-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
THE FREEPER LOVE FORTNIGHT: Mod Amnesty For Right-Wing Posters
- Thread starter Drinky Crow
- Start date
- Status
Well, let's go back to Karl Marx's vision: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." There is nothing in communism which prohibits specialization of tasks according to individual talents. In fact, the good of society would require people to do what they were good at -- but that makes sense in the context of Marx's theory of alienation, since fulfilling labor is that which is most aligned with your own nature.Waychel said:
As for leadership of a communist society, there is also no requirement for FORMAL leadership or organizations. If you've ever done a group project in school, then you know firsthand that leaders can emerge naturally from a group of "peers," and that the leadership role in a particularly well-functioning group passes from person to person.
There are a couple of good arguments against communism being a pragmatic political philosophy. Here are the top two...and the counterarguments against them:
1) A communist society would have problems being very complex. The only way that occupations like, say, software engineering, are possible is when large groups of other people support the training required for that skill and provide the necessary resources to practice of that skill. (Think about how many other people indirectly support your existence through needs like food, water, shelter, utilities, the production of goods, etc.) It is not at all clear how the factories get built in a communist society. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with the ol' "Nothing But Flowers" scenario -- who says that our complex society is a requirement, or even a good thing?
2) Informal leadership is only possible in relatively small groups. Large group dynamics practically require a formal leadership structure (read as: government) to maintain alignment in the group. However, since communism is primarily an ECONOMIC theory, it could be argued that a form of government which didn't result in the economic problems associated with capitalism might be compatible with communist ideology.
Nice post, -jinx-. The issues you highlight (particularly #2) are largely the sorts of things I was referring to when I said "this is to say nothing about power dynamics and the nature of government, which would both have to drastically change if such a (communist) system were enacted" in the "political compass" thread. Were those two arguments ever formalized by any philosopher that you know of, or were they just floating around out there? I've read some critiques of communism that touched upon these issues obliquely, but most of my beliefs regarding them comes from my own thinking. I'd like to look into it more if you're aware of any sources.
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
Human beings are never satisfied; we want a better life for ourselves or a better life for our family and those we care for. We want more than or a variance of what others have, and don't tell me that you yourself don't feel this impulse, since you "want" Communism. Whether it is material greed, philosophical want or individual desire, people are going to want something, somebody or more. That need is what compels some people to acts of a criminal nature that are inconsiderate of others. Limiting the social environment to where everyone has the same as everyone else will not eliminate individual thought, individual desire and individual needs. So, regardless, we are left with a need for a militia, police force and authority thereof. We are also left with a profound question: Would an "equal" society guarantee "equality" in contentedness when it is lacking in consideration to an individual concept of happiness?
For Communism to work, you would need to eliminate philosophy, sexual and emotional desire, feelings, etc. You would have to remove everything from the human being -- culture and individuality among others -- that make it "human" in the first place. What we're left with in the end is a society that is not "equal" or "utopian", but more authoritarian than what we are currently accustomed to.
As for establishing "leadership roles", the issue then becomes, "how do we regulate them?" Would we appoint a system of community election? Would we erect organizations to represent certain groups? Would we limit the powers of certain leadership roles? What it sounds like to me is that we would end up formulating the likes of a democratic -- not communist -- society in administrative function once we addressed the issue of leadership and representation on a larger scale. The more critically we look at applying Communism to society, the more we tend to veer away from the original concept in consideration of that society's freedoms. This is why every application of Communism has lead to extremely authoritarian forms of government or dictatorship in the past. If you're all so sure that there is a way around it, then by all means, why don't you attempt making it a reality?
For Communism to work, you would need to eliminate philosophy, sexual and emotional desire, feelings, etc. You would have to remove everything from the human being -- culture and individuality among others -- that make it "human" in the first place. What we're left with in the end is a society that is not "equal" or "utopian", but more authoritarian than what we are currently accustomed to.
