More on American stupidity: Gays have NO RIGHTS TO WED!

[televator]

Four terms fallacy means that you're trying to make an argument based on a term that has more then one definition and you use more then one definition while pretending that you're using the same definition. There doesn't need to be literally four terms any more then there needs to be literal Scotsmen or Texans. :roll:

Actually, no. What you just implied was equivocation. Purposefully using one word several times but with a different meaning each time. That is something he did not do. Equivocation can create a four term fallacy if the meaning of a word changes in each premise of someone's argument, but there really does need to be more than 3 terms for you to call it such -- either as a result of equivocation or incorrect grammar. Still, I see no sign that he did that. Just because you can go and look up different terms for his words, doesn't mean that he is guilty of pulling the ol' switch-a-roo himself.

At any rate it seems you don't agree with his original point because you seem to contend that morals aren't an issue of facts. However, as I've explained, I hardly see a problem with the premise that factually wrong can be morally wrong because I think it would be better to introduce as many facts as possible into moral thought.

Conflation means confusing two terms. ur duin it wrng.

You're right, I meant "confusing". Now, would you like to address the point?

Go ahead, try. Your example: My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is my favorite cartoon of this year. Prove that statement objectively false.

This example does not apply in the context of the discussion. We're talking ethical opinions.This is an opinion that has no foreseeable bearing on questions of ethics. Opinions of a cartoon show aimed at little girls has negligible consequences on society. Whereas, opinions of civil rights have profound and much more immediate consequences.

Or try a moral example: Beets are evil. They are a dark root vegetable and therefore are unclean. Prove this objectively false.

Beets are a good source of vitamins and minerals. Thus they are a positive addition to the human diet. Dark root veggies do not lead to negative side effects when consumed normally. This is verifiable by dieticians and nutritionists. Ta-da! Anyway, Richard is right in that beets aren't moral actors. However we do have a way of attributing "good" or "bad" qualities to things like natural disasters... I don't really feel like getting into it all. But it would be better phrased by asking if the act of eating beets was morally wrong or right.

 

[Yfelsung]

Most Americans have extremely socially progressive values.

Unfortunately, those with progressive values generally vote with a lot less frequency than those with conservative values.

Social conservatives are actually a pitifully small percentage of the American populace, they're just a very loud and extremely well organized group.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

At any rate it seems you don't agree with his original point because you seem to contend that morals aren't an issue of facts. However, as I've explained, I hardly see a problem with the premise that factually wrong can be morally wrong because I think it would be better to introduce as many facts as possible into moral thought.

This is an opinion. I can't prove it wrong, of course, but you must agree morality is very often based more on perception then fact.

Or try a moral example: Beets are evil. They are a dark root vegetable and therefore are unclean. Prove this objectively false.

Beets are a good source of vitamins and minerals. Thus they are a positive addition to the human diet. Dark root veggies do not lead to negative side effects when consumed normally. This is verifiable by dieticians and nutritionists. Ta-da! Anyway, Richard is right in that beets aren't moral actors. However we do have a way of attributing "good" or "bad" qualities to things like natural disasters... I don't really feel like getting into it all. But it would be better phrased by asking if the act of eating beets was morally wrong or right.

Sure. Eating beets is immoral as they are ritually unclean. I don't care if they are healthful, that's just their dark, rooty temptation.

Now, keep in mind, your task is not to demonstrate that this makes no sense - there are plenty of things which are both nonsensical and true. Your task is to demonstrate that this is objectively false.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Morality is not premised on logic.

What do you call ethical philosophy, then?

Humans are not logical beings, generally speaking.

No, we don't always act logically, but if you're making an argument, moral or otherwise, you'd better be arguing logically.

unclean things (in the ritual sense) are inherently evil.

This is still gibberish and you still have nothing demonstrating that dark root vegetable = unclean.

Helmets can't south around upwise bollocks. Prove me wrong.

 

[televator]

This is an opinion. I can't prove it wrong, of course, but you must agree morality is very often based more on perception then fact.

This is highly variable, and it still does not exempt all opinions from fact checking.

