-->
@Tarik
No
what an amazing response.
How to overturn Roe v. Wade
Posts
Total:
280
-->
@Tarik
No.
So you’ve gone, perhaps 20 posts, trying to shift the burden of proof, and systematically trying to avoid providing even the most tenuous justification for your position;
You have repeatedly ignored arguments, chopped out quotes that you didn’t like, and have made a bunch of unfounded accusations and straw men that you are now refusing to defend.
Why do you expect me to provide a reply when it’s self evident you’re not here arguing in good faith; and any reply I provide is likely to be either, ignored or replaced with another lazy accusation you refuse to defend?
-->
@Ramshutu
ignored or replaced with another lazy accusation you refuse to defend?
I don’t need to defend caring for overall groups, that’s your claim not mine.
-->
@Tarik
I don’t need to defend caring for overall groups, that’s your claim not mine.
Okay, so now it’s clear that you have given up on any pretence of arguing honestly - what you’re sound, is employing a rhetorical strategy I refer to as “Happy Placing.”
This strategy, is where you pretending your arguing against your “happy place” version of my arguments - where things you don’t like don’t exist, none of your previous failures exist.
How the strategy works is this: firstly, don’t acknowledge what your opponent says. Strip it out, ignore it. And argue as if they have said nothing. As what you refuse to acknowledge - can’t hurt you.
Secondly, latch onto one single point, and remove all else: don’t attempt to refute the point, but simply attempt to call it into question. Doing this prevents you from saying anything that can be criticized, minimizes your effort, and tends to force the person you’re replying to constantly out in effort to answer the never ending list of questions. It’s a means of turning the burden onto your opponent with as little actual effort as possible - a clear indication that the argument is not one of good faith.
Repeat this until your opponent gives up. At any point if someone calls you out - just ignore it, ignore everything they say: and the moment they miss anything, hammer them for it. If you can call people out for things they’ve accused you of, that actually works well. As nothing that has happened exists - hypocrisy is impossible - so whatever accusation you can make, make.
The reason this can work well on people who haven’t had much experience with it, is that it Is in part a flat out denial of reality; debate hinges on an agreed reality - if one aide argues with a presupposition of a false reality - one in which no arguments were made, or that consistent and repeated failure to defend arguments didn’t exist - then it’s hard to know how to respond.
The bottom line here is that you made a silly unfounded assertion that you were unable to defend; you tried to claim it as fair, but we’re unable to defend your points. After rapidly realizing you’re unable to defend your arguments, you stopped making any; stopped acknowledging that you were being criticized and simply went to your happy place; pretending none of your failure exists, and that you’re argument are good.
I am not responding to your claims, because you’re clearly not arguing in good faith; you are unable to to justify your position with logic and reason: so you’re trying dishonesty.
I could answer that “whether one ‘cares’ about a group or not is irrelevant - and not part of my argument, and your objection is thus straw man number 2.” But the issue remains that rational argument is impossible when the opponent has repeated into their happy place.
So what I fully expect to happen here, is for you to again, ignore everything that has been said, and fixate on one small part: retreat to your happy place.
I will simply keep a running tally of all the arguments you’ve failed to defend, and count up all the errors and fallacies your questions depend upon.
-->
@Ramshutu
I could answer that “whether one ‘cares’ about a group or not is irrelevant - and not part of my argument, and your objection is thus straw man
But that would be dishonesty and not good faith because you said and I quote
we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.”
-->
@Tarik
Dropped #2: Tarik completely ignores opponents argument.
I could answer that “whether one ‘cares’ about a group or not is irrelevant - and not part of my argument, and your objection is thus straw manBut that would be dishonesty and not good faith because you said and I quote“we have “emotions that have evolved to constrain and promote behaviours beneficial to overall group survival.”
Fallacy #3 argument by assertion:simply asserting that something is dishonest doesn’t make it so:
Rhetorical strategy #4 Parroting: what you’re sound is parroting one of my claims back at me: a little bit “I’m rubber your glue”. It omits that I offered a justification and explanation of why you’re being dishonest.
Fallacy #5 Strawman: another straw man. Nothing in my explanation infers or requires an individual to “care” about the groups. Your error is in confusing the imperative with the emotion. The imperative is simple game theory; the survival and reproductive success of an individual member of a social group of animals depends in part on the success and cohesion of the group.
-->
@Ramshutu
The imperative is simple game theory; the survival and reproductive success of an individual member of a social group of animals depends in part on the success and cohesion of the group.
Circular reasoning, yet you want to accuse me of fallacies 🥱.
-->
@Tarik
Circular reasoning, yet you want to accuse me of fallacies 🥱.
Dropped #6: Tarik refuses to defend previous points
Fallacy #7 argument by assertion: Claims the argument is circular reasoning, does not explain how or why. We appear to have to take his word for it; it may as well have just been made up.
Completely false #8: the charge is completely idiotically false. Circular reasoning is when an argument begins with what it’s trying to end with. In this particular part - the premise is that social animals that depend in part on their group for survival and success, behaviours and adaptations that improves group success can improve the individuals reproductive ; and thus creates an evolutionary imperative. No circularity there.
-->
@Ramshutu
Circular reasoning is when an argument begins with what it’s trying to end with.
Exactly and you began talking about social animals success and ended talking about success (still not sure what you mean by that).
-->
@Tarik
Exactly and you began talking about social animals success and ended talking about success (still not sure what you mean by that).
Dropped #9: Tarik refuses to defend previous points
Completely false #10: this is a big fat lie. I start about talking about success, and end up talking about an imperative.
Completely false #11: I’m giving this two lies here - because it’s so obviously false, that no rational, normal thinking person would even begin to make that accusation.
-->
@Ramshutu
the survival and reproductive success of an individual member of a social group of animals depends in part on the success and cohesion of the group.
I see the word success TWICE in this argument so I see your two lies and I’ll raise it times two with four lies because you lied here my friend.
-->
@Tarik
I see the word success TWICE in this argument so I see your two lies and I’ll raise it times two with four lies because you lied here my friend.
Dropped #11 Tarik refuses to defend previous points.
Fallacy: argument by assertion #12 : after 3 posts, you still haven’t bother to explain why or how the argument is circular.
Fallacy: Non sequitor #13. Using the word success in a sentence twice doesn’t make the conclusion circular. I mean - wtf lol.
Parroting : #14. Seriously, I’m rubber your glue only works if you’re 7
Fallacy: Argument by assertion #15: seriously, do you honestly think simply blurting our claims - with no justification is a decent argument technique? Walk me through your thought process here.
Dropped #16. Im treating this as it’s own drop, as I clearly explained why the argument isn’t circular. I’m describing an evolutionary imperative - a selective pressure in organisms that stems from some traits improving an organisms reproductive advantage - thus leading to certain variants having more copies than others due to that advantage; over time causing traits that produce more successful outcomes to become dominant over others over time. Emotions can be explained in an evolutionary narrative in these terms: traits and behaviours that would be selected for because they allow an organism to be more successful; through boosting the group the organism is part of: as a result of that success, that variant produces more copies in subsequent generations than other variants than - and thus becomes more prevalent over time.
But hey - keep spinning that lie that the argument is circular.
-->
@Ramshutu
Using the word success in a sentence twice doesn’t make the conclusion circular.
Except your use of it twice in the beginning and the end means you didn’t only use it in the beginning, which you denied previously due to your dishonesty, liar.
-->
@Tarik
Except your use of it twice in the beginning and the end means you didn’t only use it in the beginning, which you denied previously due to your dishonesty, liar.
Dropped #16: all points dropped again
Massive lie #17: “the premise is that social animals that depend in part on their group for survival and success, behaviours and adaptations that improves group success can improve the individuals reproductive ; and thus creates an evolutionary imperative.” The second success is not at the end.
Picking peanuts out of poop #18: it seems you’re not even aware of the argument any more. You are continuing to simply ignore everything said and fixating on meaningless minutae.
Parroting: #19: stop repeating me. You’re not 7.
Over the last three posts I have explained the framework behind why evolutionary narratives explain motivations - whilst the biggest argument you’ve been able to make is complaining about how many times I used the word success.
Taking this further: there’s a clear imperative for some emotions: the fear response helps to prep individuals for fights, avoid dangerous situations; social emotions such as disgust, anger, etc, help to mediate social interactions - they maintaining group cohesion by helping to produce behaviours that impart negative consequences on those that break the rules. Game theory also explains selfishness; pure altruism maximizes groups success, but harms individuals. Purely Selfish behaviour is good for the individuals, but decimates the group. The optimal behaviour is altruistic with selfishness; allowing focus on the individual to as much of a degree that it doesn’t harm the social grouping. Morality, emotions, ethics, can all be explained under this evolutionary unberella, learned behaviour drive by emotional motivations that have their basis in evolutionary imperitives.
In fact. Given the variation in morality and ethics over time, between countries, deviations within groups; and the overall zeitgeist: our moral and emotional behaviour as humans only makes sense as a learned behaviour based on evolved emotions: a higher authority being responsible for meaning and emotion makes no sense given the wild variability in them all over time.
-->
@Ramshutu
Given the variation in morality and ethics over time
If this were true then that would ultimately lead to ethical and moral standards being fundamentally impossible to interpret because it’s inconsistent and inconsistency doesn’t make any sense.
-->
@Tarik
I function relative to my internal database and it's programming.
