Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

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.

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.