should men write lesbian stories?

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
All right smart aleck. We will play it your way.

First, you are playing an intellectually disingenuous game. Fundamentally Christian, is NOT the same thing as fundamentalist christian. Fundamentalist Christian refers to a specific sect of Christianity. That sect is characterized by thier belief that the bible is the literal word of god. At the same time, they ignore those tennets that preach tolerance and christian love of all, prefering to latch onto old testament verses that teach wrath, intolerance and undisguised misogyny.

Fundamentalist Christianity is Christianity that preaches the Five Fundamentals of the Faith--it is a buzzword, but does have some historical place... however, that place is not terribly specific. Inerrancy of the Bible seems to be a very common tenet, but "not preaching tolerance and Christian love" or "latching onto Old Testament verses" isn't actually part of the Five Fundamentals of the Faith.

Secondly, your failure to critcally think here is linked to your inabily or unwillingness to see a correlation between past action and future plan. If, as is the case, a presidential candidate states during his campaign he is personally pro life, but will not press any changes to the staus quo as their is no general call to do so, and then rams through a bill that would be the foundation of undoing roe v wade, critical thinking and analysis would lead to the inescapable conclusion that he will continue this assault if given four more years.

No, Critical Thinking would admit to all the possibilities and not jump to any. You seem to be saying that Critical Thinking is "assuming things to be true because its obvious that its just true, because it is" or "its happened once, so it'll happen again"... that's not critical thinking at all. Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow". You say my failure to think critically is LINKED to something... but you fail to show me where I've failed to think critically. Its like asking "Show me where I've erred in this math problem" and getting a respone like "You messed up in the math problem because you have an inability to see the math". That's not an answer. If I've failed to think critically, show me where.

From a poly-sci standpoint, you fail miserably to apply rational or critical thinking. GWB and his cronies draw their core support from conservative elements in society. However, they draw their grass roots appeal from the strongly religious and the gruop that most contributed to this is the Fundamentalist Christians.

From a poli-sci standpoint (I take lunch with a Poli Sci professor, so we talk politics all the time), I am entirely employing critical thinking skills and certainly am employing rationality. It is irrational to assume the course, motives, or intention of political trends, figures, or systems. It is rational to analyze their components, their doctrine, and their history--but no responsible political scientist would say "All politicians are THIS way" or "All politicians act THAT way". That's just propoganda. Not scholarship.

No politician alienates his core, but if he can appease his grassroots support, without angering his core, he will do so. GWB can appease the fundamentalists he depends on for grassroots support, without upsetting his conservative core, by moving slowly to implement policy that is in line with their religious beliefs. He can do so by packageing these changes as something else and moving slowly.

Mondale did. Again, saying "ALL" isn't critical thinking, its assumption.

Suspension of the right of habeus corpus is disguised as part of a law that fights terrorism. Attacks on the rights of women are burried in voluminous legislation that purports to stream line medicare, or fight crime, or some other innoccuous program that appeals to conservatives. That's politics. Any poly sci major can outline the basic forms, strategems and trend in what is happening.

Which is fine, but neither strategems, basic forms, nor trends can predict the future... only offer up possibilities and probabilities that are show to be accurate or not after the fact--I know of NO poltical scientist (and I know a few) that claim to know the future.

Since you refuse to apply the critical thinking to the situation and take your stand on theoretical what ifs that contain no recognizeable link to reality, I can say quite comfortably you are not critically thinking.

As I teach Critical Thinking, I believe I have a basic understanding of the concept. I admit that it is possible we're using the same term, not the same meaning. Critical Thinking is the disciplined ability and willingness to assess evidence and claims, to seek a breadth of contradicting as well as confirming information, to make objective judgments on the basis of well supported reasons as a guide to belief and action, and to monitor one’s thinking while doing so (metacognition). The thinking process that is appropriate for critical thinking depends on the knowledge domain (e.g.: scientific, mathematical, historical, anthropological, economic, philosophical, moral) but the universal criteria are: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound empirical evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness.

What are /you/ talking about?

To take your view, a person would have to sacrifice all pragmatism and all application of past experience, in short, he or she would have to divorce themselves from analytical observation and retreat into the world of vague posibility. It's a nice little theoretical world you live in, but it has bugger all to do with critical thinking or analytical thinking.

