This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 252253254 255256 ... 502
7591
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:38:48 PM »
All I managed to see while skipping through boring parts........were more boring parts.
"trying to find these people" etc.
Is there a tl:dr for this?
Edit: wow. They don't even debunk the video.
That was a huge waste of time.
You're only supposed to watch the part immediately after where it's linked to begin >.>
That doesn't work when you embed the video.
It works for me. . .
7592
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:37:50 PM »
All I managed to see while skipping through boring parts........were more boring parts.
"trying to find these people" etc.
Is there a tl:dr for this?
Edit: wow. They don't even debunk the video.
That was a huge waste of time.
You're only supposed to watch the part immediately after where it's linked to begin >.>
7593
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:18:37 PM »
. . .
Before going anywhere else, let my clarify my prior comment. Absence of evidence for the truth of synthetic religious propositions--about the supposed empirical content of God-- only counts as evidence of absence post-observation.
7594
« on: February 09, 2015, 03:12:17 PM »
Fuck me Watch for about half a minute from 34:00 on >.>
7595
« on: February 09, 2015, 02:58:43 PM »
Proof =/= evidence.
Genuine question - what's the difference?
Proof is normally considered absolute. Evidence is probabilistic. It's a blurred line, but "burden of proof" isn't actually any burden of demonstrating absolutely that something is true. It's better interpreted as the burden to prove that your proposition is the most probable.
7596
« on: February 09, 2015, 02:50:14 PM »
This all seems redundant if you're going to make the claim that nothing is absolutely provable--something to which I agree. What I don't agree with, fundamentally, is that absence of evidence is evidence for absence. I can't accept that.
As per the example given in the other thread with the raptor, I can keep obfuscating its existence to the point where there's absolutely no humanly possible method right now that will allow you to verify its existence--and your response to that is to lock up the individual who sees the raptor. Or call him stupid for believing its existence.
Sure, you can do that, but you still haven't proven its nonexistence. Because you can't. So what you'd do in response to the person in question who sees the raptor is... vastly irrelevant.
Proof =/= evidence. Nobody's arguing we can prove the non-existence of this invisible raptor, but the significant lack of evidence against it is more than enough warrant for us to assert its non-existence probabilistically. Absence of evidence as evidence of absence is only applicable after observations which yield no evidence in favour of your synthetic propositions. I'm not claiming a refusal by you to provide evidence for this raptor is evidence of absence. I'm saying attempts to observe the empirical properties of this raptor which repeatedly yield nothing is evidence of absence. Like, the absence of evidence for milk in the bowl is evidence of its absence.
7597
« on: February 09, 2015, 01:50:38 PM »
There's a lot of confusion about what the burden of proof actually is. Literally, the burden of proof is the requirement of an individual or group to warrant a certain epistemic position.
Atheism does have propositional content. You often hear atheists claim that the burden of proof lies with those making the positive claim--in this case theism--which is by all means absolutely correct but it misses the larger epistemic difference. When theists claim atheists have no proof of their position, it is somewhat misleading for two reasons I) it's often conflated with the assertion "a deity (or deities) definitely do not exist and II) the only evidence you can gain for something's non-existence is negative evidence (or evidence of absence).
However, that doesn't excuse atheism of any burden. The negation of X is necessarily a proposition which entails its own negative evidence, or further propositions with positive evidence themselves. Saying "I don't believe X" is epistemically identical to saying "X is false"; the only difference is a linguistic trick which denotes personal impositions of probability. The burden of proof for both instances is identical, as establishing your lack of belief is exactly the same as pragmatically establishing something's falsehood, otherwise you wouldn't lack belief in the first instance. This isn't a controversial claim to make, like, at all; it's pretty much what every atheist does in a debate when they properly counter theistic claims, but there seems to be a general consensus within the community that atheists lack a burden of proof for their propositions.
The lack of evidence for something--given observation and non-confirmation of positive synthetic propositions--is evidence for the lack of it. And, indeed, positive propositions can contradict other positive propositions; creationism specifically is refuted--not only by the negative evidence of atheism as an ontological claim--but the overwhelming positive evidence of evolution. We should present our evidence for our positive assertions, and we should present our negative evidence to establish the probabilistic assertion of "God doesn't exist".
The burden of proof is not some essence of epistemology, in which propositions take part. It's a functional rule, that applies only insofar as people are willing to refuse or volunteer to uphold it. If the main claiming the invisible unicorn fails to substantiate his claims, his burden of proof should be pointed out repeatedly, but there comes a point where it's worthwhile to break out the infra-red cameras and capture some negative evidence.
7598
« on: February 09, 2015, 01:30:18 PM »
I'm just not convinced.
So be it. I think I've represented my case well enough, so I'll leave it here.
7599
« on: February 09, 2015, 01:22:02 PM »
it's public opinion.
HA, so are things like anti-LGBT views that you--rightfully--criticise. Being 'opinion' doesn't grant it any form of legitimacy or freedom from criticism. I'm not asking you to move the world, I'm asking you to not assume people are transphobic just because a strongly Democratic website managed to shoehorn their biases into a vague bill from a GOP member. If you're going to insist on calling this guy--specifically this representative and his bill--transphobic on that basis, you're both bigoted and stupid.
7600
« on: February 09, 2015, 01:03:24 PM »
Stupidity, however, isn't quite the same as transphobia.
But the GOP and their supporters have demonstrated a history of anti-LGBT positions and attempted legislation. It's not exactly a stretch.
You can criticise the policies of the Republican Party generally and the moral underpinnings of its religious support base, but if you're going to start attaching allegations to names you need something a lot more fucking substantial.
You can't just say, "Well, the fact that he's a Republican means I need less evidence for these allegations". THAT is prejudiced.
7601
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:59:57 PM »
A potential jail sentence implies that it's a felony, unless I'm just rusty on my civics. It's only a felony if the potential sentence runs over a year. It's discriminatory because it pointlessly enforces something that's already the law. That's literally nonsensical. The point is, however, it's not already the bloody law. I even agree it's fucking stupid. Stupidity, however, isn't quite the same as transphobia.
7602
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:52:56 PM »
That's a fucking serious allegation of bigotry and you know it, tantamount to racism.
...not coming out of the GOP camp, it isn't. They've been fighting same sex marriage and LGBT-rights tooth and nail.
We doing guilt by association now? You can criticise the policies of the Republican Party generally and the moral underpinnings of its religious support base, but if you're going to start attaching allegations to names you need something a lot more fucking substantial. You can't just say, "Well, the fact that he's a Republican means I need less evidence for these allegations". THAT is prejudiced.
7603
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:49:37 PM »
so I'm not sure what the point of this bill is
Neither am I, but. . . Y'know, that's politics. Like I said to Kupo, my national parliament has banned the production of certain kinds of pornography. It's most likely that he's doing it for the sake of legislation under his name. Your ignorance of a potential other motivation doesn't immediately mean the only reasonable conclusion is transphobia. That's a fucking serious allegation of bigotry and you know it, tantamount to racism. If you're going to accuse somebody of it, have some tangible evidence besides a very vague bill and hurr durr republicans.
7604
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:47:12 PM »
Bumping the penalty up to a felony is unnecessarily draconian. What? I explicitly said it was a misdemeanour. . . Not a felony. Nonetheless, I actually agree that it's unnecessarily Draconian to have these kinds of punishments for using the wrong bathroom. . . I said it wouldn't have been Draconian if it didn't change the existing law (as you implied it didn't), but it does. That and the fact that it's a waste of time is only evidence in favor of arguments that it's discriminatory. I don't know what kind of gymnastics you performed to reach the opposite conclusion.
Very inflexible gymnastics. If it changes nothing, by virtue of just being in line with existing law, it can't be discriminatory because it changes nothing.
7605
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:37:11 PM »
I'm complaining that entering the bathroom that doesn't match your birth sex carries the threat of a fine and a year in jail.
So you're complaining about excessive punishment? That's probably a better angle than transphobia. Sure, I agree with that. Now change your title and the body of your post to something that is empirically supported and not mindless GOP-bashing.
7606
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:36:09 PM »
It was proposed, and that's it. It hasn't even gone up for vote yet. My bad, I saw the date it's supposed to come into effect and assumed it had been passed. Fuck, if it hasn't even been passed what are we moaning about? Not only is evidence for the bill being transphobic incredibly weak, but it hasn't even been scutinised or voted upon. And what I'm saying is that it's pointless because that's already what the law says. If that's what the law already says, then the bill is even more demonstrably non-transphobic since it doesn't introduce any new 'Draconian' measures--it's literally a waste of time. However, I don't think that is the law. As far as I'm aware, it isn't a misdemeanour to enter the wrong bathroom in Florida.
7607
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:29:45 PM »
You're the only person talking about unisex and family bathrooms here. . . . With good fucking reason. You're complaining that sex-based bathrooms are being segregated on the basis of sex. That's literally what you are doing. Nobody is being stopped from re-defining the potential arrangement of any new or existing bathrooms. At all.
7608
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:28:06 PM »
..which is a pretty good indicator of the author's intentions
Mmm, not really. You can't just claim the guy is transphobic with no other evidence. He wrote "at birth", he must be trying to undercut post-op trans people! Yeah, no. It's literally just a technical definition that got passed through the House without question; I doubt anybody in Florida would pick up on it, of all places. I'm fairly certain there really is no way of determining whether or not a post-op person was, in fact, previously a different sex.
7609
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:25:42 PM »
It hardly counts if it (likely) doesn't pass. Thank God for the guy's career then, seeing as it was passed. . . Congrats, you took the bait. No, you did. Literally all this bill does it legally segregate bathrooms on the basis of sex. Bathrooms outside of this segregationist arrangement are excluded from the provisions of the bill.
