C'mon, Devans.

Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" — Frank Apisa

Although that was a good witticism, even if borrowed. Very apt.

Obviously have to be selective about it. — Devans99

Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God.

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off. — Frank Apisa

It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jerk-off thing to say, but it is true that you could improve your writing if you set aside your pride and took on board my criticism, as well as that of Christoffer.

My mistake replying to you, mere-s. You seem to take pride in being offensively useless at the expense of even the possibility of substance, a shame. But one can learn... — tim wood

You don't like strong criticism, do you? You take it personally, and respond with name-calling and the like.

My original objection to your point about control was that it is met with the question of, "To what extent?". Whether you find my analysis offensive or otherwise, your closing point doesn't tell me anything meaningful, as in any practical guidance on the topic. Does it mean we should all stay completely sober, all of the time? What exactly does it mean? I guess we'll never really know if you won't clarify. And by clarify, I don't mean ramble on without actually addressing my objection. These are serious, unanswered questions: If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff? You need to actually break down and properly go in to detail about control.

As I mentioned above, the most obvious, best arguments come up first. So you have to look back in history for these arguments. — Devans99

Ah, okay. So everything is water.

One really valuable lesson to learn in the history of philosophy is that influential isn't necessarily a good thing.

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. — Devans99

He is placed way down the list, except by believers, for obvious reasons. He doesn't even come close to all the other big names.

It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum. — Devans99

Do you know, I've never actually read Thomas Aquinas, and I don't know a great deal about him or his arguments, but if you are anything to go by, then he must have been one of the worst philosophers of all time.

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99

But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic.

Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles the logic of a little child, is actually pretty much your actual argument.

You cannot just make up anything... — Devans99

Oh. But isn't that what you do with a first cause? You go: one, two, miss a few, it can't go on for infinity for no apparent reason, so there must be a first cause!

Last first: what does "right by default" mean? And why am I not right by default? — tim wood

It means right by default, and you're not right by default because that's just not how this works, unless perhaps you're a god.

I think alcohol sits on the border. Apparently responsible use is possible for most people, but not for some people. As to illegal so-called hard drugs, it appears it's really difficult to be a "responsible" user. For that, then, control, and the recognition that use of what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral. — tim wood

Your reply is far too lengthy. You know I have little toleration for that, except in exceptional cases, and I don't count your reply as one of those cases. The above point seems to be what it comes down to. I find it funny that you mentioned being objective earlier in the same reply, yet you end up basing your judgement on how it "appears" to you. That doesn't sound very objective to me.

And your point that what cannot be controlled may not be, probably cannot be, moral, just doesn't work, because it is far too vague, and still doesn't resolve the very same objection I made earlier: that control is a matter of degree, and you need to go into further detail to say anything meaningful on the matter. So, after all of that text, we're still back at square one. If I have a few pints, I will lose some control. So, should I never drink, or what? What about having a few pulls of a spliff?

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY COUNTER-ARGUMENT TO ANY ARGUMENT TO ANY QUOTED ARGUMENT - COUNTERED — Christoffer

What are you referring to? Provide a link.

I have to assume I have not articulated my arguments clearly enough I guess. — Devans99

You don't "guess". You believe.

Or is it the other way around? I'm sure Frank will tell us. Again.

THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT — Christoffer

THAT IS NOT A VALID COUNTERARGUMENT

Oh my goodness, this is getting too absurd, even for me. Now we have Frank Aspammer turning up! I ought to give him Apisa my mind.

Which number(s) do you object to?

This conversation is a source of laughter not hostility. — whollyrolling

That we have no valid counterarguments is no laughing matter. We really need to pull our socks up. We're in the presence of someone who's going places. He'll have the last laugh when he's all over television, and everyone is lining up for him to sign their copy of his new book, in his mind, in his padded cell, inside the asylum.

What's funny is that he is so wildly off course. He utterly fails to distinguish between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. God is that which is prior to that which is existentially dependent upon that which consists in/of the medication I need to keep me bouncing off the walls.

I am afraid I do not have much of a web presence if thats what you mean. Not even a Facebook page. — Devans99

Oh, don't be so modest. You're a prestigious author! But yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad we got that settled.

A link to what? — Devans99

To Trollerton McTrollingsworth, amateur astronomer, and author of Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments, amongst other gems, such as Planets Have No Valid Counterarguments, and Black Holes Have No Valid Counterarguments.

That's you, isn't it?

I do not get you; this is a solipsism reference? — Devans99

You don't anything, because you don't exist. You haven't provided any valid your own existence. Provide a link, or you don't exist.

At least I have arguments. — Devans99

How can you have arguments if you don't exist? Provide a link to your existence.

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”? — DingoJones

Not I. Not generally, anyway. Only in the strictest of circumstances, like a contradiction.

Cheap shot. — Devans99

American rock band from Rockford, Illinois, formed in 1973. No, wait, that's Cheap Trick. Nevermind.

I think you are very closed minded. — Devans99

But you can't, because you don't exist, and even if you did, you wouldn't have any valid counterarguments.

I appreciate the thought. I guess it makes sense to be good to yourself. This doesn't make complete sense to me though. Can you explain to me how a world populated by one single sentient being can have any moral dimension? — TheMadFool

So, if you found yourself in that scenario, you wouldn't try to resolve one of the most famous moral dilemmas of all time: whether to be, or not to be?

