Your most welcome my good friend. I don't know how they would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission, that is up to judge, lawyer, and jury. — Merkwurdichliebe

You must at least have an inkling. You're just withholding your thinking because it suits your agenda, which is to attack what I say.

But . . . courts certainly permit: "a relatively high number of personal testimonies" . . . "Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central." — Merkwurdichliebe

Bravo! You successfully singled out something I said and took it out of context to score a point. We're talking about extraordinary claims here, obviously. Do I have to make that clear every single time?

There is a lot of documentary and other evidence. But your response to the suggestion pretty well exactly illustrates the point. Right from the outset, you have simply presumed, and then asserted, that there could be no real evidence, because beliefs such as past-life memories ‘could not be scientifically supported’. So perhaps you might spell out, for our benefit, why you believe that. — Wayfarer

Others have done so, and done a better job of it. You haven't presented anything which could be counted as evidence for recollections of past lives over alternative explanations, which is pretty damn important, don't you think? I'm pretty sure the scientific method doesn't permit arbitrarily picking a theory over others because it is more emotionally appealing.

I believe so.

Because you think that it's impossible that he could have been duped?
— S

It’s not impossible, but he was not a dupe. He went to great lengths to rule out fraud. At the very least, the kinds of information he collated rule out anything but extremely sophisticated fraud or auto-suggestion. — Wayfarer

You don't make a name for yourself like that without putting a lot of effort in. But that certainly doesn't count for much, if anything. Uri Geller and Darren Brown are good examples to bring up. How do you think a conversation with one of their fans would go? It would kind of resemble the way that you're replying here, don't you think?

Yes, pig-chimp content. — Wallows

More of it! That's what I say. Do you concur?

I think its been covered ya.
We could talk about the morality of doing drugs, since thats what this is actually about for Tim and other anyway... — DingoJones

For a while there, it was almost like the topic had morphed into something else. Something about fucking off, pig-chimps, my cat, and the weather. Weird. :lol:

It's all my fault, of course, having started it all by having the nerve to respond to a poorly formed question by calling it a poorly formed question. Slap my wrist!

The courts seem to do it. — Merkwurdichliebe

The courts! Thank you for bringing that up. How do you think that the courts would respond to attempts to allow testimony of alleged past lives into admission?

What were we supposed to be talking about, again? Ah yes. So anyway, the ethics of taking illegal drugs...

Are there any points left that haven't been dealt with? I think that most of us are in general agreement, with the most notable exception of Tim.

And everyone else who has made similar points are all also rationalising their own drug habits, too? Lol.
— S

Nope. — Wallows

Ah, I see. It's only when I make those points that they're rationalisations. And I'm sure that you saying this has nothing to do with any personal issue you have with me.

Anyway, as you should know, the motivation behind a point is irrelevant. That would be an ad hominem.

Well done, mere-s. You fuck off too. Now we're at your level, in your pigpen. Is this where you want to be? Is this where you want us all to be? — tim wood

I believe it was you who started the fuck off-ing. You brought us here. So you should be asking yourself those questions. What do you think you could have done to have prevented this? How about responding to criticism less emotionally?

Haha, I'm not that stupid. You don't care about the destination of this thread, just endless rationalizations of your own drug habit, with tim serving as your punching bag. — Wallows

And everyone else who has made similar points are all rationalising their own drug habits, too? Lol.

That's not the case. There are thousands of cases, and in many of them, there is testimony concerning specific items of information for which there is no explanation as to how the individual concerned could know. All you're saying is that it is accepted that Stevenson's research has been discredited - you know it must have been, right? There's no way it could have been true, right? — Wayfarer

Haha, yeah, that's a real charitable interpretation of all that I'm saying, Wayfarer. Good job. :lol: :up:

Of course there are other explanations! Why are you taking it for granted that the situations are not set up? Because you think this Stevenson is an honourable guy? Because you think that it's impossible that he could have been duped? Because it would throw a spanner into the works, and you really can't bare to accept that?

Testimonies corroborated by other evidence, including documentary evidence and so on. And in these cases, testimonies are central. — Wayfarer

Saying that testimonies are central is just to say that incredibly weak evidence is central. And what documentary evidence? You mean historical facts which could have easily been passed on to the children? Coincidental birth marks which could easily be exploited for personal gain? Yeah, those sort of things are a smoking gun. You got me there. Damn. Must have been past lives.

The 'alternative explanation' can only be that these cases didn't remember any such things, and Stevenson was duped into accepting falsehoods presumably by his own confirmation bias and sloppy research methods. — Wayfarer

Yes, exactly. So you do acknowledge the alternative explanation. The more plausible alternative explanation. No need for scare quotes.

You're acting just like one of those people who think that magic tricks by magicians are real. They almost automatically rule out the most obvious explanation, and then come up with rationalisations. "But it's on TV!", "But he's built a career out of it!", "But he's an expert, and he seems really genuine!", and so on, and so forth. They're almost always fans, kind of like how you are. You are an admirer of Stevenson's work, yes? Jump to his defence? Own a book by him, perhaps?

Yeah; but, you take joy in seeing him argue with you. — Wallows

So what if I do? I do find it amusing when someone like Tim gets all hot under the collar just because they can't handle a bit of direct criticism. I find it amusing how quickly he resorts to emotional invective instead of a reasoned and controlled response. All of this is off topic, of course. That's the path that Tim, and now you, have taken us down. And your other comments are even more off topic. Pig-chimps, and my drug habit? My cat's fine, by the way. How's the weather where you are?

Tim, you do realize that his behavior is no different than that of a troll at this point? — Wallows

I'm entitled to plainly point out a poorly formed question, when I think that a poorly formed question has been asked, which is where this began. And if he's going to flame in response, then that makes him fair game. It's as simple as that. He chose to keep replying, and he chose the way in which he replied.

Fuck off. :lol:

There we go. :clap: — Shamshir

So you're foolish enough to answer loaded questions? Why is that?

A question if I may:

Are you suggesting that YOU get to decide who the "stuid and gullible" are?

If not...how will that be decided? — Frank Apisa

On whether or not they can spell the word "stupid".

I don't answer loaded questions, I identify them as loaded. The irony was that it was a loaded question where the loaded assumption is that I use "loaded question" as an excuse. Obviously I reject that loaded assumption present within your question.

It's ironic in the same way that it would be ironic if I argued that circular reasoning is great because great reasoning is circular.

You're committing the very fallacy you mention, which is kind of amusing. Thanks for amusing me.

That's one more than the number of formal debates that have taken place, at least.

So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin: — Shamshir

How ironic. That is itself a loaded question. You realise that, right? Can you not see what's vague or loaded about the question he asked? It's the "what happens to the law" part. That's stupidly broad, and there's an implicit assumption that "something" happens, though he doesn't bother to say what. Whatever he was trying to ask, he could have put more thought into how he went about asking it.

I mean, when you asked:

And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood

Was there not even a hint in your mind that you were asking a stupid question, given its vague and loaded nature?

But don't you suppose that topic, having nothing to do with this topic, deserves its own thread? — tim wood

Your failings span multiple topics. In this discussion, your failings relate to the ethics of taking illegal drugs. And the specific failing I pointed out was your failure to ask a sensible question. That failure is a reoccurring failure, in spite of my pointing it out earlier. The solution would be to put more thought into a question before asking it.

Hope that helps! :grin: :up:

Fuck off, mere-S. This adds nothing to the discussion. You're wasting my time and everyone else's time. — tim wood

I've considered your thoughtful objection, but unfortunately for you, I've decided to continue to point out your failings, regardless of how many times you tell me to "fuck off" or call me "mere-S". :grin:

But in those remaining, there were many instances of children recalling specific items of information that could not plausibly have been ascertained by another means. — Wayfarer

That's a pretty clear indication of your own bias. You've already accepted that they're recalling things, even though that's just one possible explanation, and the least plausible, given the lack of scientific evidence in its favour. It's more plausible that there was interference invalidating the results. In other words, the children were simply trained to say the right things at the right time.

But even despite the criticisms that can be made, many of the cases present compelling evidence for the proposition that these children really did recall previous lives. — Wayfarer

For sake of clarity, it is compelling only to those with lesser critical thinking skills or who willingly adopt a lower epistemological standard.

Stevenson’s research was just such an attempt. Others are claiming that these efforts ‘were discredited’ without saying by whom, or how. They reject the idea in advance on the grounds that belief in rebirth is like belief in ghosts or other such nonsense. Pointing this out, however, is evidence of bias and prejudice, and of not understanding science. — Wayfarer

But they are like those sort of claims! How are they not? They are both not subject to the scientific method, as Janus rightly pointed out. In both cases, one could point to incredibly weak evidence, like a relatively high number of personal testimonies. In both cases, more plausible alternative explanations can't be ruled out. So what's the supposed difference?

Once again, if you want the testimonial evidence to be accepted as credible or sufficient, then you need to make the case for a lower epistemological standard. That's a must. As things stand, it's not suggestive of your favoured explanation over others. That would only be possible with a less reasonable standard, where one can indulge in special pleading, where you subject your favoured claims to a different standard than those relating to ghosts and the like, which you want to disassociate yourself with.

It hasn’t. It’s not as if the cases were re-examined and alternative explanations found for them. If was mainly simply ignored by mainstream science, for the reasons I’ve indicated. Most people will simply be content with the conclusion that the research must have been faulty. — Wayfarer

It has, in this very discussion. It doesn't exactly require a team of scientists and a lab. It's not the kind of claim which requires a thorough examination. There are obvious alternative explanations which have been pointed out to you, which haven't been justifiably ruled out, but which you seem to have ruled out nevertheless, or seem to be deliberately ignoring. If "mainstream" or rather proper science has not dedicated a great deal of time on this "research", there's probably a good reason for that. But you're predisposed against it. You already have a favoured explanation, an explanation which you find emotionally appealing, and you're sticking to it. You explain away reasonable criticism as bias, which you put down to the subject being a taboo, which is pretty ridiculous. I put it to you that that is just your rationalisation, nothing more.

I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed. — ZhouBoTong

Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one?

How are you contributing to this discussion? — tim wood

By pointing out your failings. Clearly that angers you.

Fuck off, mere S. You contribute nothing and you're a waste of time and energy. And I suspect you enjoy replies like this. Get used to it because you will see a lot of it when you contribute nothing. And I'm going to enjoy making them because my heart will be light with the justice of having finally learned the correct response to your destructive non-sense. — tim wood

That's nice, but it's a poorly formed question nevertheless.

And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood

Yet another poorly formed question.

There'd be little gained if I overcame my limitations and was finally able to speak the N word with greater comfort. It offers me one less area to get myself into trouble at least. — Hanover

I'm not thinking about this in terms of practical advantages. It's a matter of principle. I am opposed, in principle, to self-censorship. Why do it? The discomfort seems irrational.

Everyone pretty much is. — Hanover

Yes, but that's stretching the term beyond meaning, so that the distinction is lost. It's just not practical or useful to do that.

I'm more comfortable not using it, so I don't. Some people don't say Fuck for the same reason. I say Fuck, but not the N word. — Hanover

Okay. Oddly inconsistent, but okay. If you don't feel comfortable enough, then you don't feel comfortable enough. What else is there to say? I would urge you to get over that, but I can't force you to change how you feel about it.

