Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 22:10:58 GMT -5
LOL! For one thing, knowledge of errors in logic enables me to identify all of the Complex Question Fallacies, Strawman arguments, Shifting the Goalposts, and the other logical errors in your posts. But simply lacking errors in logic does not render a claim objectively true, does it? I did not ask for arguments, I asked for an explanation. No, I want you to explain how logic proves your personal opinion to be an objective truth. Do you have any evidence that my personal opinions are NOT objectively true? If so, please present it. Why do I need evidence to refute your claims when you have not shown evidence to support your position? Please explain that to me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 22:40:21 GMT -5
LOL! For one thing, knowledge of errors in logic enables me to identify all of the Complex Question Fallacies, Strawman arguments, Shifting the Goalposts, and the other logical errors in your posts. But simply lacking errors in logic does not render a claim objectively true, does it? No. But it's a good start. The explanation is already in the arguments I gave. If you have any specific questions about a particular argument, please ask. Do you have any evidence that my personal opinions are NOT objectively true? If so, please present it. Why do I need evidence to refute your claims when you have not shown evidence to support your position? Please explain that to me.[/quote] Please list the specific claims I made for which you claim I have not shown evidence. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2019 22:52:13 GMT -5
But simply lacking errors in logic does not render a claim objectively true, does it? No. But it's a good start. What does that mean? Of course, you said so, and since you could not personally find a logical error in your statement, it is objectively true. Correct? How do you believe logic makes your claims objectively true? Please list the specific claims I made for which you claim I have not shown evidence. Bob Actually, I have more reason to be suspicious of you because you are a Postmodernist. And Postmodernism says that if a society accepts child rape and wife-beating, then child rape and wife-beating permissible for that society. Postmodernists believe that logic is merely a method used by white, Western Imperialists to impose their will on people of color, don't they? I already gave my arguments. I don't have to do anything more.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 1, 2019 23:12:47 GMT -5
No. But it's a good start. What does that mean? Go back to my original post and see what I was referring to. If you want to show my explanations are wrong, all you have to do is quote what I actually said instead of supplying a meaningless word-salad like you did here Is that a specific question about a specific argument? So you saying that Postmodernism NEVER said that there are no moral principles that trancend particular societies, that there is no universal meta-narrative? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 17:55:07 GMT -5
Go back to my original post and see what I was referring to. Sorry, I still don't get it. Can you explain what you mean? You've already established that this is incorrect. It is a specific question about an earlier claim you made. Can you answer that question? And here I was still hoping you'd show up with actual evidence to support your claims. I guess that was unrealistic.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 2, 2019 18:18:01 GMT -5
Go back to my original post and see what I was referring to. Sorry, I still don't get it. Can you explain what you mean? I'll be glad to. Just cut and paste the text from my post so I will know exactly what you are talking about. What were the exact words I used? Could you please cut and paste them? Again, could you please cut and paste the exact text of that claim? Are you saying you have no answer for the question? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 18:43:44 GMT -5
Are you saying you have no answer for the question? Bob I was asking you to provide evidence, which you have not done.
I have no intention to answer your question, since I consider it a Red Herring.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 13:02:30 GMT -5
Are you saying you have no answer for the question? Bob I was asking you to provide evidence, which you have not done.
I have no intention to answer your question, since I consider it a Red Herring.
Your request for "evidence" was a Red Herring to avoid answering my question...which you still have not answered and are obviously avoiding.
You "have no intention of answering" my question because you obviously have no good answer and are obviously avoiding.
Here is the question again: "So you saying that Postmodernism NEVER said that there are no moral principles that trancend particular societies, that there is no universal meta-narrative?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 17:23:16 GMT -5
I was asking you to provide evidence, which you have not done.
