RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (395) < ... 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:21   

Quote
Brother Brian May 16, 2019 at 3:14 pm
DaveS
     
Quote
     

I will add that at this point, we do have some empirical evidence—several countries have had same-sex marriage for some time with no apparent ill effects.
 
   
You just have to look north of the border for an example.

I agree, I have never heard any compelling arguments as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. As far as I can tell they simply boil down to religious arguments. But I can think of several reasons to allow it.

66
DaveS May 16, 2019 at 3:15 pm
KF,

I don’t know what you hope to achieve by posting statements by this Russian-Australian activist. I am speaking of the issue of same-sex couples in the US (such as my neighbors, non-activists who would simply like to live their lives). Do you think their freedom to marry should be curtailed because of foreign “radicals”?


KF better hope he has socialized meds for all the blood pressure pills he's probly popping  :D

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:31   

Quote
67
Brother Brian May 16, 2019 at 3:25 pm
KF
   
Quote
 
DS, I have shown you why your opinion is wrong…
   
   
No you haven’t. You have expressed your opinion and DaveS and I (and the majority of others) disagree with you. Calling everything you disagree with lawfare does not detract from the moral a legal right for same sex couples to marry.
   
Quote
   
…and why the attempt to force it on our civilisation under colour of law is liable to have destructive consequences.
   
     
It is not being forced on civilization. It has been requested and civilization has found no reason why it should not be allowed. And the destructive consequences you keep talking about simply haven’t materialized.


I predict we're going to get a full-blown PRINCIPALS OF RIGHT REASON NUMBAR 21 BUTT SEX IS WRRRROOOONNNNNNNG... meltdown within 24 hours  :D

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:37   

Quote
68
Brother Brian May 16, 2019 at 3:30 pm
KF
   
Quote
 
Money-shot remark
   
 
Am I the only one who is laughing at KF’s use of the term “money shot” (a term he has often used) when we are talking about human sexuality?  :D  :D  :D


UD, you still got it

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2291
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:39   

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2019,16:37)
Quote
68
Brother Brian May 16, 2019 at 3:30 pm
KF
     
Quote
 
Money-shot remark
   
 
Am I the only one who is laughing at KF’s use of the term “money shot” (a term he has often used) when we are talking about human sexuality?  :D  :D  :D


UD, you still got it

Damn. You beat me to it. Are you BB?

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:44   

Screenshots in case of mysterious disappearance



   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:46   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 16 2019,17:39)
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2019,16:37)
Quote
68
Brother Brian May 16, 2019 at 3:30 pm
KF
     
Quote
 
Money-shot remark
   
 
Am I the only one who is laughing at KF’s use of the term “money shot” (a term he has often used) when we are talking about human sexuality?  :D  :D  :D


UD, you still got it

Damn. You beat me to it. Are you BB?

Nope. BB if you're out there my email is my username here at Gmail.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:47   

I wish I was either one, bb or Helen. They're both murdering.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:50   

Quote
69
DaveS May 16, 2019 at 3:45 pm
May I suggest “seminal passage” instead? Oh, wait …


Today is a rare day on Tard Mountain :p

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2291
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:50   

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2019,16:47)
I wish I was either one, bb or Helen. They're both murdering.

Helen?

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2291
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:56   

Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2019,16:50)
Quote
69
DaveS May 16, 2019 at 3:45 pm
May I suggest “seminal passage” instead? Oh, wait …


Today is a rare day on Tard Mountain :p

That comment is now gone.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,16:56   

Barry one day in the near future


   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2291
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,17:00   

The best part was the DaveS’s comment about seminal passages was comment number 69 on that thread.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,17:00   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 16 2019,17:50)
Quote (stevestory @ May 16 2019,16:47)
I wish I was either one, bb or Helen. They're both murdering.

Helen?

I meant daveS. Helen has been killing it too though, whoever they are.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,17:02   


   
Ptaylor



Posts: 1124
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2019,17:36   

Quote (stevestory @ May 17 2019,09:31)

...

I predict we're going to get a full-blown PRINCIPALS OF RIGHT REASON NUMBAR 21 BUTT SEX IS WRRRROOOONNNNNNNG... meltdown within 24 hours  :D

Haha, no doubt ending with the words:
   
Quote
Comments closed


Edited by Ptaylor on May 17 2019,10:40

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Henry J



Posts: 5311
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,08:16   

No comment!

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,08:19   

KF is still making stupid arguments for why gay marriage is the end of the world. Meanwhile the world just ended some more:

Taiwan legalizes same sex marriage

And here on May 17, still no new Biocomplexity journal bursting with 2019 research.  :(

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,16:42   

Quote
4
MatSpirit May 17, 2019 at 10:13 am
“We need a more robust concept than “species” to cover what we observe.”

Well, “we” don’t. Darwinian evolution describes what we see pretty well. ID is the theory in crisis here. If new species are designed by an intelligent designer, why aren’t they distinct from the get-go?

5
Kairosfocus May 17, 2019 at 12:05 pm
MS, the species concept is the problem, it is in all kinds of trouble. KF

6
MatSpirit May 17, 2019 at 2:24 pm
KF, then what’s ID’s solution? As Mimus said, this is ID’s chance to show it’s scientific credentials.

You could start by telling us just exactly what the ‘mess’ is. From an evolutionary stand point, things look about as we would expect. You separate a species (wolves in this case) into two groups ( wolves and dogs) and prevent them from interbreeding and they gradually get more and more different until finally some vital DNA changes so much it doesn’t match up between the two groups and they can’t breed at all. Then you declare the new group a separate species.

What’s ID’s theory here? Why does an intelligent designer take such a long, drawn out process to make a new species? Whatever happened to “poof!”?

Or, to restate the problem, why does an Intelligent Designer go to so much trouble to make it look like evolution?


linky

   
Henry J



Posts: 5311
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,20:28   

Yeah, the reason it's so hard to define the word "species" is simply because they routinely blur into each other, sometimes across time periods, and sometimes across geographic barriers, and sometimes concurrently in the same region. A sharp boundary generally indicates that they've been separate for a long enough time for the intermediates to have died out.

Just my two cents, even if pretty much everybody here already knows all that. :)

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,21:17   

These two comments are pretty much perfect:

Quote
90
Kairosfocus May 17, 2019 at 5:45 pm
F/N: Food for thought from SEP on Natural Law approaches:
 
Quote
 
Natural law theory accepts that law can be considered and spoken of both as a sheer social fact of power and practice, and as a set of reasons for action that can be and often are sound as reasons and therefore normative [–> duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc pop up here] for reasonable people addressed by them. This dual character of positive law [–> laws as explicitly issued by a competent authority] is presupposed by the well-known slogan “Unjust laws are not laws.” Properly understood, that slogan indicates why—unless based upon some skeptical denial that there are any sound reasons for action (a denial which can be set aside because defending it is self-refuting)—positivist [–> note the distinction from positive law] opposition to natural law theories is pointless, that is redundant: what positivists characteristically see as realities to be affirmed are already affirmed by natural law theory, and what they characteristically see as illusions to be dispelled are no part of natural law theory. But because legal theories conceived of by their authors as positivist are, by and large, dominant in the milieux of those likely to be reading this entry, it seems appropriate to refer to those theories along the way, in the hope of overcoming misunderstandings that (while stimulating certain clarifications and improvements of natural law theorizing) have generated some needless debate.

The point made in the preceding paragraph is made in another way by Orrego (Orrego 2007). When the accounts of adjudication and judicial reasoning proposed by contemporary mainstream legal theories are added to those theories’ accounts of (the concept of) law, it becomes clear that, at the level of propositions (as distinct from names, words and formulations), those theories share (though not always without self-contradiction) the principal theses about law which are proposed by classic natural law theorists such as Aquinas: (i) that law establishes reasons for action, (ii) that its rules can and presumptively (defeasibly) do create moral obligations that did not as such exist prior to the positing of the rules, (iii) that that kind of legal-moral obligation is defeated by a posited rule’s serious immorality (injustice), and (iv) that judicial and other paradigmatically legal deliberation, reasoning and judgment includes, concurrently, both natural (moral) law and (purely) positive law. Orrego’s point seems to be confirmed by, e.g., the adjacent entry on Legal Positivism (Green 2003). Contemporary “positivist” theories are, it seems, natural law theories, distinguished from the main body of natural law theory (a) by their denial that the theory of law (as distinct from the theory or theories of adjudication, judicial duty, citizens’ allegiance, etc.) necessarily or most appropriately tackles the related matters just listed, and accordingly (b) by the incompleteness of their theories of law, that is, the absence from them (and usually, though not always, from their accounts of those related matters) of systematic critical attention to the foundations of the moral and other normative claims that they make or presuppose.

In short: a natural law theory of (the nature of) law seeks both to give an account of the facticity of law and to answer questions that remain central to understanding law. As listed by Green 2003 (having observed that “No legal philosopher can be only a legal positivist”), these further questions (which “legal positivism does not aspire to answer”) are: What kinds of things could possibly count as merits of law? What role should law play in adjudication? What claim has law on our obedience? What laws should we have? And should we have law at all?


