Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.Often, trolls like to claim that they are innately deserving of respect in a debate. Like many other entries in the Doggerel series, this particular "point" is often intended to distract from the actual arguments being raised. Like cries of "ad hominem," this complaint essentially cherrypicks the skeptics' arguments in an attempt to cover up their meaningful content.
First, respect is something that is supposed to be earned. If you conduct yourself poorly, spout old canards after claiming to have researched the issue, and get pedantic about completely irrelevant details, you're not entitled. In fact, if you do that, you're earning major brownie points towards great disrespect.
Second, whatever you're defending is not automatically equal with modern science. If you've got some crazy idea that goes against mainstream theories, don't spend your time whining about how you're treated. Knuckle under, get actual evidence, and *gasp* rebut your opponent's actual arguments instead of ignoring them. That's what Galileo did.
(This particular Doggerel entry is subject to added nuance.)
---
Doggerel Index
39 comments:
SOMETHING YOU SHOULD NOT WHINE ABOUT AND FROM WHICH YOU NEED TO EARN RESPECT
You are a thumb-sucking, amoral, incoherent crybaby.
Hopefully the above lends support for your thesis.
Let me get this straight:
I'm amoral, even though you've hinted at a violent nature inside you from what you've said about my cat, plus suicide "jokes." It's especially funny, since you've never established a basis for your alleged morality.
I'm a crybaby, except I never whined. Closest I ever recall coming to that is repeatedly calling you out for your 150 year old lies, where you pretend that I'm advocating a near-opposite of what I actually am.
You can't even tell the difference between opposites like "before" and "after," don't even know what's being argued at any given moment, and randomly post non-sequiturs, and you're calling me incoherent?
I'm amoral, even though you've hinted at a violent nature inside you from what you've said about my cat, plus suicide "jokes."
Lot's of people kill animals, get over it. You are amoral (not immoral as you think) because you have no moral basis by which you acquire your morals.
BTW, You tubes do not work here. I tried already.
Lot's of people kill animals, get over it.
Glad to see you're still completely oblivious to and/or avoiding the issue. Why don't you try not obfuscating?
Perhaps you'd also like to stop implying I'm some kind of PETA nut.
You are amoral (not immoral as you think) because you have no moral basis by which you acquire your morals.
Sounds to me that by that definition, everyone is amoral, then, including you and your deity.
By my definition everyone except the atheist have a moral standard. Mine happens to be the more reliable, the Bible.
It's a moral standard which you reject, but nevertheless a moral standard indeed.
By my definition everyone except the atheist have a moral standard.
Strange. And here I thought love, teamwork, and compassion existed. Silly me.
Now I know morality is entirely defined by what Weapon. Learn something every day.
Mine happens to be the more reliable, the Bible.
Evidence?
It's a moral standard which you reject, but nevertheless a moral standard indeed.
Yeah, I'm evil for not thinking it's okay to beat your slaves as long as you don't beat them too hard. Or for rejecting the notion that it's okay to even own slaves.
Since you used a picture of Rodney Dangerfield, I'm reminded that the epithet on his tombstone reads:
"Even in Hell I get no respect."
You can't help but love the guy.
Your SB YouTube video link thing works just fine, as far as I can tell. And I'm using that crappiest of craptactular browsers, IE 7.0.
Is WoMI / Cocksnack capable of making a true statement?
...because you have no
moral basis by which you acquire your morals
One of the silliest things fundies say.
P.S Cocksnack: Typing in all caps is annoying to the point it makes you look (even more) foolish.
I am an atheist.
I'm also a humanist, and I believe the humanist manifesto is a pretty good starting point for a basis of morality.
Guess I'm just amoral in some people's standards, because the people who wrote my "rules" don't pretend they just transcribed a god's words.
Strange. And here I thought love, teamwork, and compassion existed. Silly me.
They do, but not in an atheist moral standard, not even in the Communist Manifesto.
Typing in all caps is annoying to the point it makes you look (even more) foolish.
Kinda like how annoying it is that every time you open your mouth an incoherent ad hominem launches out.
Thanks for the tip. I'll remember that next time I want to annoy you.
They do, but not in an atheist moral standard, not even in the Communist Manifesto.
Funny, I thought you said Biblical morals were reliable, and yet here you are, bearing false witness.
Oh, and what does a sometimes vaguely animist religion have to do with atheism? Besides, didn't Communists (well, Stalinists, specifically) throw evolutionary scientists into gulags and rewrite the dictionary to define genes and heredity to be mythical Capitalist constructs?
Kinda like how annoying it is that every time you open your mouth an incoherent ad hominem launches out.
Thanks for the tip. I'll remember that next time I want to annoy you.
That's right. Just cover your ears and every non-ad hominem argument we've made, often backed by replicable scientific studies, just goes away. Your Biblical moral relativism does wonders when you're permitted double-standards.
Yes, I know how cut and paste links as well.
It's called a lazy refutation.
Funny, I thought you said Biblical morals were reliable, and yet here you are, bearing false witness.
Even if it were true, it would be I bearing false witness, not the Bible, unless you can prove that my comment was a direct quotation from the Bible. As usual, simplicity escapes you.
YOU MUST BE A THUMBSUCKING, AMORAL, INCOHERENT CRYBABY
Yes, I know how cut and paste links as well.
It's called a lazy refutation.
Since when was laziness a necessary part of validity? Does 2 + 2 only equal 4 if I add them really hard?
What's next? Is truth going be determined like a fall fashion, or aesthetic value? Maybe next you'll tell me that starlight causes cancer when I'm angry, and then cures it when I feel like laughing?
Come back after you've dug yourself out of Deepak Chopra's hole.
It's a moral standard which you reject, but nevertheless a moral standard indeed.
[irony]
Come one, is this a two-way street or what?
[/irony]
If the Bible remains a moral standard even as we "THUMBSUCKING, AMORAL, INCOHERENT CRYBABIES" reject it, then is not any standard to which we appeal (i.e. the aforementioned humanist manifesto, secular ethics like Kant's or John Stuart Mill's, or, hell, even that beast known as "common decency") still a standard, though you reject it?
[irony]
It's the one way street of the fundie, in the fanciful land of Intelligent Design!
Ha!
[/irony]
See how I did that? Great, huh?
I still find the "lazy" complaint funny.
Here's a lesson in objective reality, Weapon:
The soundness of an argument is a boolean value: It is either sound, or it is not. 1 or 0.
To be sound, an argument must have two features:
First, its premises must be true. A statement is either true, or it is false. 1 or 0. A premise can't be 64% true and 36% false, for instance.
Second, the argument must be valid: The conclusion must logically follow from the premises. It either follows or it doesn't. 1 or 0.
Laziness, however, is subjective and relative. There are no measurable units of laziness (at least none to my knowledge). You can only define a person's level of laziness relative to someone else's laziness.
If you're arguing that the soundness of those talkorigins refutations is dependent on my laziness, you're pretty much arguing that logic and truth are subjective and relative, rather than absolute and objective.
At least Bronze Dog formats his "lazy" rebuttals into links. He has to do the whole [a href=""] code and everything. All you do, WoMI, is lift your text straight from whatever idiot site you found it on, and paste it into the window, without regard to length or point. Seems like BD's laziness requires more effort than yours.
Cocksnack,
1. You are a fuck. Why do I say that instead of refuting your brilliant discourse?
2. You are a fuck. Seriously, I need to get inside the mind of a troll. Do you get jollies coming on our blog and typing comments in all caps like a 12 year old AOL gremlin? Do you know what a troll is?
3. You are a fuck. A troll is simply a jackass whose sole purpose in life is to annoy other people. I thought you were supposed to knock on doors and hand out fliers and shit?
4. You are a fuck. You make me laugh; I don't "debate" you anymore, I just make fun of you. You say stupid shit and never back it up, and require evidence for everything we say. When we do provide evidence, you ignore it.
5. You are a fuck. And Jesus was an axe-wielding homosexual serial killer.
Fuck Off.
Since when was laziness a necessary part of validity? Does 2 + 2 only equal 4 if I add them really hard?
According to your worldview, it took millions of years for 2+2 to equal 4.
What's next? Is truth going be determined like a fall fashion, or aesthetic value? Maybe next you'll tell me that starlight causes cancer when I'm angry, and then cures it when I feel like laughing?
Well, its certainly cannot be determined from an atheistic standard, since none exist.
If the Bible remains a moral standard even as we "THUMBSUCKING, AMORAL, INCOHERENT CRYBABIES" reject it, then is not any standard to which we appeal (i.e. the aforementioned humanist manifesto, secular ethics like Kant's or John Stuart Mill's, or, hell, even that beast known as "common decency") still a standard, though you reject it?
If you ask an atheist what his moral standard is, the majority cannot give a straightforward answer. The few that do (by making one up, I suppose) give a thousand different standards. The differences in opinion among atheists can hardly be considered a standard. From a historical perspective, none exists.
It's the one way street of the fundie, in the fanciful land of Intelligent Design!
I just love it when the opposition copies me. Thanks for the inferred compliment.
Laziness, however, is subjective and relative. There are no measurable units of laziness (at least none to my knowledge). You can only define a person's level of laziness relative to someone else's laziness.
If you're arguing that the soundness of those talkorigins refutations is dependent on my laziness, you're pretty much arguing that logic and truth are subjective and relative, rather than absolute and objective.
Mumble jumble. I suppose the bumb down the street who refuses to find a job is not lazy according to your subjective standard.
Simplicity escapes you.
Seems like BD's laziness requires more effort than yours.
Well I am glad that you at least confer to Bronzedog's laziness.
When I first started laughing, one of the comments I made in my head was "You can't make this stuff up!"
But that's exactly what Weapon did, and that's why it's so funny.
For the 2+2 thing, Weapon, you might want to focus on getting out of that hole you're sharing with Deepak Chopra. Human consciousness doesn't create or alter the universe on such a fundamental level. The universe doesn't work according to the principles espoused by crystal-wielding, "quantum" dowsing, newage (rhymes with sewage) acupuncturist.
I find it absolutely hilarious how you pretend we don't have standards while you're busy arguing that there is no universal truth: It's all relative and subjective, dependent on how much effort I put into an argument.
