Atheist!

[cantdog]

Yeah, why having to prove something if it is so much easier just to claim it is true, has always been true, and will always be true (in my book that is called believing). You go on playing with your absolutes in philosophical kindergarten where you belong.

Why don't you just put the dick on ignore, like so many of us have done? He never changes. You now have, believe me, all he is capable of giving you.

 

[xssve]

~~~

Actually there is only on instance in which killing a child in the womb is justifiable and that is when the life of the mother is at risk.

I understand why you cling to your faith but you have exibited a total inability to produce a reasoned, rational defense of abortion. I will point that out over and over again until you admit that your premises are based on belief and that your philosophy is faith based.

Amicus...

Interesting, before there were none, now there is one - I guess eternal and self evident laws only have eternal and self evident exceptions?

Here is a common defense for example:

Abortion is a right, and all rights are absolute and cannot be "balanced" away: "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." The moral standard to be applied, is that of man's life and what is "required by man's nature for his proper survival." The fundamental condition for man's survival--the freedom to use his rational faculty to maintain and enjoy his life. Thus, a pregnant woman, like every other individual, has the right to determine her own destiny and the destiny of her body, to choose what constitutes her own best interest and private happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as she respects the same rights in others.

(excerpt edited)

Abortion: An Absolute Right

You, of course, are much fonder of absolutes than I am, so you ought to like this.

 

[xssve]

YOu're problem ami, is that you vacillate, you cannot decide whether to be a Randist or a theocrat - whichever one you can get your way in I imagine, which makes you an "opportunist".

 

[amicus]

I did not expect you to forfeit the argument as you seem to have done until now and certainly did not expect an outburst of appreciation for enlightening your darkened soul; as a matter of fact, the best you could offer would be sorrowful silence at having injured the cause of reason and rationality.

"Abortion is a right..."

Rights are those actions capable of being performed by a human which all other humans are morally bound not to impede by mutual respect.

The most fundamental right is the right to life. Specific rights which derive from the right to life are:
Liberty (and the pursuit of happiness)
Property
Freedom of association

~~~

Once again, as with the definitions of values, ethics and morals, you create your own concept of 'rights' according to your time of the month?

You may pick and choose from among your own definitions, but formal philosophy and a rational discussion, demands that you define your terms. I know that is most difficult for you as you do not accept any absolute meaning of words or concepts.

But....have a shot at it any way, you may learn something in your search.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

That's one was straight from Rand ami.

 

[amicus]

So I see. It rather blows your 'randroid' classification doesn't it?

Rand was incorrect. It wasn't the end of the world for my respect for her other works, I am not and never have been a 'believer' in anyone or anything.

You display a certain skill in organizing your thoughts and expressing them and flashes of insight, now and then, when you get off your feminist soapbox.

I am somewhat surprised...no, I take that back, that you would reference Ayn Rand on that subject and that subject only, it fits your profile.

Where and when in your search for knowledge did you leave reason behind and find sustenance in political rhetoric? In college? Before? After? One truly dislikes to see a good mind wasted in pursuit political ends such as abortion and gay rights.

If you wish to return to the definition of, 'rights', in your continuing attempt to justify killing a child in the womb for reasons other than saving the life of the mother, please go ahead.

Amicus...

 

[xssve]

In other words you're going to pretend it isn't there - it's you philosophy ami.

An essentially, this is one Rand actually got right it's the woman body, and the law actually reflects this particular concept of rights pretty closely: abortion is legal in the first Trimester for any reason, after the first trimester for medical emergencies or to save the life of the mother.

This is pretty widely accepted, in cases of Rape or incest, a woman might not even know she's pregnant for several months for example.

The current dispute involves the definition of when life begins, when the fetus achieves legal status, etc., I'm not a medical professional, but I know enough to know conception doesn't take place at the moment of ejaculation.

The issue is one of whether you or the state has control over your body - is the uterus public or private property? Reproductive costs are all on the woman, and it's her uterus.

It's your idea, and Rands, to make it an absolute right, it isn't an absolute right according to law, there are restrictions, and pro-choice proponents are happy with the law as it stands.

It would happen less often if the religious right were not so opposed to birth control, the bulk of the problem arises from trying to have it both ways, and you can't - you have to either accept birth control or unwanted pregnancy, because it's human nature to fuck, and coulda, shoulda, woulda's, i.e. "it wouldn't happen if they were Christians", is bullshit, it's a statistical probability and it happened just as often when everybody was a Christian - or dead.

Thus, magical thinking based on Augustinian philosophy has to take some of the blame, as it creates a situation of social, and often legal coercion that deprives women of the opportunity to obtain birth control and stigmatizes it's use, and while encouraging males to play Russian roulette.

 

[amicus]

That is again, well worded and well presented, a laudible defense of your contention that human life is determined by political fiat and not medical science.

You 'pad' your argument with an emotional presentation of sexual intercourse, as it it were the end all and be all of existence.

The more man learns concerning the origin of life in all its' variety, the almost magical in utero technology that can observe the very earliest stages of conception and division and growth, the more a rational person respects the process as unique and special to the two parties involved.

Contraception is the other, 'pad', to your argument of reproductive 'rights'
and I italicized, 'rights' to remind you that the right to take another human life is not a right in the terms you imply.

There are values in human life, and had you agreed to pursue an understanding of such values by formal definition and absolute meaning of words and concepts, we would have arrived at a point where we could discuss certain specific values such as, virtue, chastity and innocence in relation to sexual experience.

While the, 'just say no...' campaign, abstinance, abstaining, refraining from indulging in sexual activity until one chooses a lifetime mate and wishes to bear children, is viewed with disdain by modern liberal advocates, I hold that there is value in teaching abstinence and demonstrating fidelity, and placing value on the act itself.

Most of your, and the coming generation appears cynical about love and romance and in long term, lasting, loyal relationships between a man and a woman. I suggest that much is lost with that urbane attitude and that callous, recreational sex, the spread of disease, the absence of paternal presence, is all a result of the feminist movement and the casual attitude concerning promiscuity and the callous disregard of pregnancy and human life at its most vulnerable stage.

Modern man has progressed far beyond the divine creation of life as a value and in his search for ethics, values and morality beyond the supernatural, has gone in a myriad of directions to justify his actions.

I am not a Christian. I do not call upon faith or a tablet of moral commandments to guide my actions, I call upon my mind for an ethical system that is congruent with reality and the nature of humanity.

I regret that an entire generation and more has turned to sex, drugs and rock 'n roll as a philosophy of life that changes as often as does the top rock band of the moment.

There is a biblical statement I will probably butcher from memory, but it goes like, 'rather a man cast his seed in the belly of a prostitute than on the ground...' You can interpret that any way you wish, but your reference to an 'ejaculation' as life, while humorous, entirely misses the object of the discussion.

Every sperm, every egg, holds the potential of a special, one of a kind, unique joining that can create a replica containing dna from the very first human ever evolved.

That, by definition, is of value in its uniqueness. There will forever and always be only one, Amicus (thank God, you smile), but then too, there will only be one xssve; and that should have value in itself.

I submit that love between a man and a woman, can be a very special, one of a kind event in the lives of both and as such it should be cherished. Cherished for what it is and the genetic lines it continues and creates for the future.

In those values reside dignity, honor, loyalty, consistency, concern, care, nurture and a host of ethical and moral specifics that make human life more valuable than just a clump of cells after a nights' frivolities.

When I asked you to defend abortion, I was also asking you to present a life style and a foundation for an ethical system that justifies not just abortion, but, casual sex, contraception, single parenthood, abandoment of children, the entire gamut of unanswered questions about the new ethics of a new generation.

I don't think you have any answers. I do not think your lifestyle can be morally justified in any aspect of it.

I have children older than most I joust with here and by that I mean to imply that my reasons for continually debating the morality of this generation is meaningful to me in understanding my own offspring as they are and have been and will be subject to the influences that surround them other than my own.

What you represent, if your words accurately portray what you believe, is a lost generation to me. A generation without values and without a future and, in reality, without hope of any kind.

It also clarifies, at least for me, the, 'hive' mentality of most, as they seek a collective approval of their actions. That is harsh rhetoric if anyone reads me seriously and I am aware of that, but if it startles any one individual into actually thinking about their own individual, unique life, then I will have accomplished something.

I suppose I should scroll back up...where the hell has my latest young editor gone to now?


Later...


Amicus...

 

[past_perfect]

Sorry, but you are not the last authority on this subject and I am still looking for a reason to be impressed by your explanation of Aristotelian logic. Most of the world still uses correct referencing as a basis for reasoning. Other so called more sophisticated or special types of logic depend on correct referencing also. Modern science and mathematical logic is refined and clarified logic but it remains based on deductions and inductions. not process.



Whose thinking do you think we are dealing with when we deal with today's world problems? Marxist, atheist, and liberals still rely on faulty logic and to say that Aristotelian logic has not been used since the mid 19th. century is to ignore over half the world's population of today who defends against the other half of the world population that still uses Hegelian logic.

Russell, Wittgenstein, et al. are not people who the common man is familiar with at all. Most do not know that Russell had a chicken nor do they know that he ate the chicken for dinner just to prove a point that the chicken had faulty logic.

Well, if half of the world's population would still be using two sticks to make fire, the other half might still feel a lot more comfortable using a lighter or match at least. If the first half hasn't heard of such devilish contraptions, maybe that is not the other half's fault.

 

[past_perfect]

Why don't you just put the dick on ignore, like so many of us have done? He never changes. You now have, believe me, all he is capable of giving you.

Yeah, I think you are right. Done.

 

[kendo1]

I was listening to a John Lennon track on the radio today and thought of this thread.

You can make your own minds up, if that is allowed, which bits relate to which person. Tongue in cheek, of course, as no offence is intended. Well, not much.

Was Lennon a left-wing liberal fascist something-or-other? Probably. Was he bothered? I doubt it.

Have a nice day.

I'm sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

Im sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mamas little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Its money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, Im sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

Ive had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

 

[xssve]

WARNING: LENGTHY POST!

That is again, well worded and well presented, a laudible defense of your contention that human life is determined by political fiat and not medical science.

You 'pad' your argument with an emotional presentation of sexual intercourse, as it it were the end all and be all of existence.

WE may be "thinkers", capable of abstraction, but we are still "life", and driven by the same urges as all life, to survive, to eat and reproduce, it's pretty much the reason we do anything, everything.

The more man learns concerning the origin of life in all its' variety, the almost magical in utero technology that can observe the very earliest stages of conception and division and growth, the more a rational person respects the process as unique and special to the two parties involved.

Contraception is the other, 'pad', to your argument of reproductive 'rights'
and I italicized, 'rights' to remind you that the right to take another human life is not a right in the terms you imply.

There are values in human life, and had you agreed to pursue an understanding of such values by formal definition and absolute meaning of words and concepts, we would have arrived at a point where we could discuss certain specific values such as, virtue, chastity and innocence in relation to sexual experience.

You prate about objectivity, logic and reason, then hide behind moral sentiment - you want absolute meaning? Listen.

Earlier, in my condensation of human evolution, I laid the groundwork for this - animals reproduce mindlessly, the females go into heat - estrus, and mate compulsively - they are in fact selected for just this trait you might say, among others, most related to sexual and economic activity.

Quickly, because it comes into play later, the Aristotelian approach is mostly depreciated because of it's simple, mechanistic approach: a+b=c, and supplemented, if not entirely replaced by expanded procedures, systems analysis and games theory, to name a couple, which takes into account that there are often many outcomes to a given process, delineates what these outcomes might be to construct a matrix of possible outcomes, attempts to assess and weight the statistical frequency of a given outcome, then examines the potential effect of a given outcome on other matrices, etc., etc., and so on - it deals with much greater orders of complexity than simple Aristotelian mechanistics.

"Virtue", "Chastity" and "innocence" are abstract values, unique to humans who have replaced compulsive matings behaviors with cultural models of idealized behavior - feminine chastity is a value in a particular behavioral algorithm that places a high value on male paternity assurances, i.e., it's an economic value: if the male is going to share the females reproductive costs (also see the Even Chimps Pay for Sex? thread), he want's assurances that he is representing his half of the DNA - a "charity begins at home" sort of thing. The chastity of other females is only of a concern on a superficial level, i.e., monkey see, monkey do, and he doesn't want other promiscuous females putting ideas into his his mates head.

Here, skipping a few steps for the sake of brevity, we have established some basic truths of human behavior:

• like other animals, we have to have sex in order to procreate.
  
  
• Like some most mammals we are K strategists, meaning we produce relatively few offspring, and lavish more attention and resources on them, enabling even more complex behaviors due to increasing neotenic extension of the infant/adolescent learning phase.
  
  
• Genetic diversity is a component of both r and K strategies, and if anything, even more critical in K strategies, i.e., a wide degree of genetic diversity in ones offspring increases survival and success rates.
  
  
• Unlike other animals, we have some degree of control over our reproductive behavior via loss of estrus - we may choose to refrain from reproduction for instance during an extended period of resource stress - this is exactly the opposite of the instinctual compulsion of most organisms, that increase reproductive rates under stress, r strategies, i.e., producing more offspring in the hopes of overcoming higher attrition/mortality rates with sheer numbers. Most mammals simply eat any excess young, should the resources stressors be significant enough, since additional offspring at such an interval place more stress on the rest.
  
  
• Significantly, ala systems analysis, it also allows females to "feign" fertility, and increase food sharing behaviors either through subterfuge, or rewarding cooperative male/s with more frequent mating privileges - food sharing behaviors are key to the development of modern culture, and here we see how sexual behaviors underlie economic development. From here you can abstract even more complex behaviors, division of labor an specialization, ultimately monogamy, patrimonial inheritance, etc., etc., which create new social dependencies and multiply the ties between members of a given social group.

While the, 'just say no...' campaign, abstinance, abstaining, refraining from indulging in sexual activity until one chooses a lifetime mate and wishes to bear children, is viewed with disdain by modern liberal advocates, I hold that there is value in teaching abstinence and demonstrating fidelity, and placing value on the act itself.

Most of your, and the coming generation appears cynical about love and romance and in long term, lasting, loyal relationships between a man and a woman. I suggest that much is lost with that urbane attitude and that callous, recreational sex, the spread of disease, the absence of paternal presence, is all a result of the feminist movement and the casual attitude concerning promiscuity and the callous disregard of pregnancy and human life at its most vulnerable stage.

This is the current synthesis: you may teach anything you want at home, insofar as social behavior is concerned there is a relatively stable statistical probability that in spite of any cultural attempts to mediate it, women will be raped, plied with alcohol, lied to, and otherwise pressured in myriad ways to engage in sexual intercourse while leaving them holding the bag - based not unsubstantially on you own oft expressed pride, apparently mostly limited to pride in your own superior physical strength.

Because of this, we reasonably determine that it might be more effective to provide women with the tools they need to defend themselves against unwanted pregnancy due to pressures to engage in intercourse, whether in accordance or against their will.

This preserves both, it allows you a chance to enculturate you children as you see fit, but provides a back up in case it fails, as it will, a statistically significant percentage of the time - unless you wish to argue that unwanted pregnancies never occurred before the sexual revolution.

Your cultural morality (more matrix), as extrapolated here, depends on what amounts to sequestering females, similar to the way Muslims still do, which historically has often been correlated anecdotally in an increase in coercive male sexual behavior, higher incest and child molestation rates - i.e., in many ways, it creates the very problem it seeks to solve, and even incentivizes more of it. Rape is used as a political tool in the Sudan, for example since a woman, once raped, is vulnerable to blackmail, as her husband will reject her should the rape be revealed - this would not work if the indigenous Sudanese were not virginity worshipers, if they had access to paternity tests, or morning after pills for example.

The same reason we imagine public officials subject to Blackmail if they are engaging in "immoral" behavior.

Modern man has progressed far beyond the divine creation of life as a value and in his search for ethics, values and morality beyond the supernatural, has gone in a myriad of directions to justify his actions.

I am not a Christian. I do not call upon faith or a tablet of moral commandments to guide my actions, I call upon my mind for an ethical system that is congruent with reality and the nature of humanity.

I regret that an entire generation and more has turned to sex, drugs and rock 'n roll as a philosophy of life that changes as often as does the top rock band of the moment.

And yet you rely on moral sentiment to make your point.

