RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 203 204 205 206 207 [208] 209 210 211 212 213 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,14:55   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 20 2016,15:19)
I doubt that any god had that kind of imagination, let alone the madness to make it real.

If there were a market for fake Werner Herzog quotes, I'd steal that line.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,15:41   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ May 20 2016,14:19)
Quote (KevinB @ May 20 2016,13:14)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 19 2016,19:38)
 
Quote
clown fishMay 19, 2016 at 6:34 pm
KairosFocus: “Notice the smokescreening and tangential topic diversion?”

WTF?

Are you suggesting that the faith you believe in is not morally superior to Islam? Or Judaism? Or Hindu? Or Buddhism? Or the FSM? If not, why do you follow it? Does that seem rational to you?


Mullings is as predictable as clockwork.

If you are crossing the heath and find him on the ground, leave him there!

Well, I don't think we would mistake him as having been designed.

Designed for what?  Excessive use of adjectives in the course of oil of red herring soaked ad hominem attacks on Marxist fellow-traveling anti-levitating demonic-type evo-mat Darwinists?

I doubt that any god had that kind of imagination, let alone the madness to make it real.

Glen Davidson

Cthulhu maybe?

--------------
"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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin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: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,16:50   

Quote
87
Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
@80

Thank you for the kind and non-argumentative reply.

In response, I want to take your proposal seriously, and give you an opportunity to explain it. Please do not take this as argumentative. I want to be sure that I understand your proposal.

You say, that instead of CD, you say, “common biochemical mechanisms would be more accurate.”

Okay, let’s try and take that seriously. Now comes a really important, and focused question. This question is on a specific piece of evidence, but the same evidence could be extended to a very large class of analogous cases. The question is rooted in my dialogue with Hunter.

http://swami.wustl.edu/evidenc....spatial

Divergence (nucleotide differences) varies across the genome. These differences vary by chromosome, position within chromosomes, and chromosome banding patterns. This is a puzzling feature, that was reported in the original 2005 chimp genome paper.

It turns out, that the directly measured distribution of de novo mutation rate and recombination rates across the human genome entirely explains the variance in divergence. This fits the hypothesis of a human/chimp common ancestor, and mechanistically explains the variation in divergence as a consequence of experimentally measureable differences of mutation and recombination rates.

So here is my question to you. How does “common biochemical mechanisms” explain this strange correlation in the data? How does your theory explain why human-chimp divergence correlates perfectly with mutation and recombination rates?

If we do not have an answer to this, I would submit that “common biochemical mechanisms” is not a suitable replacement for “common descent” in biology.

In contrast, “descent with designed modification,” as you have also previously proposed, might be a conceptual alternative, though it will not be widely accepted in science.
KF hasn't accused Professor S of being demonic scum...yet.....

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2016,17:56   

Quote (stevestory @ May 20 2016,16:50)
Quote
87
Prof. S. Joshua SwamidassMay 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm
@80

Thank you for the kind and non-argumentative reply.

In response, I want to take your proposal seriously, and give you an opportunity to explain it. Please do not take this as argumentative. I want to be sure that I understand your proposal.

You say, that instead of CD, you say, “common biochemical mechanisms would be more accurate.”

Okay, let’s try and take that seriously. Now comes a really important, and focused question. This question is on a specific piece of evidence, but the same evidence could be extended to a very large class of analogous cases. The question is rooted in my dialogue with Hunter.

http://swami.wustl.edu/evidenc....spatial

Divergence (nucleotide differences) varies across the genome. These differences vary by chromosome, position within chromosomes, and chromosome banding patterns. This is a puzzling feature, that was reported in the original 2005 chimp genome paper.

It turns out, that the directly measured distribution of de novo mutation rate and recombination rates across the human genome entirely explains the variance in divergence. This fits the hypothesis of a human/chimp common ancestor, and mechanistically explains the variation in divergence as a consequence of experimentally measureable differences of mutation and recombination rates.

So here is my question to you. How does “common biochemical mechanisms” explain this strange correlation in the data? How does your theory explain why human-chimp divergence correlates perfectly with mutation and recombination rates?

If we do not have an answer to this, I would submit that “common biochemical mechanisms” is not a suitable replacement for “common descent” in biology.

In contrast, “descent with designed modification,” as you have also previously proposed, might be a conceptual alternative, though it will not be widely accepted in science.
KF hasn't accused Professor S of being demonic scum...yet.....

He's too busy accusing others of being demonic, nhialist, enabling, distractors.

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,09:22   

Quote
clownfish: To be completely honest, I didn’t think that this would be controversial.

That pretty much sums up ID.

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,12:25   

Quote (Zachriel @ May 21 2016,09:22)
Quote
clownfish: To be completely honest, I didn’t think that this would be controversial.

That pretty much sums up ID.

But, apparently it requires Gordon Mullings to write a brief footnote to address it:
Quote
353
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 10:15 am
F/N: Let us lay out the core Christian moral teaching in the words of its founder, to make clear exactly what we discuss here — let us see if this comes across as arrogant and arbitrary imposition or as a humbling but all too familiar challenge:



KF

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,12:29   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 21 2016,12:25)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 21 2016,09:22)
Quote
clownfish: To be completely honest, I didn’t think that this would be controversial.

That pretty much sums up ID.

But, apparently it requires Gordon Mullings to write a brief footnote to address it:
Quote
353
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 10:15 am
F/N: Let us lay out the core Christian moral teaching in the words of its founder, to make clear exactly what we discuss here — let us see if this comes across as arrogant and arbitrary imposition or as a humbling but all too familiar challenge:



KF

Followed by a few thousand words of copy pasta.

All Clown Fish is saying is that any individual belonging to a faith must believe that the moral values of their selected faith, as a whole, are superior to those of other faiths. Who would have thought that Mullings would take offends.  :p

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,12:36   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 21 2016,12:29)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 21 2016,12:25)
Quote (Zachriel @ May 21 2016,09:22)
 
Quote
clownfish: To be completely honest, I didn’t think that this would be controversial.

That pretty much sums up ID.

But, apparently it requires Gordon Mullings to write a brief footnote to address it:
 
Quote
353
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 10:15 am
F/N: Let us lay out the core Christian moral teaching in the words of its founder, to make clear exactly what we discuss here — let us see if this comes across as arrogant and arbitrary imposition or as a humbling but all too familiar challenge:



KF

Followed by a few thousand words of copy pasta.

All Clown Fish is saying is that any individual belonging to a faith must believe that the moral values of their selected faith, as a whole, are superior to those of other faiths. Who would have thought that Mullings would take offends.  :p

And, apparently CF's suggestion was so offensive to Mullings that it warranted a custom OP do that it can be further discussed.
Let's talk about this

Oops, I guess he accidentally the commenting function off. I'm sure that was just an accident.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,17:39   

Quote
367
daveS

May 21, 2016 at 2:37 pm
KF,

Speaking of ducking :-) is there a yes/no answer to:
 
Quote

If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok?

 
Quote

369
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 2:49 pm
DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KF
 
Quote

371
daveSMay 21, 2016 at 2:56 pm
KF,
 
Quote

DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KF

That is what is happening with the two transgender people I know of, as far as one can tell.

Feel free to consider it as a hypothetical if you prefer. If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok?

Recall that you have just accused some of the posters here of “ducking” certain issues.
 
Quote

372
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 3:08 pm
DS, the attritional crumbling of the core moral consensus of our civilisation has been going on a long time on many fronts. Including anecdotal cases that add up like grains of sand in a pile. The material problem is not one or two grains, it is the large scale pattern. And that problem is the eating out of the moral core of our civilisation which is now giving increasing free play to further and further radical — and often implicitly nihilist (might/manipulation make ‘right’) — pushes. The answer to such is to address the core: hold the pinning distractions without over-committing effort, focus strength at the decisive point instead of allowing it to be critically undermined. Where the point is, a clear distraction game so the core needs focus. Right now it looks to me like only after things crash hard will there be a willingness to rethink, but the likelihood is that the crash will break the back of our civilisation in a geostrategically dangerous age. An utter march of folly, and I suggest those who are sober minded will find the example of the Peloponnesian war all too relevant . . . ponder the course of the ill-founded and poorly executed expedition to Sicily and what it cost Athens as the wrong decisions were made over and over in an overconfident atmosphere. I suspect posterity will rise up in their grief and call our generation, for cause, accursed. KF


derp derp derp

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2016,19:45   

Quote (stevestory @ May 21 2016,17:39)
Quote
367
daveS

May 21, 2016 at 2:37 pm
KF,

Speaking of ducking :-) is there a yes/no answer to:
   
Quote

If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok?

   
Quote

369
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 2:49 pm
DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KF
   
Quote

371
daveSMay 21, 2016 at 2:56 pm
KF,
   
Quote

DS, as you know, that is not what is happening. And, consider impact on family, cumulated. KF

That is what is happening with the two transgender people I know of, as far as one can tell.

Feel free to consider it as a hypothetical if you prefer. If a genetically/physically male person identifies/dresses/presents as a female person, and does so discreetly without demanding any “special rights” and so forth, is that ok?

Recall that you have just accused some of the posters here of “ducking” certain issues.
   
Quote

372
kairosfocusMay 21, 2016 at 3:08 pm
DS, the attritional crumbling of the core moral consensus of our civilisation has been going on a long time on many fronts. Including anecdotal cases that add up like grains of sand in a pile. The material problem is not one or two grains, it is the large scale pattern. And that problem is the eating out of the moral core of our civilisation which is now giving increasing free play to further and further radical — and often implicitly nihilist (might/manipulation make ‘right’) — pushes. The answer to such is to address the core: hold the pinning distractions without over-committing effort, focus strength at the decisive point instead of allowing it to be critically undermined. Where the point is, a clear distraction game so the core needs focus. Right now it looks to me like only after things crash hard will there be a willingness to rethink, but the likelihood is that the crash will break the back of our civilisation in a geostrategically dangerous age. An utter march of folly, and I suggest those who are sober minded will find the example of the Peloponnesian war all too relevant . . . ponder the course of the ill-founded and poorly executed expedition to Sicily and what it cost Athens as the wrong decisions were made over and over in an overconfident atmosphere. I suspect posterity will rise up in their grief and call our generation, for cause, accursed. KF


derp derp derp

I don't think there is enough tinfoil in the world to block out the paranoid cosmic rays that KF appears to be receiving from somewhere.

Transsexuals are going to cause the downfall of society?

  
LarTanner



Posts: 36
Joined: Dec. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,19:12   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 21 2016,19:45)
I don't think there is enough tinfoil in the world to block out the paranoid cosmic rays that KF appears to be receiving from somewhere.

Transsexuals are going to cause the downfall of society?

It's not just the transsexuals. Transsexualism is just the latest brick in the wall for KF. In my view, he sees the moral core of Western Christendom as progressively deteriorating since Darwin, at least, maybe earlier into the Enlightenment, Humanism, or the Ascension.

Fro KF, acceptance/legitimization of transsexuals falls on a rotten continuum with SSM, post-modernism, environmentalism, Roe v. Wade, feminism, socialism, fascism, communism, Freudianism, Darwinism, etc. He doesn't care so much about a controversy in North Carolina or a lawsuit of over bakers and cakes. His central thesis is something out of Yeats, with "mere anarchy" being ever loosed upon the world.

