Hi, I'm Mick

[pErvinalia]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

[FBM]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

Well, it's hard to be honest when you're defending systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology.

[Mick]

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.

I think most people do. You might enjoy this:

http://i.imgur.com/1PjSMwz.png

http://i.imgur.com/RqcAgVa.png

http://i.imgur.com/d2JZGKx.jpg

It is certainly naive to go directly from a biological "is" to an ethical "ought". However, the background of a biological picture of humans as a species whose characteristics are partly determined by millions of years of natural selection is too valuable to be dismissed. Any view of humans, and how they behave or should behave that views them purely as a tabla rasa is doomed to failure.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, as ethics doesn't really play into anything related to blank slatism. You can have a perfectly valid ethical system which completely rejects all known biological facts and that wouldn't be a case of blank slatism.

You're not understanding the theory here.

I understand fine, I think you might be referring to natural law, not the naturalist rejection of is-ought Seth is advocating.

Medicine is fine, since it corrects the natural function of whatever or preserves the natural function of a higher good. This is also the same for surgery.

How are you defining "higher good"?

Driving a car is fine. This is looked at as an extension of a natural function. Yet, the middle line is emphasized. If you drive so much that you neglect to exercise your legs, that they become weak and frail, then that's an issue.

Why isn't having sex for fun or having sex with other men an extension of natural function?

Why the fuck can't you own property?

Because ownership of property isn't natural and if someone argues that we should conform to natural standards, then you're in a bit of a pickle there.

Rape is a good thing? What?1?!

There is evidence that rape is a natural mating strategy and has been good in promoting the survival of our species.

I hold the same for lesbians.

Then good for you, many don't.

A sterile, heterosexual couple who do not use contraception do nothing to frustrate the end of sex. So, it is not an issue.

But they are using sex without procreating.

A higher good might be a natural faculty with greater conduciveness to the being of a person. Suppose I get surgery to put in a cochlear implant. This is for the greater good of my being, since it helps or correct my hearing, allows me to engage in the hearing world, hear speech sound, etc..

Homosexual sex isn't an extension of sex, since the telos of sex is frustrated. Extensions aren't supposed to frustrate the end.

Ownership is not unnatural in the relevant sense. Naturalness pertains to form and end. where do you see these aspects frustrated?

Rape occurs in nature, sure. But that doesn't make it natural in the relevant sense. Plenty of conditions occur in nature naturally. Club foot is a natural occurrence, but it is unnatural or disordered in the sense of form and end. There is a fallacious equivocation going on here.

Using sex without procreating? Well, they're having sex and it will most likely not lead to procreation. But so what? Nothing they are doing and intending is frustrating the end of sex. Mind you, if you had sex with a barren women with the intent of having sex without being open to procreation, that is, so you could have sex without pregnancy, then that is an issue. However, a couple who happens to be sterile do not frustrate a natural end, so long as they are open to procreating.

[Svartalf]

I have to support FBM, sending us to an unspecified thread in another forum is unfair to those who dislike that forum or are banned from it outright.

ergo, we are ready for you evidence, we yearn for enlightenment in the comfort of our favored place.

[Mick]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/forma ... 40924.html

I've always been ready to defend my ideas.

[Mick]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

Well, it's hard to be honest when you're defending systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology.

I did not defend that.

[Hermit]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

Well, it's hard to be honest when you're defending systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology.

I did not defend that.

You're not a catholic?

[FBM]

I'm starting to see why he wasn't considered an honest contributor at ratskep.

Well, it's hard to be honest when you're defending systematic pedophilia, mass murder and anachronistic Bronze Age mythology.

I did not defend that.

It is catholicism. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is directly a result of this fetish with a Bronze Age myth. Bring on the evidence that it is true.

[macdoc]

New chew toy FBM



That looks awfully like a Canon lens.

[FBM]

New chew toy FBM

[img]https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6687451136/h0ACEE1E1/[img]

That looks awfully like a Canon lens.

Definitely Canon. Hope the photog was alright.

[pErvinalia]

My general rule of thumb when looking at philosophical concepts is to see what Sam Harris thinks. In your wiki link it seems that Harris doesn't accept the naturalistic fallacy and so, in that case, I must accept the validity of the naturalistic fallacy (since Harris is usually wrong).

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. I find Harris's arguments spectacularly naive.

I think most people do. You might enjoy this:

http://i.imgur.com/1PjSMwz.png

http://i.imgur.com/RqcAgVa.png

http://i.imgur.com/d2JZGKx.jpg

It is certainly naive to go directly from a biological "is" to an ethical "ought". However, the background of a biological picture of humans as a species whose characteristics are partly determined by millions of years of natural selection is too valuable to be dismissed. Any view of humans, and how they behave or should behave that views them purely as a tabla rasa is doomed to failure.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, as ethics doesn't really play into anything related to blank slatism. You can have a perfectly valid ethical system which completely rejects all known biological facts and that wouldn't be a case of blank slatism.

You're not understanding the theory here.

I understand fine, I think you might be referring to natural law, not the naturalist rejection of is-ought Seth is advocating.

Medicine is fine, since it corrects the natural function of whatever or preserves the natural function of a higher good. This is also the same for surgery.

How are you defining "higher good"?

Driving a car is fine. This is looked at as an extension of a natural function. Yet, the middle line is emphasized. If you drive so much that you neglect to exercise your legs, that they become weak and frail, then that's an issue.

Why isn't having sex for fun or having sex with other men an extension of natural function?

Why the fuck can't you own property?

Because ownership of property isn't natural and if someone argues that we should conform to natural standards, then you're in a bit of a pickle there.

Rape is a good thing? What?1?!

There is evidence that rape is a natural mating strategy and has been good in promoting the survival of our species.

I hold the same for lesbians.

Then good for you, many don't.

A sterile, heterosexual couple who do not use contraception do nothing to frustrate the end of sex. So, it is not an issue.

But they are using sex without procreating.

A higher good might be a natural faculty with greater conduciveness to the being of a person. Suppose I get surgery to put in a cochlear implant. This is for the greater good of my being, since it helps or correct my hearing, allows me to engage in the hearing world, hear speech sound, etc..

Homosexual sex isn't an extension of sex, since the telos of sex is frustrated. Extensions aren't supposed to frustrate the end.

Ownership is not unnatural in the relevant sense. Naturalness pertains to form and end. where do you see these aspects frustrated?

Rape occurs in nature, sure. But that doesn't make it natural in the relevant sense. Plenty of conditions occur in nature naturally. Club foot is a natural occurrence, but it is unnatural or disordered in the sense of form and end. There is a fallacious equivocation going on here.

Using sex without procreating? Well, they're having sex and it will most likely not lead to procreation. But so what? Nothing they are doing and intending is frustrating the end of sex. Mind you, if you had sex with a barren women with the intent of having sex without being open to procreation, that is, so you could have sex without pregnancy, then that is an issue. However, a couple who happens to be sterile do not frustrate a natural end, so long as they are open to procreating.

That's still a naturalistic fallacy. Why is a "natural end", whatever that is, relevant to anything at all?

[FBM]

I'm thinking he's not up to snuff on logical fallacies.

[Mick]

Spinoza asked a question on this topic. He laments not asking me before I got tossed, so I'll just answer it here, hoping he sees it.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 45683.html

Theists of this sort will eschew mechanistic models of evolution and favour teleological ones. Thus, they embrace ideas of flourishing organs, organisms, or whatever. Contra Dawkins, nothing about evolution per se entails the falsity of form and finality, nothing even suggests that organs and organisms do not have forms or are not directed toward or point to an end. Instead, this denial is predicated on a model of how we interpret the evidence, the mechanistic model. To the extent that we favor this model, we cannot account for the regularity of things. We only throw the problem under the rug. This is why we see many a modern philosopher turning to dispositional properties.

Now why we don't need to turn to evolutionary histories is simple: They're not needed. To infer that the eye is directed toward seeing, I don't need to know the evolution of the eye. Indeed, I don't know the evolution of the eye, but its end is remarkably clear to me. Form and finality, are inferred through the light of the intellect and observation. When we see regularity within the behavior of the eye (offering the ability to see) and note its worth for the good of the organism at whole (being able to see is a good thing for the human organism, I suppose we agree without much argument), we can infer its proper function, without any reference to evolutionary history. Yet, we can only do this if we embrace form and finality--the mechanistic model doesn't allow for it.

One of the huge downfalls of the mechanistic model is that we need to grab the norm for how our mental states ought to be from outside the nature of the mind or brain itself. if it has no inherent proper function, then there is no inherent particular way or function the mind or brain ought to behave. The norm for it being improper is external; it comes from a projected value system---it cannot but fall into relativism.

[FBM]

So anyway, got any evidence of this god of yours?

[macdoc]

similar output



equally odiferous.

At least the manure serves a purpose.

Do you really think anyone here gives a flying fuck bout your crap Mick.? Go seduce some CYC school girls with your profundity