7610
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:23:41 PM »
Post-surgery?
I'd say so. The bill is fucking retarded in defining it as "at birth".
7611
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:19:53 PM »
It literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
...except threaten them with jail time and a fine if they use the "wrong" bathroom
Read. The. Bill. (a) This section does not apply to public facilities that are conspicuously designated for unisex or family use (c) This section does not require any place of public accommodation, school, or place of employment to construct or maintain single-sex public facilities or to modify existing public facilities. Bathrooms that are segregated on the basis of sex are being legally protected from a criminal, and not just civil, perspective. That's literally it.
7612
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:18:28 PM »
could be interpreted that way by a conservative judge?
I don't give a shit if some transphobic judge is going to be stroking his gavel as he fines/jails a person for using the wrong bathroom. Bathrooms are segregated on sex not gender. People are always--rightly--adamant to maintain the difference between the two. So, let's do it here, too.
7613
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:17:16 PM »
There's much more important legislation that could be happen And I'm sure it is. The entire Floridian House of Representatives isn't engaged in vociferous discussion around the issue. I'm not going to try and claim knowledge about the efficacy of laws like these--I actually think it's a dumb idea--or the current state of Florida's legislative process but the guy is probably pushing it for no other reason than to have legislation under his belt. but this chump is taking time out of his day to push the next 20XX Comprehensive Redundant Act of Legislative Bathroom Redundancy Act of 20XX. Yeah, fuckin' politics, man. . . My national parliament has criminalised the production of certain kinds of pornography. But, I'll say it again: It literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
7614
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:06:33 PM »
It's the fact that it exists at all that implies a bias.
You mean like the fact that property rights exist imply a bias towards capitalism? Or is it a bias towards crushing the poor, broken spirits of the Proletariat? I mean, really, come on. You're shoehorning your own biases into this bill by trying to make it look like it was born out of some ignorant hatred. As opposed to a more parsimonious explanation being a bias towards the preservation of privacy? It literally does nothing to hinder the accommodation of trans people.
7615
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:03:54 PM »
What's the purpose of this bill, then?
It adds the further charge of first-degree misdemeanour. And fuck, I don't know if you can sue a woman for walking into the males bathroom in Florida prior to this bill.
7616
« on: February 09, 2015, 12:00:07 PM »
If this bill isn't anti-LGBT It fucking isn't, the bill doesn't even mention transgender people. You cite a source which claims a "hateful" GOP rep. put it forward, explicitly tries to make it look as if a transgender person--specifically--using the wrong bathroom is what's being criminalised and then implies that the bill is trying to say trans people are rapists and perverts. With no evidence for any of it. then who will be monitoring the bathrooms to make sure they're only used by the appropriate biological sex If you read the bill you'd know either the person making the unlawful entry, or the owner promoting the unlawful entry, is liable in cases of civil action from somebody lawfully inside said room. Armband-wearing GOPolice aren't going to be stood guard outside bathrooms.
7617
« on: February 09, 2015, 11:45:35 AM »
You're developing a horrible habit of misrepresenting the intentions and actual consequences of certain political actions and events. From the bill itself: (a) This section does not apply to public facilities that are conspicuously designated for unisex or family use. (c) This section does not require any place of public accommodation, school, or place of employment to construct or maintain single-sex public facilities or to modify existing public facilities. Literally all this bill does is essentially mandate that single-sex bathrooms are used by that fucking sex. It doesn't, at all, require bathrooms to be designated as single-sex, it doesn't require the construction of single-sex bathrooms and it doesn't require the maintenance of single-sex bathrooms. If there's an anti-LGBT bias here, I can't find it in the bill.
7618
« on: February 09, 2015, 09:48:54 AM »
No buts, no explanations, no exceptions.
Well first of all nothing I said even vaguely supports the idea that I think there are no exceptions to certain answers; you've just expressed an incredibly poor proposition. Hell, it wasn't even a proposition, it was a question. If you were to present a proposition which is well-formed (Killing people is always morally wrong) then there's quite a clear capacity for us to give it the epistemic label of true or false. The fact that we can poke holes in incredibly poorly thought out propositions does literally nothing to the true-false dichotomy. Asserting, to any probability or degree, that a proposition is not acceptable entails its negation.
7619
« on: February 08, 2015, 06:12:57 PM »
I shouldn't need to, why would I provide a link to a universally accepted, basic fact of life? I must have missed the memo which let us all know that people don't deal with propositions on a true-false basis. . . So, yeah, either provide some evidence or rescind your claim.
7620
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:58:45 PM »
You are incorrect, it has been proven that the human mind does not think in ways of true or false [citation needed]
Yeah, no. I have philosophy to do by the morning, i'm not going to waste any more time here
What the fuck? Don't make claims like that if you aren't going to provide links for them.
Pages: 1 ... 252253254 255256 ... 502
|
Show Posts