Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's not a straw man, it's an argument by reductio ad absurdam.

Someone implied that he would be unable to make any criticism of religion because of this proposed law. That isn't true as there are specific defences based on rational criticism, etc, provided in the proposed law.

By ignoring these available defences, which would allow him to make scholarly statements for example, his implication is that he should be allowed to say whatever he likes about religion. Of course he can, in private if there is no-one to observe him, but he wants to be free do it in public. Logically he is saying he should be allowed to say anything he likes, anywhere, to anyone, about religion, because freedom of speech trumps other considerations.

How is it "anything he likes," if it only refers to criticism of religion?

How is it "anywhere" if it only applies to public property (i.e. not the property of others?)

Also, the proposed law makes no distinction between private and public property. Saying something "in private if there is no-one to observe him" isn't Speech by any practical legal definition.

It is true that you would be able to criticism with the law in place, although that would need to be criticism you're ready to defend in court against monetary punishment (not exactly a good way to foster a free exchange of ideas).

@Gwar: How do you know the water is real?

Gwar! wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I challenge you Gwar. Tell me one thing that you KNOW to be true, beyond doubt. (P.S. "I think, therefore I am" is taken)

Water is wet at sea level atmospheric pressure and 15 Degrees Celsius.

How do you know it's not just a coincidence?

(Is it bad I originally thought you had responded with "water is wet" to the allegations of arrogance? )

...Orkeosaurus, champion of the OREO, do you accept this challenge where Gwar has failed?

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gwar: How do you know the water is real?

Define real.

Emperors Faithful wrote:...Orkeosaurus, champion of the OREO, do you accept this challenge where Gwar has failed?

A = A.

If that don't cut it, nothing does.

(I suspect dogma will still disprove that one somehow.)

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I meant exactly towards dogma.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Orkesaurus, how do you know that A=A?
What is A? Mabye it's not a letter. Mabye it is a number, mabye it an emotion.

Define A. How do you know A is real?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Exactly.
I meant exactly towards dogma.

Then you didn't understand the question.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
@Orkesaurus, how do you know that A=A?

Because they're the same thing. If A =/= A, then A does not exist. If A does not exist, then A cannot be discussed. Since we are discussing A, then A = A.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What is A? Mabye it's not a letter. Mabye it is a number, mabye it an emotion.

Define A. How do you know A is real?

Why does A have to real in order for it to be A? Unicorns aren't real, but they are still unicorns.

Easy, an A is A. It may also have other properties, but those properties may not include not being A.

::EDIT:: Yeah, this is kind of silly, isn't it?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
A = A.

If that don't cut it, nothing does.

(I suspect dogma will still disprove that one somehow.)

The only way I could manage that is with an unhealthy level of post-modernism.

Well, how do you know there even IS an A.

Well, there's an A, and an A is an A, so there's gotta be an A.

Is there an A though?
Your whole argument is based on the statement that A exists...

(Also, this IS kinda getting off topic, but still fun)

Emperors Faithful wrote:Is there an A though?
Your whole argument is based on the statement that A exists...

Its incredibly disingenuous to presume that A does not exist while using it 5 times in a sentence. Clearly, for you, A exists. The same follows for Orkeo and I. The only thing you could possibly be claiming is the unreality of all reality, which would be an irrelevant point. If nothing is real, then everything is real. The inverse of a totality is always true.

heh, heh, do I exist?
Does Orkeosuarus exist?
If no, then A is but figment, if that.
If yes, then how do you know YOU are real?
I don't know if anyone CAN answer that. If there is an answer.

Also. A is not A. A is a set of lines/types/peices of objects arranged in a particular pattern.

Well, by your Logic, we cannot prove we exist, therefore we do not. If we do not exist, "God" must not exist either.

QED and some other fancy words.

Emperors Faithful wrote:heh, heh, do I exist?
Does Orkeosuarus exist?
If no, then A is but figment, if that.
If yes, then how do you know YOU are real?
I don't know if anyone CAN answer that. If there is an answer.

The post modernist answer is "We're real because we agree we are real" to which a materialist would add "We is inclusive of all things which are material".

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Also. A is not A. A is a set of lines/types/peices of objects arranged in a particular pattern.

Which we describe with the letter A. You're playing a scale game, which is moderately amusing if you like Foucault, or Baudrillard, but irrelevant once you inject practical concerns.

Edit: Because I just realized pomo looks like porno

You SHOULD be able to say anything you want, anywhere you want, to anyone you want. People shouldn't take offence at opinions. It's acting upon these words though, that's what should have limits. I don't like far-right political opinions, for example. Doesn't mean they aren't entitled to be wrong, or to let us know how wrong they are through their words.

There is free speech and there is nonsense the line is like a massive mountain range protected by demonic spirits... plain as day, right and wrong.

Good and Evil need not apply here, we are all out of funny hats.

Here is an example. To debate this point is... well whatever, philosophy and plain old logic are two entirely different things.

I have an apple in my hand.
Some one walks up and takes what my apple.
I do not know this person and they start to call my apple a banana with a rat built into it.
At this point they must be high...

WRONG!!!

Sure they can be wrong, but what if these people somehow take over the world??? WHAT THEN?

We will all be wearing banana suits, running around on our hands while singing "The saints come marching in"... WHAT THEN!!!

Lot of people talking about stuff they do not even understand in this thread, and those people should probably either shut up or do some research.

Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

Must... resist.... Pointing..... at...... Religion.....

I really don't think religion should have ANYTHING to do with laws, aside from keeping haters from running rampant.

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

I suppose so, but no need to keep the argument going.

Wrexasaur wrote:I suppose so, but no need to keep the argument going.

Fair point.

All of you!!

Stop the madness!!

You'll NEVER change each others' minds!!

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Your point being?

Just to finish off the argument of existence, I think, therefore I am.

If you think, therefore you are.

Do you think?

Gwar! wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Your point being?

Previous experience suggests any explanation would be lost on you, despite the fact I broadly agree with many of your posts in this thread.

Fifty wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Fifty wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:Use quotes mate, you need to point errors out to fix them.

I'd be quoting half of the last two pages. And that is before including posts that are arguing semantcs rather than theology.

Your point being?

Previous experience suggests any explanation would be lost on you, despite the fact I broadly agree with many of your posts in this thread.

Translated: I have no Point, I am just a Troll. No offence intended, but that is what your posts are coming off as.