RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:16   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,12:53)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,12:12)


:D

Hehe...


All this shows me is that U.D. mods are fair-minded and polite when they're dealing with fair-minded, polite commentators.

How many people here can be described as fair-minded and polite when it comes to I.D.? The answer to that question is the answer to why you've all been banned, some of you repeatedly, at U.D.

Liz had potential, as kairosfocus made clear. Unfortunately, her nutty, unscientific worshiping of the conveniently undetectable Blind Watchmaker, combined with her association with you scum bums, finally bit her in the ass.

Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:26   

A prophecy fulfilled:
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ February 5, 2012,3:35)
Well KF seems to be building up quite a record for lies and false accusations (all preserved on this site), unfortunately I suspect it will just result in EL, champ, myself and others being banned – as happened recently to DrBot after KF’s false accusations and refusal to retract – leaving the field clear for KF to continue preaching his religiously motivated hatred, fear and intolerance in the name of Intelligent Design and Christianity.

Sad, very sad.

As it is written, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:33   

Quote
Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?



The reason I ask is that before I was banned at UD I had 19 posts here.  Of these, 10 were later than 2007.  Of these 10, 3 were about my account.

Of the remaining 7, one was a futurama cartoon; one was a thank you for a compliment; one was to correct the rumour that Peter Griffin had been banned at UD; one was to correct the idea that a carribean (kairosfocus) couldn't have Scottish ancestry; one was to explain why I had told kairosfocus that he had nothing to apologise for; one was to explain the difference between "polite" (as in my behaviour at UD) and "submissive" (which I was not); and one was to clarify that earlier comment.

In other words, while I have no problem in "associating with" these people you refer to as "scum bags", I have "associated" with them no more than you have, it seems.

And unlike you, I have been exactly as polite here, as I am on UD.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:39   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,10:53)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,12:12)


:D

Hehe...


All this shows me is that U.D. mods are fair-minded and polite when they're dealing with fair-minded, polite commentators.

How many people here can be described as fair-minded and polite when it comes to I.D.? The answer to that question is the answer to why you've all been banned, some of you repeatedly, at U.D.

Liz had potential, as kairosfocus made clear. Unfortunately, her nutty, unscientific worshiping of the conveniently undetectable Blind Watchmaker, combined with her association with you scum bums, finally bit her in the ass.

Actually, all it shows is that gordon mullings is a massive liar and hypocrite.

Recommended reading for you and the rest of UD tard gang:



--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:46   

Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 11 2012,13:39)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,09:12)


:D

Hehe...

Yeah, that, after falsely accusing EL and everyone else who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of being amoral, immoral, depraved, ignorant, unresponsive, non-serious, uncivil, lying, and lots of other negative things.

gordon mullings is the ultimate, narcissistic, chauvinistic hypocrite.

To be fair, I would say most of those adjectives accurately describe the regulars here, as well as most design-deniers across the net.

Notice I said across the net, and not design-deniers in general. Those deniers who meet with I.D. proponents, face-to-face, tend to be far more civil than those who remain online. Methinks it's much easier to be crass from the comfort of your homes/offices, as opposed to when you're within severe beating distance.

As for the discussion of morality, kairosfocus was right on the mark. Liz put up a valiant fight, but her argument for morality ultimately boiled down to argumentum ad populum.

If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.

Even worse are the non-democracies, where might isn't represented by the majority, but by a small section of the elite. This is what we witnessed in the early 20th century with the eugenics movement, where the elite decided that it was moral to decide who could and could not reproduce. That's one of the more tame examples.

kairosfocus' point isn't that we can't reason to right and wrong. We can, in large part because morality (seems to be) an attribute inherent to most human beings, which acts as our guiding light, so to speak.

His point is that the might-makes-right mentality that arises when one denies an objective, ultimate source of morality, is often a very dangerous thing. A look through any history book will confirm that he is correct.

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:53   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,13:46)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 11 2012,13:39)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,09:12)


:D

Hehe...

Yeah, that, after falsely accusing EL and everyone else who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of being amoral, immoral, depraved, ignorant, unresponsive, non-serious, uncivil, lying, and lots of other negative things.

gordon mullings is the ultimate, narcissistic, chauvinistic hypocrite.

To be fair, I would say most of those adjectives accurately describe the regulars here, as well as most design-deniers across the net.

Notice I said across the net, and not design-deniers in general. Those deniers who meet with I.D. proponents, face-to-face, tend to be far more civil than those who remain online. Methinks it's much easier to be crass from the comfort of your homes/offices, as opposed to when you're within severe beating distance.

As for the discussion of morality, kairosfocus was right on the mark. Liz put up a valiant fight, but her argument for morality ultimately boiled down to argumentum ad populum.

If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.

Even worse are the non-democracies, where might isn't represented by the majority, but by a small section of the elite. This is what we witnessed in the early 20th century with the eugenics movement, where the elite decided that it was moral to decide who could and could not reproduce. That's one of the more tame examples.

kairosfocus' point isn't that we can't reason to right and wrong. We can, in large part because morality (seems to be) an attribute inherent to most human beings, which acts as our guiding light, so to speak.

His point is that the might-makes-right mentality that arises when one denies an objective, ultimate source of morality, is often a very dangerous thing. A look through any history book will confirm that he is correct.

Dr Jammer, I'd be delighted to respond to this post, but can I suggest we do it on my blog?

You don't have to register to post, but if you do, I can enable your account so that you can post an OP.

If I don't see your post there, at some stage I will address it here.

Cheers

Lizzie

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,13:58   

Done already, Dr. Jammer:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....2

Hope to see you there :)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:00   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,14:46)
If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members)...

Do you really? Tell us more. Any thoughts on which of us? Show your work.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Dr. Jammer



Posts: 37
Joined: Feb. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:04   

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 11 2012,14:33)
Quote
Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?



The reason I ask is that before I was banned at UD I had 19 posts here.  Of these, 10 were later than 2007.  Of these 10, 3 were about my account.

Of the remaining 7, one was a futurama cartoon; one was a thank you for a compliment; one was to correct the rumour that Peter Griffin had been banned at UD; one was to correct the idea that a carribean (kairosfocus) couldn't have Scottish ancestry; one was to explain why I had told kairosfocus that he had nothing to apologise for; one was to explain the difference between "polite" (as in my behaviour at UD) and "submissive" (which I was not); and one was to clarify that earlier comment.

In other words, while I have no problem in "associating with" these people you refer to as "scum bags", I have "associated" with them no more than you have, it seems.

And unlike you, I have been exactly as polite here, as I am on UD.

I think nullasalus summed it up pretty well.

I think your friendly association with the depraved circus clowns here, as limited as it may be (six posts in the past month, prior to your banning), made it seem as if you were a part of their clique.

I think Barry Arrington got a little heated, and, in the heat of the moment, took you down with the trolls. I guess you could say you were collateral damage.

I don't agree with it, but then, it's not my board. To be fair to U.D., they're far more open to critics than most anti-I.D. boards I've been to.

Here's my question: If you were unbanned, would you be willing to return to U.D.?

--------------
Luskin destroys Talk Origins. | Dawkins runs scared. | Upright Biped scares off Moran

   
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:05   

Hey jammy, is this a threat?:

"within severe beating distance"

That's pretty funny coming from an IDiotic internet tough guy who's preaching about morals.

Oh, and since you're hung up on the guilt by association thing, you ought to apply it to yourself and the rest of the IDiots.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:05   

Quote
If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

Whereas if a bunch of bronze-age goat herders decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and one of them descended from a mountain claiming to have spoken with God and they all determined that killing homosexuals, witches, disobedient children, Sabbath breakers to be not only legal, but moral.....

Oops.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:22   

Speaking of Witches, Joe said, in response to an observation that the evidence for ghosts is very poor:
Quote
I disagree and would love to have any scientist stay a night at any of a short list of places.

Ahem. I believe we have some 'scientist' here. Any takers?

A Nobel awaits! And you probably (don't) get to meet Joe!

Somebody ask him for the list!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:24   

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,14:05)
Quote
If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

Whereas if a bunch of bronze-age goat herders decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and one of them descended from a mountain claiming to have spoken with God and they all determined that killing homosexuals, witches, disobedient children, Sabbath breakers to be not only legal, but moral.....

Oops.

POTW!

ps:  IMO, Dr. Jammer = Poe.

Ras is that you?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:25   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,13:46)
when one denies an objective, ultimate source of morality, is often a very dangerous thing.

Dr Jammer,
According to this objective ultimate source of morality you claim to have access to, is homosexuality immoral?

It's a simple question.

Should gay people be able to marry? Adopt children?

What do you think Jesus would have said there?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:39   



Therefore design! How unlikely is that? Eh? Eh? Needle in a haystack stuff that is!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Febble



Posts: 310
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,14:46   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,14:04)

I think nullasalus summed it up pretty well.


I thought he summed it up extremely badly.

   
Quote
I think your friendly association with the depraved circus clowns here, as limited as it may be (six posts in the past month, prior to your banning), made it seem as if you were a part of their clique.


I doubt it.

   
Quote
I think Barry Arrington got a little heated, and, in the heat of the moment, took you down with the trolls. I guess you could say you were collateral damage.


I think he didn't like the fact that I took issue with his outing of DrREC, nor my general criticisms of his moderating.  But who knows.

I thought his outing of DrREC was quite unethical, and still do.

   
Quote
I don't agree with it, but then, it's not my board. To be fair to U.D., they're far more open to critics than most anti-I.D. boards I've been to.


Really? In what sense? I know plenty of anti-ID boards where IDists and creationists are virtually never banned unless they are spammers (which a few are - hit and runners).

But I would agree that many of the posters at UD have been commendably open to discussion, which is why I enjoyed posting there.  

   
Quote
Here's my question: If you were unbanned, would you be willing to return to U.D.?


Well, I'd be in no hurry.  I think UD has had enough posts from me to be going on with, and I'd prefer to spend more time at my blog, which I have been sadly neglecting, and where the bannees can post as well as the unbanned.

And eigenstate is still there, making the points I wish I could make as elegantly.

But if I'm honest, I'd probably drop by at least to tell friends where to find me.  Fortunately I am in contact with some of them by email.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 502
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,15:09   

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,13:46)

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.


Given that moral issues tend to be held in common between very different societies, it seems probable that this derives from some kind of internal human sense. Whether that sense is due to our being a social animal, or comes from God, may not be easy to distinguish. But essentially Christianity covers about 33% of the world (done very well for itself, hasn't it?). So whatever 'objective moral standard' may be written in that particular book someone found (let's ignore all the stuff about shellfish and pork) does not apply to two thirds of the world. And yet they too have a moral standard.

And so, in short ... it simply doesn't matter what your particular religion insists upon as an 'objective moral standard'. And, indeed, if it leads, say, to persecution of homosexuals, I'd say fuck the objective moral standard.  

Bible, Constitution, Laws - all formal attempts to codify our 'inner sense'. If God made it all - fantastic. If not - well, we still share that general sense; must come from somewhere else. If there is no God, the Bible can only have been written by people. If there is, he appears to have implemented morality through our inner sense, not that book. Without the combination of the book's proscription, AND prison, would you be prowling the streets killing Darwinists?

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,15:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,12:22)
Speaking of Witches, Joe said, in response to an observation that the evidence for ghosts is very poor:
 
Quote
I disagree and would love to have any scientist stay a night at any of a short list of places.

Ahem. I believe we have some 'scientist' here. Any takers?

A Nobel awaits! And you probably (don't) get to meet Joe!

Somebody ask him for the list!

I'll do it if joe pays for everything and wants to make a sizable bet on the side, and agrees to pay off the bet in person.

I asked joe (on his blog) what and where the allegedly haunted places are and some other questions about his beliefs in supernatural stuff, aliens, etc., and got the usual irrelevant, evasive response:

"BTW I will elaborate on things I say the very day any evo can elaborate on the evidence that demonstrates a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote and all the rest of their theories grand claims."

aliens and ghosts

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,15:49   

Null
Quote
But when the AtBC people start screaming, yet again, about their being banned here, it’s worth noting just who we’re talking about. It’s like someone covered head to toe in feces complaining about being ejected from some creationism debate in the course of their screaming loudly about the truth of evolution. “See? See? They don’t want to talk to me because they’re afraid of the TRUTH!” they’ll cry. Someone should really point out, “You think the crap may have anything to do with it?”

