Register to Comment
Page 1074 of 1147 FirstFirst ... 74 574 974 1024 106410721073107410751076 1084 1124 ... LastLast
Results 10,731 to 10,740 of 11466
Like Tree3820Likes
  1. #10731
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,144

    Quote Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo View Post
    I still thing the opposite is true actually. I think it perfectly coherent AND consistent to say "IF you mediate X on Y, then if Y is absent you need not worry about X". I see nothing coherent OR consistent in then saying "Except when Y might be a factor in the future, then you might as well act like it is now".

    So I feel I can equally validly, in fact more so, level your own accusation back at you. It is you, not me, failing to offer convincing reasons to the contrary. The paragraph I levelled against AVoice above appears to apply equally validly here: "It is an issue for YOU therefore to establish why we should be mediating morality on future Maybes, rather than present certainties. A move you simply have not made any attempt to lend substance to."
    An argument that says that if "X [moral value] is based on Y [faculties for consciousness, sentience]........... then it is incoherent to apply X to an entity that entirely lacks Y [even though the entity is in the process of developing Y, and will shortly have Y]" is in itself incoherent and simplistic.

    As I keep saying, there's nothing at all incoherent, if we bestow moral worth on creatures with faculties for consciousness and sentience, in the fact that we would bestow moral worth on creatures that are in the process of developing those faculties - in fact it would logical to do so rather than not to do so. This is where your argument falls down.

    (And btw this "might be a factor in future" is totally disingenuous - the 16 weeks foetus is more or less certain to grow into a being with human consciousness, if it lives, it's not just that it might. Ok, something might go wrong, and it might die, but something might go wrong for any us and we might die at any time, so this is irrelevant).

    And not only is your argument lacking in rationality and logic, but it is also counter-intuitive - as I've shown most people would put a value in itself on the life of a 16 weeks foetus that they would not put on many other creatures who have reached the full "switched on" consciousness of their species.

    I'll leave it at this - I wanted to test your argument, and I'm satisfied now it doesn't work.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #10732
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,768

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    An argument that says that if "X [moral value] is based on Y [faculties for consciousness, sentience]........... then it is incoherent to apply X to an entity that entirely lacks Y [even though the entity is in the process of developing Y, and will shortly have Y]" is in itself incoherent and simplistic.

    As I keep saying, there's nothing at all incoherent, if we bestow moral worth on creatures with faculties for consciousness and sentience, in the fact that we would bestow moral worth on creatures that are in the process of developing those faculties - in fact it would logical to do so rather than not to do so. This is where your argument falls down.

    (And btw this "might be a factor in future" is totally disingenuous - the 16 weeks foetus is more or less certain to grow into a being with human consciousness, if it lives, it's not just that it might. Ok, something might go wrong, and it might die, but something might go wrong for any us and we might die at any time, so this is irrelevant).

    And not only is your argument lacking in rationality and logic, but it is also counter-intuitive - as I've shown most people would put a value in itself on the life of a 16 weeks foetus that they would not put on many other creatures who have reached the full "switched on" consciousness of their species.

    I'll leave it at this - I wanted to test your argument, and I'm satisfied now it doesn't work.
    TS,

    Nozzie's was a utilitarian argument, in my view, that most of us could see straight away as such.

    You haven't tested anything.


    _________________



    ON A SEPARATE SUBJECT ENTIRELY, you will be claiming next you exposed Shrodinger's cat theory. Are you Half-State's twin? Here's a joke for ye -


    Shrodinger's cat was in O'Reilly's bar, and the bar tender handed him a glass of Guinness and said that will be 4 Euros The cat laughed and said I will pay you 2 Euros, as the glass is both full and empty. The bar tender is incensed and fires a gun at the cat. The cat falls on the floor dead and walks out the door.


    Quantum mechanics is counter intuitive, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.



    Starry waives copyright to all her jokes. ... ...
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #10733
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,768

    Seriously, Medium Starry received this message from beyond the veil -

    Quote Originally Posted by Calculusmadeeasy View Post
    "Repeal the 8th".
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #10734
    nozzferrahhtoo nozzferrahhtoo is offline
    nozzferrahhtoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,149

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    Pathetic!

    When the pro-choice mob lose the debate on the levels of science, reason and human rights, they invariably opt for religion...proving that they know sweet all about anything.
    So nice of you to preface your post with such an accurate description of it's content! Your post is titled well, it was indeed pathetic from you.

    The main reason being you have not even HAD the debate. You just throw in personal side swipes at people from the sidelines. So I most certainly have not "lost" any debate here. Least of all to you.

    But you keep claiming over and over again there is something wrong with my science. Yet what is TRUELY PATHETIC is that every time I ask you to quote some of my science and show why it is false..... you simply run away. Every. Single. Time.

    And now you compound this by moving to "religion" and doing essentially the same thing. Screaming that I know nothing about it, or something I have said is false, but never actually saying what or how.

    You genuinely appear to believe that shouting "wrong" at something long enough will actually magically make it wrong.

    So yes, you got it absolutely right by titling your post "Pathetic!". I could not have said it better myself. Or at least I certainly couldn't if I were you.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    An argument that says that if "X [moral value] is based on Y [faculties for consciousness, sentience]........... then it is incoherent to apply X to an entity that entirely lacks Y [even though the entity is in the process of developing Y, and will shortly have Y]" is in itself incoherent and simplistic.
    Except the opposite is true. It is incoherent what you are selling because, as I said "It is an issue for YOU therefore to establish why we should be mediating morality on future Maybes, rather than present certainties. A move you simply have not made any attempt to lend substance to."

    You have not done this. This is where your argument falls down. And where mine stands unassailable. You simply ASSUME it, usually with appeals to "intuition" and little else. But if you want to show your idea to be coherent and mine not, then mere assumption of the only sole point that would in fact do that......... is not really going to get you there.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    And not only is your argument lacking in rationality and logic
    It's not. You are just basically taking the same approach as Half Nelson above now where you declare something to be wrong or illogical, but never actually show that it is. In fact because you are OPENLY appealing SOLELY to little more than "intuition" and "the majority" to support your case.... it is by definition YOU that is abandoning logic and rationality to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    it is also counter-intuitive
    So what? That is AT BEST entirely irrelevant. Human intuition is flawed and there are MANY things in this world that are counter-intuitive but turn out to be true. There are MANY things in this world that make perfect common sense to our intuitions and turn out to be entirely false. Appeals to intuition are red herrings at best, and sheer desperation at worst. Intuition is a useful guide in many areas of life, but it certainly needs to be continually tested and questioned at the same time.

    Next time you are in the pub test human intuition with your friends. Bring a sheet of paper. Flat, cut it in half and put the two halves on top of each other. Then cut THEM in half and place them on top of each other (you now have 4 sheets of paper in a pile).

    Ask your friends if you did the same thing 98 more times, so you have done it 100 times, how tall would the stack of paper be. The LARGEST answer a friend ever gave me was "As tall as this pub". They were shocked, to say the least, to learn that the pile would be so high that light ITSELF would take EONS to traverse it's length.

    That's Human Intuition for you. And I already challenged, unanswered as it happens, human intuition on moral issues too with reference to the trolley problem. Showing that human intuition will lead groups of people to POLAR OPPOSITE decisions in two seemingly different moral situations.......... despite the fact that the outcomes, increases and decreases in suffering, and all other results of it would be essentially the same.

    Human Intuition is simply a fail on such issues, and a double fail as the sole basis for rebuttal to my views.

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    most people
    Populum Fallacy. I am interested not in what "most people" do but what most people would argue (if they can, you can not) as the basis for what they are doing. I simply do not seem them as being intellectually consistent. I accept what "most people" do, and why. I just think they are falling for emotional fallacies that are over ruling reason in the event. Any my arguments are in no way rendered invalid or rebutted by appeals to "most people".

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    I'll leave it at this - I wanted to test your argument, and I'm satisfied now it doesn't work.
    Except it does, and has managed to be unassailable by your dismissals, populum fallacies, and appeals to intuition. My argument certainly is not negated by you, and most certainly not by fallacies.

    But you do give me a wonderful opportunity to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of forum posting". This is a tongue in cheek law I coined some years ago but have been amazed at how true it has held to be. It reads "The probability of a user replying to you again go UP in proportion to the number of times they claim to be done with the conversation".

    Let us see if Nozz's Law strikes again. It has about a 95% success rate.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #10735
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,768

    You prefer your name to be abbreviated to Nozz. Cool! Much better than Nozzie. The possessive apostrophe for Nozzie can be a problem.

    I didn't want to call you Nozzy in case you were ever confused with myself

    Nozz it is.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #10736
    nozzferrahhtoo nozzferrahhtoo is offline
    nozzferrahhtoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,149

    Well if one is compelled to abbreviate something at all, then it makes sense.... I guess..... to choose the shortest of the workable abbreviations on offer.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #10737
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,768

    Nozz,

    I for one gettcha. Yours is a utilitarian explanation for morality. Not for sake of virtue, there are practical reasons.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #10738
    talkingshop talkingshop is offline
    talkingshop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,144

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    TS,

    Nozzie's was a utilitarian argument, in my view, that most of us could see straight away as such.

    You haven't tested anything.


    _________________

    As far as I am concerned I have, which is all I was interested in.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #10739
    nozzferrahhtoo nozzferrahhtoo is offline
    nozzferrahhtoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,149

    Quote Originally Posted by StarryPlough01 View Post
    I for one gettcha. Yours is a utilitarian explanation for morality. Not for sake of virtue, there are practical reasons.
    If you say so I am not one for labels. I have been told my positions on things match certain labels before, and when I dig into the label I find about 60% of the label matches me and the rest doesn't. I think people too keen, sometimes, to LABEL what you espouse in order to put it in a box. But all too often I do not fit in the box provided.

    So I prefer to offer my positions, and consider the positions of others, on their own merits, rather than on the merits of the closest fitting label. But that is just me I guess. YMMV

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    As far as I am concerned I have, which is all I was interested in.
    And as far as I am concerned Lisa Hannigan is in love with me and wants rampant sex with me. Alas, it does not make it true
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10740
    StarryPlough01 StarryPlough01 is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    8,768

    Quote Originally Posted by talkingshop View Post
    As far as I am concerned I have, which is all I was interested in.
    You ACED the absurdity test (10 out of 10). That's quite a performance.

    (We were the guinea pigs for Nozz's ideas. Nozz was testing us. He said this at the outset.)


    _______
    You say I'm crazy
    'Cause you don't think I know what you've done
    But when you call me baby
    'I know I'm not the only one'
    (Sam Smith)


    lol
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment