Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

1…2425272930…32

Comments

  • #1302
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not demonstrating anything.
    Indeed.


  • #1303
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It looks like you don't know what a 'strawman' is, although your arguments are peppered with the word.

    A strawman is when someone takes someone elses argument they have no answer to, changes it to something they feel they can argue against better and ignores what was actually said. Which is what you are doing. My argument is not empiricism vs non-empiricism. The nature of the special-sauces is irrelevant, just that they are contradictory.

    Okay. Since the nature of the special sauces is irrelevant, have you any objection to a particular theist view and the empiricist view being the two sauces in question?

    If you have an objection what is it?

    I am not strawmanning here, I'm merely establishing the bonafides of your position before progressing
    I am not claiming to be the impartial onlooker.

    Good. By putting you alongside me as a purveyor of special sauces we can examine the problem together. Since we both face this impartial onlooker

    If you want to assume the impartial onlooker is some ideal abstract, then fine, but just answer my damn questions:

    This is where you strawman. Since we're in this together now, each with special sauce, what might we presume of the imp.on?

    To be impartial they have to have a balanced view? Isn't that what impartial is? Not weighted in one direction.



    1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?

    If they've had neither empirical experience nor spiritual experience then I can't say. Too little informtion on this imp.on. At the moment they are a blob, an unknown.

    You have to begin to describe this imp.on. They've no training either in philosophy or theism. What else.

    I think what you want is to pick a man in the street, who has no philosophy training and no theology training?

    Does he go to church or not, for example?


  • #1304
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I am not strawmanning here, I'm merely establishing the bonafides of your position before progressing

    You are strawmanning and deflecting because you think I will give up. The nature of the special sauces is irrelevent. You can consider them in your head anyway you like, but they don't need to be brought up in the discussion (half of my point is specifically that it doesn't matter, my question works for any mix of sauces).
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    This is where you strawman. Since we're in this together now, each with special sauce, what might we presume of the imp.on?

    To be impartial they have to have a balanced view? Isn't that what impartial is? Not weighted in one direction.

    And now, instead of just answering my questions, you are trying to claim that I'm strawmanning my own scenario. :rolleyes:
    JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    If they've had neither empirical experience nor spiritual experience then I can't say. Too little informtion on this imp.on. At the moment they are a blob, an unknown.

    They have every explanation each of the two people can give, but no special sauce that either person claims to have.


  • #1305
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote:

    You are strawmanning and deflecting because you think I will give up. The nature of the special sauces is irrelevent. You can consider them in your head anyway you like, but they don't need to be brought up in the discussion (half of my point is specifically that it doesn't matter, my question works for any mix of sauces).

    That's fine by me - any mix of sauces, including your own is a good way to go. I'm only pressing to keep things tight as we go.

    JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS/

    It's an internet discussion forum, not face to face where things can be clarified in a moment.

    I need to approach the question carefully. For instance above, where, by seeing you include your sauce in with all possible sauces, I can see that at least one element of "agenda setting" / " presumption of own position true " might not be your approach.

    Your starting on a level playing field. Which is good - since that is how we ought to start.
    They have every explanation each of the two people can give, but no special sauce that either person claims to have.

    Sounds good at first sight. But in practice folk don't need to have been trained in, for example, the philosophy of empiricism in order to be empiricists. Nor do they have to have a degree in theology to be theists.

    We live in a world that awash with both empiricist and theist under and overtones. Whether the good or bad side of either isn't the point, the point is that you surely can't believe anyone out there hasn't some kind of worldview based on their constant exposure to the world around us.

    I can't say such an impartial individual can't exist. But in order to exist they would have to not be exposed to empiricist or theist under/overtones.

    Would such a person have any inkling about what we were talking about. No sense of the empirical world? No sense of the spiritual world?

    Because if exposed to both, they probably have view one way or the other.

    There is no "half way house"/" impartial " between empiricist and Christian beliefs.

    (You might see noe why it was important to specify these two conflicting sauces? Ot highlight the problem of impartial)

    God (in an IF/THEN statement) is somewhat defined in relation to what we know. An impartial onlooker has been described with no definition whatsoever. You can't just say 'IF an impartial onlooker THEN what would they make of the sauces?" You might as well say 'IF blob THEN...

    Whats 'blob'

    They have no recognisable features.

    Impartial? Impossible?


  • #1306
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Sounds good at first sight. But in practice blah blah waffle deflection nonsense.

    This is just gibberish nonsense. People can be impartial to conflicting ideas in subjects they have never encountered before. It's clear why you wont answer my clear simple questions, you know they prove your whole argument to be full of crap. Enough of the BS pretence at semantics, take it as hypothetical and just answer the questions:
    1) How does someone, with no worldview, tell which of two contradictory (but equally confident) people's proposed worldviews are true?
    2) How does either of those people tell?


  • #1307
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    This isn't which brand of coffee is preferred, this is existential.

    Your view, as life-from-non-life adherent, might hold that someone can not have thought about the subject until the day you and me approach them for their judgment.

    I, on the the other hand, have a completely different starting position. People are born sinners and in opposition to God. They are antagonistic towards him by nature.
    Impartial isn't possible.

    You are either for him (saved) or against him (lost).

    -

    You ought know the flavour of my sauce position yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.

    Which is merely (if accidently) imposing your sauces flavour on to the exercise.

    The sauciers hand is rocking the cradle.

    Which is why I included your sauce in this experiment. It is very relevant which sauces are under the microscope afterall.


  • #1308
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Now your turn.

    1. Can the Christian God exist? Yes? No?

    (I would remind you of the nature of science: whatever the indications of the evidence, the conclusion isn't fixed but is subject to review should the evidence scene change in future.)


  • #1309
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mod:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It's clear why you wont answer my clear simple questions, you know they prove your whole argument to be full of crap. Enough of the BS pretence at semantics, [...]
    It's also possible that antiskeptic genuinely believes, or tries to believe, whatever ideas might be buried within the intractable prose which he/she posts from time to time. In such a case, it might be better to step back instead of trying to continue to pin him/her down when he's/she's clearly unwilling or unable to be pinned down to an actual identifiable position.

    No need for using or implying foul language either.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Impartial isn't possible.
    Neither, it seems, is reasonable discussion at this time. In line with the recent charter updates, your friendly A+A mods might decide to intervene where a reasonable discussion isn't taking place with what we hope might be some helpful suggestions to both sides. On your side, I suggest that you read your posts before replying and seeing whether they could include, for example, an identifiable meaning which treads within the same general neighbourhood where resides the poster you are replying to. So far, your gnomic, Deepak-like prose avoids this.

    However, you will agree that we each contain within ourselves the seeds of our own redemption and - being hopeful sorts - your friendly mods trust that the future might see you engaging in, you know, actual discussion.


  • #1310
    santana75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭santana75


    Personally I'd stand by Israel Falou and his decision to post those quotes from Corinthians, Its not what I would've done personally, but I defend his right to quote publicly from the bible. I mean if he had posted Corinthians 13:4-7 (Paul's verse on Love) then he would've been commended and still have a job to go to. But both verses are biblically equal. To buy into one verse and not another is not truly following the teachings of Jesus. If you look at Jesus and the way he interacted with people he did it with a mix of compassion and hard truth. He embraced people but he would still call them out on their sin. He spent most of his time with sinners and trying to draw them back into a relationship with God. It was in fact Religious people who put him to death and they did it because he called them out on their sin, which was pride, arrogance and self-righteousness. Israel Falou has no job, this is a fact and perhaps a lot of sponsors and teams will not want to have anything to do with him, thats to be expected, its the nature of the world. But ultimately I believe he'll be fine and will do well in life. Jesus said "Wisdom is proven right by the lives of those who follow it". And thats how you can clearly see if someone has made the right decisions in their life by looking at the end product, not just whats happening right now, but in years to come.


  • #1311
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote:
    It's also possible that antiskeptic genuinely believes, or tries to believe, whatever ideas might be buried within the intractable prose which he/she posts from time to time.

    Is it so difficult? Mark is happy to subject himself and his sauce to his own experiment. And forces assumptions of his sauce onto it.

    Is that the kind of science you applaud?
    In such a case, it might be better to step back instead of trying to continue to pin him/her down when he's/she's clearly unwilling or unable to be pinned down to an actual identifiable position.

    Identified above in limited prose.
    Neither, it seems, is reasonable discussion at this time. In line with the recent charter updates, your friendly A+A mods might decide to intervene where a reasonable discussion isn't taking place with what we hope might be some helpful suggestions to both sides. On your side, I suggest that you read your posts before replying and seeing whether they could include, for example, an identifiable meaning which treads within the same general neighbourhood where resides the poster you are replying to. So far, your gnomic, Deepak-like prose avoids this.

    However, you will agree that we each contain within ourselves the seeds of our own redemption and - being hopeful sorts - your friendly mods trust that the future might see you engaging in, you know, actual discussion.

    I have erred. I was trying to convey the idea of the problem of impartiality to Mark in roundabout. Hopefully my 2nd to last post will highlight the nub.

    Which brings us back to the thread.

    One belief system is pronouncing on another belief system (the "inclusive" mood of the times authority vs. Folau)

    The former insisting that it leans on something objective. When its really only shoehorning its own beliefs into things. Like Mark in his experiment, that hand rocks the cradle.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I have erred.
    No, you have waffled at great length to almost no effect at all. Were it not ten in the morning, I'd have suggested laying off the Anise.


  • #1313
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I have erred.
    No, you have waffled at great length to almost no effect at all. Were it not ten in the morning, I'd have suggested laying off the Anise.

    Ad hominem
    Do-do-dee-do-do
    Ad hominem
    Do-dee-dee-doo
    Ad hominem
    Do-do-dee-do-do
    Do-do-do
    Do-do-do
    Do-do-do-dee-dee-do-do-do-do-do

    Moderator, heal thyself!


  • #1314
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Moderator, heal thyself!
    Moderator doing just fine, thank you :)


  • #1315
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    This isn't which brand of coffee is preferred, this is existential.

    Your view, as life-from-non-life adherent, might hold that someone can not have thought about the subject until the day you and me approach them for their judgment.

    I, on the the other hand, have a completely different starting position. People are born sinners and in opposition to God. They are antagonistic towards him by nature.
    Impartial isn't possible.

    You are either for him (saved) or against him (lost).

    -

    You ought know the flavour of my sauce position yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.

    Which is merely (if accidently) imposing your sauces flavour on to the exercise.

    The sauciers hand is rocking the cradle.

    Which is why I included your sauce in this experiment. It is very relevant which sauces are under the microscope afterall.

    More meaningless nonsense.
    Take the impartial onlooker as a hypothetical ideal, if that will get you to stop wasting everyones time and just answer the questions.


  • #1316
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    More meaningless nonsense.
    Take the impartial onlooker as a hypothetical ideal, if that will get you to stop wasting everyones time and just answer the questions.


    I said:
    You ought know the flavour of my sauce position

    ..which holds that people aren't impartial to the issue of God
    yet you insist people are capable of impartiality on this issue.


    What part of that do you not understand?

    Your hypothetical isn't possible.


    -

    To assess two positions you need an evaluation system. What would this hypothetical ideal evaluation system be based on? What equipping would they have to properly assess both positions. Like, you get a structural engineer in to evaluate a structure, a lawyer to evaluate a legal position, etc. If you wanted someone to assess a massive structural defect in a new building you might get in a structural engineer and a lawyer.

    Hypothetical ideal is an empty term until such time as it is give some legs.


  • #1317
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Your hypothetical isn't possible.

    Which is why I said take it as a hypothetical.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To assess two positions you need an evaluation system. What would this hypothetical ideal evaluation system be based on? What equipping would they have to properly assess both positions.

    You take how many days and posts to end up asking my initial question back to me? Because what you have written here is what I am asked you in the first place.
    If you have some idealised hypothetical impartial onlooker who is presented with two opposing world views from people who are equally confident in their special sauces, how should that onlooker tell which world view and special sauce to accept or believe in? What should their evaluation system look like?

    It's all well and good that you believe that your knowledge is god given, but how can anyone else tell if that's true, when there are any number of other people claiming contradictory god given knowledge or claiming contradictory logic or reason or science? How should any onlooker determine what's true, regardless of whether they work off of a theistic, empirical or non-existent perfectly impartial viewpoint?

    And, given that there are people equally confident that their contradictory (to your knowledge and/or god) "knowledge" is actually god given and true, how can you be sure which of you is right and which is wrong? You are both presenting equal but opposite claims that can't both be right, even though you are both confident in them, so how do you, antiskeptic, tell if you are actually right?


  • #1318
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    If I were to ask you, hypothetically, if up were down. And up was up.

    Is everything open to a hypothetical?


    You take how many days and posts to end up asking my initial question back to me? Because what you have written here is what I am asked you in the first place.
    If you have some idealised hypothetical impartial onlooker who is presented with two opposing world views from people who are equally confident in their special sauces, how should that onlooker tell which world view and special sauce to accept or believe in? What should their evaluation system look like?

    I've no idea when it comes to the worldviews under discussion (Christianity and Empiricism). You say 'hypothetical' as if by saying it you've waved a magic wand. I simply have no idea how someone with no access to the bones of a worldview can assess that worldview.
    It's all well and good that you believe that your knowledge is god given

    Its a conclusion I've come to based on the evidence available to me. God is not only the ultimate reality and truth, but he is the way to the truth. Much like you conclude truth about reality is to be obtained by empiricism. The evidence at your disposal leads you to that conclusion.