Arthur, is there no way to falsify my opinion that tan skin people are a superior race amongst humanity. Actually it's also my opinion that tan skin people should be considered as a new branch in human evolution, and should also be thought of as "meta-humans". That may be my opinion, but there's no way you can use reality to disprove me?

Sure. Eating beets is immoral as they are ritually unclean. I don't care if they are healthful, that's just their dark, rooty temptation.

Now, keep in mind, your task is not to demonstrate that this makes no sense - there are plenty of things which are both nonsensical and true. Your task is to demonstrate that this is objectively false.

I already addressed that. The act of eating beats normally causes no harm to you or society and actually has benefit to you. See now you're adapting your take on beets to be harder to falsify in itself, which will eventually make your position more intangible and impossible. However that still doesn't change the objective moral implications of eating beets which ultimately determines whether an action is good or bad when we talk about morality.

 

[Hedley]

Most Americans have extremely socially progressive values.

Unfortunately, those with progressive values generally vote with a lot less frequency than those with conservative values.

Social conservatives are actually a pitifully small percentage of the American populace, they're just a very loud and extremely well organized group.

The stupidity is seen in the votes.... progressives MUST VOTE to silence such nonsense

 

[Yfelsung]

Most Americans have extremely socially progressive values.

Unfortunately, those with progressive values generally vote with a lot less frequency than those with conservative values.

Social conservatives are actually a pitifully small percentage of the American populace, they're just a very loud and extremely well organized group.

The stupidity is seen in the votes.... progressives MUST VOTE to silence such nonsense

Problem is, a lot of progressively minded people also fall into the politically disillusioned mindset. They have to choose between two horribly corrupt parties and, to be honest, there's not enough push/information about referendum/bill votes. Also many states don't have direct voting by the populous on bills like California does, a lot of them are voted on only by the representatives and if there's no anti-discrimination candidate in an area, then they can't get someone in who'll vote to end inequality.

We exist in a political system where you're literally "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Luckily, the whole thing is turning into a pressurized powder keg and now we just need to sit around and wait for the best time to toss in the match.

I am of the firm belief the only true political change comes from violent revolution. It's unfortunate, but it's the tools we have to work with.

 

[Prolescum]

I am of the firm belief the only true political change comes from violent revolution.

I know a few Europeans who would disagree.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

quote="RichardMNixon"]

Morality is not premised on logic.

What do you call ethical philosophy, then?[/quote]

What about it? People talking a lot about opinions doesn't change them into facts.

Humans are not logical beings, generally speaking.

No, we don't always act logically, but if you're making an argument, moral or otherwise, you'd better be arguing logically.

To take another angle; any logic is only as good as its core assumptions. Moral logic includes cultural assumptions as part of its basis. The core assumptions of a logic are unchallengeable by necessity.

unclean things (in the ritual sense) are inherently evil.

This is still gibberish and you still have nothing demonstrating that dark root vegetable = unclean.

It's a dark color and it lives in dirt. What more do you need? :?

Arthur, is there no way to falsify my opinion that tan skin people are a superior race amongst humanity. Actually it's also my opinion that tan skin people should be considered as a new branch in human evolution, and should also be thought of as "meta-humans". That may be my opinion, but there's no way you can use reality to disprove me?

I can disprove any factual claims you make, but not anything that's purely opinion. I know it's difficult to parse sometimes, but this really is a key distinction so keep it in mind. I could dispute that tan people were a race, but not that they were superior to non-tan humans.

I already addressed that. The act of eating beats normally causes no harm to you or society and actually has benefit to you. See now you're adapting your take on beets to be harder to falsify in itself, which will eventually make your position more intangible and impossible. However that still doesn't change the objective moral implications of eating beets which ultimately determines whether an action is good or bad when we talk about morality.

Well, first, there's no such thing as an objective moral. Sift through the universe and show me a particle of justice, or a atom of compassion.

I never made a claim to a consequence. Beets, and their consumption, are evil a priori.

 

[aeritano]

/me puts on biology coat

Or try a moral example: Beets are evil. They are a dark root vegetable and therefore are unclean.

apparently, you know nothing about biology.. and once again.. science will again vindicate the unjustly persecuted beet

Here are my reason why beats are not "evil" or "unclean" as you put it

1.) rich in carbohydrates
2.) rich in pottasium, magnesium and other vital minerals needed for proper homeostasis
3.) rich in anti-oxidants (helps kill free redicals)
4.) Low Cholersterol and naturally sweet
5.) high in folic acid to promote good neural health and development , especially in younger children
6.) rich in vitamin B which helps promote tissue repair
7.) high in fiber

its amazing how something you define as "evil" and "unclean" can be so healthy and good for you

and here are the supporting links:
http://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/vegetable/health-benefits-of-beet.html
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/theres-no-beating-the-beet
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=49
http://www.everynutrient.com/healthbenefitsofbeets.html


and if you arent aware.. which many people have said... opinions can not be proven falsifiable. So asking us to prove your statement is not falsifiable is not possible since your premises are based solely on opinion and not on solid facts.

you think beats are evil and unclean.. i say they are not
because your definitions of "evil" and "unclean" are wrongly defined and attached to a object incapable of being either "evil" or "unclean"

now, when the beet gains free thought and sentience, and plans to take over the world.. then yea.. i would call it evil... and i wouldn't call it unclean unless some mysterious alien disease infects the worlds population of beets and makes them not palatable.

 

[televator]

I can disprove any factual claims you make, but not anything that's purely opinion. I know it's difficult to parse sometimes, but this really is a key distinction so keep it in mind. I could dispute that tan people were a race, but not that they were superior to non-tan humans.

This seems like you are feigning a failure to counter a statement you might have otherwise tried to disprove under different circumstances....but Okay. If you really want to be the one to argue in favor of prejudicial opinions that's fine by me.

Well, first, there's no such thing as an objective moral. Sift through the universe and show me a particle of justice, or a atom of compassion.

I never made a claim to a consequence. Beets, and their consumption, are evil a priori.

The gap between you and I is only getting larger here. To continue along this thread on morality would take us to a whole new argument. You obviously have a completely different idea about morals than I do. I contend that there are morals that remain true for a social species, no matter the individual. I may not find a particle of compassion per say, but it is a characteristic that arises from the human brain -- so is prejudice. These thing have very real impacts that we can measure based on their detrimental or advantageous outcomes.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

and if you arent aware.. which many people have said... opinions can not be proven falsifiable. So asking us to prove your statement is not falsifiable is not possible since your premises are based solely on opinion and not on solid facts.

The person saying that was me. Thanks for agreeing with me! While I don't personally doubt that you are a fine biologist, your reading comprehension skills could use a little work.

If you really want to be the one to argue in favor of prejudicial opinions that's fine by me.

Only that they cannot be falsified. That's one of the tragedy of moral discussions, people are quick to put on blinders and claim any person who does not agree is an enemy saying the most ridiculous things. I don't disagree with gay marriage in broad principles; I just say that being for or against it has no necessary connection to intelligence.

This seems like you are feigning a failure to counter a statement you might have otherwise tried to disprove under different circumstances....but Okay. If you really want to be the one to argue in favor of prejudicial opinions that's fine by me.

I'm curious - is your assumption that I must be disingenuous simply because I did not give the answer you expected the result of intellectual laziness or a simple lack of interest in the subject (or some other reason)?

I contend that there are morals that remain true for a social species, no matter the individual.

Name one. If there is an objective moral it would be held by everyone - just like everyone is held by the firmly objective gravity of the Earth. Anything short of universal acceptance (I'll give a pass to individuals with sub-human reasoning levels, but no further) would mean that this moral is not objective. I suspect the closest you can come is against a son copulating with his mother, and even that doesn't apply to every individual.

 

[aeritano]

and if you arent aware.. which many people have said... opinions can not be proven falsifiable. So asking us to prove your statement is not falsifiable is not possible since your premises are based solely on opinion and not on solid facts.

Thanking you insulting my dyslexia.. really appreciate that

jerk wad...

 

[televator]

I'm curious - is your assumption that I must be disingenuous simply because I did not give the answer you expected the result of intellectual laziness or a simple lack of interest in the subject (or some other reason)?

:? So you really do think racists opinions are unchallengeable... wow. Sorry I misread you then...

Name one. If there is an objective moral it would be held by everyone - just like everyone is held by the firmly objective gravity of the Earth. Anything short of universal acceptance (I'll give a pass to individuals with sub-human reasoning levels, but no further) would mean that this moral is not objective. I suspect the closest you can come is against a son copulating with his mother, and even that doesn't apply to every individual.

Your standard is absurd. A moral doesn't have to be universally accepted from common man to ethics professors in order for it to be objective. If that were a measure of objectivity then we could hardly call science "objective" as well. Just like with science, not everything is self evident to everyone. If you're a slave in the 19th century US who doesn't believe slavery is bad, it doesn't change the fact that you live a life in constant oppression, with inhibited ability to educate yourself, and generally deprived of fundamental human rights. The objective reality is that enslavement sucks and it makes your life and the life of thousands more a rather shitty experience. There was a time where people were unaware of the force of gravity acting upon them, and there was a time when people were unaware/willfully ignorant of the negative impacts of slavery.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Thanking you insulting my dyslexia.. really appreciate that

jerk wad...

Please. I work with kids who can barely say their own name. If one of them tried to pull this on me they would not earn a dot for good behavior. I don't care what your challenges are; you can read this sentence, so it's well within your abilities to increase your reading comprehension.

So you really do think racists opinions are unchallengeable... wow. Sorry I misread you then...

Can't be falsified. Learn to read.

Your standard is absurd.

It's your standard. Ahem:

I contend that there are morals that remain true for a social species, no matter the individual.

Just like with science, not everything is self evident to everyone.

Gravity doesn't have to be evident to you in order for it to effect you. It works perfectly well when you're unconscious, after all. That's what objectivity means, that's its not influenced by your perceptions. Morals very much are changed by your perception, and hence are not objective.

You keep thinking that morality is based on consequence. Sure, this is one opinion on morality - but it's far from the only one. In fact many find this kind of thinking to be misguided, even abhorrent. "The ends justify the means" usually pops up in relation to this school of thought.

 

[televator]

Can't be falsified. Learn to read.

Oh that makes it better... :lol: Either way, it can be proven false that people are superior to others, simply because of skin tone. It is falsifiable. Opinions aren't some inherently untouchable construct to falsification.

It's your standard. Ahem:

I'm saying objective morals are independent of individual perception. Thus they remain true even as individuals are unaware of them. So no, it is not my standard that absolutely every human on face of the earth has to be aware of it in order for it to be objective. I can see how you might have read it that way though, to be fair. Perhaps I should have phrased it as "....regardless of individual perception."

Gravity doesn't have to be evident to you in order for it to effect you. It works perfectly well when you're unconscious, after all. That's what objectivity means, that's its not influenced by your perceptions.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Morals very much are changed by your perception, and hence are not objective.

No. Slavery was wrong, no matter what you perceived.

You keep thinking that morality is based on consequence. Sure, this is one opinion on morality - but it's far from the only one. In fact many find this kind of thinking to be misguided, even abhorrent. "The ends justify the means" usually pops up in relation to this school of thought.

That's partially true that there is a sort of shared methodology with consequentialism. Don't get me wrong though I'm not a fan of the "ends justify the means" mentality. It is misguided and myopic to only think about the immediate consequences and to gloss over the long term implications of justifying certain means. This is different in that you still have to consider the consequences that will result from your actions even if your end goal was a good one which was fulfilled. Sam Harris tackled this in a video before....if only I could remember which.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Morality is not premised on logic.

What do you call ethical philosophy, then?

What about it? People talking a lot about opinions doesn't change them into facts.

You're moving the goalposts. I'm not saying that ethical statements are the equivalent of mathematical equations in their ability to be proven true or false, but I am rejecting your argument that they are entirely subjective opinion and therefore somehow unimpugnable.

To take another angle; any logic is only as good as its core assumptions. Moral logic includes cultural assumptions as part of its basis. The core assumptions of a logic are unchallengeable by necessity.

Didn't you just say morality is not premised on logic?
That aside I agree with you entirely. However, do you not agree that some "core assumptions" are better than others? For instance "respecting the dignity of all human beings" is a better framework for moral action than "do what this old book says"? If you want to challenge my use of utilitarianism I suppose that's a separate argument, but with a framework such as that established I feel quite comfortable in stating that gay marriage is "right" and anti-gay bigotry is "wrong."

It's a dark color and it lives in dirt. What more do you need? :?

They can be washed. What does dark coloration have to do with cleanliness? This statement is still gibberish.

I could dispute that tan people were a race, but not that they were superior to non-tan humans.

You can't dispute racism? Utter tripe. I can't dispute that it is your opinion, but I can sure as hell tell you're wrong and explain why. Unless you don't think the Socratic method and all associated philosophical arguments are bounded in logic and reason.

Well, first, there's no such thing as an objective moral. Sift through the universe and show me a particle of justice, or a atom of compassion.

Irrelevant, something doesn't need to have matter to be true. There are philosophers who would disagree with you that there are no objective morals, Immanuel Kant chief among them.

Helmets can't south around upwise bollocks. Prove me wrong.
Unintelligible arguments can be recognized as such and discarded.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Can't be falsified. Learn to read.

Oh that makes it better... :lol: Either way, it can be proven false that people are superior to others, simply because of skin tone. It is falsifiable. Opinions aren't some inherently untouchable construct to falsification.

Kind of. You can prove that particular skin tones aren't superior generally at certain tasks, but you can't prove that one is not more beautiful. Depends on what you're measuring, really. If I were to say penis length was a key indicator of superiority, then males of African descent would be superior (on average). Can you say that this way of measuring superiority is objectively wrong?

I'm saying objective morals are independent of individual perception. Thus they remain true even as individuals are unaware of them. So no, it is not my standard that absolutely every human on face of the earth has to be aware of it in order for it to be objective.

They have to hold to it whether or not they are aware of it. Gravity affects everyone, whether they are aware of it or not. Your moral must be equally pervasive.

Morals very much are changed by your perception, and hence are not objective.

No. Slavery was wrong, no matter what you perceived.

Prove it. There have been people who have been slaves who endorsed slavery. There are people who have volunteered to be slaves and are quite content with the practice. Demonstrate via objective evidence that your opinion is correct and theirs is not.

 

[Aught3]

If I were to say penis length was a key indicator of superiority, then males of African descent would be superior (on average). Can you say that this way of measuring superiority is objectively wrong?

Superior in what respect?

 

[televator]

Kind of. You can prove that particular skin tones aren't superior generally at certain tasks, but you can't prove that one is not more beautiful. Depends on what you're measuring, really. If I were to say penis length was a key indicator of superiority, then males of African descent would be superior (on average). Can you say that this way of measuring superiority is objectively wrong?

You've just made the argument. I knew you could. Sure it can be someone's personal preference or belief that one type of race is generally more attractive to them. Such a claim is completely dependent on personal taste, but a general statement of superiority in a racist context can be challenged and falsified in a manner that you've just suggested. After all it is an all encompassing superiority that people typically make within in a racist context, and larger dicks don't make people better at everything. It's also worth mentioning that even with a particular measure, it doesn't speak for every single individual amongst the target group. So having certain expectations based on racial characteristics at all times is unreasonable.

They have to hold to it whether or not they are aware of it. Gravity affects everyone, whether they are aware of it or not. Your moral must be equally pervasive.

Why do they have to hold it? You don't have to hold that gravity is true for it to actually work. You don't have to know slavery is bad, for the negative impacts on individual people partaking in it (willing/unwilling slave/master) and on social institutions to be taking place. There's pretty obvious neurological impacts on both slave and owner. Exactly what they may be in each case can vary but that can be determined in more detail and observed objectively by scientific measure. There may be rare cases where people end up in a good arrangement where they are treated almost if not fully as quals by their master, but how did the rest of society look upon them? Could they vote? Could they own property? The impacts of slavery has had other affects beyond the immediate scope of individual cases.