We need to do some serious thinking on the underpinnings of law and today’s dominant trends of thought (which are positivist) as first steps to sound reformation. Of course, if it is not too late.

KF

91
Brother Brian May 17, 2019 at 7:53 pm
Taiwan just legalized same sex marriage. How many is that now?


Kairosfocus blathering some dumb theoretical bulshit nobody will read or give a crap about, while imagining himself important, and a critic just briefly pointing out how KF's side continues to lose lose lose.

Edited by stevestory on May 17 2019,22:19

   
Henry J



Posts: 5311
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,21:24   

Well, my impression of that first paragraph is that he mixes "is" with "ought", which is something one ought not to do.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,22:03   

Quote
92
DaveS May 17, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Brother Brian,

Looks like ~28 countries.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3104
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2019,22:12   

Quote (stevestory @ May 17 2019,20:03)
Quote
92
DaveS May 17, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Brother Brian,

Looks like ~28 countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ndlBu0g

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
k.e..



Posts: 5074
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,09:10   

Quote (Dr.GH @ May 16 2019,09:04)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 15 2019,22:05)
He probably believes  witches can turn a man into a bird or that ghosts exist. Pretty easy to do after one accepts religious parables and myths as facts.

Back when I was medical school faculty in psychiatry I co-led a "Religion and Psychiatry" seminar.

One main goal was to teach the medical students that being religious was not actually insane.

I would tell each new group, "Believing ghosts are real is not insane. Believing you see ghosts is insane."

By that measure KF is insane .....ncht but didn't get the photos.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2291
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,11:48   

Quote
At this point, I again point out that commenting is a privilege, not a right.

I have no intent to keep on monitoring and trying to bring back a thread to a focal topic in the face of persistent side tracking and what seems to be obsessive behaviour.

Enough has been said to substantiate the framework of the OP, on law. Enough has been said on side tracks to provide correctives and to establish that we are not seeing serious discussion, by and large from those caught up in aspects of various radical secularist agendas.

I have no need to go into yet another loop.

I will re-open comments on threads I own when I am satisfied that the message has got through.

KF, Owner

KF is taking his ball and going home.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,12:32   

Quote
11
Hazel May 18, 2019 at 10:45 am
kf, regarding your closing comments on the law thread: if you didn’t repetitively respond with the same stuff every time someone responded, I think the discussions would die sooner. You keep things going because it just takes a small comment to get another 1000 words out of you. Learn to let things go. My 2 cents.

Another point. Very few people are interested in these broad topics that are important to you: evolutionally materialistic scientism (or whatever the recurring phrase you use is), the downfall of civilization, the root of reality, etc. have been brought up ad infinitum. Most people are interested in specific issues as they occur in their everyday lives, and your above-mentioned recurring topics don’t really qualify. Another 2 cents.

12
Brother Brian May 18, 2019 at 11:05 am
Further to Hazel@11, I would argue that my comments, and yours and DaveS’ spoke directly to the OP that KF closed comments on. Essentially the OP was about the inappropriate use by the court to impose laws that violate the constitution and what he perceives as “natural law”. KF was the one who raised issues such as extending rights to LGBQ people and allowing same sex marriage to try to make his point..

He insists that he has provided conclusive rationale as to why this was the case and the fundamental reasons why these should not be granted, and blames others when his arguments fail.

I find that most of KF’s start from premises that have not been demonstrated conclusively (ie, under the governance of objective morality, the grounding of OUGGT, a necessary being, etc.). And it is possible that he is correct in all of this and, as such, his other arguments make rational sense. But until his premises can be demonstrated to be true, the rest is just speculation.

13
Hazel May 18, 2019 at 11:20 am
And he just posted on a quantum gravity video and closed comments. Why? There is no way forbidden topics could pop up there, I wouldn’t think.

But I’ll mention here (and probably have before) that I just read Carlo Rovelli’s book Reality Is Not What It Seems, which is about quantum loop gravity theory.

I wonder what “food for thought” kf thinks is in the hour long video. Too bad we can’t ask him!  :D
linky

Edited by stevestory on May 18 2019,13:35

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,19:34   

Quote
14
MatSpirit May 18, 2019 at 4:31 pm
KF, the reason we have such a problem defining species is because we had a paradigm shift back in the 19th and 20th century and the word “species” belongs to the old paridigm. In the old paridigm, which lasted well over 2000 years and worked itself deeply into our culture, an Intelligent Designer designed and built every creature on earth. As one popular book of the day phrased it,

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” It also says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” and quite a bit more.