I have no intention to answer your question, since I consider it a Red Herring. Your request for "evidence" was a Red Herring to avoid answering my question...which you still have not answered and are obviously avoiding. You "have no intention of answering" my question because you obviously have no good answer and are obviously avoiding. Here is the question again: "So you saying that Postmodernism NEVER said that there are no moral principles that trancend particular societies, that there is no universal meta-narrative?" Bob Here is my answer: You can't support any of your claims on "postmodernism" with factual evidence. And how could you? You haven't defined your terms (who is a "postmodernist" and what is "postmodernism"?), you have not studied any of the relevant literature on the subject (you certainly haven't read any of the primary works), and you have no motivation to honestly engage with post-modern philosophies to begin with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 17:30:37 GMT -5
A reminder: You are free to believe what you want. Fact is that you cannot prove that you are not a child rapist. Therefore, you have no grounds to object if people were to call you a child rapist. Correct? But that means you also have no grounds to object if someone were to call you a child rapist. In fact, there are grounds to object. Very solid grounds. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE! If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim. And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country. CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 17:40:03 GMT -5
Your request for "evidence" was a Red Herring to avoid answering my question...which you still have not answered and are obviously avoiding. You "have no intention of answering" my question because you obviously have no good answer and are obviously avoiding. Here is the question again: "So you saying that Postmodernism NEVER said that there are no moral principles that transcend particular societies, that there is no universal meta-narrative?" Bob Here is my answer: You can't support any of your claims on "postmodernism" with factual evidence. And how could you? You haven't defined your terms (who is a "postmodernist" and what is "postmodernism"?), you have not studied any of the relevant literature on the subject (you certainly haven't read any of the primary works), and you have no motivation to honestly engage with post-modern philosophies to begin with.
No. That's not your "answer." That's your EVASION.
I asked you a straight question. Do you have a straight answer? Either there are meta-principles whose truth applies to all societies at all periods of history...or there are not.
Which is it? What's your answer? (notice I didn't have to mention Postmodernism).
Remember that a negative answer means that child rape and wife-beating are okay as long as the culture says so.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 17:41:11 GMT -5
A reminder: But that means you also have no grounds to object if someone were to call you a child rapist. In fact, there are grounds to object. Very solid grounds. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A NEGATIVE! If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence for that claim. And that is a basic rule here on the FACTS Board. Otherwise we would have to "prove" that ghosts don't exist, UFO's are not space ships from other planets, and the Jews were not trying to take over Germany before the Nazis saved the country. CARDINAL RULE: The person making the claim is the one who has to provide the Proof. Bob
I'm not making a claim. I asked a question, that's all.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 17:45:05 GMT -5
I'm not making a claim. I asked a question, that's all. Bob
You literally asked me to show you claims for which you have not shown evidence, and I did. You still haven't provided any evidence for these. Instead, you stalled the discussion with another question. In your own words: Please list the specific claims I made for which you claim I have not shown evidence. Bob I'm sure it will turn out that these words meas the exact opposite of what I have claimed, and you did not actually ask me for specific claims. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 17:59:08 GMT -5
I'm not making a claim. I asked a question, that's all. Bob
You literally asked me to show you claims for which you have not shown evidence, and I did. You still haven't provided any evidence for these. Instead, you stalled the discussion with another question. In your own words: Please list the specific claims I made for which you claim I have not shown evidence. Bob I'm sure it will turn out that these words meas the exact opposite of what I have claimed, and you did not actually ask me for specific claims. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
Once again, all you are doing is evading a straight question:Are there meta-narratives that transcend their society or not?
That means you will have to give up the claim that there are no meta-narratives or will will have to agree that child rape and wife-beating are Universally evil.
Straight question: Which one do you choose?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2019 19:10:18 GMT -5
You literally asked me to show you claims for which you have not shown evidence, and I did. You still haven't provided any evidence for these. Instead, you stalled the discussion with another question. In your own words: I'm sure it will turn out that these words meas the exact opposite of what I have claimed, and you did not actually ask me for specific claims. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. Once again, all you are doing is evading a straight question: And once again, you are evading my request to back up your arguments with facts. You asked me to provide you with a list of unsupported arguments you made. What was the point of that if you didn't want to adress my misgivings in the first place? Did you just ask me for shits and giggles? Did you want to see me jump to another one of your hoops? That's a different question you asked beforehand. But I will indulge you: Your question rests on a False Dichotomy. I do not believe that metanarratives exist independently of human thought, but they do not "belong" to any particular society. Also, you once again are demonstrating your ignorance of actual post-modern literature. Lyotard for example never speaks of universal good or evil in The Post-Modern Condition - neither positively nor negatively; the "meta narratives" he is talking about are Marxism and Scientific Positivism, which have indeed both been discredited over time.
