< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6193 OF 6193 ·
|Sep-20-14|| ||Boomie: <achieve>
Howdy! Always a pleasure reading your thoughtful posts.
How are your puppies doing?
User: ChemMac is also a piano player. You may find a kindred spirit there.
All the best to you.
|Sep-20-14|| ||moronovich: Hi <achieve> !
What a fine post & good to see you again.Seemingly in high spirits.
And Giri in high spirits too.
Can´t wait(well I can,but it somehow sounds more sporty to say : can´t ;)
till november where we perhaps will see a more even match.
You are welcome to drop by ,as usual ;)
|Sep-20-14|| ||moronovich: <achieve: No one is perfect,>|
You seemingly haven´t met my first girlfriend :)
|Sep-20-14|| ||perfidious: <moronovich: You seemingly haven´t met my first girlfriend :)>|
Pity she was merely the first.
|Sep-20-14|| ||Big Pawn: < perfidious: <Big Liar: I don't need to answer anything that I'm not defending in my arguments. No need to chase red herrings all day.>|
As all of us well know--even your loyal adherents--you prefer to strew red herrings instead, most especially when your fraudulent, specious arguments are exposed for what they are.>
Pimps, hookers, drug dealers, gamblers - let then say what they will. Who's really listening?
|Sep-20-14|| ||moronovich: <perfidious: <moronovich: You seemingly haven´t met my first girlfriend :)>
Pity she was merely the first.>
Lol!But if she wasn´t the first I wouldn´t have met her ! Or how?
But as a fine pokerplayer you know what a good hand means :)
|Sep-20-14|| ||Big Pawn: <achieve: <Big Pawn> does not realize that those participating in the "debate" do not agree to the dictation-style and condescending tone in which he outlines the debate,>|
Big Pawn doesn't care at all.
Talk about ANYTHING but the debate...
|Sep-20-14|| ||moronovich: <Pimps, hookers, drug dealers, gamblers - let then say what they will. Who's really listening?>|
|Sep-20-14|| ||achieve: <Moro> <Boomie> Will drop by in your forums in a moment or two. Thanks for the kind words too.|
|Sep-20-14|| ||Big Pawn: <My point - <Big <Pawn> - is : you create and outline the "argument" in a way and manner, in which every word or concept used must be sharply defined and agreed upon,>|
If you're not up to it, then back out. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you are not sharp enough, then stay out of the debate.
Look, it's not my fault that the people on the side of godlessness don't know what the words mean. However, you'll notice their ignorance doesn't keep them from having VERY strong opinions about that which they know basically nothing.
That's really enough but there's more.
I've actually defined (not my definitions but ones accepted by modern philosophy in general)any ambiguous terms already - over and over again. The debate here is quite old already.
Objective: Existing independently of the mind.
Moral ontology: regarding the metaphysical status of moral values; their reality and being
Moral epistemology: regarding how we come to know about moral values (social conditioning, biological conditioning, parents, memes etc...)
Moral linguistics: defining different moral terms and situations.
Yet the fact is that in between scornful ridicule and ridiculous name calling, all of my interlocutors objections fall neatly into two basic categories:
These attempted rebuttals are 100% fallacious. It's just that simple.
The REAL problem here is that the liberal atheists are frustrated with their position.
Hence they have been reduced to food fighting.
|Sep-20-14|| ||achieve: <!!> Thanks for the clarification, I mean it, the attempt is appreciated, but the effect is rather thin for the moment. |
Another thing: it is not just <your kitchen>, although you are correct that if anyone gets uncomfortable or otherwise disstressed or frustrated, they can just leave.
<Hence they have been reduced to food fighting> Some may have at some point, but there were many contributions undeserving of that negative characterization. Very few are, that I have read.
Speaking for myself i never really shy away from heated discussion, but once the points of direction blur, the tone hardens, becomes disrespectful, then we enter the time wasting realm, and then, as you correctly point out, stay, or leave. That is each person's own responsibility. We change direction, change tone, tactics, and if it does not work then so be it. There is enough to be done in this world besides debating on the internet.
|Sep-20-14|| ||perfidious: <achieve: <Big Pawn> does not realize that those participating in the "debate" do not agree to the dictation-style and condescending tone in which he outlines the debate, hiding behind a pseudo-intellectual cloak and multi-definition smokescreen, from which only he can cherry pick, formulate, distort, mislead, and create a highly toxic climate, where he is used to move in and work from.>|
Indeed, and those who dare take issue with any point are cast into perdition, after having been portrayed as the lowest form of filth.
|Sep-20-14|| ||achieve: Are there "higher forms of filth"?
No, do not answer that. ;)
Anyways that ought to be a strong breaking of the posting guidelines, and considering this is a multi-thread discussion board on just the one page, a removal might be "desirable." J/k, no need for inflammatory post at this time.
<perf> Have a good weekend, I promise to leave the kitchen as long as you promise to stay on the ball, err.. watch the stove.
|Sep-20-14|| ||nok: So vegetarianism exists objectively. Where is it hiding, in India?|
|Sep-20-14|| ||johnlspouge: < <!!> wrote: <one other objection offered by <p to qb4> and <refused> and that was circularity. > >|
The argument <pawn to QB4> offered was much more profound than an objection to circularity. He showed that when restricted to self-contained ontological arguments, your syllogism must be either circular or contradictory. This brilliant clarity requires you to support its statements epistemologically.
|Sep-20-14|| ||chancho: 46 Turkish and three Iraqi hostages released by ISIS.|
No ransom paid or conditions met for the release.
|Sep-20-14|| ||nok: <how we come to know about moral values (social conditioning, biological conditioning>|
I missed that try to save the argument. Values don't appear by social and biological conditioning, it's just how we "come to know about them".
When I bake a cake, it pre-existed in the sky. The baking is how I came to know about it.
|Sep-20-14|| ||Bobby Spassky: "Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool."|
|Sep-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: Mark Twain was deceptively brilliant.|
|Sep-20-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Funny you mention Mark Twain. He actually sailed to Hawaii with <Big Pawn> (called <the Admiral> by Twain).|
He describes the experience in Chapter LXII of "Roughing It." The way the Admiral gets taken down is hilarious.
|Sep-20-14|| ||johnlspouge: @<Jim Bartle>: The Admiral has, I recall, been known by other names on this board. |
The tiniest scrap of humility can be a saving grace ;>)
|Sep-20-14|| ||devere: "Gazans Speak Out: Hamas War Crimes"
"If Hamas does not like you for any reason all they have to do now is say you are a Mossad agent and kill you." — A., a Fatah member in Gaza.
"Hamas wanted us butchered so it could win the media war against Israel showing our dead children on TV and then get money from Qatar." — T., former Hamas Ministry officer.
"They would fire rockets and then run away quickly, leaving us to face Israeli bombs for what they did." — D., Gazan journalist.
"Hamas imposed a curfew: anyone walking out in the street was shot. That way people had to stay in their homes, even if they were about to get bombed. Hamas held the whole Gazan population as a human shield." — K., graduate student
"The Israeli army allows supplies to come in and Hamas steals them. It seems even the Israelis care for us more than Hamas." — E., first-aid volunteer.
"We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money. We miss the security and calm Israel provided when it was here." — S., graduate of an American university, former Hamas sympathizer.
S. a medical worker, said:
"The Israeli army sends warnings to people [Gazans] to evacuate buildings before an attack. The Israelis either call or send a text message. Sometimes they call several times to make sure everyone has been evacuated. Hamas's strict policy, though, was not to allow us to evacuate. Many people got killed, locked inside their homes by Hamas militants. Hamas's official Al-Quds TV regularly issued warnings to Gazans not to evacuate their homes. Hamas militants would block the exits to the places residents were asked to evacuate. In the Shijaiya area, people received warnings from the Israelis and tried to evacuate the area, but Hamas militants blocked the exits and ordered people to return to their homes. Some of the people had no choice but to run towards the Israelis and ask for protection for their families. Hamas shot some of those people as they were running; the rest were forced to return to their homes and get bombed. This is how the Shijaiya massacre happened. More than 100 people were killed."
|Sep-20-14|| ||Big Pawn: <The argument <pawn to QB4> offered was much more profound than an objection to circularity. He showed that when restricted to self-contained ontological arguments, your syllogism must be either circular or contradictory.>|
No it wasn't. No matter how you try to wrap the charge of circularity it still comes down to structure, and the structure is not circular.
1. If not A then not B
3. Therefore A
Not circular no matter what anyone claims.
|Sep-20-14|| ||Big Pawn: Big Pawn: <nok: Values don't appear by social and biological conditioning, it's just how we "come to know about them".>|
You should say values don't *exist* by...
<nok> do yourself a favor and look up moral epistemology at Standford so you can be up to speed on the argument. Right now you are in the 3rd grade.
Moral Epistemology - Stanford
<How is moral knowledge possible? This question is central in moral epistemology and marks a cluster of problems. The most important are the following.
Sociological: The best explanation of the depth of moral disagreements and the social diversity that they reflect is one of two things. (a) No moral facts exist to be known, since moral disagreements exemplify merely clashes in moral sensibility rather than differences about matters of fact. (b) Moral knowledge exists, but moral facts are relative to the social group in which moral sensibility is formed with the result that no moral truths are known to hold universally. Psychological: Moral judgments are intrinsically motivating. Judgments about matters of fact, on the other hand, are never motivating just in themselves. Since to constitute moral knowledge a moral judgment must be made about some moral fact, moral knowledge is not possible.>
That's a very basic article but should be sufficient to get at least somewhat oriented. At least a little bit.
|Sep-20-14|| ||HeMateMe: <We are under Hamas occupation, and if you ask most of us, we would rather be under Israeli occupation… We miss the days when we were able to work inside Israel and make good money>|
Don't tell Mort. He lives under the fantasy that Israel enjoys being attacked by rockets and wants to fight and kill arabs.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6193 OF 6193 ·