Craven de Kere
I'm glad you took time off from your busy schedule and from your prestigious profession to acknowledge my presence.
I think you are being sarcatic and trying to insult, but in case I am wrong: you're welcome.
Living up to your expectations, dear sir, is what I'm here for.
A man with your, obvious, intellectual power can only flatter with his interest and attentions.
Again, I get the feeling you wish to make sarcastic quips instead of discuss anything, but in case I am wrong; thank you.
Define "human nature" and explain how this alledged process is any less a part of "human nature".
Ah, very good.
It is one of those terms that need definition. ....
We can say that even the products of the human intellect and human ingenuity are natural consequences of evolution.
Indeed, as in all that occurs within nature.
The definition is as arbitrary as it is restrictive. You simply moved the goal posts one step further to a new undefined variable ("product of natural selection").
So, pray tell, what is your definition of "product of natural selection" which, in turn, holds the key to the definition of "natural".
I have yet to see you post a summary of your position, but thus far it seems to rage against what may well be a "product of natural selection" through the use of a naturalistic fallacy
This is why I seek the definition you are operating under, and making it once removed to another arbitrarily defined definition doesn't improve the logic any.
I exclude all products of the human mind.
I don't think you do. Nor do I think you can. But I'd be happy to hear how you think you do this.
Afterward, I'd be interested in knowing the basis on which you deem this exclusion worthy. After all, the next question is whether the mind is unatural.
Human interventions within pre-existing (to mans appearance) systems I consider unnatural or artificial.
I know, but I am asking for the basis
for this distinction.
If a cow is sick and man injects said animal with chemicals that would otherwise not be available to it thusly saving it from a natural death, I call this an unnatural intervention.
And upon what do you base the validity of this distinction? This is a textbook naturalistic fallacy
, and you need to be able to demonstrate the validity of your construct, simply calling it "natural" and "unatural" according to an arbitrary definition does not make your case.
This does not, in any way, make the case for "natural" vs. "unatural". It does, however start to retreat from the naturalistic fallacy
into a logical cost/benefit analysis. I think you'd make more headway by simply getting down to this analysis instead of invoking the natural/unatural issue, as you'd circumvent the naturalistic fallacy
in your arguments.
Again, note that you have shown no basis for the delineation between "artifical" from the "enclosed".
You seem to only be invoking emotional appeals along the lines of "green = natural/chemical = unatural".
For instance, mans need for resources required vast population that had to be taken out of the natural selection system, through which populations and population health is regulated, and placed in a manmade social/cultural system, we call civilization.
This sentence lacks coherence.
But what it seems to be trying to say is, once again, held up only by an arbitrary delineation of what you consider part of the natural selection system and what you consider to be foreign to this system.
It's not an axiomatic delineation, as it's eminently arguable that it is simply impossible to escape natural selection. It only evolves to work on different criteria.
Now we all know the benefits of civilization, but how many have considered the detrimental ramifications and the prices for them?
This is where your argument should be made, in the cost/benefit analysis and not the invocation of the naturalistic fallacy
This is a given, which means the next logical step is to outline the negative consequences you alledge.
When we protect the weak and we allow them to propagate, we may be ensuring working hands to collect resources, even if we may tell ourselves it is out of strictly ultruistic motivations, but we are also allowing weakness itself to propagate.
There are many forms of weakness. Many times, what is "weak" in one metric is not in another.
Person A = physically strong
Person B = beautiful
Person C = Protects person B, because of Person B's beauty
Person D may describe the transaction as protecting the weak and a divergenve from "natural selection", but the metric of beauty and its influence is part of nature and is a power unto itself.
So I caution against claiming that weak are protected without giving consideration unto the possibility that this is so because of their strenths elsewhere (if only their power to convice others to protect them).
I believe cancer and most mental and physical ailments today are a direct result of overpopulation and the nurturing of flaws within our genetic code.
I'd love to hear your substantiation for this claim. Do note that said ailments occur at a lesser rate today than in less populated ages.
Population density can contribute to many ailments merely because of its relationship with proximity, but to make the case for a causative link of the nature you describe is to ignore more significant causative links.
In any case, feel free to make your case for it.
They are a result of mans intervention upon nature.
Man is a part of nature, as are mans' interventions. Mans' interventions can be shown to have lessened said ailments so you will have a hard time making such a simplistic case.
Nature has a method of weeding out flaw and weakness, usurping her methods demands further genetic interventions to undo the results; something currently occurring.
The feminization of man is but a symptom of this genetic degradation.
You have failed to even establish the existence of what you now attempt to explain the cause for.
You might want to get the basic logic of that argument sorted out.
Those most insulted by the implications are the ones most benefiting from the current system and so have an invested interest in maintaining things the way they are.
This, is a transparent attempt to ascribe motivations for refutation of your positions on the basis of ad hominems
(against the messenger rather than their arguments) against the individuals.
You would do better to address the logic of their refutations.
Comfort and ease are attractive to the human mind weary of suffering and struggle and unsure if it could measure up to natures more stringent and unforgiving standards.
That means you, my 'latin using' friend.
Your arguments would be better served to address arguments, rather than ascribe characteristics to those who bring them.
This has a base emotional appeal but in logic it's simply not more than clever wordplay, more prose than critical thought.
You can construct a null hypothesis by making a reverse wordplay that is just as good:
"A fundamental characteristic of weakness, as a concept, is its unwillingness to sacrifice a part of itself to save its entirety."
Perhaps you need to think it through first.
I would say the accuracy or inaccuracy of the two phrases can be deduced by how well they adhere to perceivable phenomena.
You would do so in error, as the subjective interpretation of what consitutes weakness (your version is not sacrificing self) would be a variable present in the evaluation of adherence to "perceivable phenomena".
In short, your test of the null hypothesis
fails because it again relies on the interpretation of "weakness" in the perception.
This is why either
are merely wordplay without first nailing down the nature of weakness.
Anything weak gets assimilated into something stronger by necessity.
You have proposed an axiom. You need to substantiate it or ad qualifiers to address its flawed absolutism and reliance on your interpretation of weakness.
The fact that there needs to be a sacrifice made at all, only speaks of weakness.
Only according to a definition of "weakness" that is circular in its logic and ultimately relies only on an ipse dixit
Now I will recognize that you are realizing the personal implications of what I'm saying and it insults your conformist sensibilities.
You are projecting. This does not insult my "conformist sensibilities" and you know nothing of whether I am conformist.
This is just another of your arguments against the man rather than the man's arguments and it only weakens your position.
Argue the arguments, ascribing characteristics to the messenger is a fallacy whose employment you sought to pre-empt against yourself while being willing to use it on those who disagree with you in copious quantity.
This is why you are so forcefully and insultingly objecting to them.
You continue to project. I simply argue forcefully, and I am neither insulted by your position nor insulting due to it.
I am pointing out its flaws, and your reaction is to characterize me negatively.
This is a risible circular argument, in which you declare that the refutation of your positions is, in fact, evidence of the validity of your positions.
For you the sacrifice of part of your self to survive proves adaptability and therefore superiority when in essence it does the reverse.
I do? Sounds like another unsubstantiated ipse dixit
By the way isn't it a contradiction to "sacrifice a piece of" and "save an entirety"?
Only if you think sacrifice
is always the opposite of save
How can you save an entirety and sacrifice a piece of, at the same time?
By realizing that sacrifice
does not always constutute the opposite of save
But you're obviously smarter than me so I'm sure there's a logical explanation
There's a simple linguistic explanation that one not need be too smart to recognize. The queries you posed only rely on selective definitions to construct wordplay.
Wanderer, I have asked repeatedly for you to nail down your thesis. This is the start so whatever your subsequent response, please address this line of inquiry:
Do you consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal?
For our species, at least.
See, now we are getting a clear outline.
1) You consider non-paternal societies to be a "contamination" from a paternal ideal in the human species.
2) Why do you consider the paternal construct an ideal?
Define "quality" in your accessment.
All measurements are comparisons of a specific unit to another or of a specific unit to a perceived average.
The basis on your perception is what the query is about, as it's clear that it is based on it.
Yet objectionable to you?
When morons get into authority positions simply because they are morons, yes.
This is an understandable objection.
When positions of power are inherited and passed down with no effort on the part of the one inheriting, yes.
This is an understandable objection (and, I will note, a staple of paternal societal constructs).
When idiots hold the same political power as intellectuals, yes.
By definition, they don't. They may hold the same political power only on certain metrics
When this means that individuality will become a thing of a bygone era and the super-organism will replace the organism, yes.
Whether or not it means that at all is the question Wanderer.
When my individual interests are threatened, by masses of idiots, yes.
By its nature, individuality is always threatened by masses Wanderer.
When quality takes a back seat to quantity, yes.
I get the sense that you are talking about people.
