Funniest Video Contest, Part II
Here's my entry. It's sophomoric at best, and not that funny until the cat gets involved, but still I though it worthy:
horndog
Multiple entries accepted of course, and general consensus chooses the winner, as if we really care...
So once again, have at it!
And Eric, I hope you can find one out there to throw at us, too.
Try this one, but only after watching the one I posted on the last thread FIRST...
ReplyDeleteSick! LOL
DeleteIn in honor of Mr. Trololo Guy, Eduard Khil, who died today...
ReplyDeleteBrian, (or anyone else)
ReplyDeleteI would like you to give me a hand in coming up with an acronym for ALEC. If you are not familiar with that organization let me know. Thanks
Isn't ALEC an acronym?
ReplyDeleteSo Scott Walker won the recall election and will remain in office to destroy Wisconsin the rest of the way.
ReplyDeleteI do honestly believe that the people beat money every time. The problem lies, I think, in the exchange rate. Apparently it's about 7 to 1. So if you bring in enough money to trump that, you just fucking win, don't you?
I'd never even heard about the tra la la guy before today, and now he's dead.
ReplyDeletePretty funny video I must admit. More dated than a Lawrence Welk episode and he couldn't say the words of the song.... very funny stuff.
I bet while he was singing it the humor was fully apparent to him... he seemed to be milking it a bit.
I'm pretty sure it is.
ReplyDeleteI think it stands for Plutocrats and Corporations for the disenfranchisement of the American People, but the anachronym itself likely blows smoke up everyones' collective asses(or the aggregate American ass, as bean-counters would put it).
Yes, but what I want is what these letters could stand for. A more realistic meaning than the organization would want to have said about their sorry ass. :)
ReplyDeleteLet me explain why I want help with this alec thing. The Boise 99% has for a statement of purpose to lesson the influence of money in politics. Alec is the target at this time and we have been protesting walgreen drug for belonging to alec. I was thinking of a sign with a different meaning for alec. Sorry I did not state that in front.
ReplyDeleteAmoral Lawmaking Enacted by Conservatives?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't really have a 'ring' to it though.
Anti-democratic, for the A, but more than half the Reps. think that republican IS the opposite of democratic.
ReplyDeleteThe anti will work many ways. Anti-democracy which they are.
ReplyDelete46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll
ReplyDeleteAnti-democracy, is better than anti-democratic.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a big:-
A
L
E
C
Anti-democracy
Lies
E
Corruption
Can't think of an E word, point is that it doesn't have to be a slogan, just bullet points.
Some kind of mixture. Anti-democracy, Lobbying Extends Corporate agenda.
Are they lobbying? Is there a better, simpler word? Brainstorming is weird.
They claim they do no lobbying, but that is just a lie. You have some good ideas I think. If you want to know more about them there is lots of info on the web at alec exposed, and I think for a critical reader there own web sight at alec.org is interesting.
ReplyDeleteWell, hope it helps.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Lunatics Eviscerating our Country?
ReplyDeleteI like that, but how many would know that word? For a sign to general public need simple words I think.
ReplyDeleteOr if you prefer 'Anonymous Legislation for the Elimination of Co-operation'
ReplyDeleteHas a nice ring to it. But it needs to be said by a black man in a preacher voice... Maybe Al Sharpton.
That does have a nice ring. I really like that. Make a nice sign.
ReplyDelete'Anonymous Laws to Exterminate the Country' isn't bad either but it's a little more extreme.
ReplyDelete'Anonymous Legislation for the Elimination of Co-operation' fits real well.
ReplyDeleteGood. Glad to help!
ReplyDeleteBecause all I had left was 'Aboriginal Leprechauns Eat Cake.'
ReplyDeleteArgle-bargle
ReplyDeleteLabadab dab
E Pluribus Unum
Canada
Hope that helps! LOL
Makes more sense than a tea party christian, so I'll allow it.
ReplyDeleteI sent out a press release yesterday that incorporated some of the ideas from you all. As well as a sign or two. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAnd verily it was that the Founding Fathers, who together with their bondsmen and their womenfolk, having forged the perfect Christian society, to be emulated by all, forever and ever amen, wrote down America's Holy Declaration of Independance and Holy Constitution. "Modern"(and there IS good reason for those scarequotes) Christians rejoiced in these documents since they are written in language akin to the "original"(again with the scarequotes) King James I of England, James VI of Scotland, version of the Holy Bible, Holy language and all.
ReplyDeleteThe Holy Constitution is obviously a Holy document, obvious to all, since at the bottom, at the end of it's pages it is dated, "In the year of Our Lord!"
Checkmate Atheists and non-TRUE Christians.
Then again if Christians can read, "Why call me good, only God is good?", as, "Of course I'm good, I'm God!"
I'm thinking no matter what the Founding Fathers had written, Christians only needed one 'opposite day' idea to turn the entire document on it's head.
Apologists, making much ot the possible historical validity of as much of the Gospels as they can, of course divide the Gospel into as many categories as possible, likely don't count a simple periscope about the contrast of Earthly riches and Heavenly grace, still manage to hang their entire belief syatem, The Trinity, versus a simpler 'One True God', on that one purported explanation of Jesus to the young rich man, about HIS goodness.
The entire thing seems to hang by spiderwebs of faith in interpretation. We might half expect some Christian to just come right out and say, "It's only a BOOK!", as a defence.
Face Eater Guy Was Carrying a Bible
ReplyDeleteNow let's see... a psychotic break... was it the weed, or the religion... Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Worst case of The Munchies ever! I guess a bag of chips and a Slurpee™ doesn't get it any more...
DeleteW.L.Craig explains that the KCA has to do with efficient causes rather than material causes, in order to dispose of the notion that the KCA is an equivocation.
ReplyDeleteOf course he is absolutely right, in that if one is going to divide efficient causes from their material cause to the point of having total amnesia about material causes at all, one can give many, many, many examples of 'things beginning to exist' as premiss 1(Everything that begins to exist, has a cause), and claim as true, the conclusion(Therefore the universe has a cause).
The trouble is that we can disregard the material cause of 'everything that begins to exist', simply because it is 'a given' that there is one.
The conclusion is disregarding the material cause of the Universe, not because it is 'a given', but because the KCA is, in fact claiming that there isn't one.
So what's wrong with the following 'modus ponens'(Craig's philosophical term 'dropping')?
1)Everything that we can describe as 'beginning to exist' has an efficient cause and must have a material cause too!
2)The Universe began to exist.
3)Therefore the Universe must have had an efficient cause and a material cause.
This must be obvious to someone of W.L.Craig's enormous ego, for without his material body there'd be no way for him to expound, so proudly and confidently, his ridiculous, sad equivocation(by ommision).
Using his example. Michelangelo sculpted the statue of David from a block of marble. The marble block was the material cause, Micelangelo was the efficient cause.
Without the marble block, where would the statue be? Would it be 'objective reality' since Micky thought of it, if he had described what it would have looked like had he bothered to get a block of marble and carve away?
I don't think so.
In a 'modus ponens' example Craig offers us:-
Aristotle was Greek.
Greek is a language.
Therefore Aristotle was a language.
I guess this is supposed to give the audience a chuckle and distract from the fact that the 'everything' in premiss one has both efficient and material causes, but 'the universe' in the conclusion can somehow do away with that very, very necessary material cause.
Those fuckin' idiots who voted 'Sleepy' Walker back in don't get it. He is in the process of privatizing the wilds of Wisconsin.
ReplyDeleteWhen the 'you can have my gun.. cold dead hands' guys notice that they don't have any open land to hunt on, they'll blame 'that darned gubbmint' again.
It sickens me to think that people can be fooled with the 'less govt. is better' propaganda, when, when the land is privatized, sure govt. won't have a say, there'll just be the law, "Keep off my property!", keeping them from doing anything, including the hunting they love so much.
I don't know what to do. It's amazingly frustrating. It would seem that this has to take it's course, but that could take decades of serious pain. I have a little kid. This sucks beyond belief. I was so depressed yesterday. It would seem that the cretins have the stage and they're gonna trash it. I even have doubts now about Obama getting in for a second term now. It's a stacked deck what with all the money in the game now, and most of it on the republican side. When a rep donates a million or so, they get it back in favors so there's the motivation to give it. On our side it has to be just the altruism factor, mostly. Not so good as sheer greed, no.
ReplyDeleteVery depressing. This place could be a real zoo in a year or two. It could go that way.
Exactly, Brian. The right have found the key. It's greed, pure and simple. Claim 'less govt. is better govt', less regulation is better while imposing as many regulations on people with no power(no money) as is possible, as fast as is possible.
ReplyDeleteIn the long term, perhaps you're better to take an apolitical P.O.V. and just shrug every time one of those cretins say, "I'm independent of course, just gimme less government, less taxes and we'll be fine!", as if they're just going to nip out back and shoot a possum for supper like the fucking Beverly Hillbillies before they struck black gold.
Who knows, perhaps they all think that they have an equal chance of shootin' at some food and up from the ground coming some of that bubblin' crude?!!!
The game has always been rigged, Brian, if you're not well-off enough to put your kid through college, he's gonna be in deep debt to get an education and better be studying the stuff that's needed.
Theology?
(ducking)
Oh yea, and your son is lucky to have a father who worries for him. He'll never know how lucky he is.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking what the efficient causes of living beings are?
ReplyDeleteIs a rose's efficient cause just to be itself?
The material cause of the rose is the ground nutrients, water and the CO2 that allowed it to sprout and remain living.
Efficient causes are tricky here, since perhaps the rose is a hybrid and we can blame some particular botanist for breeding that particular rose or maybe we go straight to blaming God?
If efficient causes are totally concerned with 'who dun it' as opposed to 'what's it made of', then the KCA is a design argument, and we're basically reading, "Everything that begins to exist was designed by an intelligent agent!", which, while not necessarilly directly implying God, necessarilly leads back to God as the designer of 'everything'.
This is a trick, since we seem to be giving God the credit for the efficient cause, as Master Designer while at the same time in both premise 1 and the conclusion, we're allowing that God is responsible for the aggregate material of the universe.
But the KCA is an argument for God, so how can premisss 1 be granting that God made at least the stuff out of which a tree grew, out of which a carpenter used the wood to make a chair, and it not be a circular argument?
Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.(I'm still scratching my head if this doesn't drivel back to God in the case of natural objects.)