As for establishing "leadership roles", the issue then becomes, "how do we regulate them?" Would we appoint a system of community election? Would we erect organizations to represent certain groups? Would we limit the powers of certain leadership roles? What it sounds like to me is that we would end up formulating the likes of a democratic -- not communist -- society in administrative function once we addressed the issue of leadership and representation on a larger scale. The more critically we look at applying Communism to society, the more we tend to veer away from the original concept in consideration of that society's freedoms. This is why every application of Communism has lead to extremely authoritarian forms of government or dictatorship in the past. If you're all so sure that there is a way around it, then by all means, why don't you attempt making it a reality?
Just a heads up:
-jinx- isn't a proponent of communism-- at least based on what I know of him and what I've seen him say in the past (though I'm not about to get all McCarthyite about it and try to "discover the truth" :lol). He was likely just furthering the discussion in a purely academic manner and addressing some of the particular points you raised. Nothing more or less.
-jinx- isn't a proponent of communism-- at least based on what I know of him and what I've seen him say in the past (though I'm not about to get all McCarthyite about it and try to "discover the truth" :lol). He was likely just furthering the discussion in a purely academic manner and addressing some of the particular points you raised. Nothing more or less.
Fresh Prince
Banned
Does this mean Erasure or whoever comes back too?
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, I'm sorrie if my post seemed hostile in proposition towards him. O_x I was making another post elaborating on my thoughts in regards to Communism and felt I would pose retorts to some of the points mentioned within his post along with it. I didn't get the impression that he was taking any side in this debate with his post since it was pretty Janusonian in nature.
Also, I'm sorrie if my posts come off as kind of dictative/bitchy or assumptive. I get told that a lot and I don't mean to come off that way; it is just a part of the way I write.;; I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's political beliefs here, either...
Also, I'm sorrie if my posts come off as kind of dictative/bitchy or assumptive. I get told that a lot and I don't mean to come off that way; it is just a part of the way I write.
;; I'm not meaning to criticize anyone's political beliefs here, either...No need to apologize. I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea about his personal beliefs, and seeing as how you stated that he "wants" communism, I felt that you were perhaps taking his post the wrong way. You don't come off as "bitchy" at all-- but we all make mistaken assumptions sometimes. I was just trying to perhaps correct one of them.
Hah, now there's a name from the not-so-distant past. I bet he'd have dethroned Raoul and captured the "biggest leftist at GA" crown in that political compass thread. He'd have been something like -14,-14. Miss Aran burns with envy, I'm sure.
I just didn't want you to get the wrong idea about his personal beliefs, and seeing as how you stated that he "wants" communism, I felt that you were perhaps taking his post the wrong way. You don't come off as "bitchy" at all-- but we all make mistaken assumptions sometimes. I was just trying to perhaps correct one of them. Hah, now there's a name from the not-so-distant past. I bet he'd have dethroned Raoul and captured the "biggest leftist at GA" crown in that political compass thread.
He'd have been something like -14,-14. Miss Aran burns with envy, I'm sure.
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
I was meaning to address everyone on this board (with that political leaning). Now that you bring it to my attention though, I should probably consider revising it. Thanks for pointing this stuff out to me BTW -- you're more helpful than my English teacher. XD Hahaha I'm kind of new here too and don't know what most peoples' political leanings and such are yet.
Funny you should mention that. Marx himself wrote that the creation of a communist society would take place in two stages: the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which would be a form of government to enforce "the new ways"...but being able to live free from the influence of (destructive) capitalist ideas would lead to the creation of a "new man" who DIDN'T have the attributes which you are claiming to be part of human nature. At that point, the dictatorship of the proletariat would fall apart, since there would be no further need for it.Waychel said:
Obviously any philosophy which requires a change in human nature to work should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. However, realize that Marx would immediately counter your claims by saying that what you believe to be "human nature" is the result of ideas planted in you by the dominant capitalist culture: you can't get outside your own head to see the world any other way.