Repression much Null?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,16:25   

Jammer, just out of curiosity, do you have any evidential support for ID or are you just here to talk about people's personalities?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,16:25   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,09:31)
ROFL: Gordo:
         
Quote
<snip>
... my gorge rises just to remember that this sort of exploitation is going on...
<snip>
KF

Meodramatic much Gordo?
Duh.
I have seen far more than I want to speak of here, and none of it good.
<snip image>

Watch out! Gordo's "gorge" is on the rise, and that can't be good, his getting engorged and all.
 Whatever turns him on, I suppose.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,16:45   

maybe whiz kid here can tell us how we are "design deniers" when no one has ever provided a useful method of design detection nor a metric by which to implement the method

Hmmm looks designed to me therefore you are going to hell

lather rinse repeat

i doubt jammer is giving anything a serious beating except his lap

--------------
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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,16:50   

Design Denier = You are without excuse, heathen!

It's all code words these days.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,17:02   

Null:
 
Quote
Anyway I look forward to you picking up on any insulting behaviour by any party on UD.

Go for it. You see if I tolerate or allow myself to be associated with what goes on at AtBC. The only difference here is that UD has a constant influx of threads, and I don’t read them all.

That's right Null. I believe you are completely and totally unaware of Joe and the sort of things he says. And that's why you've never said anything to him. For several years. On two different blogs.

Moron.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,17:17   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2012,15:02)
Null:
Quote
Anyway I look forward to you picking up on any insulting behaviour by any party on UD.

Go for it. You see if I tolerate or allow myself to be associated with what goes on at AtBC. The only difference here is that UD has a constant influx of threads, and I don’t read them all.

That's right Null. I believe you are completely and totally unaware of Joe and the sort of things he says. And that's why you've never said anything to him. For several years. On two different blogs.

Moron.

Nullasalus never met a double standard that Jesus couldn't justify.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,17:28   

BA77, geometry genius:

Quote
Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year.


--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,18:08   

Barry Arrington:
Quote
eigenstate complains bitterly on this site about being denied a fair opportunity to complain bitterly on this site and fails to see the irony of his project. It is useless to try to reason with such as he.

Barry fails to notice that eigenstate, in the first of three comments on the same subthread, had said this:
Quote
I don’t have a problem with this as a policy. UD just hang a sign on the door that critics aren’t welcome and that’s that. I run into that policy regularly, but the owners have the guts to be upfront about it. It’s totally UD’s prerogative to make something like this the policy, and pretend that they are open to criticism, fostering interesting discussion of ID concepts, only to ban them whenever the fancy strikes.

Both of those are options. But being upfront about the policy just avoids a lot of wasted time and making hypocrisy a hallmark of the blog’s charter...

Everybody gets the “owner sets the rules”. It’s the rank hypocrisy that creates a stench.

It seems that Barry can't be bothered to read the three comments of the person he's accusing, or to learn how to spell the name of the presidential candidate he's working for.

Imagine being represented by this doofus in court.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,18:33   

Eigenstate shreds nullasalus's bogus 'civility' argument.  It's worth reproducing in full:
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb 11 2012, 17:30)

@nullasalus,
Quote
Buddy, there’s only one of us here who’s defending ad hominem attacks, and that’s you. You tried to wordsmith your way into establishing that sitting around for years, digging up RL pictures of your opponents to post, mock, deface, screaming about how you think they’re all gay, etc, is… you know, some kind of intellectual, reasonable activity.

I’m under no illusion about the abusive nature of taunts and epithets at AtBC, or wherever they occur (it happens here — hi Joe and KF!). It was not and is not my claim that those are any kind of argument from the AtBC members. They are not, it’s just mockery, satire and namecalling.

That’s different than your suggesting “it’s worth noting”, by way of assessing someone’s ARGUMENT, that so-and-so was engaging in some low-brow mockery and uncouth satire somewhere else. That is, I understand the distinction between argument and mockery/taunts. You appear to be connecting them and conflating them: hey, if you are reading the post of CriticX, it’s worth noting that over here they called so-and-so names…

By contrast, I don’t see anything “worth noting” about Joe or KairosFocus patterns of ad homimen attacks and slander. I don’t like when that happens, but that in ITSELF is not a reason to discount the point either of them raise when they set that aside and make a serious point. It’s a cheap and lazy way to dismiss someone, this recipe you’re advocating. I think KF is quite clueless about information theory, scientific epistemology and evolutionary biology, but I don’t think that because of his predilections toward slandering atheists and those with different worldviews he supposes are hastening the Apocalypse.

I think he’s wrong on the merits, and think it’s cowardly to say “it’s worth noting” when evaluating KF’s argument that he has a slander itch he just can’t help but scratch.
Quote
Yes, I know. You’ll say sure, you defended the behavior, but the arguments fall on their merits. That still has you defending, even encouraging, that vile crap. Me? Not at all.

Yeah, I’m fine with that, because it’s minutiae, pedantics as evasion on your part. This is what students of internet culture would identify as the “concern trolling” mindset. OMG, that’s so uncivil, GOODBYE! It’s a haughty, prideful reaction, concerned with petty, small issues at the expense of important, substantive ideas. That you want to obsess on that, and at this point it’s seems clearly to be something of an obsession you’re bringing forth here, tells me this is an evasion tactic.

Look, I get called worse than anything I’ve seen at AtBC all the time, in the various places I venture to post. It’s just a test — can I let all that just roll off my back and focus on some discussion that has substance, or do I descend into the tarpit with all the personality stuff. It’s always a challenge to keep on point, but it’s not THAT hard. It just goes with being a grown-up with an Internet connection. Clearly, you have “higher standards” for what you will tolerate from others. You won’t deign to deal with people like that. That’s fine, that’s your choice. But it comes across a very convenient and self-serving pridefulness. When I DO react badly to that stuff, that’s what it is for me, anyway, a flash of my pride as a way to be “better than” all that.
Quote
No, eigen. At no point did I say that “the people at AtBC are what they are, so their arguments are all invalid”. You keep swinging at phantoms, which is fine, because I love pointing it out.

You’ve said something even worse — “the poeple at AtBC are what they are, so won’t even deign to converse with them.” Merely an ad-hom dismissal would be more magnanimous, more down to earth, more serious than the preening dismissal you’re advocating, here.
Quote
I said that mutual respect is a standard for discussion – one I hold to, and one I think others should hold to. If people act like they do at AtBC – something you’ve defended, even praised – then no. They, personally, are not worth discussing anything with. Show me where I said ‘therefore their arguments are all wrong’.

Yes, but you know as well as I know this is an easy cop-out lever to pull. It’s the coward’s way out. StephenB says I’m “unfit” for rational discussion because his magic axioms aren’t treated as such. KF simply can’t be bothered to defend what he says because we are “willfully” misrepresenting him, and that gives him a rip cord to pull to just not engage. You go all Church Lady on the stuff you read at AtBC, and it’s quite clear to see that for the (faux) prudish reaction it is. Adults conversing on the internet do not and should not have to let that noise get in the way of discussing important ideas. But here you are, obsessing on it. It looks like cheap, easy polemics.

That’s where the “cesspool” at AtBC proves out this point. I’m still on the fence as to whether a new post there named “Dr. Jammer” is a real IDer, and the same person who posts her on UD as “Jammer”, or is a fairly well conceived prank someone at AtBC is pulling on AtBC, but either way, since the members there don’t really know, they give Dr. Jammer the benefit of the doubt, and they engage. They don’t ban. And if I recall, this person has already made some kind of AtBC->NAMBLA connection in one or more of his posts.

That doesn’t get their righteous dander up, as it does yours. It causes grins, and good natured grins. It’s so over-the-top, that this may be one of the AtBC members pulling out leg (cf. Poe’s Principle, though, this is a hard problem).

They aren’t threatened in the least. They aren’t so wound up about themselves that they get apoplectic at some nasty references or vicious talk. It happens.

Dr. Liddle has already engaged in a friendly, subject-centric way, and has invited him to her blog to discuss, and even offered him a “guest post” to start things off, with desired. She’s a demon, that one!

This is how people who have the courage of their convictions and a grown-up attitude. It is the wild, pseudonymous internet, and that’s how ideas get engaged.
Quote
What was that? I didn’t say that? Well then, we’ll just chalk your reply up to ‘yet more hopeless BSing’.

Simply walking away, as you put it, is just a more extreme form of ad hominem. You aren’t even worth talking to at all, never mind worrying about the merits of your arguments. That’s your choice, I know. But you’ve argued strongly for a much stronger version of what you deny right here.
Quote
Heh. That’s happened before, eigen. I’ve mostly received it from atheists, but I’ve also received it from a few Christians. And guess what I did when I received that?

