Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
First Blood (commentary)
#51

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:10 PM)Dom Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:59 PM)Dom Wrote: Why? It just makes masturbation more difficult.

I've never had any issue masturbating.  Nod

No, it's still possible. Just more difficult than if you have your own dog given sheath to allow your hand to glide smoothly anytime, anywhere, with the only possible friction being joyfully delectable...

That said, I am only judging as third party here, not having such a thing dangling between my legs. But giving smooth hand jobs is infinitely easier when the person is not circumcised, and blowjobs - doubly as effective.

You should be glad of that. My balls are fucking huge (not bragging) and it's frankly quite uncomfortable..... I keep thinking I should like maybe ask my Dr about this.....


(Sorry I know I said I wouldn't post here but I couldn't help myself, it has nothing to do with the debate at least)
The universe doesn't give a fuck about you. Don't cry though, at least I do.
Reply
#52

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:17 PM)Dom Wrote: Subjective as to looks. Certainly.

As well as necessity or lack thereof.

In the end, the pros and cons are equally valid and thus the only conclusion is that individual subjective choice is most suitable.
Reply
#53

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:18 PM)JesseB Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:10 PM)Dom Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: I've never had any issue masturbating.  Nod

No, it's still possible. Just more difficult than if you have your own dog given sheath to allow your hand to glide smoothly anytime, anywhere, with the only possible friction being joyfully delectable...

That said, I am only judging as third party here, not having such a thing dangling between my legs. But giving smooth hand jobs is infinitely easier when the person is not circumcised, and blowjobs - doubly as effective.

You should be glad of that. My balls are fucking huge (not bragging) and it's frankly quite uncomfortable..... I keep thinking I should like maybe ask my Dr about this.....


(Sorry I know I said I wouldn't post here but I couldn't help myself, it has nothing to do with the debate at least)

Do ask the doc, as they only get more troublesome with age. They start sagging... like my breasts.  Consider
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 3 users Like Dom's post:
  • Smercury44, JesseB, EvieTheAvocado
Reply
#54

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:17 PM)Dom Wrote: Subjective as to looks. Certainly.

As well as necessity or lack thereof.

In the end, the pros and cons are equally valid and thus the only conclusion is that individual subjective choice is most suitable.

Except that this is not granted, not do most people have opportunity for comparison. However, I don't have a horse in this race....  Big Grin
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • EvieTheAvocado
Reply
#55

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 04:02 PM)Dom Wrote: Except that this is not granted, not do most people have opportunity for comparison. However, I don't have a horse in this race....  Big Grin

Never bore any male children?
Reply
#56

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 04:03 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 04:02 PM)Dom Wrote: Except that this is not granted, not do most people have opportunity for comparison. However, I don't have a horse in this race....  Big Grin

Never bore any male children?

No kids of either sex.  Shy
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 2 users Like Dom's post:
  • Phaedrus, EvieTheAvocado
Reply
#57

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:17 PM)Dom Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:10 PM)Dom Wrote: No, it's still possible. Just more difficult than if you have your own dog given sheath to allow your hand to glide smoothly anytime, anywhere, with the only possible friction being joyfully delectable...

That said, I am only judging as third party here, not having such a thing dangling between my legs. But giving smooth hand jobs is infinitely easier when the person is not circumcised, and blowjobs - doubly as effective.

No difficulty here.

Also, it seems the entire cut/uncut debate tends to be more preferential to the individual. Subjective, basically.

Subjective as to looks. Certainly.

Some prefer the missile look to the worm look. Who knew that males could have fucked up egos when it cums to dicks.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#58

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 02:40 PM)unfogged Wrote: Sorry, but that's just bullshit and woo and the more I hear proponents of metaphysics talk the more I think they've just found a sciency-sounding replacement for religion.

I'm not interested in pure dismissal without argument. I'm also not surprised that you continue to think a strawman is wooy.

Quote:It was a joke but jokes can embed much truth.

It could but it doesn't because it's an equivocation.

Like I have pointed out repeatedly ... even the most anti-philosophical of scientists almost always presuppose a particularly metaphysical viewpoint that most reasonable people believe in that is unfalsifable and prior to science (the belief that an objective world exists independent of our senses). This is something that I've pointed out plenty of times and is yet to be addressed.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#59

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 02:55 PM)brewerb Wrote: I can go days/months without a single thought about metaphysics.

Again, being ignorant of your own presuppositions doesn't mean that those presuppositons don't exist.

I'd be very surprised if you didn't believe that there is an objective world independent of human minds. If you do believe that there is then you have a metaphysical viewpoint. If you don't believe that there is then you have a metaphysical viewpoint.

Quote: For the most part I consider it little more than mental masturbation. 

You already hold metaphysical views you just don't realize that that's what they are and you prefer to use the word "metaphysics" to refer to the bad wooey metaphysics that is obvious bullshit.