Also, you are basing your question on an unsupported claim. You claimed that they were universally evil, but where is your evidence that child rape and wife beating are factually considered evil all over the world, and have always been considered evil?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 3, 2019 21:11:28 GMT -5
Once again, all you are doing is evading a straight question: And once again, you are evading my request to back up your arguments with facts. You asked me to provide you with a list of unsupported arguments you made. What was the point of that if you didn't want to adress my misgivings in the first place? Did you just ask me for shits and giggles? Did you want to see me jump to another one of your hoops? LOL! In other words, you can't suply a list of unsupported arguments that you allege I made. And the reason is that there is no such list. This is just another attempt to keep from answering the simple question: Do you think there is a Universal Moral Code that applies to all societies? FINALLY you've answered the question. The problem with that answer is that it supports Child Rape and Wife Beating in societies where these evil acts are considered acceptable.Is that your final word on the matter? Does Lyotard limit his analysis to just those two meta narratives? Or is he claiming that no meta narrative is universal? I NEVER claimed that child rape and wife-beating were CONSIDERED evil in all societies everywhere. The claim I did make is that child rape and wife beating ARE in fact evil in all societies at all times. And this is true no matter what the members of that society happened to believe. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 11:58:44 GMT -5
And once again, you are evading my request to back up your arguments with facts. You asked me to provide you with a list of unsupported arguments you made. What was the point of that if you didn't want to adress my misgivings in the first place? Did you just ask me for shits and giggles? Did you want to see me jump to another one of your hoops? LOL! In other words, you can't suply a list of unsupported arguments that you allege I made. Let me refresh your memory a bit: unfacts.freeforums.net/post/40316
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 4, 2019 13:18:12 GMT -5
In that post, you list two arguments that I made, one of which was not an argument but a question. Here they are:
"Actually, I have more reason to be suspicious of you because you are a Postmodernist. And Postmodernism says that if a society accepts child rape and wife-beating, then child rape and wife-beating permissible for that society."
According to Postmodernist "principles", each society has its own narratives and there are no meta-narratives. Do you deny this?
rmarks1 Avatar "Aug 30, 2019 at 1:58pm rmarks1 said: Postmodernists believe that logic is merely a method used by white, Western Imperialists to impose their will on people of color, don't they?"
This second argument is a question that you avoided answering.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2019 18:04:10 GMT -5
According to Postmodernist "principles", each society has its own narratives and there are no meta-narratives. Do you deny this?
I have read no post-modern work saying that "each society has its own narratives".
What's your source for that?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Sept 4, 2019 20:32:41 GMT -5
According to Postmodernist "principles", each society has its own narratives and there are no meta-narratives. Do you deny this?
I have read no post-modern work saying that "each society has its own narratives".
What's your source for that? "The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (French: La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir) is a 1979 book by Jean-François Lyotard, in which Lyotard analyzes the notion of knowledge in postmodern society as the end of 'grand narratives' or metanarratives, which he considers a quintessential feature of modernity. Lyotard introduced the term 'postmodernism', which was previously only used by art critics, into philosophy and social sciences, with the following observation: "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives".[1][2][3] " "Postmodern Ethics – Introduction Postmodern ethics is not based on universal or unchanging principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims embrace ethical codes of moral absolutes based on God’s character or moral decree; Secular Humanists, Marxists, and Postmodernists ground their ethical systems in atheism, naturalism, and evolution. Despite springing from the same roots, however, Postmodern ethics differ significantly from Secular Humanist and Marxist ethics.
According to Adam Phillips, “universal moral principles must be eradicated and reverence for individual and cultural uniqueness inculcated.”1 Bob
|
|