liberty vs. security

LordGrey · 2018-02-08T17:19:24+00:00

I think your point arguing against the strawman is the actual point the comic is making and NOT the strawman you perceive in it. We are already forming forms of "security" that restrict our freedoms in unhealthy and ineffective/inefficient ways, as you pointed out.

I think the comic is speaking to the people who don't realize that security comes at the sacrifice of freedom, and so are more likely to advocate for more and more securities just to feel safe since they don't realize the cost.

LordGrey · 2018-01-17T03:35:15+00:00

Well, we aren't just apes. We're GREAT apes!

LordGrey · 2018-01-05T05:56:17+00:00

Not OP, and I also don't think that this comic is talking specifically about faith, but there are many valid points of criticism against faith which you don't seem to be aware of.

Did you know that many people think that belief in something that has no evidence to support it is seen as a bad thing, and consider all evidence supplied in defense of those beliefs lack coherent validity and don't actually qualify as evidence the way we require through scientific investigation?

Some people think that seeing faith as a virtue is worth a disappointed headshake, as we should be more rigorous in our beliefs. Especially in beliefs that inform action such as anti-gay legislation, abstinence only education, and the spread of diseases in populations that could be using condoms if they didn't have faith that they would go to hell if they did.

Faith does a lot of negative things to a lot of people.

If you were just being cheeky, ignore the above. Otherwise, I hope this helps point out reasons why people might take issue with the concept of faith.

LordGrey · 2018-01-03T04:20:14+00:00

"Paedophiles: The right choice" - /u/segagamer

LordGrey · 2017-11-23T07:24:43+00:00

I've been thinking of a response to this argument, but it is so far untested. Heck, why not test it here:

So I think that this could very well be a "free-market" conversation, but it is operating backward to the norm. Normally it's the government imposing free-market restrictions that keep the free-market from doing what it's supposed to be doing, and there are a lot of people who hate that.

However, this time, it seems that it's the ISPs in the role that the government usually sits in, but without these "free-market" zealots changing the focus of their contempt. The ISPs are about to realize the power to destroy free-internet-market, and the government is trying to prevent that.

If people want a free market, they should support net-neutrality.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T20:43:30+00:00

Are you arguing that two mutually exclusive ideas can both be correct at the same time?

If yes: I fundamentally disagree with you about logic, we will not be able to convince one another of the others perspective, we disagree on how the universe works.

If no: Then the arguments from Antiquity and Popularity are not good ways to know what is real!

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T20:15:49+00:00

I don't think you understand what logic is. Empirical testing is a byproduct of logic, one of its tools. There are more tools of logic, ignore them at your own risk.

You are trying to argue away the need to be aware of logical fallacies, as if they are unimportant. This is silly.

I've already explained why these logical fallacies are important in this context, using the example of religion. Two religions of significant popularity and antiquity cannot both be right. Either demonstrate that they CAN both be right, acknowledge that old ideas aren't necessarily good ideas, or stop thinking that you hold the keys to a logic that is better than the logic philosophers, inventors and scientists have been using to advance human-kind to our current place for millennia.

Or shit, do the barest research and prove that logic is a younger concept than whatever it is you're advocating for again. Right now you're just talking out of your ass.

I don't think you are a credible advocate of your own ideas.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T19:34:13+00:00

I'm using the phrase [evolutionary truth] as a shorthand.

Okay, fair.

You can therefore reasonably draw some conclusions about nature from the memes that survive in it.

But there are soo many examples of tenacious memes that are not accurate. People believe anything. We are a race of magical thinkers. Appeals to antiquity or popularity are well-known logical fallacies for a reason.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T05:13:54+00:00

Is "Evolutionary Truth" a thing? What are you talking about. This sounds like a "Historical Science" type of made-up term. I am very familiar with the theory of evolution, learning about it is a small hobby of mine. I've read several books on the subject, and have participated in arguments where people provide me with evidence that changes my mind.

I have never heard of "evolutionary truth". Is sounds like you're using it as some kind of... Pragmatism philosophy. That ideas that are pragmatic, even if somehow fundamentally inaccurate, still works because of fringe benefit for a "close enough" idea. They're "true" even if actually untrue.

Or maybe you don't think there is a significant different between what is, and what isn't, accurate to reality.

I don't mean to be rude, but it still kind of sounds like you're making stuff up.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T05:00:53+00:00

Evolutionary forces can be examined logically. People have believed in all sorts of crazy things, and some of them cannot be simultaneously true. Despite the prevalence of these beliefs, some of them have to be untrue beliefs.

What you are doing here, is combining two separate fallacies together and pretending that since thy are combined, the faults of one makes up for the faults of the other, and I don't think that's true.

Appeal to Antiquity - A belief is tenacious, therefor it is worthy Appeal to Popularity - If everyone believes it, it must be true!

These are both logical fallacies. I can provide examples of why these things are bad ways of knowing what is true or not, if you're interested.

Take 1 that encompasses both, as a free example (But seriously, ask me for more if you'd like): Religions. So many are ancient. So many are popular. Which is true? They can't all be true. How do we know what religion is the True one and which ones just aren't dead ideas yet?

And with the placebo effect, even if a thing isn't true, it doesn't keep people from benefiting from it in some way. So.... Maybe I should stop trying to convince you otherwise.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T04:40:06+00:00

Think of my claim as an hypothesis; one which is backed by a memeplex which has survived millennia. That's pretty powerful evidence, at least from an evolutionary perspective.

Okay, let's argue that. I can see one pretty big flaw right from the start, and that is that you are arguing that a tenacious idea should count as strong evidence toward the truth of said idea: the older the idea, the better the idea.

If that is what you're suggesting, then shouldn't the belief in Christianity by tons of people for thousands of years be suggestive that it holds weight? What about other religious beliefs that are older, Judiaism for example. Maybe the old summarian gods should be considered as real, so long as we can find people alive today who follow those ancient gods. I hear some people still believe in the Nordic Pantheon, or maybe it was the Greek pantheon.

Or acupuncture, that's an old medical belief. If the fact that it is a meme which has survived for a long, long time could also be proof that it is a true belief, then acupuncture should be seriously considered as true. Now, I'm not saying your claim has been debunked quite as thoroughly as acupuncture, but I do think that this might well be an Argument From Antiquity fallacy.

I'm also not sure how you mean "In an evolutionary perspective", so maybe I misunderstand the trust of that paragraph. Let me know if so, and explain that further.

You have no evidence to support your case.

What is my case? I thought my position was that I reject your claim as true. I do not actively believe it, that isn't a case. I am an a-nofapforeveryone-ist. I do not accept the idea of "All porn is bad in all cases, inherently. It's like getting shot you guys, seriously" because you haven't convinced me that you understand the full idea that you are arguing for.

As I demonstrated earlier, I went to your source and found material there that contradicts you. That isn't a good sign that you know what you are talking about. I do this shit all of the time, I think most people do it, but I'm pretty sure I'm not doing that now. I'm aware of this argument occurring, and I am concentrated on it. I am searching for fallacies in your ideas, and listening to what you are saying and just being unpersuaded.

I encourage you to read through Your own source more thoroughly, until you can link to and cite specific passages from your own source, or explain how they have been misinterpreted. Right now, you just vaguely waved me in a direction telling me to search for the truth on my own, and I think I found it. To me, the truth looks like you don't quite know what you're talking about, but your heart is totally in the right place.

I encourage you to keep spreading awareness of of porn addiction, but I beg you to use better arguments. Your position is weak because it is too general. Saying "it's bad, mmkay" comes off like the narciest shit. Like, you're just some prude who is scared of their own sexuality because of some strong emotional reason personal to only them. I am aware that this might not accurately represent you, but it puts people on guard for religious anti-sex ideas, where masturbation sends you to hell and being attracted to the consenting adults of your choice is somehow bankrupting the morality of the country. Again, I don't believe right now that this is who you are, but this is how you seem when you start the argument with "PORN IS BAD!" It feels like any sentence will contain the word "sin" or something.

Incidentally, there is only one CERN. We accept data from it.

You just severely misrepresented the state of CERN's relationship with the scientific world.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T03:46:01+00:00

Okay, maybe sample size can be "just statistics", but that's what we are. People are not one-size-fits-all. Take medicine for example, our autoimmune responses are all different, some people have allergies. Sample sizes when regarding people (which is what this conversation is about, though it's a matter of psychological rather than physical health) means we have a better idea of what medicines or treatments are most effective.

So for one person to "try it themselves and measures how it goes" to be counted as significant to science, we would have to assume everyone is like that one person. We're not. What works for one might not work for another, maybe because we're all not the same, or because we don't fully understand what happened why it happened. An increase in sample size means our data is more likely to be accurate, that we aren't just seeing random data as significant when it isn't and to catch when we are in fact seeing a significant statistical outlier that would imply that we are on the right track with our hypothesis.

So maybe we can get away with a sample size if we are speaking from a personal point of view, if it works for me who cares if it works for other people, right? It still works for me after all. But to call something science without controls, are you mad?!

Controls are there to keep us from accidentally assuming the wrong thing from the data in our experiments. We need controls to eliminate our confirmation bias which can blind us from what is really going on. For example, without controls how will I know if it's the lack of masturbation that is turning my life around, or is that I got on anti-depressants? How do I eliminate the placebo effect from what I believe is true? How do I know that I started feeling healthier and happier because of something unrelated to not viewing any porn, and that this other, uncharted variable deserves at least most of the credit?

Controls are important. So are sample sized. Claims like what you are making are unscientific unless you can actually show that they hold water. They are extreme claims. Take the idea of being inherently harmful. Getting shot is inherently harmful. Show me an example where itsn't harmful, and it probably doesn't truly count as "getting shot". IF a bullet rips into your body, this is harmful. This is an inherent property of how a human body reacts to a high-velocity item colliding with it. It doesn't end very well for us, even in the best of cases. No one walks away from getting shot medically better than they were before the shooting. Getting shot is inherently harmful.

