(January 8, 2012 at 5:33 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 6, 2012 at 8:57 pm)theVOID Wrote: maybe you'd like to explain what it is, rather than just asserting it?

^^^ This

I DID explain my reasoning for position 1, you have had ample opportunity to contest it but as usual you've avoided doing so while still acting as if you had.

Let me defend premise 1 with another logical argument.

1. The soundness of an argument depends on the truth value of it's premises as well as the validity of the logic.

2. An assumed premise can be assigned no truth value.

Therefore:

3. An argument with an assumed premise is inherently unsound.

---

In further defence of 2:

Assumptions necessarily have no truth value, at best they are useful for conditional reasoning (if x then y), but these conditional arguments themselves cannot demonstrate the truth of any considered premise, only to find the conclusion of a valid argument given the premise assumed.

Premises that do have truth value are either themselves proved to be true or are assigned probabilities, an assumed premise is necessarily neither of these - An argument with a probabilistic premise can only give a probabilistic conclusion and even then the argument is unsound if the probability of a given event is falsely stated.

--

An example of an argument with an assumed premise.

1. The wave functions of all particles are only collapsed by ethereal farting clowns (assumed premise).

2. The universe has always experienced the collapsing of wave functions.

Therefore;

3. Ethereal farting clowns have existed since the beginning of the universe.

You can see that premise 1 is assumed thus leading through valid logic to the conclusion in 3, yet this argument is entirely unsound because of the assumed premise.

It does not matter what this assumption is, no assumptions have any more inherent value than any other.

(January 6, 2012 at 12:16 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: You still did not get the point did you?

No evidence of X is not the same as X does not exist. You made the equation "No evidence for X = X does not exist". It is incorrect. That is what I responded to. You then wanted to argue that your equation is correct by bringing up Santa Claus as an example and the equation still is incorrect. "No evidence for Santa Claus" does not equate to "Santa Clause does not exist". There are other arguments you can make to make a case that Santa does not exist, but "No evidence for X = No X" is not it. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe X to be real or not, or whether or not I know X to be real or not, it is simply a matter of your equation being incorrect.

You want to argue this pet peeve of yours go ahead, but if you are too stubborn to see the error in your reasoning, that is not philosophy's fault.

But we KNOW santa isn't real therefore philosobabble should stay the fuck away from it!

There is no need to argue that santa is not real, he isn't. The end. Or so it should be.

Whether we know that Santa is real or not depends very much on how you define knowledge. What is your definition?, because I'll guarantee it isn't the same one we're using.

Righto, the santa that we talk about today - the magic one that gets down, what 1 billion chimneys in one night? knows where every kid lives, flys through the air on his magic sleigh - he's made up, right? We know this, right?

To say "lack of evidence of this being does not prove this being isn't real" in this instance is irrelevant, because we know he's made up. Know not believe. Know. And we know, because we made him up. And he's impossible.

My definition of knowledge? Can't see the relevance in this instance.

Your definition of knowledge is perhaps the only thing that is relevant in this instance.

To illustrate the point, how do we know we made him up? I certainly didn't make him up. Were you around when he was supposedly "made up"...I don't think so. At some point in your chain of knowledge, you reach uncertainty and have to rely on belief.

How do we know we made him up? Because he goes down everybodies chimney in 24 hours and this is obviously impossible, therefore the santa that we describe today CANNOT BE real. So, he's made up.

@ VOID right thanks. There can be no set truth value because otherwise it woyuldn't be an assumption. That the assumption leads to substantial truth value then of course you have to dismiss it, which is a weakness of your denial I think. And the strength of the proposition.

(January 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: How do we know we made him up? Because he goes down everybodies chimney in 24 hours and this is obviously impossible, therefore the santa that we describe today CANNOT BE real. So, he's made up.

How do you know that's impossible?

Not even worthy of a fucking answer.

(January 3, 2012 at 3:27 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: My wife talked to me about this case and helped me to understand it. She managed to do it in a way that didn't sound like male bashing. I'm going to try to pass it on.

