About special pleadings.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2014, 11:48 PM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2014 11:56 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:20 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  For instance consider the following rule. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

Didn't know that was a rule. Citation?

You don't have to accept the rule. The person making the argument has to accept that rule and then proceed to argue an exception to the rule without any justification for it to be a special pleading.

I think the reason so many of you atheists cry out the platitude, "Oh the theists made a special pleading".....is because you are using one rule and the the theist is using the another. If your going to call out someone for making a logical fallacy....at least be right about it. Show the rule the theist is using, and then show how he is making an exception to it without justification.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2014, 11:50 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes that is an example of a special pleading.

Thumbsup

Mom, I would hope that as a supermod, you would have some integrity. You changed my quote and then passed it off as if I actually said that thing.

I did not say, "For instance consider the following." I said, "For instance consider the following rule."

If you are going to change peoples quote....notate somewhere that you did. For instance.

I found word "rule" to be meaningless in your context, so I clarified it for you.

It's still, regardless if the word "rule" is in there or not, it is a fine example of a special pleading.

Thumbsup

And you replied...It warms my heart. Heart

Now here is an important rule..Don't run with scissors. Yes

Have a nice evening.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
02-10-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes that is an example of a special pleading.

Thumbsup

Mom, I would hope that as a supermod, you would have some integrity. You changed my quote and then passed it off as if I actually said that thing.

I did not say, "For instance consider the following." I said, "For instance consider the following rule."

If you are going to change peoples quote....notate somewhere that you did. For instance.

(02-10-2014 11:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm a closet theist.
- Momsurroundedbyboys didn't really say this

a. You are a known shit, therefore your claim is not very believable.
b. Even if modified, it doesn't change the sense of the quote in the least, so grow the fuck up.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
02-10-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:39 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:   Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

Except that this is NOT an established rule it's a motherfucking assertion, and your way of phrasing something so as to specifically avoid special pleading. Because if we say "Everything that exists has a cause" the only way out of that with your idiotic belief in god intact...is to fucking special plead. So all you are doing in fact is presenting an assertion as fact, phrased in such a way so that you can avoid (poorly I will add) special pleading. This is a fucking word game you numbty.

You engage in special pleading all the damn time, you just dishonestly word things in an attempt to hide the fact. We know your tricks bitch, they aren't clever or convincing.

That's two arguments in two days you have shown you don't understand. First God of the Gaps and now this. Tedious kid, really fucking tedious.

Yes....That's why I eliminated the word "rule" because it's his assertion or another special pleading. Shocking


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
03-10-2014, 12:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 12:03 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes....That's why I eliminated the word "rule" because it's his assertion or another special pleading. Shocking

An assertion is not a special pleading. I'm convinced now that you do not know what a special pleading is. Please read my post in this this thread closely and educate yourself.

The word "rule" is important because a special pleading is citing an exception to a rule or principle without justification. 2 elements are necessary for a special pleading....the rule and the unjustified exception to the rule.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:04 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A special pleading occurs when someone attempts to cite an exception to a generally accepted rule without any justification.

For instance consider the following rule. Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

If you go on to claim that the universe came into existence, but had no cause....then you are making a special pleading if you do not justify why it is an exception to the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause.

When a theist claims that God is un-caused it is not a special pleading. Why? Because the rule applies to those things which come into existence. An eternal God is something that does not come into existence and therefore is not governed by the rule, Everything that comes into existence must have a cause
.

If you argue that the universe is something which always existed. It is not a special pleading to then go on to claim the Universe was un-caused.

First, special pleading isn't about a generally-accepted rule. It's about a generally-applicable rule that the arguer has adopted and utilized elsewhere in the argument. This means that someone arguing against a rule that has popular acceptance may still make a case for a world without it, and that someone arguing with a rule that is not popularly accepted must still be consistent with its application. While it might make it easier for an audience to accept your premises or conclusion at face value, general acceptance of an idea carries zero logical weight.

In the original cosmological argument, the language of "began to exist" had not yet, well, begun to exist. That argument could be constructed as such:

P1) Everything must have a cause.
P2) An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
C) Therefore, an uncaused cause (aka God) must exist.

This is a case of special pleading (among other issues) in that the conclusion is an exception to a general rule (P1) that is utilized to prove it. In this earlier version, asking "what caused God" to point out special pleading is perfectly valid.

The Kalam variation basically introduced the "began to exist" language to weasel its way past this flaw and, in doing so, picked up a few new flaws. But yes, it does indeed manage to jettison the special pleading in the process.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
03-10-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:48 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:20 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Didn't know that was a rule. Citation?

You don't have to accept the rule.

The whole point of an argument is to convince other people you colossal fucking idiot. If you can't even offer a fucking reason to legitimize the first step of your argument it's a shitty argument and we have zero reason not to reject it out of hand.

"An argument is not special pleading if I believe my own assertion."

Fuck you sideways with the goddamn moon.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(02-10-2014 11:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:39 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  Except that this is NOT an established rule it's a motherfucking assertion, and your way of phrasing something so as to specifically avoid special pleading. Because if we say "Everything that exists has a cause" the only way out of that with your idiotic belief in god intact...is to fucking special plead. So all you are doing in fact is presenting an assertion as fact, phrased in such a way so that you can avoid (poorly I will add) special pleading. This is a fucking word game you numbty.

You engage in special pleading all the damn time, you just dishonestly word things in an attempt to hide the fact. We know your tricks bitch, they aren't clever or convincing.

That's two arguments in two days you have shown you don't understand. First God of the Gaps and now this. Tedious kid, really fucking tedious.

Yes....That's why I eliminated the word "rule" because it's his assertion or another special pleading. Shocking

So I can add God of the Gaps, Special Pleading, and how an argument works to his list of things he is too bumblefuckingly stupid to understand.

This brings the total to everything.Drinking Beverage

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2014, 12:16 AM (This post was last modified: 03-10-2014 12:22 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 12:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(02-10-2014 11:56 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Yes....That's why I eliminated the word "rule" because it's his assertion or another special pleading. Shocking

An assertion is not a special pleading. I'm convinced now that you do not know what a special pleading is. Please read my post in this this thread closely and educate yourself.

The word "rule" is important because a special pleading is citing an exception to a rule or principle without justification. 2 elements are necessary for a special pleading....the rule and the unjustified exception to the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Quote: Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

Generally excepted rule. Not whatever damn assertion I feel like making into a rule today. Because if we say that "everything that exists has a cause" then the argument for a causeless being is the special pleading it's self.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
03-10-2014, 12:18 AM
RE: About special pleadings.
(03-10-2014 12:04 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First, special pleading isn't about a generally-accepted rule. It's about a generally-applicable rule that the arguer has adopted and utilized elsewhere in the argument. This means that someone arguing against a rule that has popular acceptance may still make a case for a world without it, and that someone arguing with a rule that is not popularly accepted must still be consistent with its application. While it might make it easier for an audience to accept your premises or conclusion at face value, general acceptance of an idea carries zero logical weight.

In the original cosmological argument, the language of "began to exist" had not yet, well, begun to exist. That argument could be constructed as such:

P1) Everything must have a cause.
P2) An infinite regression of causes is impossible.
C) Therefore, an uncaused cause (aka God) must exist.

This is a case of special pleading (among other issues) in that the conclusion is an exception to a general rule (P1) that is utilized to prove it. In this earlier version, asking "what caused God" to point out special pleading is perfectly valid.

The Kalam variation basically introduced the "began to exist" language to weasel its way past this flaw and, in doing so, picked up a few new flaws. But yes, it does indeed manage to jettison the special pleading in the process.

Thanks, Reltzik.....awesome explanation.

Mom,

please note that a premise(rule or principle) is not a special pleading. The special pleading occurs when the conclusion of an argument is an unjustified exception to the rule, principle or premise that was utilized to make the argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: