|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Also it isn't that crazy to have propositions that are both true and false (cf. dialetheism). I once spoke to a classmate in my Philosophy of Knowledge class after the lecture who tried to make an argument for a legit dialethia:  "True contradictions exist!" "Prove it." "Is it possible for a switch to be neither on nor off?" "Wait what EXACTLY do you mean when you say 'switch?' Because if you're referring to a circuit, then no... a circuit is either open or closed. But if you're referring to a wall switch for lighting, I guess you could stick it in the middle where it's exactly between the 'on' and 'off' positions." "Exactly! We have a true contradiction there!" "No you don't." "Yes we do! In one case, a switch CAN be neither-on-nor-off. Yet in the other case, a switch CAN'T! The proposition is legitimately both true and false! A true contradiction!" "No. The Law of Non-Contradiction states !(A & !A). That is, A and Not-A cannot be true in the same time or the same manner. All you've done is made an equivocative blunder by using the singular word 'switch' to refer to two entirely different concepts. If you replace the word "switch" with more specific terms the apparent contradiction resolves." "Nnnnnno?" "Your argument basically reduces to saying both 'a circuit cannot be neither on nor off' and 'a wall switch can be neither on nor off.' Both these statements are true, but there's no contradiction. You did not actually describe a 'true contradiction.' All you did was say two true statements about two entirely different things." "...oh."Basically, this is how all dialethia I've seen can be reduced to. So no, I have yet to see a legit dialethia, because once more it only appears to violate a basic logical principle by virtue of using one word to describe two entirely different concepts. I am seeing a pattern here. quote:My "ought" is very prescriptive. Again, it literally prescribes a state of affairs. I agree that I have not yet produced a moral ought. But if I can produce non-moral oughts, it's not so crazy to think I can produce moral oughts too. At least, it becomes less crazy. So basically, you haven't actually made the case that "an ought can be derived from an is" in the context of the argument that everyone (including yourself) have been making. quote:The warrant here is "you can't get from an is to an ought." I've shown that you can in fact to get to certain kinds of oughts, at least. We might as well just translate this sentence to more accurately reflect what is meant by the is-ought dichotomy: The warrant here is "you can't derive values from facts." I've shown that you can in fact to get to certain kinds of oughts, at least. This sentence just reduces to a non-sequitur. So no. You haven't really demonstrated anything that remotely chips away at the arguments we've been proposing this whole time.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Go read some Graham Priest. It's a stronger position than you're making it out to be. If you're going to keep referring to other philosophers to make your point for you, I don't understand what you are doing here. quote:It's not an ought in the context you want yet, no. I never claimed it was. Merely that we can get some oughts, which makes it more reasonable that we can get moral oughts. It's not an "ought in the context (I) want." It's "ought in the context in which the is-ought dichotomy is normally defined: as a matter of distinguishing facts as discrete from values." You yourself cited Hume, who described the is-ought dichotomy in precisely this manner. quote:If that's how he meant it, he should have written it that way. I agree that's a different problem. Communication takes two people, dude. Rudatron might've been clearer in his post, but you bear the responsibility of interpreting it correctly. Frankly, the "is-ought" distinction has always been defined in the manner I've described, and the only reason someone would contort its meaning to something else entirely is if they're being thick. It's not rudatron's fault if you didn't understand what the term meant, just as it wouldn't be his fault if you didn't understand that "Catholic indulgences" doesn't refer to Cardinals gorging on chocolate. P.S. I really don't think the ethical naturalists you cited would themselves think that their theories circumvent the is-ought distinction. As I said previously, "ethical naturalism" appears to mean "ethical theory in the context of a naturalistic world" rather than "ethical theory derived from naturalistic facts." P.P.S. The is-ought distinction stands! As my sig says, E purr si muove. ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Picking this up from the front and reading backwards .... Smuggler is wrong about the is/ought distinction. But since his religion requires him to believe that everything has a purpose he'll never admit it and hammering him on that point is probably a waste of time. Accept his incorrect premise then hammer him on the errors he makes within it. For example: Even if some all knowing god does exist and does have a purpose for each of us and every thing you have no loving idea what gods purpose for anything is. For example, all over the world you find plants with the same active ingredient as the abortion pill. Tansy, rue, hellebore, sisphium, etc etc etc. God created them for a purpose. They can induce abortion therefore god created them to allow women choice prior to modern medicine. We have deduced their purpose from their function! Yay! Furthermore, this explains periods. Most mammals don't do the period thing. It's a colossal waste of nutrients and attracts predators. Typically the lining is re-absorbed. Getting a built in pregnancy test, however, facilitates reproductive choice. She gets a heads up, can think about it, and either start knitting booties or gathering tansy depending on whether now is a good time to have a kid. I have, once again, divined its purpose from its function. What's that? You have a different view as to the purpose of widely available abortion inducing herbs and menstruation? Well that's just, like, your opinions. Your subjective opinions. Because you do not and will never ever know what gods plan is. All you have is your best guess and your best guess isn't authoritative.. This entire line of discussion ends in the appeal to authority fallacy in smugglers best case outcome. You can give him every bad definition and shaky claim and he still ends up with nothing more than "but god says". Also, if you make an axe to sharp it will notch and break when you swing it at a tree. Sharpness is not always better for an axe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:My argument so far has been entirely secular. Also, I'm an atheist. Try again. You're whatever you think is most convenient for your argument at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
No no, all of this is irrational because you derived an incorrect conclusion that women have rights. Since we know that women don't have rights and are somewhat lower valued than a prized racehorse, your conclusion contradicts established fact, try again: Women are good at having children so that's their purpose, and abortifacients exist in the natural world but are not harvested and used by animals so they were, like the dinosaur bones, placed there by Satan to deceive us. Therefore, abortions are Satanic and women must be owned like property to restrain their Satanic urges to murder their own children. Now we check the conclusion that natural lady-parts philosophy has given us...sounds good! Get in the kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
I'm a dumbass, but go read what some other guy says. He kills it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:My argument so far has been entirely secular. Also, I'm an atheist. Try again. Uh... buttcoin smuggler posted:I don't care about contraceptives as much as some Catholics. In my ideal theocracy they'd be permitted. A theocracy isn't necessarily a religious dictatorship, and in any case there isn't much scriptural support for the idea that artificial contraception is inherently evil. The prohibition is more a matter of the church not wanting to admit they were wrong for so long, in my opinion. So you don't care about contraceptives as much as some Catholics (because you're not Catholic(??)), you're totally cool with a Catholic theocracy though, you cite scripture about contraception and, OH YEAH, you just have some  rational secular belief that women are inherently unable to sprinkle babies with water and teach the Bible?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
,.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
No no, forget the axe question, derive for me your atheistic secular logical belief that women are intrinsically inferior theologians and how their natural function is to shut the gently caress up in church when the menfolks are talking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Yes, I'd probably be down with properly run a Catholic theocracy. They're all about love and compassion and social justice. I'd totally be down if they fixed the LGBT/women's rights stuff. I really hope the child molestation comes into your radar sometime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
But you only backed down after people dogpiled to call you out and still used sneering qualifiers like "D&D approved women's rights" (as if there is anything other than human rights) and basically said it'd be cool if the church weren't so rife with misogynist cockbaggery but it's hardly a serious issue for you. No I really want to know more about this because as a secular atheist man of Pure Reason, how can you even entertain the idea that barring women from a profession is acceptable if you think Paul was just some dickbag and not the Voice Of God? Edit: Here it is buttcoin smuggler posted:In general, men and women are essentially different, yet equal. I don't entirely agree with how the Catholic doctrine cashes that observation out, and as I've said, my theocratic utopia would probably include the D&D-approved notion of gender equality, but this really isn't the killer objection you're making it out to be. Equality: yeah probably I guess if it's so important to D&D, but whatever men and women are different so who cares of women are second-class citizens, that's what being different is all about VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Best thing I can say about Catholicism is that I hope Pope Francis lives forever because he is seriously the chillest Pope.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Heh "probably". So where's the irrestible intellectual force of atheist secular Aristotelianism that proves women aren't worth as much as men so they're only probably equal if it will shut liberals up? And it's a pretty big difference in a theocracy once the State is run by the Church and women suddenly have no political power or chance at civic participation. Maybe you should just be Catholic because then at least I can chalk your terrible opinion on women's rights up to superstitions ingrained in you from before you could think. Edit: Actually that probably is what happened here, you've rejected the mumbo-jumbo but you still cling to the prejudices that you suckled at in your infancy and you cast around for any other hasty justification to build another foundation for them. I know how that is, you'll get over that too once you realize they're just as baseless and as transubstantiation 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:In my theocracy, the government is merely divinely guided, not run by the Church. So the Divine God you don't think exists is going to guide the 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the Divine God you don't think exists is going to guide the Yes because this world is saveable, that's what you can take from the New Testament.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
,
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
So...democratic politicians are bought-and-paid-for by big money interests to crush the poor, enrich the wealthy, and fight endless war for profit...and your solution is to remove the government from democratic accountability, turn selection of leaders over to Church councils, and then just trust that this system will be less corrupt and church leaders are somehow immune to the rot...without even the touching faith in an all-benevolent God to guide the leaders away from greed and bloodlust? You're joking. This is an elaborate troll, right? I mean, if we're just going to assume that every leader will be a good social-justice-minded Christian then it seems like any government will be utopia as we can assume it's run by angels. Edit: buttcoin smuggler posted:That's some nice condescension you've got going there. "Women should probably get political rights, I guess." "Probably?! Yo, that's hosed up" "  Why are liberals so mean???"
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:The New Testament is a source of tremendous moral wisdom. Your posting style is senile so I never know what you're driving at, but it's not like I disagree with you. There's no modern concept of human rights without the sermons of whoever is speaking in Q.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
I too wish to live in the modern equivalent of the papal states. E: PayPal indulgences Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Priests has a lifetime of moral and spiritual training. I think they'd do a better job choosing our leaders than we do. Hey, the 1980's called. They want their total ignorance of a massive operation to cover-up child molestation that went to the top levels of the church to preserve the reputation of the priests with a lifetime of moral and spiritual training over the well-being of children back. buttcoin smuggler posted:Alternatively, we could just amend the constitution to include a few passages from Luke. Luke's pretty cool, I could dig putting some choice passages of his in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:I'm glad we're on the same page on this issue. However, just about everything tacked on in addition to Q was the ravings of a desert Steve Jobs and his apocalyptic cult. All the real heirs of the Master who understood the meaning of his teachings (like those who wrote Didache) got rubbed out before the Catholic Church came on the scene. The Church is the legacy of the cult, not of the Master, and has all the moral wisdom and coherency of the Nation of Gods and Earths.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I too wish to live in the modern equivalent of the papal states. Well why wouldn't you? The rulers all had a lifetime of moral and spiritual training so there were no wars, there was no poverty, and being rich didn't buy one political favors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
.
buttcoin smuggler fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Some democratic checks and balances would be necessary. But on average, priests are better than ethical reasoning than laypeople. Man, that must mean the Popes during that period were, on average, better at ethical reasoning than the secular rulers of the same time. Gosh, I wonder whether the historical record bears this out or not...
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 04:33
|
|
