I’m not saying that others aren’t thinking rationally. I’m saying that adherence to a secular-scientific worldview inhibits consideration of such ideas. This is based on several of the remarks that have been made, to whit, ‘nonsense’, and ‘pigs might fly’. You think I am being uncharitable? — Wayfarer

The word "inhibit" has a negative connotation. It rightly restrains thinking of a lower intellectual standard. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. The claims have been considered, assessed, and justifiably rejected. My use of the phrase "pigs might fly" has been quoted a few times on this forum as though I've said something wrong, but what's actually wrong with that reply, given what it was replying to? I think it was an appropriate response. You said that one might acquire beliefs by recalling a past life, which is roughly on par with saying things like aliens might exist, or a ghost might be haunting my house, or indeed that pigs might fly. I loosely refer to these sort of claims as nonsense. I don't think that that's such a big deal. It's crude terminology, but who cares? I'm not a language snob.

To show that there is more than a shred of evidence - which, however, was summarily dismissed as being incredible and obviously flawed. — Wayfarer

I never denied that there was a shred of evidence, so providing a shred of evidence does nothing. My claim was about credible evidence, and you haven't convinced those members who adhere to a higher epistemological standard that the evidence you've brought up is credible. It has been picked apart and discarded. Have you seriously considered the logical consequences of adopting a lower epistemological standard? In light of the logical consequences, I am unwilling to lower my epistemological standard. There is good reason not to do so. It would open the floodgates to all kinds of claims which you yourself would probably judge to be ridiculous and implausible.

But apparently I’m the one here exhibiting ‘bias and prejudice’, right? — Wayfarer

Right.

Meh.

AS A WHITE MAN I AM OPPRESSED BECAUSE I CANNOT FREELY SAY THE N-WORD, THIS IS WHAT ORWELL DESCRIBED IN THE ONLY BOOK I HAVE READ (ONE NINE EIGHT FOUR) — Maw

Har he har. Another sarcastic exaggeration. If it's not a problem that warrants screaming "I'm a victim of oppression!" from the rooftops, then it's not a problem? It's all or nothing?

My non-white male friend feels the same way as I do, by the way, although I don't know why it should matter what skin colour or gender one is to have an opinion on this issue.

Lol. It's really not a threat. But keep up the rhetoric. Maybe someone will fall for it. :up:

Oh dear. What's going on in your world? — Wallows

Traded in my cat for a pig-chimp. Now I'm raking it in. I spend all of my profits on drugs.

No, because you can't invent social reality. It invents you. — Baden

I invented a new fragrance which smells just divine. I bottle it and sell it as perfume.

I made it from the semen of a pig-chimp.

I don't see a big problem. Because the cost of not offending here is one syllable. What is the major issue for you? Go ahead and present your argument. — Baden

The issue is the people who think that their taking offence at something that's been said means that they're in the right and can force others into submission. That's the issue. Especially when they're wrong. Whether that's a major issue or a minor issue is relative. Sure, compared to, say, the war in Yemen, this is about as minor as minor can get. But I shouldn't have to refrain from talking sensibly just because other people are dumb or overly-sensitive or both. Ideally, this wouldn't be an issue, but of course it is an issue, because there are a whole bunch of people who are dumb or overly-sensitive or both.

So easy for someone who's never been in a similar position of responsibility to say that. My moral issue as a teacher is first and foremost the welfare and education of my students. So, my moral risk would be, for example when teaching in China, saying something concerning human rights that might upset the authorities there but would have a potentially positive effect on said students. The idea that, if I were teaching in America, I should further the goal of helping my students by potentially insulting a significant number of them on some bogus free speech anti-PC trip, is, frankly, retarded. — Baden

I haven't actually proposed a course of action. I'm simply acknowledging a problem and talking about ideals. You keep grossly misinterpreting my point, and that's quite irritating. I get that there are important practical considerations. I never said that people in academic positions should actually act on principles which, in an ideal setting, wouldn't get you fired or locked up. But that's precisely the problem. That we're in this situation to begin with! How about some acknowledgment of the problem instead of your attempts to set it aside as trivial or less important?

You can only adhere to such standards if you have nothing to lose. It ignores that there are consequences for its use. — Hanover

How have you reached that conclusion from what I said? I said in the last sentence from the portion of text that you quoted that I will use "the N-word" when I feel I have to. That's because I don't ignore the consequences. It's coincidental that this topic has come up, because I recently had two conversations with two different people about racism and the use of racist language in various contexts. One of them got what I was saying completely, and we both used the word "nigger" with an understanding that it was acceptable in the context of our conversation. The other person disappointingly didn't quite get it, and so I used "the N-word" for his sake. Interestingly, the first person, the one who completely got where I was coming from, was mixed race, and he had experienced racism to a much greater degree than I myself have, and to a much greater degree than the other person has, who was overly-sensitive. The other person was white, like me.

I do not use the word "nigger" in casual conversation or writing, but that does not mean I approve of anyone's ban on the word. Yes, Baden, I ridicule intelligent adults discussing language using circumlocutions like "the n word" when the word in question is "nigger". It's childish. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

Holy suffering Christ, if the moral issue of the day is the right to say 'nigger' rather then 'The N-word' to a bunch of bored college students then gawd help us all. I've probably said both at one point or another during my teaching career, but I'd have zero problem following an explicit convention not to use the former. Anyway, good luck on your crusade. I suggest a primer around your local neighbourhood. At least you've got the NHS to sort things out for you when it all goes south. — Baden

Oh, stop with the ridiculous exaggeration. I'm not on a crusade, and it's not the moral issue of the day. There are far more important moral issues. But that doesn't mean that this isn't a moral issue, and that doesn't mean that you're right to trivialise it as you're doing. You're not even addressing the issue. Of what relevance is it supposed to be that you'd be a-okay with being a lap dog to political correctness in academia? That certainly doesn't mean that it is the most ethical course of action to take.

Oh, well I guess that this explains everything. Lock up the thread boys and girls, Zarathustra has spoken. — Wallows

Is that sarcasm?

It doesn't explain everything, but it is an example which highlights the importance of context and the naivety of the belief in "bad words".

You can shoot yourself in the foot to prove that you bleed or you can be a grown up and not make an issue out of it. — Baden

What you call "being a grown up" is actually just counterproductive conformity over taking a stand. Like I said, your solution isn't a real solution, because it doesn't solve the real problem. It actually contributes to it. Obviously it's practical not to get yourself fired, and it might well be in your interest to act so as not to get yourself fired. That isn't saying anything insightful. But what's in your self-interest isn't always what's most principled, and it isn't in this case.

Given that the average IQ of a college student is somewhere above 100, then I don't think it serves any purpose to tell them that the N-word is a bad word. That's usually covered in elementary school...

Then again, even those with severe retardation are aware of the negative connotations of using the N-word.

Perhaps, the teachers need education and not the students in the news-feed provided. — Wallows

There's no such thing as a bad word, only bad usage. The belief in bad words is what's childish. My close friend and I call each other cunts all the time. To us that's not a bad word, given the way that we use it. It is a lighthearted term of endearment.

The solution to the problem is common sense. If you need to use it in an academic context or otherwise, do it sensitively. E.g. Don't keep repeating it over and over unnecessarily like the Dem apparently did. — Baden

That's not a solution to the problem in the bigger picture, which is that it shouldn't even be an issue to begin with. The power shouldn't be in the hands of those people who are sensitive. They should learn to desensitise in appropriate contexts or leave the class.

It's not so much that you don't believe it, but that you can't believe it. — Wayfarer

Yes, of course. It's not a voluntary matter. I can't believe what I find unconvincing, and I find weakly supported claims unconvincing. I can't just flip a switch and instantaneously believe such nonsense.

My question is whether this social convention of never uttering the N-word is a reasonable act of respect or whether it's simply a politically imposed rule that can be used to divide and destroy? — Hanover

I'm strongly against the use of "the N-word" in place of the actual word for ethical reasons. The word is "nigger", and context matters, and sensitivity to the word "nigger" - regardless of context - is counterproductive, as it empowers the word and enables its use as a weapon. I will only use "the N-word" if I feel I have to.

Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. It is no more ALWAYS MORAL than it is ALWAYS IMMORAL - this isn't that weird of an idea is it? — ZhouBoTong

It is for someone who thinks like a child.

So then you think that the laws he broke were justified, and his actions were condemnable.
— S

No. Do you not understand English? Go back and review, You are misrepresenting my view, why? — tim wood

Read the next sentence, genius.

You're wasting your breath.

One might acquire them by recalling a past life. — Wayfarer

And pigs might fly.

A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason.
— tim wood

On the basis of what historical evidence are you basing this theory. You seem to frequently repeat this notion that laws are created by the community for their own good. You have not provided any evidence, nor any mechanism by which this happens. — Isaac

I think that he is either incapable of conceiving, or, what I find more plausible, maintaining a wilful ignorance, with regard to potential counterexamples to this kind of simplistic thinking that he comes out with, as though it is set in stone. If one does not have the required critical thinking skills or the right attitude for philosophy, then perhaps one should find another hobby.

But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on.
— tim wood

So what? If the community are not behaving morally, why should I give a toss what they intended their laws to cover? — Isaac

He either doesn't understand why you'd object in this manner, or he simply doesn't care to understand. (I think that it's the latter). He only cares about his dogma, and 'community!' is clearly a big part of that.

Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws.
— tim wood

The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. Your willingness to let your right-wing drum-beating, write whole sectors of the community out of history is borderline racist. A minority of white landowners enacted and enforced those laws. They are not, nor ever were the community. The community included blacks, women, children and other immigrants all of whom have been denied any say whatsoever in the laws governing them at various points in history. — Isaac

Very good point. Well said.

I never said it wasn't immoral. With respect to the law as law, he was and it was. — tim wood

So then you think that the laws he broke were justified, and his actions were condemnable. Because that's what it means to say that his breaking of the law was immoral, and your own silly semantics has no bearing on this. It only has bearing inside your own little semantic world which you've constructed around yourself. Notice that no one else is using phrases like "law as law" because they reject your semantics, and the oddball reasoning behind it. You mistakenly think that we do not understand what you're saying, but in fact we just reject it, and with good reason.

And I am sure he would agree. And further I imagine he... — tim wood

This means absolutely nothing.

But what Schindler did wasn't immoral.
— S

And from that you want to be able to self-legislate in opposition to your community's laws that you can and presumably will take illegal drugs and there is nothing immoral about that. Yes? — tim wood

Don't be daft and try to stay on point. But yes, the one thing you almost got right in the above quoted response is that there's nothing immoral, in itself, about taking illegal drugs. That's something which would require further examination on a case by case basis, and the outcome could go either way. No one agrees with your dogma that breaking the law is necessarily immoral.

What you were responding to was a counterexample against your failed attempt to justify your unpopular black-and-white approach to the morality of breaking the law. You're the one who made it about that, so don't think that you can just suddenly swing back to the more specific topic of the morality of taking illegal drugs at the drop of a hat, whilst taking my criticism out of context and twisting my words.

Could be!

Anything is possible...except stuff that has been established as impossible. — Frank Apisa

Herpaderp! :smile: :up:

As with your first assertion about law, you have not provided the mechanism by which this is ensured, and there are countless examples to the contrary. — Isaac

Yes, that's a big problem: the counterexamples. It's a problem that can't just be swept under the rug or rambled away.

...then you'd have to accept that your position is a rather dogmatic one... — Isaac

Yes, that sums up his position more generally. He tends towards dogmatism.

I have argued that breaking any law anywhere is immoral. — tim wood

Therefore, what Schindler did was immoral.

But what Schindler did wasn't immoral.

Therefore, we should reject Tim's argument.

Refuted by a reduction to the absurd. We can all move on now. Show's over. Nothing to see here.

Logical consequence: what Nelson Mandela did, for example, was immoral.

Your conclusion: breaking the law is immoral.
Fact: Nelson Mandela broke the law.
Conclusion: Therefore, Nelson Mandela's breaking of the law was immoral.

You do not seem to accept this logical consequence, given your earlier outburst. If so, you are inconsistent, which means that your stance is self-refuting.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

And calling someone disgusting for bringing up counterexamples to your bad logic, as you did earlier, is not a valid or reputable response.

Have you conisdered that what might seem like intuition might be wishful thinking. — Janus

It always is on a topic like this. No one acquires these sort of beliefs disinterestedly.

You keep using the word "challenging". This is part of your rhetoric. But let me make it clear that there's nothing challenging about a position so weakly supported.

It's just that the design for their collation and verification will never allow you to establish the effect they're supposed to establish. — fdrake

But isn't that why, or at least part of the reason why, he's been discredited? Because he deviates from the high standards of the scientific method? Isn't that why his research isn't considered authoritative, but is only peddled as such by those with the agenda of giving an appearance of credibility to claims of past lives?

I think it's safe to say that these shameless claims about "memories" of "past lives" have been debunked. What we have here is a discredited false authority, a misleading narrative, and faulty reasoning. And an enthusiastic salesman.

It should indeed be a red flag, but if you're willfully blind, then you just won't see the red flag, or you'll see it momentarily, but then explain it away. Wayfarer is adept at this sort of thing. He is intelligent and knowledgeable, but he misapplies his skills. He does not approach matters like this objectively.

Sounds to me like you're cheering on the underdog, because he's the underdog, even though the underdog's "arguments" suck.

Characteristic ad hominem. How does your comment relate to the argument?
— tim wood

I'm commenting on your tone and attitude, exactly as you are doing with me here. — Isaac

He's got some nerve to say that, and very little self-awareness. I recall mention of the words "disgusting" and "troll" from him not too far back into this discussion.

It's a lesson to be learned, and not easy: you can't argue with ignorance, that requires education. And you can't argue with stupidity, period. Which is it? I left one out, the infantile - but I suppose that's a species of ignorance.
— tim wood

This is what a real ad hominem looks like...if you needed an example to help you use the term correctly next time. Instead of providing counter-arguments, you just label my position stupid, ignorant and infantile. — Isaac

He does this so often that it's to be expected. It's like he just can't help himself.

And yes, you're right about the constant straw men, too. What's worse, not only does he have these bad habits, he has an air of superiority about him, as though he actually believes that he's more intelligent, more virtuous, and more skilled at debate.

Yes, your ultra-conservatism is duly noted. It doesn't constitute an argument. — Isaac

I've said as much a few times previously. He's still not getting the message, it seems.

No one here has dismissed Tim's argument out of hand. I disagree with Tim's argument because it's just a semantic confusion. It's counterproductive. It's more problematic to commit to the seemingly contradictory position of accepting that the law can be justifiably and acceptably broken, as in for example the case of Nelson Mandela, which Tim has strongly indicated his approval of, yet it's nevertheless immoral do so, as it is in every case according to him, than to reject that nonsense and opt instead for the more sensible position which most of the rest of us have taken, which is that the morality of breaking the law should be judged on a case by case basis, and that some of those cases are justified and morally acceptable, and therefore not immoral.

How dare you ruin his narrative like that? It's not that it fails under the scientific method, it's that it's a strong cultural taboo which poses a challenge to Western society. And this Ian Stevenson guy is not a discredited charlatan, he's a much maligned hero. Oh, and despite appearances, this isn't spin, it's a matter of fact.

Got it?

Nope. If I say "leprechaun" and you interpret "person afflicted with dwarfism," or I say "ghost" and you interpret "semblance or trace" then you're just purposefully misreading me, which is simply not my problem. — NKBJ

Yes, that's clearly a problem he has. It's most obvious in how he has replied to you, but he did it with me also, asking me irrelevant questions as though I had a burden to answer them, as though they're representative of claims that I've made, when they were actually just straw men he decided to attack in place of my actual claims. It is quite annoying to have someone twist your words, especially when it is almost certainly deliberate, as in his replies to you. That dragon egg response was just embarrassing.

I'm not sure of the extent that he's doing this deliberately or whether it's more of an unconscious psychological thing, where he just can't let go, and feels a need to keep pushing on with this ridiculous attempt at a defence, but it doesn't do him any favours.

And yet, it's just blatantly ridiculous to claim you can't tell the difference between claims of eating cornflakes and of eating dragon eggs. That's just being disingenuous on your part. Don't pretend things cause you want to make your argument stick. — NKBJ

Yes, and that sort of approach has wider implications in philosophy. It is deeply immoral, is it not? Intellectual honesty is right up there as a fundamental value. What's worse than knowingly trying to sell us snake oil, or coming up with intellectually dishonest post hoc rationalisations, trying to drag us down to his level of nonsense?

The bigger problem here is that we are supposed to be a community of intellectuals, yet some people here struggle with something so basic.

Philosophy isn't for everyone. Some people here might be better suited to a different sort of forum, one without such rigorous intellectual standards.