-Colly

No, to take my view, its the height of intellectual abandonment and judgement suicide to just assume that people you don't feel are good are always bad--especially when categorized in such a way that STILL doesn't necessitate it. In my view, a person would admit things like "I don't like Bush, and that's why I think he's a moron... but, no, he's not actually an unintelligent man. I think I'll make decisions about the presidency based on Actual things and not propoganda."

They admit to possibilities, so they can address them intelligently. To take your view, nobody would ever see diamonds in the rough, take chances on investigating things that don't look good, explore all the possibilities to find the best one, or make well-informed decisions... because "Everyone knows that shit works ONLY this way and to hell with possibilities that say otherwise".

Tsk.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Jesus is mad and is going to tell his dad that you guys are being bad and won't answer the question to the thread.

You are all soooooooooo gonna get it now!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

No,No, No, Mr. Wordsmith. We aren't going to enter into one of these lovely circular arguments where you refuse to give account of your views and argue the definitions until your opponent wnats to tear their hair out. You will have to get your woody somewhere else today.

I made an assertion, that four more years of the people in charge would only make things worse. You challenged that assertion, stateing we could be moving closer to perfection.

My asertion was backed up by quatifiable empirical data. I.E., the inclusion of a suspension of haebeus corpus in Patriot act. The application of that emiprical data may be seen in the case of Jose Padilla, an american impriosoned and refused his right of habeus corpus. These two separate actions, taken in concert, lead to a trend. That trend is towards a police state. I can support the assertion that that trend is valid by providing Emperical data that historically such actions do lead to a police state, in this case you may use the Nuremberg laws as my foundation. That was my assertion, backed up here with empirical data and historical perspective. In short, that's an application of analytical thinking.

Your assertion was that it might be leading us to perfection. You will no have to support that assertion, because I am not going to let go of it and enter into one of these flights of fancy argument of definitions. YOU will now define perfection. You will then demonstrate that the current government is moving us in that direction and thus prove you have any basis whatsoever for your assertion.

I have supported my assertion. Before I will engage in any attacks upon or defense of my assertion, you will have to support yours.

A level playing field, with no naked assertions that cannot be attacked. That's going to be the basis of this debate. Until such time as you suport your assertion with definitions and apply those to current events in a way that shows causality, this argument is over.

I may not have gone to Ole Miss, but I am very well versed in the language of sophistry. If you want a debate, I'll gladly give you one, but I'm not going to waste my time if you refuse to even support your assertion or give definition to the terms you are using.

-Colly

 

[killallhippies]

who the hell is juan?

 

[Guest]

who the hell is juan?

Ah ha! Thanks for my second big grin of the day. I'll let Abby 'splain. P.

 

[cloudy]

who the hell is juan?

iam juan not sick lesbian womans who kiss other womans not like me i love my father he not sick too

 

[ABSTRUSE]

who the hell is juan?

Sit back and let me tell you about juan.

Juan is a lebian hating troll that likes to one bomb lesbian stories.
However, as disgusting as juan finds lesbians to be, his story is about having sex with his father.

Get the picture? juan uses no punctuation or capitol letters and spells badly

See cloudy's example.

 

[killallhippies]

silly trolls.

 

[sincerely_helene]

anyway, do you believe it's ok?

I preffer it, actually. It's strangely amusing in a Martha Stewart-describing-naked-jello-wrestling kind of way.

I am not much into the lesbian erotica, but I do enjoy decent composition if you would be so kind as to enclose a link.

 

[killallhippies]

Re: Re: should men write lesbian stories?

I preffer it, actually. It's strangely amusing in a Martha Stewart-describing-naked-jello-wrestling kind of way.

I am not much into the lesbian erotica, but I do enjoy decent composition if you would be so kind as to enclose a link.

the three parter i have at lit plus the story i wrote after starting this thread that is still awaiting approval.

the young sisters can also be reached via my sig under old shit.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
No,No, No, Mr. Wordsmith. We aren't going to enter into one of these lovely circular arguments where you refuse to give account of your views and argue the definitions until your opponent wnats to tear their hair out. You will have to get your woody somewhere else today.

I made an assertion, that four more years of the people in charge would only make things worse. You challenged that assertion, stateing we could be moving closer to perfection.

My asertion was backed up by quatifiable empirical data. I.E., the inclusion of a suspension of haebeus corpus in Patriot act. The application of that emiprical data may be seen in the case of Jose Padilla, an american impriosoned and refused his right of habeus corpus. These two separate actions, taken in concert, lead to a trend. That trend is towards a police state. I can support the assertion that that trend is valid by providing Emperical data that historically such actions do lead to a police state, in this case you may use the Nuremberg laws as my foundation. That was my assertion, backed up here with empirical data and historical perspective. In short, that's an application of analytical thinking.

Your assertion was that it might be leading us to perfection. You will no have to support that assertion, because I am not going to let go of it and enter into one of these flights of fancy argument of definitions. YOU will now define perfection. You will then demonstrate that the current government is moving us in that direction and thus prove you have any basis whatsoever for your assertion.

I have supported my assertion. Before I will engage in any attacks upon or defense of my assertion, you will have to support yours.

A level playing field, with no naked assertions that cannot be attacked. That's going to be the basis of this debate. Until such time as you suport your assertion with definitions and apply those to current events in a way that shows causality, this argument is over.

I may not have gone to Ole Miss, but I am very well versed in the language of sophistry. If you want a debate, I'll gladly give you one, but I'm not going to waste my time if you refuse to even support your assertion or give definition to the terms you are using.

-Colly

If you can't admit to the nature of possibility, or deliver a working definition of what you understand to be critical thinking (as you claim I haven't been practicing it)... this conversation was over before it began, really. Empirical evidence does not eliminate possibility, possibility is relavent in statements of absolution.

Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly, demands nor necessitates that (by definition). It could turn out to be horribly bad for other reasons, could be bad for it being a Fundamentalist thing... could be good for a number of reasons, could be good for some Fundamentalist-esque reasons.

I'm not saying all possibilities are equal, only that they're possible. As such, statements that assert that the future holds X--as a certain truth--are invalidated by the merest possibility that it could be not that way. I don't think Christian Fundamentalism is going to produce a utopia, but it can't be said that its impossible (without sacrificing responsibility to thinking critically).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

If you can't admit to the nature of possibility, or deliver a working definition of what you understand to be critical thinking (as you claim I haven't been practicing it)... this conversation was over before it began, really. Empirical evidence does not eliminate possibility, possibility is relavent in statements of absolution.

Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly, demands nor necessitates that (by definition). It could turn out to be horribly bad for other reasons, could be bad for it being a Fundamentalist thing... could be good for a number of reasons, could be good for some Fundamentalist-esque reasons.

I'm not saying all possibilities are equal, only that they're possible. As such, statements that assert that the future holds X--as a certain truth--are invalidated by the merest possibility that it could be not that way. I don't think Christian Fundamentalism is going to produce a utopia, but it can't be said that its impossible (without sacrificing responsibility to thinking critically).

Beautiful evasion. Excellent attempt to turn the conversation. All for naught.

This post is not germane to the conversation. I made an assertion. You made a counter assertion. I backed mine with defintion, and evidence. We are still waiting for you to define Perfection and show how the current administration has lead us towards it.

One would begin to believe you made the assertion simply to start an argument and don't have a definition or examples.

-Colly (still waiting)

 

[minsue]

*SWOON*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
Beautiful evasion. Excellent attempt to turn the conversation. All for naught.

It wasn't intended to evade anything. You said I wasn't using critical thinking skills several times... I assert that I am. I give a definition of critical thinking, and show that I /am/ actually doing it. You don't seem to want to defend your assertion on that matter.

This post is not germane to the conversation. I made an assertion. You made a counter assertion. I backed mine with defintion, and evidence. We are still waiting for you to define Perfection and show how the current administration has lead us towards it.

One would begin to believe you made the assertion simply to start an argument and don't have a definition or examples.

-Colly (still waiting)

Perfection - an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence

Showing how the current administration does or doesn't do what you're saying has nothing to do with my point that it isn't necessarily true that they will enact future horrors due to Fundamental Christianity. That's true by simple logical possibility... thus my statement that if you aren't comfortable, versed, or willing to acknowledge what is rationally possible then we can't talk about what is rationally possible... essentially, we shouldn't be having this argument as you deny the nature of simple rational possibility.

 

[Pure]

Hi Joe,

This is probably pointless, since I see no attempt from you at honest argument. You intentionally confuse the issues, and, as well, fail to employ "Critical Thinking" according to your own definition, as I will show below. Colly said this, and she's right.

Here are what I take to be your key points, the last quoted paras being a reasonable self-summary of your argument

{Joe said in part}
---
Geez, I really don't want to argue about this. I'm not saying ANYONE is guilty or innocent. Nothing about jackboots. I'm saying ONLY that it is POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with fundamentalist Christians in power--same as it being POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with total Atheists in power. The religious belief DOESN'T necessitate that everything will turn to failure or dictatorships.

=====
I am employing perfectly fine critical thinking... as I am not narrowing my mind to the possibilities. It is a rejection of analysis and critical thinking to assume things and then refuse to give merit to rational possibilities that come in conflict with the assumption. Assumption... only bad can come from Christians in power. Possibility... good could come from it, as freedoms and tolerances could still be protected by law, and those Christians being exceptional politicans.

====
No, Critical Thinking would admit to all the possibilities and not jump to any. You seem to be saying that Critical Thinking is "assuming things to be true because its obvious that its just true, because it is" or "its happened once, so it'll happen again"... that's not critical thinking at all. Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow".

I, pure, say, False, btw, according to your own definitions below

===
JoeAs I teach Critical Thinking, I believe I have a basic understanding of the concept. I admit that it is possible we're using the same term, not the same meaning. Critical Thinking is the disciplined ability and willingness to assess evidence and claims, to seek a breadth of contradicting as well as confirming information, to make objective judgments on the basis of well supported reasons as a guide to belief and action, and to monitor one’s thinking while doing so (metacognition).


=====
If you can't admit to the nature of possibility, or deliver a working definition of what you understand to be critical thinking (as you claim I haven't been practicing it)... this conversation was over before it began, really. Empirical evidence does not eliminate possibility, possibility is relavent[sic] in statements of absolution.

Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly, demands nor necessitates that (by definition). It could turn out to be horribly bad for other reasons, could be bad for it being a Fundamentalist thing... could be good for a number of reasons, could be good for some Fundamentalist-esque reasons.

I'm not saying all possibilities are equal, only that they're possible. As such, statements that assert that the future holds X--as a certain truth--are invalidated by the merest possibility that it could be not that way.
==========

The proposition debated is that Fundamentalist/"What's written in the Bible" Christians, such as hang with Bush, will bring a number of fascistic practices, e.g., forcing women to bear and raise children, or bear and surrender them to Christian homes; suspension of habeus corpus, rights of privacy, protection against unreasonable search and seizure etc. The phrase "will bring" NOT implying mathematical certainty, but a practical approach to it: very very likely.

====
You begin your argument is a way calculated to obscure the issue: that you're arguing the "possibility" that fundamentalists might bring perfection.

Yes, and there's the possiblity that fundamentalists will stack all their Bibles in communal piles, and make bonfires of them, on which they throw their first born.

Logical possibility is/was never the issue.

Likewise, you accuse Colly of *assuming* that bad will occur.

She did not. She has reasons and evidence including the last four years of fundamentalist influenced US politics.

You contrariwise, claim to see an *assumption.* After all, according to you, it's Critical Thinking to assert, "The sun may not rise tomorrow, despite past patterns."

False, by your own defintion, see below.

You give away your game entirely with this move. It appears that even were Colly to have asserted the sun will rise tomorrow, and appealed to astronomical records, you'd say, "Possibly not, that's an assumption."

It's by the way an assumption of natural science: the regularity of nature. (As you well know.) If that's Colly's assumption, she's in good company.

Looking at your last summary:
Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly[sic], demands nor necessitates that (by definition).

But that was never the debate. Let me just help Colly here, in a technical matter, though she has made quite capable arguements, rightly asserting that you ignore the evidence.

She was asserting that *with high probability*, the kind of probability involved in projecting the likely paths of hurricanes,
fundamentalists will restrict our freedoms.

She is open to the *logical possibility* that the folks might do something wonderful, as she is to the *logical possibility* that you might make an honest argument.

She refers to *historical likelihood.* You ignore it. You ignore all evidence, about fundamentalist practices, from Calvin's Geneva, to the Puritans in Mass, to the Bushies, to the Taliban and the Ayatollahs in Iran.

What do you have on your side? No evidence cited whatsoever; though I might, on your lazy behalf, mention that sometimes these regimes self destructed-- or moderated after a couple hundred years.

You indicate you don't need evidence: To argue logical possibility--as is common with you-- is to avoid evidence and the need for it.

Punchline: You violate your own definitions--and commonsense ones-- of critical and plausible scientific thinking. For, to quote you:

The thinking process that is appropriate for critical thinking depends on the knowledge domain (e.g.: scientific, mathematical, historical, anthropological, economic, philosophical, moral) but the universal criteria are: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound empirical evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness.

You take no account of the domain. History. You try to saddle her with proving that "It's logically impossible and utterly inconceivable, and ZERO percent unlikely that the fundamentalists will protect our freedoms as we know them."

You do not look at 'sound empirical evidence.'

This is to apply to her position the standards of mathematical truth. So, again on her behalf, I will concede the following to make you happy. George Bush MIGHT have a sudden increase in IQ. Bush and Cheney POSSIBLY with get divorces and have a gay marriage to each other. Osama POSSIBLY will occupy the white house, legally, in four years.

OH, and the POPE, possibly will anounce Oct 1, 2004, that his lifetime beliefs about birth control and abortion were wrong, and make the church operate democratically.

I find your approach both UNcritical, and since it's self-aware, utterly reprehensible.

You own both Colly and Dame Philosophy an apology.

J.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It wasn't intended to evade anything. You said I wasn't using critical thinking skills several times... I assert that I am. I give a definition of critical thinking, and show that I /am/ actually doing it. You don't seem to want to defend your assertion on that matter.



Perfection - an exemplification of supreme excellence; an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence

Showing how the current administration does or doesn't do what you're saying has nothing to do with my point that it isn't necessarily true that they will enact future horrors due to Fundamental Christianity. That's true by simple logical possibility... thus my statement that if you aren't comfortable, versed, or willing to acknowledge what is rationally possible then we can't talk about what is rationally possible... essentially, we shouldn't be having this argument as you deny the nature of simple rational possibility.

Now we are getting somewhere, a definition. I think I can accept your definition of perfection. It works for me. Your assertion was that the curent administration could be taking us towards it. Considering the public record of this administration, I can see where you might be having trouble finiding an example or two.

I don't deny simple rational possibility. If the administration is moving us towards the nirvanna of perfection, then it is a simple rational proposition that you could show us progress in that direction in its first four years. In the absecense of examples of its moving us toward perfection, the postulation that it might be is weakened. I can site multiple examples of it moving us away from perfection. In light of the lies, deciet, avarice and rank stupidity of some of the acts of this administration, the possibility of it moving us towards perfection becomes even more remote.

While the possibility remains, the probablity is so remote as to be insignificant. When the probablity has become so remote as to be non existant, then in practical terms the possibility does not exist.

It is possible, I suppose, that the world is really flat. If you wish to define possibility in such black and white terms. But if you are using such terms, then their aplication to releveant conversations is practically nil. Which returns us to where we started.

The preponderance of evidence is that the administration is NOT moving us towards perfection. The preponderance of the evidence is that it is moving us towards a theocratic police state. If your statement is couched in the absolute definition of possible, rather than a practical application of the word possible, then it leaves very few reasons you could have in making it, short of wanting to start an argument.

In terms of critical thinking, if you are applying the absolute definition of possible, then you are not critically thinking, as the definition provides for no test that can rule it out. Without a test, it becomes impossible to argue with you. That is called a naked asertion, one that cannot be assailed logically because it is not supported. Naked asserions are not critical thinking, they are the refuge of those who cannot ssupport their stance, but do not wish to appear foolish.

I shall remember from now on that you speak in terms of black and white absolutes. That being the case, you are inassialable in an argument. On the other hand, nothing you say has any merit that is worth consideration as none of it can be applied.

Congratulations, you have won this argument. I cannot, under the circumstances prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it isn't possible. As of course you knew when you made the statement, given your definition of the terms. I have however forced you to define your terms, and given the definitions, see that further discourse with you is simply a waste of my time. Your statements risk nothing, and have no application to real life. They are simply theoretical ramblings.

Good evening,

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

She is open to the *logical possibility*

O.k. That was my only point.

...well, that AND my coming to that conclusion was employing critical thinking (exploring all contradictions, for one, and many of the "universal" properties... as you'll notice that critical thinking may depend on a knowledge base, but universally depends on other things... accuracy is one of my bigger concerns. It is inaccurate to deny possibility).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi Joe,

This is probably pointless, since I see no attempt from you at honest argument. You intentionally confuse the issues, and, as well, fail to employ "Critical Thinking" according to your own definition, as I will show below. Colly said this, and she's right.

Here are what I take to be your key points, the last quoted paras being a reasonable self-summary of your argument

{Joe said in part}
---
Geez, I really don't want to argue about this. I'm not saying ANYONE is guilty or innocent. Nothing about jackboots. I'm saying ONLY that it is POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with fundamentalist Christians in power--same as it being POSSIBLE that society can turn out more perfect with total Atheists in power. The religious belief DOESN'T necessitate that everything will turn to failure or dictatorships.

=====
I am employing perfectly fine critical thinking... as I am not narrowing my mind to the possibilities. It is a rejection of analysis and critical thinking to assume things and then refuse to give merit to rational possibilities that come in conflict with the assumption. Assumption... only bad can come from Christians in power. Possibility... good could come from it, as freedoms and tolerances could still be protected by law, and those Christians being exceptional politicans.

====
No, Critical Thinking would admit to all the possibilities and not jump to any. You seem to be saying that Critical Thinking is "assuming things to be true because its obvious that its just true, because it is" or "its happened once, so it'll happen again"... that's not critical thinking at all. Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow".

I, pure, say, False, btw, according to your own definitions below

===
JoeAs I teach Critical Thinking, I believe I have a basic understanding of the concept. I admit that it is possible we're using the same term, not the same meaning. Critical Thinking is the disciplined ability and willingness to assess evidence and claims, to seek a breadth of contradicting as well as confirming information, to make objective judgments on the basis of well supported reasons as a guide to belief and action, and to monitor one’s thinking while doing so (metacognition).


=====
If you can't admit to the nature of possibility, or deliver a working definition of what you understand to be critical thinking (as you claim I haven't been practicing it)... this conversation was over before it began, really. Empirical evidence does not eliminate possibility, possibility is relavent[sic] in statements of absolution.

Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly, demands nor necessitates that (by definition). It could turn out to be horribly bad for other reasons, could be bad for it being a Fundamentalist thing... could be good for a number of reasons, could be good for some Fundamentalist-esque reasons.

I'm not saying all possibilities are equal, only that they're possible. As such, statements that assert that the future holds X--as a certain truth--are invalidated by the merest possibility that it could be not that way.
==========

The proposition debated is that Fundamentalist/"What's written in the Bible" Christians, such as hang with Bush, will bring a number of fascistic practices, e.g., forcing women to bear and raise children, or bear and surrender them to Christian homes; suspension of habeus corpus, rights of privacy, protection against unreasonable search and seizure etc. The phrase "will bring" NOT implying mathematical certainty, but a practical approach to it: very very likely.

====
You begin your argument is a way calculated to obscure the issue: that you're arguing the "possibility" that fundamentalists might bring perfection.

Yes, and there's the possiblity that fundamentalists will stack all their Bibles in communal piles, and make bonfires of them, on which they throw their first born.

Logical possibility is/was never the issue.

Likewise, you accuse Colly of *assuming* that bad will occur.

She did not. She has reasons and evidence including the last four years of fundamentalist influenced US politics.

You contrariwise, claim to see an *assumption.* After all, according to you, it's Critical Thinking to assert, "The sun may not rise tomorrow, despite past patterns."

False, by your own defintion, see below.

You give away your game entirely with this move. It appears that even were Colly to have asserted the sun will rise tomorrow, and appealed to astronomical records, you'd say, "Possibly not, that's an assumption."

It's by the way an assumption of natural science: the regularity of nature. (As you well know.) If that's Colly's assumption, she's in good company.

Looking at your last summary:
Will Christian Fundamentalism lead to a horrific future? Maybe, maybe not. Nothing about it, inherantly[sic], demands nor necessitates that (by definition).

But that was never the debate. Let me just help Colly here, in a technical matter, though she has made quite capable arguements, rightly asserting that you ignore the evidence.

She was asserting that *with high probability*, the kind of probability involved in projecting the likely paths of hurricanes,
fundamentalists will restrict our freedoms.

She is open to the *logical possibility* that the folks might do something wonderful, as she is to the *logical possibility* that you might make an honest argument.

She refers to *historical likelihood.* You ignore it. You ignore all evidence, about fundamentalist practices, from Calvin's Geneva, to the Puritans in Mass, to the Bushies, to the Taliban and the Ayatollahs in Iran.

What do you have on your side? No evidence cited whatsoever; though I might, on your lazy behalf, mention that sometimes these regimes self destructed-- or moderated after a couple hundred years.

You indicate you don't need evidence: To argue logical possibility--as is common with you-- is to avoid evidence and the need for it.

Punchline: You violate your own definitions--and commonsense ones-- of critical and plausible scientific thinking. For, to quote you:

The thinking process that is appropriate for critical thinking depends on the knowledge domain (e.g.: scientific, mathematical, historical, anthropological, economic, philosophical, moral) but the universal criteria are: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound empirical evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth and fairness.

