Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2014, 02:28 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 02:42 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 01:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Still can't parse. Incoherent straw men are inadmissible.

Non sequitur +1 ! ! ! Combo chain X3!
Tell me one thing. When have you ever confirmed, agreed with or endorsed anybody or anything? Except Christian woo bashing or anything else-bashing, debunking, rejecting and disproving. I mean something positive, except physics. It would be pretty foolish from me to try to get you agree with anything, if it's an inappropriate demand.
You kind of remind me of my older brother, he also really hates confirming or approving of things. He likes to criticize and have others join him in agreement of his deadly accurate criticism. So I consider him a precedent that such people do exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 01:56 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Still can't parse. Incoherent straw men are inadmissible.

Non sequitur +1 ! ! ! Combo chain X3!
Tell me one thing. When have you ever confirmed, agreed with or endorsed anybody or anything?

Oh, Christ, here comes the psychobabble.

Just for you, champ, I'll jump through your hoops. Just this once.

The answer is all the time. There are myriad scientists and artists and philosophers and friends whose opinions and conclusions I agree with and endorse.
(but we might consider just what an insane request it is - what's next, telling me that unless I can name 6 black friends of mine on the spot I must be racist?)

Perhaps you might begin by considering the 4,276 and counting posts I have 'liked' on this very forum. Those, at least, might begin to show you the kinds of things I agree with, appreciate, or at least find amusing.

The question is such a lunatic non sequitur I'm having trouble framing a response. I'm well aware that being dismissive is only going to feed your insular self-congratulatory circlejerk defense mechanism. Well; so be it.

(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Except Christian woo bashing or anything else-bashing, debunking, rejecting and disproving. I mean something positive, except physics. It would be pretty foolish from me to try to get you agree if it's not something that you do.

This is classic crank psychobabble.

Nevermind that you've never coherently or convincingly articulated anything - the problem is with everybody else!

So because I happen to disagree with your nonsense, I, therefore, must be pathologically incapable of ever agreeing with anyone.

Makes sense.
Hobo
Facepalm
Weeping

(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You kind of remind me of my older brother. He is convinced he has nothing interesting to say, so when he wants to chime in to a conversation, it's always him criticizing or rejecting something that others must agree with, that's his idea of family harmony. His voice is always strained with deep irritation, especially when he's talking to anyone from the family. He almost never says yes or please or thank you, he's very impatient and as I said, critical. So I consider him a precedent that such people do exist.

Sorry, but delusional psychobabble is inadmissible.

I find you tedious, and after so many insults from you I see no point in being polite to you.

Just what sort of idiotic anecdata are you expecting, here?

At this point I welcome the rest of the audience at home to chime in. Many of you have interacted with me in some capacity; some of you have spoken to me directly.

Is ol' Lumi on to something with his "the only possible reason you could fail to agree with me is because you are pathologically incapable of agreeing with anyone"?

Or is that merely a transparent attempt at defensive self-justification?

Let me know; I'm curious myself.

YOU DECIDE!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 02:44 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 02:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Tell me one thing. When have you ever confirmed, agreed with or endorsed anybody or anything?

Oh, Christ, here comes the psychobabble.

Just for you, champ, I'll jump through your hoops. Just this once.

The answer is all the time. There are myriad scientists and artists and philosophers and friends whose opinions and conclusions I agree with and endorse.
(but we might consider just what an insane request it is - what's next, telling me that unless I can name 6 black friends of mine on the spot I must be racist?)

Perhaps you might begin by considering the 4,276 and counting posts I have 'liked' on this very forum. Those, at least, might begin to show you the kinds of things I agree with, appreciate, or at least find amusing.

The question is such a lunatic non sequitur I'm having trouble framing a response. I'm well aware that being dismissive is only going to feed your insular self-congratulatory circlejerk defense mechanism. Well; so be it.

(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Except Christian woo bashing or anything else-bashing, debunking, rejecting and disproving. I mean something positive, except physics. It would be pretty foolish from me to try to get you agree if it's not something that you do.

This is classic crank psychobabble.

Nevermind that you've never coherently or convincingly articulated anything - the problem is with everybody else!

So because I happen to disagree with your nonsense, I, therefore, must be pathologically incapable of ever agreeing with anyone.

Makes sense.
Hobo
Facepalm
Weeping

(16-08-2014 02:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You kind of remind me of my older brother. He is convinced he has nothing interesting to say, so when he wants to chime in to a conversation, it's always him criticizing or rejecting something that others must agree with, that's his idea of family harmony. His voice is always strained with deep irritation, especially when he's talking to anyone from the family. He almost never says yes or please or thank you, he's very impatient and as I said, critical. So I consider him a precedent that such people do exist.

Sorry, but delusional psychobabble is inadmissible.

I find you tedious, and after so many insults from you I see point in being polite to you.

Just what sort of idiotic anecdata are you expecting, here?

At this point I welcome the rest of the audience at home to chime in. Many of you have interacted with me in some capacity; some of you have spoken to me directly.

Is ol' Lumi on to something with his "the only possible reason you could fail to agree with me is because you are pathologically incapable of agreeing with anyone"?

Or is that merely a transparent attempt at defensive self-justification?

Let me know; I'm curious myself.

YOU DECIDE!

If anything I find you too agreeable. Have to go looking for almost trivial disagreements to get a good shot in at ya. Laugh out load

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
16-08-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 09:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Pay more attention Lumi. There were two official complaints filed in 2009 and 2011 respectively, one of which made note of a specific 2007 podcast episode. the commission had a lot to sift through, as it's not like she stopped appearing on her husband's podcasts after that one episode.

"In another podcast, the couple discussed a listener who wrote a letter describing how he cut ties with his family and rerouted his mother’s daily e-mailed pleas titled “We love you” into his junk mail folder.

“She’s trying to push your buttons. She’s trying to appeal to your guilt,” Ms. Papadopoulos said. “The best thing to do under those circumstances is just not to engage. …The moment you respond back, she knows she’s got you.”"


Also, she's clearly not 'competent' enough, or else why would the commission's recommend this?

"Mr. Osborne said the public would be better protected if Ms. Papadopoulos’s shortcomings were remedied, rather than just imposing a punitive measure such as a suspension."

So I guess that you don't consider shortcomings that need remedied to be a sign of incompetence? Consider

Also, you do understand how a podcast works, right? I doesn't fucking matter if it was recorded back in 2009, if it can still be accessed, then it can still be causing harm through misinformation. Actions have consequences, and she clearly didn't think her's through enough.
Oh, there were three complaints? Thanks for the info, I didn't know that. So what? From my own experience, the podcast is 100 % spot on precise and quite competent. What is your argument? Do you want to say that people are not competent to judge their own 20 or so years of experience with their parents? Do you mean that they can be re-programmed by a piece of media? If so, they probably shouldn't watch Six Feet Under on TV. That's an even more lame argument than video games causing violence Drinking Beverage


Lumi, if you can't parse the vast difference between honest 'fiction' and 'someone passing off biased misinformation under the guise of professional advice', then you are fucking dumber than I would have given you credit for.

Also, your opinion is worth less than dirt on this forum.



(16-08-2014 10:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 09:07 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Peter Molyneux makes a living through donations and the direct-selling his books (because they sure as shit didn't meet the standards to be published by any reputable publisher). In this day and age, you don't need to live on a commune to give your money to your cult leader; we have PayPal. Plus, how many of those other cult leaders were atheists? None of them, they all had religious angles. Is it any wonder why religious cult leaders didn't want or need a licensed psychologist? But he has one, who is married to him conveniently enough.

Yeah, I can't see any possible way for bias or professional misconduct to creep it's way into this, no-siree...
Well, here's a cult leader who married a licensed psychologist Consider
And you're the guy who judges the book not by content, not by cover, but by the publisher. And also doesn't know the author's name. Tongue Molyneux (Stefan, not Peter) is a writer and playwright and his novel God of Atheists has great reviews.


Married, as in she has an emotional connection that would bias her. If she were a judge, she would be required to recuse herself from any court case involving her husband for this very same reason. Not only that, but you're attempting to reason that Molyneux's connection to his wife makes him beyond reproach, when we've already establish that she's incompetent enough to have been reprimanded for professional misconduct.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-08-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 02:44 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If anything I find you too agreeable. Have to go looking for almost trivial disagreements to get a good shot in at ya. Laugh out load

Consider

So much for that, uh, "theory", then.

I wonder what else ol' Lumi's got?

I mean, I know what he hasn't got - the faintest hint of self-awareness or the barest minimum of inclination or ability to introspect - but that only leaves me all the curiouser as to what's next in the crank's toolbox for him to bust out...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 03:16 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I mean, I know what he hasn't got - the faintest hint of self-awareness or the barest minimum of inclination or ability to introspect - but that only leaves me all the curiouser as to what's next in the crank's toolbox for him to bust out...
Can you please give me one specific example of someone doing self-awareness and introspection, with regard to his actual life and maybe political stances, not just science and stuff? Maybe I don't even know what that means, maybe I need to see. Show me a fine human specimen.
Please, please don't take it as an attack. I just heard you're into empirical evidence, so I'd like some of that. You can say whatever you want about me, just show me, compared to what.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
16-08-2014, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 03:39 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 03:03 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 02:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I mean, I know what he hasn't got - the faintest hint of self-awareness or the barest minimum of inclination or ability to introspect - but that only leaves me all the curiouser as to what's next in the crank's toolbox for him to bust out...
Can you please give me one specific example of someone doing self-awareness and introspection, with regard to his actual life and maybe political stances, not just science and stuff?

Are you for real?

(16-08-2014 03:03 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Maybe I don't even know what that means, maybe I need to see. Show me a fine human specimen.
Please, please don't take it as an attack. I just heard you're into empirical evidence, so I'd like some of that.

You need me to tell you this? Christ.
(please take this moment to imagine me sighing heavily)

Fine. I'll jump through another hoop of yours. I'll make up an example for you.

Let us consider... oh, let's say, abortion. Why not - it's a moral and political issue. Let us consider someone who opposes it. And let us suppose we ask that person why they oppose it.
"Because I believe," they tell us, "that it is immoral to cause suffering in another human being, and abortion is inflicting suffering on a human being."

This contains two premises (causing suffering is bad, abortion causes suffering) and from them draws a conclusion (abortion causes suffering, therefore it is bad).
(you, the reader, may object on the grounds that death need not entail suffering - that is irrelevant for the purposes of the example)

The conclusion proceeding from these premises is valid; it is not fallacious reasoning. Accepting the premises, we must accept the conclusion. But suppose we consider these premises themselves. Are they justifiable? Need we accept them?
"How are you defining suffering?" we might say to this hypothetical person.
"The experience of pain and discomfort," they might answer.
"It seems to me that this requires a nervous system," we might answer.
"Yes, I suppose so, because otherwise there is no sensation occurring," they might answer.
"Then I reject your premise #2," we could then answer. "The early stages of prenatal development exhibit no nervous system or processing, and abortion under such conditions cannot be considered immoral."

This is an extraordinarily trivial example. Someone making a claim (X therefore Y) has been confronted with X not being true (or at least, not true as they conceived it). The premises must be adjusted (because they are here subject to empirical confirmation). If premise X were the sole grounds for concluding Y, then the conclusion Y must be abandoned as premise X is abandoned. It is nonetheless possible to continue believing Y; there exist other premises which admit of the same conclusion.

The former is more honest, but the latter needn't be dishonest. Where the latter runs into trouble is when no real justification for Y can be found. Can it still be held, absent that justification? Certainly, but it is not then a rational position - it might variously be called "emotional" or "intuitive" (and regular readers will know what I think of "intuitive" reasoning...). Of course, not all premises are empirically determined; there exists natural, inevitable statistical disagreement between human beings, particularly as concerns such things as the bases we use for assessing morality.

Much political disagreement is rooted in such foundational variation; nonetheless, many arguments and concerns do admit of a great deal of empirical analysis.
(the blind optimist in me hopes this will indicate for you the problems inherent to claiming an objective, perfectly rational-empirical stance)

This is all incredibly remedial stuff, and you could very easily find it at the beginning of any competent text on reasoning and argumentation. What I mean by introspection and self-awareness is the capacity to examine one's premises themselves - a willingness to examine why one cleaves to the bases one does. That means a recognition of just what one's foundational premises are - and this can be difficult, as much of our reasoning contains many hidden assumptions - and the openness required to assess and if need be adjust those premises if they admit of empirical influence.

I'm utterly befuddled by your apparent lack of familiarity with the idea of changing one's mind.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 03:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is an extraordinarily trivial example. Someone making a claim (X therefore Y) has been confronted with X not being true (or at least, not true as they conceived it). The premises must be adjusted (because they are here subject to empirical confirmation). If premise X were the sole grounds for concluding Y, then the conclusion Y must be abandoned as premise X is abandoned. It is nonetheless possible to continue believing Y; there exist other premises which admit of the same conclusion.

The former is more honest, but the latter needn't be dishonest. Where the latter runs into trouble is when no real justification for Y can be found. Can it still be held, absent that justification? Certainly; but it is not then a rational position.

This is all incredibly remedial stuff, and you could very easily find it at the beginning of any competent text on reasoning and argumentation.

I'm utterly befuddled by your apparent lack of familiarity with the idea of changing one's mind.
I said, please, not just science and stuff. And specific person. You made it about science, you mentioned nobody in particular and I haven't ever seen anyone talk about abortion that way. That is a purely hypothetical example. I don't see what's introspective and self-aware about it.

The problem with questions of a fetus and science is, they have nothing to do with morals or politics or whatever we talk about here. It's good that at least I got from you a stamp of approval on the idea of internal consistency. But if I can't get a name of self-aware and introspective person out of you, I'd at least like you to apply the logic on some political topic, such as taxes.

You can empirically point out a nerve system (or lack of thereof) on a fetus. Great. But you can't empirically find a difference between taxation and a mafia regularly and orderly taking "protection money" from local business. However, you have an option of declaring Al Capone an example of governance, I'd settle for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 03:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 03:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is an extraordinarily trivial example. Someone making a claim (X therefore Y) has been confronted with X not being true (or at least, not true as they conceived it). The premises must be adjusted (because they are here subject to empirical confirmation). If premise X were the sole grounds for concluding Y, then the conclusion Y must be abandoned as premise X is abandoned. It is nonetheless possible to continue believing Y; there exist other premises which admit of the same conclusion.

The former is more honest, but the latter needn't be dishonest. Where the latter runs into trouble is when no real justification for Y can be found. Can it still be held, absent that justification? Certainly; but it is not then a rational position.

This is all incredibly remedial stuff, and you could very easily find it at the beginning of any competent text on reasoning and argumentation.

I'm utterly befuddled by your apparent lack of familiarity with the idea of changing one's mind.
I said, please, not just science and stuff. And specific person. You made it about science, you mentioned nobody in particular and I haven't ever seen anyone talk about abortion that way. That is a purely hypothetical example. I don't see what's introspective and self-aware about it.

The problem with questions of a fetus and science is, they have nothing to do with morals or politics or whatever we talk about here. It's good that at least I got from you a stamp of approval on the idea of internal consistency. But if I can't get a name of self-aware and introspective person out of you, I'd at least like you to apply the logic on some political topic, such as taxes.

It's like you're not even trying.

What I just explicitly said was that some premises admit of empirical verification and some do not. I chose an example which led to a moral conclusion from empirically verifiable premises, because that is the sort which is readily amenable to change. If you are going to go full retard and attempt to claim that abortion is not a moral or political issue, that is, I suppose, your prerogative.

If you've never seen such discussion about abortion (not the exact details, which I simplified for illustrative purposes, but the process of justification for and against) then you've clearly never read the several threads about the topic on this very forum.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

If you do not see what is self-aware about examining one's own premises then I cannot help you - you are an incorrigible idiot.

(16-08-2014 03:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You can empirically point out a nerve system (or lack of thereof) on a fetus. Great. But you can't empirically find a difference between taxation and a mafia regularly and orderly taking "protection money" from local business.

A government is participatory. What it takes is subject to community approval, and what it uses that appropriation for is subject to community approval. Neither holds for a mafia.

You really aren't trying, are you?

Your congenital self-blindness defies credence. If your presuppositionalism is so deeply hardwired you're not only unable to recognise the phenomenon in yourself but unable to recognise its very existence... That's just pitiable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 04:00 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 03:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's like you're not even trying.

What I just explicitly said was that some premises admit of empirical verification and some do not. I chose an example which led to a moral conclusion from empirically verifiable premises, because that is the sort which is readily amenable to change. If you are going to go full retard and attempt to claim that abortion is not a moral or political issue, that is, I suppose, your prerogative.

If you've never seen such discussion about abortion (not the exact details, which I simplified for illustrative purposes, but the process of justification for and against) then you've clearly never read the several threads about the topic on this very forum.

Your ignorance is not my problem.

If you do not see what is self-aware about examining one's own premises then I cannot help you - you are an incorrigible idiot.
You did not choose an example, you made up an example. So I ask again, self-aware compared to what or whom? You don't know my premises, you never asked me about them or agreed on them or showed me what premises look like. How could you ever tell if I examined them or not?

(16-08-2014 03:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A government is participatory. What it takes is subject to community approval, and what it uses that appropriation for is subject to community approval. Neither holds for a mafia.

You really aren't trying, are you?
Trying what? Mafia ransom is participatory too! They make you an offer you can't refuse and you will participate. But what the hell is a community? Who gets to define who's a part of the community, map makers?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: