Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Reasonably certain

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 11:05:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Their have been members on this board attacking pretty obvious positions. They say you can't prove murder is wrong or child rape is wrong. Well they are taking the wrong position and an intellectually dishonest one. They assert that because we can't be absolutely certain we can not make a judgment. Well that is not true, it does not make it just a guess. To show an example if I put numbers on a piece of paper. I place a 1 on 1 piece of paper and a 2 on 99 pieces of paper and mix them together, I am not absolutely certain that it will be a 2 but I am reasonably certain it will be a 2 and that is justified. Just because their is an outside possibility it coud be a 1 does not mean that we can not make any judgments on what will come out first. So at the end of the day even if it is not absolute certain, that may not be the standard we are looking for a reasonable certainty is enough to maintain the position.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 11:12:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.

My point is that because you may be able to find an extreme circumstance that murder may be justified it by no means means we can't be reasonable certain it is wrong on a regular basis. You find the 1 time it picks a 1 out and grasp onto it to make a point.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 11:15:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.

Would this seriously be you on a jury in a murder case or would you be able to grasp murder is wrong.

Now, let me set a stage for you, we are in a court room in a murder case. The prosecution has a confession, the dna matches the defendant, we have several eye witness, we have video tape evidence of the defendant murdering the victim. The prosecution rests their case and then the defense comes into make their argument, the only argument they make is why should my client be punished the prosecution has not proved murder is immoral and since it is not immoral they should not be allowed to send this guy to jail for life. People like cerebral, mig, JustCallMeTarzan and others on this board if on the jury would be sitting their like let this guy go, the defense made a great argument and for that I say this board needs major help.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 12:55:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Murder is against the law. In the context of the judicial system, murder has been determined to be wrong.

There are plenty of things you can go to court for that I'm sure even you wouldn't consider to be wrong.. However, that isn't a valid defense.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 1:26:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 11:15:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.


Would this seriously be you on a jury in a murder case or would you be able to grasp murder is wrong.

Now, let me set a stage for you, we are in a court room in a murder case. The prosecution has a confession, the dna matches the defendant, we have several eye witness, we have video tape evidence of the defendant murdering the victim. The prosecution rests their case and then the defense comes into make their argument, the only argument they make is why should my client be punished the prosecution has not proved murder is immoral and since it is not immoral they should not be allowed to send this guy to jail for life. People like cerebral, mig, JustCallMeTarzan and others on this board if on the jury would be sitting their like let this guy go, the defense made a great argument and for that I say this board needs major help.

You are missing the point entirely - nobody in the courtroom gives a rat's a$$ whether murder is *wrong* or not. Murder is illegal. But you phrase everything like it is murder itself on trial, not the defendant - and in that case, all your evidence is entirely useless because it's just an example. You haven't actually addressed the issue you are bringing forth.

Time to go back to basics and clarify what you are talking about. Nobody can help you if they don't understand what you mean. If you understood that and took it to heart, you would catch a lot less flak from people here.

If you want to talk about morality, that's fine. If you want to talk about moral descriptions of actions, that's fine. If you want to talk about amoralism and the FSM's Most Holy Noodly Appendage, that is fine too - just let people know in clear terms what you are talking about.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:59:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?

In an attempt to divert from the fact that they are the SAME person..

First sign of madness, talking to yourself..
The Cross.. the Cross.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:44:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 1:26:31 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/8/2011 11:15:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.


Would this seriously be you on a jury in a murder case or would you be able to grasp murder is wrong.

Now, let me set a stage for you, we are in a court room in a murder case. The prosecution has a confession, the dna matches the defendant, we have several eye witness, we have video tape evidence of the defendant murdering the victim. The prosecution rests their case and then the defense comes into make their argument, the only argument they make is why should my client be punished the prosecution has not proved murder is immoral and since it is not immoral they should not be allowed to send this guy to jail for life. People like cerebral, mig, JustCallMeTarzan and others on this board if on the jury would be sitting their like let this guy go, the defense made a great argument and for that I say this board needs major help.

You are missing the point entirely - nobody in the courtroom gives a rat's a$$ whether murder is *wrong* or not. Murder is illegal. But you phrase everything like it is murder itself on trial, not the defendant - and in that case, all your evidence is entirely useless because it's just an example. You haven't actually addressed the issue you are bringing forth.

Time to go back to basics and clarify what you are talking about. Nobody can help you if they don't understand what you mean. If you understood that and took it to heart, you would catch a lot less flak from people here.

If you want to talk about morality, that's fine. If you want to talk about moral descriptions of actions, that's fine. If you want to talk about amoralism and the FSM's Most Holy Noodly Appendage, that is fine too - just let people know in clear terms what you are talking about.

No everyone in the courtroom is very concerned with the fact that murder is wrong that is why it is illegal, so what you guys are saying is you would only find the murderer guilty because it is law and would not really think he did anything morally reprehensible. Come on guys, I know you are much brighter then this even if you don't show it.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:54:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:44:11 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 1:26:31 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 9/8/2011 11:15:18 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/8/2011 11:08:56 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
And in one corner, we have the truth value of subjective moral propositions.... matched with, in the other corner, simple mathematical probability.

Whoever has set up this fight is clearly an idiot.

No seriously... go on.... enlighten us as to how you intend to prove a moral proposition. It's like I'm Morpheus, explaining to you how the Matrix works. Only when you free your mind, will you see how deep the philosophical rabbit hole goes. But you're not Neo - don't get delusions of grandeur.


Would this seriously be you on a jury in a murder case or would you be able to grasp murder is wrong.

Now, let me set a stage for you, we are in a court room in a murder case. The prosecution has a confession, the dna matches the defendant, we have several eye witness, we have video tape evidence of the defendant murdering the victim. The prosecution rests their case and then the defense comes into make their argument, the only argument they make is why should my client be punished the prosecution has not proved murder is immoral and since it is not immoral they should not be allowed to send this guy to jail for life. People like cerebral, mig, JustCallMeTarzan and others on this board if on the jury would be sitting their like let this guy go, the defense made a great argument and for that I say this board needs major help.

You are missing the point entirely - nobody in the courtroom gives a rat's a$$ whether murder is *wrong* or not. Murder is illegal. But you phrase everything like it is murder itself on trial, not the defendant - and in that case, all your evidence is entirely useless because it's just an example. You haven't actually addressed the issue you are bringing forth.

Time to go back to basics and clarify what you are talking about. Nobody can help you if they don't understand what you mean. If you understood that and took it to heart, you would catch a lot less flak from people here.

If you want to talk about morality, that's fine. If you want to talk about moral descriptions of actions, that's fine. If you want to talk about amoralism and the FSM's Most Holy Noodly Appendage, that is fine too - just let people know in clear terms what you are talking about.


No everyone in the courtroom is very concerned with the fact that murder is wrong that is why it is illegal, so what you guys are saying is you would only find the murderer guilty because it is law and would not really think he did anything morally reprehensible. Come on guys, I know you are much brighter then this even if you don't show it.

Lets put this to bed with another example, if you were in a place were murder was legal, would you pass a law if you had the power to make it illegal? If you would the reason is you know murder is immoral in almost every rational circumstance.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:59:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?

This is important basis to understand when you are debating deserving its own thread so you don't keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again. I know you love logical fallacies, but try to learn something and try not to be so ignorant.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 12:24:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:59:10 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?

This is important basis to understand when you are debating deserving its own thread so you don't keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again. I know you love logical fallacies, but try to learn something and try not to be so ignorant.

Why does it need six threads? What logical fallacy have I committed.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 4:56:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 5:59:12 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?

In an attempt to divert from the fact that they are the SAME person..

First sign of madness, talking to yourself..

Unlike paranoid delusions...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 6:35:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 6:44:11 AM, izbo10 wrote:

No everyone in the courtroom is very concerned with the fact that murder is wrong that is why it is illegal, so what you guys are saying is you would only find the murderer guilty because it is law and would not really think he did anything morally reprehensible.

Nobody is saying that. We are all saying that illegality is sufficient for condemnation regardless of the moral import. We're not even reaching judgment on the moral issue. I'm not sure why you insist on straw-manning that at every turn.

Come on guys, I know you are much brighter then this even if you don't show it.

I wish I could say the same for you...

Lets put this to bed with another example, if you were in a place were murder was legal, would you pass a law if you had the power to make it illegal? If you would the reason is you know murder is immoral in almost every rational circumstance.

The fact aside that murder is a poor choice of example because it's a "core" moral issue that there is very wide convergence on... the real reason that laws get passed is social utility... especially for core moral issues. Sure, the codification process is essentially turning morality into law, but the root of the moral judgment is the social benefit - the same reason that there is widespread convergence on those issues.

You have again missed the entire point. The jury is not convened to decide if the law is moral or not. The jury is convened to decide if the law was *broken.* It's much like the difference between consequentialism and a rules-based moral system.

All you need is clarity.... clarity lifts you up where you belong... clarity is just a game....
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:26:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 12:24:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/9/2011 6:59:10 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 2:19:14 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why do you need yet another thread on the exact some topic with the exact same logical fallacies being refuted?

This is important basis to understand when you are debating deserving its own thread so you don't keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again. I know you love logical fallacies, but try to learn something and try not to be so ignorant.

Why does it need six threads? What logical fallacy have I committed.

BUMP
(It would be nice for you to defend your views one day).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.