Conservatism

[Famine]

I coerrected my grammar within seconds.

That'd be "corrected", and the point remains.

You have no sensible rebuttal, so you've gone for the grammar card but tripped over your own in your haste to act superior. Thereby failing on all fronts.

 

[Scaff]

Yeah, no, that wasn't so much a question as it was a plea to consider who you're talking to. Dotini, as a rule, has no desire to address points.

Got it, then again holding him to task could be considered a public service.

 

[Dotini]

Still doesn't address my point.

What point was that?

I said, "I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington."



You said, "The Supreme Court of the US's recent rulings say your wrong.

States that require you to believe to hold public office say your wrong.



Are trying to say, in your garbled language, that the Supreme Court of the US makes the laws in the State of Washington?

Are you saying the church makes the laws in Washington?

Perhaps you need a refund of your tuition.

 

[Danoff]

Are trying to say, in your garbled language,

super uncalled for and deeeeeeply hypocritical.

that the Supreme Court of the US makes the laws in the State of Washington?

Are you saying the church makes the laws in Washington?

Perhaps you need a refund of your tuition.

Non-responsive, bad faith, not conducive to a discussion.

 

[Famine]

your garbled language

A grammatical mixup between two homophones is not "garbled language". Substituting entirely incorrect words and mis-spelling others most certainly is.

If may wish to correct your spelling

I coerrected my grammar

It's insane, even by your absolutely bottom of the barrel standards, that you're still trying to beat this particular drum.

 

[Dotini]

super uncalled for and deeeeeeply hypocritical.


Non-responsive, bad faith, not conducive to a discussion.

Please explain to me what he was trying to say, and I may make a response. Otherwise, I haven't the faintest idea of what he is trying to say.

 

[Scaff]

What point was that?

I said, "I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington."



You said, "The Supreme Court of the US's recent rulings say your wrong.

States that require you to believe to hold public office say your wrong.



Are trying to say, in your garbled language, that the Supreme Court of the US makes the laws in the State of Washington?

Are you saying the church makes the laws in Washington?

Perhaps you need a refund of your tuition.

I appear to have touched a nerve, and would also like to remind you that this was your post...

"I can't speak for Brazil. But here in the US, I have served in the criminal justice system and served on half a dozen juries. I can guarantee you the church does not run the police departments or the courts. I have a nephew who is a high placed lawyer in the Washington State Legislature. I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington."


..not this lone sentence "I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington."

Could I have been clearer in my quote? Yes. That however doesn't change your selective approach, a move that I take as deeply dishonest, as you were quite clearly, in your post, referring not just to Washington state, but to the US as a whole, as the previous sentence quite clearly demonstrates.

That aside, you seem to not understand how the supreme court works.

Being blunt you were clearly talking about the US as a whole (the Washington state point was an addition to that, not the sole point), and as such my point is perfectly clear.

So once again, address the point, but this time do so honestly, as my patience (and I'm sure that of others) with this dishonesty, avoidance, and all-round bad faith, is wearing very thin.

 

[Danoff]

Please explain to me what he was trying to say, and I may make a response. Otherwise, I haven't the faintest idea of what he is trying to say.

Like everything, it requires a mind willing to understand. As far as I can tell, you're the only one confused, and you're confused on purpose. What's hard about this?

In theory the US has a separation of Church and State, in reality it hasn't for a long time.

In advanced and civilized cultures, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.

...is this specific to Washington state? Is it specific to your time on a jury? Even if it were, Supreme Court decisions govern in Washington. You're intentionally getting confused and trying to deflect by pointing us at grammar. It's the very definition of bad faith discussion.

 

[Dotini]

Since I'm confused, I will start over again on a clean sheet of paper:


I have served in the criminal justice system and served on half a dozen juries. I can guarantee you the church does not run the police departments or the courts. I have a nephew who is a high placed lawyer in the Washington State Legislature. I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington.

Questions or rebuttals?

 

[Scaff]

Since I'm confused, I will start over again on a clean sheet of paper:


I have served in the criminal justice system and served on half a dozen juries. I can guarantee you the church does not run the police departments or the courts. I have a nephew who is a high placed lawyer in the Washington State Legislature. I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington.

Questions or rebuttals?

Yes, the exact same damn points I've already made (and you are still talking about the US as a whole)!


The Supreme Court of the US's recent rulings say you're wrong.

States that require you to believe to hold public office say you're wrong.

 

[Duke]

Around the nation, mosques, temples, synagogues and churches that have been burned and desecrated have been motivated by many reasons, recently some even by atheists. In Seattle, the more usual common denominator is anti-semitism, but swastikas have been found in vandalized Hindu temples. A "rising animus against religion", as is your wont, is mentioned prominently.

Arson, Graffiti and More: Vandals Increasingly Target Catholic Churches

The suggested reasons for the attacks vary, but at root is a rising animus against religion.

www.newsweek.com

I will not condone offensive violence, but these churches should consider keeping their noses - and penises - out of other people’s lives. Perhaps they wouldn’t attract so much ire.

