A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning: Appeal to Consequences

There goes your awful debating style LadyShea. This is anything but an appeal to consequences even though the outcome is desirable. Change the way you address yourself (accusations instead of questions), or I'm not answering you.

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word compelled means forced. I posted multiple different definitions for you previously. If you don't mean forced you need to use a different word other than compelled.

No LadyShea, you're the one confused, not me. I will use the word forced or compelled, because that's exactly what it is, but these words have been misunderstood in the context of determinism. That is what has caused this apparent irreconciliable problem with these two positions because if we are forced to do something, then it is not of our doing, and if it is not of our doing, that would release us of moral responsibility. This is where his definition is more useful because it is more accurate, and leads to the two-sided equation, which reconciles the two positions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There goes your awful debate style LadyShea. Change it, or I'm not answering you.

Tone argument

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you're the one confused, not me. I will use the word forced or compelled, because that's exactly what it is, but these words have been misunderstood in the context of determinism. That is what has caused this apparent irreconciliable problem with these two positions because if we are forced to do something, then it is not of our doing, and if it is not of our doing, that would release us of moral responsibility. This is where his definition is more useful because it is more accurate, and leads to the two-sided equation, which reconciles the two positions.

Fallacious reasoning: Idiosyncratic Language

Also, you just described a form of compatibilism.

[LadyShea]

The chances of you convincing this group are nil, peacegirl. Without evidence you are left with argumentation, and your argumentation demonstrates poor reasoning.

Maybe there are people out there who do not care about evidence, and who will not think you exhibit poor reasoning. You should be out looking for them to market the book to when it's back from it's latest set of edits.

Why do you continue to waste your time here? What compels you to find this more satisfying do you think?

Do you fear being ignored elsewhere, or perhaps fear of once again finding the same types of criticisms leveled against you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tone argument

Call it what you will. If you want to talk to me you're going to have to stop the accusations before you even know what you're talking about. You just try to find something to debate, which does not prove Lessans wrong whatsoever. I asked you before to present your issue in the form of a question, which takes away your tone of arrogance. You don't seem to get what I'm asking, so you keep doing it. Therefore, I will do what I have to do, and that is ignore you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The chances of you convincing this group are nil, peacegirl. Without evidence you are left with argumentation, and your argumentation demonstrates poor reasoning.

Maybe there are people out there who do not care about evidence, and who will not think you exhibit poor reasoning. You should be out looking for them to market the book to when it's back from it's latest set of edits.

Why do you continue to waste your time here? What compels you to find this more satisfying do you think?

Do you fear being ignored elsewhere, or perhaps fear of once again finding the same types of criticisms leveled against you?

I can ask the same thing. What keeps you here? There IS absolute and incontroverbiel evidence in Lessans' favor. You didn't even respond to my direct answer to your latest question. You're talking out of your ass, but it's not surprising. You think you're discrimintory ability usurps this man's 30 years of study, but it doesn't. It just shows your ignorance more and more. Like I said many times, you're not all that LadyShea, and I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but you are ignorant. You don't understand these principles one iota, yet you are coming off like you're some kind of scholar who understands what he is even talking about. You are not a scholar in this area of expertise; in fact you are in nursery school.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked you before to present your issue in the form of a question, which takes away your tone of arrogance. You don't seem to get what I'm asking, so you keep doing it.

I choose not to comply with your requests. You can start ignoring me anytime now.

Who will that leave you to talk with here?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can ask the same thing. What keeps you here? There IS absolute and incontroverbiel evidence in Lessans' favor. You didn't even respond to my direct answer to your latest question. You're talking out of your ass, but it's not surprising. You think you're discrimintory ability usurps this man's 30 years of study, but it doesn't. It just shows your ignorance more and more. Like I said many times, you're not all that LadyShea, and I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but you are ignorant. You don't understand these principles one iota, yet you are coming off like you're some kind of scholar who understands what he is even talking about. You are not a scholar in this area of expertise; in fact you are in nursery school.

I am here for the lulz

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning: Idiosyncratic Language

Also, you just described a form of compatibilism.

You're completely ignorant and you're trying to compensate so you can save face, but you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole of your own doing because you think your reasoning ability is flawless. It is so flawed you will have a very difficult time admitting this not only to others, but to yourself, once you find out how wrong in your analysis you have been.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am here for the lulz

Enjoy your lulz, but this gives me an out. I have no desire to answer you or read your posts if you're here just for a good laugh. Good bye LadyShea. If you have any questions, have someone else ask them. You have just displayed your ignorance for all to see, but more than that, you have shown how arrogant you really are which has ruined it for you.

[LadyShea]

You're completely ignorant and you're trying to compensate so you can save face, but you're digging yourself more and more into a hole of your doing because you think your reasoning ability is flawless. It is so flawed you will have a very difficult time admitting this not only to others, but to yourself, once you find out how wrong in your analysis you have been.

Fallacious reasoning: Attacking the motive

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Enjoy your lulz, but this gives me an out. I have no desire to answer you or read your posts. Good bye LadyShea. If you have any questions, ask someone else to ask them. You have just displayed your ignorance for all to see, but more than that, you have shown how arrogant you really are which has ruined it for you.

This really disappointing. You can do better than this. Not that you'll actually ignore me or anything(because no on else is left except Spacemonkey), but if you do I hope for something more histrionic and martyry as a farewell

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning: Attacking the motive

No, this is not fallacious reasoning. You might not be aware of your motive, but it is clear to me that you are putting yourself on the same par as Lessans, without even having all the facts. Your motivation which is to prove him wrong has caused you to be overly confident to the point of extreme hubris.

[thedoc]

Spacemonkey, and anyone else well versed in logic, are you familiar with the game 'WIFF 'N PROOF'?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fallacious reasoning: Idiosyncratic Language

Also, you just described a form of compatibilism.

No it does not. Man DOES NOT have free will. Free will is a deception. What this discovery DOES DO is increase moral responsibility. That is where these two positions are reconciled but not because there is free will. Once again, you don't have the slightest clue of what you're talking about LadyShea. Why do you come off like this? Obviously, you either didn't read the first chapter carefully, or you didn't understand what you read. This work has to be read more than once, which you did not do because you are so arrogant that you don't think it's necessary.

Determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

no on else is left except Spacemonkey

[peacegirl]

It's just amazing to me that people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they have been taught to believe. I don't think anyone has even read the first three chapters of this book, yet they know more than the author. It's really obnoxious and the epitome of hubris. That's all I have to say.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's just amazing to me that people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they have been taught to believe.

That describes you perfectly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That describes you perfectly.

The fact that you have thrown words around such as modal fallacy, immaterial, tautology, appeal to consequences, etc. is indicative of a problem. You have become a self-appointed "expert" at judging truth from fiction, which you are anything but. You are not even close.

Lessans was just as knowledgeable as Einstein in his area of expertise. Just because you can't point to something and say this is what determinism looks like (as opposed to free will) does not mean his observations are inaccurate or flawed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this LadyShea before coming off that you know more than Lessans, who was on equal par with Einstein. He was, but not on the same topic. Right now you are coming off like this thread is a joke, which only goes to show your ignorance, not your knowledge.

"Not on the same topic", L.O.L. what the hell are you talking about, you don't have the slightest understanding of Einsteins work or how he came to his theories. Peacegirl I don't think you have much understanding of your fathers work either, it was a joke and you are the only one who doesn't get it. Many of Lessans claims were based on his assertions about light and the way we see. Einstein's early ideas were based on his understanding of light and how we see and preceive it. Both of them started on the same topic but Lessans got is totally wrong, and Einsteins ideas have been proven right.

[thedoc]

Einstein's early "Thought Experiments" were about light and how we preceive it, in one case he was considering what light would look like if we could stop it. Later he came to the understanding that the speed of light was always the same no matter who measured it and where they were. If someone were traveling in a space ship toward a light source at half the speed of light and measured the light from that source as it passed the ship they would still measure it at the speed of light. And from this idea Einstein went on to develope his theory of Relativity, which has been verified.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say is thank you Butt.

Why are you thanking Butt? He hasn't done anything to help you. The standard definition of determinism still doesn't imply that we are ever forced to do anything against our will.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You

No I'm not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that is the implication. Philosophers believe it could be used as an excuse. "I didn't want to kill that person but my nature made me do it." This implies that we did something against our will. Free will, on the other hand, implies that we did something because we wanted to do it.

Do you still not know what 'implication' means? Determinism does not imply that we are caused to do things against our will. That people have used this excuse does not make them right. They are wrongly implying something that is not in fact an implication of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Based on present day understanding (which is incomplete) determinism would release everyone of responsibility since they couldn't do otherwise.

Is this what compatibilists believe? Is this their present day understanding?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Admit that you could be wrong, and I might answer your questions...

You mean, like I already did?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Spacemonkey, and anyone else well versed in logic, are you familiar with the game 'WIFF 'N PROOF'?

No. What is it?