Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

it's about asking liberals the right question

Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
ok, this is a topic that I may have posted somewhere (God only knows where) and I have some of these saved in a word processing file and every now and then they run around in my brain. By the time I get to the computer, i have forgotten what I was going to type (until tonight).

I have found that in politics, religion, and in general scientific philosophy, the arguments that are being made have underlying assumptions that nobody challenges in a way it should. For instance:

I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them. I think that would take most of them by surprise because they never had thought of the ramifications of abortion affecting them since they are obviously living. But if you had asked them that question I imagine they would find themselves unable to utter popular pro-choice slogans or arguments when the abortion would involve them.

I once saw Chris Matthews complaining about all the money that Mitt Romney had and said that he could not defend such largess. I'm quite sure that Matthews earns a substantial sum doing what he does at which point I would ask him first how much money he has. Second, I would ask him how he defends having that much money in the bank. No matter what he would do we would probably get to the point at which he would argue that it's his money and he earned it. At that point you could turn around and say that the same applies to Romney. I would guess Matthews would try to create a distinction between him and Romney and really not admit that what applies to one applies to the other.

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda. Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle. for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them. One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

(actually I lied. I do remember Mark Levin who takes over for Sean Hannity on a local radio station posed that question once to a caller, but that's all I can think of. I don't listen to him as I hate the sound of his voice. but I digress.)

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and their kin suggest that all our thoughts and ideas are nothing but memes or genes or matter where no spirit is involved. I don't know of anybody asking them directly a question like this: "Are all the words you put on paper in your book the result of molecules or memes that have successfully survived and copied themselves? If so, how can you guarantee the accuracy of your words because their accuracy has nothing to do with the survival of those genes or memes or matter?" I doubt many of them would even think to ask that question of themselves or even want to ask that question.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 7:17:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
ok, this is a topic that I may have posted somewhere (God only knows where) and I have some of these saved in a word processing file and every now and then they run around in my brain. By the time I get to the computer, i have forgotten what I was going to type (until tonight).

I have found that in politics, religion, and in general scientific philosophy, the arguments that are being made have underlying assumptions that nobody challenges in a way it should. For instance:

I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them. I think that would take most of them by surprise because they never had thought of the ramifications of abortion affecting them since they are obviously living. But if you had asked them that question I imagine they would find themselves unable to utter popular pro-choice slogans or arguments when the abortion would involve them.

I once saw Chris Matthews complaining about all the money that Mitt Romney had and said that he could not defend such largess. I'm quite sure that Matthews earns a substantial sum doing what he does at which point I would ask him first how much money he has. Second, I would ask him how he defends having that much money in the bank. No matter what he would do we would probably get to the point at which he would argue that it's his money and he earned it. At that point you could turn around and say that the same applies to Romney. I would guess Matthews would try to create a distinction between him and Romney and really not admit that what applies to one applies to the other.

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda. Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle. for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them. One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

(actually I lied. I do remember Mark Levin who takes over for Sean Hannity on a local radio station posed that question once to a caller, but that's all I can think of. I don't listen to him as I hate the sound of his voice. but I digress.)

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and their kin suggest that all our thoughts and ideas are nothing but memes or genes or matter where no spirit is involved. I don't know of anybody asking them directly a question like this: "Are all the words you put on paper in your book the result of molecules or memes that have successfully survived and copied themselves? If so, how can you guarantee the accuracy of your words because their accuracy has nothing to do with the survival of those genes or memes or matter?" I doubt many of them would even think to ask that question of themselves or even want to ask that question.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.

If you are going to ask the questions and you've never before seen them asked or answered, then I would suggest that you don't presume to know what the answers will be.

When asked if it would be moral if my mother aborted me I would say, what circumstances led to this abortion? And in any of the cases that I would say a moral for someone else, I would say it is moral for my mother. Just because the child is me, doesn't make it wrong.

On gay marriage, I and most other supporters of the legal right to marriage of gays that I know, would not support compelling religious ministers to perform the rights. Religious marriage is not the same as legal marriage.

On gun rights, I and most other gun restriction supporters support just that, regulate the purchase and ownership of guns, don't outlaw them completely. Bodyguards may have a legitimate usage for guns and so would still be able to purchase them.

On evolutionary biology, the accuracy of words is most definitely important to their survival. If they did not accurately model the world in some way, they would not be useful and so nobody would preserve them.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I have found that in politics, religion, and in general scientific philosophy, the arguments that are being made have underlying assumptions that nobody challenges in a way it should. For instance:

I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them. I think that would take most of them by surprise because they never had thought of the ramifications of abortion affecting them since they are obviously living. But if you had asked them that question I imagine they would find themselves unable to utter popular pro-choice slogans or arguments when the abortion would involve them.

It is absurd to ask that question, because it would be impermissible for one who is already born to consider themselves before they were born (or even cognitively developed enough to be able to recognize that they are a living, being thing).

I once saw Chris Matthews complaining about all the money that Mitt Romney had and said that he could not defend such largess.

Even as a liberal, I get tired of Chris Matthews too. He is our equivalent of Sean Hannity.

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda.

There is no "liberal agenda." The "liberal agenda" is a fantasy of conservative pundits and radio show hosts who trade on the politics of fear.

Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle.

You should really get to know gay people if you're interested in understanding them.

for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them.

No one is dictating what the church or its parts must or must not do.

One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

Whether you have insurance or not, it is a law in the United States that you cannot be denied life saving treatment on the basis of your inability to pay -and has been since the late 1950s. The problem is that people -who think they don't need insurance- cause other people to have to pay for their bad judgement when they default on their medical bills. The root of the issue is that no one plans to get sick, but when people do, they need medical care (or better yet, preventative care to prevent them from getting sick). So, whether you think you need medical insurance or not, you do. What Obamacare does is simple: it disincentivizes people from making stupid decisions -i.e. choosing not to buy health insurance. (For the record, though, I don't personally like Obamacare. It's too complicated and caters too much to the insurance industry -which ought to be broken into MANY tiny pieces.)

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy.

It's about science v. religion. If people want their kids to know about creationist theories, they ought to teach it to them themselves or take their kids to church rather than oblige public schools to do that for them. Creationism is not science, it's theology -and it has no place in schools other than perhaps as a religious history/diversity class.

I say this as a Protestant: teaching creationism is not the place of the state.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.

Anit-gun zealots? It amazes me how conservatives think that even the slightest bit of sensible gun control regulation will lead to the elimination of their post-1960s interpretation of the second amendment.
Tsar of DDO
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
ok, this is a topic that I may have posted somewhere (God only knows where) and I have some of these saved in a word processing file and every now and then they run around in my brain. By the time I get to the computer, i have forgotten what I was going to type (until tonight).

I have found that in politics, religion, and in general scientific philosophy, the arguments that are being made have underlying assumptions that nobody challenges in a way it should. For instance:

I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them. I think that would take most of them by surprise because they never had thought of the ramifications of abortion affecting them since they are obviously living. But if you had asked them that question I imagine they would find themselves unable to utter popular pro-choice slogans or arguments when the abortion would involve them.

I would never be alive (depending on which definition is used, in any case, I wouldn't be capable of thought to the point where I would care. I was a planned child.)

I once saw Chris Matthews complaining about all the money that Mitt Romney had and said that he could not defend such largess. I'm quite sure that Matthews earns a substantial sum doing what he does at which point I would ask him first how much money he has. Second, I would ask him how he defends having that much money in the bank. No matter what he would do we would probably get to the point at which he would argue that it's his money and he earned it. At that point you could turn around and say that the same applies to Romney. I would guess Matthews would try to create a distinction between him and Romney and really not admit that what applies to one applies to the other.

Who do you think would be more likely to understand the challenges faced by the middle class, someone who grew up in a relatively poor family, or someone who runs an investment firm formed using capital from his father?

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda. Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle. for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them. One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

Is it really your choice to tell someone what lifestyle they can or can't have? In addition, marriages only require a visit to a courthouse, and preachers can and do refuse to perform certain marriages - try getting a Catholic Church to marry a Protestant couple.

(actually I lied. I do remember Mark Levin who takes over for Sean Hannity on a local radio station posed that question once to a caller, but that's all I can think of. I don't listen to him as I hate the sound of his voice. but I digress.)

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and their kin suggest that all our thoughts and ideas are nothing but memes or genes or matter where no spirit is involved. I don't know of anybody asking them directly a question like this: "Are all the words you put on paper in your book the result of molecules or memes that have successfully survived and copied themselves? If so, how can you guarantee the accuracy of your words because their accuracy has nothing to do with the survival of those genes or memes or matter?" I doubt many of them would even think to ask that question of themselves or even want to ask that question.

This is quite ignorant of science and greatly misrepresents what scientists like Dawkins actually think. I don't think it needs addressing. Your ability to think is the results of genes that successfully survived and copied themselves, yes. Your thoughts are part gene expression, part independent thought.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.

Are they allowed to carry guns? Yes. Did they have to go through a background check to get them? Yes.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 4:16:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have found that in politics, religion, and in general scientific philosophy, the arguments that are being made have underlying assumptions that nobody challenges in a way it should. For instance:

Scientific method is what it is. Challenging it suggests the challenger hasn't understood it.

I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them. I think that would take most of them by surprise because they never had thought of the ramifications of abortion affecting them since they are obviously living. But if you had asked them that question I imagine they would find themselves unable to utter popular pro-choice slogans or arguments when the abortion would involve them.

Nonsense. Of course that now I'm alive I'm glad (ish) of it, but before that I would not have known. My mother would have had just the same right to have an abortion as anyone else's mother. I would be seriously worried about anyone who were so conceited as to not be able to see past their own self-interest in the matter and think rationally.

I once saw Chris Matthews complaining about all the money that Mitt Romney had and said that he could not defend such largess. I'm quite sure that Matthews earns a substantial sum doing what he does at which point I would ask him first how much money he has. Second, I would ask him how he defends having that much money in the bank. No matter what he would do we would probably get to the point at which he would argue that it's his money and he earned it. At that point you could turn around and say that the same applies to Romney. I would guess Matthews would try to create a distinction between him and Romney and really not admit that what applies to one applies to the other.

I have no idea who Chris Matthews is, but he sounds like a talking head. Such people are inevitably morons, as otherwise they'd have ended up doing something other than foam-flecked rants. That one person - particularly someone who conveniently makes a living from making partisan, incendiary remarks - says something stupid/hypocritical is neither surprising nor important.

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda. Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle. for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them. One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

If your best defence is "but what about my money and/or sensibilities?!" then you don't have an argument. What if you don't want to turn the gas off when you finish cooking and then want to smoke? Does that give you the right to blow out your neighbour's walls in the subsequent explosion? What if someone didn't want to give medical aid to you because of some arbitrary group that you belong to and they don't like?

If you want to learn about what gay people think, try picking up something that isn't written by someone so overwhelmed with barely contained self-loathing. Reading conservative books will give you conservative bias. Try reading something liberal for a change, maybe even written by an actual gay person. There are MANY people who have discussed the question of the rights to X vs. the right to not be offended by X. Yet you claim to have not seen it in conservative books. If that doesn't worry you hugely then it really, really should.

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy. People like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and their kin suggest that all our thoughts and ideas are nothing but memes or genes or matter where no spirit is involved. I don't know of anybody asking them directly a question like this: "Are all the words you put on paper in your book the result of molecules or memes that have successfully survived and copied themselves? If so, how can you guarantee the accuracy of your words because their accuracy has nothing to do with the survival of those genes or memes or matter?" I doubt many of them would even think to ask that question of themselves or even want to ask that question.

Nonsense and (unsurprising) proof that you don't understand the theories involved. Or the scientific method. Yes, all the words put onto paper by those people are those that successfully survived and copied, otherwise they would not be there to be written. As with all other scientific issues, they can be supported as true by checking against the evidence. Why this concept is still a stumbling block to many religious people is a depressing mystery.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.

I and the vast majority of people who are against guns do not think that private bodyguards should be allowed to carry them either. You are strawmanning frantically.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 5:06:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them.

It's very common in philosophy books, regarding bad arguments on abortion (chapters on abortion or books on abortion almost all follow the same formula: What are the bad arguments, why are they wrong, now here's the good arguments). It's because it is an emotive claim, and if morality is going to be impartial, then we apply it to ourselves. Being aborted yourself now is bad because we have interests to pursue and a life we are enjoying. Or, as people, it is impossible to imagine ourselves without these interests. So I cannot be aborted because I am a person. When I was a fetus, that was not a person, nor was it my true self. In the same way that in a couple hundred years time, if I am dead, then I won't be a person.


American point which is not of interest to a Brit, so I'll imagine this is about Ed Miliband and Labour party taking a 0.7 million pound tax-free tax-evaded lump sum.

It ought not be done, but the fact that others are doing it is the major problem. Politics is too run-by-money.

speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda. Take any issue - gay marriage for instance. I have many conservative books about that issue but I have not seen anybody asking the question if whether the morality of liberal tenets outweigh the choice of disapproving of that lifestyle. for example, if someone argues that preachers should be compelled to marry them because it's not fair if they can't be married, I could ask whether fairness outweighs the freedom of choice ministers have to not want to marry them. One can play this game constantly. Obamacare claims to want to make sure everybody has insurance, but what if I don't want to buy insurance or don't want to pay more for my insurance so that somebody else can have coverage. Why is my freedom to be sacrificed here?

I shall respond in song!

The only way that you can stop me acting as I'd rather,
is if I plan on using force and thereby harm another.
If you think it's bad for me,
You still can't take my liberty!
For that won't maximiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiise
the total happiness.

As far as evolutionary biology (nothing to do with politics, but I'll throw it in anyway), one can and should ask direct questions that get to the heart of liberal philosophy.

Evolution has more links to classical liberalism (which is essentially libertarianism of today) and nationalism (which many contemporary liberals question). Science is traditionally conservative. Only modern anti-science biblethumping conservatives with a small c are against it.

People like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and their kin suggest that all our thoughts and ideas are nothing but memes or genes or matter where no spirit is involved.

Susan Blackmore I'd question, and certainly not many like Stephen Jay Gould and his scientific ideas of adaptationism, which are equally viable and popular as an alternative to the gene-centered view of evolution.

I don't know of anybody asking them directly a question like this: "Are all the words you put on paper in your book the result of molecules or memes that have successfully survived and copied themselves? If so, how can you guarantee the accuracy of your words because their accuracy has nothing to do with the survival of those genes or memes or matter?" I doubt many of them would even think to ask that question of themselves or even want to ask that question.

This has Searle's thought experiment written all over it. Of course, Searle phrases it better, but this is a debate about linguistics. We secure the accuracy of a word's meaning, because that word only has meaning inside a community which understands the word. You're crossing into philosophy, which is good, but you're trying to drag science into it with you, rather than use it to inform and advise, which creates category errors.

And, of course, there's the all popular question to anti-gun zealots: "if guns are so bad, why are your bodyguards allowed to carry guns?" but I think I've said enough for now.

Because body guards are trained.

This all comes across as someone who's happier with the question than a potential answer. I'm sure others will give differing, if not contradictory, answers to mine. However, these issues are not "Wow, no-one's ever thought of this!" That claim basically says every single philosopher, and every single scientist, with all their degrees symbolising the years of professional work into the subject, if not decades of work in a library theorizing these things for a living, are collectively less effective than you.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:05:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:07:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda.

There is no "liberal agenda." The "liberal agenda" is a fantasy of conservative pundits and radio show hosts who trade on the politics of fear.

You obviously haven't watched any major news network in a long, long time.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:09:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:05:22 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:07:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda.

There is no "liberal agenda." The "liberal agenda" is a fantasy of conservative pundits and radio show hosts who trade on the politics of fear.

You obviously haven't watched any major news network in a long, long time.

Nonsense, rather it is the case that you have misinterpreted a left-leaning tendency of some as some sort of conspiratorial scheme (presumably because you consume right-wing media).
Tsar of DDO
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:54:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:05:22 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:07:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda.

There is no "liberal agenda." The "liberal agenda" is a fantasy of conservative pundits and radio show hosts who trade on the politics of fear.

You obviously haven't watched any major news network in a long, long time.

Nonsense, rather it is the case that you have misinterpreted a left-leaning tendency of some as some sort of conspiratorial scheme (presumably because you consume right-wing media).

You're right. A conspiratorial scheme would imply there is something secret or hidden about it. But it's blatant. Ben Shapiro already has documented this quite well:

"[Being interviewed] Di Bona, who also created America"s Funniest Home Videos, [became] remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: "I think it"s probably accurate, and I"m happy about it."

Another video has Leonard Goldberg " who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie"s Angels and Starsky and Hutch " saying that liberalism in the TV industry is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth."

Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. "Absolutely," Goldberg says."

http://rantsandrage.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 2:34:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:54:02 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:09:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:05:22 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:07:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/1/2013 6:59:10 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
speaking of abortion, an issue that revolves mostly around choice, somebody would very easily use that as a wedge in the liberal agenda.

There is no "liberal agenda." The "liberal agenda" is a fantasy of conservative pundits and radio show hosts who trade on the politics of fear.

You obviously haven't watched any major news network in a long, long time.

Nonsense, rather it is the case that you have misinterpreted a left-leaning tendency of some as some sort of conspiratorial scheme (presumably because you consume right-wing media).

You're right. A conspiratorial scheme would imply there is something secret or hidden about it. But it's blatant. Ben Shapiro already has documented this quite well:

"[Being interviewed] Di Bona, who also created America"s Funniest Home Videos, [became] remarkably blunt about his approval of a lack of political diversity in Hollywood. When Shapiro asks what he thinks of conservative critics who say everyone in Hollywood is liberal, Di Bona responds: "I think it"s probably accurate, and I"m happy about it."

Another video has Leonard Goldberg " who executive produces Blue Bloods for CBS and a few decades ago exec produced such hits as Fantasy Island, Charlie"s Angels and Starsky and Hutch " saying that liberalism in the TV industry is "100 percent dominant, and anyone who denies it is kidding, or not telling the truth."

Shapiro asks if politics are a barrier to entry. "Absolutely," Goldberg says."

http://rantsandrage.com...

So, what's the problem?
Tsar of DDO
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 6:56:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It"s difficult to address all the comments and quote since so much quoting has been done already, so I"ll just cherry pick from the bunch (pun intended).
YYW says:

"It's about science v. religion. If people want their kids to know about creationist theories, they ought to teach it to them themselves or take their kids to church rather than oblige public schools to do that for them. Creationism is not science, it's theology -and it has no place in schools other than perhaps as a religious history/diversity class."

Let"s presume that"s true. It doesn"t alter the substance of what I"m saying. It just ignores my point. If evolutionists claim that even our thoughts are the result of genes, memes, and matter, then their thoughts are nothing but genes, memes and matter. The genes and memes that survive are not the ones that are truthful but the ones that enable the descendents to leave more offspring. Hence, they are not necessarily those that produce truth. Hence, evolutionists have no basis for concluding their thoughts are rationally true. Their beliefs are self refuting.
What I"m addressing primarily with mentioning guns is the philosophy that the owning of guns is the main source of danger rather than the use of guns by those who are prone to committing heinous acts of any sort. You can"t watch Michael Moore"s Bowling for Columbine and not get the suggestion that this is how he feels about the topic. Yeah, I know, Michael Moore is unique but I get the impression that others share his similar ideas about guns. The reason I mentioned those who have bodyguards is because if guns are such a source of problems then people who have the philosophy I mentioned would be consistent and deny their bodyguards the use of the guns as well. You never know".one of those bodyguards might go nuts and begin shooting up everything"..
As far as the comment about Mitt Romney and Chris Matthews, drhead says:

"Who do you think would be more likely to understand the challenges faced by the middle class, someone who grew up in a relatively poor family, or someone who runs an investment firm formed using capital from his father?"

Yeah, so what? Is that comment implying that Chris Matthews is the person coming from a middle class family? What does that have to do about the people not being made to feel guilty for keeping the riches they earned and the person who criticizes them for doing so probably keeping his own as well instead of giving it away to charity?

Drhead mentions also that our thoughts are part genes and part independent thought. Independent thought created by what? By genes? By memes? Or by a soul? Blackmore et. al. deny such a thing as consciousness can exist even though would deny they claim such a thing. But if your thoughts are controlled by nothing but matter which is controlled by environmental influences and genetics, you are merely controlled by nature and nothing else. Hence, there is no independent thought.
Lastly, back to abortion. The issue always revolves around "what is the fetus?" YYW says my question would be stupid because it is inconceivable of thinking of yourself as a fetus who would not understand itself as a living being. So therefore the fetus is not a person? What about infants or just-born individuals perhaps only a few days old? If I posed the same question if it was immoral for his mother to kill him when he was an infant " would he respond the same way?
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 7:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 6:56:12 PM, Wtnjetro wrote:
It"s difficult to address all the comments and quote since so much quoting has been done already, so I"ll just cherry pick from the bunch (pun intended).
YYW says:

"It's about science v. religion. If people want their kids to know about creationist theories, they ought to teach it to them themselves or take their kids to church rather than oblige public schools to do that for them. Creationism is not science, it's theology -and it has no place in schools other than perhaps as a religious history/diversity class."

Let"s presume that"s true. It doesn"t alter the substance of what I"m saying. It just ignores my point.

Actually, it relegates the issue to the point of becoming a non-issue -but I'll be interested to see how you justify that.

If evolutionists claim that even our thoughts are the result of genes, memes, and matter, then their thoughts are nothing but genes, memes and matter. The genes and memes that survive are not the ones that are truthful but the ones that enable the descendents to leave more offspring. Hence, they are not necessarily those that produce truth. Hence, evolutionists have no basis for concluding their thoughts are rationally true. Their beliefs are self refuting.

So, you've fundamentally misunderstood the substance of what I'm saying. I'm not arguing the merits of either theory, I'm distinguishing scientific theory from theological claims. One has a place in schools (science) one does not (religion). The problem that Christians have with evolution is often more a result of their own ignorance and insecurity about their own beliefs than it is about the merits or lack of merits for evolution. If science is taught as science (which it is) there is no issue. Parents remain free to teach their kids whatever other belief they have, whether it has merits or not, outside of the public school setting. Parents retain the option to send their kids to private schools if they take issue with the scientific content (or for whatever other reason) their kids learn in school.

What I"m addressing primarily with mentioning guns is the philosophy that the owning of guns is the main source of danger rather than the use of guns by those who are prone to committing heinous acts of any sort.

Those that have guns are 100% more likely to use guns than those who do not have guns, because those who do not have guns cannot use them. If that somehow escapes you, then we have bigger issues to address.

You can"t watch Michael Moore"s Bowling for Columbine and not get the suggestion that this is how he feels about the topic.

I don't care about Michael Moore, and most of the (liberal) people I know don't either.

The issue always revolves around "what is the fetus?" YYW says my question would be stupid because it is inconceivable of thinking of yourself as a fetus who would not understand itself as a living being.

I stand by my point.

So therefore the fetus is not a person?

Not until it is viable, no.

What about infants or just-born individuals perhaps only a few days old?

Then it would be past the stage of viability, so obviously it would be a person.

If I posed the same question if it was immoral for his mother to kill him when he was an infant " would he respond the same way?

Don't be absurd.
Tsar of DDO
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 3:44:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It just ignores my point. If evolutionists claim that even our thoughts are the result of genes, memes, and matter, then their thoughts are nothing but genes, memes and matter. The genes and memes that survive are not the ones that are truthful but the ones that enable the descendents to leave more offspring.

Right. Hence the socio-evolutionary success of religion. It isn't true, but it has proved useful over the years. The problem now is the environment has changed and it is being out-competed. The reason it is being out-competed is because we've developed a system that takes into account truth. The very reason that science has been so successful is this distinction.

Hence, they are not necessarily those that produce truth. Hence, evolutionists have no basis for concluding their thoughts are rationally true. Their beliefs are self refuting.

Gibberish. Scientists check their results against facts. They are falsifiable by nature and tested rigorously. The basis for concluding the thoughts are 'rationally true' (whatever that means - what would 'irrationally true' be?) is that they match reality when we check them against it. That's the whole point. There is nothing self-refuting about "system that checks against reality is checked against reality"... it's tautologically true that science has MORE reason to conclude its findings are correct than any system that doesn't use the same methodology.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 11:10:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let"s presume that"s true. It doesn"t alter the substance of what I"m saying. It just ignores my point. If evolutionists claim that even our thoughts are the result of genes, memes, and matter, then their thoughts are nothing but genes, memes and matter.

1) Evolutionists are not all gene-centrists. I am an evolutionist. I am not a gene-centrist.
2) The logic is demonstrably fallacious: if X causes Y, that does not mean Y is made up of X. Or, if thoughts are caused by matter, that does not mean that thoughts are matter. Consider the solid object of a steam engine: it produces steam. It does not make steam, however, solid. Epiphenominalism (A position I hold to as well) states that our thoughts, which are immaterial and "the self", is determined by environmental factors (events around us, and the bodily make-up of ourselves).

The genes and memes that survive are not the ones that are truthful but the ones that enable the descendents to leave more offspring. Hence, they are not necessarily those that produce truth. Hence, evolutionists have no basis for concluding their thoughts are rationally true. Their beliefs are self refuting.

That doesn't follow. It means memes are not necessarily true, yes. However, they can be contingently true (true independent of the fact that they are memes). No-one claims memes are true: they are cultural institutions which are passed on from person to person. Dawkins even claims religion is a powerful meme: it does not make religion true.

The reason I mentioned those who have bodyguards is because if guns are such a source of problems then people who have the philosophy I mentioned would be consistent and deny their bodyguards the use of the guns as well.

So... strawman? Yes, I think this is a strawman.

Drhead mentions also that our thoughts are part genes and part independent thought. Independent thought created by what? By genes? By memes? Or by a soul? Blackmore et. al. deny such a thing as consciousness can exist

No she doesn't.

even though would deny they claim such a thing.

Jesus Christ. This is a sign of someone not listening to others, when they understand that someone doesn't say something, but would rather pretend that they do. Of course, you'll deny this, but that doesn't change your belief here.

But if your thoughts are controlled by nothing but matter which is controlled by environmental influences and genetics, you are merely controlled by nature and nothing else. Hence, there is no independent thought.

Your writing here is dependent on responding to an environmental factor: words on this site. Are you wholly determined, then?

Lastly, back to abortion. The issue always revolves around "what is the fetus?" YYW says my question would be stupid because it is inconceivable of thinking of yourself as a fetus who would not understand itself as a living being. So therefore the fetus is not a person? What about infants or just-born individuals perhaps only a few days old? If I posed the same question if it was immoral for his mother to kill him when he was an infant " would he respond the same way?

Congratulations - you've moved into the mainstream. And the common response from philosophers is clear: a newborn baby has value, but it isn't a person. Imagine when you have just started to learn to play an instrument. Say, a guitar. I was no guitarist when I started, but I did play guitar. A newborn baby is not valuable being a person, but it is valuable, for other reasons.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Welcome back ya"all from 4th of July festivities. I for one enjoyed the extra time off and am not looking forward to going back to work tomorrow. Blech". Now after sleeping until 9 am today I have to get my butt up at 6 am tomorrow again.. anyway". I find this snippitt from YYW:

"So, you've fundamentally misunderstood the substance of what I'm saying. I'm not arguing the merits of either theory, I'm distinguishing scientific theory from theological claims. One has a place in schools (science) one does not (religion). The problem that Christians have with evolution is often more a result of their own ignorance and insecurity about their own beliefs than it is about the merits or lack of merits for evolution. If science is taught as science (which it is) there is no issue. Parents remain free to teach their kids whatever other belief they have, whether it has merits or not, outside of the public school setting. Parents retain the option to send their kids to private schools if they take issue with the scientific content (or for whatever other reason) their kids learn in school."

The problem Christians have with evolution is, in large, the fact they don"t believe it"s true (I"m providing an exception for theistic evolutionists who try to reconcile evolution with creationism in the most ridiculous ways " Kenneth Miller maybe being the worst offender). One other problem is that evolution is for many secular individuals the way they advance their humanist ideas and the basis for them. I just wrote a partial article for the Lutheran Science Institute on that fact (http://lutheranscience.org...). Many Christians don"t particularly like evolution being promoted by people as pure science when in fact it"s the basis for many people"s anti-Christian agenda. I, for one, would welcome them being more forthright in being honest about it if they are going to teach it. They could also admit their logic in believing in evolution is bunk. (for more info, see http://www.trueorigin.org...)

Lastly, on to abortion, Stephen Hawkins claims:
Congratulations - you've moved into the mainstream. And the common response from philosophers is clear: a newborn baby has value, but it isn't a person. Imagine when you have just started to learn to play an instrument. Say, a guitar. I was no guitarist when I started, but I did play guitar. A newborn baby is not valuable being a person, but it is valuable, for other reasons.
1.The newborn is not a person but has value? Value to whom? Does it have a right to life at all then if it"s value is wholly dependent on the value others have of it?
2.Abouts what age do ya think it becomes a person then? My experience is that the pre-born are generally considered nonpersons but personhood

One last thing on Blackmore, Dawkins and others like them. There was a citation from Mary Midgley (I think that was her) in David Stove"s Darwinian Fairytales that described Dawkins as having the manly art of self-contradiction. I think that applies to Blackmore as well and most evolutionists in more ways than one. I"ve read most her book the Meme Machine for a book I"m writing now as well, and she says there is no self and thoughts are nothing but memes (ideas that propogate). My questions to her would be "Are your ideas that our thoughts are nothing but memes the result of memes that have survived? If so, what guarantee can you give us that those memes represent truth rather than simply being false memes that happened to survive? After all, evolutionists claim religious beliefs are false memes that have survived and spread to other people. Maybe the ideas that all our thoughts are memes is a false idea that have somehow survived and reproduced? What do you think about that possibility Susan? And how do you propose to discover if those ideas are false if the thoughts you use to figure this out are themselves memes who may survive if they are true but may indeed survive if they are false?"
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 12:12:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
my quotation from Stephen Hawkins ends with "for other reasons."
I didn't sufficient point that out when I quoted him.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 2:35:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes. Probably woulda been the smart decision too. :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 3:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'll go through quickly what you've said then. Firstly, "of value to whom" seems to lack clarity. Value to us, as ethical people, as it is valuable by the ethical system. In the same way that gravity exists: to ask "gravity exists to whom" simply smacks of nonsense reading it, because gravity does not depend on anyone's whim. Perhaps less clearly, but equally truly, the value of a person is in virtue of being a person.

Secondly, I do not know what age someone becomes a person. I'm not a scientist, and even as an ethicist I do not know where exactly I draw the line (though I have a reasonable area at which one becomes a person, and pragmatism to finish the necessaries). I equally do not know the classification for how much more intelligent a chimp may need to be to become a person: in fact, I am siding more and more with Singer and other bioethicists and animal ethicists that many primates are people. If we knew the answer to everything, we'd never have disputes. And if I or anyone claimed the answer to everything, I'd hold them in low regard as cheating themselves as well as others.

Also, regarding David Stove, he's a great writer. I think his book, Darwinian Fairytales, is right on most issues, especially it's major point. I'm a staunch evolutionist, however: how do I reconcile these two beliefs? Well, it's quite easy: Darwinian Fairytales isn't about claiming evolution is false. In fact, it repeatedly lauds the accuracy of evolution, as well as its philosophical basis which makes me think it is true, even before the science. However, his point (once one filters out the Lakatos-inspired paradigm analysis which reads more of a laterally different postmodern ideas) is that scientists are bad at philosophy, especially metaphysics and ethics. However, the fact you've dropped it so poorly implies to me you do not own the book. Philosophers have by and large taken evolution and its logical system to realise that for example many explanations for altruism are ill formed, and co-operation is very reliable and sensible over competition in many situations. Of course, his ideas are in dispute, and his extremely aggressive writing style causes problems to those new to his work, but even a slither of background research would come up that he is a polemicist, I am sure. His criticisms of Dawkins and Blackburn come (the former) to his belief in Kuhnian paradigm shifts and (the latter) to scathing retorts between the two in Philosophy, which are interesting reads to say the least, and available freely online. However, I'll simply add one thing: to cite Stove (like Kuhn or Lakatos) as believing evolution is a religion is a moot point: they think every field in science is like a religion, because religion and these theories (among many other things) are all paradigms, which shift all the time. It'd be like quoting a postmodernist to prove that uniquely atheism is a belief, or a nihilist to prove utilitarianism uniquely doesn't work.

Oh, and finally, your point asking Blackburn whether our thoughts are products of memes would be quite insulting to a philosopher, because it is bad etiquette to ask a question which has already been directly addressed in multiple works, alongside more important or interesting questions, as if you're unique in asking it.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk...
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk...

However, if you seriously do not understand, you can simply e-mail her yourself. She's a perfectly nice woman from our brief conversations, and I am sure she will happily address your questions, if you ask them nicely, as you would any person who you are asking knowledge from.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2013 3:14:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And if I was not clear: whether something is a meme or not is not linked to whether it is true or not. You're the one forcing the two things to mate with each other, even though they're completely incompatible. It'd be like asking "If something is green, does that not make it true?" It just doesn't follow.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wtnjetro
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 7:20:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well Stephen I DO own the book and have quoted it and mentioned it a few times in my writing. Thanks for pointing out that Stove points out that scientists are bad at philosophy. Yea, no duh! However, I have come to see that evolution is advocated mostly by bad philosophy and once you strip away the bad philosophy, there is not much left. Cripes, I think if you stripped the bad philosophy out of Dawkins" God Delusion, I would say there"s probably 25% of the book left. Same thing with Blackmore"s book.
I don"t accept your explanation that Stove or people like him think evolution is a religion because they think every field of science is a religion when they are in fact just paradigms. I have a book on chaos theory that says many mathematicians and other scientists were biased against it. That"s no big surprise to me as people hate change " especially change that involves debunking their pet theories. Evolution is in a privileged place of not just being merely a paradigm but a world view that I believe satisfies the same intellectual yearnings that traditional religion fills. Why else would Humanist Manifestos use the tenets of evolution as a basis for what they admit is the "religion" of Secular Humanism? We are not talking about just a paradigm. We are talking about a philosophical system that functions quite often (or maybe all the time) as a substitute religion. That"s what my essay on Lutheran Science web site was about. If you cannot see that fact, I trust that you do not want to see it.
Lastly, poor Blackmore, feeling insulted by me" waaaaaaaaaa. Her writing insults my intelligence, so if anything we"re even.

This thread seems to be dying and I"m going to make this my last post. I thank you and everyone who has replied to me in this forum. I don"t know what my next one will be yet. Perhaps it will be on how once you strip away much of the bad philosophy from evolution, you have very little evidence for it. We"ll see in about a week.
Author of the book The Vast Wastelands of Unbelief published by Tate Publishing, frequent author of articles at www.lutheranscience.org
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2013 9:01:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"I have not found anyone who has asked somebody who is pro-choice whether it would be moral for their mother to have aborted them."

This question is nonsense. I'll explain.

The question uses the term "abortion" to describe the act of erasing an entire post-womb lifetime. You may as well ask "what if our liberal parents had used a condom" ... with the assumption that having done so would have erased a lifetime of accomplishments.

Although this fits nicely with the right-wing connection of abortion and homicide, it does not fit well with the left's view of abortion as (mostly) a means to clean the womb of a miscarried fetus. (The D&C procedure following a miscarriage is the most common abortive procedure used in the US.)