The leap from thought to behavior should be more carefully examined.
There is a causative link, but in proximity it is largely the behavior that is the issue, not mere thought.
Denial is a terrible thing.
Wanderer, yet again you simply ascribe a characteristic to me (in this case denial), in leiu of addressing my argument.
It weakens your position to argue in this manner.
Which nations? We can test the participation theory against statistics and laws and eliminate the need to rely on your anecdotal evidence.
As affluence increases so does complacency.
The opposite is also true. Think of the "keeping up with the Joneses" soundbyte in comparison to the soundbyte you used.
I appreciate your desire to display your intellectual fortitude by sprinkling Latin amongst your very insightful commentary, but, if I'm not mistaken, this conversation is using the English language.
I use the terms that have been established by others. It is not sourced in a desire to reflect on my intellect. I am of the opinion that you are merely projecting, and once again enaging in your negative characterisations.
But I will be happy to provide colloqial English terms for the fallacies you engage in.
For example, this is another one of your ad hominems
(against the man).
If you wish to respond by only using Latin, that would be fine with me if you also allow me to show-off my knowledge of Greek by answering you using it.
Again, I do not use latin out of a desire to "show off". You may be projecting on me.
Quite frankly, my grasp of latin is rudimentary. I use the terms because they are the names for the logical errors you indulged in. The basis in latin is not my choosing. They were all coined before me.
I suspect that your objection is primarily sourced in having said logical errors demonstrated, but I'm sure you can understand that it would not be reasonable to ask that demonstrations of logical fallacy in your argument be excluded.
So I hope that a suitable compromise will be my inclusion of English translations to the terms.
Now your job, your knowledge of Latin, your car, your portfolio or the labels of social and cultural compliance you place before your name to prove worth, do not interest me and should only be used to wow those in your immediate environment.
I have said nothing about my job except to remark that your attempt to use it to insult me was not founded in knowledge of wherther I employ "free thought" in its functions.
I have said nothing at all about my car to you. Quite frankly it's unimpressive. It's my first one so it will do, but my co-worker has convinced me that it is "girly" (no relation to your thesis).
I have no portfolio, you are grasping at straws to make ad hominems
(against the man) here.
When you say "the labels of social and cultural compliance you place before your name to prove worth" I suspect you speak of degrees. I don't have any. I only attended 9th grade in full.
Now I would make a request of thee.
If your reliance on ad hominems (against the man) and insults are to continue, I ask only two things of you.
1) That aside from your digs, you actually address the arguments.
2) That you make a "best effort" at constructing more realistic insults. For example, the above seems to center on your assumption that I "wow" those in my proximity with my job, car, degrees, portfolio et all
(and all). I think you assumed in error.
Now I know the assumptions are not too relevant to the topic, they are just insults. But when insulted I like a little veracity, otherwise I end up helping correct the insults as well (which is an odd position).
I'm sure that towards them a few Latin remarks are enough to make them wonder at your superior mind but towards me they are just a cause of boredom.
I suspect they are a source of irritation, as they have been used to reference your logical fallacies.
I would say that you have replaced religious dogma with the modern scientific dogma, which requires just as much unquestionable faith as the previous one.
I would say that you are putting more effort into the ad hominems
(against the man) than the positions and arguments.
You find strength in numbers and your safety and comforts are the things you relish the most.
You seem to place more faith in your deductive powers based on message board text than I. <shrugs>
I believe that because, in our time, science is totally dependant on public funds that its objectivity must be questioned.
Then question its objectivity. Simply issuing insults and soundbytes doesn't make much of a case.
Public funds come from public coffers under public control.
This does not make a case for lacking objectivity in science, it's just a facile attempt to cast suspicion on it.
We all know what the average public quality of mind is, now don't we?
I don't deign to speak for the "we" you reference,
When science is reliant on moneys that come from a population still believing in ghosts and UFO's, one must wonder at how many theories are denied utterance because they lack absolute substantiation.
I like substantiation, and have been asking you for yours only to be met with ranting and insults.
When one considers the effects of scientific specialization and the state of the educational system that teaches what to think but not how, one wonders at the objectivity and critical thinking of those engaged in science.
A big part of critical thinking is avoiding logical fallacy. Another big part is clarity of thought.
Scientists are human as well and so subject to the same psychological pressures and cultural influences, everybody else is.
Furthermore science is under the jurisdiction of the state, with its own motives and prejudices.
And your point would be? << the prevailing theme of this exchange IMO