In the case of a chair we can call up the mighty carpenter's skill as the efficient cause of the chair! This leaves the material cause a moot point since, well since we're attributing that to the Uncaused Cause already, and we're simply implying that it's a given(a Holy Given), aren't we?
W.L.Craig is relying on the fact that he can pick and choose which points to respond to, deliberately missing the point of the KCA's critics, and if anyone writes down a detailed enough account of why the KCA equivocates or is circular or whatnot, he'll just ignore it, claim he's answered the various charges already.
Example. The KCA is an equivocation. (Well, it is, material cause has to be represented)
No, says Craig, giving us a very easy example of equivocation.
But no-one was saying that the equivocation was easy to spot. If it had been easy to spot, the KCA would be long forgotten already now, right?
Very true... precisely. No-one said it wasn't a good lie. Using a very apparent lie to illustrate why a really good lie cannot be a lie, is brilliant. In a satanically evil sort of way, but brilliant.
ReplyDelete"One day He got into a boat with His disciples, and He said to them, "Let us go across to the other side of the lake." So they set out, and as they sailed He fell asleep. And a storm of wind came down on the lake, and they were filling with water, and were in danger."
ReplyDelete"And they went and woke Him, saying, "Master, Master, we are perishing!"
"And He awoke and rebuked the wind and the raging waves; and they ceased, and there was a calm. He said to them, "Where is your faith?"
"And they were afraid, and they marveled, saying to one another, "Who then is this, that He commands even wind and water, and they obey Him?"
Who were these fucking idiots that Jesus surrounded himself with? Just the idea of 'commanding' the wind and waves is too ludicrous, but, given that's the premise of the story, what the fuck is wrong with the disciples, why are they 'following' him? Great 'mano-a-mano'(winkywink) sex? No, it's just fucking hopeless as a story. No-one could write such crud and expect people to be able to suspend their disbelief even.
I suppose if you're seriously telling this story to 4 to 11 year olds, the implication is that people in them old days were total rubes, or to make a point to total rubes, the writer makes the story out that even the disciples of THEE Christ were, in fact, fucking morons.
They should have been abso-fucking-lutely amazed that Jesus could sleep while the damned boat was sinking! I mean, come on, it wasn't slowly filling with water like a bath-tub would, according to the story, the damn thing was being thrown around by the waves!
I think the story is explaining that the disciples were idiots and if that's good enough for them it ought to be good enough for you!
It's like the Bible foresaw Republican Presidential Candidates or something!
Uncanny.
Just the idea of 'commanding' the wind and waves is too ludicrous,
ReplyDeleteNo idiot, there were miracles "back then", but there aren't miracles now that we have video cameras. Geeze!!!
She's beautiful, she's brutal, she's deadly!
ReplyDeleteLolipop Chainsaw! In stores now!
It's a miracle!
(may not be legal in Canadastan!)
Yay! I win the Funniest Video Contest, Part II!
ReplyDeleteAll hail GearHedED, the WINNER! (coudn't happen to a nicer guy)
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that was staged, the granny thing... I mean, it was hysterical but I can't see an airbag deploying from a hit from a purse in the grill.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that he won though. YAY! Let's celebrate by not talking to each other for the rest of the weekend, you know, like we usually do. ;-)
Incidentally I've earned to google things that pboy says that I think he's probably just making up because usually he isn't, and so I found Lollipop Chainsaw to be a rather appalling real video game, by Warner Brothers no less... My wife thanks you pboy, she loved the trailers but was disappointed that she could not determine her nipple color, and that's very important to her. Pink, no good, brown, delicious, that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteTake that, peeps!
ReplyDelete@ Brian's wife, "You are very welcome!", We can only pray that the colour of her nips are to your total satisfaction. Aim to please! That's my motto, or one of my mottos anyway, as I was just saying to Emma the other day ... (blah blah blah, fading into the distance)
ReplyDeleteOh coffee, I love you but I hate you too.
I know this is a funniest video post, but how about a creepiest picture?
ReplyDeleteI never mentioned it except in passing like two years ago but my wife and I deal (on the side) in very old photographs. The oldest kind are called 'daguerreotypes' and look like a mirror but when you angle it right a perfect high resolution picture appears. They are mostly dated from 1839 to 1860.... A layer of silver on a copper plate, basically, and then placed under a glass cover because they're fragile.... Anyhow, last week we were photographing a few that we'd just purchased and my wife noticed something odd... the picture is of a young woman but in the background there is a very eerie 'ghost' image of a baby or toddler, looking as if she was touching the woman's back. Take a look, we've got it listed on ebay now.
I almost didn't want to sell it, it's so freaky.
Haunted Picture
I keep looking at it... it's from the 1840's.
Pboy, proof of the spirit world at last!
We bought it from a professional dealer, and he didn't even notice it, so we paid for a normal dag and now we've got this real rarity on our hands! I love this business because this sort of thing happens every now and then... we're detail oriented and really examine each piece so we tend to catch things others have missed surprisingly often. I challenge you to look at the pictures and not get goosebumps... and it's not like there was any way a reflection of a baby could have gotten into the shot... the only possibility is that they had a plate hanging around with the baby image on it and re-used it, cleaning off the old image but missing a 'ghost' of it perhaps... due to the process, that's about the only way it could have happened, except of course if it is a ghost.... lol.... Makes for a good story and that makes for a good dag.
ReplyDeleteI saw this pic and then I went to amazon and ordered a DVD of the Thai version of the movie "Shutter."
ReplyDeleteSeriously. And it's not gross like the post-mortems either, just eerie. Really eerie.
Incidentally for any horror fans tuning in, make it your business to see 'Shutter.' The thai version, subtitled. The subtitles take nothing away from the film, either. A masterpiece, and I'm understating it.
ReplyDeleteAbout strange images in backgrounds of photos.... creepiest movie I've ever seen, and I've seen most of them... my wife agrees with me too, incredibly creepy.
I hate to be "that guy", but I am "that guy". Double exposure?
ReplyDeleteI have a great photo of my wife walking in the woods with a giant, ephemeral Raccoon God looming over her, it was probably produced in a very similar method.
But yes, creepy. And I will check out Shutter.
Hope you make a bundle!!!! Something like might, you know.
ReplyDeleteOh, we'll make a grand, minimum... although I don't think I'll let it go for less than 1400. Paid 99 for it. Cool, huh?
ReplyDeleteAnd btw, due to the earlier daguerreotype process, you can have a double image of the subject if and only if they move during the long (apx 1 min or more) exposure time, but you can't have a double exposure in the normal sense. They must have had a plate with the child in it as a discard, and just re-silvered the copper plate right over the old image, or else attempted to eradicate the old image first beforehand and missed some of it, and then re-silvered it and so forth...
Also, it's odd considering how these plates are pre-cut, so the ooriginal image of the baby would have had to be off-center so it didn't just get superimposed entirely by the new image of the woman.... of course there could have been a sibling that is not visible after the second shot was taken, causing the baby to be placed to the right like that.... So it's pretty intriguing to say the least, and it looks way cool...
Or it's a ghost!
Hey, remember a while back when someone had a pre-civil-war image that looked just like Nick Cage? We deal with that guy. Dags are a small world.
We've had pieces we've bought for a couple of hundred top a thousand. We even once bought a cheapo tintype (more recent but still way old) picture that wasn't anything more than a paper picture in a nice frame, but instead of complaining we took it out and found a tintype of a horse behind it. Horses are RARE. So we paid twenty for the piece, got a good frame out of it worth more than the twenty, and then sold the tintype the seller didn't even know was there for 150.
ReplyDeleteAnd we RARELY lose anything, and when we do it's minimal.
Many times it's as simple as spotting a piece that looks kinda bad but we know it's restorable, so we buy it, for a song, spend about 55 dollars on a restoration, and sell it for two or three hundred. Or seeing a small detail the seller missed, like this time. It's an ideal business for someone that spots detail because so many sellers don't know anything about these things. Money to be made in the ignorance differential.
Dags can go from say twenty dollars for a boring one in not-good condition, to well... to just about anything. 20,000 isn't unheard of if it's a rare subject or a famous person.... these things can be really costly.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me feel good that we buy most of our pieces right on ebay, do nothing to them except take way better pics and write a more compelling sales narrative, and we tend to make about 50 percent profit on average, as in, costs a hundred, sells for a hundred fifty.... but some days we luck out, like on this piece.
We have one outside source and he's one of the best in the business... last time we bought a lot of four dags from him for 150. He told us that just one of them of an old man with a cane, would pay for the lot. So we listed that one old man, and darn it, we didn't get 150 for him.
ReplyDeleteWe got 310. And still had the other three to sell.
Neato!
And on the ghost pic there, one dealer has already contacted us and wants dibs if it doesn't sell at that price this time.
ReplyDeleteSo it's paydirt.
I hate to be "that guy", but I am "that guy". Double exposure?
ReplyDelete---------------
Well, I hope you didn't really think that I thought it was a real ghost.
It must be a double exp. But it would have to have happened as I described above, by re-using an old plate.
Cool one though, eh?
Also, I've never seen or even heard of a double exposed daguerreotype before. Not in the sense of there being two different images... One image, doubled, sure, if they moved while the shutter was open, but not a separate and different subject showing up in the same dag.
ReplyDeleteSounds like it's all good.
ReplyDeleteI even googled several variations of 'double exposure' and 'daguerreotype' and could only find the kind where the subject moved; not one reference to an actual double exposure of two unrelated subjects.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fun hobby that's turning into a profitable business for us. We make about an extra $500 a week on this 'hobby.'
ReplyDeletePlus, I like the historical factor. After all, if you're looking at a daguerreotype, you're looking at a pre-civil-war image. Fascinating.
We also deal in the more recent Ambrotypes, which are images on glass, and the even more recent tintypes, images on a sheet of tin. So we do get pics of civil war soldiers with their rifles, cowboys with guns, gold prospectors, that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteWe just sold a pic of this guy who looked like Charlie Chaplin complete with hat, like as 'The Hobo,' with his dog.
ReplyDeleteAnimals are rare, and always command a premium.
Oh yea, is it possible that the baby was meant to be in the picture but got restless half way through, removing the kid being the only solution, 'cos he/she could never be put back to the same place?
ReplyDeleteWe have a dag coming from England... found the supplier online.... we bought two from him, but one of them is a little girl kneeling backwards in a chair facing the chair back, PRAYING.
ReplyDeleteThat, I'm dying to see.
Oh, and another thing. Sometimes they hired artists to go into the dag from the back and paint color onto it. To colorize it. Sometimes it looks shabby but when the artist was good it can look like a really fine detailed painted portrait. Those are expensive! We have one, a woman that looks like Meg Ryan in a gown, all painted... a beautiful piece of artwork.... we have an ambrotype that's even better, where it looks like a painting of the madonna, it's so beautifully colored... it's just some woman, but the painting makes it look like an icon or a masterpiece or something. Really cool.
Okay, I'm done. I can run off at the mouth (fingertips?) over this all day.
Oh yea, is it possible that the baby was meant to be in the picture but got restless half way through, removing the kid being the only solution, 'cos he/she could never be put back to the same place?
ReplyDelete--------------
Nope. Not really. They'd have to re-shoot it.
Also, to have a dag taken of yourself back then cost about five dollars, A WEEKS WAGE. Would you pay the man with that ghost in the picture? Plus, no blurring of the secondary image, indicating that the child sat still long enough to show up clearly. If they'd moved her, it would have smeared out the image.
I'm betting that when it was taken, there was no baby visible... I bet that over time as some of the surface silver oxidized the image bled through from the old plate.
Oh, and if the baby was in the shot and then was moved out of the shot, how is it that the mother remains still and didn't blur?
ReplyDeleteI think we can eliminate that.
Logical guess though... I didn't mean to just be flip or anything. Hope it didn't sound it.
ReplyDeleteNo worries Brian.. just a question. Answered.
ReplyDeleteVery short story..
ReplyDeleteIt's been long years since the scientific colony on the Moon turned into a 'real' society. Having commandeered some thirty craters, this political microcosm quickly came to an ideological boil.
The wealthiest, who could afford mansions in the Jab region, quietly took over political, judicial and monetary control of all regions, Egality, Fraternity, Liberty, Freedom, Respect, named for the ideals of those who pioneered them.
President Gingrich made the fateful announcement, "The Moon colony cannot survive if we dare tax the Jab Craters!"
So much for democracy.
I'm feeding the puppy outside, then walking him 'til his bowels loosen up. Seems to be working.
ReplyDeleteBut I need to keep the canned food in the fridge since it's going to take days to consume. He follows me around so I'm thinking that he can smell the food on his dish, on the kitchen table but how to explain to him that the food is too cold to let him eat yet.
"Moe, this food is as cold as a witch's tit yet!"
Give him something to consider.
I know it sounds cruel but it isn't and it's the best way to train a puppy to not poop in the house.
DeleteA nice comfortable crate. Perhaps in your bedroom. The puppy sleeps in the crate ate night, and you close the door. He won't poop in such a small place near where he sleeps so he learns to hold it. Then in the AM you immediately take him from the crate to outside and most of the time he'll poop. (Heavy praise at this point always) Read up on 'crate training.' I've done it with my last two dogs and it worked in like a week. Other methods are haphazard at best.
The dog actually decided that the crate Emma's son brought over last Friday was 'his home'.
DeleteHe hears me getting up to go pee and comes out smiling and wagging. Out we go and he takes a little dump. About an hour later, after the food has reached sub-Arctic temps. I take him out and feed that to him, walk around a bit, another dump. Seems to be going good.
Haven't seen any 'mistakes' for a bit, we have hardwood floors and it's not that big a deal to clean up, but, like I say, he seems to be getting the idea.
Carpets would be a totally different story I'm sure.
Oh yea, the ladies have decided that he resembles nothing less than a baby Ewok.
Deletelol
That's cute(cubed).
In politics, right now. The right aren't playing chess, they're playing poker.
ReplyDeleteFair enough.
As far as foreign policy goes, sometimes it's expedient to drop a few hints as to what 'we' know, versus 'we're totally blonde'.
Fair enough.
The right is now on a crusade to stop the Obama Administration from playing poker with aggressive foreign elements. They hate Obama THAT much, so much that he basically must show his hand to them, and of course the aggressive foreign elements, in the process, negating the entire poker game.
This doesn't seem fair to me. The right want to play poker when they feel they're winning but are happy to blow the whole 'poker game' thing sky-high, just 'fuck foreign policy', get Obama OUT, he shouldn't 'win', since we HATE HIM.
It all seems very 'four years old' to me.
What's up with the leaks though?
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, the Haunted Daguerreotype that I told you about yesterday?
ReplyDeleteIt's sold. For the $1500.
I told you that it was worth it. I knew it. Heck, I might have got more. We've dealt with the buyer before and he said 'I know it's probably a bad re-polish but I can't resist it.'
A bad re-polish. Just like we were talking about.
So that's 1400 profit on one piece, just because the person that sold it to us didn't notice that ghost toddler.
Some hobby, huh?
On the leak thing, the right thinks that it's Obama's admin trying to make him look tough on foreign policy. Really? As if they had to?
ReplyDeleteWhat if it's a right winger leaking it all, trying to piss off the administration?
Read up^^^
ReplyDeleteI answered your puppy post about training to poop when and where you want it to. But it's back there^^^
Kirk Douglas just wrote an article for HuffPo called 'We are Spartacus' and in it he writes:
ReplyDelete"I believe much of the divisiveness in the world is caused by religious fanaticism, even in the time of Spartacus when they worshipped many Gods. Man was not placed on earth to tell God how great He is. He doesn't need our help. As you study history, you find that millions of people have been killed because of religious divisions based on false orthodoxy not genuine spirituality."
Smart guy at 95.
I think that there is a trigger(or triggers) which wake people up to the political situation, which is a double-edged sword.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is looking for an 'Easy Button', whether they admit it or not, and REP. ideology is the easiest of the 'Easy Buttons'.
"All government is too big, too wasteful, vote for us and we'll trim it back, allowing the great American Way to break free from these government bonds and allow the country to 'flower'."
Wow, if it's that simple, I'm voting REP.
Then you find that if you're a woman, they're not necessarilly for equal wages for women, not 'against it' per se, just not willing to legislate it. Message:- You may have equal wages, but it's up to your boss.
Freedom of choice for women. You can choose to obey the law while we create laws which encourage single issue voters(Right wing Christians) to vote for us.
And so on. (The mind boggles)
DEM STRATEGISTS: Impossible headwind in November
ReplyDeleteWell, there's some good news, if you're a REP.
So, what's the strategy here again? Are they lulling us into a sense of defeat? Are they getting paid by banks, corporations and extremely wealthy old white guys to say this?
Well, they should have the non-religious fanatic women's votes, right?
They should have the Latino and Black vote, right?
They should have the union vote, right?
Apparently not. All REPs need to do in block everything Obama tries to do in the House and the Senate, and the pundits, strategists and candidates can claim he has no plan.
If this miserable effort by the DEMs keep up, I wouldn't be surprised to hear Obama himself tell us that he has no plan!
How about the truth, "In the face of O'Connell, Boehner, Cantor, Paul Ryan et al, I have no plan! If you want something done, my advice is to dig a shelter to hide out 'til it's over!"
lol
Louis C. K. on masturbation
ReplyDeleteBrilliant!
What does your birdy think of the dog?
ReplyDeleteI'm actually watching a lot less politics because it's so incredibly depressing.
ReplyDeleteTo what you were just saying, it's the press, isn't it? They seem to have a 'fairness fetish' instead of a 'truth fetish' as they should.
ReplyDelete"Todays guests are Democratic representative Joe Blow who wants to improve our social safety nets so that fewer people fall through the cracks, and Republican Representative Jack Spratt who wants to use old people as hamburger filler. Let's have an honest debate!" Umm....
I think Paul Ryan is a Green Party member...
ReplyDeleteThe "Soylent Green" party, I mean.
Yea, the birds. Spazzy the budgie was leery of everyone and still is, so no change there.
ReplyDeletePrettyboy Floyd on the other hand is miffed, with a capital mi. He can't go down on the floor to give his mirror image, which lives under his cage, supreme shit, anymore, since the dog is always hanging there or thereabouts.
I'm sure the shih tsu thinks the bird is just a very animated toy and would love to pounce on him and give him a good shake, but when they get eye to eye(at a safe enough distance of course, too high for the dog to reach), the bird will start hissing and spreading his wings and the dog will just get excited and bark a little and do a spin or two.
At this point all I can do is shht the dog and tell the bird off about teasing the dog 'cos it's a puppy. Such is life.
Very cute. Pets are, well, kind of like a blessing.
ReplyDelete(Did I just say that?)
At least it's a secular one. Heck, christians won't even allow them souls. My dog (and likely yours as well, not to mention the birdies) has more "soul" than like 80 percent of people out there. And more love than 99 percent.
Amen to that Brian! (Did I just say that?)
ReplyDeleteLOL
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra
ReplyDeleteI'd never seen this before today. That guy was actually fairly profound.
It reminds me of the believer thing I always say, that a believer believes and a thinker thinks but unfortunately the believer also believes that he can think. The thinker is a thinker because he knows better than to believe.
Brian said,
ReplyDeleteI'm actually watching a lot less politics because it's so incredibly depressing.
I quit watching after Reagan got elected the first time...
GearHedEd, often slightly bemused by sudden, drastic price-hikes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not, it's a safe bet to just go ahead and blame Reagan!
The right's alliance with Christian nutbags is a divide and conquer strategy. If most in the USA are Christians, it seems very, very odd to me that they would elect people to throw their own old, poor and sick under the bus.
ReplyDeleteIt's deliberately confusing, in the same way that Eric is an apologist for his all-good God and an apologist for his church's attitude towards the pedophile's and their victims, it doesn't 'match'.
But the loving, kind, 'all for the poor children' Jesus doesn't match Eric's 'awesome' God either.
Cue MI, Observant and Eric all saying, "Well what do you care how we treat our old, poor and sick? Now is not the time to turn the other cheek! You're either with us or against us!", you know, all the party reasons in Orwell's 1984 really.
If that cognitive dissonance isn't enough to make you 'snap' and, what?, I'm guessing, 'imagine that the Holy Spirit is 'with you'', then there's always, "Us philosophers are smart, you're stupid, here's how efficient causes rule and the first one, effient cause that is, actually caused all the material with the other efficient causes rely!"
Try saying, "That is such horsehit!", to Eric. His cracked brain cannot get these disparate mental jigsaw pieces apart to notice that they ARE the wrong fucking pieces, they don't fucking match!
"In the United States, currently, 250 members of Congress both Democrat and Republican are millionaires, with 57 belonging to the top 1% of American wealthy."
ReplyDeleteHow are these people not biased towards others like themselves? It would be a rare person who would vote against their own personal interests, likely the interests of their friends too!
I'm with Ed here. We can trace this back to Ronald Reagan and his 'cracking' of communist Russia, turning it into an oligarchy.
The USAs reaction to this is the old 'fire with fire', necessitating they turn the USA into, you guessed it, an oligarchy.
Seems to me that government is theatre, if a significant amount of people, the Fox guys, the MSNBC guys, weren't making a significant amount of money on this, there'd be way less theatre.
I'm with Ed. There's no way that we can influence the outcome of their soap opera, any more than the viewers watching a movie or any TV show can actually influence the outcome.
Trouble is that anyone who no longer bothers to 'play the game' is going to be branded a cynic, a hopeless cynic.
Weird, isn't it, when the godless atheists and secularists who don't realise it's fixed, or think it's possible to influence it anyways, are the one's with hope.
Guess you either have all the wealth and power, or you have hope. Otherwise it's 'get religion' and you're hoping for something ridiculous like everlasting life.
Politics has everything these days, the 2 mins. hate for Emmanuel Goldstein, I mean Barak Hussein Obama, and his promises to resolve these constant crises.
ReplyDeleteHe's not taking into account that the media NEEDS a constant crisis situation. It's not THAT people are dying, it's HOW people are dying that's news. It's not that millions are starving, it's how, for a small fee, you can feel good about saving one to die another day.
Wondering about that, how can 'the price of a cup of coffee' save a child from misery? Are the dealers of what the children need there to sell their wares, just waiting for your money to come in?
"Hey, we all need to make a living, business is business. MY business happens to be to horde this essential life saving stuff and the onus is on you to send the money, or the kids starve! It's a kind of hostage situation on a massive scale!"
The government could pay farmers to grow food, and just send the food to the needy all over the world, including here at home of course, for free, and pay other manufacturers to do the same with equipment and clothing and mosquito nets and so forth, and it would still be a stimulus that improved the economy here.
ReplyDeleteGuess the right want everyone to be free to join in the crony capitalism or not be in the 'club'(i.e. poor).
ReplyDeleteI mean, come on, if that Vegas guy shelling out a cool 10 mill. to Romney isn't crony capitalism, WTF is? When elected, he's your 'boy' in govt.
Guess you either have all the wealth and power, or you have hope.
ReplyDelete--------------
Unfortunately Ian, there is something else you can have - rage. At some point rage reaches a tipping point and all the elites suddenly are wondering where all that anger came from.
"It's deliberately confusing, in the same way that Eric is an apologist for his all-good God and an apologist for his church's attitude towards the pedophile's and their victims, it doesn't 'match'."
ReplyDeleteMore utter stupidity from Floyd. How is my saying that everyone guilty in the Church of harming children should be prosecuted and if found guilty be penalized to the max an 'apology' for the Church vis-a-vis the sex abuse scandal? How is saying that the scandal in no way affects the truth or falsity of Catholicism acting as an apologist for perverted priests and those who shielded them? How is my saying that the Church is composed of weak human beings (remember Jesus' first disciples -- Judas the traitor, Peter the coward, and so on?) an 'apology' for priests who harm children? Now unless Floyd can show me that what I've said is *wrong* -- and we all know that he can't even come close to doing so -- he's obligated, if he cares a whit about the truth, to concede that he's full of shit here.
"Cue MI, Observant and Eric all saying, "Well what do you care how we treat our old, poor and sick? Now is not the time to turn the other cheek! You're either with us or against us!", you know, all the party reasons in Orwell's 1984 really."
Yet again Floyd demonstrates that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and even worse, that he doesn't care that he doesn't know.
And he even gets the view he's incorrectly attributing to me dead wrong: the issue isn't *whether* the 'old, the poor and the sick' are helped, but whether the proposed means are effective, sustainable, etc.
""Us philosophers are smart, you're stupid, here's how efficient causes rule and the first one, effient cause that is, actually caused all the material with the other efficient causes rely!"
"Try saying, "That is such horsehit!", to Eric. His cracked brain cannot get these disparate mental jigsaw pieces apart to notice that they ARE the wrong fucking pieces, they don't fucking match!"
Phew! There's material aplenty here for years of psychological research! Floyd, my friend, you are one twisted fellow!
You Canadians should be a little more careful when it comes to U.S. politics -- after all, your security rests on U.S. strength. The only reason you feel as safe as can be is because you're occupying a strategically important bit of real estate that abuts on the nation with the world's greatest military power. (Isn't it amazing to see the so called rational thinkers who denounce pie in the sky fairy tales when oit comes to religion fall back on fairy tales when it comes to politics? In keeping with the classical theme of my most recent posts, given how I've been occupying almost all my spare time lately, let me recommend you pick up a copy of Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War -- here's a free copy.)
ReplyDeleteActually Eric, I distinctly recall that you said initially 'it's only a small percentage' or something to that effect. Isn't that true?
ReplyDeleteYeah, Brian, (1) it's true that I said it, and (2) what I said is true, and, most importantly of all, (3) saying so is in no way a defense of perverted priests or of those who protect them. What's so difficult to understand about this?
ReplyDelete"You Canadians should be a little more careful when it comes to U.S. politics.."
ReplyDeleteYou should shut your trap you pompous, arrogant asshole. Always talking to people as if you personally have the entire nuclear arsenal in your back pocket.
And yes of course giving the percentage of priest who molested kids and, I suppose the percentage of their superiors who sloughed the molesting as 'curiosity' since it was only a girls genitals touched, for political churchy reasons, of course that's a defense of the entire rotten hierarchy.
"More utter stupidity from Floyd." Father 'bad touch' O'Grady and his boss in California for one example. Your church still, to this day defends him, and you defend them.
".. effient cause that is, actually caused all the material with the other efficient causes rely."
ReplyDeleteShould read, first efficient cause(cause of the universe according to the KCA) actually caused all the material on which the other efficient causes(in premiss one of the KCA) rely.
Yeah, Brian, (1) it's true that I said it, and (2) what I said is true, and, most importantly of all, (3) saying so is in no way a defense of perverted priests or of those who protect them. What's so difficult to understand about this?
ReplyDelete--------------------------------------
It's the word 'only' that proves that you lie here. Nobody says 'only' if they're not in sympathy with the organization instead of appalled as one should be. A neutral church member is naturally appalled when ANY priests are involved, much less ten percent or more. One might say 'yes brian, unfortunately a lot of priests are involved but the church is taking steps to correct this and precautions that it doesn't happen again, institutional changes and so forth..' Of course, unfortunately, they aren't, are they? So really, your church itself is preventing you from saying anything good about it, since it isn't good. So, you defend it. It's your role. It's your niche. Defender of the incredibly corrupt and amoral. Congratulations.
Utter rubbish, Brian.
ReplyDeleteIf I said that I knew some gemologists who screwed some people, and that a few of their fellow gemologists at the AGS defended them rather than stand up for the people who were screwed, you would be perfectly justified in correctly pointing out to me the fact that most gemologists are honest *if* I incorrectly generalized from those incidents to conclude that gemologists as such are corrupt, or that the AGS itself is corrupt (or, even worse, that the fundamentals of gemology are false!). I've said precisely what you would in such a case: lets prosecute those involved, whoever they are, to the extent that the evidence and the law allows, and let's reform the institution to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Now if you think that the Church has not actively taken a host of steps to prevent anything like the sex abuse scandal from happening in the future, then you're as clueless as Floyd (which is saying something). Next time, do some research *before* pontificating, OK?
And Floyd, don't let your obvious jealousy of the U.S. influence your political views. The relationship between Canada and the U.S. is like the one shared by the twenty something year old and the parents he's still living at home with: he relies on his parents for everything he has, but he despises them for it. I get it, I really do; perhaps once you get it, you can get over it. Don't let the greatness of the U.S. make you feel like less of a man, Floyd; don't let the fact that the Salvation Army could kick the shit out of the Canadian military get to you; you'll always have the good ol' U.S. to protect you!
How's this for a blast from the past? Get ti while it's free!
ReplyDeleteGee Eric, you're hitting the wrong button there, I'm no patriot, and would that it were true the the Sally Ann could kick the Canadian Forces butt, we'd be wasting less taxes on 'the boys and their toys'.
ReplyDeleteHope that pipeline goes ahead so we can sell you some sludge. LOL. That's only funny since I have no kids' futures to care about myself. Nevertheless, in principle I do.
"Now if you think that the Church has not actively taken a host of steps to prevent anything like the sex abuse scandal from happening.."
LMAO, that's exactly why these Father Bad-touches were shipped around the country instead of having to confront their victims, exactly, ".. to prevent anything like the sex abuse scandal.."
Even present day kiddie-diddlers would whole-heartedly agree with you, and with that exact same 'cure' too! "Please, Your Grace, send me someplace where they don't know I'm a child molester and just save us all some embarassment! Think of the scandal!"
Father O'Grady's story was on our knowledge channel a couple of days ago. They went through the steps the church took to prevent disclosure and unhappily assist O'Grady in molesting more and more victims, since O'Grady's boss was up for promotion and a scandal just would not do.
ReplyDeleteExcues no.1, it was only a girl and Father O'Grady was curious. Well, we can all understand that can't we Eric?
Excuse no.2, it's worse than we thought, what a scandal that would be if it got out, that promotion will be 'poof'. Let's let him loose in some boondocks town, maybe he'll just stop if we ignore him. What is the worst that could happen?
In the end, nothing left but to let O'Grady do some time(7 years) then get him out of sight on a full pension, and lie, lie, lie about who knew what when.
It's a tiny percentage of priests and a tiny squared percentage of kids from good Catholic homes that are affected.
In one story the girl couldn't 'tell' since her dad had warned that he would kill anyone who molested her, and she didn't want her dad to be a murderer.
Father O'Grady is not in the least embarassed to talk about it and he giggled a bit as he explained how easy 'absolution' was. In fact he sent letters to his victims inviting them to come see him if they'd like a personal apology.
What a mensch, eh? You'd never guess how keen they were to go see him.
Gemologists. Hmm...
ReplyDeleteGemology organizations do not claim to dispense morality, to be the foundation of morality, to decide what is right and what is a wrong (a sin).
The analogy is closer if the major purpose of say, the AGS, was not the gemology itself, but the concept of absolute truth and morality and ethics in gemology above all else. But it still fails because such lapses, bad as they are, do not have the end result of children being raped. The church's situation is rather unique because they claim that belief in their ways improves a person morally. It's a way of life, not a professional group. A path, a spiritual path supposedly. It's supposed to be better than that. It's identity depends on being better than average morally. The abuses may even be excused perhaps as not being more than in the average population although you guys are supposed to be more moral than the average bear, right? However even giving you that, the institutional cover ups, are not excusable. The sheer institutional hypocrisy is what makes the church a joke. A really sick joke.
Now your turn, Oh Soldier of Morality that Defends the Unjust and Abusive. :-)
I doubt that the gemologists that ripped people off were at the same time counseling people on how to be really honest gemologists and claiming that their patented counseling program is the best and really the only way of learning to be really outstandingly honest like that.
ReplyDeleteSee? Are you starting to see it now?
(I intentionally left Eric one tiny straw to grasp in that argument; I wanna see if he's bright enough to grasp it and silly enough to think it's an equivalency)
ReplyDeleteIf I said that I knew some gemologists who screwed some people, and that a few of their fellow gemologists at the AGS defended them rather than stand up for the people who were screwed...
ReplyDeleteOh sweet mother, and yeah, what Brian said... but seriously what part don't you get about the Church's behavior in these cases putting lie to their claim that they have any sort hotline to a supernatural "moral" authority?
One more time for the learning impaired, it's not the crime (well it is), but it's the hypocrisy that's the problem. Same is true any time a social conservative republican gets caught being gay. There's nothing wrong with being gay, but...
Follow?
Geeze.
Yea, yea, and if you said you knew some gay Scotsmen, 'cos, as we all know, "No True Scotsman..!"
ReplyDeleteWhat's the national citrus fruit of Scotland?
ReplyDeleteSporranges.
See the thing is, even trying to defend the institutionalized corruption and perversity of the church is in and of itself, patently immoral. Such as for instance, likening it to a gemological organization with some money-related corruption problems.
ReplyDeleteLet's go reallll slow. Church claims source of morality and link with divinity. It is proven that said church institutionally acts in opposite manner to such lofty claim, over and over, over many many years, exhibiting instead of the highest morality, the very lowest, over and over, again and again.
Church is utterly hypocritical and not worthy of any of it's own claims.
Church fail.
Congregation of the doctrine of the faith.
ReplyDeletePope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratburger or whatever, was the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Interesting position.
Does everyone here know what that office used to be called until around 1965?
The office of the Holy Inquisition.
No, really.
Plus there is the indignity and insult to our intelligences that the church puts out moral edicts that criticize people for their sexual preferences all the while the organization has concealed members that literally rape children and then threaten them so that they remain silent. So basically a sane, unconditioned person realizes that any sexual advice or direction that the church offers, well, we're safer doing the diametric opposite rather than what is indicated.
ReplyDeleteEric, here's what you should have said:
ReplyDelete"Our church has some serious structural problems and needs to institute some major reforms, including transparency. There are a lot of good people in it still, and it's a shame that this horrible scandal has tarnished them by association; obviously we need to do more practicing and less preaching..." or something like that. But to compare it to the AGS is missing the whole HUMBLE part of the statement. Any defense of that organization must necessarily be humble, even apologetic.
And not your kind of apologetics, Eric.
(Of course, even if you'd said those very words, you yourself would surely know that the idea that the church would actually DO any of that is a fool's fantasy)(sadly)
ReplyDeleteCan a good apple have a rotten core?
ReplyDeleteFood for thought.
""Our church has some serious structural problems and needs to institute some major reforms, including transparency. There are a lot of good people in it still, and it's a shame that this horrible scandal has tarnished them by association; obviously we need to do more practicing and less preaching..." or something like that."
ReplyDeleteAnd that's when the Protestants happened. Who woulda thunk it?
It's the gays. The damned gays. The gays infiltrated the church. The holy spirit has no way of preventing gay infiltration. It's not the church's fault, it's also not the holy spirits fault. It's the gays fault.
ReplyDelete10% of your salary please?
Someone to blame us, someone to follow
ReplyDeleteSomeone to shame us, some. brave. Apollo.
Someone to rule us, someone like you
We want you Big Brother, Big Brother.
What's the national citrus fruit of Scotland?
ReplyDeleteSporranges.
That'd be basically a ball sack, wouldn't it?
Sour grapes?
ReplyDeleteGrapes of wrath?
Yea, testicles, basically.
Indeed grapes aren't citrus, but most Scotsmen don't know that, don't care and they'd stot you in the heed for dissing them.
ReplyDeleteRemember the ugly alien guy in Star Wars who didn't like Luke? That's them.
".. there is something else you can have - rage."
ReplyDeleteWell, Pliny, it is my opinion that the wealthy and powerful are very aware of the possibility of an enraged citizenry. Hence the Patriot Act and the removal of your Miranda rights and so on and so forth.
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause( as per Craig, this refers to an efficient cause, IOW a designer, as opposed to the material cause
ReplyDelete2) The universe began to exist (this is saying that the universe had a designer, since we are talking efficient causes. It's just in the passive tense)
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause (once again, since we are talking about efficient causes, we're talking designer, but we're assuming there was no material, unlike premiss one where was simply assume material is there.
The statue of David did not always exist.
The statue of David has an efficient cause, Michelangelo.
The statue of David has a material cause of it's existence, the marble that it's made from.
The marble is just some of the material that composes the aggregate of material/energy that we call 'the universe'.
This is why the KCA is equivocating AND is circular, since we cannot invoke designers(efficient causes) within this material universe to deduce a designer OF this material universe.
The material universe is necessary for the effects, designed things, to exist.
Now Eric, you're a philosophy student aren't you? How is it possible that you not only cannot see this obvious bait and switch, but instead accuse me of being insane? Do you have an actual philosopher hat and an actual psychologist hat you switch off?
That was well-stated and very clear, pboy.
ReplyDeleteSo of course to eric it will be balderdash.
If all things have causes, but those causes are also material world causes, then all the chain of logic can say when extrapolated back to the beginning, is that even the very first event must have had a material cause. Whether this makes sense or not, that's all you can say from that chain of logic. It in no way implies that it it possible to have anything without a material cause, in fact it rather proves the opposite.
ReplyDeleteIan, I don't disagree with you on some of the intent of those acts. In the end all it does is delay the eruption and when it does come it tends to be a lot more violent and uncontrollable. Historically, I think that was the appeal of democracy - every few years you get to over through the government. But the intensity of the vitriol seems to be rising.
ReplyDelete"Now Eric, you're a philosophy student aren't you? How is it possible that you not only cannot see this obvious bait and switch, but instead accuse me of being insane? Do you have an actual philosopher hat and an actual psychologist hat you switch off?"
ReplyDeleteFloyd, the error in your reasoning is very simple, and very obvious. You wrote,
"as per Craig, this refers to an efficient cause, IOW a designer..." and "this is saying that the universe had a designer, since we are talking efficient causes" and "again, since we are talking about efficient causes, we're talking designer."
You also gave one of the standard examples of efficient causation, viz. a sculptor, artist, etc.
Now here's the problem: while efficient causation indeed comprises 'designers' like artists, it isn't limited to designers! In other words, you're simply mistaken when you say things like, "since we're talking about efficient causes, we're talking designer." You've confused the specific example used to explicate the category with the category itself. This is easy to illustrate, for there are sundry examples of efficient causes that do not involve agents, e.g. if a lightning strike fells a tree, the lightning strike is the efficient cause of the tree's falling, or if the wind blows a pebble into a lake, the pebble is the efficient cause of the ripples of water that follow its landing in the lake.
See? Your charges of 'circularity' and 'bait and switch' and 'equivocation' are premised on a very simple, and very simply explained, misunderstanding.
Re: Gemology and Catholicism, Brian and Ryan, let me explain a basic principle of critical reasoning to you.
When someone argues by way of analogy, you must, if you wish to critique the argument, find disanalogies. So far so good: the two of you pointed to an obvious disanalogy concerning gemology and morality. Let's grant the disanalogy, and then state the problem: disanalogies must be relevant! Every analogy, by its very nature, contains elements of disanalogy (since we're comparing one thing, or situation, or context, etc. with another, i.e. we're comparing two different things, situations, etc.), but not all disanalogous elements are relevant. So, if we're comparing the effects of war on soldiers in Iraq with soldiers in Vietnam, it's most likely not relevant that in the former instance we use the examples of soldiers names Joe and Steve, while in the latter case we use the examples of soldiers named Bill and Chris. You get the point.
Now what point was I trying to make with my gemology analogy? Well, read it again:
"If I said that I knew some gemologists who screwed some people, and that a few of their fellow gemologists at the AGS defended them rather than stand up for the people who were screwed, you would be perfectly justified in correctly pointing out to me the fact that most gemologists are honest *if* I incorrectly generalized from those incidents to conclude that gemologists as such are corrupt, or that the AGS itself is corrupt (or, even worse, that the fundamentals of gemology are false!)."
The point obviously concerns the legitimate appeal to the number of instances of wrongdoing in the face of opposition that insists on illegitimately generalizing from the few to the whole. Nothing I said presupposes anything about 'dispensing morality' (whatever the heck that means), being the 'foundation of morality' (again, whatever that means -- the Church certainly doesn't claim that its members are the foundation of morality), or about 'being better than average morally' (it's "corruptio optimi pessima," which is what we'd of course expect; Ryan, explain that to Brian). Your disanalogies, therefore, are simply irrelevant as far as the point I was making goes.
Man, you guys claim to have college educations, which I assume you paid for; you should be paying me for this stuff! ;)
Oh Eric.
ReplyDeleteIt's always the same stuff, isn't it? This is all you have? This is all you are?
Tell me that christians aren't judging morality for others when they try to legislate trans-vaginal probes. And all the other similar things that I don't have the energy to list again here. They feel, they believe, that they are the people that need to tell others how to live morally. They JUDGE others for their morality, and have done so since the very inception of your church. They're all over our political system, and it's all about IDEOLOGY. Are you stupid Eric? Because you're either that, or rather evil.
Here's an article that fits the idea that Christians (and make no mistake here! The GOP in Michigan is crammed with fundamentalists, even if the article doesn't explicitly state so) spend a lot of time trying to legislate morality onto others without regard for what those others think about the issues, to the extent that they will shout down the opposition, and minimize legitimate opposition viewpoints by calling them "temper tantrums".
DeleteTell me that 'The Ten Commandments' are not moral rules that your church fancies itself the enforcers and guardians of.
ReplyDeleteYou are simply not credible in the least. And your church is a foolish hypocritical ancient mens club whose time is long past.
"Tell me that christians aren't judging morality for others when..."
ReplyDeleteBrian, since when is "judging morality" identified with "dispensing morality" or "being the foundation of morality" or "being better than average"? *You* make moral judgments about me, the Church, Republicans etc. all the time -- does it follow that you must consider yourself to be the foundation of morality, the dispenser of morality or better than average? You're smarter than this, Brian.
Of course the Church makes moral judgments, Brian. No one doubts that. Indeed, one thing that attracts many people to the Church today is the fact that it intrepidly pronounces such judgments in a largely postmodern (at least in the West) culture. But the Church isn't the foundation of morality; God is. The Church doesn't dispense morality; it's bound by scripture and sacred tradition. Now the Church is, by almost any measure, 'better than' the 'average' institution (longevity, charitable work, cross-cultural appeal, etc.), but it doesn't follow that its members must be better, on average, than others (though most studies that I'm aware of indicate that Christians give much more to charity, even when tithing is controlled for, than non-Christians). For example, the U.S. Constitution is the oldest of the active constitutions in the world today, and by almost any measure it's 'better than average,' but it is so not because those who act under it are better than average, but because it assumes that those who act under it will be complete scoundrels! So let's not confuse the wisdom and morality of an institution with the wisdom and morality of an institution's members. (As a further point, I'd recall the saying that we're all three missed meals away from anarchy; in other words, don't blithely assume that Church members would be as moral or even more moral than they are now if they were not Christians; that is, I may be 'below average' morally as a Christian, but I might have been *far* below average morally if I were not a Christian.)
Eric,
ReplyDeleteDo you realize the importance of this issue, that of morality, the morality of a nation, even the world?
My point is, what if you're wrong?
You argue with the assurance of one that is convinced they're in the right. You believe what you say, or at least say it as if you do. You never admit defeat and can always find a way to re-phrase and shift meanings so as to seem to *be* in the right. You are convincing, albeit not to me, but I can see that in general you are very effective, a very effective advocate for your side, that of the church and one would assume christianity in general, more or less.
What if you're wrong?
You're not getting the stakes. If you're wrong, all that power of phrase that you possess is turned to the purpose of negating morality rather than enhancing it in the world.
I see you in that light. What if I'm right?
Can you be so sure that I am not? Can yuo be so sure that your own perception of yourself is accurate, when we all must know by now that our own perceptions of ourselves are necessarily heavily biased, and one must learn to see themselves, that it's not something we're necessarily born with, to be able to see ourselves.
I really think you're wrong. I would go so far as to say that I'm certain. So it's my certainty against your certainty. If it were a hundred dollar bet, no problem of course it's worth the risk to see if you're right or whatever, but it's a lot more important than that, and I don't think you see that at all.
But the Church isn't the foundation of morality; God is.
ReplyDelete----------------
I'm very relieved that they're not taking public positions based on their version of morality, then. Not trying to create laws that mirror their interpretations of scripture and so forth. It is indeed wise to allow only their deity to be the judge in such matters. After all, the bible clearly says "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So it is indeed good to hear that the church isn't making any proclamations or rules or trying to enforce any of it's ten commandments or dogmatic social positions on other people, especially people of different faiths or none at all. I'm especially happy to hear that it's not condemning people publicly for their perceived moral failings while not attending to it's own house which so sorely needs cleaning.
See, by saying "it's not *us* that is trying to enshrine our religious beliefs about morality in public law, no, god is the basis of morality!"
ReplyDelete"It's not me, God is making me do this!"
*You* make moral judgments about me, the Church, Republicans etc. all the time -- does it follow that you must consider yourself to be the foundation of morality, the dispenser of morality or better than average? You're smarter than this, Brian.
ReplyDelete---------------
I am so far from morally flawless that it is a comedy.
With that said, I do know the basis of morality is love, and that means doing good to others, caring for the weak, listening to others, not trying to change them according you your personal beliefs. "Harm None." That is morality.
Since it is apparent that your organization, or at least it's leaders, are unaware of this, then it is equally apparent that I am, sadly, imperfect as I am, a better judge of morality than they are.
I'm not happy about it, but there you have it.
It doesn't take a moral 'genius' to notice when someone is behaving in such a way as to hurt people. Nor does it take a logical genius to know that when said person claims moral authority, they are a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteYou don't even believe that not hurting people is the basis of morality.
You can't solve a problem if you can't see it.
So there you are. Blinded by pride, convinced that you're on the side of good. When you're not. You're just not.
How is the church a reflection of 'treat others as you would have others treat you?
ReplyDeleteIt's not. It's based in 'do as I say, and not as I do.'
Which is the Yahweh attitude, but alas, not the Jesus one.
For instance, though not a morality expert nor a moral 'genius' for some reason that I cannot explain, I can clearly see that pederasty is incredibly immoral.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Is it that it's breaking some law somewhere?
No. That's silly.
It's immoral because it very much hurts an innocent child.
I can also see, by extension, that an organization that shelters such people systematically is morally bereft.
Jesus knew it. Morality is not hurting others. It really is that simple.
How can anyone or anything argue against *that?*
"e.g. if a lightning strike fells a tree, the lightning strike is the efficient cause of the tree's falling, or if the wind blows a pebble into a lake, the pebble is the efficient cause of the ripples of water that follow its landing in the lake."
ReplyDeleteThese examples change nothing and if you really do study philosopht seriously, it should be obvious why they change nothing.
"What made the tree do that?" - lightning. "What made the water do that?" - the pebble.
"What made the universe expand?" - We don't know.
"What made all the material in the universe, on which every single efficient cause we can think of relies?" - certainly not an efficient cause, like those in premiss one, since in every example we can think of material is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed.
Sure some efficient causes are designers and some are natural agents, but every single effect of an efficient cause in premiss one, relies on material that the KCA is 'explaining' in the conclusion.
Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause, effecting material.
The universe began to exist. (This isn't telling us that material came into being. All that follows from premiss one is that material was rearranged somehow.)
Therefore the universe has an efficient cause.(AS you say, some unknown cause like lightning or the wind-blown pebble.)
But where'd the stuff come from?
..and that's why it is circular.
ReplyDeleteLet's call the supposed Uncaused Cause GOD. We have:-
Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause, in this GOD created material universe.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe had an efficient cause called GOD who BTW created all the material upon which all efficient causes act.
Eric, you can't get away from the fact that efficient causes don't create material. Sure in the 13th. Century they could point to a tree and say how obvious it is that 3 or 4 tons of wood has been created, but they didn't know how plants simply rearrange material that is already present.
Modern biology 1
Thomism 0
Sorry.
I'd like to point out how disingenuous you're being here Eric.
ReplyDeleteIn Craig's KCA apology, he gives a designer explanation of an efficient cause.
In the full KCA, it goes on to explain how the uncaused cause is an intelligent agent, the designer.
You study philosophy, this should be obvious to you. Exercising your debating skills by pointing out that there can be efficient causes that are NOT intelligent agents, while knowing damned fine that Craig's apology for the KCA and the full KCA itself is pointing at intelligent agents as the causes in premiss one to point at an intelligent agent in the conclusion, is simply debating a technical point with me, simply a diversion.
If one is clever enough one can point out technicalities like this all day, to the point where the point I'm making becomes so cumbersome that it starts looking convoluted.
Is that 'philosophy' to you? Well, if so, you ought to get high marks from your prof! You're great at it! You might be the next W.L.Craig or C.S.Lewis!
Just another bullshitter for Christianity.
Pope To Irish: Child Abuse By Clergy A 'Mystery' That Shook Faith
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, the more disingenuous I can see that you are being Eric.
ReplyDeleteI layed it out that a less than the most general of the category, 'efficient causes', are intelligent agents, i.e. designers.
You corrected that as if this negates my entire point. But my point is that premiss one, all possible efficient causes that we can demonstrate, do not change the total mass/energy in the universe.
So, unless we make it viciously circular by stating:-
Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause, including the universe.(apparently the only 'thing' of it's kind produced by an efficient cause that managed to produce the material necessary for it's existence)
No doubt things went much smoother for the KCA when even the most learned of philosophers did not understand that material is not being produced or destroyed. There is no less energy/matter in the universe no matter how many trees are burned away, for example.
And the reverse is true too, there is no more matter in the universe no matter how many trees grow tall and thick, although there is an appearance of more matter 'there' to us.
Now, even it there were a set of efficient causes which DID create matter, for the conclusion to follow from premiss one, one would need to show that these efficient causes can be an intelligent agent, since, if not, then you're not finding a possible intelligent agent at all, this uncaused cause of the universe would not be suitable for your purposes.
So, once again, in the category of 'causes', we don't know any possible cause that creates material, excepting maybe gods, but your premiss, to be effective, cannot surmise that efficient causes are prone to zapping material in from non-existence.
Not in the 21st. Century they can't, Buster.
So far so good: the two of you pointed to an obvious disanalogy concerning gemology and morality.
ReplyDeleteAnother obvious disanalogy would be that gems can be demonstrated to exist.
"If I said that I knew some gemologists who screwed some people, and that a few of their fellow gemologists at the AGS defended them rather than stand up for the people who were screwed...
Wow, if you think what has happened in your church amounts to " a few of their fellow gemologists at the AGS defended them" then you have a seriously flawed grasp on reality.
But since we're working with terrible analogies, let's consider that the AGS declares that gem values are absolute, unchanging and that a 1 carat tanzanite gem is ALWAYS worth $1000 (Get it? The gems are moral facts! Get it?). But then we learn that members of the AGS, have been setting prices, limiting supply, etc... generally behaving in a way that shows a disregard for the "fact" that a 1 carat tanzanite gem is ALWAYS worth $1000. One would be within their rights to conclude a the AGS is incorrect in their assertion that gem values are absolute and unchanging.
Turns out, gems are a great analogy for morality. Since both of their values are subjective...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9Jft212o4
ReplyDeleteHe thinks as I do, or vice versa.
Exactly Ryan. It's always fascinated me how easily the notion of absolute morality is swept away by theists themselves when they're trying to explain away supposed Biblical happenings.
