Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery 2012
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 61 of 83 (673607)
09-20-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by New Cat's Eye
09-20-2012 2:16 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
Catholic Scientist writes:
opprobrium
pusillanimous
There used to be a curmudgeonly character on some TV show or movie (I'm thinking Grandpa on Lassie but I could be wrong) who called people he didn't like, "pusilanimous polecats." In other words, he looked on them with opprobrium.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 83 (673609)
09-20-2012 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
09-20-2012 2:20 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
Well, then, you're welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 83 (673610)
09-20-2012 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
09-20-2012 2:35 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
Do you use a Thesaurus, or something, or are those words just a part of your normal vocabulary? When's the last time you used either of those words?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 64 of 83 (673613)
09-20-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
09-20-2012 2:39 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
Do you use a Thesaurus, or something, or are those words just a part of your normal vocabulary?
Flat-out part of my normal vocabulary. I was an English major for a while. I love me some ten-dollar words.
When's the last time you used either of those words?
At EvC? November 2007 was the last time I appear to have used "opprobrium", and June 2005 was when I last used "pusillanimous." According to the search.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-20-2012 2:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 65 of 83 (673615)
09-20-2012 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
09-20-2012 2:49 PM


Re: Crashfrog vocabulary
I was an English major for a while.
Ah, ok.
At EvC? November 2007 was the last time I appear to have used "opprobrium", and June 2005 was when I last used "pusillanimous." According to the search.
I meant, like, ever, but that's cool. Thanks man.
Here's a funny picture:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 09-20-2012 2:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 83 (674449)
09-29-2012 3:34 AM


Nonukes on slavery
FRom Message 85:
Is it your argument that the word "Natural" and "Biological" in the title implies that the authors have taken the position that rape is not evil? Are you surprised that I find that position inane?
I haven't read that article. But I can see that a biological basis for a behavior would eliminate the evil associated with it.
Your have no point. Regardless of our purpose or lack of purpose here, we can reach the conclusion that harming each other is evil.
In what way?
Yes, you could have used Stalin instead of the Nazis, but to no better effect. You don't have to be a Christian to understand that murder is evil.
Murder to prevent futher evil could be understood as non-evil.
I'll note that the Bible takes a fairly tolerant view on slavery, even endorsing slavery on occasion. Is slavery really evil, or do I need to take some historical context into account? How is that not relativism of the most odious order.
Moral slavery is not an impossiblity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2012 7:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 68 by caffeine, posted 10-01-2012 9:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 67 of 83 (674599)
09-30-2012 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Nonukes on slavery
Murder to prevent futher evil could be understood as non-evil.
Are all killings of humans defined as murder?
I haven't read that article. But I can see that a biological basis for a behavior would eliminate the evil associated with it.
A biological basis that compelled rape would eliminate the evil, but rape simply having a biological component would not necessarily eliminate the evil. I would suggest that before asserting that the case has been made that you do read the article.
Moral slavery is not an impossiblity.
I'll point out again that we are talking about slavery as described in the Bible verses I cited. I don't see any excuse or anything moral about owning a person in the way described in those verses. If you do, I'm willing to hear your description of how it is moral.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
It's not too late to register to vote. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2012 3:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 68 of 83 (674627)
10-01-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2012 3:34 AM


Re: Nonukes on slavery
I haven't read that article. But I can see that a biological basis for a behavior would eliminate the evil associated with it
Well that seems a bizarre attitude to take. All behaviour has a biological basis. If that eliminates the evil associated with something then there's no such thing as evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2012 3:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 83 (696687)
04-18-2013 9:47 AM


Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
RAZ writes:
it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented
Message 220
Doesn't this sum-up the absurdity of RAZ's position?
How the hell is it logically possible to show that something non-imagined is imagined?
Bluegenes has pointed out the stupidity of this in his reply but I thought it deserved highlighting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 70 of 83 (696690)
04-18-2013 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Straggler
04-18-2013 9:47 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Does the term Non-imagined in this context mean real?
The statement to me reads as:
it is my job t point out your failure to identfy, test and show that REAL supernatural beings are imagined/invented.
Perhaps RAZD should clarify this statement if this is what he meant.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 9:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 10:50 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 83 (696691)
04-18-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Can you give an example of a REAL supernatural being....?
Because now it just looks like a demand for a real SB to be shown to be non-real. Which is equally logically impossible as RAZ's idiotic demand.
Anyway - If there are any real/non-imagined SBs then presenting evidence of these will falsify bluegenes theory. That's the entire point.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:28 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 72 of 83 (696693)
04-18-2013 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
04-18-2013 10:50 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Hey don't shoot the messenger. I just pointed out that the statement could be read a different way.
Only RAZD knows what he meant.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 10:50 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 10:56 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 83 (696694)
04-18-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 10:55 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
But I don't think you have stated it in a different way simply by using a different word. Because I am lost as to what the difference between REAL and non-imagined is in this context......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:55 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Stile, posted 04-18-2013 11:18 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 75 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 11:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 74 of 83 (696695)
04-18-2013 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
04-18-2013 10:56 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
I don't understand RAZD's objection's either.
I don't understand how anyone could object to the clear and (very) patient way bluegenes has been explaining the scientific method.
Even RAZD's example doesn't make sense to me:
RAZD writes:
In science, if you make a claim that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are extinct, and people tell you that there are unconfirmed sightings of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana swamps, you do not claim that they are the product of imagination -- you investigate or you change your opinion to allow the possibility that some sightings may be real.
Message 220
This example is very true. You investigate the sightings... but the claim is not weakened until actual repeatable, objective evidence of the actual Ivory Billed Woodpeckers is found.
Which is exactly the same with imaginary SBs.
Many "sightings" have been claimed.
And they have been investigated.
And no repeatable, objective evidence of SBs has ever been identified.
If the Ivory Billed Woodpecker sightings are investigated.
And no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is found.
...and this happens many times (as has happened with SBs)
...and no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is ever found.
...doesn't this add confidence to the theory that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is extinct?
Therefore, the fact that so many sightings of SBs have been investigated and no evidence is ever found indicates that confidence is added to bluegenes' theory.
I don't understand why RAZD is bringing up an example that helps prove bluegenes' point... and then act as if bluegenes is wrong. It doesn't make sense to me.
I am failing to see why RAZD included this woodpecker example. I feel that if RAZD's reasoning for the example could be identified, then RAZD's issues with bluegene's theory would become clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 10:56 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 11:52 AM Stile has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 75 of 83 (696696)
04-18-2013 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
04-18-2013 10:56 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Straggler writes:
How the hell is it logically possible to show that something non-imagined is imagined?
If what is meant by imagined is that it does not exist outside of the human imagination.
Then to say it is (non-imagined/real) means it exist apart from the human imagination.
However I am not sure that is what is intended.
But to me it seems that is the only way it could be interpreted.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 04-18-2013 10:56 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024