The Glade 4.0

Well, you're right about one thing there, Monty, Affirmative Action isn't just like racism. It is racism.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

See what I mean?

It's not anything like racism. And yet, people draw a false equivalence between affirmative action and actual, hate-based racism.

There is a missing element between AA and actual racism. Can you name what it is?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Except that no one makes the argument that because Obama has a healthcare plan and Hitler had a healthcare plan (supposedly) that they're therefore identical. People argue that they're similar in that respect (if, indeed, Hitler did actually have some sort of health care program). That is not a false equivallence at all.

Undistributed Middle is the fallacy you are actually describing in your example, but your example is not the way you use the term "false equivalence". When you use it, it simply means "any comparison I don't like." All you're really doing is the opposite:

"Brownshirts have certain properties"
"ACORN does not share each and every one of these properties"
"Therefore, they must not share ANY qualities... and you're making a false equivalence!"

It's just a fake fallacy you've invented to try to give more weight to your complaints when you don't like something.

The only reason it appears "common among conservatives" is that you don't like their comparisons. You make comparisons that are no different, but mysteriously they aren't "false equivalence". That's because the term serves no purpose except as an argument tactic by which you convince yourself you're making some sort of actual point.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, it is like racism. No, there is no missing element.

So, no, I don't see what you mean. In all likelyhood, you mean only that you're hoping someday if you repeat yourself enough, people will listen.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

AA has no membership requirements other than the desire to live a sober life, and actual racism entrenches a legislative policy which actively prevents otherwise qualified Asians and Caucasians from becoming sober because it mandates a certain percentage of other ethnic minorities become sober even if they don't want to?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Sorry Diamondeye, but the Bible is not evidence that God exists any more than the WoT series is evidence that Rand Al'Thor exists, the Illiad is not proof that Zeus and Poseidon exist and Dianetics is not evidence of alien life. This is a matter of personal belief and deep-down you know that just as I do. If someone hasn't felt the Hand of God intervene in their life or his unconditional love then they simply cannot understand it because they have no frame of reference. So stop wasting your time arguing with someone who has made a conscious choice to reject spirituality and is just antagonizing you because it makes him feel smug and superior.

_________________

Proof and evidence are not synonymous, Hopwin. Stop reinforcing that really bad conflation of terms.

_________________

Hear hear. Proof is a category of evidence that makes it more likely that the hypothesis is correct. Evidence by itself can support, not support, or even be mixed. It's just data linked to the hypothesis. It's just like a fact isn't necessary true. Facts can be true, but facts by themself aren't necessarily true or false. Different facts put together tell you if they're true or not. And ultimately if they support your contention or not.

Touche, editted.

_________________

Edited, but you still didn't quite get the distinction Hopwin. The Bible is evidence that God exists, just as the WoT series would be evidence that Rand Al'Thor exists.

The difference between the two is that more authoritative evidence exists that the WoT series is fiction, namely from the author himself.

Its more akin to classical poems and odes. They are considered evidence of the events in question, though the evidence is usually considered stronger or weaker, based upon the likely hood of occurrence with our understanding of "stuff".

Sometimes archeologist find evidence to support the ancient stories, sometimes not, but the lack of evidence to support the story doesn't make the story fiction.

What is this thread about now? It's like a kaleidoscope.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Not getting dragged into this 9 page post-fest of crap. I'm getting tired of it floating to the top of the forum with the same arguments zipping back and forth. At this point no one is doing anything but restating their positions and throwing grenades back and forth labelled, "You're wrong cause I am right! PS: You don't understand english loser!"

_________________

Yes, it is. By making such a comparison you're engaging in precisely the same sort of begging the question that Monty is. You do not have any actual reason to believe the Bible is fictional other than the fact that it describes supernatural events, but when looking for evidence of the supernaturl, that's exactly what one would expect to find.

Illiad and the WoT series were both written as explicit works of fiction. The Bible was not. Dianetic address a matter that can be disproven by science; the Bible does not. WoT would be, as Ladas pointed out, evidence that Rand Al'Thor was a real person in the absence of any other evidence, but we have other evidence in the form of the author, the publisher, and the fact that it takes place on a world that clearly is not Earth that indicate conclusively that it is fiction. Someone might argue that the Illiad or the Koran is evidence of a different God and I never said they weren't or that the Christian God is the only one with any evidence. People just like to sieze ont he Bible as an example because of their personal issues with Christianity.

So no, I won't stop "wasting my time". The only thing I know "deep down" is that people get themselves into an absolute frenzy at the idea of having to treat the Bible as any other historical account because then they couldn't reject it out of hand based on its supernatural descriptions. People cling to this circular argument out of desperation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

No, what's happening at this point is that the usual suspect is simply repeating his position despite his total inability to even understand the cricticisms, much less respond intelligently.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

To be fair, there is plenty of counter evidence that at least portions of the bible are fictitious, or written with literary devices that mask the true descriptions of events and appear to be more supernatural than the actual events.

The flood comes to mind, as do descriptions of historical figures where the descriptions are allegorical to protect the authors from authorities.

That is true. No one has claimed that every biblical story is equally useful as evidence. There's no real evidence that any of it is fictitious per se, but rather allegorical. This is only to be expected, however, since the Bible is actually a collection of writings at widely varied times and places and for widely varied purposes. Psalms, for example, are clearly not intended as documentation of events.

However, it cannot be assumed that just because a supernatural event is described that some literary device was being used.

Again, the point is not that the Bible conclusively proves anything, just that it is, in fact, evidence, even if it is not of the greatest probative value. Dismissing it as evidence because of what it would be evidence of is the real problem. As I've pointed out before, faith is still needed to bridge the gap between what the Bible says and proof.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

_________________

I rest my case.

I hate to break it to you, but there is such a thing as "historical fiction". Would you claim that because The Hunt For Red October is fiction that the Soviet Navy never existed?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

At the moment, no one here has claimed that. However, plenty of fundamentalists claim exactly that. They claim that if one part of the Bible is not true, then all of it is not true. If I am not mistaken, there is a passage in the Bible that basically says just that. They assert that creation happened *exactly* as the Bible claims. They assert that Adam and Ever were the first human beings. They assert that we did not evolve, but were created from whole cloth by their supreme being. They claim the universe was in fact made in seven actual earth days. And they then try to inflict those completely unsubstantiated beliefs on others through political initiatives.





Except that in order to believe that such an event occurred, we need more evidence than the assertion of a book that also asserts a great many things that are simply untrue. The Bible is not a credible source of factual information. It does not qualify as objective evidence. It doesn't qualify as evidence at all, really.

If I wrote a large book of prophesy and claimed it was beamed directly into my brain via His Noodly Appendage, I would be on equal evidenciary footing.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

This is technically incorrect, given that passages and descriptions in the bible to align with historic events, customs, etc. Not that it surprises me you don't recognize the archeologically significant portions of the book, as I am convinced in your bias any mention of Bible limits your interpretation to invisible men and burning plants.

Pretty much agree, for the most part.



Agree.



FAIL

I've taken Bery to task over precisely that claim before. Just because fundamentalists say it does not mean it's accurate. If you think what fundamentalists say is generally ridiculous, there's no good reason to think their claim that either the Bible is 100% literally true in its most simplistic form or completely false. As for their political initiatives; it's a free country. They can try to inflict anything they want. We've got courts if you have a problem with that.



Yes it does. It doesn't need to prove the point all by itself. "We" don't need any more evidence than it's assertions; youneed more evidence. That's fine; it's up to you personally whether you find it convincing, but the fact that you don't think it's sufficient or credible does not make it "not evidence".



No you wouldn't. The circumstances under which you are writing it are totally different from those of the Bible. The Bible was written by a lot of people over a very long time; that difference by itself is impossible for you to duplicate.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, your assertion is that the book of Genesis would be equal to the Book of His Noodly Appendage, if a bunch of folks wrote the Book of His Noodly Appendage?

I agree. They would be on equal footing. Which is to say, not credible or objective.

The bible is not objective evidence of the existence of god. Objective is the key term here, and I have used it throughout.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Chow Mein, Hookers and Blow. In that order of importance.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut