explain a lot, my religious beliefs are my own concern and I have never troubled you with them. I have no plans to start troubling you with them at the moment since they would boggle your simple mind. You speak from ignorance of science. That I do not concur with your notions of science in no way indicates my stance on any religion. You are obviously not following well at all. I can define words and have always said so. That is an obviously dishonest attempt to avoid presenting any criteria. Try again. And there's more to come. We agree at last. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 15, 2018 13:29:28 GMT
FF: Personal attacks like this are, still, not adequate substitute for an argument. Arlon: This is another in the long list of flaws you see in others, but not in yourself though you certainly do the same thing, or in this case worse. That is a very serious and dangerous personality flaw. If this were real life authorities would be alerted. This being the case then please show where I have personally insulted, or worse, you on this thread. Otherwise my point about your tactics in debate stands. No, honestly: JC is most understandably seen in anthropomorphic terms since, well, scripture consistently frames him as human, with human traits & etc in its narrative. You can look this up, Christian or not. Whether or not this is 'only commendable to children' as you suggest is another matter. By not answering such a simple question, given what you have revealed in previous threads, and in effect denying your faith to serve the purposes of your current argument, does not create a favourable impression. Jesus would be proud of you. It reminds me of your similar reticence in conveniently not being able to say how old the cosmos or the earth is. Ah well. Another personal insult. Another instance of the ad hominem fallacy. No, I speak from a distinct memory of your stance on previous threads, where you consistently criticised the notion of a purely natural cause in favour of a deliberate supernatural. And you do not come across as a deist. At least I am up front and honest with where I stand. The suspicion is that you avoid making such clarifications for fear of embarrassment and having to face awkward questioning. Really? Is that why you told me earlier, without qualification that "I have told you there is no such definition of any word."? I see. Arlon: That is an obviously dishonest attempt to avoid presenting any criteria. Try again.
Look back at what I said, just previously, by way of distinguishing between definitions and criteria and then come back to me again. Just because many people cannot agree on something experienced does not mean that they do not have, or cannot have an idea of what it is, or indeed how it can be assessed. One is reminded of the moment in a Supreme Court trial in 1964, based around a test of obscenity, where the judge said exactly that: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.." I hope that helps.
And none of this alters the fact that it is still a fallacy to think one can conceive ethics through inferences from what is "natural", for example "it is natural and best that that women should stay at home with the children and let men be the breadwinner" etc.
And knowing that, I shall naturally give it the level of attention it fully deserves. Arlon: We agree at last. Then why make the point that "science ...has no definition of good and cannot obtain one" in the first place? I don't know either. Unless it is just another arlon-sequitur by way of distraction |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 15, 2018 22:46:50 GMT
Remember what I said about you claiming others have committed logical fallacies? Remember I said you shouldn't do that? Remember what I said about you not applying the rules properly? Well, there is much more. You are apparently unaware how insulting it is. It is very much like calling a person stupid or a liar, especially when you have been shown wrong several times. Now do you think you can avoid doing that? What with it being so insulting and all? It is actually your failure of logic (shshsh, but that means you're stupid.) Very likely yes he was. Some people think he was much more. Opinions vary how much more. At the very least, which is my point. I have a mirror here. What I said is that definitions do not exist outside our mutually agreed arbitrary definitions. Blessed by them is a totally different thing. But thanks for your confession that you missed the whole point. Until you can follow better there is little point to this. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2018 9:22:54 GMT
FF: please show where I have personally insulted, or worse, you on this thread. Arlon: Remember what I said about you claiming others have committed logical fallacies? Remember I said you shouldn't do that? Remember what I said about you not applying the rules properly? Well, there is much more. You are apparently unaware how insulting it is. It is very much like calling a person stupid or a liar, especially when you have been shown wrong several times. Now do you think you can avoid doing that? What with it being so insulting and all? It is actually your failure of logic.. Pointing out widely accepted logical flaws in your arguments, especially when repeated, over and over, are not 'personal insults', Arlon, since I am criticising the argument, not the person so here you are reaching, rather. Most times you will see that I only helpfully repeat that you have been reminded of the weakness in argument before, and perhaps why the fallacy is considered as such. And, your objections to my flagging up the various fallacies you habitually employ were not even based around the fact that it is supposedly offensive, it was more that you just did not accept definitions. Remember what I had said about the ad hominem fallacy?
Hence one would expect him characterised in anthropomorphic terms. QED.
You have a conveniently poor memory, Arlon. My reply was specifically to your suggestions that the idea of Jesus would be " remarkably [my emphasis] anthropomorphic" and, more, that "The New Testament provides such an anthropomorphic convergence point in Jesus, but merely as an accommodation to children " Which implies that it would be less remarkable, and more adult, to deny Jesus such human characteristics such as say, love, empathy, kindness and anger etc. But since you don't admit to being a Christian or not, perhaps this makes sense to you. Leaving aside that, inconveniently, dictionaries are full of definitions (which presumably is why you feel the need to argue against them 'and win'), when you say things like "I have offered a "definition" of religion as system concerned with abstract forces in nature ... that develops an ethical system", where one does not 'mutually agree' at all that Nature is amenable to being used in this way, such a definition fails by your own rule of thumb, and so does your thesis. Again. Thanks for playing, since it appears now you are bailing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2018 11:16:36 GMT
Clarify something here. Are you saying that because you are "right" you are not insulting me? Or that you are insulting me, but it's okay because you're right? Suppose I am right. Could I then justifiably insult you? Would it even be considered insulting? Remember what I said about you failing to see in yourself the flaws you see in others? Well, there it is again. This might help you quit that. You leave the impression that you're certain "belief" is a disease others have but you don't. It has become obvious that yours are just as much beliefs as anyone else's. I don't think it matters how much you believe you're right, you're still insulting to others. I suppose it might become necessary to be insulting, but pretending to be special when you're not is the problem. Furthermore you are not right, so it's much worse the offense. Belief is not a disease, by the way. I have explained that belief can be very efficient. If people just do what they are told, things can work out wonderfully. It can save the time, expense and heartache of testing bad ideas over and over. Grunts who haven't the skill to form their own opinions and just believe in authority can be the most marvelous citizens with very rich and productive lives. I suppose for example that you are a decent enough person. The fact that you are a grunt would not be a problem except for one tiny detail. You have allied yourselves with the wrong authorities. You have convinced yourselves that you are "logical" and that you arrive at your decisions through well honed science. You are not logical or scientific yourselves and you just copy what you believe is science. In fact it is a pack of lies aimed at convincing yourselves and others that you do not "believe" anything. Yes, I remember that everything you said about it is irrelevant because you're trying to follow "rules" you do not understand and force others to follow you, and do not realize that you are not the police. Dictionaries are compiled by people in my profession and I have a clue or two about how they work. The entries that appear in dictionaries do so according to their usage. That means the definition you see in the dictionary is used by many people or some significant group of people in that way. It does not mean that definition is "right." It only means people choose that meaning and are understood. My problem with you here is that you still fail to see that utility is all that matters. There is no "truth" in a label except as it is properly attached to something. You keep trying to prevent more useful definitions by claiming they violate some rule. You are operating in elementary school mode where you blindly accept whatever your teachers tell you without question. Trying to say that nature cannot define what is good is not useful, and therefore not logical. I suppose it is also not useful expecting nature to define all good automatically either, thus the Britannica article. I'm not proposing either. We do however need to address nature and society in developing a system of ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 16, 2018 12:11:36 GMT
Clarify something here. Are you saying that because you are "right" you are not insulting me? Or that you are insulting me, but it's okay because you're right? No, if you look back you will see that I said that pointing out widely accepted logical flaws in your arguments, especially when repeated, over and over, are not reasonably construed 'personal insults' - especially since I address the argument, not the person. But it is certainly right that the Naturalistic, and the other fallacies I regularly confront you with, are widely understood with long, explicable pedigrees. I hope that helps. Usually speaking, an 'insult' has to be untrue to actually be one. But once again, we have been here before; I remember how then you contested this rule of thumb. So you will have to answer yourself if you are really uncertain - especially as, without 'mutually agreed and arbitrary' understanding of what it constitutes, presumably you don't think an insult can be defined in any case LOL. But I am fully aware that no one is perfect. However I, at least, don't have the flaw of condescension, calling others "idiots" or "retards" on this board, whilst hiding some of my own awkward beliefs from public scrutiny. If you refer to my belief in the deliberate supernatural then you ought to remember that I don't take a firm view. I merely lack one. I hope that helps. But this, and what follows, is just another diversion, is it not? As already mentioned, unless you can quote back to me a direct, personal insult such as "retard" etc, used by me lately, then all you are referring to is the understandable annoyance caused by being constantly reminded of logical fallacies in your arguments. For which I make no apologies. Well? Not so efficient as justified certainty, though. In the same way as faith is not so effective as the evidence which might allow that certainty. But I think you really know that. It certainly has worked out well for the church down the years - assisted by such helpful, instructional institutions as the Inquisition, of course. This further ad hominem aside (and one now inevitably wonders how you can define 'grunt' at all, with no "mutually agreed and arbitrary" distinction of what one is!) the question of the 'wrong authorities' is a subjective one - and you are welcome, as always to your unsubstantiated opinions. In the case of identifying fallacies, Arlon, it is a matter of rhetoric rather than science. If instead now you refer to a decision over whether a deliberate supernatural exists then, as said above, I have not made that decision. Which part of science is a 'pack of lies', Arlon? Is it perhaps the quantum physics which you have no truck with as when we discussed the science behind satellites, or the idea that the cosmos can be dated (when you are constantly unable to offer an alternative)? Or is the idea of knowing that nature works in mysterious ways? It is not a matter of the police, Arlon. It is understanding when a statement contains faulty logic. Such as the idea that everything necessarily must have been created deliberately by the supernatural - when there is no logical argument for the notion that there was must have been a time when there was absolutely nothing making up a natural reality. But thank you for this distraction. But here we are, essentially, back to you arguing with dictionaries and winning again are we not? (You also seem to be conflating definitions with labels, odd, especially since you have been keen on such a distinction in the past) lol. I always enjoy this moment. I see here you at least make some accommodation after the fact, which is belated and welcome. Never the less, to say how something ought to be by being reductive from nature, or how the world is ("Something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable") is logically fallacious - and no amount of special pleading will do away with this inconvenient fact. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2018 16:23:32 GMT
< isn't really certain himself what he said > I suppose a case could be made that your personal attacks on me would be considered justified "widely" or by some large number of people. If we were deciding to build a school on this side of the lake or that side it would make sense to take a vote since that is a totally political issue. Science might have input on the various advantages and disadvantages of each side of the lake, but it would be left to the people which of those matter more to them, unless they already passed other laws on those details. Such an argumentum ad populum would not be a fallacy at all and most political decisions are made based on it. Actual issues in science, perhaps taught in the school, are not decided by voting however. Whether the polar ice caps are melting or not is not decided by votes. Whether the agency responsible for the first assembly of life on a previously molten Earth is found in nature is not decided voting (in science anyway). To attempt to decide such things by a vote is described by some people (correctly) as an argumentum ad populum fallacy, since in those particular cases there has been a failure of logic. To decide that my arguments here are wrong because they are not yet accepted by a large number of people could be described by some people (correctly) as an argumentum ad populum fallacy. You are very guilty of that fallacy. You delude yourself that you are supported by science or logic. You delude yourself that you practice science or logic. You accept as fact whatever your herd does because that is how grunts work. You have been shown here each time to have failed logic. People who have never had the opportunity to examine my arguments might be more inclined to agree with you. They have other concerns that require their time and might not have considered my arguments. You have no excuse. You should know by now that I am right. The tide turns even now as more realize that you and the current powers in the world are on the wrong course. One day my arguments will be endorsed by an authority you grunts need to follow. Only then can you get it