Smut for Smut

[tavarish]

Nope. I think god made the world. We have been over my ability to provide someone like yourself with "evidence" over the internet. Me having to make my own site, and cite the site... But I can prove that when you declare the world inefficient that you define efficiency by proxy, and that the world cannot be as inefficient as you purport. All the animals that went extinct are not a sign of an inefficient world unless an efficient world includes all animals at once...

So you can't back up your claim with anything. Great.

When I said inefficient, it was meant to reflect the outlook common in the Christian account of creation, or even theistic evolution. To get to our stage in development, which by religious doctrine, is what God apparently had in mind initially, why did he need all the extra steps? If he could will us into existence, why did he not do such a thing?

Why take 100 steps instead of taking one?

Evolution is inefficient only if you view it as possessing an ultimate purpose, something akin to what theists propose. In any other case, efficiency would be irrelevant, as there would be nothing it was working towards.

Do you understand?

Oh, I see. Well irreducible complexity is about the best point, that is why I was laughing when you told me I couldn't use it. Please tell me why you disapprove of god, but you cannot mention christians or the bible or creationists. Go.

Yes, irreducible complexity was the best point that creationists had in the Dover trial, and it got literally laughed out of court. I told you not to use it because it takes a little research to realize it has been conclusively refuted and debunked. I wanted you to use something that was legitimate in its approach and information.

What is with you people? Are you Kyu in diguise? There is no such thing as evidence for an opinion. I hold the thought that people are more perverse nowadays. Can I provide evidence? No. What evidence did I make my idea upon? The world I live in... One track minds, evidence evidence evidence...

An opinion statement can start with "I think" or "I believe". You said:

"I would make the point that there is more perversion now than there was 20 years ago."

That is a claim, in which you bear burden of proof.

I know what I said, thank you. It was in response to your argument that 'McDonald's makes money' when I said they were immoral. You maintain that you weren't arguing that making money was a moral quialifier, but I am not sure what you did mean.

I meant exactly what I said.

"I was making the point that Big Macs don't come with inherent moral values. Neither does porn."

By Merriam-Webster's definition, morality is:

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

and the definition of pornography is:

the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography


What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

I also said that Child Slavery makes more money, and you also asked me to prove that. I told you it was an impossible estimate to make. First, I make an assumption without (gasp) backing up my claims. I made an assumption because to all appearances you best argument was that McDonald's can't be bad since it makes all that money, and I was trying to show that bad things make a ton of money by their nature.

You misunderstood my argument, tried to rebut a non-existent argument with a claim you couldn't back up, and now contend that evidence for your claims is somehow unreasonable?

It is not 'invalidated' by this precious 'evidence', it is a statement of opinion.

"Illegal narcotics make more money than guns, food, precious metals, real drugs, houses, cats, and pornography."

How the HELL is that an opinion statement? Is there anything in that sentence which signifies that notion?

It is a claim. Also, why would you think that an opinion wouldn't need evidence to support it?

And I asked if you disagreed with me, if you would take the best that that was an untrue statement. And then, with the best 'evidence' we can produce on the internet, I googled it and posted some sentences. That is evidence. It is fallable, could be written by a monkey, could be untrue, but it's the best numbers we got. So I went, after you chose not to take the bet, and looked it up.

You looked it up and got numbers that didn't back up your claim. What did we learn?

Shifting the burden of proof? It is an opinion. You burdens or proof and evidence get old fast, this is a conversation not a public debate.

Whether it's a conversation or public debate is irrelevant, burden of proof still works in all contexts, and if you make a claim, you better be able to back it up. Personal incredulity is not evidence of anything relevant to the conversation.

And in my first point I added that drugs make more money than anything if you count the drugs the ar elegal but just as destructive. SSRI's for one. I;m not here to cater to your assumptions of what you think should be illegal" ROFL man, you take this too seriously.

First you make a statement, then latch on extra crap that wasn't attributed to the initial claim, changing the claim completely. It's serious dishonesty to think that I wouldn't call you out on that. Think a while before you make a statement.

I'm not here to pander to whatever the fuck you think is not bad for us. Then I say the number for narcotics is low, based on my knowledge of the size and scale of narcotics trafficking. Again, a wild and untamed opinion. I think up my own thoughts, they don't come out with teir own 'evidence' I can send over the internet.

Again you're making 2 errors:

1. You confuse opinion for claim.
2. You think opinions are somehow exempt from burden of proof.

You say 'evidence' like nothing legitimate can be presented on the internet. Am I reading this correctly, or are you being facetious?

Fucking evidence. I made an assumption, you did not get involved in it, I looked it up, as per the numbers I found food made more money, but it was in different years. I still think drugs makes more money, now am I denying evidence? Don't worry about the stupid fucking drugs opinion. Fuck.

LOL WUT?

Argue the point or don't See in other parts you lambaste me for not qualifying what I say with 'i think' and in others you belittle me for qualifying my thought with 'i think'... You're a difficult man to please.

When you make an argument, and justify it by saying "I can't see X being any other way, so that's why it X this way", that is an argument from personal incredulity and ignorance. It's a logical fallacy.

This is different from saying "I think X is this way, here is the evidence to support my assertion".

You have to understand the difference. If you don't care, then don't make the argument. If you care enough to make a claim, be prepared to back it up.

Show me how I am supposed to provide a kid over the net evidence that I think people are more perverse today than 20 years ago? How is it possible. Oh wait. I promise you that I do in fact hold that view. There, proof of my opinion.
Arguing with you is tiring. You asked if I though people were more perverse, I answered you query. In my answer you have decided that I went from intellectual dishonesty (either I'm stupid or I'm lying) to willful ignorance. So I shouldn't have answered you question? It was a trick question? Do you disagree, are people less perverse now than 20 years ago?

It is IRRELEVANT what I think. I asked YOU to provide evidence, as YOU have burden of proof for making the claim. It's not my issue of how you choose to present it. Be able to back up shit you write about. I'm not calling you names just for the sake of it, you are establishing yourself to be extremely dishonest in your execution of establishing and analyzing truth claims.

Instead why don't you tell me whatever you meant if in fact I misunderstood you. I said 'Porn is bad' one of your responses was that 'porn makes a ton of money'.

Wrong. You said the porn was "designed to do as much damage to the minds of young people as possible". I said it was designed to make money, and did not inherently have any stance on morality.

I assumed that you meant porn can't be bad, look at the money it's making. You arrogantly disavowed that point.

No, you misunderstood the point, then made a straw man argument afterwards.

And then made it again for McDonald's. But this whole time, if you do not mean that making profit holds or changes moral value, I don't know what you DID mean.

I just told you. I said they're in the business of making money, not instilling moral values.

Instead of me showing you again when you said that, tell me how I misheard you so we can carry on with the actual conversation.

OK.

They lie to their customers. Look up McLibel, that was a very telling case. They got in a ton of trouble for telling vegetarians that the fries were absolutely not made with beef stock, and the whole time they were. They redid their chicken nuggets to all white meat after getting sued, not because they wanted to improve their product. I could make the argument that eating one bid mac is unhealthy.

Alright, let's take this one apart.

What exactly did you refute? I said they were in the business of making money, and inherently amoral.

Here's McDonald's mission statement:

McDonald's brand mission is to "be our customers' favorite place and way to eat." Our worldwide operations have been aligned around a global strategy called the Plan to Win centering on the five basics of an exceptional customer experience – People, Products, Place, Price and Promotion. We are committed to improving our operations and enhancing our customers' experience.

http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/our_co...rch.html#1

The 5 P's are the integral components of a marketing strategy - utilized for the sole purpose of increasing market share and maximizing profits.

What exactly in that corporate mission statement said anything about being moral?

I hate McDonald's for their business, social and environmental practices. But if you choose you eat fast food, and get sick, and lower you overall quality and length of life, and get taken advantage of, and make some crooked motherfuckers a little more wealthy, don't pretend there is something wrong with me.

Okie dokie.

It is a wolf on sheeps clothing. Oatmeal and rat pretending to be a hamburger. Pictures of degradation and shame pretending to be harmless entertainment. The picture you seems to be painting in response is that McDonald's is not guilty of the crimes I have pinned upon it's greasy bib. Evidence of you counter opinion? Please don't enlighten me about what you think of my world view, this is coming from someone who sees nothing wrong with porn.

Did I say that McDonald's was a beacon of health? NO.

Did I say it didn't engage in shady practices? NO.

I said it was in the business of making money, and I backed up my claim with the mission statement from McDonald's. My argument is that you're assigning properties to McDonald's (and porn) that aren't integral to their operations.

If I say the automobile is immoral and was designed to do as much destruction to people as possible, and I cite examples of car accidents and pollution, would that be a fair statement?

Of course not, because cars were designed primarily as a mode of transportation. They have no moral stance. Much like McDonald's and pornography. You're essentially adding your own characteristics to something, then making conclusions about the object using your skewed logic.

If I bought a juice maker, then called it a bad product because it couldn't fry my eggs, I'd be making your argument. .

Honestly, I don't give a flying fuck what you think. You can abhor porn all you want. I just find fault in your reasoning, and I write about it because it allows me to further my skills in analyzing and deciphering logical fallacies and truth statements.

I may well be done, unless you start making more sense, or less sense. But if it is more of this (what others here have calles) charecter assassination (hahahahahahahaha), I may be done arguing with you. You've made a couple interesting points, but got a little hung up demanding evidence for things that cannot be proven over the internet. I still appreciate you input, although less now that most of what you have to say is seemingly irrelevant slander.

Thank you.

I'll bite. What can't be proven over the internet that can be proven otherwise and fits the subject of our discussion?