There is a biblical statement I will probably butcher from memory, but it goes like, 'rather a man cast his seed in the belly of a prostitute than on the ground...' You can interpret that any way you wish, but your reference to an 'ejaculation' as life, while humorous, entirely misses the object of the discussion.

Every sperm, every egg, holds the potential of a special, one of a kind, unique joining that can create a replica containing dna from the very first human ever evolved.

That, by definition, is of value in its uniqueness. There will forever and always be only one, Amicus (thank God, you smile), but then too, there will only be one xssve; and that should have value in itself.

Homonucleus theory, another Aristotelian artifact filtered through Augustine - sperm is reabsorbed if it is not ejaculated - in fact I overproduce sperm, and am forced to drain it off regularly or suffer a very difficult to treat prostate infection - chronic prostatitis.

If I were to adopt your morality, I'd have to wear some poor girl out - not that I'd mind.

Click on this link for a brief discussion of Augustinian theory: Every Sperm is Sacred

I submit that love between a man and a woman, can be a very special, one of a kind event in the lives of both and as such it should be cherished. Cherished for what it is and the genetic lines it continues and creates for the future.

In those values reside dignity, honor, loyalty, consistency, concern, care, nurture and a host of ethical and moral specifics that make human life more valuable than just a clump of cells after a nights' frivolities.

Very sentimental, but again, it's all about paternity assurances, not that that's a bad thing, presumably it optimizes K strategies of childrearing albeit at the expense of genetic diversity.

When I asked you to defend abortion, I was also asking you to present a life style and a foundation for an ethical system that justifies not just abortion, but, casual sex, contraception, single parenthood, abandoment of children, the entire gamut of unanswered questions about the new ethics of a new generation.

I don't think you have any answers. I do not think your lifestyle can be morally justified in any aspect of it.

Such a system existed before Liberalism, it's called Christianity, which is a caste system which simply sweeps it's failure under the rug, and ghettoizes them, blaming it on somebody else.

I have children older than most I joust with here and by that I mean to imply that my reasons for continually debating the morality of this generation is meaningful to me in understanding my own offspring as they are and have been and will be subject to the influences that surround them other than my own.

What you represent, if your words accurately portray what you believe, is a lost generation to me. A generation without values and without a future and, in reality, without hope of any kind.

Curious, since on the contrary, I find them mostly highly intelligent and stable for the most part, much smarter and cannier than their parents who lived more sheltered lives.

Further, they are probably better breeders: the optimal time for first intercourse is within Seven years of first menses, subsequent regular sex optimizes fertility, lowers stress levels, increases antioxidant levels, delays osteoporosis, orgasm causes the cartilage in the center of the pubic arch to become more flexible, increasing the size of the pelvic arch which eases and facilitates childbirth, etc., etc. - sex is very good for women: nature rewards participants, benchwarmers atrophy.

One develops defenses by being exposed to danger - overprotected women are like the Dodo, in the absence of natural predators they become defenseless, while also being rational beings often leads them to become hysterics if the situation persists long enough.

It works, for some, most of the time, but there is about as much "reason" involved as there is in your average flock of poultry.

It also clarifies, at least for me, the, 'hive' mentality of most, as they seek a collective approval of their actions. That is harsh rhetoric if anyone reads me seriously and I am aware of that, but if it startles any one individual into actually thinking about their own individual, unique life, then I will have accomplished something.

I suppose I should scroll back up...where the hell has my latest young editor gone to now?


Later...


Amicus...

You are the one pushing collective approval, the "common morality", etc., surely you don't think that this isn't obvious - I believe that with the proper information, people tend to make the right decisions.

 

[wmrs2]

Sorry, wmrs2.

Your premise has always depended on belief or faith.

That isn't any form of logic.

Og

Just out of curiosity and to demonstrate that you really do know on which logic should be based, what is the correct definition of logic? Tell us on what you base your thinking process. How does it follow that you can postulate how man should live.

According to your friends xssve, past-perfect, cantdog, Stella, sr71plt, Cloudy, DeeZire, and other atheist/liberals Aristotelian logic has been discredited and abandoned by progressives and has been replaced with a far more superior logic. You in fact say "That isn't any form of logic" referring to Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic is the only logic that conservatives defend.

If this be true, give me a form of logic on which it is safe to base my life activities and sojourn here on earth. I will listen to you to hear what guidance the liberal seers of the future have to offer in place of Aristotelian logic, which I might add, has guided Western Civilization to this point in history.

 

[xssve]

Such a system existed before Liberalism, it's called Christianity, which is a caste system which simply sweeps it's failure under the rug, and ghettoizes them, blaming it on somebody else.

This brief statement deserves some expansion, since the result of this moral caste system is socially and economically marginalize a statistically significant proportion of the population.

It' "natural" evolution is evidenced by the transition of the Vedic culture into Hindu caste system, much of which process can be discerned in the Kama Sutra, which appears to be a transitional document, i.e., it oscillates between a free and open exploration of sexuality contrasted with more moralistic pronouncements about "certain people", references and highlights regional differences in sexual practices and attempts to reconcile them.

As the Indo-Eurasian peoples migrated Westward to become the Indo-Europeans, the caste system re-emerges as a moral system after the spread of Christianity, and results in resource stressors among the outcast "untouchables": poverty, malnutrition, disease, crime and substance abuse, exposure to environmental toxins and neurotoxins resulting from pollution, etc., that on the one hand, select for the most robust specimens, but also results in genetic damage: psychopathy and learning disabilities, some of which are heritable, correlate strongly with nutrition, environmental enrichment, and simple affection - well fed children are more active, and tend to get more attention, which in turn accelerates the learning curve, etc.

These genes do eventually drift into the gene pool, while substance abuse and incest often degrade the genetic pool among the top economic castes who can whitewash their peccadilloes with bribery or force.

These things cause damage on a huge scale, affecting entire populations, orders of magnitude more significant than an occasional sketchy mutation of recombinant malfunction - simply the stress of being part of a repressed minority population for example has been demonstrated to lower IQ by as much as Ten points, which group includes Irish Catholics, among the most repressed sub-populations in the world, historically speaking, although this has not been demonstrated to be a heritable effect.

The "moral center" is the fat center of the Bell curve, but also represent the "parasites" you rail against when you aren't hiding behind them - tend to be very resistant to change, innovation is change, and tends to take place on the margins - these innovations are then reviewed by the center, which either adopts them or rejects them, the "observant herd" effect, though this often occurs generationally.

Liberalism (theoretically) attempts to optimize the margins, bringing the marginalized portions of the population into the fold, so to speak, economically and socially, limiting genetic damage while preserving the constant roil of behavioral innovation that prevails amongst them.

In essence, it recognizes that morality itself is largely a system of preserving economic advantage amongst a certain percentage of the population at the expense of others, and seeks to limit the damage while preserving the advantages.

It's a common complaint amongst the moral center that they are "under attack" - in fact you are complaining that your own attack, a constant attempt to divide the world into "people that matter" and people that don't has been stalled - all people matter, because it's all one gene pool thanks to genetic drift.

 

[xssve]

Just out of curiosity and to demonstrate that you really do know on which logic should be based, what is the correct definition of logic? Tell us on what you base your thinking process. How does it follow that you can postulate how man should live.

According to your friends xssve, past-perfect, cantdog, Stella, sr71plt, Cloudy, DeeZire, and other atheist/liberals Aristotelian logic has been discredited and abandoned by progressives and has been replaced with a far more superior logic. You in fact say "That isn't any form of logic" referring to Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic is the only logic that conservatives defend.

If this be true, give me a form of logic on which it is safe to base my life activities and sojourn here on earth. I will listen to you to hear what guidance the liberal seers of the future have to offer in place of Aristotelian logic, which I might add, has guided Western Civilization to this point in history.

This may have been misrepresented, modern logic builds on an Aristotelian base, as I described above - to wit:

Quickly, because it comes into play later, the Aristotelian approach is mostly depreciated because of it's simple, mechanistic approach: a+b=c, and supplemented, where not entirely replaced by expanded procedures, systems analysis and games theory, to name a couple, which takes into account that there are often many outcomes to a given process, delineates what these outcomes might be to construct a matrix of possible outcomes, attempts to assess and weight the statistical frequency of a given outcome, then examines the potential effect of a given outcome on other matrices, etc., etc., and so on - it deals with much greater orders of complexity than simple Aristotelian mechanistics.

Chaos theory is another approach that deals with greater orders of complexity, although individual factors and variable may still be confirmed and established via a basic Aristotelian approach.

 

[cloudy]

According to your friends xssve, past-perfect, cantdog, Stella, sr71plt, Cloudy, DeeZire, and other atheist/liberals Aristotelian logic has been discredited and abandoned by progressives and has been replaced with a far more superior logic.

Please show me exactly where I said anything remotely like this.

In fact, I know that you can't, so please leave my name out of your ugly, rambling posts.

Thank you.

 

[wmrs2]

This may have been misrepresented, modern logic builds on an Aristotelian base, as I described above - to wit:

Quickly, because it comes into play later, the Aristotelian approach is mostly depreciated because of it's simple, mechanistic approach: a+b=c, and supplemented, where not entirely replaced by expanded procedures, systems analysis and games theory, to name a couple, which takes into account that there are often many outcomes to a given process, delineates what these outcomes might be to construct a matrix of possible outcomes, attempts to assess and weight the statistical frequency of a given outcome, then examines the potential effect of a given outcome on other matrices, etc., etc., and so on - it deals with much greater orders of complexity than simple Aristotelian mechanistics.

Chaos theory is another approach that deals with greater orders of complexity, although individual factors and variable may still be confirmed and established via a basic Aristotelian approach.

Before I give you an opinion on what you just said, I want to make sure that I understand correctly what you are saying.

I think I understand your term mechanistic approach since I have studied the mechanistic world view as well as a number of world views. What do you mean by many outcomes and a matrix of possible outcomes and what role does statistical frequency play in your explanation of logic?

 

[xssve]

Aristotelian logic is limited in that it's linear, and less useful in modeling complex systems.

Your assertion that "Aristotelian logic is the only logic that conservatives defend" is so far from the truth it's not funny, although I suppose if you mean Limbaugh conservatives you might have something - ami here fancies himself a disciple of what Ayn Rand called "objectivism", although Randists, as we've seen above, are anything but objective - in fact, the Rand corporation (no relation, I don't believe), subscribes to a logical theory of behavioral prediction they call "rational choice" theory (PDF), a species of games theory.

RAND is the cradle of rational-choice theory, a rigorously utilitarian mode of thought with applications to virtually every field of social science. Under rational-choice theory, belief systems, historical circumstances, cultural influences, and other nonrational filigree must be removed from consideration in calculating the dynamics of human behavior. There exists only the rational and orderly pursuit of self-interest. It is the religion that governs RAND. "You can leave your backpack in my office," RAND senior economist Darius Lakdawalla told me as we headed for a conference room. "There's no theft at RAND." I asked whether "externalities" were permitted anywhere inside the building. He chuckled politely.

Slate: Why No More 9/11's?

 

[wmrs2]

Please show me exactly where I said anything remotely like this.

In fact, I know that you can't, so please leave my name out of your ugly, rambling posts.

Thank you.

From previous conversations you have had on this forum with other persons and from all those who have rebuffed my theist position, I concluded that you held the same point of view as the people referred to in the list of liberals I noted in the previous post of mine.

If I have misrepresented you as having this opinion and world view, it was not intended to be an insult but just a recognition. I would be interested to hear what your opinion is on the subject of Aristotelian logic. If I have classified you in an opinion group that you do not agree with, I apologize.

 

[xssve]

Before I give you an opinion on what you just said, I want to make sure that I understand correctly what you are saying.

I think I understand your term mechanistic approach since I have studied the mechanistic world view as well as a number of world views. What do you mean by many outcomes and a matrix of possible outcomes and what role does statistical frequency play in your explanation of logic?

A given phenomena can result in more than one outcome, and given the laws of physics, no outcome is ever exactly the same twice, albeit ordinarily within a defined set of parameters - pregnancy is the result of sex, but sex soes not always result in pregnancy, for example, and the result is a unique result of recombinant DNA, the child will be shaped by a comination of genetics and external stressors, etc.

Statistical frequency plays a central role, I should say - see rational choice theory above.

For instance, your repeated statements of the frequency of the population that "believes in god" is effectively an attempt to coerce agreement by creating a false consensus that they all agree with you.

They don't, and even if they did, you still wouldn't be proven correct.

 

[wmrs2]

A given phenomena can result in more than one outcome, and given the laws of physics, no outcome is ever exactly the same twice, albeit ordinarily within a defined set of parameters - pregnancy is the result of sex, but sex soes not always result in pregnancy, for example, and the result is a unique result of recombinant DNA, the child will be shaped by a comination of genetics and external stressors, etc.

Statistical frequency plays a central role, I should say - see rational choice theory above.

For instance, your repeated statements of the frequency of the population that "believes in god" is effectively an attempt to coerce agreement by creating a false consensus that they all agree with you.

They don't, and even if they did, you still wouldn't be proven correct.

Thank you for your quick response. I have a question about this response. Your statement:and given the laws of physics, no outcome is ever exactly the same twice, albeit ordinarily within a defined set of parameters , does this explanation not conflict with the scientific method which says that ones findings are scientifically correct if an experiment can be repeated many times with the same results?

How can we trust a scientific method that does not yield the same result each time and how can we trust a logic that does not conform to this same standard? Is the scientific method allowed to conflict with logic?

 

[wmrs2]

xssve does bring up a very important observation in the comment that Aristotelian logic is mechinistic. This observation comes from and is related here to a mechinistic world view that many people hold to be a true vision of what the universe is like.

Having made a study of world views, of which there are many, it has been my observation that not a single world view is willing to give up or disallow in anyway its faith in the scientific method or its fondness for Aristotelean logic.

 

[xssve]

Thank you for your quick response. I have a question about this response. Your statement:and given the laws of physics, no outcome is ever exactly the same twice, albeit ordinarily within a defined set of parameters , does this explanation not conflict with the scientific method which says that ones findings are scientifically correct if an experiment can be repeated many times with the same results?

How can we trust a scientific method that does not yield the same result each time and how can we trust a logic that does not conform to this same standard? Is the scientific method allowed to conflict with logic?

It is considered established if the results fall within a certain set of parameters that may be very narrow - chemical reactions for example fall within a predictable set of parameters: even if the individual molecules that form from the combination of certain elements are different molecules, they combine in predictable ways according to the laws of physics, valence shells, ionization, etc., and in fact different combinations can be achieved by altering the polarities of the molecules, very common in Pharmacological chemistry.

We trust it because the results are statistically predictable - one might say a "fact" is a phenomena that has a probability of recurring that approaches infinity.

It is considered an established fact for instance, that the sun rises, it's "self evident". In fact it remains relatively stationary with respect to the Earth, which rotates axially and creates the perceptual illusion that the sun is moving across the sky.

Meantime, the sun is in motion relative to the galaxy, which is in motion relative to the universe - everything is in motion relative to everything else, which is why we look for predictive patterns that can be described as abstractions, rather than focusing on individual interactions, which are used to either confirm the pattern or raise further complexities which can then be addressed systematically according to the scientific method through the use of controlled variables.

It's why the existence of god is useless in any logical system, it's an uncontrolled variable, and cannot be used to form any stable premise.

Believe me, many have tried - had you succeeded here, it would be front page news.

 

[xssve]

xssve does bring up a very important observation in the comment that Aristotelian logic is mechinistic. This observation comes from and is related here to a mechinistic world view that many people hold to be a true vision of what the universe is like.

Having made a study of world views, of which there are many, it has been my observation that not a single world view is willing to give up or disallow in anyway its faith in the scientific method or its fondness for Aristotelean logic.

I would call that a subjective hypothesis - conversions occur both ways, I've witnessed it.

You, in fact are probably closer to converting ami to Christianity than I am to converting him to radical empiricism.

 

[wmrs2]

I would call that a subjective hypothesis - conversions occur both ways, I've witnessed it.

You, in fact are probably closer to converting ami to Christianity than I am to converting him to radical empiricism.

May I ask, what is your definition of "radical empiricism"? I am being introduced to a lot of new terms that I have not been exposed to in my previous philosophical studies. I am trying to catch up.