debates that matter

Stephen Fretwell responds to me:

quote:

---

These responses to my arguments re Pascal's Wager adequately demonstrate, I think, my point that without an outside judge, there can be no resolution.

---

And thus, it is worthless to assert the Wager like you did.We can't know what god is up to until we get outside the system and can observe god directly. Since we cannot do that, we cannot judge his motives and thus, we cannot get anything useful out of the Wager.

quote:

---

So, the debate goes nowhere, and is useless, to me at least.

---

Then why do you continue it? If you had nothing to say, why did you respond?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

To Rrhain,"Then why do you continue it? If you had nothing to say, why did you respond?"Being a scientist, I enjoy replicating experiments that validate a new idea. Of course I had, and have, plenty to say. But, I haven't got used to the idea that sandlot debating is rather futile.But here's another question, to test another of my hypotheses. How much vitamin C do you take? I am predicting that it's less than half a gram per day. Am I right?

Stephen Fretwell responds to me:I thought this debate was useless to you. Why do you continue it?

quote:

---

But here's another question, to test another of my hypotheses. How much vitamin C do you take? I am predicting that it's less than half a gram per day. Am I right?

---

Nope.Now then, what was the purpose of this non sequitur troll?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain,You ask two questions: Why do I continue this debate, and why do I ask about vitamin C.1. Are we still debating Pascal's Wager? I thought we were looking at the idea that debates that matter need attention to rules, and judges. Also, come to think of it, coaches, if we are to take full advantage of the sports model. And perhaps, we are testing those ideas by attempting to communicate without those supports, and showing how well that can be done. Or not.2. I was hoping you'd ask about vitamin C! As I probe into the subject of applied epistemology, watching how Homo sapiens goes about being sapienistic, I have considered how the biochemistry of the species might influence the process. My current MPH (most plausible hypothesis) is that effective epistemological strategies are dependent on an interaction between the will to live and eating what makes you healthier and smarter. And, while it is strongly suspected, and probably true that DHA raises your IQ, the clinical studies have only confirmed this for vitamin C, the more the better. I made my prediction about you not taking vitamin C, because I thought I detected a weakness in your will to live, which would be manifested in a neglect of nutrition that would enhance life and living. Looks like I was either not assessing your will to live accurately, or that vitamin C intake is poorly correlated with this human variable.

Stephen Fretwell responds to me:

quote:

---

Are we still debating Pascal's Wager?

---

Yes. You keep responding.

quote:

---

I thought we were looking at the idea that debates that matter need attention to rules, and judges.

---

As it pertains to Pascal's Wager.

quote:

---

I made my prediction about you not taking vitamin C, because I thought I detected a weakness in your will to live

---

(*chuckle*)I love being psychoanalyzed over the internet. I always learn such wonderful things about myself. Now I'm suicidal!

quote:

---

Looks like I was either not assessing your will to live accurately, or that vitamin C intake is poorly correlated with this human variable.

---

You mean it can't be both? It can't be that vitamin C isn't related to it and you don't know what you're talking about?By the way...be careful with megadoses of vitamin C. While it is a water-soluble, overdosing on it can cause diarrhea, abdominal cramps, high stomach acid, increased urination, insomnia, irritability, joint pains, osteoporosis, headaches, hypoglycemia, weakness, reduced estrogen, PMS, and may increase infections by causing copper deficiency. Fortunately, this tends not to happen except in extremely high levels (20 grams).------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain,Yes, yes, you're winning me! Keep it up!But, No, No, it's debates we're debating, with Pascal's Wager an example that has already proved my point.!As to your suicidal tendecies and vitamin C, I'll go with and/or.But the real fun is dick waving with vitamin C. So, are you hip to the difference between mineral ascorbates and ascorbic acid? Especially as relates to side effects, etc. And what about intravenous Na ascorbate.To you....

No, we're not going to turn this into a discussion of ascorbic acid. Let's stick to the topic.------------------
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Stephen Fretwell responds to me:

quote:

---

Pascal's Wager an example that has already proved my point.!

---

No, it actually disproves it. Pascal's Wager rests upon the claim that the particular religion being espoused trumps all others.There is no reason for this claim to be accepted. Ergo, it is discarded.Now, do you really think this discussion is useless or are you going to go against your direct statement and respond?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Adminasgara,Ah, there you are! Great, because you can resolve this! I claim that the topic is, "Is it possible to have a debate that matters without an outside judge to settle differences." Rhhain argues that the topic is Pascal's Wager, which was being discussed, I thought, as an example of a debate that we cannot resolve because there is no outside judge. After several exchanges on Pascal's Wager, I thought it was clearly demonstrated that we were not communicating, due to various debating fouls that there was no outside judge to call.So, on this issue, where are we, in your opinion?As to ascorbic acid being off-topic, I concede that it might be. My point in bringing it up concerns basic motivation for discussions and debates, which is, I thought, on topic (debates that matter). Athletes that only play street ball are doing sports out of motivation that differs from those who accept the disciplines of coaching and referees. It's a question of wanting to matter, to make a difference, to the community in which we live. Similarly with debates and discussions. Some want to resolve issues that will influence the progress and health of our community or nation or world. Others are here for other reasons. In my "people watching," I believe that I have detected a correlation between wanting to matter, in general (including sports, debates, relationships) and response to the vitamin C controversy. The underlying variable is the strength of the will to live, the choice of a glorious life over a comfortable or painless one.But, having said that, I see your point. We have already proved that we cannot resolve Pascal's Wager without a judge. No point in making the same point again with vitamin C.Stephen

Rrhain,You fail to understand that I am discussing debates that matter, only going along with a discussion of Pascal's Wager (which someone else brought up) as a useful example. See, you are still claiming "no reason" while I still believe it is a very reasonable and useful idea to those wanting to matter in this life, in debates, understanding the Bible, religious life, whatever. We have no resolution whatsoever, I argue because we have no one volunteering to referee the debate, to say, call a foul on a "no reason" argument.So, your responses continue to confirm my original point, and I continue to note that this is the case. I suppose that I am hoping that someone will volunteer, and we'll have a discussion of rules that we both could agree to. Then we could open a Pascal's Wager thread under such terms and see if we could have a discussion where you, I, and the world would learn something and be improved. A debate that matters.Stephen

It's a "Welcome, Visitors!" topic.Long term, detailed debate should be elsewhere.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads