Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

Recommended Posts

Guest Paul
Really?  How (suspecting yet another LaClair Assertion Without Evidence (or LAWe) ?

That's doubletalk.

It appears to suggest that if one is reasonable, then intuition provides the solution, but if reason fails then intuition won't help--but LaClair began his appeal to intuition, it seems, when his attempts to argue his point using reason came up empty.

Paul seems to add intuition as a magic ingredient that makes poorly-reasoned arguments reasonable, in effect.

Non sequitur.  Having common sense is the barrier to understanding Paul's doubletalk, not the key to unlocking the meaning.

Paul is a philosophical and logical maladroit pretending to be something else.

Bryan, you're a human being aspiring to be a robot. Do you really not see that life is too complex to be reduced to a set of syllogisms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bryan, you're a human being aspiring to be a robot.

If I insult you deliberately in the manner you tend to do will that make you feel better?

I don't apologize for constructing arguments that avoid logical fallacies.

Paul knows nothing of my person life, of the hours I've volunteered in the service of the public--none of it. He resorts to this type of personal attack because he's got nothing else.

Do you really not see that life is too complex to be reduced to a set of syllogisms?

We're not talking about life. We're talking about a number of specific issues for which the construction of valid syllogisms would be valuable.

Pathetic response, LaClair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You deliberately market poison to our children: you get to "earn" and keep billions and billions of dollars.

Don't forget about the women that spilled hot coffee on herself and then sued McDonalds. And won.

I thought that the lawyer on Seinfeld, Jackie Chiles, was inspired by Mr. Johnny. Now I'm starting to think he was inspired by our very own Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
We're not talking about life.  We're talking about a number of specific issues for which the construction of valid syllogisms would be valuable.

Pathetic response, LaClair.

Valuable for what, nitwit? If it's not valuable in life, then where or how is it valuable?

Pathetic argument, Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
We're not talking about life.  We're talking about a number of specific issues for which the construction of valid syllogisms would be valuable.

Pathetic response, LaClair.

Valuable to whom? Your morally perfect rock? Bryan, how can even you imagine that we can discuss what is valuable if "We're not talking about life?" If you keep meeting yourself coming 'round the barn often enough, sooner or later even you are going to recognize yourself. Maybe you should have a picnic with your various re-creations to talk it all over --- make sure you bring plenty of sandwiches, though, because there are plenty of you.

I've been trying to get you to talk about life, but you insist on talking about beings who are contingent/non-contingent, perfect but not divinely perfect, etc. Why don't we open a topic on how many fairies are needed to screw in a light bulb. We could draw distinctions between European fairies and African fairies (What . . . is your name?!), and whether the light bulb was morally perfect or really just got turned on trying to look up the fairies' skirts. Assuming, of course, that they were female fairies. Or maybe even if they weren't. Was it a boy light bulb or a girl light bulb? Makes a difference! Should all be fascinating.

Now it may be hard for you to understand, Bryan, but some of us are more interested in whether a religion helps give meaning, purpose and a sense of direction to our lives. Does it make us better people? You fundies have managed to make religion not only meaningless and purposeless, but harmful, destructive and ugly. I've tried to get you to think, for example, about whether hell would serve any purpose, but your only response is to say that if God says it's just, then it's just. "God said it, I believe it, end of story." Be honest for once: "I believe God said it, and I refuse to think about anything that challenges what I believe." That's the reality of what you're doing in real life terms, so it's no surprise that to you "we're not talking about life." If you face the fact, you'll have to change your beliefs, and that's the last thing you're willing to do.

Let's put what you're doing in physical terms. Go into the country, where there are no buildings or trees to interfere with your view of the full sky. Take a powerful light, turn it on and stand in front of it. Congratulations, you just projected yourself onto the entire night sky, written yourself large onto the vast screen of the universe. That's all your so-called theology is about: your projection of yourself onto the universe, i.e., your projection of yourself as God.

So when you write "We're not talking about life," speak for yourself. You're not, but I am. That is exactly what I've been telling you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Don't forget about the women that spilled hot coffee on herself and then sued McDonalds.  And won.

I thought that the lawyer on Seinfeld, Jackie Chiles, was inspired by Mr. Johnny.  Now I'm starting to think he was inspired by our very own Paul.

Don't forget either about the fact that a jury awarded that verdict after they found out that McDonalds was deliberately making its coffee too hot for people to drink, with the intention that they wouldn't be able to drink it and ask for a free refill (the come-on in the ad campaign), and had written memoranda saying they'd be money ahead even though they knew some people would be burned by the coffee.

As I've said before, I understand your point, but you don't respect mine. Waste no occasion to ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Valuable to whom? Your morally perfect rock? Bryan, how can even you imagine that we can discuss what is valuable if "We're not talking about life?"

If you mean it that broadly then your objection is even less coherent.

If you keep meeting yourself coming 'round the barn often enough, sooner or later even you are going to recognize yourself. Maybe you should have a picnic with your various re-creations to talk it all over --- make sure you bring plenty of sandwiches, though, because there are plenty of you.

I've been trying to get you to talk about life, but you insist on talking about beings who are contingent/non-contingent, perfect but not divinely perfect, etc.

So you don't intend to work in an explanation as to how you justify the claim that hell contradicts the nature of god?

Get real. You're just playing a game of evasion.

Why don't we open a topic on how many fairies are needed to screw in a light bulb.

Go ahead, but you might want to rephrase the subject header to guard against a potential lawsuit.

Seriously--I don't insist that you stop dodging, but I'm going to keep pointing it out so long as it figures so prominently in your strategy. If you can address the issues, why not address them?

Now it may be hard for you to understand, Bryan, but some of us are more interested in whether a religion helps give meaning, purpose and a sense of direction to our lives. Does it make us better people? You fundies have managed to make religion not only meaningless and purposeless, but harmful, destructive and ugly.

What a harmful, destructive, and ugly thing to say!

:lol:

It was Christians and other theists (Deists) who fashioned the Constitution. Harmful, destructive, ugly! Harmful, destructive, ugly! Everyone repeat after Paul!

I've tried to get you to think, for example, about whether hell would serve any purpose, but your only response is to say that if God says it's just, then it's just.

If you're reading my posts, then you know that's not true. If you haven't been reading them, then you have no business making that claim.

My argument was that if I were simply to proclaim God just I would have presented justification equal to yours in terms of philosophical strength.

Repeat that untruth again, and it will reinforce the impression that you are a liar.

... and the idea that you post in order to induce others to think is ludicrous. You flubbed up the logic and philosophy so badly that you ended up appealing to intuition as a part of logic.

"God said it, I believe it, end of story." Be honest for once: "I believe God said it, and I refuse to think about anything that challenges what I believe." That's the reality of what you're doing in real life terms, so it's no surprise that to you "we're not talking about life." If you face the fact, you'll have to change your beliefs, and that's the last thing you're willing to do.

The amount of evasion this man will attempt in order to avoid presenting a reasoned case suggesting the injustice of hell (see again the OP by Mr. LaClair) is simply staggering.

He stumbles in his attempt to make his case, so suddenly it's all about what system produces the "best" results for humanity (best according to whom?).

Let's put what you're doing in physical terms. Go into the country, where there are no buildings or trees to interfere with your view of the full sky. Take a powerful light, turn it on and stand in front of it. Congratulations, you just projected yourself onto the entire night sky, written yourself large onto the vast screen of the universe. That's all your so-called theology is about: your projection of yourself onto the universe, i.e., your projection of yourself as God.

Just a reminder: I'm the one willing to argue the issue using reason. You're the one appealing to intuition as a feature of logic and running away from his OP claim in favor of making his own god-like claim about the "best" system.

When Paul judges the system as "best" to what value system does he appeal? Why, that same old system that he keeps failing to justify philosophically (because of his logical fallacies).

So when you write "We're not talking about life," speak for yourself. You're not, but I am. That is exactly what I've been telling you.

Okay, so since the alleged contradiction between hell and justice is "about life" why don't you proceed to demonstrate the alleged contradiction without committing a fallacy?

You did say you wanted to talk about life, right?

I'll admit that I expect LaClair's pattern of evasion to continue.

It appears that LaClair realizes he can't back up his claims using logic, so he tries to open the way for the fallacy of appeal to the people by trying to make the issue "about life"--which I read (probably) as a reiteration of his appeal to pragmatism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Valuable to whom? Your morally perfect rock? Bryan, how can even you imagine that we can discuss what is valuable if "We're not talking about life?" If you keep meeting yourself coming 'round the barn often enough, sooner or later even you are going to recognize yourself. Maybe you should have a picnic with your various re-creations to talk it all over --- make sure you bring plenty of sandwiches, though, because there are plenty of you.

I've been trying to get you to talk about life, but you insist on talking about beings who are contingent/non-contingent, perfect but not divinely perfect, etc. Why don't we open a topic on how many fairies are needed to screw in a light bulb. We could draw distinctions between European fairies and African fairies (What . . . is your name?!), and whether the light bulb was morally perfect or really just got turned on trying to look up the fairies' skirts. Assuming, of course, that they were female fairies. Or maybe even if they weren't. Was it a boy light bulb or a girl light bulb? Makes a difference! Should all be fascinating.

Now it may be hard for you to understand, Bryan, but some of us are more interested in whether a religion helps give meaning, purpose and a sense of direction to our lives. Does it make us better people? You fundies have managed to make religion not only meaningless and purposeless, but harmful, destructive and ugly. I've tried to get you to think, for example, about whether hell would serve any purpose, but your only response is to say that if God says it's just, then it's just. "God said it, I believe it, end of story." Be honest for once: "I believe God said it, and I refuse to think about anything that challenges what I believe." That's the reality of what you're doing in real life terms, so it's no surprise that to you "we're not talking about life." If you face the fact, you'll have to change your beliefs, and that's the last thing you're willing to do.

Let's put what you're doing in physical terms. Go into the country, where there are no buildings or trees to interfere with your view of the full sky. Take a powerful light, turn it on and stand in front of it. Congratulations, you just projected yourself onto the entire night sky, written yourself large onto the vast screen of the universe. That's all your so-called theology is about: your projection of yourself onto the universe, i.e., your projection of yourself as God.

So when you write "We're not talking about life," speak for yourself. You're not, but I am. That is exactly what I've been telling you.

Talk about setting yourself up for slaughter . . . and then getting slaughtered! This is spot on. Bryan has spent months writing nonsense, going out of his way to avoid any discussion how his theology helps or hurts us. But then he puts up a post saying "we're not talking about life" (basically admitting Paul's main point) and a couple sentences later claims his philosophy is valuable. Yeah, like morally perfect rocks, now there's a valuable idea. I'm sure we'll all be talking about that one in our churches and around our dinner tables this week. It wouldn't all be so rich if it didn't go straight to the core of every idiotic thing he writes.

Don't give up your day job, Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DingoDave
Here's the LoonyLeft talking again.  "No Personal Responsibility", the hallmark of the defeatocratic party. You get lung cancer from smoking, the tobacco companies pay; alcoholic ? Sue the company that makes your favorite vodka; you're lazy and won't work ? No problem.... the government will take care of you. Obese from all those Big Macs ? McDonalds is guilty !!

Tobacco companies and manufacturers of alchoholic beverages are drug dealers, pure and simple.

They intentionally market their products to young people with little regard for the consequences that will follow from their actions. They make billions of dollars through the sale of products which they know will cause sickness and misery to millions of people. Why shouldn't they pay?

If your local neighborhood drug dealer is caught, then he is held accountable for being a danger to the public. Why should big manufacturing companies be exempt from assuming some responsibility for foisting their poisonous and addictive products on the public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DingoDave

Bryan wrote:

We're not talking about life.  We're talking about a number of specific issues for which the construction of valid syllogisms would be valuable. Pathetic response, LaClair.

Guest responded:

Valuable for what, nitwit? If it's not valuable in life, then where or how is it valuable?

Valuable for use in shoring up Bryan's little fantasy world, lest reality find a chink in his mental armour, and force him to come into contact with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Tobacco companies and manufacturers of alchoholic beverages are drug dealers, pure and simple.

They intentionally market their products to young people with little regard for the consequences that will follow from their actions. They make billions of dollars through the sale of products which they know will cause sickness and misery to millions of people. Why shouldn't they pay?

If your local neighborhood drug dealer is caught, then he is held accountable for being a danger to the public. Why should big manufacturing companies be exempt from assuming some responsibility for foisting their poisonous and addictive products on the public?

Because you friggin' idiot, the companies are not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy and use their products. Do you know anything about being responsible for your own actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Valuable for use in shoring up Bryan's little fantasy world, lest reality find a chink in his mental armour, and force him to come into contact with it.

Is an accusation minus an example worth anything, really?

I mean, sure, smear tactics are effective with a certain segment of society. But DingoDave is above that, isn't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2smart4u
Tobacco companies and manufacturers of alchoholic beverages are drug dealers, pure and simple.

They intentionally market their products to young people with little regard for the consequences that will follow from their actions. They make billions of dollars through the sale of products which they know will cause sickness and misery to millions of people. Why shouldn't they pay?

If your local neighborhood drug dealer is caught, then he is held accountable for being a danger to the public. Why should big manufacturing companies be exempt from assuming some responsibility for foisting their poisonous and addictive products on the public?

So, the Loony Left has found the Kool-aid in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Because you friggin' idiot, the companies are not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy and use their products.  Do you know anything about being responsible for your own actions?

But what about the taxpayers who have to pay for the tobacco companies' behavior? Why shouldn't they be reimbursed?

Several state attorneys-general litigated a successful lawsuit against the tobacco companies, resulting in an award of billions of dollars to the taxpayers. The Bush administration, in bed with the big corporations always (and screw the little guy in a very different way), made sure the companies paid out only a tiny fraction of the award.

For that matter, what about the innocent widow of a long-term smoker? She didn't smoke, but she paid the price for it. Why shouldn't she be allowed to recover money from the wrongdoers who are marketing poison?

We're not going to make cigarettes illegal, but why shouldn't we do all we can to discourage smoking, internalizing the real costs of smoking to the tobacco companies wherever possible? Instead of calling names, why not seriously look at that question. Hundreds of thousands of deaths every year from smoking is enough to justify real public concern, don't you think.

So before you call someone else an idiot, try to address the question, which is not why a smoker should receive the money, but why the tobacco companies shouldn't pay for what really should be criminal behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DingoDave
Because you friggin' idiot, the companies are not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy and use their products.  Do you know anything about being responsible for your own actions?

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the crack cocaine or the crystal meth or the heroin that your local drug dealer is selling either. Should we ignore them as well?

Alchohol and tobacco cause far greater damage and cost to society than these illegal substances currently do. What do you propose? Should we just legalise anything and everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...