Reply
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

How life works? The world is not a logical place? The unfairness in the world is not related at all to the discussion. And putting something into basic principles? You realize that our universe follows a set of rules, right? And thse are perfectly logical as well. Please tell me how my age relates to what the universe follows?


Now I have to question if you know anything about advanced physics. I know someone on another forum who might be a great help here, but advanced physics does not operate so logically. There's no reason to assume it works logically. I quote him in particular:

 

"Classical Physics is all false, it's an approximation at certain energy scales, but it's all wrong. In other words, it has nothing to do with reality. By the same token, there's a lot of really neat string theory style stuff that just isn't going to turn out true, not even kind of, that doesn't mean it isn't physics."

 

Sure, GR isn't light cone deformation geometries - but that doesn't mean it operates on some logical and consistent scale. That's a false assumption that identities objects of various elementary particles (electrons, for example) as being indistinguishable. While the conclusion may be correct, the premise is assumptive becaus we have absolutely no idea.

 

But this is not the point of the discussion.


You fail here by calling CLASSICAL physics false. Classical physics related to Newtonian concepts of physics. Ya know, those concepts that have been refuted for a hundred years by relativity.

 

Using a nice large vocabulary does not work against people who know it.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 81 of 119 (142 Views)
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

Ok, I honestly I think you're confused. I was referring to a brief exchange that me and Bob had yesterday and I addressed every one of his points yesterday. I only started talking about this again because Bob was trying to retell what I said yesterday and he was putting his own slant on it. I had thought yesterday's discussion between us was done.

Okay, honestly, you missed every point I tried to make.  I don't know about whether or not your exchange Bob is over, but, I do believe this one is.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 82 of 119 (141 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

semajmarc87 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

KIoey wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Ali's character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominem - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herpdiderp.

 

You: So Hitler's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominem you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 


Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. While age is a good time for brainstorming, it does not decide the validity of the argument. If some kid comes up to you and tells you the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople in 1452, you do not tell him he is wrong because he is just a kid. You correct him and say that it fell in 1453. You go after the point and not the person. And it is one of the worst things to ever do in a discussion or debate. It may get a rise out of people, but it does nothing to prove a point.

 

And that is hardly how it went. I was simply trying to dig into his belief that rights are just made up by the person with the biggest stick. I was more or less trying to see if he was hypocritical in the approach. It is one thing to claim you think something, it is another to actually blieve and live by it. If I molest, torture, and murder a 10 year old girl, you have no place to say what I did was wrong if you believe everything involving rights and morals to be subjective. I was going to go more into the discussion, but I did not want to derail the thread.

 

I never like to continue an argument until I hear their view on something. I would rather not go into a debate on morality existing if they already believe they do (many secular people DO believe in good and evil acts without seeing what that implies). In the same way, I wanted to get clarification on what his statement on subjectivity actually entails.

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


Okay, let me just stop you there. I thought our arguement concluded. I don't need you trying to spin something I said when I'm not around. The reason I said "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" is because I was puzzled by how poor your reasoning was in the "In God We Trust". Then I found out that you were in High School which was very revealing to me as to why your debating techniques were poor (I'mnot trying to be mean, I'm being honest). I'm not sure which "arguement" you're claiming that I was so afraid of that I "simply could not discredit it." If you're talking about that "dictator" statement you made, it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with. That's why I told you that "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" because your immaturity was really showing and I wanted to make you aware of it.


Considering I publicly debate, I would like to compare our experience. And age is obviously not a factor in logic here. You said my poor debate technique is explained by my age. Thanks for that. 

 

First off, I did not make a claim in that post that you could not discredit my argument. And even then, I had not even made an argument yet. I was trying to figure out what you actually believed. I hear people say rights and morals are founded in nothing but our own brains, but I always find it odd when they live like it is objective. 

 

My immaturity was obvious? First off, you do not even know my age. High school encompasses age 14-18 usually. I am a senior in high school and turning 18 in a week. I am active on a debate team where everyone is between the ages of 24-28 and am educated on things outside of my high school courses.

 

I could try and make assumptions about you from your post as well. Your spelling leaves a bit to be desired. Am I to discredit your points based on how you spelled "argument" as "arguement" or when you called my points "ammiturish". Of course not. I understand that using someone's spelling to discredit their point is silly. And judging me based off supposed immaturity (uncited immaturity at that) is silly. I did not even make any big points. I was trying to get you to say what you actually believed and not just some complete naturalism worldview. I wanted to see what you thought of the other points. You thought my point using a dictator was "amateurish", but you did not go after the reasoning and stand by your beliefs. You just tried to discredit me as a person and say it was a stupid comparison. I was obviously going to extremes, but it was intentional. It was meant to get you to be upfront on your belief and flesh it out more. I was trying to answer the question "Does he actually live by this, or is he just saying it?" I was going to continue, but I felt it would derail the point.

 

I also found little reason to argue moral foundations with someone when it presupposes an argument about a deity or power where we can put these rights and values. And I thought starting a discussion about metaphysical forces would ruin the thread and would derail it. 


Are you asking me if you have the "right" to make assumptions about me? Go ahead. You don't need my permission. If you want to "make assumptions" about me not using spell check on one post then go ahead. I'm probably not as good at spelling as I used to be because I use spell check all the time now and it's made it so I don't have to try to remember how to spell every word. It's gotten me into bad habits. There, you exposed me. That's not the same as me saying that it is very obvious to me that you are a High Schooler when I read your posts. It was a statement that wasn't intended to be an insult or a compliment. You have the power to take that in whatever way you want. Your age seems to be a very touchy subject for you and you make the assumtion that I'm trying to "discredit you."

 

I didn't go after the "reasoning?" The sole purpose of you saying that silly "dictator" comment was to bring up a sensitive issue to hide behind so that it would appear that if I continued to disagree with you that I support dictators. It's kinda like when Obama tried to make it seem like anyone who didn't support his gun ban wanted more little kids to be killed. And what's this nonsense about me not "standing by my beliefs?" What are you even talking about?


My point on the spell check was simple. That your inability to spell does not discredit you. You missed the point of what I said.

 

If you were not trying to discredit or insult me, what was the point? You call my arguments "ammiturish" and an indicator of my immaturity without going after the argument. At least discredit my point before going after me!

 

I made the dictator comment because it is a real issue. If I do some atrocity, who are you, or anyone really, to say it is wrong? You can't by your viewpoint. I was using this as a way to get you to either stand by your beliefs and say "yes, you cannot judge someone else's morality" or to clarify your stance. And you did neither. You just slammed it as melodrama. It was obvious what I was getting at. I was grabbing an extreme moral atrocity that ACTUALLY HAPPENED and asked if this was truly wrong. I wanted to see your response in an effort to see what you really stood by.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 83 of 119 (130 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 11, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the American Independent Party. They hold no seats in the Congress and their last Presidential candidate finished with 40,628 votes, coming in behind almost every other third party candidate. To me, that doesn't seem to qualify as a "party designated for breaking deadlocks".

 

I agree that misinformed voters are a big problem, but I believe you are too casually dismissing the potential benefits of a strong third party.


The American Independent Party is supposed to help ease the fluxuations that occur between Conservative and Liberal shifts within the parties. However if people are misinformed, they are just going to vote for by name - it's not the ideal, it's simply by name. Someone who identifies themself as a Republican now is likely to vote Republican 40 years later even if the party has changed their platform.

 

I don't think I can stress that enough, that people vote based on party affiliation, rarely by ideals. A strong third party that's not the Independent Party (or not capable of being a part of the GOP or Democratic Party) has a success rate so extremely unlikely that it will do nothing but cause more problems. If people quit voting based purely on affiliation and had an idea of who they were voting for and why (I suggest take down healthcare.gov and start funding state websites that offer good information about districts, Congressional elections, issues on the ticket, all summarized within an hour video or so), the two party system would be stronger than ever.

 

A third party won't establish any middle ground, it won't even establish a lenience to the left or right (unless you count the split GOP and Tea Party), it will simply do nothing but create more deadlock that's even harder to bypass. 

 

I know that sounds so extremely silly because "European Nations work and they have more political parties" but do NOT underestimate the power of multiculturalism. I mean just look at simple demographics, but before I continue - I cannot stress this enough...this is NOT a suggestion that ethnicity or religion automatically dictate a cultural course. However they are highly coexistent. 

 

Okay, with that out of the way let me continue with a demographic Comparison of the USA and UK:

 

UK

 

90% White

10% minorities include Black, Pakistani and Indian

 

 

 

US (with regards to how the demographics have been collected, the estimates are slightly off)

 

63% White

12% Black

5% Asian

16% Hispanic or Latino

4% Other (Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander)

 

 

 

Hard to deny that's a lot bigger gap in ethnicity. It doesn't automatically deem that different ethnicity=different culture, that's a logical fallacy. However when you have such a diversified ethnicity in a country (it's not predominantly British or German or French) then there is bound to be trouble. You have a melting pot of Asian cultures, Hispanic cultures, European cultures and more. There's no predominant culture that the majority of people are accustomed to. 

 

Message 84 of 119 (125 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 11, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

You fail here by calling CLASSICAL physics false. Classical physics related to Newtonian concepts of physics. Ya know, those concepts that have been refuted for a hundred years by relativity.

 

Using a nice large vocabulary does not work against people who know it.


Well yes, classical physics is false - it has been disproven by relativity. Relativity has downfalls in light of string theory, and there's no indiciation that any leaps being made in relativity proposes anything but another theory that will, eventually, be concluded false. You're trying way too hard to be right when you should just admit you were wrong and be done with it already - because you're digging yourself a grave. To assume that just because GR disproves classical theory in physics as being a cornerstone for what GR is, you are assuming that GR is right - where there is no actual proof of that other than it is not disproven. "Can't disprove X, thus X!" is the oldest form of proving a negative in the book.

 

As I mentioned in the original post that you obviously took no time to read - for GR to be consistent you must assume that there is an amount of indistinguishability in the universe. But since we don't know that, it's just an assumption. 

 

Edit: Inflammatory statement removed

Message 85 of 119 (119 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 11, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You fail here by calling CLASSICAL physics false. Classical physics related to Newtonian concepts of physics. Ya know, those concepts that have been refuted for a hundred years by relativity.

 

Using a nice large vocabulary does not work against people who know it.


Well yes, classical physics is false - it has been disproved by relativity. Relativity has downfalls in light of string theory, and there's no indication that any leaps being made in relativity proposes anything but just another theory that will, eventually, be concluded false. You're trying way too hard to be right when you should just admit you were wrong and be done with it already - because you're digging yourself a grave. To assume that just because GR disproves classical theory in physics as being a cornerstone for what GR is, you are assuming that GR is right - where there is no actual proof of that other than it is not disproven. "Can't disprove X, thus X!" is the oldest form of proving a negative in the book.


I should say I am wrong because you think I am wrong? What laws of logic have you learned? 

 

I never said that relativity is undisputed. I said it ended classical physics because it introduced concepts that are still held true.

 

And to say that there is no order in the universe because we do not know it all yet is just plain wrong. There are laws in the universe. Are you going to say gravity does not exist because other sciences have become obsolete when faced with newer discoveries? The reason science is not 100% proven is because we do not know 100% of the universe. But we do know many things of it. The fact it is governed by certain laws and constants is undisputed and has all the evidence backing it. 

 

Saying that the universe is not logical because we do not understand everything simply gives to much relevence to our species.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 86 of 119 (111 Views)
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 11, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

I should say I am wrong because you think I am wrong? What laws of logic have you learned? 

 

I never said that relativity is undisputed. I said it ended classical physics because it introduced concepts that are still held true.