I make decisions/output data for the same reason.
Choice is a debate in itself.
One cannot output that which is not firstly acquired.
-->
@Tarik
If this were true then that would ultimately lead to ethical and moral standards being fundamentally impossible to interpret because it’s inconsistent and inconsistency doesn’t make any sense.
Dropped #20: all points dropped again. Seriously; this is getting beyond dishonest.
Fallacy: Argument by assertion #21: saying stuff is true, doesn’t make it so
Fallacy: non sequitur #22:the conclusion doesn’t follow.
Denial of reality #23: “if this were true”… but it I actually true. Moral standards change over time, ancient Aztecs and modern Norwegians have different moral standards. The ancient Israelites would be war criminals today. Morals are adaptable to the group one find oneself in.
-->
@zedvictor4
I function relative to my internal database and it's programming.
What is your internal database exactly?
-->
@Ramshutu
Moral standards change over time
I already addressed this argument, you can either choose to engage with it or continue to be dismissive, if you choose the former then great if you choose the latter then I said everything that I needed to say on that particular subject.
-->
@Tarik
I already addressed this argument.
Dropped #24: all points dropped again.
Falsehood #25: No you didn’t. You clearly haven’t. In fact you haven’t actually addressed anything I’ve said; you’ve dropped each reply, not defended anything you’ve said. And simply responding with a neverending stream of falsehoods and fallacies: 25 thus far.
Perhaps in your “happy place”, you have answered the argument. Or perhaps your nonsequitor qualifies in your head as dealing with it: but unfortunately not.
It is an unequivocal fact that morality changes over time; I pointed this out by talking about morality in different cultures over time (which of course you ignored #26) - our morality and emotional responses makes sense under the umbrella of evolved social behaviour (as I have explained - and which you have dropped #27 all objection to), and makes utterly no sense as the result of some manifestation of a higher authority’s command or will (it’s not clear exactly what the relationship is - as you won’t say).
So in this respect; I don’t know what else to say; it’s not possible to argue with someone who is this unwilling to accept reality
-->
@Tarik
All transferred functional data, and all intellectual data acquired and stored since birth.
-->
@Ramshutu
It is an unequivocal fact that morality changes over time; I pointed this out by talking about morality in different cultures over time
How do you know those cultures are moral and not immoral?
-->
@zedvictor4
All transferred functional data, and all intellectual data acquired and stored since birth.
What data is that exactly?
-->
@Tarik
How do you know those cultures are moral and not immoral?
Dropped #28: all points dropped again.
Picking peanuts out of poop. #29: you’re unable to present a case. And are simply resorting to objecting to one small element at a time.
Picking peanuts out of poop. #29: you’re unable to present a case. And are simply resorting to objecting to one small element at a time.
Let repeat - because you appear to be steering off into a tangent still.
It is an unequivocal fact that morality changes over time; I pointed this out by talking about morality in different cultures over time (which of course you ignored #30) - our morality and emotional responses makes sense under the umbrella of evolved social behaviour (as I have explained - and which you have dropped #31 all objection to), and makes utterly no sense as the result of some manifestation of a higher authority’s command or will (it’s not clear exactly what the relationship is - as you won’t say).So in this respect; I don’t know what else to say; it’s not possible to argue with someone who is this unwilling to accept reality..
So the issue is that on its face, the facts we observe do not make sense in the context of a greater authority: and is fully explainable without it. This comprehensively refutes your position; and frankly - as you made no attempt to bother to explain how a greater authority is a better explanation: your continued lack of argument effectively concedes this point. As I have been suggesting throughout; morality appears subjective, it’s mutable, it changes, it differs, and everyone thinks theirs is correct. There is also no objective standard that can be shown valid to judge them. Because of this, the only justifiable explanation, is that morality is subjective. Of course, with peanut poop picking, you’ve implicitly conceded that point too.
The itself question therefore is really fallacy: begging the question #32. For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them. So you’re question really is “what if there is an objective standard”. Given that my argument is that there clearly doesn’t appear to be an objective standard; replying “but what if there is an objective standard?” is just ridiculously incoherent. Worse though, I am only wrong if you assume there is an objective standard; but that assumption is what you appear to be using to justify the higher authority: so you’re assuming your own conclusion.
-->
@Ramshutu
The itself question therefore is really fallacy: begging the question #32. For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them.
Except I’m not begging the question I’m asking it and I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are, and are you denying the existence of immorality? If so then essentially your saying it’s not immoral if someone were to kill you and your entire family, you sure you want to go down that path?
-->
@Tarik
For one morality to be true and another false: there must be an objective standard between them.Except I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality, you are.
Dropped #33: all points dropped again.
Peanuts out of poop #34: you continue this ridiculous tactic of just minor objections.
I’ve read this about 8 times; and this is one of the most incoherent, dumbest and least logical statements I have ever read on this site. Your attack makes no sense whatsoever. Seriously. I can’t even start figuring out what you’re point even is.
How is me arguing that morality is subjective, have anything at all to do with needing an objective standard to determine one morality is right and another is wrong?
-->
@Ramshutu
How is me arguing that morality is subjective, have anything at all to do with needing an objective standard to determine one morality is right and another is wrong?
I don’t know I never said that, but I said more than what you quoted above in case you missed it.
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know I never said that but I said more than what you quoted above in case you missed it.
That is an absolute obvious lie #35. You edited the post. I mean seriously, who are you trying to convince here?
Except I’m not begging the question I’m asking it and I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are, and are you denying the existence of immorality? If so then essentially your saying it’s not immoral if someone were to kill you and your entire family, you sure you want to go down that path?
You are indeed begging the question #36 - I explain exactly why in my last post - which you have conceded. denial is not an argument.
Whether or not I am claiming there is “more than one morality” has absolutely no relevance or impact on whether you’re begging the question or not: this is a red herring #37
I am not denying the existence of morality wtf? What a ridiculous straw man #38 morality is subjective - not non-existent. You round this out with an appeal to emotion #39. No argument. Just nonsense.
Why we emote and morality is best explained through the context of learned behaviour driven by evolved emotional feedback mechanisms - as shown in my previous posts. Facts contradict the idea of a higher authority imparting emotions or morality - as shown in my previous posts.
At this point; you’ve already conceded that argument - by virtue of the fact that you’re not challenging it any more - so I gave no idea wtf you’re doing at this point.
-->
@Ramshutu
You edited the post. I mean seriously, who are you trying to convince here?
I’m not denying the edit, that’s why I told you that I said more in case you missed it (it meaning the edit) you mad bro?
which you have conceded
I haven’t conceded jack, unless you got a direct quote from me keep your dishonesty in your pocket. It’s bad faith.
denial is not an argument.
Actually it is.
Whether or not I am claiming there is “more than one morality” has absolutely no relevance or impact on whether you’re begging the question or not: this is a red herring #37
This is exactly why I ignore half your posts and only pick apart the ones of utmost relevance to me because of your lack of comprehension, I’m not claiming what your accusing me above but I have a right to defend myself against untrue accusations especially ones that can be disproven true since these forum posts are evidence in itself but you can continue arguing this fruitless point if you want, I recognize that if I play tit for tat with you I’ll end up writing a long meaningless essay straying from the original point.
I am not denying the existence of morality wtf?
I said IMMORALITY, again comprehension dude.
-->
@Tarik
I’m not denying the edit, that’s why I told you that I said more in case you missed it (it meaning the edit) you mad bro?
absolute obvious lie #40: you indeed denied the edit when you said “I don’t know I never said that”
which you have concededI haven’t conceded jack, unless you got a direct quote from me keep your dishonesty in your pocket. It’s bad faith.
False #41: yes you have conceded. In a debate, a drop is considered a concession of the point. As you have ignored major arguments: I must conclude you are unable to respond to them.
denial is not an argument.Actually it is.
False #42, argument by assertion #43 no it isn’t. An argument is “a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong”. Denying something is true is assertive and not reasoned.
Whether or not I am claiming there is “more than one morality” has absolutely no relevance or impact on whether you’re begging the question or not: this is a red herring #37This is exactly why I ignore half your posts and only pick apart the ones of utmost relevance to me because of your lack of comprehension, I’m not claiming what your accusing me above but I have a right to defend myself against untrue accusations especially ones that can be disproven true since these forum posts are evidence in itself but you can continue arguing this fruitless point if you want, I recognize that if I play tit for tat with you I’ll end up writing a long meaningless essay straying from the original point.
Lie #44: this is exactly what you were claiming:
“I’m not begging the question I’m asking it and I’m not the one claiming there’s more than one morality you are”
The two parts of this sentence are unrelated as I stated.
I am not denying the existence of morality wtf?I said IMMORALITY, again comprehension dude.
Ridiculous Splitting hairs #45: don’t be an absurd cretin. Morality and immorality are linked in a moral framework - immorality can only be non existence in the absence of a valid moral framework; if morality doesn’t exist. Stop trying to object for the sake of it.
Saying this: all of this is completely irrelevant #46
Why we emote and morality is best explained through the context of learned behaviour driven by evolved emotional feedback mechanisms - as shown in my previous posts. Facts contradict the idea of a higher authority imparting emotions or morality - as shown in my previous posts.
At this point; you’ve already conceded that argument #47 - by virtue of the fact that you’re not challenging it any more - so I gave no idea wtf you’re doing at this point.