    (Don't ask me what my evidence is, by the way. You are occupying the space of a worldview awaiting the pronounciation of an impartial other. Its not your job to evaluate my argument regarding what's evidence when. You'd only insert your worldviews T&C's)

    but how can anyone else tell if that's true, when there are any number of other people claiming contradictory god given knowledge or claiming contradictory logic or reason or science?

    You're in the same boat. Under investigation by another you've yet to create (how I don't know). Stay in the boat and stop hopping into the role of impartial onlooker.
    How should any onlooker determine what's true, regardless of whether they work off of a theistic, empirical or non-existent perfectly impartial viewpoint?

    They assess according to this hypothetical assessment method you have in mind. If you have nothing to say about their method then I can't say how they would do it.

    Certainly, if they are coming at it from a theistic pov (ie: they believe in God), they won't be impartial. Their assessment of empiricism will be like mine.
    And, given that there are people equally confident that their contradictory (to your knowledge and/or god) "knowledge" is actually god given and true, how can you be sure which of you is right and which is wrong?

    How can I be sure or how can the impartial observer be sure? You've excluded yourself again btw. Include yourself and answer your own question.

    You will find it goes something like this "'It's satisfactory to me. All the evidence I have at my disposal leads me to conclude that this is the truth (or the only way to the truth). I belief I'm correct in my assessment"

    are both presenting equal but opposite claims that can't both be right, even though you are both confident in them, so how do you, antiskeptic, tell if you are actually right?

    As above. By the same means as the other person in the boat - you. I assess the evidence at my disposal and come to the conclusion I come to. That others don't agree (because they have different evidence to base their decision on) is not my problem.


  • #1319
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I simply have no idea how someone with no access to the bones of a worldview can assess that worldview.

    They don't have worldview, but they are open to one. The hypothetical onlooker will listen to any argument you make. Can't you think of how you can convince them in such a way that is more convincing than any other theist, atheist or empiricist? Or do all of your arguments require starting with the worldview that your god exists?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You're in the same boat. Under investigation by another you've to create, how I don't know. Stay in the boat and stop hopping into the role of impartial onlooker.

    I know how I would do it, I'm asking you how would you do it?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    They assess according to this hypothetical assessment method you have in mind. If you have nothing to say about their method then I can't say how they would do it.

    Certainly, if they are coming at it from a theistic pov (ie: they believe in God), they won't be impartial. Their assessment of empiricism will be like mine.

    So how do you convince them to come at from your pov?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Its satisactory to me. All the evidence I have at my disposal leads me to believe what I believe is true.

    But there are other people equally satisfied with their "knowledge" and their evidence. Do you not question how you can be so sure you are right and they are wrong?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Making it not a belief but a fact

    That is not how facts work.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As above. The same way as the other person in the boat - you.

    I imagine I have a fundamentally different way for telling I am right, fully accounting for your contradictory confidence, than you do. Why don't you go ahead and explain your way?


  • #1320
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    They don't have worldview, but they are open to one. The hypothetical onlooker will listen to any argument you make. Can't you think of how you can convince them in such a way that is more convincing than any other theist, atheist or empiricist? Or do all of your arguments require starting with the worldview that your god exists?

    Without empirical experience I doubt your onlooker would have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Have they got empirical experience?


    But there are other people equally satisfied with their "knowledge" and their evidence. Do you not question how you can be so sure you are right and they are wrong?

    Not in the least.

    a) I've met God. You could begin to imagine, from say, the size of the universe, that something like that would be a cosmic scale event. Someone attempting a proof of empiricism would be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it, in comparison.

    b) I understand why they think as they do - the bible gives a pretty good manual as to how the world works. And when I look out at the world, I see it works uncannily precisely as the manual says it will. Take Ecclesiastes "there's nothing new under the sun". Whilst folk like yourself have this ever onwards and upwards point of view. Mankind developing and progressing. "We've moved on(wards and upwards)"

    When I look at the world I see the same old same old. Nothing different in the least. The outer dress changes in the world, but people operate the same way as they've always done.


    When I look at the various theistic gods around the world, one after the other they share the same characteristic: how you behave determines how you stand before the god in question and where you go for eternity. All cut from the same cloth (giving them a common ancestor - satan). You cite 10,000 religions, I see but two. God vs Satan

    Which is not to say a person from another faith can't be saved by God

    It's the same with philosophies - they achieve the same end for folk which was the end sought at the start of it all with the Fall - to be independent of God. To be God. But they all run out of road before they get to that oh so close, oh so far, proof.

    Which is why, although they appear different to theistic gods - I lump them in with the gods.



    That is not how facts work.

    Then as good as fact. Good enough to be taken as fact.