 

And to say that there is no order in the universe because we do not know it all yet is just plain wrong. There are laws in the universe. Are you going to say gravity does not exist because other sciences have become obsolete when faced with newer discoveries? The reason science is not 100% proven is because we do not know 100% of the universe. But we do know many things of it. The fact it is governed by certain laws and constants is undisputed and has all the evidence backing it. 

 

Saying that the universe is not logical because we do not understand everything simply gives to much relevence to our species.


And you have once again proven that you are too stupid to have this discussion with. I thought of all the things I could say, and I'm not going to bother. So I'll keep it simple - learn quantum mechanics before you purport the lessons of quantum physics.

Message 87 of 119 (101 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 11, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You fail here by calling CLASSICAL physics false. Classical physics related to Newtonian concepts of physics. Ya know, those concepts that have been refuted for a hundred years by relativity.

 

Using a nice large vocabulary does not work against people who know it.


Well yes, classical physics is false - it has been disproven by relativity. Relativity has downfalls in light of string theory, and there's no indiciation that any leaps being made in relativity proposes anything but another theory that will, eventually, be concluded false. You're trying way too hard to be right when you should just admit you were wrong and be done with it already - because you're digging yourself a grave. To assume that just because GR disproves classical theory in physics as being a cornerstone for what GR is, you are assuming that GR is right - where there is no actual proof of that other than it is not disproven. "Can't disprove X, thus X!" is the oldest form of proving a negative in the book.

 

As I mentioned in the original post that you obviously took no time to read - for GR to be consistent you must assume that there is an amount of indistinguishability in the universe. But since we don't know that, it's just an assumption. 

 

Edit: Inflammatory statement removed


I did not see the edit in time, so I apologize for being too stupid to contend with your vast knowledge of physics. I mean, you know exactly what the future will find out, so I apologize for standing by modern science and not your omniscience


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 88 of 119 (99 Views)
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 11, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

I should say I am wrong because you think I am wrong? What laws of logic have you learned? 

 

I never said that relativity is undisputed. I said it ended classical physics because it introduced concepts that are still held true.

 

And to say that there is no order in the universe because we do not know it all yet is just plain wrong. There are laws in the universe. Are you going to say gravity does not exist because other sciences have become obsolete when faced with newer discoveries? The reason science is not 100% proven is because we do not know 100% of the universe. But we do know many things of it. The fact it is governed by certain laws and constants is undisputed and has all the evidence backing it. 

 

Saying that the universe is not logical because we do not understand everything simply gives to much relevence to our species.


And you have once again proven that you are too stupid to have this discussion with. I thought of all the things I could say, and I'm not going to bother. So I'll keep it simple - learn quantum mechanics before you purport the lessons of quantum physics.


You are not good at this debate thing. Typically it goes like this: 

 

I give a point. Then you refute it along with maybe throwing a point in there. I refute those. And you refute that. 

 

^This is a debate. 

 

But this is how it is going:

 

I give a point. You call it stupid and call me immature. I question this and clarify my point for you. You call me stupid again without addressing the point. I refute a point made by you. You call me stupid and say I cannot comprehend quantum mechanics without giving any verification on where I fall flat. 

 

Just to show how little you actually know on this subject, I am going to blow your mind away. Here is your quote:

 

"So I'll keep it simple - learn quantum mechanics before you purport the lessons of quantum physics."

 

You tell me to learn quantum mechanics before trying to give lessons on quantum physics. You do realize that quantum physics and quantum mechanics are the EXACT SAME THING. They are synonyms for the same field of study.

 

Surely a BA in business administration who has defeated professional philosophers would have known this. 

 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 89 of 119 (92 Views)
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 03/08/2013
Offline
819 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 11, 2013
bob_maul vs Kloey....bob_maul wins. flawless victory...FATALITY! Lol. from here on out you shall be known as Dr. Kloey lucasian professor of mathematics Smiley Happy
Message 90 of 119 (88 Views)