And no, I'm not a proponent of communism, but I'm a big fan of Marx. I think you have to draw a line between the descriptive part of his philosophy, which was very insightful, and the prescriptive part of his philosophy, which is apocalyptic and wasn't borne out by history. Capitalism saw the revolution coming, blinked, and started making some concessions to the "have nots," which averted the "inevitable" conflict which Marx prophecied. With that being said, we're still all fucked in the head with our crazy attitudes about work and the supposed "value" to our own lives. I think more people would do well to read Marx and think about it. Maybe now that the enemy has switched from "Commie pinkos" to Emmanuel Goldstein -- oops, I mean "Al Qaeda" -- it's safe to read those books again.
BTW -- hi Loki! You owe me an email, and I owe you a stack of poetry.
From my understanding of Chinese and Egyptian history. The peasants never revolted (and these civs created some of the longest lasting dynasties, China especially), which indicates that ambition, drive, and the need to satisfy wants might just be more of a culturally ingrained thing than inborn natural human quality.
Now I know there were definetly people on top in those socieities who had ambition, drive etc. and were exploting those on the bottom. I just want to focus on the idea that all humans are never satisfied as it seems to be contradicted by the hundreds of years of peaceful Egyptian/Chinese peasants.
Now I know there were definetly people on top in those socieities who had ambition, drive etc. and were exploting those on the bottom. I just want to focus on the idea that all humans are never satisfied as it seems to be contradicted by the hundreds of years of peaceful Egyptian/Chinese peasants.
D
Deleted member 4784
Unconfirmed Member
No rebellions in Egyptian or Chinese history? What about Exodus or the Boxer rebellion? I'm sure I could find more occurances, but this is all that comes to my mind off the top of my head.
Azih said:
The Taiping rebellion was the bloodest civil war in history. I think the number of deaths was either 20 million or 50 million. Im leaning more towards 20 million though. Also, the founder of the Ming dynasty was a peasant who revolted against the Mongal's Yuan dynasty. So there were lots and lots of peasant rebelions in china, over the years. Hell, even Mencius stated that peasants have the right to revolt if the emperor isnt providing the essentials, such as food and moral guidance.
Anyways, for some reason this conversation is reminding me of Dostoevsky's Demons. In one of the parts, he pretty much said that ideologies like communism can only end up with an elite controlling the many, and that was in the 1870s.
One word: Crime. Its existence in every known society in history shows that there have always been people who haven't been content to follow societal norms. Besides, lack of revolution is a pretty pathetic measure of social contentedness, since it only shows that leadership managed to evade the boiling point for a long time, by whatever means.Azih said:
...and this dictatorship is assumed to have the good faith to give up power?-jinx- said:
Nevermind that anthropology bullshit.-jinx- said:
Drinky Crow said:
awww, prop up a giant straw man complete with stereotypes, distortions, and generalizations and then invite people to animate it after giving them the temporary freedom to respond without punishment.
Bravo sir, bravo. It is not often that one has the honor of being given the temporary chance to fit someone else's pre-defined assumptive opinion of something and all for the personal amusement of the benevolent dictatorial stereotyper.
One serious flaw though, you forgot to instruct any stupid right-wingers not to engage in calling for the death of all Jews and other ethnic groups. Cause that's what they always end up doing. Maybe you can put it like this, "1. No ethnic baiting or calling for genocide. You can post from your precious Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, but the moment the ethnic slurs and calls for genocidal violence gets REALLY nasty, AMNESTY OVER." You have to define how they can respond properly beforehand, otherwise they always inherently end up calling for genocide and stuff like that. As a sophisticated inherently benevolent left-wing intellectual one should remember that the ends justify the means, a few logical fallacies, distortions and stereotypes have to be used, because those right-wingers are......BAD.
Who needs logic, reason, nuance, civility or other concepts of that ilk when you can jokingly use fallacious reasoning and distortions to cut people with opposing views down.
Drinky Crow
Banned
I don't get it. So Uter here DOESN'T like FOX News?
Uter said:
Mandark said:
This is an amusing response to my responses in that thread, funny how you chose not to directly respond there though.
http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?p=944561
Pimpwerx said:
Uter said:
Hitokage said:
Uter said:
Where exactly did I fail to use "logic, reason, nuance, civility or other concepts of that ilk" and instead "jokingly use fallacious reasoning and distortions to cut people with opposing views down."?? Your comparison and reasoning makes no sense.
To my mind, a rejection of evolution, a universally accepted theory of biology whose vocal critics are either religious or pseudoscientific, is a rejection of logic and reason per se.
Tell me, are you a creationist? How about intelligent design? Lamarckism? Do you make a habit of rejecting scientific consensus or is this an exception? If you are skeptical on this topic, where have you turned for information?
(As pointed out in the previous topic, living material coming from non-living is not evolution, but abiogenesis. This could give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.)
Tell me, are you a creationist? How about intelligent design? Lamarckism? Do you make a habit of rejecting scientific consensus or is this an exception? If you are skeptical on this topic, where have you turned for information?
(As pointed out in the previous topic, living material coming from non-living is not evolution, but abiogenesis. This could give people the impression that you don't know what you're talking about.)
Mandark said:
To YOUR mind? oh well, it must be so then... :sarcasm: Wonderful logic and reason.
I guess I will have to post the previous conversation yet again since you seemed to have totally failed to get the point.
Pimpwerx said:
Uter said:
Hitokage said:
Uter said:
Where in that did I state that I rejected evolution??? WHERE.
I specifically commented on the use of the word "fact" when applied to evolution. What I said was, "Since when are non-provable assumptions that are not capable of experimental verification "facts"." Instead of replying specifically to that in that thread you responded with...NOTHING.
Here is your response to my previous comment in this thread:
Uter said:
Mandark said:
How in ANYWAY is my previous comments in the other thread comparable to mine in this thread?? You provide a wonderful example of the use of "fallacious reasoning and distortions to cut people with opposing views down". You knocked down a wonderful little straw man with your attack on your own distorted depiction of statements of mine. Does this count as a "rejection of logic and reason per se" or just the ignorant frantic scramblings of someone trying to attack someone else?
Mandark said:
As if scientific consensus is ever wrong? And what did I do to "reject" it? I merely stated that the theory of evolution is based on non-provable assumptions that are not capable of experimental verification and therefore should not be called a "fact". Again, your assumptive distortions of my statements/"rejections" is fallacious and wonderfully ironic given my original post in this thread.
Mandark said:
As the last post in that thread pointed out:
Fatghost28 said:
And what did my previous post say?
Uter said:
hahaha, what a fool I am. I used "Spontaneous generation" after giving a simplified explanation of what it referred to. I bet the wise wikipedia doesn't make that same stupid mistake. oh wait... It refers to "spontaneous generation" twice and links to a Talk.Origins FAQ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html
Mandark said:
Thanks though, I so needed another conveniently ignorant comment about my posts. Your continual conveniently ignorant comments, comparisons, distortions and fallacious arguments could give people the impression that not only do you not know what you are talking about, but that you are frantically trying to attack me personally instead of logically and factually rebutting my comments specifically AND IN THE RIGHT THREAD.
JackFrost2012
Banned
Come on two week amnesty period END END END
So do you truck with evolution or don't you? It's a simple enough question.
PS The point about abiogenesis wasn't about which is the best term to use, but whether it's part of the theory of evolution or not. It's not. If you don't understand, try reading the FAQ you posted a link to. "evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design" etc.
PS The point about abiogenesis wasn't about which is the best term to use, but whether it's part of the theory of evolution or not. It's not. If you don't understand, try reading the FAQ you posted a link to. "evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design" etc.
Mandark said:
Whether I "truck with" evolution or not has nothing to do with my posts in this thread or my posts from the other thread. Your continual efforts which ignore the subject in question, ignore or distort my positions and statements, and make nonsensical comparisons are fallacious and illogical. Funny how you should talk about answering a simple question when you have failed to respond to mine.
Mandark said:
From the last conclusion from the FAQ:
So "many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true." In fact there is a large number of evolutionists which believe that abiogenesis IS part of the theory of Evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/modorlife.html
Even if I acknowledge that the theory of Evolution is not inherently predicated on abiogenesis, which I do, and throw that out. There still are five more listed assumptions that I have given. The point being that non-provable assumptions that are not capable of experimental verification cannot logically be declared to be "facts".
But all of this could easily be asked...IN THE THREAD IN WHICH IT WAS STARTED.
Uter said:
Mandark said:
You have completely failed to justify this comparison or answer my following questions concerning it. You stated, "To my mind, a rejection of evolution, a universally accepted theory of biology whose vocal critics are either religious or pseudoscientific, is a rejection of logic and reason per se.". You gave that as some kind of evidence that I rejected "logic and reason per se", except for the unfortunate fact that I never rejected evolution as a theory to begin with. Now you are back to asking if I believe in evolution or not...
Why should I converse with you any further when you so obviously choose to ignore my pointed statements which have aptly shown the illogical nature of your arguments and the convenient ignorance and fallacious distortions you have responded with? You just don't want to admit the simple fact that your comparison was bs.
Mandark said:
I haven't really followed this little tiff between yourself and Uter, but isn't what you're saying above basically begging the question? You're stating a personal belief (i.e., that a rejection of evolution implies a lack of reasoning) and then insisting that he work within the confines of that belief, yet the actual issue in question is whether or not rejection implies a lack of reasoning (which is why, I assume, the two of you are going back and forth). Yet instead of substantiating the claim-- which is what such a debate would presumably be about-- you're asssuming it a priori, which then constrains his possible responses.
Now, obviously, if it has been previously been determined through other arguments that "rejection of evolution implies a lack of reasoning", then that's a different story. But it just seems that it's a personal belief that you're sort of dangling out there. I realize that yes, you obviously have reasons for believing such, but if it is this proposition that is in contention here, it isn't proper to just assume that it's been proven. In other words, if it is this idea that is being argued, then you must substantiate it, not simply presuppose it. However, if the statement is simply an ancillary proposition made to buttress a larger argument (which I wouldn't be aware of, since I haven't read all this), then that's fine.
I'm not getting involved in this convo, but your manner of argument seemed a bit odd in this respect, so I figured I'd bust your (incredibly small) balls.
Wow,i was expecting a debate concerning actual, meaningful events. Well since this topic seems to be intensifying i would like to introduce some insightful literature about evolution.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/11940
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/11940
What, were the posts too long?Loki said:
PZ Myers largely speaks for me on this matter.
If someone wanted to show that you can reject evolution logically and rationally, the best way to do it would be to show the logic and reason that led them to reject evolution. Simple, no?
Instead, Uter here is saying that evolution is predicated on untestable assumptions, yet not taking the obvious next step of saying the theory is bogus.
Basically, Uter complained that people weren't using reason and logic. I responded that he holds a belief that contradicts reason and logic. As an effective retort, he could either 1) show that this is the result of reason and logic, or that 2) he does not actually believe this. So far he's done neither.
By the way Loki, where exactly do you stand in this?
Azih: I don't think he's really drawing the line between theory and fact. Otherwise he would have read this page on a website he certainly is familiar with, and wouldn't need to bug Duane for an explanation.
WARCOCK: Shakira is Lebanese? I knew about Salma, but this is news to me. Do you guys have a secret stockpile of hot chicks hidden behind the sand dunes/bombs?
Mandark said:
I agree that if he asserts that people (who put stock in evolution) "aren't using reason and logic", then the onus is on him to provide a logical, reasoned argument as to why he feels that is the case. Similarly, if you state that he "holds a belief that contradicts reason and logic", then it is up to you to delineate the logical chain which supports your stance (preferably prefaced by a discussion of what "logic" and "reason" actually mean in this context). Since you haven't (that I've seen), it's unfair to try to limit the scope of the discussion, and constrain his possible responses, by repeatedly making such leading remarks and expecting him to speak to them. He may have been in error (first, and possibly still), but you are as well.
As for myself, I said that I'm not getting involved. However, a portion of a post of mine from a previous science/religion thread should suffice to illustrate where I stand:
"I am perfectly willing to concede the entire traditional empirical realm to scientists, that much of its reality can be adequately explained by their theories."
(Emphasis in original)
So that's that.
If someone said, in all seriousness, that there was no scientific evidence for the Earth revolving around the Sun, would I be able to call him a mouth-breathing cretin?
Or would the onus be on me to explain what was cretinous and mouth-breathed about this opinion? Should I preface it with a discussion of what a "cretin" and a "mouth" are?
PS Was your answer a yes or a no? You're going to force me to add a Scantron feature to the forum one of these days.
Or would the onus be on me to explain what was cretinous and mouth-breathed about this opinion? Should I preface it with a discussion of what a "cretin" and a "mouth" are?
PS Was your answer a yes or a no? You're going to force me to add a Scantron feature to the forum one of these days.
Mandark said:
You're within your rights to do as you see fit; the only time one does not have to explain the basis for a proposition is if it's self-evident. While you may feel that the statement "rejection of evolution implies a lack of reasoning" is prima facie, he obviously does not. Therefore, if the discussion is to be advanced, you need to elucidate your own reasoning towards that end. Similarly, if he makes the assertion that evolutionary theory is "illogical" or "antithetical to reason" or some such, then he he has to back that statement up.
Obviously, if you feel that his statement is just so far out there that it doesn't merit a response, then that's fine-- the discussion will just not be advanced. That's a personal decision. I personally refuse to indulge certain opinions, and I make no bones about that; this might be a view that you choose not to dignify with a response. Nothing wrong with that at all.
We all must pick and choose our fights. However, it seemed from your continued insistence that he answer your questions that you were attempting to further the dialogue, and certain of your statements (e.g., "rejection of evolution implies a lack of reasoning") were not conducive towards those ends, since they presuppose the very fact the two of you are presumably quibbling over (i.e., where does the weight of logic and reason actually lie vis-a-vis this issue). This was all I was saying.Yes, he may have also made some faulty/leading assertions, which is why I said that he could have been wrong first, and possibly even still (I wouldn't know-- I still haven't read the posts
); however, this does not absolve you from bearing the burden of proof for whatever positive assertions you're making, particularly if you'd care to further the discourse.So, to use your example, if someone maintained a belief in geocentrism in this day and age, you would be within your rights to deride him, or simply ignore him altogether. However, if you attempt to engage him in debate, it is not sufficient to simply state that "a rejection of heliocentrism implies a rejection of reason and logic per se"-- you'd have to establish the basis for science, its grounding in empirical observation and formal logic, and provide evidence for the current scientific consensus. All of this would serve to establish the scientific paradigm within which you're working, and from there proving your claims should be simple. Is that a shitload of work to do? Sure. And that's why we all don't choose to "reinvent the wheel" every time we argue here-- we take certain things for granted, we cite sources, and we cut corners. This is common practice, and is usually acceptable.
However, for the particular claim you've made (re: reason and logic), it does have to be made explicit, because the relationship between science and logic (inductive, as when generating a hypothesis from observations, or deductive, as when making predictions based on that hypothesis) is not self-evident to most people, and its relationship to "reason" is even more murky (as one could argue that any kind of cogitation, in whatever framework, constitutes "reason"). These relationships exist, but are not apparent at first blush; it is for this reason that you need to clarify at least this much. You simply presupposed that rejecting scientific consensus implies a rejection of reason and logic, without establishing the relationship between them.
In other words, if you had said that rejection of evolution implies a rejection of scientific consensus, then you wouldn't have to qualify it at all imo, since it follows necessarily. When you state that "logic" and "reason" are somehow tied up in one's views on evolution (or any scientific matter), it is incumbent upon you to illustrate why that is, since when people think of logic and reason they tend to think of philosophy or mathematics as opposed to science.
This has been a characteristically long-winded and meandering Loki post, made only to avoid studying microbiology.
Now you know the reason for my madness. I know you're intelligent enough to understand my "answer" from the quote of mine that I posted.
If not, get cracking on that Scantron. can we restore crucifixions? I dont really have a problem with capital punishment... I just have a problem with these pussy ways of killing people. and don't give me this 'constitution' stuff, because i'm fairly sure that anyone who's read it through a couple times, with a skeptical eye, would realize that it's not as great as its cracked up to be. and dont say it'd take our rights away, cuz nobody really seems to care about losing their freedom as long as they continue with their illusion of being more secure.
So really, why can't we bring back neat ways to kill people? you can't tell me you wouldn't like to see Michael Jackson crucified upside down in front of that big Epcot ball, right? or draw and quarter this BTK guy, and send one body part apiece to the four corners of Kansas, in case anyone else tries to spend the next 30 years killing people outside of the military.
that's what's wrong with america! Nobody is creative anymore!!! the world doesn't loathe our death penalty.... they loathe that we don't do cool things when we kill people. How about burnings at the stake? Hmmm? Those were the good old days.
So really, why can't we bring back neat ways to kill people? you can't tell me you wouldn't like to see Michael Jackson crucified upside down in front of that big Epcot ball, right? or draw and quarter this BTK guy, and send one body part apiece to the four corners of Kansas, in case anyone else tries to spend the next 30 years killing people outside of the military.
that's what's wrong with america! Nobody is creative anymore!!! the world doesn't loathe our death penalty.... they loathe that we don't do cool things when we kill people. How about burnings at the stake? Hmmm? Those were the good old days.
Azih said:
Nah, not really. First off, he posted that link after my first post regarding this matter, which means he was engaging in the conduct I described prior to his posting it. Secondly, that article doesn't deal with the relationship between science, logic, and reason (which is what Mandark was commenting on), but is rather simply a defense of evolution within the current scientific paradigm. In other words, the missing step in Mandark's argument is to explain why the current scientific paradigm alone is reasonable and logical; a rejection of such, in part or whole, would then (and only then) be demonstrably illogical and unreasonable.
Again, they (Mandark and Uter) were trying to ascertain where the weight of logic and reason lies in this instance; it is not sufficient to simply point to science and say "here, if you reject this then you're illogical and unreasonable". After all, the history of science is littered with discarded theories, so at some point someone took issue with the scientific consensus of the time (the difference being, of course, that such critiques were made within the scientific framework by other scientists whose claims were then tested in accordance with the scientific method; still, the point to take from this is that scientific consensus alone, or the dominant paradigm, is not inherently unassailable simply by virtue of "being science"). If he believes that reaon and logic are the sine qua non of science, and thus that scientific endeavors are inherently (and exclusively) reasonable and logical, then he has to first make that connection.
I'm sure that in some hypothetical thread where we were all having a fun debate about the scientific process, inductive logic, and Hume, this would all be very good advice.
This isn't that thread.
Uter's just cherry-picking a particular scientific fact that makes him feel icky, and convincing himself he knows better than all the experts. It's not an uncommon thing to do, but it reeks of ignorance.
This isn't that thread.
Uter's just cherry-picking a particular scientific fact that makes him feel icky, and convincing himself he knows better than all the experts. It's not an uncommon thing to do, but it reeks of ignorance.
Then you shouldn't be making claims about "reason" and "logic", but rather about where the preponderance of the scientific evidence lies, which would be a valid claim on its face, and one which people could draw conclusions from (based on who accepts it and who's denying its import). I personally make no excuses for Uter's conduct in this thread, as I haven't read his comments-- I did, however, read one of yours (see, you should be honored
), and it struck me as being somewhat fallacious, which is all I said.Regardless, I didn't mean to derail the thread at all, so proceed onward with your small-balled self.
Mandark said:
I was just ignoring your continual fallacious responses, but since you want to again fallaciously twist and distort my position and statements, I will post the responses I hadn't.
Loki said:I agree that if he asserts that people (who put stock in evolution) "aren't using reason and logic", then the onus is on him to provide a logical, reasoned argument as to why he feels that is the case. Similarly, if you state that he "holds a belief that contradicts reason and logic", then it is up to you to delineate the logical chain which supports your stance (preferably prefaced by a discussion of what "logic" and "reason" actually mean in this context). Since you haven't (that I've seen), it's unfair to try to limit the scope of the discussion, and constrain his possible responses, by repeatedly making such leading remarks and expecting him to speak to them. He may have been in error (first, and possibly still), but you are as well.
Indeed.
My comments about logic and reason were specific to this thread, not to the previous. My only comments about logic and reason were posted in direct response to the initial post in this thread. I have NOT stated or implied that people who believe in evolution aren't using logic or reason, and that wasn't even the issue in the previous thread. The issue was the meaning of the word "fact" when applied to the theory of evolution. And my comment was that you cannot describe a theory that is based on non-provable assumptions incapable of experimental verification a "fact".
Instead of specifically refuting my initial response in this thread or my comments in the previous thread by offering opposing evidence or arguments, Mandark drew a comparison from my critical comments in this thread and my comments in a previous thread. Except that he gave a distortion of my position as my supposed position, "Says the guy who thinks evolution is bunk.". This in fact is a fallacious straw man argument. I never stated or implied that I thought that evolution was "bunk". As Azih pointed out, I was drawing a distinction between a scientific 'theory' and fact, that is all.
Mandark said:
I never stated or implied that evolution is bunk, that there is no scientific evidence for evolution, or that people who believe in evolution aren't using logic or reason. Ad Hominem attacks based on the assumption that I did are fallacious straw man attacks based on a position of mine that never actually existed. But of course when I have said that previously in my responses the response has been this in different forms, "Why are you ducking the question?". Your question has no factual or logical basis within the argument. It was introduced and is predicated on willful distortions of my supposed opinions.
So why am I suddenly being required by you to acknowledge your entire position as being logically tenable to begin with as if it is a logical furtherance of the original discussions????? IT ISN'T. You derailed this thread with fallacious distorted accounts of my statements in another thread you yourself failed to respond to previously. How many times am I going to have to repeat this?
And even if I had made such wild claims and statements that you so falsely attribute to me. You still would be held to the chain of logic that Loki described, as would I.
It is your posts that reek of ignorance, and it has been both willful and fallacious. Why don't you for once show the least bit of civility and logic and actually respond to the statements I initially made without willfully distorting my positions and then attacking me with those same inane simple-minded distortions.
Mandark asked Uter MANY posts ago if he personally believed that the scientific theory of evolution was true. He still hasn't answered, as far as I can tell. He's expressed a lot of indignation about how people are misrepresenting his position, and he's wasted a lot of words saying "nothing I wrote should have been construed to say that I believe _____" and citing various logical fallacies. He's been drawing fine distinctions down to the level ofCyan said:
None of that, however, is a simple answer to a simple question.
With all due respect to some of our more verbose posters, I have a simple rule of thumb: The longer the post, the more likely it is not to say anything. I don't like his style, and I personally suspect that he's here just to stir up shit and leave. Read his post history, if you don't believe me.
(By the way, you're on point with Celicar.)
- Status