Quote:But apparently it gives some people a hard on. And a reason to be demeaning.

Demeaning or not I think I'm perfectly excused in being bothered by the great number of people that dismiss metaphysics as total bullshit despite the fact they're not bothering to address the actual topic and would rather just continue to attack strawmen and give the same old cheap "mental masturbation" "woo" "bullshit that isn't about reality" retorts and quips. It's just as lazy as the theists who don't bother to address questions of existence properly. It's far easier for you to think that it's not just that you can't be bothered thinking about the topic, and it's not just that you're not interested in it, but because you're not interested in making sense of it it must all be nonsense and you're happy to just define the whole subject as the very worst of it.

I don't care if people don't accept the fact that the belief that there's an objective reality independent of our senses is a metaphysical viewpoint that is prior to science and empiricism that most scientists presuppose. I don't care if you don't accept that that is a metaphysical viewpoint. Because it just is and I'm not interested in my opponents burying my head in the sands and saying "nonsense", "woo" and "useless" over and over.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#60

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 02:58 PM)brewerb Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:57 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:55 PM)brewerb Wrote: I can go days/months without a single thought about metaphysics. For the most part I consider it little more than mental masturbation. 

But apparently it gives some people a hard on. And a reason to be demeaning.

Which reminds me, I hardly ever give any thought to circumcision, but I'm certainly glad I was circumcised.

Should we discuss the metaphysics behind that?

The metaphysics of penises is too specific to be metaphysically interesting.

But the unethicality of circumcision has already been discussed at length elsewhere so let's not go all over that again!
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#61

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:01 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:59 PM)Dom Wrote: Why? It just makes masturbation more difficult.

I've never had any issue masturbating.  Nod

But if you think you're not missing out ... you're wrong and you are ... you're just oblivious to what you're missing out and you don't know any better (kind of like how people who don't understand the so-called "mental masturbation" of metaphysics don't know what they're missing either Chuckle. And I remain to be the happiest person I know both physically and mentally but that's another topic Big Grin)

Google Wrote:The foreskin, containing 20,000 nerve endings as opposed to the 8,000 in a clitoris, is a highly sensitive, functioning part of the male anatomy. ... When the foreskin is removed, the head of the penis can develop a thick layer of skin to protect it, making it much less sensitive.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#62

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:10 PM)SYZ Wrote: Encyclopædia Britannica says of metaphysics; it is "the philosophical study whose object is to determine the real nature of things—to determine the meaning, structure, and principles of whatever is insofar as it is. Although this study is popularly conceived as referring to anything excessively subtle and highly theoretical and although it has been subjected to many criticisms, it is presented by metaphysicians as the most fundamental and most comprehensive of inquiries, inasmuch as it is concerned with reality as a whole".

As I personally find philosophy to be an outmoded mechanism of thinking in the 21st century, I'd find it
difficult to accept the concept of metaphysics as anything of use.

Consider...

Although (say) Plato was brilliant in his time, as were the rest of the noted ancient Greeks, his philosophies
are outdated and should no longer be considered relevant—just as Newton’s Principia Mathematica was
once accepted as the cutting edge of physics, but is now outdated.

That is rather like saying that Newton was good for his time but is outdated by Einstein despite the fact that most large-scale physics can still be perfectly described by Newton's laws.

Aristotelian logic is also useful for the vast majority of logical cases, as well.

I'll give a quotation to explicate what I think that philosophy is all about:

Wilfrid Sellars Wrote:The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term

I again, find it amusing, when Krauss has to accept that many physicists think that cosmology is just bad philosophy ... and two of his own peers, who he disagrees with, are also philosophers as well as physicists so it suddenly makes sense why he's so anti-philosophical, despite the fact that he says lots of things that don't even make any sense.

Philosophers do a fantastic job of framing things sometimes in ways where scientists just stumble about. A classic example being the more successful and rational approach to hypotheses that all modern scientists now follow: falsifiability rather than verifiability. Falsifiability was an idea that the philosopher of science Karl Popper had ... and he thought the idea through of why it was more effective than verifiability using an analogy of white swans and black swans: it doesn't matter how many white swans you find it will never prove that all swans are like ... but you only have to find one black swan to know that not all swans are white. That's an analogy for why falsifiability is better and Karl Popper's approach is now always used by scientists instead of verifiability, that scientists used to use. Sometimes it takes a philosopher to make the most logical sense of the best way to approach science.

And regardless of the fact that they may not work as philosophers ... many of the best scientists have had ideas that were certainly philosophical as well as scientific in nature. William of Occam's classic razor is certainly a powerful philosophical idea and approach to science.

Philosophy is less like outdated science or outdated logic and more like not just where science and logic of science but also a great driver of its future developments on a more macro scale. It's the same with politics too. A lot of both the best and worst political movements were driven by political philosophers. Same with ethics too. People are often simply ignorant of all the work philosophy is doing, whether it's done by people who work as philosophers or not. Some philosophers are even critical of academic philosophy and there certainly are a lot of philosophical wankers and philosophical wankery. Doesn't mean philosophy is all like that and it doesn't mean that it's not a very deep, broad and powerful subject that along with the arts and technology has been the greatest driver of civilization.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
The following 1 user Likes EvieTheAvocado's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#63

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: Also, it seems the entire cut/uncut debate tends to be more preferential to the individual. Subjective, basically.

Difference being that those with a foreskin know how to experience both because we can masturbate both with and without our foreskin and we know how much better it is when we use our foreskin ... but the other half are stumbling in the dark and just don't know what they're missing. Sounds very mean of me to say but you really don't know what you're missing! Quite literally!
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#64

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 03:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: In the end, the pros and cons are equally valid and thus the only conclusion is that individual subjective choice is most suitable.

There are no objective pros to having part of your penis missing. Unless it's medically necessary and even then it's used as a last resort. Just as doctors will only amputate your arm as a last resort.

We have foreskins for a reason and it has over double the nerve endings of a clitoris. Foreskins also have other benefits besides pleasure. A lack of foreskin has no benefits unless there's something wrong with your foreskin or you don't clean it properly.

Not to mention that the possibility of a circumcision going wrong and being botched is reason alone to make it a very bad idea unless it's absolutely medically necessary.

And to circumcise a child without a medical reason is, ethically speaking, child abuse even if it isn't legally recognized to be (I've heard you even cite, on more than one occasion, that the fact that the child doesn't remember their circumcision as a reason that it's not a bad thing ... and that kind of logic is fucked up as shit. You could justify date rape with that kind of fucked up logic. I've also heard you compare circumcision to a diaper change, as well, and that's fucked up as hell as well).
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#65

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 05:50 PM)brewerb Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:17 PM)Dom Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 03:16 PM)Phaedrus Wrote: No difficulty here.

Also, it seems the entire cut/uncut debate tends to be more preferential to the individual. Subjective, basically.

Subjective as to looks. Certainly.

Some prefer the missile look to the worm look. Who knew that males could have fucked up egos when it cums to dicks.

To me it looks more like a mushroom headed rocket with a jacket versus a mushroom headed rocket without a jacket. But maybe I've mixed metaphors too much Consider
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#66

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 02:19 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:55 PM)brewerb Wrote: I can go days/months without a single thought about metaphysics.

Again, being ignorant of your own presuppositions doesn't mean that those presuppositons don't exist.

I'd be very surprised if you didn't believe that there is an objective world independent of human minds. If you do believe that there is then you have a metaphysical viewpoint. If you don't believe that there is then you have a metaphysical viewpoint.

Quote: For the most part I consider it little more than mental masturbation. 

You already hold metaphysical views you just don't realize that that's what they are and you prefer to use the word "metaphysics" to refer to the bad wooey metaphysics that is obvious bullshit.

Quote:But apparently it gives some people a hard on. And a reason to be demeaning.

Demeaning or not I think I'm perfectly excused in being bothered by the great number of people that dismiss metaphysics as total bullshit despite the fact they're not bothering to address the actual topic and would rather just continue to attack strawmen and give the same old cheap "mental masturbation" "woo" "bullshit that isn't about reality" retorts and quips. It's just as lazy as the theists who don't bother to address questions of existence properly. It's far easier for you to think that it's not just that you can't be bothered thinking about the topic, and it's not just that you're not interested in it, but because you're not interested in making sense of it it must all be nonsense and you're happy to just define the whole subject as the very worst of it.

I don't care if people don't accept the fact that the belief that there's an objective reality independent of our senses is a metaphysical viewpoint that is prior to science and empiricism that most scientists presuppose. I don't care if you don't accept that that is a metaphysical viewpoint. Because it just is and I'm not interested in my opponents burying my head in the sands and saying "nonsense", "woo" and "useless" over and over.

Why thank you Evie the magnificent. I'll never look at the world the same again.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • JesseB
Reply
#67

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 02:47 AM)brewerb Wrote: Why thank you Evie the magnificent. I'll never look at the world the same again.

Meh. You're a guy who has previously described me as some sort of supposed manipulative narcissist so I'm hardly gonna give a shit what you think. And you even alluded to our previous PM conversations as evidence when I wasn't even able to defend myself (but you haven't broken a rule here because you did that over at AF) considering how quick you are to smear me by assuming nasty bullshit and made-up shitey shite based on absolutely zero evidence. I may not be magnificent, although I never claimed ot be, but at least I'm not a complete dickhead or two-faced prick Dunno
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#68

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 02:32 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: That is rather like saying that Newton was good for his time but is outdated by Einstein despite the fact that most large-scale physics can still be perfectly described by Newton's laws...

Newton's second law is actually incorrect:  F = ma, assumes that m, the mass, remains constant, but
as proved by Einstein, this fails for high velocities.  So if the velocity is changing—which it  does—then m is
changing with time too.

Quote:William of Occam's classic razor is certainly a powerful philosophical idea and approach to science.

Not necessarily. As a method of distinguishing between opposing theories, Occam’s razor is only relevant if the two
theories predict identical results, with one theory being more simple than the other—or it makes fewer assumptions.
This is a situation rarely encountered in science. More reliably, theories are distinguished not by making fewer
assumptions but different ones. But then it's not immediately obvious how to weigh them up with philosophy,
but rather science.  His razor is vastly overrated—and misunderstood.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • JesseB
Reply
#69

First Blood (commentary)
(01-06-2019, 02:23 PM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: But you're confusing epistemology for metaphysics and you can't have epistemology without metaphysics.

If metaphysics is required for epistemology then what epistemology do you use to justify the metaphysics?
The following 2 users Like unfogged's post:
  • JesseB, WhiskeyDebates
Reply
#70

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 02:13 AM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: Like I have pointed out repeatedly ... even the most anti-philosophical of scientists almost always presuppose a particularly metaphysical viewpoint that most reasonable people believe in that is unfalsifable and prior to science (the belief that an objective world exists independent of our senses). This is something that I've pointed out plenty of times and is yet to be addressed.

It is pointless. If epistemology requires metaphysics then you don't have an epistemology you can use to justify the metaphysical viewpoint. It is an attempt to justify the choice of axioms and the point of axioms is that they can't be justified. Arguing metaphysics is nothing but mental masturbation and the physical kind is much more fun.
Reply
#71

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 03:40 PM)unfogged Wrote: It is pointless.  If epistemology requires metaphysics then you don't have an epistemology you can use to justify the metaphysical viewpoint.

If epistemology requires metaphysics: Science requires metaphysics, then, because science is an epistemic venture.

 
Quote:It is an attempt to justify the choice of axioms and the point of axioms is that they can't be justified.

That's an argument in favor of metaphysics because metaphysical axioms come prior to epistemic justification.

Quote: Arguing metaphysics is nothing but mental masturbation and the physical kind is much more fun.

If an ostrich with its head in the sand is having fun then that doesn't mean that the ostrich doesn't have its head in the sand.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#72

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 12:31 PM)unfogged Wrote:
(01-06-2019, 02:23 PM)EvieTheAvocado Wrote: But you're confusing epistemology for metaphysics and you can't have epistemology without metaphysics.

If metaphysics is required for epistemology then what epistemology do you use to justify the metaphysics?

If everyone starts with axioms that are ultimately unjustifiable, and if truth comes prior to knowledge of truth, then your question makes zero sense. Your question itself is, ironically, the perfect example of bad metaphysics. It's a classic case of a misplacing of the cart before the horse leading to questions that don't even make any sense.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply
#73

First Blood (commentary)
(01-07-2019, 12:20 PM)SYZ Wrote: Newton's second law is actually incorrect:  F = ma, assumes that m, the mass, remains constant, but
as proved by Einstein, this fails for high velocities.  So if the velocity is changing—which it  does—then m is
changing with time too.

My point was that Newton's laws work just as well as they ever did for most of the everday physical world that we deal with. Newton's laws don't suddenly all become wrong just because Einstein's laws have improved upon them. Most of Newton's laws still work most of the time. They didn't all suddenly become invalid for most things when they always previously worked perfectly well for most things. The physical world didn't suddenly change how it works. Newton's laws simply don't account for everything and it does have its flaws but that's a far cry from saying that they've all become false or that they're no longer valid. Einstein's laws still don't have to be invoked for most of classic physics and Newton's laws will suffice for most things (this is something that me and Krauss actually agree on).


Quote:Not necessarily. As a method of distinguishing between opposing theories, Occam’s razor is only relevant if the two
theories predict identical results, with one theory being more simple than the other—or it makes fewer assumptions.
This is a situation rarely encountered in science. More reliably, theories are distinguished not by making fewer
assumptions but different ones. But then it's not immediately obvious how to weigh them up with philosophy,
but rather science.  His razor is vastly overrated—and misunderstood.

The fact that Occam's razor isn't necessarily always relevant is itself irrelevant. The point of the razor is that all other things being equal a simpler theory is preferred to a better one. All things are rarely equal but that completely misses the point. Stated in the reverse way: more extraordinary hypotheses require more extraordinary support and overly convoluted theories are to be avoided without substantial evidence.

Occam's razor, like falsifiability, are philosophical principles that are very clearly very important with regards to the modern scientific method and it is very clear that you have to grasp at straws in order to argue for the opposite.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.

(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.

(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)