I believe that you're an amateur. But that's about the only thing I believe.

Can you link to publications in your name as an astronomer? — Christoffer

I am familiar with his published writings on the subject. His magnum opus is Stars Have No Valid Counterarguments by Trollerton McTrollingsworth.

NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS IN YOUR POST. — Devans99

Too obvious. The jig is up.

Good game, though. You just lost the game, by the way.

I am working on several papers. I find it helpful to bounce my ideas off people. And (some) people seem interested anyway. So what is the problem with that? — Devans99

I've already explained the problem. Oh! No, wait. I haven't. I must have dreamt that. I have no arguments or valid counterarguments. This is not a sentence. I don't exist, and neither do you. Am I man dreaming that I'm a butterfly, or is a Devans a troll or just dumb? It's one of life's great mysteries.

I am an astronomer. And Aquinas was one of the most brilliant men to ever live.

The definition of a troll is someone who makes offensive posts. My posts are not offensive, unless it is your atheist sensibilities that are offended? — Devans99

An astronomer! I don't believe that for a second. Obvious troll is obvious.

Nor do I believe that you don't know that the definition of a troll covers a lot more than that. I suspect that you're creating these really bad arguments, and responding in the ways that you typically do, on purpose, for your own satisfaction.

That's actually a better alternative, because if you're not doing this on purpose, then I feel sorry for you.

Exactly what are you disagreeing with - can you be specific please. — Devans99

He's not disagreeing with anything you've said, because you haven't said anything. And he's not disagreeing with you, because you don't exist.

Provide a link.

You are going against the scientific method. You are condemned to ever live in darkness. You might as well sign up for a religion with that axiom. — Devans99

So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardass, I gather.

Shall we play a game of troll trolling troll?

So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'? — Devans99

Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. The argument I must have dreamt I had made, in public, on this very forum.

The point that Anaxagoras (the member of this forum, not the reputable philosopher) missed is that the UK government can do things like this:

More school children will be protected from homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying following a £1 million extension to a successful programme as part of the government’s LGBT Action Plan, Minister for Women and Equalities Penny Mordaunt said today.

Because they don't have the massive problem of actively throwing gay people off of buildings or performing public executions, which is strong evidence for the West being significantly better in this respect.

That we even have a Minister for Women and Equalities says a lot in itself.

Why would you do that? In which world does character have any moral value except in a social setting? — TheMadFool

That would be this world. I would do that because it matters to me. It has moral value to me.

You have something wrong with your logic if you doubt a first cause. — Devans99

:rofl:

Its like you've got an axiom in there somewhere equivalent to 'sure magic can happen'. — Devans99

Yes, that's an accurate representation of the argument I gave to you in one of your recent discussions. You know, the argument you're denying the existence of.

Valid counterarguments to what? You have not provided any arguments. — Devans99

You haven't created any discussions or submitted any comments. You don't even exist. You're not a member of this forum. You never joined. You were never even born.

Beat that!

Wow. You continue to stagger me.
It should happen much less if we are better, and since it in-fact happens much less, is less culturally acceptable then yes the west is better on that issue. — DingoJones

He's not being reasonable, he's just virtue signalling.

Why are you tagging me in relation to an irrelevant news article? Please don't do that.

Assault is assault whether you're killing people or putting your hands on someone. Fact is, it shouldn't happen period if we are better. — Anaxagoras

That's the fallacy of missing the point. We were arguing over your original claim, and that's a completely different claim with no valid logical relation to your original claim, as far as I can tell.

I don't need to retract shit. I know from my own personal as well as professional experiences of what I've seen. — Anaxagoras

You should definitely retract the following claim, for the reason that it is obviously false and offensive:

"Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better".

Yes it does.

Oh that explains it. I see how your media deals with Meghan Markle, and the acid throwing incident (a Muslim girl reportedly had acid dowsed on her face). — Anaxagoras

That's another fallacy of irrelevance. Possibly poisoning the well.

Yes that tells me a lot of "what you know." — Anaxagoras

It wasn't hard to find results verifying this sort of thing. Do you not know how to google? Here, click this link: https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+government+homophobia+in+schools&oq=uk+government+homophobia+in+schools&aqs=chrome..69i57.21660j0j7&client=ms-android-alcatel&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

We are still assaulting people for what their orientation is, or what their racial makeup is. Point is we are still hurting people for a makeup they didn't choose. Did you know there were three historically black churches in the states that were burned down and the person that did it was a son of a cop and did it with racism in his heart? I still live in a society where people are will to hurt other people because of their phenotype. Yes we are very much more "liberal" than the Muslim countries in those regard but in others, we are still very much behind. — Anaxagoras

Nope, I've acknowledged that sort of thing, and it's still not even close. You should just retract your original claim, as there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than of you successfully defending it.

I don't. What campaign is this and where since you remember? — Anaxagoras

I live in England, and I distinctly remember seeing a giant poster about it with my own eyes by a train station in my town a number of years ago. I don't know what the campaign was called, if it had a name. It might have been a government thing. I would have to see if I could find out those kind of details through the internet.

Yes I'm sorry, I'm not using S-Logic. — Devans99

There's nothing wrong with my logic.

You haven't provided any valid counterargument.