Scroll back up and read the lesson on how objective reality and logic work.
Subjective is not objective. Black is not white. Freedom is not slavery. Ignorance is not strength.
If you ask an atheist what his moral standard is, the majority cannot give a straightforward answer.
Yeah, just pretend that love, teamwork, and so forth don't exist, and pretend that being unable to compact it all into soundbites is somehow meaningful.
So, how about you show that you're different and give a straightforward answer to your own question: What's the basis for your morality? Here's a hint: Arbitrary middlemen and intermediaries don't count.
I just love it when the opposition copies me. Thanks for the inferred compliment.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of irony.
Mumble jumble. I suppose the bumb down the street who refuses to find a job is not lazy according to your subjective standard. Simplicity escapes you.
So, if Chewbacca is a wookie, I must acquit? Why, exactly is that?
What does laziness have to do with objective fact? This isn't some mamby-pampy, wishy-washy newage world of subjective reality.
Arguments are either sound, or they are not sound. Arbitrary, meaningless, subjective criteria like "laziness" do not change reality on a person-by-person basis.
Well I am glad that you at least confer to Bronzedog's laziness.
So far, you're the only one who cares about something so meaningless. The rest of us will spend our time in objective reality where truth values don't change every day for every person whenever his mood changes.
Human consciousness doesn't create or alter the universe on such a fundamental level.
Nice strawman, but I never made such statement. If you want to argue that point, I suggest you go to Chopra's blog.
For someone who is so ready to blow the whistle on logical fallacies (even when they are valid)you sure make liberal use of them.
I find it absolutely hilarious how you pretend we don't have standards while you're busy arguing that there is no universal truth: It's all relative and subjective, dependent on how much effort I put into an argument.
Some more wishful thinking.
Your fired, allow someone else to be the logical fallacy referee.
Yeah, just pretend that love, teamwork, and so forth don't exist, and pretend that being unable to compact it all into soundbites is somehow meaningful.
There is a difference in being able to provide a moral standard and being able to name of moral principles. You are good in the latter but bankrupt in the former.
So, how about you show that you're different and give a straightforward answer to your own question: What's the basis for your morality? Here's a hint: Arbitrary middlemen and intermediaries don't count.
You do not hear very well. Selective hearing disease, I presume. My moral standard is the Bible.
Since you do not have a moral standard, I guess your only defense is to turn the table.
Typical
What does laziness have to do with objective fact? This isn't some mamby-pampy, wishy-washy newage world of subjective reality.
Your right (we agree for once), only in the fanciful land of the evolutionists.
Arguments are either sound, or they are not sound. Arbitrary, meaningless, subjective criteria like "laziness" do not change reality on a person-by-person basis.
In Bronzedog's world, everything (except his own opinions of course)is subjective.
Here is a very simple request, Weapon.
Make up your mind!
First, you dismiss a list of refutations because, for some random, bizarre reason, you think that a relative trait that subjectively varies with how the person posts a refutation renders it moot. Sorry, Weapon, but a refutation's soundness is an objective, boolean value.
Then, you make fun of me for allegedly being subjective despite the fact that I clearly stated that reality has an objective, absolute truth and pointed out your reliance on a nonsensical, irrelevant, qualitative trait.
Stop trying to project your waffling onto me. Stop trying to pretend that your imaginary cardboard cutout applies to real life. Stop living inside the fictional world inside your mind and debate the real me.
I believe that reality has an absolute, objective truth, and objective logic that can be used to arrive at previously unknown truths.
Weapon, however, waffles, waffles, waffles. Reality in his world changes depending on how much effort a person expends (How "lazy" they are) making a statement. I'd hate to see how much convenience is involved in his morality, given his epistemological nihilism. Come back when you decide that truth exists, Weapon.
If anyone want to experience one big knotted up mumble jumble, simply read the post directly above.
You unnecessarily muddle up objective, absolute concepts like "soundness" with arbitrary, subjective, relative terms like "laziness" and you expect us to think I'm muddling things up?
How about we test your crazy assertion: Let's get a lazy man and a workaholic to both add up 2 + 2, and measure how truthful the answer of 4 is for both of them. If it's absolutely true for both, rather than at varying levels for each, I think we can safely throw out your twisted Chopra-esque line of reasoning.
Cocksnack, please.
The phrase you are looking for is "mumbo jumbo."
You look like enough of an idiot without misusing that too.
If you ask an atheist what his moral standard is, the majority cannot give a straightforward answer. The few that do (by making one up, I suppose) give a thousand different standards.
Only a thousand? Wow. That's orders of magnitude better than the myriad Christian sects and factions (dead or kicking), all ignoring different parts of scripture, and all with different "interpretations". And, of course, all following "the true word of God".
Of course atheism doesn't offer a shrink-wrapped moral standard. But neither does the Bible. The societies we happen to be born in do, however. Have you noticed that an atheist who does something socially unacceptable doesn't defend his actions with statements like "There's no god(s) and I'm allowed to do anything I want"? That's because we don't really get to chose wether we're social beings or not.
Post a Comment