Rev Nile's Zoe' law passed! Feminazis frothing at the mouth.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Byron, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    I know this is between Sanchez and SC, but I just want to point something out here: SC certainly did not say it is ok to attack somebody if he is pissed off. In fact, he said quite the opposite (and I know you said that you were changing what he said, but you actually pretty much changed the essence of it to the opposite of what he actually said). He said that sometimes it has happened and he has then apologised. If he thought it was ok, he wouldn't see a need to apologise - the fact that he sees a need to apologise and then actually apologises means quite the opposite of how you seemed to interpret it. People do things all the time that they believe/know are 'wrong'. Isn't this a large part of the basis of Christianity? "I am but an imperfect and sinful human who will continue to sin, but will continually repent and be redeemed". No?
     
  2. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    As I've told you before, I've read it. I know what you're getting at. Doctors are not required to perform an abortion if they object, but are required to inform the patient of another doctor who can assist them. This is not requiring them to do anything other than to provide competent medical advice as requested by their patients - i.e. to do their job. If they do not like that, they can cease practicing medicine and have no obligation whatsoever under the abortion legislation - so, there is no absolute forcing whatsoever - if somebody is so vehemently opposed, they can simply refuse to have anything further to do with the profession. So, the only requirement is that members of a profession perform the job that they chose and for which they are paid. Hardly forcing a religious group to do anything.
     
  3. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I dont really dont understand how this is relevant to me and what ive said. What are you asking me, be more specific?

    DNA is vastly complicated - yet must be consistant to function. Computer programming is vastly complex, yet must be consistant to function. The laws of physics are very very complex, yet perfectly consistant into order to function. You might need to read or listen to Frederik Bastiat's book 'The Law' to show reasons why law must be consistant.

    Hehehe, no its not, primarily because its not a reduction - its an expansion - hehehe

    You're failure to be informed doesnt make me a wako ;) you need to do a little more reading



    Of course you can chose your own - but (and this applies a little with the second part) in order for you to chose your own morality - you dont live in a relationship vacum - you have to deal with the fact that Australian law is based on the judeo-christian ethic (in the big picture) - you also have to deal with - if you can chose your morality - then everyone else can too. You're telling me I cant force my morality on others, but yet you are forcing that morality on me.... kinda contradictory dont you think ;)

    Also its not realistic to say you dont force your morality on people - any social law is moral. from murder to theft to fraud to drunk and disorderly... its just a comepletly contradictory statement
     
  4. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I should proabably say this just to anticipate a possible replay


    Atheism is a religious worldview - they just answer the questions about the nature of god in the negative

    Saying Atheism or secularism or whatever the variation is somehow different to what you call my 'religious code' is just fallacious.
    Its like saying Anarchy is not a political view.... its absolutely is
     
  5. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    I am saying that somebody can agree with something that Christians believe without having to agree with everything else that Christians believe. I think that stealing is wrong, I am not a Christian. Christians think that stealing is wrong. There is no problem here. It is relevant because you were basically saying that it is inconsistent to agree with some aspects of what Christians believe, but to reject others. I wasn't asking a question.

    The things you mention are really not related to societies and how they function. You're arguing that because x is complex and consistent, then, if y is complex, it must also be consistent, which is a fallacious argument. Religion is far from consistent, so using it as the basis for 'consistent' laws would be a disaster. Like I said previously, bordsilver's detailed explanations perhaps describe the closest we might get to truly consistent law, and this would allow all sorts of things that you wouldn't like.

    You've completely misunderstood what an argumentum ad absurdum / reductio ad absurdum is. I'm not going to ramble on, but it is simply an argument seeking to disprove another argument through the claim that something which is obviously absurd will result from its acceptance (or, in some cases, denial). So, you'd generally be expanding to make an argumentum ad absurdum or reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't mean that you're actually chopping bits out or 'reducing' the size of the argument.

    Edit: I forgot to mention that I realise you may have just been being sarcastic there, but it's hard to know.

    You're not necessarily wacko, but I do think you're probably wrong. Who is claiming that everybody should have abortions? Please provide reliable references. If you can, I will be suitably disgusted by anyone encouraging abortions willy-nilly, but it will certainly not change my view that they ought to be available to those who seek them.


    My point was that morals, by definition, are our personal, internal beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Ethics, on the other hand, are sort of communal morals - so they depend on, no surprises here, the morals held by the individuals in the community but are not determined by a single individual.

    I'm not forcing my morality on you. If I said that you should be forced to have an abortion, then that would be forcing my morals on you. Saying that you shouldn't interfere with others doing what they do is not forcing morals onto you, but it is requesting that you don't force your morals (no abortions allowed) onto others.
     
  6. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    You're partly right and partly wrong.

    The hardcore, militant "there is absolutely no god - I know there is no god and I don't care what evidence is presented for one" atheists are just as silly as "there is absolutely a god - I know there is a god and I don't care that there is no actual evidence for one" theists. However, atheism (like religion) is a continuum of sorts. You could also be right smack in the centre - a 'true' agnostic - believing that there is an equal chance that there is a god and that there is no god. Most people, though - both religious and irreligious, lie either side of the centre, but also not at the extremes. Anyone on the 'theist side' would be considered religious - a believer. Anyone on the 'atheist side' would be considered irreligious - a non-believer. Taking the position that a god is unlikely due to a lack of evidence is substantially different to taking a faith-based position of believing in a god.

    Of course atheism is different to your religious code. Even one religious code is different to another religious code.

    I disagree that atheists answer questions about the nature of god in the negative. If you asked me "Do you think that god loves you?", I would not answer "no", but state that I do not think that the existence of a god is likely, so the question is silly. Just like if you asked me what I thought that one of my pens would like to do tomorrow... I could say "nothing", since, obviously a pen doesn't want to do anything tomorrow, but that would be a silly answer to a silly question, with a better answer explaining this.

    Having said that, I am not at the extreme atheist end of the continuum, either. If suitable evidence came to light that indicated the existence of a 'god', I'd look at it with great interest. I have seen no such evidence and - I can assure you - I've looked.
     
  7. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Hehe funny gooby, its not a strawman, if anything its a slippery slope argument. But since you dont know what im talking about, ill leave you with it. you can lead someone to reason, but you cant make em think. Godluck with watever u find important.
     
  8. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    You're right - it's not a straw man argument, and I didn't say it was. A straw man argument is not the same as argumentum ad absurdum. A slippery slope argument could, in some cases, be viewed as a type of argumentum ad absurdum, perhaps a 'milder' form. Incidentally, an argumentum ad absurdum is not necessarily fallacious.

    I know exactly what you're talking about; that much should be obvious. I thought we'd moved past hollow attempts at insulting one another's intelligence, but I was apparently wrong. Saying, in essence, "you're just too stupid to understand my far-too-sophisticated points, so you're wrong" is unbecoming. Even when you have clearly misunderstood me or just been wrong about something, I've explained - in some cases, at great length.

    Right again. I also thought we'd moved past you claiming that your position was reason-based and on to you acknowledging that it was religious.
     
  9. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    2013,

    Cheers goob ;)
     
  10. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    "Similar to"... they are not 'basically the same thing' at all. They are related, not the same. All you're doing is further illustrating your lack of understanding. Why do you keep doing this to yourself? If you read the description of argumentum ad adbsurdum at the top of the wiki page, you will find that the description is quite different to that for a straw man argument. A straw man argument is a bit of a 'bait and switch' deal, argumentum ad absurdum is simply about an assertion resulting in an absurd outcome. As I mentioned previously, an argumentum ad absurdum is also not necessarily fallacious, whereas a straw man argument is (mostly since it doesn't represent what it superficially purports/appears to). So, interestingly, a straw man argument will generally be an argumentum ad absurdum (since they usually rely on an absurd outcome), but an argumentum ad absurdum is not necessarily a straw man argument. For the example cited above, an argumentum ad absurdum that is not a straw man argument might go something like: "I submit to you that if you can't take this evidence and find these defendants guilty on this evidence, they will rob so many banks that the banking system will collapse". Note the presence of an absurd outcome, but the lack of switching what is actually happening for something else (i.e. an inability to convict these bank robbers (argumentum ad absurdum) vs an inability to convict any bank robbers (straw man argument)).

    Responding in such a way as to misrepresent my level of intelligence? What? By disagreeing with you and explaining why? And by telling you exactly where and how you're wrong? That was nothing more than an attempt at rewording what you'd already said (i.e. saying that I didn't understand, when it is blatantly obvious that i understand perfectly well... you just disagree with me). Interestingly, you've not presented anything that shows that I have been factually wrong about anything - you tried above, but that was due to you misreading the definition of 'straw man argument' and perhaps not reading the definition of argumentum ad absurdum at all.

    I asked you for some evidence that people are encouraging willy-nilly abortions. You ignored it. I'm also curious to know if you read the article I linked to (again), since you're suddenly so big on 'research'.
     
  11. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Cheers Gooby, keep up the good work ;)

    Im taking notes now, keep it coming
     
  12. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Thanks, I will. Glad you appreciate my work.

    Also glad you have admitted that you were wrong by deleting it and still failed to support your own claims.

    Taking notes is a great idea - learn from your mistakes.

    Look after yourself. I can't say it was a pleasure debating with you, but it was certainly interesting.
     
  13. SilverSanchez

    SilverSanchez Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,679
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Melbourne
    we had a debate??
    when did this happen?

    oh yeah i forgot.....

    Right I agree - you convinced me.... its 2013!

    Got it!
     
  14. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    I feel offended SC :( http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-608700.html#p608700

    But then again shinybum wasn't swayed either ;)
     
  15. gooby

    gooby New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    null
    Yes, but it's hardly difficult to sway the religious with religious arguments. An argument that sways somebody who already agrees with it is not necessarily a good argument, whilst an argument that fails to sway may, in fact, be a good argument that is merely received poorly.
     

Share This Page