You can see from reading the above how people would kind of expect each of these created kinds to be distinct from each other and when it was discovered not to be so, there was coonsternation upon the land. The old paridigm wasn’t working! It predicted things wrong!

It turned out that a brand new explanation fit the facts better. A researcher named Darwin spent years investigating the matter closely, getting a lot of his data from plant and animal breeders (including dog breeders) as well as nature and geology and discovered that “species” aren’t as fixed as the old paridigm indicated. They actually change over time and under some circumstances such as a new organism reaching an island or a breeder deliberately allowing only unusual plants and animals to breed, they can change perceptibly over a human lifetime.

Summarizing, the reason some people think species are a mess is because they’re using an old, worn out paridigm that doesn’t fit the facts. Switch to the new Darwinian paridigm and your data will match your predictions once again.
linky

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1895
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,19:38   

Quote (stevestory @ May 18 2019,19:34)
Quote
14
MatSpirit May 18, 2019 at 4:31 pm
KF, the reason we have such a problem defining species is because we had a paradigm shift back in the 19th and 20th century and the word “species” belongs to the old paridigm. In the old paridigm, which lasted well over 2000 years and worked itself deeply into our culture, an Intelligent Designer designed and built every creature on earth. As one popular book of the day phrased it,

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” It also says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” and quite a bit more.

You can see from reading the above how people would kind of expect each of these created kinds to be distinct from each other and when it was discovered not to be so, there was coonsternation upon the land. The old paridigm wasn’t working! It predicted things wrong!

It turned out that a brand new explanation fit the facts better. A researcher named Darwin spent years investigating the matter closely, getting a lot of his data from plant and animal breeders (including dog breeders) as well as nature and geology and discovered that “species” aren’t as fixed as the old paridigm indicated. They actually change over time and under some circumstances such as a new organism reaching an island or a breeder deliberately allowing only unusual plants and animals to breed, they can change perceptibly over a human lifetime.

Summarizing, the reason some people think species are a mess is because they’re using an old, worn out paridigm that doesn’t fit the facts. Switch to the new Darwinian paridigm and your data will match your predictions once again.
linky

If only we could award a PotW over there.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,19:41   

Quote
16
Hazel May 18, 2019 at 1:27 pm
kf, I don’t “refuse to interact with material evidence.” I haven’t been posting because the repetition has gotten tiresome, and that’s my choice. And in a discussion forum, almost always the thread finds a focus and diverges from what is perhaps the intended main topic. That’s what happens when people discuss things: they get side-tracked and go off on tangents, based on their interests.

If you don’t want actual discussion with people who disagree with you, just post your stuff and close the comments immediately. Those of us (and we are few) that engage your posts might be happy to just go away,

17
Brother Brian May 18, 2019 at 5:47 pm
Hazel
 
Quote
       
If you don’t want actual discussion with people who disagree with you, just post your stuff and close the comments immediately.
   
     
Which will be the death of this blog. Just look at the most popular posts of the last 30 days. What do they have in common?




tinyURL cuz KF tarded the link up as usual

   
stevestory



Posts: 11721
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2019,19:46   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 18 2019,20:38)
Quote (stevestory @ May 18 2019,19:34)
Quote
14
MatSpirit May 18, 2019 at 4:31 pm
KF, the reason we have such a problem defining species is because we had a paradigm shift back in the 19th and 20th century and the word “species” belongs to the old paridigm. In the old paridigm, which lasted well over 2000 years and worked itself deeply into our culture, an Intelligent Designer designed and built every creature on earth. As one popular book of the day phrased it,

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” It also says, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” and quite a bit more.

You can see from reading the above how people would kind of expect each of these created kinds to be distinct from each other and when it was discovered not to be so, there was coonsternation upon the land. The old paridigm wasn’t working! It predicted things wrong!

It turned out that a brand new explanation fit the facts better. A researcher named Darwin spent years investigating the matter closely, getting a lot of his data from plant and animal breeders (including dog breeders) as well as nature and geology and discovered that “species” aren’t as fixed as the old paridigm indicated. They actually change over time and under some circumstances such as a new organism reaching an island or a breeder deliberately allowing only unusual plants and animals to breed, they can change perceptibly over a human lifetime.

Summarizing, the reason some people think species are a mess is because they’re using an old, worn out paridigm that doesn’t fit the facts. Switch to the new Darwinian paridigm and your data will match your predictions once again.
linky

If only we could award a PotW over there.

I know, right?

MatSpirit, whoever you are, this is for you:


   
  11830 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (395) < ... 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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