Smut for Smut

[Pippy]

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

If I try to post web sites that would prove the existence of god to an avowed atheist, what could I possibly accomplish. I can tell you why I am moved to believe, but I can honestly see no way I can even present evidence over the internet to you proving god. Is that an example of me bowing out of the argument? No, in my opinion it is a waste of time to try to prove god to you. That would mean that I thought I was objectively right and that you were objectively wrong. You are as allowed to disbelieve as I am to believe, and I feel no compunction, or ability, to prove god to you. I hope I can make this point clear, and not come across as avoiding the subject. It is a stance I have held for my entire time here, that I like to debate god, but not prove her.

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?

I agree, and of course understand. The was the basis of my disagreement earlier. That evolution is a process defined by time and matter, but not a goal oriented thing. I do not think of evolution as (an old flaw) having an end point, certinaly not the present as an end point.
I know you were arguing against the common christian outlook, but I am not a christian. I don't hold the views you were disagreeing with.

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?

Again, yes of course. The statement of efficiency is irrelevant. But saying the earth, or evolution is inefficient, in my opinion, is worse than saying that if efficiency applied it would have to be fantastically efficient. Tomato, tomatoe...

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.

I will have to look up the concept of irreducible complexity getting laughed out of court in the Dover trials. Whether something gets laughed out of court isn't very important to me though, a lot of terribly stupid things do no get laughed out of western courts... If some past trial somehow debunked the concept of ID based on excessive complexity of the systems we see, that doesn't affect my base for belief much. I will add it to the pile, but the level of complexity is such that it wins. Interesting reading material though. I will try to find it being conclusively refuted, but I may not be moved. Remember, I find Dawkins idiotic rather than life altering.

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 disagree. If I had worded the sentance "There is more perversion..." then yes, claim. But "I would make the point..." is a personal qualifier, and I assure you that when I wrote it I meant it as a loose opinion to make a vague point. It was an answer to your previous question. I apologize if there was misunderstanding from my language.

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

Yes, that as a business they are amoral. That there is an angle that they can make no claim to morality from. But as soon as their product reaches other people, as soon as they do anything that in any way affects another person (and may be even themselves) there is a whole cacophony of shades of morality. You can say that a big mac is not a moral item, but that would be a big mac in a vacuum. A big mac is in the human world, part of a human interaction, and as such has to have some moral value. It is subjective and debatable, but certainly existent.

What in porn necessarily deals with morality?

The human element. If you take pictures of one human to show to other humans, hopefully for a profit, you have entered a very moral realm. Human interaction with self, environment, and especially other humans is by necessity where I find a moral value of porn and big macs. Oh, and please if you would refrain from posting definition of words. I know what words mean, and if I don't I certainly know how to look them up. It is pointless and rude, and not all too charming. At least you didn't post a wiki link.

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?

I made a point to counter an argument I had though you made, later realizing that you did not make that point. Touche, my apologies. Do you contend that the evidence made a fool of me? It is like I was talking to myself and now you're trying to sneak in edgewise and make some claim of victory on that point. I did the whole "I think drugs make more money" all by myself, you said you did not want to rebut it further than a base disagreement. Either way though. Got told by... Myself?

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

Well either my 30 seconds of research is flawed, or my opinion... You decide.

Personal incredulity is not evidence of anything relevant to the conversation.

Never did I argue fro person incredulity. I got tangled up trying to qualify everything I said about sexual mores and whether or not porn is just following customer demand. Never, and at no time did I intend to make the point 'I don't know how it can be, so it is not'. I meant to add that I as a young human have some personal points of view, and that I did not thing of ass-to-mouth before I saw it. I did not think of foot fetish before I ever heard of it. It was trying to argue that the porn industry cannot claim to be 100% driven by customer wants if the customers don't know they want extreme porn before they see it. Do you think you thought of every perversion before you saw it or heard about it? It is an honest question. I apologize again, but I get it mixed up between the opinion I hold that porn pushes people to want to see more and more extreme things, and that I know in personal experience I did not think of all the perversions first. And I spend a lot of time thinking of stuff.

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?

But any claim I make is an opinion, and any opinion a claim. I don't feel confused. I am personally exempt from burden of proof. So are you as long as you talk to me. I do feel like it is impossible to prove complex ideas by posting web links. Impossible, and not the best way for us to learn or process and evaluate information. We should discuss what we know, what we think, and the crutch of endless information should get drug out after we have exercised our neurons for a while. I can claim; In Ottawa there is very little snow left. I can post a sat pic, a weather report, a picture I took, or you can take my word on it. I can't, however prove as easily that porn does or does not make more money than food and guns and stuff. Should I then not make the claim, that I think it is as such? If I can't make any claim that cannot be proven with a google search, I will have much less to say...

If I asked you to "prove" to me that god didn't exist with verifiable "evidence", what would you do? It would be a long, long debate where you would say 'here is a dawkins book I liked' and I would say 'bullshit, I am not convinced' and then we could argue for a while on the side about who is and is not denying what should be infallible evidence. What seems solid to me may not seem so to you. Do you see why I try to avoid that one debate? That and my prior point about how I could be wrong about god, and thinking I am right and you are just stupid is the first step towards fanaticism. By all means, please don't beleive in god. Please allow me to, and let's try to not get bogged down in a self righteous pissing match...

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

But in the business of making money, there cannot be a moral black hole. If you are buying and selling, advertising and competing, you are very much involved in the world of human morality. They are not in the business of instilling moral vales, but that they are in business at all instills a moral dimension to their actions.

you are establishing yourself to be extremely dishonest in your execution of establishing and analyzing truth claims.

I dislike being called dishonest, as that entails an intent I do not carry. I have better things to do with my time then intentionally deceive some one halfway around the world. You are proving to be very difficult to make sensationalist and over the top claims about shit too.

It's not as much that I can prove things to you in real life that I cannot over the internet. I like to think I would have a better chance of being taken seriously if I was in person, as communication through text alone is very limiting. It is more that I don't know where to start to "prove" stuff to you. Learn on your own, if you disagree, then prove me wrong. I know that goes against you while burden of proof theory, but that is more how I operate. How am I supposed to prove that god exists? I can make an argument for McDonalds being immoral in it's actions as a co operation. Is posting the 5 P's from McDonalds proof? May be this is easier than I thought. You should not ask the fox how many chickens are left though...

I am sorry if I came off more upset than I wanted. I again feel the need to say that I appreciate you opinions, and enjoy discussing for what it's worth.

Thank you again,
-Pip