RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 205 206 207 208 209 [210] 211 212 213 214 215 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,08:26   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 27 2016,09:14)
Oh Joy! Another thread about objective morality.
Mental masturbation

Someone should hit him with 'objective geometry'.  Probably pointless given that Gordon is bat-crap crazy, but with a sane person that could expose some of the flaws in his interpretation of 'objective'.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,09:35   

Slightly OT to the current conversation but Cornhole Hunter recently changed the format of his blog.  He now has to approve all posts before they are displayed a la Joe G's shithole blog.  For the first few days he let a few through critical of ID / YEC but now he's blocking all comments pointing out his lies and quote-mines.

It was bound to happen.  What a hypocritical dick.   :angry:

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:10   

Quote (Jkrebs @ May 26 2016,21:14)
I'm guessing at least 2000 words.

ima skip formatting this, but just to give an indication of the vastness:

Quote
337
kairosfocusMay 27, 2016 at 4:37 am
CF:

While there are some fairly serious developments on my plate here, I will take time to answer to a series of your points, step by step of thought. And yes, this will be inevitably long (so long that I will do it in at least two parts), that is necessary to be responsible.

First, let us address MSET 1:

KF, Moral SET 1: >>1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even your implication in your question, challenge and argument, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, you imply we OUGHT to do and say the right. Not even you can escape this truth.

Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)>>

CF, 251: >>KairosFocus: “Here is what you have yet to cogently engage — and this is not personal disagreement it is a matter of warrant:

1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)”

[CF:] Yup, that last sentence gives me confidence that any response I provide will be addressed seriously. And that was only the first “self evident truth”.

By the way. I addressed your first self evident truth that would be patently absurd to deny. And you have never addressed my response except to say that I refuse to address your self evident truths. Given this, why should I take anything you say seriously? Why should anybody?>>

KF, 265 [in part]: >> . . . did you not see that in both your last objections your essential objections were based on a perceived unfairness in the first principle.

That is, on the evidence you accept the principle and are in fact unable to object to it as stated without appealing to it, i.e. the implicit but telling fact of moral obligation?

(Did you ever wonder why it is that when we quarrel, we so persistently try to show others in the wrong, by way of error or unfairness or the like, and why it is that as a rule there is not a reaction: shut up you little frog, you is my lunch and you must just slide down de throat nicely. [There used to be a popular drawing of a heron of some type swallowing a frog, but it was trying to throttle the bird.])

Your objection to and distaste for the term absurdity is of course irrelevant: the point of the term is that when something is self evident, it has an inescapable quality to it such that in trying to deny it, one ends up in depending on it, confirming it, contradicting oneself logically [as in reductio ad absurdum], or by playing both sides of the field or the like.

That is just what happened to you, and it will predictably happen to others also.

Not because we are unfair [!] or are tilting the field [!] or are playing rhetorical tricks [!] or are showing disrespect [!] etc, but because of the inherent nature of the claim.

Notice, again, the structure of the first manifestly evident core principle of the natural moral law:

TRUTH CLAIM: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

PROBLEM WITH OBJECTION: This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that.

MEANING OF THIS PROBLEM: That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right.

UNIVERSALITY: Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth.

THE ABSURDITY: Patent absurdity on attempted denial.

That is, self evidence . . . >>

CF, 323 (as typical): >>Kairosfocus: “So, answered.”

[CF:] How does any of that respond to my argument that morals are subjective and established as the result of instinct, indoctrination, learning, experience, thinking, predicting consequences of actions, etc.? And that these, because they are established early in life and supported through repetition and feedback, become very deeply entrenched in our minds?

I have stated that even subjectivists act as if our morals are objectively provided. But acting as if something is A does not make that something A.>>

1 –> It must be noted, again, that this pattern of argument by CF is based on the premise that I am in error and in the wrong, and OUGHT not to be such. That is, again we see the obvious confirmation of the first MSET, that we are inescapably under moral government.

2 –> This obtains, even in cases where the objector professes otherwise. (That is, we expect others to acknowledge and sense that they are under moral obligation, and we too experience the same perception and cannot escape it.)

3 –> Indeed this points onwards to other MSETs, i.e. conscience is real and presents itself as a morality compass governing our behaviour [we must do the right, fair, etc] and thought world [we must shun error and move to the truth insofar as able]. If we reject such as fundamentally delusional — a necessary import of radical relativism, subjectivism and nominalism as touching the moral world — the implication is that grand delusion is let loose in our whole world of responsible, rational behaviour as there are no firewalls.

4 –> That is, we see a main faculty . . . conscience . . . which purports to perceive moral obligation in regards to thought, feelings, attitudes [you BIGOT, you HATER, you moral equivalent of a KKK RACIST, etc], behaviour and speech. But if we are not actually under such real obligation, it is delusional, and if so, a major aspect of our inner life is utterly untrustworthy, in a context where this touches and would taint our whole inner life, reducing us to an infinite regress of Plato’s cave shadow show worlds.

5 –> That is, if level 1 perceptions are grandly delusional, then the perception that level 1 is delusional will also be suspect of being materially delusional, and then level 2, 3, 4, etc. The whole life of the mind and of serious discussion collapses in a cascade of successive delusions.

6 –> Patent absurdity.

7 –> But what about the fact that people, communities and civilisations across time and space differ on moral matters, doesn’t that somehow prove that morality is only subjective?

8 –> The instant problem, of course, is as I pointed out in 331 above:

CF, you full well know that the response has long been on the table and that your very tone of taking umbrage underscores the force of Moral SET 1, that we are inescapably under the binding force of ought, of moral government. This alone suffices to decisively overturn any rhetoric to the effect that as views of different people and times have varied, morality is only subjective. Where also, it is separately self evidently and undeniably true that error exists, so it should be no surprise in a world of finite, fallible, morally struggling and sometimes ill-willed people, there will be morally freighted opinions and behaviours that conflict. But the point of something like this is that it shows that we are not locked up to radical relativism, subjectivism, nominalism and their implication that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ truth,’ ‘value,’ ‘meaning’ etc, — nihilism — but instead we can find a reasonable and responsible basis for moral views and values. Which opens the door to responsible reform rather than a bloody winner takes all fight — cf here the career of Wilberforce as a capital example; contrast the so often repeated pattern of radical revolutions and the likely outcome of resorts to lawfare. And, FYI, that is where nihilism ends up.

9 –> What was your answer, CF? Let’s roll the tape from 332, just four minutes later on the timestamps:

KairosFocus, so, I assume that I can take it that you have nothing substantial to say about the fact that all of human history has rolled out as if morals are subjective, not objective.

10 –> But obviously, I had just said something VERY substantial about this [as cited and bolded just above], so the evidence is that you have not read with understanding and responded cogently . . . which is exactly what I have had to point out over and over.

11 –> But, don’t people . . . subjects by definition . . . learn morality from their surroundings, and end up with wildly different views on any number of subject, proving that their morality is only subjective?

12 –> In fact, were that so, it would not bring down just morality, it would bring down the whole house of rational, responsible behaviour in a cascade of grand delusion — a reductio ad absurdum.

13 –> But, it is patently not so.

14 –> For instance, C S Lewis, in his justly famous Mere Christianity, points out a pivotal fact about several of the core MSETs, the principle of moral governance in light of reciprocal duties and rights attested to by the moral compass, conscience:

Every one has heard people quarrelling.

Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”—”That’s my seat, I was there first”—”Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”— “Why should you shove in first?”—”Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”—”Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse . . .

15 –> This is much the same as this from the Apostle Paul’s analysis in Rom 2 (which is likely in Lewis’ background, though he is a considerable classicist and philosopher in his own right):

Rom 2:1 . . . you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? . . . .

14 . . . when Gentiles . . . by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [ESV]

16 –> This is of course a key and foundational example of the Christian endorsement of the principle that the natural moral law is generally evident and comes out in how we behave with one another, especially our hypocritical expectations that others live up to standards we perceive but do not ourselves consistently keep. Where by our inner nature as morally governed beings, we find conscience as the compass pointing to a law of our nature, the moral law.

17 –> Notice, Paul’s theological point about how this law condemns us: we point the moral finger at others (when we or those we care about are harmed or seem to be harmed or are threatened) but we then act to our own advantage in violation of the law we attest to in our own declared expectations.

18 –> Francis Schaeffer sometimes would speak in the metaphor of a tape recorder around our necks: every time we make a moral, principled judgement of others, God pushes the button and records it . . . or at any rate the recording angel. Then, come That Day of eternal reckoning, he rolls the tape of our lives and at the appropriate point plays the tape of our own moral code for others spoken out of our own mouth. Not a one of us would stand that test, we will damn ourselves in the true and proper sense from our own mouths.

19 –> Thus, we see that we know we are under a moral law of our nature as equally morally governed, equally valuable creatures [ –> the NT witness is that we each are of quasi-infinite worth, the value of one human soul exceeds the worth of the resources of a planet]. But, we too often not only falter, stumble and fail, but find ourselves the hypocrite.

20 –> In short, we know ourselves to be guilty sinners.

21 –> Yes, I dare speak that ever so unpopular word: SIN.

22 –> Out of or own mouths and consciences we stand self-condemned as knowingly under a moral law of our nature that we condemn others for violation, but we ourselves are ever so prone to violate it too.

23 –> So, not only per Christian scriptural teachings but the world of our own experience the real primary moral issue is forgiveness and moral transformation, not oh we are in the right and we are making such good progress never mind those bigots over there.

24 –> In part, I have to say this, as it seems so evident that by and large we do not understand the Judaeo-Christian tradition on such matters, and are ever so prone to erect and knock over strawman caricatures.

25 –> But Lewis does not stop there, he goes on to speak to the astonishing core agreement on core morality:

It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the “laws of nature” we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it . . . .

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. [–> by implication, in the absolute core parts] They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense [–> this was originally a series of BBC broadcasts during the early years of WW II]. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? [–> Despite what hey were being taught by their government, and despite what was being demanded of them, cf here the White Rose Movement] If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair . . .

26 –> In other words, we find a strong core consensus on first principles of morality, whatever differences and disagreements may happen later on or whatever specifics we have to hammer out across time. So, there is good reason to hold this as objective, however we may acquire the knowledge. Arithmetic is objective, never mind that we have to be taught it in major part, and that there are quite different approaches to solving types of problems, especially division.

27 –> Where, just as there are errors of Arithmetic, there are errors of morality, but they are much harder to recognise, acknowledge and fix so moral progress in the genuine sense takes time, sometimes centuries.

28 –> Indeed, I have argued that though it is inherently unstable and has to be stabilised in the context of a public that is properly literate, well informed and educated, historically democratic constitutions offer the best approach to a long term project of reform.

29 –> But for such to work, one of the chief props is commitment to manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law [which are undergirded by the Judaeo-Christian tradition . . . hence that famous little remark by Geo Washington on the subject], or else nihilistic might and manipulation take over leading to a march of folly and ruin.

30 –> Which is exactly what is going on now across our civilisation.

31 –> Lewis has more:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. [–> Think of Don Richardson’s The Peace Child here, on a case of a culture in New Guinea that for many things admired conning, betraying, murdering and EATING another man. When the Sawi needed to make real peace, they used this mechanism, and the betrayal of a peace child was the most awful of crimes.]

You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

32 –> In other words, we do find ourselves generally and inescapably under moral government of OUGHT.

33 –> Where if this be delusional, it would set loose grand delusion across our whole inner life, wrecking it in a cascade of delusions. So, we acknowledge the objectivity of moral government attested to by a sense we have every right and need to trust in general — conscience, on a self evident basis; on pain of collapse into absurdity.

34 –> Not even the objector is able to escape the force of this. As was repeatedly seen.

More, following . . .

KF
hey kf nobody reads this shit

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:13   

3,745 words, 240 sentences.

for Part 1.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:24   

There aren't enough hours left in my life to waste them reading a full slab of Gordonballs, but I did notice this:
Quote
Where if this be delusional, it would set loose grand delusion across our whole inner life, wrecking it in a cascade of delusions. So, we acknowledge the objectivity of moral government attested to by a sense we have every right and need to trust in general — conscience, on a self evident basis; on pain of collapse into absurdity.

If there were no objective morality, Gordon would be barking mad.  Good to know.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:28   

It is near at hand to use a construct like IDiots to reference proponents of ID, and as it seems to me that most of them really are idiots I find it a good fit. Why should I expose myself to irrationality by reading KF at UcD or anywhere else? He isn't even good for a laugh like Joe G.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:33   

Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2016,12:13)
3,745 words, 240 sentences.

for Part 1.

Part II. Hot off the presses.
Quote
CF,

I follow up, using 325 for convenience:

>>KF: “2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. “

CF: I agree that it is evident that most of us have a conscience. But that does not mean that the morality that our conscience acts on is objective. Guilt is not a sign of objectivity. It is a sign that we feel that we are doing something that runs counter to one of our moral values. Moral values that can easily be explained by subjectivity. Before the 60s and 70s, many white people in the south would feel guilt at dating a black person.>>

35 –> Conscience is a compass needle, it points to the fact of moral governance, and though it can sometimes go wrong, it is in that regard no different from sight, hearing, touch or taste.

36 –> What is self evident is that this sense exists and it points, guiding thoughts, attitudes, feelings, behaviours.

37 –> It would be passing strange were we to have a sense that had no proper object, so it serves only to delude and manipulate.

>> KF: “3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. “

CF: Could you repeat this in English. Are you suggesting that if anything that is subjective is the result of delusion? If that is the case, then you are simply wrong. If I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, please clarify.>>

38 –> The English is there and it is clear enough. We sense ourselves to be guided by conscience, and we experience ourselves in that context as responsibly free. Were these a delusion, this would taint our whole inner life, as was already discussed and linked onwards.

>> KF: “4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.”

CF: Yes, we act according to our established moral values. We both agree on this. We disagree on whether these moral values are objective. You have still not provided any rationale as to why these moral values must be objective.>>

39 –> The point here is that morality is an in common, rationally accessible matter, which holds to such a degree of certainty that ignoring or recklessly manipulating it is dubious behaviour.

40 –> Many good reasons for objectivity have been laid out, not least the one already just outlined, that to assign major intellectual faculties to delusion is self defeating for the life of the mind. In short your position boils down to embracing the undermining of rationality.

>>KF: “5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do . . . [ETC]”

CF: Natural moral law is a philosophical and religious construct. This does not make it an actual law.

But rather than using old dead philosophers to try to defend your case, why don’t you use your own words and do something as simple as explain why objective morality is fact when societal moral values vary dramatically from one culture to another, and within the same culture over time. If we are so objectively under obligation of OUGHT, and if objective morality is necessary for this, why is/was it possible for civilizations to have such vastly different moral values? Are they all deluding themselves and the only one with the absolute certainty of what these objective values are is you?Or is it more likely that the moral assemblage in any society is the result of indoctrination, instinct, learning, experience, rational thought, the ability to predict the outcome of actions, etc.?>>

41 –> In fact, we do not tell the truth by the clock or by the fashions of the day. The old dead philosophers may well be manifestly right, and today’s fashionable opinion leaders wrong.

42 –> In turn phil is the foundational intellectual discipline, which deals with the met issues for other disciplines in addition to general issues of the life of the mind. This makes it actually even more important than those disciplines on foundational matters.

43 –> Your dismissal of the natural moral law amounts to little more than you do not like the terms.

44 –> A classic statement of a case is often one of the best statements we can find, often reflecting generations of thought by minds at the top of our civilisation. The case is not oh blindly kowtow to these, but these have made a case that should be considered carefully.

45 –> The upshot of all this is, the rejection of objectivity of core morality comes at a stiff price for our whole life as responsible and rational beings, but the import of objective laws of our nature is such that many will cling to what can be shown absurd as they will not willingly accept that being under law suggests a Lawgiver, God.

46 –> Nor am I the only one to have noticed such.

KF


948 words.Add the 3,745 from part I and we get 4,693.

Who had 4,000 in the insanity pool?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,12:54   

Quote (Quack @ May 27 2016,13:28)
It is near at hand to use a construct like IDiots to reference proponents of ID, and as it seems to me that most of them really are idiots I find it a good fit. Why should I expose myself to irrationality by reading KF at UcD or anywhere else? He isn't even good for a laugh like Joe G.

I never read KF. I doubt anyone does, in full. He certainly lacks the wit brevity requires. At the most people just scan it looking for particularly stupid points.

He's most interesting to me as an example of a deranged authoritarian with some pretty serious psychosexual problems.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,13:01   

Quote (stevestory @ May 27 2016,12:54)
Quote (Quack @ May 27 2016,13:28)
It is near at hand to use a construct like IDiots to reference proponents of ID, and as it seems to me that most of them really are idiots I find it a good fit. Why should I expose myself to irrationality by reading KF at UcD or anywhere else? He isn't even good for a laugh like Joe G.

I never read KF. I doubt anyone does, in full. He certainly lacks the wit brevity requires. At the most people just scan it looking for particularly stupid points.

He's most interesting to me as an example of a deranged authoritarian with some pretty serious psychosexual problems.

It can be fun to get him angry. You know you have been successful when he feels compelled to post an FYI-FTR post with comments off.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,13:10   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 27 2016,11:01)
It can be fun to get him angry.

Doesn't strike me as much of a challenge.  It's like trying to make Gary Gaulin incoherent.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,13:19   

Quote (JohnW @ May 27 2016,12:10)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 27 2016,11:01)
It can be fun to get him angry.

Doesn't strike me as much of a challenge.  It's like trying to make Gary Gaulin incoherent.

He resembles that remark!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,16:59   

Quote (JohnW @ May 27 2016,12:24)
There aren't enough hours left in my life to waste them reading a full slab of Gordonballs, but I did notice this:
Quote
Where if this be delusional, it would set loose grand delusion across our whole inner life, wrecking it in a cascade of delusions. So, we acknowledge the objectivity of moral government attested to by a sense we have every right and need to trust in general — conscience, on a self evident basis; on pain of collapse into absurdity.

If there were no objective morality, Gordon would be barking mad.  Good to know.

Well, that clinches it for no objective morality then.

--------------
"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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 27 2016,17:42   

Douglas Adams might say this has already happened.

If not, it's something to look forward to.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,12:02   

Barry is back at his arrogant pompous best.

Quote
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 8:42 am
Clown Fish @ 13 thinks he knows the affair of Uganda and the reason they have not used DDT better than the Health Minister of Uganda.

Add “arrogant on a cosmic scale” to “contemptible.” He is utterly shameless.

The readers have a choice here. They can believe Clown Fish, a nameless, faceless, anonymous internet troll who obviously has a progressive/greenie ax to grind, or they can believe the Health Minister of Uganda about why Uganda was not using DDT.

I will take the Minster over the troll.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,12:05   

How're we supposed to know the heath minister of Uganda said that? WERE WE THERE?

:p

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,12:17   

Quote
19
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 10:59 am
Barry: “Add “arrogant on a cosmic scale” to “contemptible.” He is utterly shameless.”

Didn’t WJM just write an OP about the leftist use of inflamatory labels to limit discussion and cast dispersions on the person disagreeing with others views? I guess you didn’t read it.

“They can believe Clown Fish, a nameless, faceless, anonymous internet troll who obviously has a progressive/greenie ax to grind, or they can believe the Health Minister of Uganda about why Uganda was not using DDT.

I will take the Minster over the troll.”

So, you would prefer to believe a minister from a country who was seriously considering the death penalty for homosexuals. That speaks volumes.

How do you rationalize your claims against the fact that DDT use in Africa has actually increased since the Stockholm convention? And that one of the problems that they are now being faced with in malaria prone areas is resistance to DDT. But, if it makes you feel better to demonize a long dead marine biologist, go right ahead.
low odds, but i wouldn't be utterly shocked if UD types support the death penalty for gays.

Edited by stevestory on May 28 2016,13:25

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:39   

Quote
22
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion. How do I know? Because millions upon millions of Africans died as a result of the Western environmental colonialists decried by the Ugandan Minister of Health, and if what you write were true that would not have happened.


Barry gets stupid

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:40   

CF responds:

Quote
24
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Barry: “Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion.”

You are basing your entire argument on the statements of a government official in a corrupt government. A government that seriously considered the execution of homosexuals as a moral act. Are you sure that you want to lump yourself in with that crowd?

From the seventies until the Stockholm agreement, there was no ban on the use of DDT in Africa. And it was used. Following the Stockholm agreement, the use of DDT increased further. It was never at the levels that were used in the US, or in US controlled areas in other countries, but that had nothing to do with environmentalists. It was not used in Africa to the same extent for the same reason that other malaria controls in Africa have not been effective. It cost money and the western countries don’t care as much about Africa as they do about western countries.

Again you call me a liar without once addressing the facts that I listed. Is that because you can’t address them but don’t want to admit it? How pathetic.

I have not once said that DDT should not be used in Africa. And the facts are that it is being used. And the fact is that the mosquitos are becoming get resistant to it. And the fact is that it is a persistent, bio accumulating chemical that does environmental damage.

So, are you going to again ignore all of this and call me more names, or are you going to act as a mature adult and actually address my points? Or are you just going to silently ban me and declare victory?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:42   

Maybe we should ask KairosDoofus et al if they think the death penalty for being gay is Objective Morality™.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:42   

Quote (stevestory @ May 28 2016,16:39)
Quote
22
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion. How do I know? Because millions upon millions of Africans died as a result of the Western environmental colonialists decried by the Ugandan Minister of Health, and if what you write were true that would not have happened.


Barry gets stupid

Quote
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Barry: “Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion.”

You are basing your entire argument on the statements of a government official in a corrupt government. A government that seriously considered the execution of homosexuals as a moral act. Are you sure that you want to lump yourself in with that crowd?

From the seventies until the Stockholm agreement, there was no ban on the use of DDT in Africa. And it was used. Following the Stockholm agreement, the use of DDT increased further. It was never at the levels that were used in the US, or in US controlled areas in other countries, but that had nothing to do with environmentalists. It was not used in Africa to the same extent for the same reason that other malaria controls in Africa have not been effective. It cost money and the western countries don’t care as much about Africa as they do about western countries.

Again you call me a liar without once addressing the facts that I listed. Is that because you can’t address them but don’t want to admit it? How pathetic.

I have not once said that DDT should not be used in Africa. And the facts are that it is being used. And the fact is that the mosquitos are becoming get resistant to it. And the fact is that it is a persistent, bio accumulating chemical that does environmental damage.

So, are you going to again ignore all of this and call me more names, or are you going to act as a mature adult and actually address my points? Or are you just going to silently ban me and declare victory?


My money is on option three.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:43   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ May 28 2016,16:42)
Quote (stevestory @ May 28 2016,16:39)
Quote
22
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion. How do I know? Because millions upon millions of Africans died as a result of the Western environmental colonialists decried by the Ugandan Minister of Health, and if what you write were true that would not have happened.


Barry gets stupid

Quote
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 1:53 pm
Barry: “Clown Fish. Every word you write is an outright lie or a major distortion.”

You are basing your entire argument on the statements of a government official in a corrupt government. A government that seriously considered the execution of homosexuals as a moral act. Are you sure that you want to lump yourself in with that crowd?

From the seventies until the Stockholm agreement, there was no ban on the use of DDT in Africa. And it was used. Following the Stockholm agreement, the use of DDT increased further. It was never at the levels that were used in the US, or in US controlled areas in other countries, but that had nothing to do with environmentalists. It was not used in Africa to the same extent for the same reason that other malaria controls in Africa have not been effective. It cost money and the western countries don’t care as much about Africa as they do about western countries.

Again you call me a liar without once addressing the facts that I listed. Is that because you can’t address them but don’t want to admit it? How pathetic.

I have not once said that DDT should not be used in Africa. And the facts are that it is being used. And the fact is that the mosquitos are becoming get resistant to it. And the fact is that it is a persistent, bio accumulating chemical that does environmental damage.

So, are you going to again ignore all of this and call me more names, or are you going to act as a mature adult and actually address my points? Or are you just going to silently ban me and declare victory?


My money is on option three.

After, of course, a healthy dose of option one.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,16:54   

Quote
26
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 3:52 pm
OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy.

Here are the cold hard facts. The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa. Millions of needless deaths ensued. Anyone who denies this is a liar. You can stop repeating your talking points.


stupid barry thinks he can assert his way to victory.

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,18:19   

Quote (stevestory @ May 28 2016,16:54)
Quote
26
Barry ArringtonMay 28, 2016 at 3:52 pm
OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy.

Here are the cold hard facts. The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa. Millions of needless deaths ensued. Anyone who denies this is a liar. You can stop repeating your talking points.


stupid barry thinks he can assert his way to victory.

:
Quote
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm
Barry: “OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy.”

So, you now consider facts that you have made no effort to provide evidence to dispute as “talking points”. How pathetic is that?

“The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa.”

In spite of the fact that DDT use has increased consistently since the seventies. That doesn’t sound very successful to me.

“Anyone who denies this is a liar.”

So, anyone who provides facts that conflict with what you are saying is a liar. I have never heard of that definition of liar before. But, if that is all you can do to support your false claims, I guess you have to stick with it.

By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,18:19   

Quote
27
clown fish

May 28, 2016 at 5:08 pm

Barry: “OK, CF, you are repeating your environmentalist talking points. Good boy.”

So, you now consider facts that you have made no effort to provide evidence to dispute as “talking points”. How pathetic is that?

“The environmentalists were successful in banning/reducing the use of DDT in Africa.”

In spite of the fact that DDT use has increased consistently since the seventies. That doesn’t sound very successful to me.

“Anyone who denies this is a liar.”

So, anyone who provides facts that conflict with what you are saying is a liar. I have never heard of that definition of liar before. But, if that is all you can do to support your false claims, I guess you have to stick with it.

By the way, I am awaiting any valid refutation of the facts I presented at #21.
Clownfish keeps beating that sorry halfwit.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,18:20   

Dang!

:p

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,18:29   

Just a comment w/r/t Clownfish and others--it's my opinion that the people who keep cool, and stick to facts and verifiable claims, really wreck Barry and company. They lose their shit. The fence-sitters who see the discussions play out are probably noticing that.

ETA: clownfish, like many before them, (ziggy, aleta, etc) do a really good job of this.

Edited by stevestory on May 28 2016,19:30

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,18:34   

Barry is especially bad at cavalierly repeating some echo-chamber RWNJ gibberish, then we he gets called on it, like the DDT thing, he can't even begin to defend himself. It's delicious.

(I'm going home to watch last night's playoff game, but if clownfish lasts til tomorrow i'll be surprised.)

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2016,19:00   

Quote (stevestory @ May 28 2016,18:34)
Barry is especially bad at cavalierly repeating some echo-chamber RWNJ gibberish, then we he gets called on it, like the DDT thing, he can't even begin to defend himself. It's delicious.

(I'm going home to watch last night's playoff game, but if clownfish lasts til tomorrow i'll be surprised.)

Velekovsky has just laid a beating on Barry's Ugandan expert:
Quote
velikovskysMay 28, 2016 at 3:42 pm
The retirement of Dr Zaramba depletes an already embattled ministry that has lost many of its most senior officials in the recent past to international appointments and a litany of alleged corruption cases. Only last week, three senior managers of the Malaria Control Programme were arrested and charged with the alleged negligence and theft of drugs worth Shs2 billion.

The trio currently at Luzira Prison pending hearing of their cases are Dr Richard Ndyomugenyi, the malaria programme manager; his deputy Dr Myers Lugemwa and Mr Martin Shibeki, the programme administrator.


Maybe DDT is not the whole story

But I am sure that Barry will find a way to spin it.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,00:34   

I left this message right after Barry's Msg 30:

3 StuartHarris May 27, 2016 at 3:37 pm

"Rachel Carson is up there with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as one of the great mass murderers of the 20th century. The death continues into the 21st, mostly in Africa, mostly children as victims, mostly from malaria."

5 StuartHarris May 27, 2016 at 4:13 pm

"Last year 800,000 people in Africa died from malaria. Multiple that by only three years and you’ve Pol Pot beat. Fifteen years and your into Hitler numbers."


Michael Behe "Edge of Evolution" Page 327

"Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. [Eve’s] children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it. What sort of designer is that?"

I went to get something to eat and when I came back it was gone.

Must be one of those miracles.


Scene of the crime.

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: May 29 2016,01:30   

Apparently you weren't the only one.
[QUOTE]31
clown fishMay 28, 2016 at 10:02 pm
Barry: “And I am awaiting any valid refutation of the fact that the environmental movement has the blood of millions of African children on its hands.”

See #21.

By the way, deleting comments? That speaks volumes.

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

Pages: (527) < ... 205 206 207 208 209 [210] 211 212 213 214 215 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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