Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    That's kind of you, but the longer I've been on forums, and the older I get, I've found myself becoming more of a curmudgeon. I don't have the patience to listen to people repeat the same arguments over and over again, and there's something about online forums that attract a personality type that is more interested in arguing than listening, winning the discussion rather than moving the discussion forward. That just wears me out. I'd rather let someone have the last word than pick apart their reasoning for the nth time.

    I still think discussion should be genial when possible, and I'm a stickler for thinking that Christians have a duty to share the hope in them with gentleness and respect. I still think name calling, and insulting people is contrary to the Christian witness, and i still think that when we use scripture to back harsh challenge/riposte style behavior, we miss the point of the cultural context, and the authority that the men of God in those situations carried. But I also realize that trying to convince people of that is a losing battle, and find myself wanting to simply cut through the crap and get at the heart of the discussion. That means, depending on who I'm dealing with, I'm more likely to offer a dry and blunt reply telling you exactly what I think rather than fluffing it up with flowery language. I don't mean to come off terse, or to be a jerk about it, and I could probably be more tactful, but I don't have the endurance anymore to tiptoe round and round over something that I suspect others are thinking as well.
    HAP, as my wife and I say - which means "heard and processing." It's our way of telling each other that we are listening and considering. The phenomenon of "only interested in arguing" is one I am familiar with. My own love for a good debate that delves into concepts and issues often gets me painted as "just wants to argue." In a sense, that is correct, if meant in the formal sense. I want to talk with people who disagree with me. I don't learn anything when I only talk to people who agree, so I find little attraction to jumping into a discussion where I already agree with what is being said. All that does is further reinforce what I already think, rather than challenging it.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Also, people in forums are so quick to point out that they're emotionless when they post. Everyone thinks they're stiff little Vulcans or something. It's okay to admit when you're frustrated with a poster, or that you're angry at someone or what have you. I get plenty emotional when I post. Just don't make your arguments emotion-based arguments, and don't that emotion with you when you log off.
    I'm not sure if this is in response to some of my recent posts. If it is, then you have misunderstood my posts. I have been emotional here on more than one occasion, and written things I was sorry for afterwards. But I am accused of emotional responses far more often than I actually have them. For me, most of these arguments are like exploring a geometric construct. I'm interested in how they were assembled, how they hang together, and whether they are strong enough to bear weight or too weak to stand. There are exceptions, of course. The homosexual discussion is a good example. That argument impacts people's lives, so I am more passionate about the argument.

    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    In my opinion, someone like seer is a top tier poster. I don't always agree with his politics or even his theology, but the dude has the tenacity of a cockroach, and you need that with some of the skeptics on this website. I don't know how he does it, but I take my hat off to him.
    Yes, well...what to say about that...

    I have met Seer and was impressed with him as a person. And he is definitely tenacious in this forum, a fact that can be attested to by the length of our morality debate/discussion (among other things). I find he has a tendency to slip into treating people who disagree with him as in some way intrinsically disingenuous or hypocritical. I find he would rather leap to "you're a hypocrite" than "this thing you said here doesn't seem to go with this other thing you said there - how do you explain that?" In other words, if the person he is talking to is saying something he doesn't agree with or finds is not well structured, the person he's talking to must be somehow malicious. He doesn't seem to entertain the possibility that the person may have made an error, or that he may not have understood what was being said.

    This leap on the part of so many here is one that always leaves me shaking my head.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-16-2019, 12:52 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      That subjective meaning exists (i.e., is real) and is used by all of us every day.

      Even attempting to refute it is self-defeating, because he has to use symbols/words (whose meaning is subjectively determined) to do so. And pointing out that the meaning is based in an objective reality doesn't help him. Our discussion was about the assignment of meaning, and it is the assignment of meaning to the symbol that is subjective, just as assigning meaning to action or anything else is subjective.
      Let's put it this way:

      Objective reality is what gives meaning to words; words don't give meaning to objective reality. When your kid comes to you and says, "What does this word mean?" you don't say, "Words are subjectively defined, so it means whatever you want it to mean." (At least I'm assuming that's not what you say. I must confess, knowing you, that's not a safe assumption.) Rather, you point to something that objectively exists and say, "This is what It means." Furthermore, if something exists in reality, it exists whether or not we have a word to describe it.

      As an analogy for "the meaning of life", this implies that there is an objective reality which imbues your life with meaning in the same way that objective reality imbues words with meaning; furthermore, it implies that one's life has meaning even if one is not aware of it (Adrift's example of a child in a Nazi death camp); however, your worldview can not account for the existence of such a reality, and you end up contradicting yourself. Either your worldview is true, and therefore your life has no meaning; or your life has meaning, and therefore your worldview is false. You can't have it both ways.

      This is essentially the same rebuttal I presented before, just worded differently, so I'm not sure on what basis you claim I was unable to respond to your argument, but I suppose it makes you feel better if that's what you tell yourself. To be frank, I'm not sure I have the patience for another round of this nonsense.
      Last edited by Mountain Man; 06-16-2019, 08:26 PM.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Let's put it this way:

        Objective reality is what gives meaning to words; words don't give meaning to objective reality. When your kid comes to you and says, "What does this word mean?" you don't say, "Words are subjectively defined, so it means whatever you want it to mean." (At least I'm assuming that's not what you say. I must confess, knowing you, that's not a safe assumption.) Rather, you point to something that objectively exists and say, "This is what It means." Furthermore, if something exists in reality, it exists whether or not we have a word to describe it.

        As an analogy for "the meaning of life", this implies that there is an objective reality which imbues your life with meaning in the same way that objective reality imbues words with meaning; furthermore, it implies that one's life has meaning even if one is not aware of it (Adrift's example of a child in a Nazi death camp); however, your worldview can not account for the existence of such a reality, and you end up contradicting yourself. Either your worldview is true, and therefore your life has no meaning; or your life has meaning, and therefore your worldview is false. You can't have it both ways.

        This is essentially the same rebuttal I presented before, just worded differently, so I'm not sure on what basis you claim I was unable to respond to your argument, but I suppose it makes you feel better if that's what you tell yourself. To be frank, I'm not sure I have the patience for another round of this nonsense.
        Yeah... You've made this point a few times, so when I see carpedm act like it hasn't been addressed in later posts after he's quoted and replied to it, it's just like...eh, either he doesn't get it, or is acting like he didn't read it. It's okay if he doesn't agree with it, but acting like you haven't addressed it all is like, oh well....An answer has been given. Other people can read it. There's not much more to say at this point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Welcome to the "dark side", my friend.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Yeah... You've made this point a few times, so when I see carpedm act like it hasn't been addressed in later posts after he's quoted and replied to it, it's just like...eh, either he doesn't get it, or is acting like he didn't read it. It's okay if he doesn't agree with it, but acting like you haven't addressed it all is like, oh well....An answer has been given. Other people can read it. There's not much more to say at this point.
            I agree, and I admit that it's possible I was drawn in by carpe's trolling. He's one of the best in that department because he's so subtle about it.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I agree, and I admit that it's possible I was drawn in by carpe's trolling. He's one of the best in that department because he's so subtle about it.
              And I think, currently, he leads Tweb in words per post!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Let's put it this way:

                Objective reality is what gives meaning to words; words don't give meaning to objective reality. When your kid comes to you and says, "What does this word mean?" you don't say, "Words are subjectively defined, so it means whatever you want it to mean." (At least I'm assuming that's not what you say. I must confess, knowing you, that's not a safe assumption.) Rather, you point to something that objectively exists and say, "This is what It means." Furthermore, if something exists in reality, it exists whether or not we have a word to describe it.

                As an analogy for "the meaning of life", this implies that there is an objective reality which imbues your life with meaning in the same way that objective reality imbues words with meaning; furthermore, it implies that one's life has meaning even if one is not aware of it (Adrift's example of a child in a Nazi death camp); however, your worldview can not account for the existence of such a reality, and you end up contradicting yourself. Either your worldview is true, and therefore your life has no meaning; or your life has meaning, and therefore your worldview is false. You can't have it both ways.

                This is essentially the same rebuttal I presented before, just worded differently, so I'm not sure on what basis you claim I was unable to respond to your argument, but I suppose it makes you feel better if that's what you tell yourself. To be frank, I'm not sure I have the patience for another round of this nonsense.
                So, no. People give meaning to words, by subjectively creating an association between a selected (or created) symbol and an objective (or subjective) reality. In the case of language, take the person/people (or any sentient being) out of the equation and there is no word and no meaning to/for that word. All that remains is the objective reality. The statement "objective reality gives meaning to words" is simply false on the face of it.

                So extending that, people can give "meaning" to pretty much ANY symbol by associating it with an objective (or subjective) reality. If I make the meaning of my life, "serving the poor," then that is the meaning I have assigned to my life - just as some part of humanity has assigned to "penny" the meaning "that smallest valued coin in the U.S." To declare it "false" or "an illusion" or "a fiction" has no basis. It attempts to assign to "meaning" attributes that are not actually part of the definition of "meaning" as humanity commonly uses it (which makes your swipe at me somewhat ironic).

                Your rebuttal failed then, MM, and it fails now, whether or not you have patience for "another round" and no matter how many times you try to write this off as "nonsense." The logic here is inescapable. Why/how it is you cannot see it or acknowledge it, I have no idea.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 08:51 AM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Yeah... You've made this point a few times, so when I see carpedm act like it hasn't been addressed in later posts after he's quoted and replied to it, it's just like...eh, either he doesn't get it, or is acting like he didn't read it. It's okay if he doesn't agree with it, but acting like you haven't addressed it all is like, oh well....An answer has been given. Other people can read it. There's not much more to say at this point.
                  If you read my posts, Adrift, you will see that I have responded to this flawed explanation several times. So far, the response is being ignored, and all that happens is the same failed explanation is re-offered as if something new is being said. THAT is what I am referring to when I say "you are not responding to the argument." Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, "you are not responding to the rebuttal?"

                  Point: Sentient beings assign meaning by associating some objective reality with one or more symbols (words, objects, concepts)
                  Point: No part of the definition of the word "meaning" includes the concept of permanence or universality
                  Point: The people who claim "subjective meaning is a fiction/illusion" ignore their own stated belief every time they speak, using symbolic language as if it actually has meaning

                  And the situations are perfectly parallel:

                  Symbol - "penny"
                  Assigner of meaning - "people/person"
                  External reality - "the smallest valued coin in the U.S.

                  Symbol - "my life"
                  Assigner of meaning - "me"
                  External reality - "serving the poor"

                  This is not a complex concept. If you want to disagree - then which of the points above do you consider to be wrong? How do the parallels fail?
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 08:39 AM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    And I think, currently, he leads Tweb in words per post!
                    Adrift, note the pattern of these last two posts. They are marvelous examples of my earlier statement about people here not being able to stay with the argument at hand, instead diverting to statements about the person making the arguments. My new self-challenge is not to rise to this kind of post, and to simply stay focused on the arguments.

                    May I be more successful than I am with "last word to you." I'm still hovering at about 50% on that one.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Adrift, note the pattern of these last two posts. They are marvelous examples of my earlier statement about people here not being able to stay with the argument at hand, instead diverting to statements about the person making the arguments. My new self-challenge is not to rise to this kind of post, and to simply stay focused on the arguments.

                      May I be more successful than I am with "last word to you." I'm still hovering at about 50% on that one.
                      And yet here you are, not staying with the argument at hand, diverting to a statement about someone else's post and not simply staying focused on the arguments.



                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I have met Seer and was impressed with him as a person. And he is definitely tenacious in this forum, a fact that can be attested to by the length of our morality debate/discussion (among other things). I find he has a tendency to slip into treating people who disagree with him as in some way intrinsically disingenuous or hypocritical. I find he would rather leap to "you're a hypocrite" than "this thing you said here doesn't seem to go with this other thing you said there - how do you explain that?" In other words, if the person he is talking to is saying something he doesn't agree with or finds is not well structured, the person he's talking to must be somehow malicious. He doesn't seem to entertain the possibility that the person may have made an error, or that he may not have understood what was being said.

                        This leap on the part of so many here is one that always leaves me shaking my head.
                        Well Carp, I do get frustrated with you at times. You have accused me for instance of not understanding the basic laws of logic, which I do. You suggested that I used a circular argument, which I didn't. And that if my argument was in fact circular, your following (why you value life) argument was also circular - if we used your criterion. Hence the hypocritical thing.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Adrift, note the pattern of these last two posts.
                          Yeah, cause Adrift can't possibly discern anything without you pointing it out. He's much sharper than you give him credit, Carpe.

                          They are marvelous examples of my earlier statement about people here not being able to stay with the argument at hand, instead diverting to statements about the person making the arguments. My new self-challenge is not to rise to this kind of post, and to simply stay focused on the arguments.
                          Yet, you couldn't resist.

                          May I be more successful than I am with "last word to you." I'm still hovering at about 50% on that one.
                          I'll let you have the last word on this.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Well Carp, I do get frustrated with you at times. You have accused me for instance of not understanding the basic laws of logic, which I do. You suggested that I used a circular argument, which I didn't. And that if my argument was in fact circular, your following (why you value life) argument was also circular - if we used your criterion. Hence the hypocritical thing.
                            Seer, when someone makes the statement that the car is not starting because the ignition circuit in the tailpipe is malfunctioning, I conclude they lack a certain understanding about cars.

                            When someone argues that the minor premises in a syllogism must logically proceed from the major premise, and continually asserts that for soundly structured syllogisms, I conclude they lack a certain understanding of basic logic. When someone makes a circular argument - and then continually claims they have not, even when the logic of how they have gone in a circle is laid out, then I question their grasp of logic. You never addressed the place where I specifically outlined your circularity - you simply repeatedly asserted it was not.

                            You are welcome to show how the "why I value life" argument is circular. I have not seen that argument put forward (or at least I do not recall it), and I am not sure exactly how you would make that argument to begin with. What we value can be rooted in logic, but is not necessarily so rooted. It may be rooted in experience. It may be rooted in simple attraction. How we come to value what we value is highly subjective and complex, and I don't believe I ever claimed it is always rooted in logic or that it needs to always be rooted in logic.

                            As for hypocrisy - I'll leave you to your conclusions. I'm working on letting people have their opinions and just focusing on the arguments. They are what I am primarily interested in. What you do or do not think of me has no consequence because it doesn't change who I actually am one whit.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              If I make the meaning of my life, "serving the poor," then that is the meaning I have assigned to my life...
                              Yes, I've dealt with that already by pointing out that you beg the question that "serving the poor" is objectively meaningful in and of itself, which is to say that it is an inherently meaningful act even if nobody does it. A theist can account for this reality. An atheist can not.

                              And that's the last round for me. I leave it to others to decide which of us presented the more compelling argument.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Yes, I've dealt with that already by pointing out that you beg the question that "serving the poor" is objectively meaningful in and of itself, which is to say that it is an inherently meaningful act even if nobody does it. A theist can account for this reality. An atheist can not.

                                And that's the last round for me. I leave it to others to decide which of us presented the more compelling argument.
                                MM, the term "objectively meaningful in and of itself" is an oxymoron. Meaning is a value assigned to a symbol by a sentient mind. Without the sentient mind, it does not exist. A mountain is an objective reality. We assign that reality to the word "mountain." The mountain is not "objectively meaningful in and of itself" - it simply is what it is.

                                Likewise, "serving the poor" is an objective reality. Assigning it to be the "meaning of my life" is a simple assignment of meaning. You may make the meaning of your life "to spread the Christian message."

                                You are again ignoring the simple logic. And I note that you did not identify which point of the argument was false/flawed or how the parallelism in the argument failed. What you are doing, instead, is to create a new, specialized class of "meaning" that you are requiring to have attributes that are not supported by the dictionary definition OR by common usage. Why you are doing this, only you can know. But it doesn't withstand scrutiny.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-17-2019, 09:40 AM.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                289 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X