right. Until then you will follow your herd. Your elementary understanding things, especially science and religion, has caused your herd to stray far from actual science and religion. You are totally ignorant of the methods of logic and science you need to set you on a proper course. You continue to decide issues in science and religion by votes (fallaciously). No one even knows what your words mean. Even you don't know what you mean by "gnostic" or "good." You appear to believe that "definitions" exist and are simple to find in dictionaries. Those are however of no use whatever because you do not understand use. You cannot agree yourselves what your words mean when it comes to some real life example, you have no standard criteria for that. You cannot say whether pizza is good by your definition of "good" for example. You are lost at sea with no where to land. Quickly then the tide will continue to turn. Meanwhile you are too plain stupid to distinguish what should be decided by "wide acceptance" and what should be decided by methods you cannot begin to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 12:08:03 GMT
I suppose a case could be made that your personal attacks on me would be considered justified "widely" or by some large number of people. Once again, please quote where I have made a personal attack on you - as opposed to just flagging up whenever you employ a fallacy of logic when arguing. Finding such in my replies may well be annoying, but it is hardly the same as being called an 'idiot' or 'retard' etc. The suspicion here is that you have had to find something to be 'insulted' about, and so are just reaching. It is the idea that a proposition must necessarily be true because many or most people believe it, is what constitutes the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is not that because a majority say something then it is agreed, as with a popular vote, for a majority can be wrong. Hence, the school could be approved as the best place for construction and yet still fail though flooding when the landowner says 'I told you all so'.. False equivalence, which we see from you here btw is a logical fallacy too: one in which two arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. I hope that helps. This is hardly the case, Arlon when I have said, a couple of times now, that I am not saying you are necessarily wrong when you present your nearly-always unsubstantiated opinions. It is just that when one goes against authorities or an overwhelming consensus (as when say you claim that the age of the Cosmos or the earth is not as science suggests say, or argue with dictionaries), then it is much less likely that someone is right. As always you have your opinions - and are completely welcome to them. As for examining your arguments (or 'opinions' since that is all they usually are) the you ought to remember that I and others, similarly critical, have had that pleasure and challenge for sometime now - both here and on other threads. The overweening tone of this passage is unfortunately undermined by a lack of indication of what exactly it is referring to lol Which issues in science and religion have I 'decided' Arlon? First off: if you really don't know what some words mean, how can you be sure that I am incorrect when I define them for you? And if I give you dictionary definitions for words you would only argue with the dictionary and (think that you) win. If you assert that a proposition such as mine is false because it has not yet been proven true, while not even being to judge either way then, as I have already observed this would just be an Argument from Ignorance. Hey, another fallacy! On the contrary Arlon, by insisting that any definition is only meaningful if it meets your arbitrary agreement which must also be mutual with that of others, then everything is reduced to the subjective and you can, presumably veto the meanings you don't like very much or which are inconvenient to acknowledge. And as we see, you do. One is reminded of a young child's attitude towards whether vegetable are good for one. Is this like when, say, your copywrited and long-heralded Dover appeal goes through? And, a final reminder that an ad hominem is still a fallacy and is not an argument. But you know that by now... |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 20, 2018 13:27:19 GMT
< the same things as before > You're obviously sticking to your story and it's because you imagine your "authorities" require it of you. I already understand that. I understood it several repetitions ago. I predicted you would not get it right until some authority you recognize does since you have no talent yourself. So you stick to your story and I'll stick to mine. Time will tell. One caution, the more you insist you're right now, the less credibility you and your "authorities" will have when the truth finally breaks out. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 13:44:57 GMT
