Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Most things are absurd and everything is either arbitrary (qualia) or meaningless (quanta).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Nice pun if you intended it.
I did thanks for noticing.
Only in general. Each dam is a little different. And beaver experts can look at a cross-section of a dam and tell you to within 50 years when it was built. Perhaps some of those minor changes could be left up to the beaver's personal taste.
That is fascinating. Do you have a link?
Fashion can also be the the eclectic taste of an eccentric individual. Your definition precludes that. And that is more how I meant "fashion" Than as a "popular trend" among animals.
It's not my definition it's according to Google definitions. I think we can use your preferred definition since this is your thread.
Koko the gorilla was very interested in her appearance by all accounts. Many animals put on displays or make homes designed to impress mates.But can that be truly considered "fashion" under either of our definitions?
I think at least the koko example counts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I'm not sure humans can know anything with objective certainty so no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Fashion is defined in part as a popular trend, especially in styles of dress and ornament or manners of behavior.
Beaver have been building their damns the same way for thousands of years. I would call that a very popular very enduring trend. Koko the gorilla was very interested in her appearance by all accounts. Many animals put on displays or make homes designed to impress mates.
Yeah, I'd say animals are capable of fashion after a fashion.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So what do these three individual stories of the creation of humans all mean?
That when humans do not have enough information to solve a puzzle they tend to start guessing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Yeah it's a point buy thing with an extra point as a humans racial bonus)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
But seriously we aren't dead just yet let's see what happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I ran 2 edition but my character generation process is a variant with a build your own class system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I've never run 5e I'm not sure I will. My old school rules are homebrew though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Standards plural, and they are merely my subjective opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have subjective standards. There are no objective standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The whole point is that I remain uncertain not that I know something. We can know what is observable to us but not if our observations are real. If our observations are real then scientific method is the best method we have yet discovered for separating fact from falsehood. If not then we don't know anything and any attempt to seperate fact from fiction is futile.
Created:
Posted in:
I think what I'm really trying to say is that The Truth can be known to an extent. You might have a friend. You might know this friend really well, but do you know everything about them? No, you can't. But you can know how to be a good friend.So it is with God.
No it is not. I have a direct experience of my friend. Either my perceptions reflect reality and I can therefore assume my friend exists or my perceptions do not reflect reality in which case we cannot ever know anything. In niether case can we presume to know anything that is not observable and so if the ultimate reality is the only real thing and our observable reality is an illusion then we still cannot know it in any capacity whatever. That renders your definition somewhat meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What does that have to do with our ongoing conversation about the nature of reality?
Created:
Posted in:
(We could trade off. This is the quasi dnd thread let's keep it going. I'll take my turn and my rules are super home brewed. But let's see this through first.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I'm sure Snerp will be as delightful a pastry as he was a gnome. Eikka on the other hand. She's gonna choke somebody on the way down.
Created:
@rational madman
Ok if you like. You still have not offered any evidence of your claims though.
Created:
Posted in:
This is the Table Metaphor for a Rational Conversation. (TMFRC)
Imagine if you will, two people in a room.
They both bring with them a table with some number of legs.
The first person says, here's my table, it has six legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The second person says, here's my table, it has nine legs, please let me know if you see any problems.
The two people then examine the tables and if there's a structural problem with one of the legs, they point out the problem and give the other a chance to modify or repair the flaws.
If a leg is fundamentally flawed it must be removed from that table.
If either table has fewer than three legs, it can no longer function as a table and that person will have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a (possibly similar) but better table.
Perhaps both tables will stand, and perhaps both tables will fall.
However, if one table stands and the other falls, there is absolutely no obligation for the person with the fallen table to adopt the design of the table that didn't fall.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, imagine that one of the two people decides to employ an argumentum ad ignorantiam. - https://en.wikipedia.org...
Person (a) says, here's my table and it has seven legs.
Person (b) says, I don't like any of those legs because they look strange (ad hominem).
Person (a) says, perhaps they look a little strange to you, but they do a perfectly good job of holding up my table, can you please explain, if you believe they don't support my table, what specific -structural-problem- can you identify?
Person (b) refuses to answer this question and instead says, my table is better and therefore your table is wrong (bald assertion, argumentum ad lapidem, false dichotomy).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about, you haven't shown me your table. AND more to the point, even if your table is "perfect" it does not make my table "wrong". You still need to explain any structural flaws you are able to identify.
Person (b) says, well, it's difficult to describe my table but it is waaaay better than yours, so yours is wrong. I saw a table like your once and it was so dangerous it fell over and killed a bunch of people and made babies cry. (false dichotomy, emotional appeal, bald assertion, strawman, affirming the consequent, and argumentum ad baculum).
Person (a) says, that's not really how this works. You have to show me your table.
Person (b) says, my table is round and has like nine million legs (bald assertion).
Person (a) says, can you be a little more specific?
Person (b) says, YOU CAN'T PROVE MY TABLE IS WRONG (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, what table are you talking about? It is obviously impossible for me to point out structural flaws in a table that either doesn't exist or that you refuse to show to me or that you only explain in ridiculously vague terms.
Person (b) says, I can't be bothered to show you my table because you could never understand it (ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam).
Person (a) says, if you can't (or won't) show me your table and at least three legs, I think this conversation is over.
Can you show me your table rational madman or do you just want to keep telling me how good it is without presenting it for examination?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Citation needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are under no obligation to respond at all let alone provide evidence that supports your claims but if you cannot or will not provide such evidence don't be surprised when I reject your claims.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well the earth is round and space is real so...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My time is limited. Can you give me any reason to believe that any video you provide is based on peer reviewed science rather than conspiracy theories?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Falling is an emergent quality of gravity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I would need a citation of every one of these points except for point one which is irrelevant since the bible constitutes a claim not evidence.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That you dismiss gravity is not a point in your favor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Can you offer the videos bibliography?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My time is limited. Can you give me any reason to believe that any video you provide is based on peer reviewed science rather than conspiracy theories?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have looked into the flat earth society's web site. They do not appear to rely on peer reviewed science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's based on both science and conspiracy theories but since they (Illuminati) own the peer reviewing committee in any high ranking science-based corporation it's rarely peer-reviewed beyond fellow thinkers reviewing one another (actually there's been attempts to debunk it made by round-earthers and many logical fallacies in their videos).
Citation needed.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I would like you to either provide evidence of your assertions or retract them but I have no reason to believe that you will do either of those things based on past experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
My time is limited. Can you give me any reason to believe that any video you provide is based on peer reviewed science rather than conspiracy theories?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am asking for a citation which justifies your claim that
A) there is a god.
B) that god created man or woman.
C) that woman was created first.
D) that woman was made in this hypothesis god's image.
E) that man was created with a purpose.
F) that this purpose is the protection and pleasure of women.
G) that this hypothetical god is female.
H) that elite humans (or superhuman vampire-like beings) exist.
I) that elite humans (or superhuman vampire-like beings) are toying with or experimenting on us.
It would be best to have a seperate citation for each of your claims but until have provided a citation of the first premise (that there is a god) there is really no reason to even consider the rest of your premises as they presuppose the first premise as correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am unsure what you mean. Could you possibly rephrase this statement?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I can consider any idea. I can also dismiss any claim for which there is no sufficient evidence. Scientific method is quite simply the best method we have yet discovered for separating fact from falsehood. Scientific method relies on observations of repeatable testing with reliably consistent results. The peer review process is a good method for ensuring that a given test is repeatable and has reliably consistent results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If the ultimate truth is unknowable then we cannot have any conversation aboit it that consists,of anything other than conjecture.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
No I mean citation. That you are unable to provide any citation does not remove the need for citation before I could accept your claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There is compelling evidence and peer reviewed studies which confirm the earth is a rough spheroid. There are conspiracy theories with no scientific backing which claim the earth is flat. Also human beings travel to space regularly and you and I are dependent on satellites to communicate with each other. If your hypothesis were correctvwe could not actually discuss it.
YouTube videos are not adequate citation in and of themselves though many such videos based on science fact do have an attached bibliography which could be considered adequate citation.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Citation needed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I have never been presented with compelling evidence for or against the idea that some god(s) exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It would seem to be the angle the picture was taken from. In any case you are mistaken in this.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What the bible says is immaterial. I am asking for a citation which justifies your claim that
A) there is a god.
B) that god created man or woman.
C) that woman was created first.
D) that woman was made in this hypothesis god's image.
E) that man was created with a purpose.
F) that this purpose is the protection and pleasure of women.
G) that this hypothetical god is female.
H) that this hypothetical god is toying with or experimenting on us.
It would be best to have a seperate citation for each of your claims but until have provided a citation of the first premise (that there is a god) there is really no reason to even consider the rest of your premises as they presuppose the first premise as correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
There are many pictures available including pictures taken from earths moon. Just type "satellite pictures of earth" into the Google search engine and you will have literally thousands of images at your disposal. I'm afraid that in this you are mistaken.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The bible is not an adequate citation. An example of an adequate citation would be a peer reviewed study which involves a repeatable test verifying your hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Did you know that there are satelites equiped with cameras in orbit around the earth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I'm sorry no one replied I think this is a relatively interesting topic.
Created: