While We Wait: Part 5

[Luckymoose]

I was using terms common in philosophical discussions of logic- I can explain some.

reductio ad absurdum- reduction to absurdity (arguing that A means B, B can't be true, therefore A isn't. I often use it to mean that somebody is assuming B is absurd irrationally, therefore arguing that A is false because it means B)
argument ad populorum- argument from the people (argument that because the majority support something, it is true)

Oh look at me I am smarter than everyone else because I use Latin to support my arguments.

Fancy or flashy use of words is only an attempt to distract people from your flawed logic.

 

[North King]

Oh look at me I am smarter than everyone else because I use Latin to support my arguments.

Fancy or flashy use of words is only an attempt to distract people from your flawed logic.

Or sometimes it's the accepted term. Don't assume arrogance.

 

[Luckymoose]

Or sometimes it's the accepted term. Don't assume arrogance.

Sometimes it is, but when the person goes on the explain his/her use of said word or phrase it is beyond common or accepted.

 

[North King]

Sometimes it is, but when the person goes on the explain his/her use of said word or phrase it is beyond common or accepted.

...Um, not really. If you need to explain a word, that doesn't mean you're using the wrong word. Explanations are not inherently condescending..

 

[Luckymoose]

...Um, not really. If you need to explain a word, that doesn't mean you're using the wrong word. Explanations are not inherently condescending..

When saying the word was needed, when it clearly isn't, is an entirely different thing than using the right word for the subject. Latin is not always needed to describe something, that's what we have English for.

 

[Dachs]

When saying the word was needed, when it clearly isn't, is an entirely different thing than using the right word for the subject. Latin is not always needed to describe something, that's what we have English for.

But it is the commonly accepted way to denote a logical fallacy. The explanation was included for those who don't know that. Like, apparently, yourself.

 

[Luckymoose]

But it is the commonly accepted way to denote a logical fallacy. The explanation was included for those who don't know that. Like, apparently, yourself.

It shouldn't have a place in modern English, being that English is our language and when speaking in English all of the words should be ones used in the English language and not mixed in with other languages. The only reason I dislike using Latin to explain something is because not everyone in the world knows all the Latin phrases, most know atleast one or two but thinking people know them for the sake of argument is just showboating.

 

[silver 2039]

I just realized I don't have a list of groups I hate. I really should make one:

1. Religious/stupid people
2. People that disagree with me
3. Jews

I think the first two overlap a bit. Jews are on the list because of tradition. Everyone's hated the Jews it would be wrong not to have them on my list.

 

[Ekolite]

It shouldn't have a place in modern English, being that English is our language and when speaking in English all of the words should be ones used in the English language and not mixed in with other languages. The only reason I dislike using Latin to explain something is because not everyone in the world knows all the Latin phrases, most know atleast one or two but thinking people know them for the sake of argument is just showboating.

Hmmmm..... I assume you know that hundreds of english words are originally from other languages? Like for exmample, the word bungalow came from an indian language.

I think the first two overlap a bit. Jews are on the list because of tradition. Everyone's hated the Jews it would be wrong not to have them on my list

I hope this is a joke .

 

[silver 2039]

I hope this is a joke .

No its deadly serious. Deadly I say.

 

[Luckymoose]

Hmmmm..... I assume you know that hundreds of english words are originally from other languages? Like for exmample, the word bungalow came from an indian language.

Yes, which is why I said words used in the English language. Latin is still Latin and is not English.

 

[Supermath]

I hope this is a joke .

You do realise that this is Silver you're talking about.

 

[Ekolite]

I think the two phrases he used are commonly used in philosophy in english (Could be wrong though), in a similiar way that words from other languages are used in english. In my book that would make them part of the english language.

 

[Luckymoose]

I think the two phrases he used are commonly used in philosophy in english (Could be wrong though), in a similiar way that words from other languages are used in english. In my book that would make them part of the english language.

When the words are referred to as coming from another language they are not yet apart of the language.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Vegetarianism? Reminds me of this.

 

[Dachs]

When the words are referred to as coming from another language they are not yet apart of the language.

I do hereby censor you for using words almost entirely derived from the proto-Indo-European language in the above post. Stop diluting your language, you pretentious showboater!

 

[North King]

A phrase like ad hominem conveys the message much more efficiently than "attacking a person's character, rather than their argument".

 

[Luckymoose]

A phrase like ad hominem conveys the message much more efficiently than "attacking a person's character, rather than their argument".

True, but you cannot expect it to be instantly known by ever person in the argument. Then going on to look down on them when they ask what it means or respond incorrectly. Language elitism is one of my least favorite things.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

1:

So every single word you have said has been a great big utter load of tripe, genocide in-fact doesn’t mean genocide, it is just something else which you haven’t bothered to think about when you wrote. English does change but you have been fairly sure of what you’ve said, heck you’ve argued quite vigorously with us, and we appear to be scoring points because you’re replying with your own counters.

You’re not making a point, you’re making one great big retraction or a series of small ones, you have oscillated between arguments, on the one hand you argued that everything is objective empirical facts] while on the other hand you have argued that everything is subjective [post modernist line on language], what the bloody heck is it? They don’t work to well together, there’s a certain cat in a box that begs the answer.

We shall see there is a pattern for this.

2. I am arguing that if someone wants to worship a flying spaghetti monster, and someone wishes to worship and omnipotent Judeo-Christian deity neither is less valid than any other, I’m not going to judge which is false or which is real because one could not what would be the test?

Where is their a strong case for suppressing false religions anyway Iran or a Catholic theocracy I haven’t heard of? I have never in my hearing every heard a strong argument for suppressing a false religion, what I hear is fanatics of varying shades advocating it, whether it be extremist Islamists, militant Atheists etc.

Someone mentioned reductio ad absurdum , I mention religions and suddenly gravity is bought into the argument, and no I’m not jumping from objective to subjective someone else seems to be guilty of that.

1. I see this annoying little thing, “other religions could have rational reasons for morality…” a hint of bias creeping in? Who’s to say any religion has a rational reason for morality, its subjective, and I don’t think its entirely rational or logical either.

2: Another rather staggering attempt to judge things which cant really be judged. Go and prove that a god or god doesn’t exist and then you can make that comment. Oscillating again?

3. Define bad, for someone with such a good knowledge of the English language, you seem willing to deal with the purely subjective rather badly. What you’re proposing is suffice to say inhuman for the vast majority of people, no it’s not a measure of bad, but its certainly a means of getting you hanged in the realm of public opinion.

But let’s examine that evidence; I find that idea of forcing people not to choose what they eat for there own good; with the explicit threat [and somebody nasty enough to do it] of seizing their children, sickening.

If one is more inclined to look at the law as some sort of guardian of morality or at least determiner of right and wrong, good and bad these might be of assistance.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 (FED)

Section 3.

Discrimination

(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin that has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation; and

I think social origin would be a reasonable fit, not perfect but it would work.

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 (FED)

Section 4

"disability" , in relation to a person, means:
(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental function; or
(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or
(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or
(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or
(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or
(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or
(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour.

Now assuming that vegetarians are in-fact disabled, which I sincerely doubt, but this helps,

(1) For the purposes of this act, a person ( discriminator ) discriminates against another person ( aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the aggrieved person’s disability, the discriminator treats or proposes to treat the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person without the disability.

It doesn’t matter if in-fact the person was disabled, what matters is the actions of the discriminator, if the discriminator were to think someone was in-fact disabled for the purpose of the act, then it would seem likely that in-fact you could be pursued pursuant to it.

I can go onto into what you may and may not say if you should so wish. But I think the law shafts you, so yes in a legal sense what you’re proposing is bad! In a social Darwinist, or Fascist or Utilitarian view in might be good… in a Malthusian world the fewer the people in the world the richer everyone is, of course if there were no people around then they wouldn’t be richer not would they. A good example of how to test a model, I think the standing claim on a neo-Malthusian model is that all things being equal, and the population at sustainable the less people there are the richer each individual gets.

And here's some fun, in a purely subjective world the will of the majority ie yourself is argument ad populorum.

1: I wasn't arguing that I meant something other then what I said earlier, I was pointing out that the idea of morality, with rational reasons for it, is arbitrary- what is moral or not moral is as well.

Language is "subjective", or something close to it, but truth is objective. I didn't use the word subjective because it doesn't quite get across what I was trying to convey.

2: Empirical evidence. A historian could go back and see if there was evidence for Jesus actually doing miracles, for example. Historical facts are not subjective- they can be used to solve this sort of thing.

3: Politically hard to pull off perhaps, but the majority opinion doesn't change what might be viable in other circumstances. Things change over time, and some of those means might be viable in the future.

4: I do not look at the law as a guardian of morality, so your point is moot.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

1- "What is moral" is (at least, if God doesn't exist) a question like "What is a cat"- it's a matter of definition. A self-imposed moral code is just a set of arbitrary beliefs- therefore rational moral debate is impossible.

That's incorrect. We can look at the actions that a particular moral code would demand, and if those actions are ones that are commonly agreed to be immoral (like genocide), then we can determine that the moral code is an invalid one. Also note that excluding genocide and killing from the actions your moral code can demand is a cop out. Essentially, you're trying to make your moral code appear more attractive by arbitrarily excluding certain actions from it, to convince yourself and others that its premises aren't flawed. If you aren't willing to follow a moral code to its logical conclusion, then it's impossible to debate its validity.

Regarding God's role in morality, we have no way of determining what He considers moral, so invoking Him is pointless. Maybe your conception of God demands that everyone becomes as intelligent as humanly possible, regardless of the cost. That's fine, maybe mine values individual human dignity and liberty. Unless you've got a bulletin from God clarifying His position on the issue, invoking Him doesn't help your argument at all.

2- Your arguments earlier were so irrational I started using irrational ones to try and persuade you.

How irrational of you.

3- There is a case, given that protein aided humanity in becoming as intelligent as it did, that vegitarianism does decrease IQ. Therefore, I pointed out that if it does the measures I mentioned were worth it.

Worth it? Why? What leads you to the assumption that preserving intelligence is so morally important? What leads you to the assumption that the government has the right to intervene for that purpose?

4- What's wrong with being authoritarian in some circumstances? (Assuming you weren't doing to me what I said in Point 2 I was doing to you)

Authoritarian actions in some circumstances aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about following a philosophy that advocates authoritarianism. Such a philosophy demands that authoritarian action be taken to defend whichever values are upheld by the authority. I'm looking at the root justification of the action here, not the actions themselves.