Holding their feet to the fire ...

[klaus54]

It's not black or whit, rational or irrational. There are shades of gray and there is a continuum of possibilities between wholly rational and wholly irrational.

I'm anticipating seer making the argument, "Rational is rational, irrational is irrational."

K54

[Jorge]

Could be, but Jorge appears to make a far broader insinuation that Chuck invented his Satanic "theory" for the specific purpose of spreading evil through civilization.

Of course, I don't think even Jorge is that stupid, so the only possible conclusion is that he's an intellectually dishonest propagandized end-justifies-the-means serpentine scumbucket.

K54

Lies, lies and more lies... You are a piece or "work", Klaus ("work" to be kind).

MODERATORS, why has this sordid hack (a.k.a. Santa Klaus) been allowed to continue posting on this thread when he has been BOOTED OFF and repeatedly reminded of that fact?

Get the heck OFF this thread, Santa 'Moron' Klaus!

Jorge

[Jorge]

True enough. Tell em to provide the results of the genetic tests that prove the foetus isn't human.

Ah ... so maybe you're starting to get my point. "Science" is used as the epistemological justification - the "proof" - that it is okay to do this or that. "Since "science" declares it then it must be so!" The act is then done with the justification/support of "science"

The example given previously was abortion and your post (above) caught the essence of their thought process. Now apply that same reasoning to eugenics (or euthanasia or genocide or ...).

Jorge

[Jorge]

AIG's unsupported claims are no more credible than your unsupported claims.

As I stated, there are tons and TONS of support dating back decades if you will simply LOOK with an open and honest mind. But heaven forbid that you should do that, right? I mean, if you did, you may actually discover the TRUTH and you wish to avoid that at all costs.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Where's the lie?

Or is it "It takes one to know one?"

K54

MODERATORS, why has this sordid hack (a.k.a. Santa Klaus) been allowed to continue posting on this thread when he has been BOOTED OFF and repeatedly reminded of that fact?

Get the heck OFF this thread, Santa 'Moron' Klaus!

Jorge

[Jorge]

@ Leonhard.

I've been going over what I wrote so far, and I realize that there is a vast amount of work to be done. This will be impossible to fit into one post, once(if I can ever complete it) it''s done. Just as you find Jorge to be "grating", I find others who regularly post in this section the same way. So once/if I finish, I will be starting a new thread, one that I will ask everyone else to stay out of. It will be a lot to go through, and a lot to read. So it could take quite a while to finish.

Truth, to the dishonest, is more "grating" than fingernails across a chalkboard.

'Nuff said.

Jorge

[Cerebrum123]

Truth, to the dishonest, is more "grating" than fingernails across a chalkboard.

'Nuff said.

Jorge

I think Leonhard is wrong on this matter, but I have never seen him be dishonest. In fact, he's often very reasonable, even if we don't agree at the end of an exchange. That's the whole reason I've been responding to him in this thread, despite wanting to drop the issue earlier.

[HMS_Beagle]

MODERATORS, why has this sordid hack (a.k.a. Santa Klaus) been allowed to continue posting on this thread when he has been BOOTED OFF and repeatedly reminded of that fact?

Get the heck OFF this thread, Santa 'Moron' Klaus!

Jorge

I'm sure the irony of Jorge cowardly trying to get EXPELLED! all those who present science which rebuts his YEC idiocy isn't lost on anyone.

[Method]

But why should empathy override practical considerations? Why is that rational? I mean in the animal world the weak and infirmed are left to die off. So they can not compete for scarce resources nor can they pollute the gene pool by reproducing. And we are just animals - correct?

That would, again, be the Is/Ought fallacy in the form of the Appeal to Nature.

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

We don't derive what is or isn't moral by what is or isn't natural.

[Method]

Agreed, I'm not doubting that. I think we're on the same page that evolutionary biology can't be used to answer moral questions, however I think we get to this conclusions in different ways. I don't think the Is/Ought problem is really a problem as such in general, though it might be in certain reductionistic philosophies. If you're arguing that the eugenicists are doing it wrong because of the Is/Ought problem, you're basically assuming a particular kind of Naturalism.

What particular kind of Naturalism would that be? It would seem to me that the Is/Ought problem calls for the rejection of Naturalism. Also, you don't explain why the Is/Ought problem is not an actual problem.

I say, dispense with the Is/Ought problem, focus on the fact that the science of evolution doesn't study facts directly relevant to making moral decisions.

The Is/Ought problem is what allows us to say that the facts evolution studies are not relevant to moral decisions.



Jorge never bows out, he's been like this for as long as I remember coming to this forum which is close to a decade now. Have fun tussling with him if you want. I thought this philosophical discussion was much more interesting. At any rate, I don't want it here.[/QUOTE]

[Method]

I have long stated that you and your 'kind' are, among other things, sadly ignorant and/or dishonest. Let's grant that, in this case, you are merely ignorant. I personally have known about Evolution being used to justify abortion since the early 1970's and yet you have "never seen it"? WOW! What planet have you been on?

What planet are you from? How does one justify abortion by pointing to the stages of human embryonic development? That makes no sense. We share common ancestry with other animals whether we are a fetus or a 30 year old adult. That doesn't change.

[klaus54]

As I stated, there are tons and TONS of support dating back decades if you will simply LOOK with an open and honest mind. But heaven forbid that you should do that, right? I mean, if you did, you may actually discover the TRUTH and you wish to avoid that at all costs.

Jorge

In Creatiion "Science" which weighs more: A ton of facts or a ton of distortion of facts?

K54

[phank]

In Creatiion "Science" which weighs more: A ton of facts or a ton of distortion of facts?

K54

A ton of facts, of course. With the understanding that anything not endorsing or supporting the creationist dementia is not a fact. And thus, conversely, anything that DOES support creationism is a fact, even if has to be made up and has no referent in reality.

[seer]

We don't derive what is or isn't moral by what is or isn't natural.

Then from what do you derive morality?

[Method]

Then from what do you derive morality?

We derive morality from reason and empathy, for the most part.