Page 17 of 24 FirstFirst ... 71213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 474
  1. #321  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Ask what's his name. I never claimed one existed. I simply claimed the logic behind a statement was sound.
    If you never claimed such a study existed, why do you think that you can guess how a devout Catholic would feel about a pro-choice candidate or how a Jew would feel about the war on Iraq?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #322  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    to put me down because I am trying to better the world seems
    like a waste of time.
    Hang on--I certainly was not trying to put you down for any reason--I'm enjoying the discussion and hope you don't think I'm personally attacking you in any way. If you have interpreted some of my posts like that, I sincerely apologize.
    Kelley
  3.    #323  
    Originally posted by Toby
    If you never claimed such a study existed, why do you think that you can guess how a devout Catholic would feel about a pro-choice candidate or how a Jew would feel about the war on Iraq?
    I'll turn the table and ask if you can give me one good reason you suspect being Catholic doesn't affect your beliefs on abortion at all. What you're saying is equivalent to "Just because she's a woman, why do you think she has ovaries?" I'm not aware of any study that says as much, but you'd be hard-pressed to find ovary presence to be randomly distributed throughout mankind.

    There are certain things that you can reason your way through. The female/ovary thing. If you think I'm a bad person because I assume devout followers of a faith to believe in the pillars of that faith, well, I don' tknow what to say.
  4.    #324  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    Hang on--I certainly was not trying to put you down for any reason--I'm enjoying the discussion and hope you don't think I'm personally attacking you in any way. If you have interpreted some of my posts like that, I sincerely apologize.
    Kelley
    Okay, hugs all around. <hug> <hug> <hug> <hug> Wait, there are only three people in this discussion. Who was in the fourth hug? Eh, oh well. I must admit at a few points I did get the feeling that either you or Toby was calling me prejudicial, the implication being I have a character flaw. I'm trying to show that my way of looking at things actually sits to the liberal side of the commonly accepted view of simply ignoring many traits in our society. Don't think I'm doing a very good job though.
  5. #325  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Again, it comes down to seeing things as they are and seeing things as they should be.
    No, it doesn't.
    [...] I'm not claiming to be Abe Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr. but to put me down because I am trying to better the world seems like a waste of time.
    I'm not putting you down. I never stated I considered sanity a value judgement.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #326  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I'm not putting you down. I never stated I considered sanity a value judgement. [/B]
    Guess I could settle for half the battle, but why stop now?
    What evidence did you see that demonstrates my insanity? Seems like a slight rush to judgement. Explain to me your reasoning. I'm curious.
  7. #327  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I already answered this twice!
    You still haven't answered the question I posed b/c you changed it. But I won't dwell...

    If someone is offended by the color of my sneakers, that's just too bad.
    I think perhaps the problem is that you are not understanding that there is an inherent difference in assuming what someone else believes in and what color your sneaks are. I believe that to assume what someone else thinks is wrong. Clearly, that is different than knowing a fact based on something else.

    For example, I am a woman, therefore, you can assume I have breasts. That is a scientific fact. But, just b/c I am a woman, you can not assume that I wanted Geraldine Ferraro to be the first woman Vice President. This is assumption about what I believe and therefore wrong.
  8. #328  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    What do you mean the logic behind stats was never in question.
    I mean the logic behind theoretical stats was never in question.
    [...] If you answer is as before, you will say no. And you will be contradicting the logic of statistics.
    Oddly enough, you didn't understand my 'answer as before', so that's not a problem.
    Newton did live in a theoretical world, simplified of the concepts of relativity.
    No, Newton was a real person, and I'm sure he needed to eat.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #329  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    What you're saying is equivalent to "Just because she's a woman, why do you think she has ovaries?" I'm not aware of any study that says as much, but you'd be hard-pressed to find ovary presence to be randomly distributed throughout mankind.
    I just saw this after posting the breast thing. How odd that you used the same example.
    If you think I'm a bad person because I assume devout followers of a faith to believe in the pillars of that faith, well, I don' tknow what to say.
    Not a bad person. Just a wrong person! I know many Methodists who drink alcohol, never realizing it's against their Articles of Faith (or whatever they are called.)
  10. #330  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I must admit at a few points I did get the feeling that either you or Toby was calling me prejudicial, the implication being I have a character flaw.
    Not prejudicial. Maybe, um, unfeeling or something b/c of the "that's too bad" comment.
  11. #331  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Because I believe the argument of protecting people (Kurds, Kuwaitis, etc) is a noble aim, genocide is not. I trust you agree.
    Then protecting people is good, and genocide is bad. Isn't that a moral position?
  12. #332  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I'll turn the table
    Why can't you simply answer the question? This discussion started off between sane human beings on a real issue.
    and ask if you can give me one good reason you suspect being Catholic doesn't affect your beliefs on abortion at all.
    I never said any such thing.
    What you're saying is equivalent to "Just because she's a woman, why do you think she has ovaries?"
    No. It's not equivalent in any sane sense unless Catholicism and the beliefs of the organized church have suddenly become genetic.
    [...] There are certain things that you can reason your way through. The female/ovary thing. If you think I'm a bad person because I assume devout followers of a faith to believe in the pillars of that faith, well, I don' tknow what to say.
    I never said you were a bad person.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13.    #333  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    You still haven't answered the question I posed b/c you changed it. But I won't dwell...
    I interpretted your question about whether or not the assumption was morally wrong. And I said (giving the response a line of it's own, no less): No. Can I help you further?


    I think perhaps the problem is that you are not understanding that there is an inherent difference in assuming what someone else believes in and what color your sneaks are. I believe that to assume what someone else thinks is wrong. Clearly, that is different than knowing a fact based on something else.
    So is it wrong for a judge to enter an innocent plea on the part of a defendent? Afterall, that's a belief. Is that wrong? We're going to find it isn't so cut and dry, and my distinction (morally neutral vs. charged) will further refine this.

    For example, I am a woman, therefore, you can assume I have breasts. That is a scientific fact. But, just b/c I am a woman, you can not assume that I wanted Geraldine Ferraro to be the first woman Vice President. This is assumption about what I believe and therefore wrong.
    Wrong morally? Or simply incorrect? Or both? See, when I think of someone's voting patterns I cannot bring myself to deduce from that anything about the person's moral worth (with a few exceptions, I guess. Someone voting for someone who's sole aim in reaching office is to kill all (insert societal subset here).) So to me, ones physical appearance is no more and no less important in my formulation of a person's worth. That is to say, both are meaningless. Should that still offend you when you realize it was an observation and not a judgement? It wouldn't offend me (i.e. that sanity remark, when I learned there was no value judgement behind it, that's great. and everyone suffereing from a mental disease probably is happy to hear that too), and (saying this in as nice a way possible) it shouldn't offend you if I were to make such a conclusion (of course I think it's a stupid conclusion based on the facts, but hey, pretend I did). If someone were to make that conclusion who thinks everyone who votes for whatserface is an *****, you should be offended (prepare to slap in 5...4....3...2...1...)! That is the distinction I'm making.
  14.    #334  
    Originally posted by Toby
    No, Newton was a real person, and I'm sure he needed to eat.
    Please don't be silly. That's quite frustrating. You and I both know what I was referring to. His theory was not entirely correct, it involved massive abstractions, but yet it was very beneficial to society.
  15. #335  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    [...] What evidence did you see that demonstrates my insanity?
    Again, you cannot seem to distinguish reality from fantasy.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16.    #336  
    Originally posted by John Nowak


    Then protecting people is good, and genocide is bad. Isn't that a moral position?
    Yes, it is. Going back to my original formulation of the pros and cons of the war, the aim of this war is ambiguous as far as I can tell. There are pros and th ere are cons. One's opinion of the war depends on a relatively unique interpretation and valuing of those aspects and therefore I cannot make a judgement about the people who favor it vs. the people who don't. However if the war were to have the aim of killing all arabs, the people against it would have a moral superiority and the people for it wouldn't. It comes down to this:

    A=value of victory (liberating people living in an unjust regime, etc). A>0
    B=value of war (disruption, death, etc). B<0
    C=value of genocide. C<0

    A+B is ambiguous. Don't know if it's greater than zero or less. That's why I cannot judge people one way or the other.

    B+C is less than zero. Therefore I can say confidently that it is wrong. This is why I can judge people one way or the other.

    Notice that all conditions (A, B, C being greater than or less than zero) are solid stances. They handle all claims (such as those claiming Sadam is a just leader, that would increase the negative value of B). It's kind of a Pareto superior type of analysis. B+C is always less than A+B.
  17. #337  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    [...] For example, I am a woman, therefore, you can assume I have breasts. That is a scientific fact. [...]
    I'm not going to touch this one with a ten foot pole.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18.    #338  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Again, you cannot seem to distinguish reality from fantasy.
    Because when making an academic argument I use abstractions? To claim such is to lump all social science and humanities scholars in the world into the "insane" column. You really want to label every person who argues from abstraction as insane? All the more power to you, I guess. No wait, no more power to you. That would be a mess if we locked them all up.
  19. #339  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Please don't be silly. That's quite frustrating.
    I wasn't being silly.
    You and I both know what I was referring to.
    No, I don't think that we do, because you can't seem to stay in context.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20.    #340  
    Originally posted by Toby
    [B]I wasn't being silly.No, I don't think that we do, because you can't seem to stay in context.
    Wow, so when I said "Newton did live in a theoretical world, simplified of the concepts of relativity." you thought I was claiming he didn't reside on earth, obey the laws of physics and such? You thought I believed he was imaginary? He lived beyond the reaches of the real world? What did I ever say to imply that? Please tell me.

Posting Permissions