ReplyDelete"Yahweh is not simply a tribal wargod, no."
Apparently HE just plays one in quite a few of the O.T. stories.
What's happening there? Is absolute morality being defined as God's WILL, where God can change morality on HIS Divine whim, but since God is Absolute, well morality is still absolute?
No doubt the theological smarty-pants who dictate to them that don't bother reading the Bible, but treat it as a User Agreement, checking the "I Agree" option, simply waffle it away as another mystery of their mystery religion.
IOW, this contradiction is NOT a 'bad thing' when it comes to mystery religions, it's exactly those 'difficult passages' and 'apparent contradictions' which make it interesting in the first place. The more the better.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteA 'mystery!'
WAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA!
It's a mystery when the pope gets an erection, I bet.
I need to compile a "Christian Dictionary."
ReplyDeleteMystery: Something the church doesn't want anyone to ask questions about.
Usage: "It remains a *mystery* why good, decent, upstanding catholic priests are inexplicably aroused and tempted at the sight of a helpless boy."
It's brilliant really. Much like the word 'faith' the very meaning assumes that no further questions are allowed. To ask them, is to sin.
ReplyDeleteHere's another one:
ReplyDeleteHoly: an adjective that shields questionable bullshit from being questioned.
The Holy Trinity:
ReplyDeleteA way to reconcile one god that is a murderous amoral authoritarian who is the ultimate Bad Father archetype with another god that is the diametric opposite of all of that, loving and empathetic and just, and then with the female version(s) of god added in as the 'Holy Spirit' just in case you have any other questions. In case the H.S. doesn't satisfy that need there's the Virgin Mary waiting in the wings.
Holy Trinity = Epoxy that holds the disparate faiths together.
Satan = The complete opposite of God, which is unfortunately expressed as both good and evil (Yahweh plus Jesus), so I guess the opposite of good and evil is evil and good?
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, Satan = Holy Scapegoat for all the bad shit that happens in spite of God being omniscient and omnipotent, plus the added bonus of having a dark god there for all the people you hate to be following, even if they're not.
Good: Whatever we do.
ReplyDeleteEvil: Whatever other people do that isn't what we do.
Note: Whenever what we do (good) that becomes noticed by the world and then called 'evil' and we can't subsequently explain away as 'good' becomes 'evil' but the people that did it are now called 'not real christians.'
Jesus Christ = The Ultimate Figurehead
ReplyDeleteIf one uses his name and then just does whatever one wants to do, one is known as 'better than other people,' even though one may utterly ignore all of what Jesus supposedly actually *said* and *did* in the process and be a moral cesspool.
(Incidentally the words 'Jesus Christ' also function as the Manchurian Candidate "Red Queen" phrase which prepares the mechanism for the implantation of commands)
ReplyDeleteTradition:= a custom e.g. It is tradition for the young people to go visit the older folks after Midnight on New Year, called first-footing.(first foot through their door)
ReplyDeleteTradition(religious):- Divinely Inspired long held belief. e.g. our church claims to have the bones of every Disciple in the basement. We don't give a crap if it is obviously bullshit, since it is a tradition!
I like this. There's so many.
ReplyDeleteAs a tradition, I much prefer wassailing.
ReplyDelete"My point is, what if you're wrong?
ReplyDeleteYou argue with the assurance of one that is convinced they're in the right."
What's this, Pascal in reverse?
Sure, I hold the positions I do because I think they're true; so do you -- otherwise, you wouldn't hold them, right? Further, I've thought a lot about them; I think that they're true on rational grounds. The same is true, I hope, for you. Finally, I came to my current position from one antithetical to it; you claim that the same is true of you. I concede that I may be wrong -- I'm not omniscient; you not only fault me for this (where's your faith, Eric?!), but you also tell me that I'm obligated to ponder the fact that I might be wrong! (Which is it?) So I'm not doing anything fundamentally different from what you're doing.
What if you're wrong? If you are, you're at odds with the summum bonum of existence itself; Pascal applies to you with much more force than it does to me. (N.B. you're the one who pulled the Pascallian 'what if you're wrong' card out first; I'm merely extending the logic of your question to your own position.)
I see that Ryan is still thoroughly confused about analogies, arguments from analogy, and and so on. Keep at it, little fella -- you'll get it eventually!
"In Craig's KCA apology, he gives a designer explanation of an efficient cause.
In the full KCA, it goes on to explain how the uncaused cause is an intelligent agent, the designer.
You study philosophy, this should be obvious to you. Exercising your debating skills by pointing out that there can be efficient causes that are NOT intelligent agents, while knowing damned fine that Craig's apology for the KCA and the full KCA itself is pointing at intelligent agents as the causes in premiss one to point at an intelligent agent in the conclusion, is simply debating a technical point with me, simply a diversion."
Floyd, pay attention here: the point I was making is that it's not circular. If efficient causes can be agents *or* impersonal forces, things, etc., then the KCA isn't circular, full stop. Note, Craig *argues* that the cause of the universe must be personal, and he does so not by saying, "And since the cause must be an efficient cause, it must be personal!" but by pointing out that an eternal impersonal force/thing/entity could not produce a temporally conditioned effect. Now you may think that this argument for the personal nature of the first cause sucks (I think it's one of the weakest moves of the KCA myself), but you can't credibly say that it sucks because it's circular. If you say that, you're doing nothing more than demonstrating that you either don't understand the KCA, or you don't understand basic logic, or (most probable of all here) you don't understand either one.
"Good: Whatever we do.
Evil: Whatever other people do that isn't what we do."
That's certainly not in line with the Christian tradition! Consider St. Paul: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."
That's certainly not in line with the Christian tradition!
ReplyDelete-------------------
You poor boy.
I am never concerned with what your people *say.* I am speaking of what they *do.* Words are not only cheap, they are worthless when they are contradicted by actions. Are you that naive?
You (your church et al) have many fallback bible quotations and papal bull(shit)s to fall back on that sound fine and dandy, sound like decent tenets of a good organization. That is how you get away with what you *do.*
I'm laughing here, to myself.
ReplyDeleteReally, it's very funny...
I define the words they use as to what they really mean, as in, what ACTIONS follow the words.
How does Eric respond? By pointing to MORE WORDS. Trying to defeat observations with what? We're observing the way that christians use words to hide their real intent, and Eric tells us that such cannot be the case because of what?
Because of these other pretty words over here! See, we can't be using misleading nice sounding words to hide our actions, because of these other misleading nice sounding WORDS!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! You can't make this shit up.
I'm peeing myself here. They can't help themselves!
The christian tradition is vastly different from the actual history of christian actions.
ReplyDeleteYou see, when you believe that you're good and have nice good-sounding traditions, it frees up the mind from it's proper amount of self-doubt in these areas, thus empowering evil to enter through the wide-open door of pride.
see that Ryan is still thoroughly confused about analogies, arguments from analogy, and and so on. Keep at it, little fella -- you'll get it eventually!
ReplyDeleteThis is precious, but we all know, Eric especially (I would hope), that this simply means you don't have a response.
The thing is Eric, I know I'm dumb. You don't know that about yourself, but we do. Man do we ever.
You're really not getting this Eric? It's not making any sense to you?
ReplyDeleteEric, if pride blinds us, then how do you know that you can see and that we cannot?
ReplyDeleteYou have no visible humility. What else does one call that?
I give you one thing: You are the very best I've ever run into at making utterly comically wrong sound almost respectable.
Did you know as a child that that was what you were going to do with your life?
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI know from personal experience that it is often the case with proud people that they confuse their amount of knowledge (their memory) with their ability to *process* thought. Eric is filled up to the brim with old ghosts of people that did his thinking for him, just like I was. He presents us with their conclusions, as his own.
The very best thing I can wish for him is to realize that one day. It's very painful, but no pain, no gain.
I do wish you the very best, see Eric?
I know from personal experience that it is often the case with proud people that they confuse their amount of knowledge (their memory) with their ability to *process* thought
ReplyDeleteAnd never underestimate an obsessive nature.
Eric, back at you, ".. pay attention here: the point I was making is that it IS circular. If efficient causes can be agents *or* impersonal forces, things, etc., then the KCA is STILL circular, full stop."
ReplyDeleteThere is still no efficient cause in premiss one that creates(or destroys) matter.
The conclusion is, apparently some kind of unique efficient cause which DOES CREATE MATTER, and it's the SAME MATTER that all the premiss one efficient causes rely on. Which makes it circular.
" (most probable of all here) you don't understand either one."
ReplyDeleteOnce again Eric, you're the one who are trying to dispute the circularity of the KCA on the grounds that there are categories of efficient causes that I left out since it's so obvious that it is aiming at a designer.
But all the efficient causes of premiss one neither create nor destroy matter, but for their effects, 'this thing or that thing to have begun to exist', the material cause is a given.
You then introduce, as the conclusion, an apparent efficient cause, the only one ever, that we are to believe created matter ex nihilo.
Not only that, it created all the matter that is necessary for the existence of all the 'things which begin to exist', from which premiss one is concocted.
As a philosopher you blow, man. You are simply refusing to address my point.
A good bullshitter for Christianity! Think I mentioned that before.
Eric, why is it that I can clearly see that pboy's argument makes sense and I can never see that in your arguments? Why is it that all I get from you is dyspepsia when I'm looking for enlightenment?
ReplyDeleteWhat pboy is saying, is simple, like an arithmetic equation. One plus two is not easily misinterpreted. When you counter, it is not with clarity but with misdirection. It gives me gas. You are INCAPABLE of disproving pboy's argument with an argument of equal clarity because the aforementioned clarity of pboy's argument stems from the fact that it is the correct argument.
"the point I was making is that it IS circular. If efficient causes can be agents *or* impersonal forces, things, etc., then the KCA is STILL circular, full stop.""
ReplyDeleteFloyd, if what you're saying is correct, then *every argument* is circular -- and I mean every argument, including philosophical arguments, scientific arguments, legal arguments, historical arguments, literary arguments, and so on. I've tried explaining points like this to you a zillion times, but you refuse to learn. Far from refusing to address your "point," I've completely blown it out of the water -- any point that destroys the very possibility of logical argumentation is no point at all. Or, perhaps you can provide me with examples of valid arguments that don't include, in their premises, the possibility of their conclusions? I didn't think so.
Re: my memory, actually, it pretty much sucks. Any success I've had academically is certainly not due to my at best average memory, but rather to my ability to process information, and to form and to critique arguments. (I remember the first time I learned that I was 'good' at philosophy: I was taking the typical two semester introductory survey course on the history of Western philosophy as an undergrad in which the course work comprised three papers per semester on the work(s) we'd studied of our choosing. There was little 'memory' work involved, as each paper was written at home with the text(s) right in front of us. What we were graded on was our ability to engage with the thought of each thinker, to understand and critique his arguments. At my final evaluation I was told that I had "an amazing gift" for philosophy, which I have to say surprised me! I knew that my papers were good -- I'd gotten As on all of them in a course in which the grading was known to be tough -- but I didn't think that they merited such a compliment. Now don't get me wrong -- I don't agree with the professor! I'm OK, but I'm not great, not by any stretch. No undergrad is going to be reading my work fifty years from now. But I do agree that I have some talent for philosophical reasoning, which is not, by the way, anything like a talent for recall. You're confusing categories here. And as far as originality goes, you're still missing the point: skill in philosophical reasoning can be demonstrated simply by the manner in which one handles the arguments one's familiar with. As with almost all other disciplines, it's rare for a philosopher to come up with a completely original idea -- as rare as it is for a scientist or a historian.)
I remember the first time I learned that I was 'good' at philosophy...
ReplyDeleteThose that can...
At my final evaluation I was told that I had "an amazing gift" for philosophy... [...]... Now don't get me wrong -- I don't agree with the professor! I'm OK, but I'm not great, not by any stretch.
Only someone with a powerful need for affirmation would relate this ultimately pointless and sad "tale".
I missed that the first time around. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteEric, all argumentation aside, those statements were spoken by an egotist, one still blinded by personal pride, at the typical stage where they're trying to both act humble because they don't want to look bad, but still show off, brag as it were. You can't have that cake and eat it too.
You yet sleep, and need to wake up. You haven't glimpsed yourself yet. You haven't 'gotten' it.
"Only someone with a powerful need for affirmation would relate this ultimately pointless and sad "tale"."
ReplyDeleteAnd only someone who is utterly incapable of grasping fundamental points could miss that it's in response to comments by you and Brian on my powerful recall and poor reasoning abilities, which -- as my pointless and sad tale illustrates -- gets it exactly backwards. As usual, you miss the obvious.
And think for a moment -- I can see, perhaps, in some twisted way, acting out of a desire for attention on, say, the Dinesh D'Souza blog, but here? Please, Anderson, get over yourself. What in the world do I gain even if I succeed in impressing you? Interestingly, your attempt to make a point about my ego says much more about yours!
"Far from refusing to address your "point," I've completely blown it out of the water -- any point that destroys the very possibility of logical argumentation is no point at all."
ReplyDeleteHere you seem to be doing an end run around your explanation of how 'every single thing that begins to exist having an efficient cause AND a material cause(which is being ignored in this argument as it is a given).
Premiss one, and premiss two, 'the universe is one of those things that began to exist'(disregarding the material now, NOT since it's a given, but since it's the 'switch' in the bait and switch.
The conclusion implies that efficient causes don't rely on material causes at all. Not only that, but this conclusion implies that efficient causes can create material effects.
This is the material that is being disregarded as a given in premiss one.
So premiss one, if we're not going to just assume that we're in the universe and that efficient causes need material to create material effects, we're in MagicLand, where efficient causes can create/destroy material, and in the real world that is just not true.
Can't look there, can you Eric?
ReplyDeleteInside, I mean.
Off limits.
Preacher tells gay pride parade to 'stop eating their poo poo
ReplyDeleteEnough said.
Interesting finding.
ReplyDeleteThe findings get more disturbing. Perkins found that IQ was byfar the biggest predictor of how well people argued, but it predicted only the number of my-side arguments. Smart people make really good lawyers and press secretaries, but they are no better than others at finding reasons on the other side. Perkins concluded that "people invest their IQ in buttressing their own case rather than in exploring the entire issue more fully and evenhandedly."
"Floyd, if what you're saying is correct, then *every argument* is circular -- "
ReplyDeleteYet another diversion, Eric, once again exercising your debating skills.
You are deliberately trying to distance your responses from my obvious point. How can anyone not see what I'm saying? The only anwer to that is that you can plainly see what my point is.
Premiss one makes a general statement about 'things which begin to exist'.
Premiss two shows that the universe is a specific instance of 'things which begin to exist'.
Premiss three makes a conclusion based on what we can say about the general case. If we can say something about a general case then it must be true for a specific case.
This is not circular. Right? So it's not true that all arguments are circular at all.
The trouble with the KCA is that premiss one is omitting an important detail for the general case.(matter, material)
Premiss two is using this faulty over-generalization to allow 'the universe' to be included in the same category as premiss one.
The conclusion is implying the very detail that premiss one omits(the matter, material)
Now, since premiss one is still fine with the detail(matter, material) specifically added, but there's a problem with premiss two since the statement doesn't account for that detail.(matter, material), and the conclusion itself is implying that very detail, then it becomes circular.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Michelangelo's David began to exist.
Therefore Michelangelo's David has a cause.
Works fine. All three include the given that the material existed, and still exists.
This is not true for the conclusion, which relies on a bait and switch.
What you seem to be doing is hoping for more detail from me, hoping to attack the detail. You might be thinking of an efficient cause which doesn't have a material effect or somesuch, anything to distract from my point.
You've already tried an 'end run' claiming victory without addressing my main point.
You've tried questioning my ability to 'philosophise' or to 'think'.
You've questioned my sanity, Eric.
This isn't politics where it's some kind of fair game to duck the question and pivot away from a point that is true but inconvenient for your ideology, where you notice that my point blows the KCA away but claim that your diversions actually blew my point away.
Surely that isn't philosophy?
That should be a text book philosophy fail!
So every morning I take Moe out and he does his business, and I tell him what a good boy he is, then about an hour later I take him out and feed him and he 'goes' again. Every single time, I tell him what a good boy he is, now he turns around to look at me and I swear he has the expression, "Indeed am I not a good boy!" in his eyes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I've been looking for some expression on bird's face for too long or something, 'cos I swear I can tell mostly by his eyes, how he is feeling.
Point being that the dog's eyes are way more expressive.
Other than that he's paying more attention to what I say, it seems every day more, and I'm hoping that in a couple of months he'll understand that the bird isn't just a moving toy. He's pretty smart so I'm thinking the chances are good.
Another little rat doggie was barking just outside the house last night and Moe responded. Guess the other dog was 'calling him out'.
I'm kind of leery about socializing him since there are pitbull crosses wondering the streets in this area, no sense that they've had any training or socialization, they wander with the kids, just living toys for the kids, it seems.
Hey, you guys can't have Mitt Romney as president, surely? I read the Time Machine, even saw a couple of versions of the movie.
ReplyDeleteIn every version there was the obvious good guys and the horrible subterranean guys.
Geez, people. Romney is a Morlock! It's his religion, as is my understanding.
Floyd, what you're missing is that even if we grant your point, and further grant that it refutes the kca, it doesn't do so because the kca is circular, but because premise 1 is either false or too vague to do the requisite job...do you get it now?
ReplyDeleteThe point is, the KCA is false, and easily shown to be so. Like one plus two.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, you are not capable of disproving such a simple, clear argument as pboy puts forth here with one of equal simplicity and clarity because of the fact that it's so simple and clear because it is the truth.
The beginning of all things isn't mysterious because we can't figure out who or what organized all the existing stuff into matter and energy and space and time. It's mysterious because we do not know where said building material comes from. The KCA does nothing to enlighten us in this regard; indeed it seems to seek to hide the discrepancy and substitute a thoughtless 'goddidit.' It is a false equivalency, at heart.
ReplyDeleteI just invented a new rule:
ReplyDeleteAll simple, clear arguments are not true.
However, all simple, clear arguments which *are* true, are impossible to refute with a comparatively simple and clear response. One can only appear to refute them by taking refuge in an argument of extreme complexity.
Smoke and mirrors, Eric. Smoke and mirrors.
I'm no debating expert, but how are you not losing this one, Eric? I can't imagine a nonbiased panel awarding it to you. You're failing to even score here. The KCA isn't standing up to the scrutiny, and you're not even admitting it.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt it's because I'm such a philosophy tyro that I do not recognize that in said discipline fancy footwork trumps inexorable logic.
ReplyDelete"Floyd, what you're missing is that even if we grant your point, and further grant that it refutes the kca, it doesn't do so because the kca is circular, but because premise 1 is either false or too vague to do the requisite job...do you get it now?"
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that I have a good point and that it refutes the KCA. I didn't say that it does so because the KCA is circular, I said that, granting my point about all possible examples of everything beginning to exist needing material(having us take material as a given), the conclusion, after premiss two(the switch part of the bait and switch), the conclusion provides the material for all examples of premiss one.
So it's all in their,
premiss one efficient cause of material effect using material already present.
Premiss two, Assertion of efficient cause of material effect with no material already present.
Conclusion, that the assertion of an efficient cause causing a material effect with no material already present is true.
This enables us to look back to premiss one and make the claim that since efficient causes have material effects, and also that at least one efficient cause(the one we're making the case for) caused all material in the first place, that efficient causes suffice to demonstrate initially materialless effects.
Basically if you're trying to claim that we can demonstrate that the beginning of the universe only required an efficient cause and that that is true since it is a member of the set, {things which begin/began to exist), even though everthing BUT the universe requires more than just an efficient cause, but that the proof, the conclusion adds the material on which the first premiss depends, that is circular.
Let's say that we are spaceless, timeless, massless beings in Nowheresville, Nowhen. We might in principle argue that if we imagined that there were mass and energy in spacetime that efficient causes could cause things to begin to exist. But these things would not be material things. An efficient cause of 'a universe', for example might give us the notion, the idea of, the design for, a universe, but without energy/matter/space/time we'd be shit out of luck for a 'hands on', 'stick it in your back pocket' universe.
Much like, without Michelangelo's material body, his motive energy and his tools and the block of marble and so on, his statue of David wouldn't be, it just wouldn't exist nor have 'begun to exist' either.
Isn't that right?
It's a mystery! It's like Glen Beck said... the tide rises and ebbs and no-one knows why.....
ReplyDeletecomment 200 already... and I still think that "Soap and pee" is the funniest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNEW POST IS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNEW POST IS UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!