Originally posted by daniel58So are automoblies, intercontinental ballistic missiles and the slinky. This doesn't mean they don't exist.
Evolution is a human invention.
Unlike the theory of evolution that is based upon actual physical observations and qualitative comparisons, heaven and hell are imaginary.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatehttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/4000.htm
So are automoblies, intercontinental ballistic missiles and the slinky. This doesn't mean they don't exist.
Unlike the theory of evolution that is based upon actual physical observations and qualitative comparisons, heaven and hell are imaginary.
Originally posted by TerrierJackNice deflection. Do you know what universality means? If you do, then you know that one example is enough to break it. So, unless you have an argument besides repeating "it's universal" several times in a row like a parrot, I'd be happy to hear it.
Stupidity is always local and particular. That was not information.
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, that was awesome. You've really got to admire the kind of concerted effort, the shear committment that goes into that kind of blithering.
Jesus Christ. It's funny how the Internet, an extremely powerful tool to gather information, often leads to the perpetuation of ignorance.
Go Christ Power!
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by PalynkaYou seem to think I was stating an absolute - are you? Relatively speaking Moore's argument is an appeal to universal ideals (but I accept that there is "absolutely" no such thing.) When I use the term it denotes a quantitative comparison. Most religion, most people upon reflection - I make no absolute appeal to anything (as I am sure Moore is not.)
Nice deflection. Do you know what universality means? If you do, then you know that one example is enough to break it. So, unless you have an argument besides repeating "it's universal" several times in a row like a parrot, I'd be happy to hear it.
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleTANGENT ALERT!
Common sens is not illusive
This is a bit of a pet peeve for me, so here's a rant:
Maybe illusive is not the best word, but it's hard for me to accept in something I disagree with just because someone says it's common sense. After all, common sense can be contradictory across time and geography. So what exactly are we pinning down here?
And if it's common sense in a certain time and place, then there must be real reasons underlying that common sense. These should be easy to explain. After all, they should be almost obvious and apparent.
So appealing to common sense in a discussion/argument/disagreement is a bit lazy in my opinion.
Originally posted by TerrierJackA "quantitative comparison". What's that? 99%? 85%? A majority? Those are but empty words. Unless universality is meant absolutely, then it's only a measure of popularity. Of course, people would laugh at you if you invoked popularity to justify core moral values.
You seem to think I was stating an absolute - are you? Relatively speaking Moore's argument is an appeal to universal ideals (but I accept that there is "absolutely" no such thing.) When I use the term it denotes a quantitative comparison. Most religion, most people upon reflection - I make no absolute appeal to anything (as I am sure Moore is not.)
I didn't post Bill O'Reilly just because he's an individual who seems to disagree, he represents a non-negligible part of the population. A part that you can find many vocal defenders in these forums.
Originally posted by PalynkaPet peeve -why?
TANGENT ALERT!
This is a bit of a pet peeve for me, so here's a rant:
Maybe illusive is not the best word, but it's hard for me to accept in something I disagree with just because someone says it's common sense. After all, common sense can be contradictory across time and geography. So what exactly are we pinning down here?
And if it's common sense ...[text shortened]... appealing to common sense in a discussion/argument/disagreement is a bit lazy in my opinion.
C’mon Palynka, all I’m talking about is Adam Smith and Scottish School’s ideas, along with our good ole Franklin’s ideas, our good ole Andler’s interpretations et al -and I ‘m sure you know it! Common sens (I could also call it "Middle Way" ) cannot fail due to the fact that its criteria are healthy and fool-proof.
It seems to me that common sens does not forces you or anybody else to accept blindly somebody else's opinion; it is merely the tool that enforces elenchus, nothing more and nothing less. And I define "common sens" not as a standard plexus of thinking or as a product of a specific way of thinking, but as an adjustable (at every herenow) system of critical elenchus that enables us to understand everything according to our conceptual and non-conceptual awareness. In other words, common sens cannot be expressed by solely a single expression.
Could we now agree that common sens coincides with a honest cooperative thought and attitude?
😵
Originally posted by black beetleNo, we cannot agree. 😵 I think it's quite the contrary.
Pet peeve -why?
C’mon Palynka, all I’m talking about is Adam Smith and Scottish School’s ideas, along with our good ole Franklin’s ideas, our good ole Andler’s interpretations et al -and I ‘m sure you know it! Common sens (I could also call it "Middle Way" ) cannot fail due to the fact that its criteria are healthy and fool-proof.
It seems to me t ...[text shortened]... we now agree that common sens coincides with a honest cooperative thought and attitude?
😵
For example, you keep restating that it's a great tool for discussion, but do not explain what it is. You say it's criteria are healthy and fool-proof, but what are these criteria? Also, how does it enforce elenchus if it only answer questions by assertion. It has the common sense stamp, ergo it must be true. I don't buy this.
In other words, if someone explains "why" it is "common sense", then the common sense stamp is superfluous. If he doesn't, then it's just a pure assertion and the anti-thesis of the Socratic method, or elenchus, as you put it.
And this has the added aggravation, that some people's appeal for "common sense" can be totally contradictory to other views that also appeal for "common sense"! So it states basically nothing, beyond the fact that the appealer believes this should be obvious. But if it were obvious, why were they having this discussion in the first place?
No, my good friend, I think appealing to common sense is the opposite of a honest and constructive debate and so the opposite of elenchus.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen I lived in Japan I my empoyers used the term "common sense" a lot - especially at contract/salary negotiation time - which I took to mean "logical" or "known by many or most people". After some time I realized that to them it meant "not rocking the boat".
TANGENT ALERT!
This is a bit of a pet peeve for me, so here's a rant:
Maybe illusive is not the best word, but it's hard for me to accept in something I disagree with just because someone says it's common sense. After all, common sense can be contradictory across time and geography. So what exactly are we pinning down here?
And if it's common sense ...[text shortened]... appealing to common sense in a discussion/argument/disagreement is a bit lazy in my opinion.