You take no account of the domain. History. You try to saddle her with proving that "It's logically impossible and utterly inconceivable, and ZERO percent unlikely that the fundamentalists will protect our freedoms as we know them."

You do not look at 'sound empirical evidence.'

This is to apply to her position the standards of mathematical truth. So, again on her behalf, I will concede the following to make you happy. George Bush MIGHT have a sudden increase in IQ. Bush and Cheney POSSIBLY with get divorces and have a gay marriage to each other. Osama POSSIBLY will occupy the white house, legally, in four years.

OH, and the POPE, possibly will anounce Oct 1, 2004, that his lifetime beliefs about birth control and abortion were wrong, and make the church operate democratically.

I find your approach both UNcritical, and since it's self-aware, utterly reprehensible.

You own both Colly and Dame Philosophy an apology.

J.

Thank you J.

 

[Pure]

Joe: As slimy a move as I've seen in these parts. You are walking example of the connection between religion and unethical behavior-- as in the case of Jerry Falwell.

Why do you waste good people's time for your self glorifying nonsense? (ie. truths, but ones that are irrelevant).

===
joe said (from memory) "all I was talking about was logical possibiilty."

===

joe said That was my only point.

It was a key point, buy you made several other false "points", including that Critical Thinking led to the questioning of such statements as "The sun will rise tomorrow."

Humean Skepticism might lead that way, but not "Critical Thinking" as you defined.

It is dishonest not to admit proposing falsehoods.

It is unethical to completely twist your opponent's position, and pretend to (properly) apply standards of mathematical truth.

You should be ashamed.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Colleen Thomas
Now we are getting somewhere, a definition. I think I can accept your definition of perfection. It works for me. Your assertion was that the curent administration could be taking us towards it. Considering the public record of this administration, I can see where you might be having trouble finiding an example or two.

Well, its not really a matter of having any trouble... so much as it is simply possible that they could be. Its very Cartesian, I know, but when people get bent out of shape because I mention something that's merely possible (not even probable or trendy), I find it best to not argue anything but the validity of the possibility. I don't have to prove that Bush is a noble king to say that "Fundamentalist Christianity may bring us closer to social or political perfection". Its only possible. I would even go so far to say it isn't probable at all, but that still doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I don't deny simple rational possibility. If the administration is moving us towards the nirvanna of perfection, then it is a simple rational proposition that you could show us progress in that direction in its first four years.

Well, rather its a complex argument that cannot be proven, I don't think... not a "simple rational proposition".

In the absecense of examples of its moving us toward perfection, the postulation that it might be is weakened. I can site multiple examples of it moving us away from perfection. In light of the lies, deciet, avarice and rank stupidity of some of the acts of this administration, the possibility of it moving us towards perfection becomes even more remote.

Remote doesn't deny possibility... possibility being my only assertion from the get go.

While the possibility remains, the probablity is so remote as to be insignificant. When the probablity has become so remote as to be non existant, then in practical terms the possibility does not exist.

I can't speak intelligently about what point possible things become insignificant. I'm not sure that can be quantified or qualified. But, I can say that even in the most remote and improbable world... possibility still is possible (by definition).

It is possible, I suppose, that the world is really flat. If you wish to define possibility in such black and white terms. But if you are using such terms, then their aplication to releveant conversations is practically nil. Which returns us to where we started.

Well, possibility is fairly black and white, really. Something is either possible or it isn't. Possibility isn't a value judgement, just a designation. It /does/ have conversational relavence, though... when someone says "All Christians suck", its possibility that "not necessarily all". Or when someone says "Athiests really do believe in God", its possible that at least some don't. Admitting to possibilities is an excellent step in responsible decision making (in my view, one of the first steps).

possible, rather than a practical application of the word possible, then it leaves very few reasons you could have in making it, short of wanting to start an argument.

Reasons why asserting simple possibility in such things could include "wanting people to see that the assertion isn't necessarily true", "offering up a democratic response so some viewing might not feel alienated", "promoting intellectual responsibility". Not necessarily "starting an argument".

In terms of critical thinking, if you are applying the absolute definition of possible, then you are not critically thinking, as the definition provides for no test that can rule it out. Without a test, it becomes impossible to argue with you. That is called a naked asertion, one that cannot be assailed logically because it is not supported. Naked asserions are not critical thinking, they are the refuge of those who cannot ssupport their stance, but do not wish to appear foolish.