    I imagine I have a fundamentally different way for telling I am right, fully accounting for your contradictory confidence, than you do. Why don't you go ahead and explain your way?

    To you? That's not the set up. The set up is to an impartial onlooker, remember? And we haven't got one yet, other than by waving a magic wand. As I say, if they've no empirical experience then you won't be getting far with them, will you?


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    "I've met God."

    Was He chuffed, or did He manage to get a word in edgeways?


  • #1322
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Without empirical experience I doubt your onlooker would have the slightest clue what you are talking about. Have they got empirical experience?

    Are you saying you can't support your own argument without empirical evidence?
    They have whatever evidence and arguments you give them.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Not in the least.

    a) I've met God. You could begin to imagine, from say, the size of the universe, that something like that would be a cosmic scale event. Someone attempting a proof of empiricism would be throwing ball bearings at an ocean liner in the attempt to sink it, in comparison.

    b) I understand why they think as they do - the bible gives a pretty good manual as to how the world works.

    But the other people also say this, with as much conviction as you. There are people who have died, so much is their conviction in their contradictory (to your) beliefs. How can you tell which of the equal but contradictory convictions (yours or theirs) is actually accurate when the simple existence of that conviction can't mean anything?
    And saying that all religions and philosophies are fundamentally about the same 1 God vs Satan, even if true (and I'm sure Shintoists, Hinduists and plenty of others would have something so say about that), really just shifts the goalposts to asking the question in terms of your contradictory interpretation of that 1 God vs Satan.
    Is there anything, being just being sure of yourself, that makes you so sure of yourself?
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    To you? That's not the set up. The set up is to an impartial onlooker, remember? And we haven't got one yet, other than by waving a magic wand. As I say, if they've no empirical experience then you won't be getting far with them, will you?

    The set up is me asking you how you would do it. Why can't you even try? Is it not easier to justify yourself to someone who isn't approaching your claims from an inherently empirical, and therefore quite so contradictory, pov?


  • #1323
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Are you saying you can't support your own argument without empirical evidence?
    They have whatever evidence and arguments you give them.

    I'm asking some questions about this impartial onlooker. Your magic wand version, about which you have said nowt, has problems.

    You didn't reply to my question just there - you answered with a questions. You didn't reply to my question as to whether all hypotheticals are sensical either. Remember: "hypothetically, if down was up and up was up?".

    Does the mere sticking of "hypothetical" on front of something render it other than nonsense (if it is nonsense)? Of course not.

    Get cracking on solving some of your problems. Then we can progress (or more likely, conclude, this discussion)




    But the other people also say this, with as much conviction as you. There are people who have died, so much is their conviction in their contradictory (to your) beliefs. How can you tell which of the equal but contradictory convictions (yours or theirs) is actually accurate when the simple existence of that conviction can't mean anything?

    You've this irritating habit of jumping out of the boat you are sailing along with me in. You have the same problem as me - you are one of those "other" people. How can you tell. Well, our supposed impartial onlooker is going to decide that

    If you can (and I predict you can and will not) manage to erect him. Erect him with substance. Not asking questions as answers to questions.



    And saying that all religions and philosophies are fundamentally about the same 1 God vs Satan, even if true (and I'm sure Shintoists, Hinduists and plenty of others would have something so say about that), really just shifts the goalposts to asking the question in terms of your contradictory interpretation of that 1 God vs Satan.

    I'm not sure what that means.


    Is there anything, being just being sure of yourself, that makes you so sure of yourself?

    Or that..

    Perhaps you meant to install an "other" before "being"?

    No one is sure of themselves other than being sure of themselves. If you accept, for example, the finding of a scientific experiment, you (and I emphasis you) are stating something about your being sure of yourself that scientific experiments lead to solid knowledge or whatever.

    You are the judge of all that you are sure of. Even if you farm out your confidence to others it is you who is deciding you are assured that they will correctly inform you. Suredness, for you, rests with no one but you. It's like sticky toffee paper - there's no way to prevent it ending up sticking to your own fingers







    The set up is me asking you how you would do it.

    The set up is that an impartial onlooker was going to decide. There's no point in me talking to you when my view holds that your view is blind to what I say.
    Why can't you even try?

    Because that would let you off the hook about the problem you face creating this impartial onlooker of yours. Which would return us immediately to the problem identified in your mere suggestion of the idea. That without an impartial onlooker, I'm left with you, a partial onlooker.

    It's an admission of sorts. Hardly less than an obvious problem (your partiality / faith system) but one which tends to be drowned out by the empiricists assumption that their belief is somehow fact. Fact usually supported as fact by "all the wonderful things that science has done for us" or "do you take paracetamol" or some such ***te

    Is it not easier to justify yourself to someone who isn't approaching your claims from an inherently empirical, and therefore quite so contradictory, pov?

    Justification implies defence. I prefer your impartial onlooker who isn't looking for a justification but is assessing impartially. Such a thing (an I.O) can't (I'll warrant) exist. At least, you've danced around on the head of pin when asked about the nuts and bolts of this impartial onlooker

    I don't know who the person you are referring to is. The "someone who isn't approaching your claims from an inherently empirical, and therefore quite so contradictory, pov?" Is that the I.O.?

    If so, you might start dealing with the problems you have creating one rather than assume one exists and start applying it to the problem you and I face.

    -

    It would really help if you could abstain from hopping out of the boat (for you have been placed in it, let's call you a believer in empiricism, an empiricist) and look at your own problems in the face of the I.O. you have yet to create, rather that at someone in the same boat as you facing this I.O. in waiting.

    Sequence for progression in summary:

    - Sort out your problem creating an I.O

    - Then we look at the problems we might face in presenting our respective cases.

    Avoid jumping the gun and asking me about how I would present my case. That's not your problem given the problem uppermost above. That is not your problem given you are not the I.O. doing the assessing, if ever one is created.


  • #1324
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Your friendly moderator is beginning to wonder what all of this talk of impartial empirical sauce etc has to do with LGBT sense and nonsense and a certain Australian (ex?) rugby player. It's beginning to look an awful lot like a very wordy discussion on the existence of a deity and whether he/she/they prefer Hollandaise or béarnaise or possibly BBQ.
    May we please get back to the nonsense topic of the thread and those who wish to continue the saucy discussion can do so in a thread dedicated to all thing diety culinary.


  • #1325
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Your friendly moderator is beginning to wonder what all of this talk of impartial empirical sauce etc has to do with LGBT sense and nonsense and a certain Australian (ex?) rugby player. It's beginning to look an awful lot like a very wordy discussion on the existence of a deity and whether he/she/they prefer Hollandaise or béarnaise or possibly BBQ.
    May we please get back to the nonsense topic of the thread and those who wish to continue the saucy discussion can do so in a thread dedicated to all thing diety culinary.

    Fair point.

    Mark, by all means bring your deity to a new thread. I'll bring mine too.


  • #1326
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Your friendly moderator is beginning to wonder what all of this talk of impartial empirical sauce etc has to do with LGBT sense and nonsense and a certain Australian (ex?) rugby player. It's beginning to look an awful lot like a very wordy discussion on the existence of a deity and whether he/she/they prefer Hollandaise or béarnaise or possibly BBQ.
    May we please get back to the nonsense topic of the thread and those who wish to continue the saucy discussion can do so in a thread dedicated to all thing diety culinary.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Fair point.

    Mark, by all means bring your deity to a new thread. I'll bring mine too.

    Sorry, didn't expect it to go on so long without an answer.
    I've opened a new thread here.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48391926
    Majority in Brazil's top court to make homophobia and transphobia crimes

    Interesting to see this...
    Brazil has the world's biggest Catholic population but also a growing number of young, educated urban liberals who are eager to fight for gay and trans rights.

    Given the comments by the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro he might eventually be charged under such laws if he keeps making worse and worse comments, after all he's said such awful things as
    he would rather have a dead son than a homosexual son


  • #1328
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Sooo... any news on Israel Falou?
    Izzy serious? Well, let's see - Mr Folau needs money. Specifically, he needs your money and he needs lots of it.

    Any cash you have which you can spare for this excellent cause, you can hand over here - $400,000 of $3,000,000 has already been donated:

    https://www.gofundme.com/israel-folau-legal-action-fund


  • #1329
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    Izzy serious? Well, let's see - Mr Folau needs money. Specifically, he needs your money and he needs lots of it.

    Any cash you have which you can spare for this excellent cause, you can hand over here - $400,000 of $3,000,000 has already been donated:

    https://www.gofundme.com/israel-folau-legal-action-fund

    Looks like Izzy didn't put any of his substantial wages away into an I'm going to break my employer's code of conduct fund.Or even an I want to be able to say what I want and I want you to pay for it fund.


  • #1330
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,184 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    re the thread title, do we know what peak LGBT nonsense actually looks like? what *is* saturation point, and can it be scientifically defined? is it when gaiety gets so concentrated it actually starts crystallising in the air, and could we treat it as a renewable energy source if so?


  • #1331
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    re the thread title, do we know what peak LGBT nonsense actually looks like? what *is* saturation point, and can it be scientifically defined? is it when gaiety gets so concentrated it actually starts crystallising in the air, and could we treat it as a renewable energy source if so?

    Got front row tickets booked for the whole family for the Rocky Horror Picture show in a couple of weeks so rather looking forward to some LGTB nonsense. Got to love those sweet transvestites from transsexual Transylvania :)


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,513 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Where's that, smacl?

    Scrap the cap!



  • #1333
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Got front row tickets booked for the whole family for the Rocky Horror Picture show in a couple of weeks so rather looking forward to some LGTB nonsense. Got to love those sweet transvestites from transsexual Transylvania :)

    I can genuinely sing (use of the term 'sing' is loosely applied) every single song from the opening credits to the closing credits in the correct order. I am only allowed to do this while alone in my car as apparently it's the zenith of LGBT nonsense.


  • #1334
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    He's learning a valuable lesson,

    DON'T BE A DICK!
    Israel Folau: Rugby star's fundraiser shut down over anti-gay views
    GoFundMe said the page violated its rules. All donations will be refunded.

    "As a company, we are absolutely committed to the fight for equality for LGBTIQ+ people and fostering an environment of inclusivity," said spokeswoman Nicola Britton.

    "While we welcome GoFundMe's engaging in diverse civil debate, we do not tolerate the promotion of discrimination or exclusion."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48740811


    His former Wallabies teammate Drew Mitchell accused Folau of “greed” after his fund received more donations than accounts for disadvantaged and sick children.

    https://twitter.com/drew_mitchell/status/1141907784344035329

    He has a point to be fair,


  • #1335
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Where's that, smacl?

    Board Gais Theatre


  • #1336
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Cabaal wrote: »
    . . . He has a point to be fair,
    But, to be even fairer, I don't think he has much of a point. Not a fan of Folau or his views, but unless he is saying "Donate to me instead of the kid with cancer!" I don't see that he is saying he is more deserving of the donations than the kid. Or, if he is, then every single person who is running a gofundme appeal for anything at all is saying that. Which doesn't seem right.


  • #1337
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I can genuinely sing (use of the term 'sing' is loosely applied) every single song from the opening credits to the closing credits in the correct order. I am only allowed to do this while alone in my car as apparently it's the zenith of LGBT nonsense.

    Live show is great big dress up party and one of the singey alongiest shows for the musically challenged known to man, take it from one who knows. Third time going as a family, always a blast and as Kenny Everett used to say, all done in the best possible taste. Dithering whether to go as Brad, Janet or Frankenfurter this year.


  • #1338
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Live show is great big dress up party and one of the singey alongiest shows for the musically challenged known to man, take it from one who knows. Third time going as a family, always a blast and as Kenny Everett used to say, all done in the best possible taste. Dithering whether to go as Brad, Janet or Frankenfurter this year.
    I've always thought of you more as Rocky Horror himself, to be honest.


  • #1339
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    smacl wrote: »
    Live show is great big dress up party and one of the singey alongiest shows for the musically challenged known to man, take it from one who knows. Third time going as a family, always a blast and as Kenny Everett used to say, all done in the best possible taste. Dithering whether to go as Brad, Janet or Frankenfurter this year.

    First time I ever saw it was live at Cork Opera House around 1979/80. The actor playing Frankenfurter was Daniel Abineri who was also on TV at the time playing a priest in Bless Me Father which added to the overall *gosh* of the occasion.


  • #1340
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But, to be even fairer, I don't think he has much of a point. Not a fan of Folau or his views, but unless he is saying "Donate to me instead of the kid with cancer!" I don't see that he is saying he is more deserving of the donations than the kid. Or, if he is, then every single person who is running a gofundme appeal for anything at all is saying that. Which doesn't seem right.

    I think he has a bit of a point - Folau literally earned millions of dollars yet set up a go-fund me which is in competition with those who are in genuine need. Those who donated to Folau who claim to be doing so for 'Christian' reasons should also take a long hard look at themselves imho.


  • #1341
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Yeah, can't really argue with that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    uptherebels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,738 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But, to be even fairer, I don't think he has much of a point. Not a fan of Folau or his views, but unless he is saying "Donate to me instead of the kid with cancer!" I don't see that he is saying he is more deserving of the donations than the kid. Or, if he is, then every single person who is running a gofundme appeal for anything at all is saying that. Which doesn't seem right.

    Folau dug the hole he found himself in and now wants other to help get him out. According to some news reports I've seen he has a multi million property portfolio, so even less sympathy from me.


  • #1343
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    uptherebels wrote: »
    Folau dug the hole he found himself in and now wants other to help get him out. According to some news reports I've seen he has a multi million property portfolio, so even less sympathy from me.

    It would appear that Israel is also very familiar with the concept of small print and Terms and Conditions:
    D9n5VRBUcAAUbhg.jpg


  • #1344
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,946 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Bannasidhe wrote:
    It would appear that Israel is also very familiar with the concept of small print and Terms and Conditions:
    So you think that he wrote that and not one of his legal representatives?


  • #1345
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    eagle eye wrote: »
    So you think that he wrote that and not one of his legal representatives?

    Does it matter?
    It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it.
    Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps?

    Next up: How Falou didn't actually understand the first warning he received from his employers as his legal representatives had run out of red crayons.


  • #1346
    The Specialist
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Does it matter?
    It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it.
    Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps?

    Next up: How Falou didn't actually understand the first warning he received from his employers as his legal representatives had run out of red crayons.

    Christians generally require crayon drawings on issues of morality so I wouldn’t be surprised.


  • #1347
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,184 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    eagle eye wrote: »
    So you think that he wrote that and not one of his legal representatives?
    it's an interesting pitch from his lawyers so, if true. 'hey, how about we ask the public to pay your legal fees but tell them you're not actually going to use it to pay us? don't worry, this is standard legal practice.'


  • #1348
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,946 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Bannasidhe wrote:
    Does it matter? It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it. Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps?

    Bannasidhe wrote:
    Does it matter? It's the declaimer posted on his now defunct go-fund me page - he approved it. Or are you suggesting that Israel Falou is not the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't understand how terms and conditions work and needs someone to explain it all to him? Using crayons perhaps?
    Next up: How Falou didn't actually understand the first warning he received from his employers as his legal representatives had run out of red crayons.
    Look, I'm just pointing out that it's very likely one of his legal team wrote it.
    It's weird being on the bar side of this when I don't agree with anything he says. I feel like there is nobody able to have a bit if cop on about the whole thing.
    I do believe he should have the right to air his opinions on things. I don't believe that what he said was homophobic because it is just religious belief. He isn't wishing ill will on anybody and it's not hate speech either.
    magicbastarder wrote:
    it's an interesting pitch from his lawyers so, if true. 'hey, how about we ask the public to pay your legal fees but tell them you're not actually going to use it to pay us? don't worry, this is standard legal practice.'
    I'm sure there is some legal reason for why it was put that way.
    The Specialist wrote:
    Christians generally require crayon drawings on issues of morality so I wouldn’t be surprised.
    Yes, a hell of a lot of them are not very bright.


  • #1349
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Look, I'm just pointing out that it's very likely one of his legal team wrote it.
    It's weird being on the bar side of this when I don't agree with anything he says. I feel like there is nobody able to have a bit if cop on about the whole thing.
    I do believe he should have the right to air his opinions on things. I don't believe that what he said was homophobic because it is just religious belief. He isn't wishing ill will on anybody and it's not hate speech either.


    I'm sure there is some legal reason for why it was put that way.


    Yes, a hell of a lot of them are not very bright.

    Doesn't matter who wrote it. He put his name to it. Same as he put his name to a contract that had a code of conduct attached to it. His legal team would have read that too. He signed it.

    Gay men being thrown off buildings is "just religious belief" as well - I assume you don't think that's ok.

    You see it's coming from the same place - it's God Hates Fags and it doesn't matter a jot if it's Israel Falou, Westboro Baptist, or Muhammad in Iraq. It doesn't matter if you claim God is Jehovah or Allah. It's pointing the finger at a section of society and saying The creator of the Universe* hates those people, they are unclean and damned to burn for eternity. That is homophobia.

    Religion either doesn't give anyone a free pass or it gives everyone a free pass - including ISIS.

    As a by the by I doubt a man who has managed to build up a sizable, and valuable, property portfolio is what we in Cork would call a Daw. Israel Falou is not a stupid man. He is a man who wants his lifestyle choice to be respected over other people's right to live free from discrimination. And his religion is a choice. He chose to become a Pentecostal Christian having being raised Mormon. Being homosexual isn't a choice.

    *which is what the religious believe God is...


  • #1350
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,946 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    The crucial thing is that he just asked people to repent, no more, no less.
    Its not homophobic, if you think it is then you are being ridiculous.
    Comparing him to people who hate on and wish to do harm to gay people is ridiculous too.
    As I've made clear I don't share his views, I'm not religious either. I do believe in people having the right to air their views so long as it's not hate speech or inciting violence.


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    eagle eye wrote: »
    The crucial thing is that he just asked people to repent, no more, no less.

    A need to repent implies you did something wrong. As an atheist how do you think he'd take it if I told him to repent for being a Christian or alternatively suffer for all eternity for the affront his religious belief has caused?


Advertisement