RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:17   

Thanks, Lenny, you make my point so much better and with more credibility but I would like to add a few points.

Louis, I'm not shifting the "blame" to you.  I'm just trying to point out your position to demonstrate why we are at odds.  Also, let's not be coy, if you believed in God then we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would get what I was saying even though I'm apparently not as elegant as Lenny.  You see rational thought or science as a sphere within which knowledge and potential knowledge is contained.  Within this same sphere you see the tumor of irrational thought or faith that is attempting to address this same knowledge or potential knowledge and in doing so is slightly corrupting to the whole.  As far as you're concerned there is nothing that is beyond the investigation of rational thought.  Everything can be reduced, characterized and understood or potentially understood.  There is nothing wrong with this view as it is just as valid as the alternative which is mine.

I believe that there are things (not quite the right word) beyond rational examination.  I see two separate spheres that address two completely different types of knowledge.  They only overlap in the Mind of the observer.  Thanks again to Alba and getzal, the questions on Mind have been a great starting point for me and I have been heavily focused upon them for the past few days.  Anyway, one difference I have with your characterization, Louis, is that you continually insist that science and faith are trying to answer the same questions.  They not only are not but they should not.  I agree with Lenny (I hope you're sitting down, Lenny) and I believe that the conflict would disappear if faith stuck to faith and science stuck to science.  I can see your problem with this statement because you don't view faith as valid to answer any questions and certainly not the questions that you believe can be answered by reason.  You might be right.  There may be no other true source of knowledge but reason and we've just been fooling ourselves for thousands of years.  In this life, we'll never know but enough people think and have thought that the questions are beyond reason that as these questions have been pondered they will continue to be pondered.

So the conclusion (lol), there are many worldviews and the two on display here are:

a) Science and religion are always at odds because the only true source of knowledge is science and religion attempts to intrude upon this quest.  There is an opposite to this which we don't see here but we run into quite often and that is that religion is the only true source of knowledge, blah, blah, blah.  Again, in this case religion and science are always at odds.

b) science and religion are two independent areas of knowledge asking different questions, using different methods and having no impact upon each other.

Neither can be proven as a better worldview because initial inclinations dictate which one you accept and the other never appears adequate from that point on.

On a side note,  I wanted to quickly address Alba and getzal's question and hit on something Lenny was trying to tell me last year.  I had a great deal of trouble working through this question of the Mind as I've mentioned.  But as I kept looking at my idea of the two separate areas in dawned upon me.  There must be some overlap between the physical and non-physical otherwise we would no awareness of the non-physical as we are decidedly physical.  That overlap is the Mind.  The point at which we experience the non-physical and translate that into our physical thoughts, feelings, actions, etc.  That raises two questions, is the non-physical real or just a human construct and how or where does this overlap occur?  In the case of the second question, I must punt because I've really just moved the overlap internal to each individual but not really said anything about it specifically.  In the case of the second question, it is a matter of belief.  Some will believe that these do not really exist and view them within the framework of reason while others with accept their independent existence.  Not a real good answer, I know, but it reminds me of Lenny's discussion last year about authority.  It only took me this long to really get it but I did want to focus on one point.  Even though my view acknowledges an external authority it is still me who holds the final authority.  It is still my Mind that must experience and evaluate the non-physical and process it for consumption.  Because it still must go through the filter of my Mind then it is up to me to decide how I should act, feel and think based upon in.  The buck stops here as we say and that is still something that every individual must do for themselves.  That is, of course, unless there is only one Mind that we are all just parts of and if that's the case then I'm out to lunch and I have no idea where go with that.    :D

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:25   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
Even though my view acknowledges an external authority it is still me who holds the final authority. ?It is still my Mind that must experience and evaluate the non-physical and process it for consumption. ?Because it still must go through the filter of my Mind then it is up to me to decide how I should act, feel and think based upon in. ?


?

Well, perhaps there is hope for you yet, young Jedi . . .

Now, you need to take the next step, and understand that this external thing that you filter through your mind, is actually not separate from you at all; it is a part of you, and you are a part of it.  It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
?Also, let's not be coy, if you believed in God then we wouldn't be having this discussion

Let me just note once more, for those who may have forgotten, that I do not assert, and I do not accept, the existence of any god, goddess, or any other supernatural entity whatsoever, in any way shape or form.

I see no need for any such entity, either scientifically, philosophically, or religiously.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
That is, of course, unless there is only one Mind that we are all just parts of and if that's the case then I'm out to lunch and I have no idea where go with that. ? ?:D

There is, of course, only one place you CAN go . . . .

Oddly enough, you've been there all along.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,19:14   

good Lenny

good Lenny

Bad Lenny!!

LOL

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:02   

Quote
it is a part of you, and you are a part of it.  It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.



"No different!  Only different in your mind.  You must UNLEARN what you have 'learned'."

:p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:23   

skeptic is riding the ox in search of the ox.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,21:32   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 22 2007,20:02)
Quote
it is a part of you, and you are a part of it. ?It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.



"No different! ?Only different in your mind. ?You must UNLEARN what you have 'learned'."

:p

I am wondering if anyone has yet written "The Tao of Yoda".   Sort of along the lines of "The Tao of Pooh".
It'd be a great book.


(turns to another browser page for a moment . . . )


Hmmm, nothing at Amazon under that title . . . .


I think I've just found my next writing project.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,22:02   

Now, Lenny, if I don't miss my guess, that is a statement rooted in capitalism.  :D

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,22:34   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,22:02)
Now, Lenny, if I don't miss my guess, that is a statement rooted in capitalism. ?:D

I, uh, doubt very much I'll be able to retire on the earnings.


Indeed, I doubt very much I can even pay a month's rent on the earnings.

-edit-  One thing I *don't* doubt very much is that the entire manuscript will be available on the Web, complete, for free.  Just like every other manuscript I've done.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,01:49   

now that's the Lenny I know

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,04:31   

Problem also is that the big GL could probably sue you.  

Maybe you could pitch the idea to him?  I'd buy it!   :D

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,09:04   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 23 2007,04:31)
Problem also is that the big GL could probably sue you. ?

Maybe you could pitch the idea to him? ?I'd buy it! ? :D

Yeah, that's probably why nobody has already done the book.

Anyone have GL's email address . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:03   

Hi Lenny,

First off, I suspect if you read back you'll find I've dealt with almost all of the comments you make already, if not I'll try to do them justice here.

1)

Quote
But alas, that doesn't answer the question at all.  It tells us how MANY people think blondes are hotter than brunettes (at this particular time and place). It might even tell us WHY more people prefer this particular answer over that one (again, at this particular time and place).  But that doesn't answer whether blondes really ARE hotter than brunettes.


This is equivocating on the meaning of words in the question. It is essentially the "no true Scotsman fallacy" writ large. It's rhetorical pissing about and nothing more.

In what sense can the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" be answered without appeal to evidence or reason? Answer: it can't. Complaining that all the information obtained by rational inquiry is merely information about this facet of the issue or that facet of the issue doesn't cut the mustard. That's all the information we can ever get by any means (as I've said before). The "are blondes hotter than brunettes" question is a question about group's or individual's preferences, that is a question studiable by reason. If you want to know the answer to a universal version of that question, then a you are asking something beyond the limits of any mechanism of acquiring knowledge about the universe and b) asking an illogically framed question. My point is, was and has always been that the ONLY information you can get about this question (or indeed any other) derives from rational, reason based investigation of it. Again, I can ask any number of illogical questions "what is the sock preference of my banana tree?" for example. It doesn't mean that I am asking a question that a) means anything, or b) has an answer.

It does not in any way rely on an appeal to post modernist subjective/democratic truth. What it does rely on is the basic realisation of the limits of what we can know about a particular thing by any means, reasoned or otherwise. The question itself is either a question about preferences or it is a meaningless appeal to a universal idea derived solely from the misapplication of a concept. The concept that blondes could be universally hotter than brunettes (i.e. without any appeal to subjective preferences) is a total non sequitur. The concept of hotness relies specifically on subjective preference, ergo it's a question about a subjective issue. Trying to extend that beyond its meaning to objective universality is logically inconsistent.

More than that, if we do various studies and find that blondes are really the preferred female hair colour (or whatever) then we have found out something objective. It's not a democratic truth at all. we have found out which hair colour is more preferred. Therefore on that basis and within those limits we CAN say that blondes are hotter than brunettes. There's the point about limits again. Extending that to "blondes are universally hotter than brunettes" would be fallacious because we don't have the information to say that, and as I mention above, even the question of whether blondes are universally hotter than brunettes is utterly meaningless.

Again, to ram it home: the only useful information that can be gained from answering that question is obtained from rational, reasoned enquiry however that is done.

You then go into EXACTLY the sort of shit Skeptic has been doing which is stamping your foot and repeating by decree that reason cannot answer ethical/moral questions. This is utter shit as I have demonstrated before and will cheerfully do so again. (See below) Oh and incidentally, the equivocation of science and reason when I have made in plainly clear in what sense I am using both words is more than a touch annoying. It's also a strawman.

2)  Morals, ethics etc.

First and foremost, by referring me to your pizza boy you have utterly missed the point of what I was saying. Also by asking the question what makes a "scientist's" moral axioms better than anyone else illustrates this too.

I have not said, will not say, and am not saying that my or any scientist's moral axioms are or ever will be better than anyone else's. To even think that I am makes me think you cannot read, and Lenny, I KNOW you can read, so I guess you are playing devil's advocate or you fucked up. (Better than Devil's Advocaat, which is a horrible drink). ;)

All I have said, all I will say, is that morals/ethics etc are explorable by reason and are relative. Nothing more complex than that. I'd also say that they are more examinable than as mere post priori rationalisations of preferences. You and I agree that in questions of morals and ethics there are no objective 100% certain etc answers. What there ARE are objective answers to moral questions within certain moral systems. (I.e. it's a question of propositional logic: given limits X, Y and Z, and goals P, Q and R which of scenarios A and B best sticks within those limits and fulfills those goals) Hence my point about consequentialism above (I was using it as an example, not as a preferred moral system). I can say that within a given system X behaviour is right or wrong based on the axioms and workings of that system. I didn't say that equates to universal right or wrong. And I won't!

Incidentally, something I find amusing is in the first instance (the one of preference of blondes or brunettes) it's you (wrongly) extending subjective ideas beyond their defined limits to objective truths, and then on the moral questions you accuse me (wrongly) of doing just that and take me to task for it. I did laugh about that.

Anyway, back to the res.

As for your Buddhist comments re morals, I totally agree. Only you can answer moral questions for you and you can only answer them for you. However, when one is trying to set up a system of morals for a group, although the same principle applies (morals are after all relative), one can develop a system (not as an authority but as a collaboration. It's not always "authority" vs "whatever" you know Lenny! Bloody commies ;) ) based on reason. Of course one has to set those axioms right at the start somehow, and of course those axioms can be informed by reason and of course it's likely those axioms will be at least partly in error when the kinks and consequences are worked out.

This is the unfortunate area of compromise! If we are going to live together in groups and if we are going to have laws and organisations and social structures and so on and so forth then sadly we are going to have to develop some sort of ethical/moral system. This doesn't imply or mean that that system has to be inflexible or authoritarian, one can after all engage in social contract (the privileges/benefits of group living can be conferred to the individual provided they agree to the contract etc). The axioms that underpin any moral or ethical system are (or at least bloody well should be) open to question, change and debate. The virtues/pitfalls of group living are incidentally a different debate, one eminently informed by reason, observation and not a small amount of evolutionary biology and other scientific data.

Incidentally this is why I would advocate not merely a REASONED approach to moral questions but a SCIENTIFIC approach, because science fundamentally tests everything up to and including its own underpinnings. If there were a better way of acquiring knowledge about the universe than reason (etc) science would incorporate it because science is about most closely modelling what does happen as opposed to imposing what we want to happen on reality. This is a matter of personal preference, within given moral/ethical limits by the way and absolutely NOT an attempt to claim that universal morals/ethics can be derived from it. I mention it merely as an aside.

So again, to ram it home, I am in total agreement Lenny that morals and ethics are relative. I am not in agreement that they are unexplorable by reason and rational enquiry. This does not mean I think that moral/ethical absolutes are definable by reason. They aren't. This means that a) for a given set of moral/ethical axioms/goals it is possible to define (within those limits remember) a specific act as moral/ethical or immoral/unethical. This has no bearing on the universal morality of that specific act because that is an unknowable, illogically framed question. And b) that the axioms/goals with which a moral/ethical system is set up are explorable by recourse to reason, as far as any subjective question can be. As for who decides what is right and wrong? All depends on the system of ethics and morals you develop. If you are developing one system it might be just you, if it's another it might be founding father, if it's another it might be women only etc etc etc. I.e. it is irrelevant to the point I was actually making, not the point you thought (wrongly) I was making.

Incidentally, the only reason people still argue about what makes a good person is because, and I want to be totally clear here, people are fucking idiots. In all these arguments they are working from different sets of unstated axioms. State the axioms outright front and centre and it's dead easy. Keep hiding those axioms, keep forgetting to mention the assumptions you're making and the argument can run and run for all eternity (and will). Moral and ethical philosopher (or at least the bright ones) got over this ages ago and started trying to develop coherent moral/ethical systems from given sets of axioms that were clearly stated. You and I and they might disagree about their choice of axioms and the limitations of their systems, but this does not for one tiny second refute my point which is that these things are open to exploration by reason.

Incidentally again, Skeptic's dumb claim, which you are dangerously close to repeating, is that because we don't have the complete 100% right answer yet (as if such a thing is even acheivable, do you people NE VER read the quotes I provide from Feynman!?!?!?!), it is impossible for reason to explore these issues. That's exactly like me arguing that because we can't fly by flapping our arms yet, heavier than air flight is impossible.

Oh and Lenny, if you read things as a whole rather than snipped bits out, you'd have a) caught the fact that you misrepresented what I did say already, and b) you'd have caught the fact that I mentioned that naive appeals to the Is/Ought fallacy were not required. Dude, I expected a LOT better! Also, the "we can't get a perfect answer so it's all totally like ya know subjective" argument is a big crock of horseshit! We CAN get imperfect answers and we CAN try to make those answers as perfect as we possibly are able. Granted this is not easy and granted we might have to start from some very subjective and pretty shaky axioms, but we can evolve a better set of axioms by referring to their consequences.

3) The arse quakingly annoying and oft repeated false dichotomy between reason and emotion:

For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me. Why is Spock's logic deemed unemotional? Well I could riff on that subject for a week and I guarantee you I'd mention sexism and the view of women as the "weaker" sex in there! Anyway....

Again unconscious=/=unreasoned. Emotion=/=irrational. I'll remind you, your pizza boy and EVERYONE again that I do not mean "irrational" as it "batshit insane and unreasonable" but I DO mean it in the strict epistemological sense: i.e. logically incoherent.

One's emotional response to some set of circumstances may be totally rational (i.e. logically coherent), derived totally from reason, observation etc. Whether one consciously understands the underpinnings of one's emotions or not is a trivial irrelevance, just like the calculus one does to catch a ball being unconscious is. Emotional responses are both innate and learned, like ball catching ability etc. This does not ring fence off emotion from rational enquiry. Again the imperfection of our answers to complicated issues is not evidence against rational enquiry being capable of getting those answers as far as answer can even be got.

I can only think, with reference to the false dichotomy of of logic being unemotional, that the people who advance this have never done a day's science in their lives. And given some of the people who DO advance this, I know that the previous thought must be a load of old shit! So there must be some other reason, perhaps it's because people think that because reasoning free from passion can be clearer and eaiser on a personal level, thus reason eschews the emotions and thus emotions are not reasoned or reasonable. Bollocks sayeth I! Whilst the former might be true the two latter statements do not follow from it. Classic if A then B therefore if B then A logical fuckwittery.

Either way, the classic Star Trek picture presents just this false dichotomy. Another element to it I think is the appeal to mystery/unconscious. I like X, I don't know why I like X but it sings to my soul etc thus why I like X must be unknowable. Again, logically fallacious crap.

Anyway, I have a) gone on too long AGAIN and b) already dealt with this before. So unless you have anything to present that I haven't already dealt with, I stand by my previous comments.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:18   

Skeptic,

I call bullshit.

First and foremost you have utterly failed to encapsulate or understand my position anywhere in the previous thread and have resorted to egregious strawmen throughout.

Sceond, you make MASSIVE claims for faith and run away every time you are asked to demonstrate those claims. Then you go on to say that our views are equally supported but opposed. Sorry, but where the hairy fuck to you get off saying that? If you claim that faith can answer a question reason cannot show us all what this question is and show us how reason cannot answer a question. All I have had from both you and Lenny on this issue is equivocation and illogical extension of subjective questions beyond their subjective frame. Needless to say that does not constitute an answer! Trying to appeal to faux subjectivity is dishonest in the extreme. You have not made any demonstration that your claims are valid, you have merely asserted them. Incidentally on the issue of the limits of reason being able to enquire about things, Lenny has mertely asserted it too, and exactly the same way. Your assertions are not supported by anything, ergo they are not equal to mine which are. Sorry if you don't like that.

Thirdly, I do not "believe" anything (except in the most vague and colloquial sense of the word) I accept various explanations and hypotheses as being provisionally true because this is all I (or anyone) can do. Presenting this as a clash of worldviews that would be assuaged if I believed in god is so manifestly stupid that I am actually shocked. You're making appeals based on ignorance and claiming them equal to things that are a) not appeals and b) not based on ignorance. I don't see faith as some sort of tumour corrupting the whole, I see faith as a distraction, a self delusional fantasy which people use to disguise their ignorance and settle theit nerves about uncertainty. You claim faith informs you about the universe? GREAT! I'm all ears, show me how it does this. But remember, don't reason because the second you do you prove my point. I notice that everyone I ask to do this runs away. I wonder why? It's not that my personal view is that faith is invalid, it's not anything to do with my personal view at all. I'm totally open to the idea that faith has some epistemological use that reason can't touch: so show it to me. Thus far all I've had is restatements of this claim from you and appeals to imperfection, mystery, and subjectivity from you and Lenny. None of which answer the actual question at all. It's why I am both unimpressed and fundamentally frustrated with discussing it with you.

Fourthly, Lenny doesn't agree with you precisely the way you think, although there are similarities. I'd be careful what you wish for.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:46   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
In what sense can the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" be answered without appeal to evidence or reason? Answer: it can't.

In what sense can it be answered AT ALL?


Answer: it can't.  It's entirely a subjective judgement.


If you still disagree, please by all means go ahead and demonstrate to us, logically and using whatever scientific data you like, that brunettes are cuter than blondes (or vice versa).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:50   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
The "are blondes hotter than brunettes" question is a question about group's or individual's preferences, that is a question studiable by reason.

No, that is not the question at all.

The question is:  are brunettes cuter than blondes.  Nothing in there about anyone's "preferences", collective or individual.  Just as "are rocks heavier than feathers" isn't about anyone's "preferences".

All I want is a simple, objective, answer to the simple question: "are brunettes cuter than blondes".

And science is completely unable to give me one.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:53   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
All I have said, all I will say, is that morals/ethics etc are explorable by reason and are relative.

Explorable, yes.

Answerable, not even remotely.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:55   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me.

Good luck in your search for Kohlinar.  (grin)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:00   

Hotter, to who?  (clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:03   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
Hotter, to who? ?(clue, there, that one is)

And a very good clue, it is.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:05   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

Argh, too pale.  They look like corpses.  Yikes.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:25   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
Hotter, to who? ?(clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

I'll have to toss in on the redheads too!

If you want, I'll even go out and do my own research....armed with nothing more than some NoDoz, Coffee and duct tape...

I'll explain later.....


;-)

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:34   

Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well.  to each their own.  i have one word (two actually):  pink nipples.  none of this ruddy brown business.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:55   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,19:05)
? ?
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

Argh, too pale. ?They look like corpses. ?Yikes.

When I was younger I never found a blonde or a brunette or a redhead that I didn't immediately consider hopping into bed with unless there was someone prettier next to them, that of course meant that my search revealed that beauty and desirability rarely coincided.

Did I mention I'm a legs and ass man? Now if you want proof of some hidden guiding hand behind the curtain, there it is right there. One minute I'm normal and sane and this girl walks into the room and BANG the hand of god takes over, I lose control of my thoughts, I see things that were not there before, my body does strange things and the whole world is wonderful and I love everything. In fact several books in the Vedas discuss this very point in ....erm....interesting detail. Krishna had some very entertaining interludes with cowgirls, masses of them...but I digress, suffice to say the sacred texts are full of erotic fulfillment, we are all gods after all or are descended from them except for those that aren't ...you know who you are. The Bull and the Moon, .Bull Bulls and Bull moon my moon


the masculine and the feminine are the primordial mythological semiotic symbols that today still resonate louder than any other element in religious human life. Look at any advert and the portrayal of femininity or masculinity in art or the media.



Oh, is that the time? I should be grazing in an Elysian field then leaping over horns in a cretian bull run.





AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH.


Pasipha? fell in love with, giving birth to the Dave Tard all Bull not human


Cretan Bull

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:34)
Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well. ?to each their own. ?i have one word (two actually): ?pink nipples. ?none of this ruddy brown business.

Ah, well --- perhaps someone can solve this conundrum logically for us.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:19   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,20:10)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 23 2007,11:34)
Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well. ?to each their own. ?i have one word (two actually): ?pink nipples. ?none of this ruddy brown business.

Ah, well --- perhaps someone can solve this conundrum logically for us.

;)

Let's call on Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski, he can give us the probability that the 2nd blond after the 9th redhead is the most satisfying, after all those laws were made in heaven...right?.

Fundys duck my sick.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:38   

Lenny,

You are missing my point by a country mile. Just to dissect it AGAIN for you:

In so far as the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" is even a meaningful question it is open to rational enquiry.

I know it can be framed as a subjective question, you know it can be framed as a subjective question. All well and good. Smug little asides that imply I haven't noticed this when I mentioned it pages ago make it rather obvious you can't read.

If you are merely referring to it as a subjective question then as I have already said it depends on who you are framing the question about. Do I find blondes more hot than brunettes? That's a very specific question, open at the very shallowest level AT LEAST to rational enquiry: i.e. you want to know if I find blondes hotter than brunettes, you ask me, I answer, quention answered.

If you are asking if across the globe blondes are preferred to brunettes then as you and I have both noted you can ask that question and get an answer derived from reason.

Again it depends on the question you are asking. Poorly framing a question so it is vague and you can shift meanings doesn't mean you have a real question (it's dishonetsly shifting the goalposts). Yet again, if you are asking if blondes are forever and ever, universally at all times hotter than brunettes, you simply cannot answer that question by ANY means. Why? Because it is a logically incoherent question. The reason it cannot be answered is not because the methods used to answer it are inadequate, it's because the question is poorly framed. There is no answer that can be made to that question, so in what sense is it meaningful? Answer: it isn't.

If you are asking me to answer a question about YOUR subjective preference for blondes or brunettes, then I can simply ask: Lenny, which do you prefer, blondes or brunettes? And at least on a superficial level I can get an answer via reasoned means (i.e. interrogating the person who's preferences I am seeking to understand).

If you are asking a biological question about species H sapiens and the preference of the male of that species for blondes or brunettes we answer the question a different, more thorough way.

If you are asking a biological question about one individual then the answer to that question can be examined superficially (as I mentioned) or delved into in a deeper fashion, e.g. psychologically etc.

The question you are asking CAN be answered perfectly logically within the parameters of the question as long as one takes the trouble to define it. And as far as it is even answerable by ANY means. Rhetorical games and goalpost shifting don't save you.

And there in lies the rub, the one single thing that neither you or Skeptic have managed to get yet at all. As far as ANY question is answerable by ANY means, the answer flows directly from a reasoned and rational examination of that question and the issues to which it pertains. The same goes for morals/ethics. As far as we CAN get answers we can only get them by the use of reason. Show me another way, please do! There isn't one and you and I both know it, hence why you are acting the twat.

If you'd bothered to read what I've written you might stop making such asinine mistakes and fighting straw men versions of my argument.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:40   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,16:55)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me.

Good luck in your search for Kohlinar. ?(grin)

Not looking for it at all. Can't you read Lenny?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,14:10   

To find out which group is hotter:

Collect a sample population of each.

Insert thermometers in their mouths (or other openings).

Wait appropriate amount of time.

Read off and compare results.

Then you'll know which is hotter!

(Of course, it's possible I might be missing the point - nah.)

Henry

  
  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]