You're obviously sticking to your story and it's because you imagine your "authorities" require it of you. I simply report what dictionaries, encylopedias, and other reference books say, Arlon. As already mentioned, just because something does not suit you doesn't mean it somehow doesn't count, or is necessarily not a correct meaning. That's not how it works, unfortunately. And, as already suggested, as you claim that you cannot know a definition since as you insist a mutually agreed, arbitrary one has not come about, then how can you be sure a standard definition is wrong at all? Remember what I keep saying, about the fallacy of insulting? Thinking it makes up a logical argument? I do. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 20, 2018 13:55:05 GMT
You're obviously sticking to your story and it's because you imagine your "authorities" require it of you. I simply report what dictionaries, encylopedias, and other reference books say, Arlon. .... That is not exactly it. You indeed depend on copying what you believe are authorities, but you do not copy them entirely correctly. And I repeat, only time will tell. No, the Republicans are not going to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover, but this is no surprise to me. The case has not been on television for many years and most of them don't know it's an issue. The few that do are not really religious (surprise!) or scientific enough, and do not want to overturn the case. That means we'll just have to wait till they realize their mistake. That might be as soon as November, but they are really very slow to learn anything. It could take longer. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 13:59:01 GMT
You indeed depend on copying what you believe are authorities, but you do not copy them entirely correctly. Please show where I have copied a dictionary, or other sourced definition of a word incorrectly. And once again, one must ask: if apparently only a 'mutually agreed and arbitrary' definition is something you recognise, how would you ever know whether I am correct or not if we don't agree and the standard definitions I refer to are not arbitrary? Or given the grounds upon which you plan your famous copyrighted appeal it could be never LOL Perhaps if you admitted you were a Christian it might help the backing along? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 20, 2018 21:45:47 GMT
You indeed depend on copying what you believe are authorities, but you do not copy them entirely correctly. Please show where I have copied a dictionary, or other sourced definition of a word incorrectly. And once again, one must ask: if apparently only a 'mutually agreed and arbitrary' definition is something you recognise, how would you ever know whether I am correct or not if we don't agree and the standard definitions I refer to are not arbitrary? Or given the grounds upon which you plan your famous copyrighted appeal it could be never LOL Perhaps if you admitted you were a Christian it might help the backing along? No. Please get a life. Please refrain from debating. You are not capable of rational argumentation. Perhaps your time would be better spent making fences and staying on your side. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 21, 2018 8:03:11 GMT
FF: if apparently only a 'mutually agreed and arbitrary' definition is something you recognise, how would you ever know whether I am correct or not if we don't agree and the standard definitions I refer to are not arbitrary?
Or, given the grounds upon which you plan your famous copyrighted appeal [of the Dover verdict] ... Perhaps if you admitted you were a Christian it might help the backing along?
Arlon: No.
And why would either of these things not be the case? I am only following your reasoning (if you don't recognise definitions of something, how can you know what it is or isn't?) and consequences of lack of candour (if you don't admit to your Christianity, then how can you expect intellectual support from committed fundamentalists?). Remember how personal insults and condescension do not an argument make? This is still the case. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 21, 2018 10:07:06 GMT
... ... I am only following your reasoning ... ... No, you are not following my reasoning and that is the big problem here. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 21, 2018 10:11:16 GMT
... ... I am only following your reasoning ... ... No, you are not following my reasoning and that is the big problem here. Given that the basis of your odd reasoning is easily followed: that definitions, even standard ones, are apparently not accepted by you if you don't choose to (in that you only consider arbitrary ones), then I can't see how you would think this. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 21, 2018 10:29:11 GMT
No, you are not following my reasoning and that is the big problem here. Given that the basis of your odd reasoning is easily followed: that definitions, even standard ones, are apparently not accepted by you if you don't choose to (in that you only consider arbitrary ones), then I can't see how you would think this. I don't suppose you're going to get serious here, but let's try again anyway. By your definition of "good" is pizza good and why? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 21, 2018 10:52:07 GMT
I don't suppose you're going to get serious here, but let's try again anyway. By your definition of "good" is pizza good and why?
Nutrition is seen as a good thing.
Pizza is nutritious.
Therefore pizza is a good thing.
Nutrition is good since it allows the process of providing or obtaining the means necessary for health and growth.
Now, as requested, this is my definition which is pretty much standard and the notion that pizza is good food on this basis (in moderation and proportionate to the individual at least) would be likely almost universal. You may now decide it is not yours, since you like things arbitrary and all; and may argue over what, to you, nutrition and good food means. But it does not change things more widely. You may also, as previously noted, even have no idea from the start of what constitutes nutrition, good food, health or even pizza, since you won't apparently recognise definitions or knowledge not arbitrary and mutually agreed and your own suggestions, while expectedly arbitrary, may not be mutually agreed - in which case you have no way of judging what I and others say is right or wrong. But that's your problem, and not one for the rest of us.
I hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2018 4:49:20 GMT
I don't suppose you're going to get serious here, but let's try again anyway. By your definition of "good" is pizza good and why?
Nutrition is seen as a good thing.
Pizza is nutritious.
Therefore pizza is a good thing.
Nutrition is good since it allows the process of providing or obtaining the means necessary for health and growth.
Now, as requested, this is my definition which is pretty much standard and the notion that pizza is good food on this basis (in moderation and proportionate to the individual at least) would be likely almost universal. You may now decide it is not yours, since you like things arbitrary and all; and may argue over what, to you, nutrition and good food means. But it does not change things more widely. You may also, as previously noted, even have no idea from the start of what constitutes nutrition, good food, health or even pizza, since you won't apparently recognise definitions or knowledge not arbitrary and mutually agreed and your own suggestions, while expectedly arbitrary, may not be mutually agreed - in which case you have no way of judging what I and others say is right or wrong. But that's your problem, and not one for the rest of us.
I hope this helps.
Not everyone agrees that pizza is a good thing. In fact some parents limit the amount of pizza their children can have because pizza does not have enough vegetables even with the toppings and is too high in carbohydrates (crust) and fat (cheese). So your claim that "pizza is nutritious" falls on its face. Had you tried another approach ... Delicious is good. Pizza is delicious. Therefore pizza is good. Far more people, including sensible adults for a change, would agree with you. Yet even then there would be plenty of people who disagree that pizza is delicious. Notice we are not getting a consensus here with "nutritious" or "delicious." There are no mutually agreed upon criteria for good. The criteria for some people might be "nutritious." The criteria for others might be "delicious." The criteria for yet others might be "inexpensive." The criteria for yet others might be "easy to prepare." Even when people agree on, for example, "nutritious" they will disagree just how nutritious various foods are. For many people how "good" pizza is will depend on several of those qualities. However those people will likely disagree how much each matters. Some might count nutrition first, in which case pizza is not really very good, others might count ease of preparation first. I suppose a large number of people would agree on foods being "good" that have both nutrition and taste. For some people a pizza is good if it has "all natural ingredients." Are they wrong? Is that a "fallacy"? I have tried to explain to you that it is not a fallacy if it is mutually agreed that natural ingredients are good. The Britannica article is only saying that natural ingredients are not the definition of good without mutual agreement, or "inherently." It should be obvious though that I was right when I said you have no mutually agreed upon criteria for your definition of good. It should also be obvious that people might mutually agree in some organization or other any particular quality will be their criteria for good, including being natural. This concept of mutual agreement is critical in solving issues in society. Science cannot solve any problems unless people agree what the problem is. Religion is a systematic way of bringing an assembly of people into mutual agreement what needs to be done, how, when and where. The "why" is obtained by mutual agreement. Just as some people might count pizza with all natural ingredients as "good" pizza, some people might count natural causes for actions as "good" in many cases. I know it will help if you desist from claiming your opponents have committed "fallacies." Just as I explained, you are trying to follow rules that you don't understand. You are trying to compel others to follow your misguided notions of the rules. |
|