Women are terrified of being raped, stalked or sexually harassed. This is not just hypersensitivity but due to a very real danger. I've heard various statistics that suggest about 1 in 4 will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. A wary woman does well to be suspicious of a male stranger that approaches her in a confined area.

I don't appreciate that blanket. Being stalked is scary, but it is not knowing what the stalker plans on doing that is most terrifying for me. For me... being sexually harassed is enraging, but not scary unless there is implied physical threat behind the words or touching. And for me... rape is numbing, will-shattering, painful, traumatizing... and yes, terrifying. Most, many, some fraction... these are the words that should have started that.

But I am not afraid of being raped simply to be alone and near a stranger (male or female). There is not a very real danger of any man raping someone (nor is there of any woman doing so). If someone makes you uncomfortable: fine, leave. Immediately being uncomfortable upon being alone with a man? You have as many issues as someone being instantly uncomfortable with a black person. And I will not respect that. Because at that point you are not being wary: you are being sexist. I don't give that the honor of calling it 'hypersensitive'.

1/4 of women may be sexually assaulted in their lifetime... I don't have any evidence to the contrary and I'm not going to argue it. But it is very unlikely that they will be sexually assaulted by a stranger. Boyfriends, husbands, fathers, uncles, grandfathers, great uncles, family friends, (insert similar but female), cousins, friends... these are the people who spend the most time with a woman, who have the most chances to catch her alone, who have the most power over her. A wary woman isn't one who is suspicious of anyone... she is the woman who is suspicious of what she sees that gives her cause for doubt. Mind... not even the wariest of women can catch everything.

Quote:For men, this is a difficult fear to fully understand, since we're not as physically vulnerable to being raped. An invitation to coffee seems innocent enough, right? What we don't realize is that from the woman's perspective, every male stranger is a potential attacker. He asked her in a confined space. She had nowhere to run. His intentions may have been innocent but he may have unwittingly creeped her out just from the circumstances. Also, his invitation to HIS ROOM rather than a public area like the hotel was another source of creepyness.

True, you're not necessarily as vulnerable to it... but you probably still have a mouth and anus, you have weight and a body that can be forced about, you have hands that can be made to work to someone else's end. Some men are transmen, but I'll intentionally ignore that exception for now. And shame, numbness, weakness, and submissiveness can likely all be evoked from someone who is being raped, rendering all the muscles in the world worthless for a time.

One is not protected from being raped just because they lack one body part and a (fair) bit more muscle. Not even close to 'safe', though they're usually 'safe-r' for it i(because most men appear to be heterosexual, and rape is necessarily sexual in intent). What you don't seem to realize (and I'm trying to help you with that) is that being a woman does not instantly make a girl scared of men they don't know. Sure... many women might hold such a sexist fear, maybe even most do... but not all.

Whatever happened between that woman and that man I do not know. Maybe he's some crazy pervert creeper... maybe he's a misunderstood thoughtful guy... I can't say. I've not heard what he said, and I've not seen the state she was in at the time, and I was never there and never will be. There still is no excuse to rant about a guy in an elevator unless he actually did something (which neither she nor he say he did).

Quote:For men, it's important to realize this fear exists and to always make sure when we approach a woman that she's not in a confined space or in any other situation where she feels like she can't say "no" with no consequences.

For women, please understand our difficulty to understand your legitimate fears. You will do better to calmly explain them in the way I just have rather than just assume we're insensitive jerks.

There are always consequences to 'no'. And there are always consequences to 'yes'. Consequence is not an inherently negative being... but as nonpedantic as I can be: in general I agree with the message of: don't be an asshole... think a little before you speak. Far more effective a message, I believe, than 'fear all men for they are the mighty rapist'!

I'm certainly not about to call you insensitive, or a jerk. I have done things like that in the past, and I'm not proud of it. Not that I will or have changed, but I don't make it a habit of mine.

---

(January 6, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I honestly think I should create an online female persona and start an atheist feminist blog, just to see how many mindless drones I can get following me.

Just remember: nothing is too extreme

You'll never get followers being a moderate