Or, in terms of critical thinking... exploring the contradictions lead us to a better understanding of both the subject and its place in a rational framework--what I did. Pointing out simple contradictions that are rationally true isn't "lacking critical thinking"--good Lord, if nothing else I think we need to bring ourselves up to speed on that.

I shall remember from now on that you speak in terms of black and white absolutes. That being the case, you are inassialable in an argument. On the other hand, nothing you say has any merit that is worth consideration as none of it can be applied.

Better yet, remember that I was doing so. Not that I always do it. And, honestly, admitting to rational possibilities is highly applicable... its the foundation of "falsifiability" in science, if nothing else. VERY applicable.

Congratulations, you have won this argument. I cannot, under the circumstances prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it isn't possible. As of course you knew when you made the statement, given your definition of the terms. I have however forced you to define your terms, and given the definitions, see that further discourse with you is simply a waste of my time. Your statements risk nothing, and have no application to real life. They are simply theoretical ramblings.

Good evening,

-Colly

Sure, they have application... if nothing else, admitting that out of things that some people assume to be absoutely dreadful, very good things can come from it is real-life applicable. I always think of the American Revolution and British propoganda when that happens... or the some of the scientific community lambasting Relativity because it "could not be related to the workings of the universe in which we have mechanically established ourselves" (real-life applicable?)... or the absolute terror that was WW2 (and how it may have saved our economy and propelled us into SuperPower status as a nation).

Sometimes, admitting simple black-and-white rationally possible contradiction (even in something like "fundamental Christianity is going to bring about horrid things if they're in power") is a good place to stop narrow-mindedness and a good place to start exploring the issues.

But, admittedly, that's just my opinion.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Joe: As slimy a move as I've seen in these parts. You are walking example of the connection between religion and unethical behavior-- as in the case of Jerry Falwell.[./quote]

Howso?

Why do you waste good people's time for your self glorifying nonsense? (ie. truths, but ones that are irrelevant).

Well, it wasn't for my glory--that's for sure. I'm not really concerned about personal glory in the Author's Hangout at Literotica. If I should, then I think I've failed in that. Nothing I've done thusfar is glorious, I don't think.

They are truths. And, yeah, in their small way (as they are small truths) they are relavent.

 

[Pure]

Sometimes, admitting simple black-and-white rationally possible contradiction (even in something like "fundamental Christianity is going to bring about horrid things if they're in power") is a good place to stop narrow-mindedness and a good place to start exploring the issues.

Self serving tripe.

The issue is your dismissing evidence in an historical discussion.

And being too damn lazy to even consider presenting your own, instead of a bunch of technically correct, but irrelevant points from your lecture notes.

You fail at Critical Thinking. And sometimes misrepresent it:

Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow".

This is false, and you don't have the decency to acknowledge it. Critical Thinking, according to you, means to accept the differing standards about 'good reasons' and 'evidence' according to domain.

(At a deeper level, of course, you quite well know what you're doing, and may even agree that Colly is likely correct. Hence the core failure is to be ethical in argument. And to be capable of shame or embarrassment.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Self serving tripe.

But, the truth... so I don't suppose there's much more I can say about it.

The issue is your dismissing evidence in an historical discussion.

I didn't dismiss any evidence. If I did, please show me where. The evidence is good evidence, it seems, for the point "Bush is probably bad". However, that's not in contradiction to my point at all.

And being too damn lazy to even consider presenting your own, instead of a bunch of technically correct, but irrelevant points from your lecture notes.

Well, its not laziness, really. But I do admit, some of it comes from my lecture notes.

You fail at Critical Thinking.

Which is a remarkable disappointment... and an interesting paradox. Can one fail at Critical Thinking if one accurately employs Critical Thinking?

(At a deeper level, of course, you quite well know what you're doing, and may even agree with Colly. Hence the core failure is to be ethical in argument. And to be capable of shame or embarrassment.)

On a deeper level, I feel that possibilities brought up to give perspective to an assertion are not an ethical error at all.

 

[Pure]

You made a false statement:

Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow".

You refuse to acknowledge it.

Your devotion is only to "Joe should look good, and seem smart", not to philosophy.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
You made a false statement:

Critical Thinking is what gives us the notion of "The sun rose yesterday, and every day before, but may not rise tomorrow".

How is that false? It is the exploration of the breadth of contradictions, resting finally on a knowledge base that is basic physics and astronomy, finding its final place in simple accuracy. Is it not?

Your devotion is only to "Joe should look good, and seem smart", not to philosophy.

My devotion is to Philosophy, for sure.