Naturally, KF places himself in the prophetic tradition. He upholds "traditional" interpretations of morality while doggedly refusing to look at, much less address, the specifics of a boots-on-the-ground case. I don't know if he ever serves jury duty. My limited experience of it is that thinking over real cases where actual human beings have been negatively affected already and will be further affected (for better or worse) based on the jury's decision--well, sometimes what seems really right is simply not encapsulated in a 2,000 year old shepherd's aphorism.

KF's prophecy is that every apparent victory for non-traditional morality weakens the West for its inevitable apocalyptic showdown with Islamism (his term). He's been vocal recently about plans by the Islamic Brotherhood to infiltrate Western government and undermine Western institutions surreptitiously. KF believes, I think, that at some point in the living future, we'll see several major Western powers overtaken in a coordinated uprising of Muslim insiders. Those of us who thought it wasn't a big deal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman will then see we left our hemisphere defenseless by dulling the West's moral vision.

KF isn't paranoid, IMO. He thinks he combines the old-style prophet and the spy-novel 'man who knew too much.' He thinks he's a pretty big deal and that future events will vindicate him. That's what all the "for the record" posts are, verses and chapters in the to-be-assembled Book of KF.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,08:39   

Quote
FYI-FTR: A plea for civilizational sanity
May 24, 2016 Posted by kairosfocus

under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, FYI-FTR, Geo-strategic issues, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society





Edited by stevestory on May 24 2016,09:40

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,08:44   

Quote
AletaMay 24, 2016 at 7:09 am
to William:

I am quite aware that I am a product of Western civilization: I am the one arguing that moral and broader world views are in large part a product of culture.

Also, I know that what you call “enlightened, Judeo-Christian cultural oven” is a combination of our Judeo-Christian cultural background and a more rational, scientific, and humanitarian overlay that has helped balance some of the deficiencies of that Judeo-Christian background.

William writes,
Quote

That’s what makes you and others like you so dangerous. You have no regard for any of the principles or materials used to build the civilization that affords you your privileged position; you think it’s all a matter of subjective personal preferences, emotions and empathy.

That’s a bunch of crap, and you can take your judgments about what I believe and shove it. I have a very high regard for what you call the principles of our civilization, and I don’t need to believe in God to do so. So *$^%& you.
Quote

You advocate and argue to rip out and replace fundamental, core building concepts and materials like free will, the sanctity of human life and objective morality without any concern or consideration about the potentially devastating effects such reckless acts might have on the very tower you live in.

More sanctimonious blathering. You and kf say we “don’t address his arguments.” I can assure you that you don’t address mine. If you had more ability to sit down in the bar and really try to understand the common humanity of people with different perspectives rather than being so one-sidedly divisive, you’d be a better person.


Aleta vs WJM is a sight to behold  :p

Edited by stevestory on May 24 2016,09:45

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,08:49   

this is nice too, if kinda bonkers.

Quote
153

mohammadnursyamsuMay 24, 2016 at 6:02 am

The rights of man are based on the fact that it is the nature of man to choose. A man cannot not choose, and be robotic.

But objective morality states that man is to act as a robot, his behaviour predetermined by the instructions of objective morality.

Objective morality takes away the rights of man, as regimes based on objective morality like communism and nazism have shown.

Subjective morality confirms the rights of man, because subjectivity operates by choosing. And subjective morality leads to democracy with freedom of opinion.


ETA linky

Edited by stevestory on May 24 2016,09:49

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,08:59   

I believe Aleta was pissed.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,09:11   

I think you are correct.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,09:38   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2016,09:49)
this is nice too, if kinda bonkers.

 
Quote
153

mohammadnursyamsuMay 24, 2016 at 6:02 am

The rights of man are based on the fact that it is the nature of man to choose. A man cannot not choose, and be robotic.

But objective morality states that man is to act as a robot, his behaviour predetermined by the instructions of objective morality.

Objective morality takes away the rights of man, as regimes based on objective morality like communism and nazism have shown.

Subjective morality confirms the rights of man, because subjectivity operates by choosing. And subjective morality leads to democracy with freedom of opinion.


ETA linky

It is true insofar as it treats a very specific view of 'objective' and 'subjective'.

The distinction between the two is neither so clear nor so universally agreed-upon as this sort of rant, and those of WJM, GEM, BA77, et al, would make it appear.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,09:41   

Quote
173
AletaMay 24, 2016 at 8:24 am
William says of me:
Quote

But, I doubt you’ve given your worldview that much critical analysis. More likely, it’s just a mish-mash of views generated entirely by sentiment and empathy with no regard whatsoever as to whether or not they are even rationally reconcilable with each other or how you actually behave.

I will quit responding to William, but this is a ridiculous comment. I have been studying many subjects concerning worldviews in general and my own for 50 years, in both academic and self-study contexts.

This is another example of the tendency of both William and kf to think that those who don’t see the world as they do are deficient, misguided, etc.

This is all very instructive about some personality types, but it is also very tiresome.

174
AletaMay 24, 2016 at 8:25 am
Bye, all. I’ve enjoyed the company of some like minds, but it’s time to leave.


Alas, poor Aleta

Edited by stevestory on May 24 2016,10:43

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,10:43   

Quote (stevestory @ May 24 2016,08:39)
Quote
FYI-FTR: A plea for civilizational sanity
May 24, 2016 Posted by kairosfocus

under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Evolutionary materialism's amorality, evolutionary materialism's self-falsification, FYI-FTR, Geo-strategic issues, Governance & control vs anarchy, Politics/policy and origins issues, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society




How many FYI-FTR's has this been on this subject? Are we up to six? Seven?

Aleta and CF appear to get under KF's skin.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,10:44   

Quote
clown fishMay 24, 2016 at 8:10 am
Kairosfocus: “Aleta, what do you think it means when you twist a principled discussion into a will to power assertion?”

I call it the Kairosfocus school of debate.

With respect, KairosFocus, you have a history of accusing those who refuse top accept your arguments as debating in bad faith, disregarding truth, distractive behaviour and many other character flaws. It is a very unattractive behaviour that does not add to your arguments.

But it is a free country. Feel free to continue as you wish.

Quote
kairosfocusMay 24, 2016 at 8:58 am
CF, pardon but you ate playing the same game. KF

There. That will surely shut CF up.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,13:23   

Quote
20
clown fishMay 24, 2016 at 11:48 am
“Parents furious over school’s plan to teach gender spectrum, fluidity
“The district will also introduce young teenagers to the “concept that sexuality is a broader spectrum.” By tenth grade, they will be taught that one’s sexuality “develops throughout a lifetime.””

Yes, I can see why parents would be furious at the plan to teach reality to children. They would be much better off not being taught that homosexuality exists, that transgender exists, that they have both existed for all of human recorded history. Maybe we shouldn’t teach them about hygiene and germ theory either.

Contrary top the belief of some, accurate information, even if disturbing, is always preferable to the withholding of accurate information or the dissemination of misinformation.


linky

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,16:56   

FYI/FTR: I am officially retiring from my career as Aleta at UD. :-)

Perhaps outing myself here will make it easier to stick to my resolve to quit getting involved in what passes for discussions there.

Those folks are incorrigible, and I think I've gained all I ever will by trying to engage with them. They are excessively and erroneously enamored with what they think is the power of logic, and seem to lack (or choose to ignore as beneath them) a broad perspective on the human condition. Anything that challenges their view threatens to push them over the edge and down the slippery slope, and therefore must be combatted: the idea that nuances and perspectives that differ from theirs in some but not all respects might coexist, or share various aspects of the truth, is beyond them. So we are an enemy, not someone to have a constructive conversation with.

So I'm done there, or at least am burning the bridge for Aleta.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,16:59   

Quote (Jkrebs @ May 24 2016,16:56)
FYI/FTR: I am officially retiring from my career as Aleta at UD. :-)

Perhaps outing myself here will make it easier to stick to my resolve to quit getting involved in what passes for discussions there.