I stopped dealing with them – the conversation ended. I didn’t obsess over them for months or weeks, much less years. And I continued to engage the arguments, because – this will blow your freaking mind – I don’t need to tolerate dealing with a complete lack of respect to engage an argument, or even find criticism. I just wait for the critic I can respect (I know your being mired in AtBC’s antics may cloud your judgment here, but they do exist), or I engage the argument detached from the critic.

I hear that. You’ve learned to “shake the dust off your feet” as you leave, in Christianese, etc. Fine. But I’m surprised you’re holding this out as something more than an ad-hominem response. Sometimes, I agree, it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes it can’t be helped. But I don’t pretend it isn’t an outright dismissal of the person, which is the essence of ad hominem. I realize “you don’t need to tolerate”, etc. But that’s the problem. This is all about you, and the world living up to your “minimum pride conditions”. You must be appeased, or you will walk! That will show ‘em. I just think that fails to come off as the principled stand you hope it does, and it looks like hiding behind a Church Lady frown as a way to give yourself all the control you need to just pick and choose where you will put ideas at risk, and what you will answer to. It’s a way to rig the social etiquette in your favor.
Quote
Again, eigen – the guy who is covered with feces and screaming an argument doesn’t need to be allowed into the room. The fact that he’s *gasp* a critic (with arguments!) doesn’t mean his antics should be tolerated. He should be, and should expect to be, ostracized until he apologizes and cleans up.

Right, that PERSON can be and will be dismissed outright. His arguments need not be considered, he’s been dismissed as a person. I got it. This is the “concern troll” trope. It’s vengeful just as much or more as the “loutishness” you are reacting to.
Quote
By the way, will you be apologizing and denouncing what goes on at AtBC? Digging up, posting, and defacing RL pictures of people? The insults? Or are you just going to let yourself stay covered in crap?

I speak for myself. If you can’t read what I say, and judge it on the merits, nothing else will change that. For whatever concerns I may have on that, and maybe it’s “none”, you’re mistaken if you think that kind of transparently manipulative bait is gonna take with me. Have some guts, man, go over there and get your Church Lady on, and see how it goes. Don’t look to me or anyone else to placate the concerns you hide behing. That’s just exceedingly weak.

At this point, nullasalus probably wishes that eigenstate had gotten banned too.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,19:20   

Barry defends the law of non-contradiction from Godless atheists.
 
Quote
Let’s clear up this law of noncontradiction issue between StephenB and eigenstate once and for all.  StephenB asks eigenstate:  “Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time?  That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate.  How do you answer it?


Oh, StephenB set up such a clever trap! Obviously, a physical object either exist or it doesn't, but not both at the same time. A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.

When you're done gloating, Barry, why don't you learn yourself some basic quantum mechanics. Maybe then you'll find out that a photon (certainly a physical particle) can exist and not exist at the same time. Physicists (and now increasingly electrical engineers) manipulate the electromagnetic field inside a reflective cavity to create states that contain definite numbers of photons (e.g., 0 or 1) and superpositions thereof. (Such states can be used in quantum computing.)

Here is a paper describing such experiments conducted 15 years ago: X. Maître et al., "Quantum memory with a single photon in a cavity," Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 769 (1997). Abstract:
 
Quote
The quantum information carried by a two-level atom was transferred to a high- Q cavity and, after a delay, to another atom. We realized in this way a quantum memory made of a field in a superposition of 0 and 1 photon Fock states. We measured the “holding time” of this memory corresponding to the decay of the field intensity or amplitude at the single photon level. This experiment implements a step essential for quantum information processing operations.


Of course, a photon is a microscopic object and Jupiter is a macroscopic one. The bigger the object, the harder it is to create and maintain it in a quantum superposition. But as far as physicists know, the difference is only quantitative. Bigger objects interact more intensely with their environment and their quantum states entangles with the environment faster. That is why we do not notice such strange states in classical objects. But on the microscopic scale, both length and time-wise, the vaunted law of noncontradiction is not exactly unbreakable.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Woodbine



Posts: 775
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2012,19:29   

Hey Barry, can a man be a god at the same time?

And can this god be both all knowing yet have free-will?

Huh, Barry?

Here's a picture of Jill Eikenberry to help get your juices flowing....


  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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