Who gave these rules?

Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

17 May 2008, 12:37 pm

slowmutant wrote:

Sometimes visceral digust is all you need. The intellect cannot defeat visceral disgust, try as it may.

Well, not really. What is needed is a codification of our deeper reasons. We can say that X causes visceral disgust in certain individuals, however, visceral disgust is something that could be untrained or trained as well. We would have visceral disgust towards deathmatches and violent executions, but people have done those things in the past. If something can be learned or unlearned, then an intellect with enough social power can defeat the force. Because of that, a code to understand why X is right or wrong is necessary and we should have reasoning strongly dependent upon that code as disgust is malleable but intellect is less so.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2008, 1:10 pm

Incest was common amongst Egyptian rulers for centuries with no obvious bad effects. Near relatives married all throughout European royalty. No doubt there were some nuts born but considering the continuous mayhem humanity has gone through and is still going through it doesn't seem incest contributed much to the problem. Incest is debilitating when there is a major combination of dangerous genes that becomes re-enforced in mating. If there is no such dangerous combination there no problem with close relatives mating, whatever God or Moses might have thought.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 May 2008, 1:28 pm

Oh good grief.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

17 May 2008, 2:20 pm

Sand wrote:

You'd lecture God on genetics, would you? Seeing as how you obviously have all the information, I don't think God would stand a chance. :roll:

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

17 May 2008, 3:03 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Them in general. Assumptive language is where they imply their world views are the only correct ones in the words and premises they use.

Stupid ideas: (1)people with too much free time wrote the Torah. (2)They knew about genetics back then. (3)Incest was even approved of by one person.... The list goes on and will continue to increase.

They'll come up with anything rather than think.

"Scriptures were written by many people to make money with every century people adding new text. That is why there are people who give up their entire earnings and put on a mendicants robes to follow the Word because they want money. From the pulpit they preach about hate to brainwash the masses into giving them power. This they use to raise up their wealth. They wage war and kill. Religion is the cause of all the world's wars, hate, ignorance. Everyone who follows religion is less than an idiot as he has no brain to think for himself. I am glad I am a free-thinker, I came to this original conclusion myself. I don't need no bogey man to tell me what to do."

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

17 May 2008, 3:05 pm

slowmutant wrote:

Sand wrote:

You'd lecture God on genetics, would you? Seeing as how you obviously have all the information, I don't think God would stand a chance. :roll:

There is a bit of irony, don't you think?

They consider the Old World (theologists) ignorant yet hold them to be masters in genetics.

They were so stupid then that their architectural works are nowhere to be seen, right? I'm surprised they even knew how to eat.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

17 May 2008, 3:12 pm

Quote:

I should print this out and frame it. It's a classic.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

17 May 2008, 3:47 pm

When God comes around I'll see what he knows. If he needs a bit of information I can point him in the right direction. Nothing he said in the Bible is particularly up to date on genetics but if you have more recent publications by Him I'll be glad to take a look.

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

17 May 2008, 3:52 pm

Sand wrote:

There is your fault. The Bible is not what you would consider a science book. Although it is a Science, definitely not the one you are asking for.

Odin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

17 May 2008, 7:58 pm

slowmutant wrote:

Our assertions are always being challenged. And every time they're challenged, we restate our core thesis. From a dozen different angles, we restate the same damn thing so that now its
an ad nauseum debate.

That's the problem. You consider to assert your thesis like a broken record or a game of whack-the-mole without backing them up with evidence.

_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 May 2008, 8:41 pm

slowmutant wrote:

More twaddle, more intellectual masturbation. Your vocabulary is mighty, but brevity is not your thing.

No argument here, but allegations of intellectual masturbation are *gasp* not actual counterarguments.

parakeet wrote:

They are annoying with their assumptive language, high sounding (yet utterly stupid) ideas, and how they praise each other while ridiculing us.

slowmutant was indulging a textbook informal fallacy. For the argument to work, you need evidence that you. don't. have.

Do point out where my argument went wrong rather than simply stating that it was stupid. Because as it stands my arguments may be ill expressed and inflated, but at least I have an intro level familiarity with informal logic.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 May 2008, 8:58 pm

Calling light a particle or a wave is an analogy. Rutherford and Bohr's models were analogies. Analogies are not non scientific and are not illogical. The model and the reality may not match perfectly, and refinements of first order approximations are always necessary, but that doesn't make them less valuable or less accurate.

The analogy between how much skin and curves are allowed to show, which changes progressively, and what is morally acceptable as the years go by, I think would still hold as valid as being based on what people's perceptions of "normal" and "right" being changed by perception and similarity of items.

Now, I wasn't referring to you specifically, but rather Slowmutant's statement which hit a chord with me because I see it so often around here.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 May 2008, 9:04 pm

The problem I was getting at with the analogy thing is that analogies are tools of elucidation rather than good argument forms in themselves. If you can identify that the object in question matches the dynamics of the source analogy then the analogy is superfluous. If you cannot do that, then the analogy is not cogent. Analogies do not prove points, they illustrate them, and I argued that the analogy seemed quite likely to be inaccurate.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 May 2008, 9:59 pm

And how are these items of gradual acceptance of things formerly disapproved of not alike?

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 May 2008, 4:16 am

Evidence? There's no evidence I could present that you would accept. Since the same is true from your perspective, this is a complete stalemate. You guys could talk your way out of a sinus infection, I give you full props for that.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

18 May 2008, 4:23 am

slowmutant wrote:

Without microscopes? Without sterilization?

How could they even know what a germ was?

I have some serious doubts about that whole thing.

Quote:

The earliest references to the concept of atoms date back to ancient India in the 6th century BCE.[6] The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools developed elaborate theories of how atoms combined into more complex objects (first in pairs, then trios of pairs).[7] The references to atoms in the West emerged a century later from Leucippus whose student, Democritus, systemized his views. In approximately 450 BCE, Democritus coined the term átomos (Greek ἄτομος), which means "uncuttable" or "the smallest indivisible particle of matter", i.e., something that cannot be divided. Although the Indian and Greek concepts of the atom were based purely on philosophy, modern science has retained the name coined by Democritus.[5]

No microscopes needed.

Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Jump to:

Who gave these rules? Post Reply New Topic

Who gave these rules?