Those folks are incorrigible, and I think I've gained all I ever will by trying to engage with them. They are excessively and erroneously enamored with what they think is the power of logic, and seem to lack (or choose to ignore as beneath them) a broad perspective on the human condition. Anything that challenges their view threatens to push them over the edge and down the slippery slope, and therefore must be combatted: the idea that nuances and perspectives that differ from theirs in some but not all respects might coexist, or share various aspects of the truth, is beyond them. So we are an enemy, not someone to have a constructive conversation with.

So I'm done there, or at least am burning the bridge for Aleta.

Hmmm. Does this mean that you might be opening that sock drawer?

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,17:01   

Quote (Jkrebs @ May 24 2016,16:56)
FYI/FTR: I am officially retiring from my career as Aleta at UD. :-)

Perhaps outing myself here will make it easier to stick to my resolve to quit getting involved in what passes for discussions there.

Those folks are incorrigible, and I think I've gained all I ever will by trying to engage with them. They are excessively and erroneously enamored with what they think is the power of logic, and seem to lack (or choose to ignore as beneath them) a broad perspective on the human condition. Anything that challenges their view threatens to push them over the edge and down the slippery slope, and therefore must be combatted: the idea that nuances and perspectives that differ from theirs in some but not all respects might coexist, or share various aspects of the truth, is beyond them. So we are an enemy, not someone to have a constructive conversation with.

So I'm done there, or at least am burning the bridge for Aleta.

By the way, great job. You have far more patience than I do/did/do/did/do...

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,17:02   

Quote
clown fishMay 24, 2016 at 3:55 pm
KairosFocus: “… tells us all we need to know about the bankruptcy of such a view.”

So much for even the pretense of an open and fair discussion.

“Notice, that we have still yet to actually address the substantial matter, starting with self evident moral truth as grounding objectivity of morality — even after such was again drawn to focal attention.”

Your micharacterization of us not agreeing with your assessment as not addressing it speaks volumes. Why don’t you cut and paste the same numbered nonsense about OUGHT and IS that starts with the claim that if you don’t accept it as self evidently true that you are being blatantly absurd? I never get tired of that.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,23:40   

Quote
clown fishMay 24, 2016 at 10:38 pm
Specter13: “Someone really ought to create a triangle of absurdity.”

I think Pythagorus already did this. The sum of the squares of StephenB’s and Andre’s absurdity equals the square of KairosFocus’ absurdity.


But it's only s theorem.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2016,07:10   

Aristotle Savain....


  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2016,09:21   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 25 2016,07:10)
Aristotle Savain....


Go for it Mapou, just shorten the periods between your moves and you'll beat Usain Bolt in Rio. And do it in the name of Jesus, please.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2016,09:23   

But "only one speed" would rule out rest periods, since those consist of a speed of zero in some reference frame, and a nonzero but less than light speed in other reference frames.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 25 2016,10:29   

From V. J. Torley's new OP
Quote
The effects of this mass indoctrination in the social arena will be felt for generations to come. The results are becoming apparent, even now. The two sexes will become strangers to each other, with men having no idea how to date women, and vice versa. The social institutions which formerly held society together – especially the nuclear family – will become steadily less prevalent, and will eventually come to be seen as oddities. New institutions – namely, ones which are more readily brought under government control – will take their place. Child-rearing will eventually become communal, as envisaged in Plato’s Republic, and children will grow up never knowing what it is like to have two people who love them more than anyone else in the world, and whom they can love back with the same unconditional devotion. The world that awaits us may turn out to be a more prosperous world, materially speaking. But it will certainly be a less human world. And it is being created now, in our schools and in our halls of academia. I ask: if this is not a crime, then what is?

Sex and phlogiston

Dogs and Cats, living together, mass hysteria.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 203 204 205 206 207 [208] 209 210 211 212 213 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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