 

[TexRex]

As far as I can tell, you're the only one confused, and you're confused on purpose.

If not malicious ignorance, certainly a ploy for attention.

 

[Famine]

Questions or rebuttals?

You missed a hyphen out of "high-placed" and there's two "that"s missing, so I'm afraid I don't understand what you posted in your garbled language.

 

[Danoff]

Since I'm confused, I will start over again on a clean sheet of paper:


I have served in the criminal justice system and served on half a dozen juries. I can guarantee you the church does not run the police departments or the courts. I have a nephew who is a high placed lawyer in the Washington State Legislature. I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington.

Questions or rebuttals?

Question. What exactly does this overly-literal interpretation of the discussion have to do with the previous one? What laws, courts, etc. are you talking about?

"I can guarantee you the church does not run the police departments or the courts."

This is ambiguous locality.

"I can guarantee you the church does not make the laws in the State of Washington."

This is less ambiguous.

It appears that you want to draw a conclusion about the first statement from a discussion about the second. This would be a typical Dotini conversation technique where we discuss something narrow and then attempt to apply the findings of that to a much broader statement - generally logic works the other way around. You apply the broader findings to the narrow. Essentially, you're premised this conversation on something of a fallacy - it could be intentional or unintentional. Given how often you do it, and how you did it earlier in this thread, I'm going with intentional.

Earlier you attempted to narrow "advanced and civilized cultures" down to Washington State. I think you're still trying it. That being said, Washington is governed by Federal and Constitutional law. I suppose if you want to be overly-literal, you could pretend that you're talking entirely about Washington State law and no other law that governs Washington State. But then we'd have completely lost lock of the conversation and are just gyrating around Dotini's attempt at not being wrong.

 

[Danoff]

@Dotini

Let's have a deeper look at the logical flaw in this discussion. I know, nobody cares but Danoff at this point, but I'm going there anyway.

Premise 1 - In Washington State, we do not accord religion much stature.
Premise 2 - Washington State is an advanced and civilized culture.
Conclusion: In advanced and civilized cultures, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.

This is an improper attempt at Modus ponens. This common logical fallacy is called "Affirming the Consequent". Modus Ponens can be referred to as "Affirming the Antecedent". Specifically, Washington State is a subset of advanced civilized culture, and so the properties of one element of the set do not bind the properties of the remainder.

The following would be a proper argument.

Premise 1 - In advanced and civilized cultures, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.
Premise 2 - Washington State is an advanced and civilized culture.
Conclusion: In Washington State, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.

That's Modus Ponens properly done. The problem here is that it doesn't help with the originally contentious point, which was Premise 1. This is the nature of the logical fallacy on display in this discussion. A logical operation that does not establish the desired conclusion is turned on its head, still kinda sorta sounds logical, and then is fallaciously used to establish the desired conclusion.


*I previously referred to denying the antecedent from memory, but that's a slightly different Ponens-based fallacy.

 

[Dotini]

I AM SO BERKING DONE WITH RELIGION IN EVERY FORM.

How have we as a species not moved past this yet?

Okay, you win. How do we get rid of religion?

 

[Joey D]

Okay, you win. How do we get rid of religion?

I don't think you need to get rid of religion per se, but something needs to be done about it infiltrating the government. There's always going to be some religion involved with politics and there's an overlap of what religion teaches and what shouldn't be acceptable in society. I think most people would agree with the notion of "thou shalt not kill" but making a law against murder isn't being religious.

I look at it this way, can the basis of the law be reasoned by some other means than "because the Bible/Quran/Torah/Veras/etc says so". Take the fight against same-sex marriage for example, there's really no reason to not allow that past using Leviticus 18:22 to say those male same-sex relationships are wrong. Or if you want an extreme example, just look at the countries that have their entire legal code based on Sharia Law.

 

[TexRex]

That this ended up exactly like every other discussion with Dotini, ever, should come as a surprise to nobody.

 

[UKMikey]

Okay, you win. How do we get rid of religion?

Other developed countries seem to be doing just fine without it if this chart is any indication.

 

[HenrySwanson]

@Dotini

Let's have a deeper look at the logical flaw in this discussion. I know, nobody cares but Danoff at this point, but I'm going there anyway.

Premise 1 - In Washington State, we do not accord religion much stature.
Premise 2 - Washington State is an advanced and civilized culture.
Conclusion: In advanced and civilized cultures, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.

This is an improper attempt at Modus ponens. This common logical fallacy is called "Affirming the Consequent". Modus Ponens can be referred to as "Affirming the Antecedent". Specifically, Washington State is a subset of advanced civilized culture, and so the properties of one element of the set do not bind the properties of the remainder.

The following would be a proper argument.

Premise 1 - In advanced and civilized cultures, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.
Premise 2 - Washington State is an advanced and civilized culture.
Conclusion: In Washington State, we don't accord religion much stature, as we have well established governance and law.

That's Modus Ponens properly done. The problem here is that it doesn't help with the originally contentious point, which was Premise 1. This is the nature of the logical fallacy on display in this discussion. A logical operation that does not establish the desired conclusion is turned on its head, still kinda sorta sounds logical, and then is fallaciously used to establish the desired conclusion.


*I previously referred to denying the antecedent from memory, but that's a slightly different Ponens-based fallacy.

This is kinda OT, but I don't really know a place to put it so....is a logical conclusion always objective, or can it be subjective? The question arose from a conversation I had with a friend, and I said they are objective but thinking about it now I realise I don't know enough about the subject to draw such a conclusion.

 

[Danoff]

This is kinda OT, but I don't really know a place to put it so....is a logical conclusion always objective, or can it be subjective? The question arose from a conversation I had with a friend, and I said they are objective but thinking about it now I realise I don't know enough about the subject to draw such a conclusion.

Depends on what you mean by logical and what you mean by subjective/objective.

You can make objective statements about something subjective. Like I could tell you I like apples, and you could draw objective logical conclusions from it. Alternatively, you could have a subjective premise, like the one in my rephrased modus ponens that you quoted, from which you can have a valid, but not sound, logical argument and reach an objectively valid logical conclusion. But it is not a sound argument, and it is not an altogether objective argument. It's objectively valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. But the premises are subjective and untrue.

I think this would be easier if you gave me an example.

 

[TexRex]

This little bitch doesn't even sound like an American, but I guess it serves me right for employing divisive rhetoric against conservatives.

 

[UKMikey]

Master race... I bet he can't even go out in the sun without getting burnt.

 

[Duke]

 

[HenrySwanson]

Depends on what you mean by logical and what you mean by subjective/objective.

You can make objective statements about something subjective. Like I could tell you I like apples, and you could draw objective logical conclusions from it. Alternatively, you could have a subjective premise, like the one in my rephrased modus ponens that you quoted, from which you can have a valid, but not sound, logical argument and reach an objectively valid logical conclusion. But it is not a sound argument, and it is not an altogether objective argument. It's objectively valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion is true. But the premises are subjective and untrue.

I think this would be easier if you gave me an example.

So it was discussing someone's outlook on life, specifically that they don't believe the world is "real" based on the experiences they've had. These experiences have been attributed to that person's perception being compromised, i.e. they were hallucinations, but what was interesting is that they didn't fit the standard definition of a hallucination. My friend said that this world view was all a matter of perspective, and when I countered that it was the result of a logical conclusion (albeit potentially based on abnormal perception) she queried whether logic was subjective, and said that people could look at the same thing, think the total opposite but both be "right".

My reply was that logic, at least in the "scientific" sense was objective, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Danoff]

My friend said that this world view was all a matter of perspective

Parts of it appear to be a matter of perspective, and parts of it appear to be a shared perception.

and when I countered that it was the result of a logical conclusion (albeit potentially based on abnormal perception) she queried whether logic was subjective,

Logic itself is independent of perception. By any meaningful definition, it is objective, as is math.

and said that people could look at the same thing, think the total opposite but both be "right".

That does not mean that logic is subjective. I can look at asparagus and think it looks gross, others can look at it and think it looks delicious. We can both be right, but this means nothing about logic. You cannot look at a valid logical operation, like modus ponens, and think it is logically invalid. That's somewhat by definition, but it's also incorrect according to the result. For example.

Premise 1) A
Premise 2) A->B
Conclusion: B

Someone could look at that and say "this is valid" and someone else could look at this and say "this is invalid". But they aren't both right about it. If you follow the logical operations, make A true, then make B true according to premise 2, you will always reach the conclusion that B is true. You can't make B false if A is true without breaking premise 2. So you are objectively wrong to say it is invalid. The same is true of all logical operations. Disjunctive syllogism for example:

Premise 1) (A or B)
Premise 2) Not A
Conclusion: B

You can't make B false if you don't have A without breaking premise 1.

My reply was that logic, at least in the "scientific" sense was objective, but now I'm not so sure.

It's kindof a loaded statement to bring in science, but the entire purpose of science is to say something about reality that is independent of the individual (objective). If something is only true for some individuals and not others, it is not science.

Logic is more "fundamental" in terms of objectivity than science, but science is wholly concerned with objectivity.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Logic itself is independent of perception. By any meaningful definition, it is objective, as is math.

That was my thinking as well. But then how do you deconstruct this person's argument about existence in which they concluded that they can only be certain of Descartes' dictum I think, therefore I am, and that everything else in existence is "centered" on them.

 

[Danoff]

That was my thinking as well. But then how do you deconstruct this person's argument about existence in which they concluded that they can only be certain of Descartes' dictum I think, therefore I am and that everything else in existence is "centered" on them.

Logic can't really act in a vacuum, you generally need to start with a premise. Premise 1) Reality exists. Premise 2) My perceptions come from reality.

 

[Duke]

My friend said that this world view was all a matter of perspective, and when I countered that it was the result of a logical conclusion [...] she queried whether logic was subjective, and said that people could look at the same thing, think the total opposite but both be "right".

 

[TexRex]

View attachment 1180085

That's a closet air freshener.