The argument you presented is a ridiculous solution to the white quest to use it anyway. That quest needs no solution. It's just a handful of white people being laughable. If they aren't actually trying to get a laugh, they're just stupid. — frank

Ugh! That is so narrow-minded. You mentioned that you were mixed race earlier. So bloody what? As I mentioned, my mixed race friend and I were of like minds on this topic. He wasn't mischaracterising this as a group of white people on a quest, as you are. You don't have special authority just because you're mixed race. He's not white. He's also mixed race, and his opinion differs from yours. Neither my friend nor I are on a quest. We both saw through the colour of our skins and accepted the points we were making on their own merit. We both agreed that there are acceptable contexts in which the mention and use of the terminology is acceptable, and that in this respect, the colour of one's skin shouldn't matter.

...but I wouldn't want mention of it against the rules here either. — Baden

Certainly not.

I agree it's a matter of etiquette, and I agree it's not always right to insist on being able to mention it. But it might be important to insist on it sometimes. I insist on being able to do it here, for example. — jamalrob

Exactly. I think that it's a mark of intelligence and maturity if one is able to distance oneself from all of the hooha, and just have an honest, open and direct discussion about it. If we want to discuss the word "nigger", let's just discuss the word "nigger".

It's worth pointing out that mention is not racist, but insisting on mention because it's not racist misses some nuance here. — Baden

That nuance being that some people find the mention of the word offensive, even though the context is acceptable. There is a proclivity in this situation to automatically respond by granting them authority and suitably limiting speech in accordance with their wishes. That's what I disagree with. On a personal level, if it was a friend of mine, or someone I respected, or there were other practical considerations, like those you mentioned earlier for example, then I might well grant that wish. But even so, I would still make the case that that's the wrong way to react. They should change, not me. The problem stems from them.

This process of a group of people co-opting a word originally intended as derogatory of that group as a badge of honour is a very common process. That the word continues to be offensive when not used by people part of that group (or sub-culture as jamalrob describes it) is apparently confusing to some. However, it shouldn't be. — Benkei

It's not confusing to me. I just don't agree that those people should be reacting that way in some cases. As usual, context is everything. I think that it should be more about context than group membership. I don't think that I have to be a part of any group, I just have to get the context right. My friend was in the group of people who hold politically correct views about such language, whereby the term "nigger" should be replaced with term "the N-word". Even though I'm not a part of that group, I still think that I was in the right, and I only granted his wishes out of politeness. I wasn't using the word in a racist way. I was just talking about the kind of things we're talking about here: about racism, and how people react to minority ethnicities, and the language used by racists, and by those who have co-opted it, and by comedians, and by others, for various reasons, and with varying intentions. I don't agree with the self-censorship in such conversations. I think that it would be better if the listener got a grip of themselves instead of this tendency to overreact at the mere mentioning of the word, and expecting others to pander to their sensitivities.

Black people get to use that word, we honkies don't and we lost the right to do so because our dads and granddads were assholes to black people. — Benkei

Newsflash: yes we do, so long as it's not in a racist way. It might be inappropriate in some situations and cause a big reaction, but that's more a matter of being streetwise.

And my skin colour shouldn't matter. That's the whole point of anti-discrimination. It's disappointing and frustrating that so many people miss this and target people based on their skin colour or gender.

And no, I am not guilty for the sins of my ancestors.

But the cultural significance of all this is that in the public sphere, intent and the use-mention distinction are being ignored. And that is stupid. — jamalrob

Agreed.

Once more, and for the last time - Stevenson presents volumes of testimonial and documentary evidence for children who claim to recall past lives. — Wayfarer

And this has been critically assessed and justifiably rejected as insufficient. You don't like that, apparently. But you'd have to actually make the case for a lower standard.

I never denied that there was a shred of evidence,
— S

You said it outright. — Wayfarer

Yes, if you miss out one really important word. Did you do that deliberately? Because it's hard to miss.

Says he 10,000 posts later. :lol: — Baden

Yes, lol. But bear in mind that you're speaking to a philosophy forum addict.