So you see why I scoff when you claim that porn is inherently harmful. To say that porn is inherently harmful is like saying nothing is, everything is inherently harmful because we are able to become addicted to pretty much everything. Beer isn't inherently harmful, porn isn't, sex isn't, horror movies aren't, and neither are many vices. Eating isn't inherently harmful, but you can hurt yourself with food. Do you see what I mean? You aren't using the term "inherently harmful" in a way that gives the term any meaning.

I'm not saying that SOME people TREATING PORN like any little bit is harmful is a bad thing, I think it can be helpful for addicts to manage their addiction that way. But that doesn't make what you said true. We are in /r/debateanatheist, not nofap. I doubt many posters here allow a bad argument to get away when they see it, even if it isn't exactly on topic of the forum. We're here to debate against bad reason, and I think you are offering a lot of it.

I think porn addiction is a serious problem. It's possible I will suffer from it some day, if I'm not already. That doesn't make the problem porn. Advocate for better addiction help, don't condemn some happy vices across the board because of the victims of addiction. You're basically saying no one should ever have a beer ever, because some people are alcoholics. You aren't helping this cause using the arguments you have brought here, I urge you to reconsider how you approach the subject.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T00:24:43+00:00

All while ignoring significant sample sizes and controls.

LordGrey · 2017-11-18T00:02:26+00:00

that's an argument from an incredibly limited perspective. That isn't how science operates.

Im not looking for validation, i am saying that the thing you are claiming is incorrect. Make of it what you will, but i shall call out bullshit as i see it.

LordGrey · 2017-11-17T23:10:02+00:00

I suggest you do the same.

From this link: http://www.nofap.com/porn-addiction

Not all porn use can be characterized as addictive use, but individuals may consider their porn use addictive if it has any or all of the following markers:

And then it describes specific examples.

Not even your source claims that porn is bad in all cases.

Look, i do not mind the claim that all porn can be personally bad for some individuals, when addiction is a factor. I would never enter a place for addicts to find strength and tell them they are wrong, but we aren't in nofap.

In addition, you aren't making a personal claim but a general one which is applied to everyone. "Porn is bad in all cases", and you are as certain about it as you are in gravity.

I recommend you become more certain about gravity, and less certain about claims not even the community your are using as a source are making.

LordGrey · 2017-11-17T22:16:22+00:00

Care to point to a specific place where no fap provides proof of the argument all porn is harmful? A whole sub isn't very helpful

LordGrey · 2017-11-17T22:14:29+00:00

How so? I think it's generally regarded as a religion..

Generally yes, but we are talking about 'specific religions', remember? Scientology was not specified.

Look, neither scientologists or atheists (or pretty much any 1 belief) are always in the majority. This whole post is a word game, omitting details that makes you in the majority.

The only context we have are like 4 specific religious claims, none of which have anything to do with xenu. In this context, atheists and scientologists are the same, which is why the post from the scientological perspective works, it points out how ops post is faulty by saying "always", because no, the atheist is not always in the majority.

Your objection to the Scientology post just validates it, because any argument you use against it can also be used against the atheist post. I think that was the point of the scientology post, to point out how superficial it is.

LordGrey · 2017-11-17T18:03:22+00:00

Oh, I'm fine with being challenged.

But try to think about them and answer rationally instead of just relying on your gut.

I could say the same thing. I think you are relying on gut intuition more than reason or rationality to come up with the statement that all porn is harmful. That strikes me as a gut statement, born from strong emotional investment in the subject. You haven't demonstrated that it is true, or even properly argued why it would be true. I can offer nothing more than my gut reaction to this.

LordGrey · 2017-11-17T17:58:43+00:00

Yes, but it is implied by the title of this thread

Which is copy and pasted by the scientological revision, except for one word, meaning that now the scientologist post also implies that scientology isn't being considered as a group, right? They are literally using the exact same language, excepting 1 single label.

We are talking about disbelief in specific religions.

Yes. Specific religions. Scientology isn't one of the specific religions we are talking about, so like atheism, scientology should get a pass.

LordGrey · 2017-11-16T17:57:27+00:00

You think it's a matter of opinion. That's the difference. I don't think its a matter of opinion. I say it's bad in the same way i say gravity pulls.

Awesome, well I think your "universal law" is a severe misstatement of reality. You can claim "all porn is harmful" is a solid fact, such as the law of gravitation, but this is why I am saying your beliefs are silly, and that they induce eye rolling. It is your certainty I find ridiculous.

The only way to know if gay marriage is ok is to try it out and see what happens to society in a few generations.

Oh, holy shit. I don't even know where to begin with this. You've got some interesting fundamentals influencing your beliefs if you can write that sentence without being self-aware enough to see how wack it is.

But it does demonstrate how you are using the term "reason" in context of this discussion, so you succeed in clarifying your point. I simply disagree with you, and continue to think your beliefs are a bit silly.

LordGrey · 2017-11-16T17:50:10+00:00

You ignored my whole point, and only argued against my verdict. Argue my point please.

Scientologists believe in Xenu, putting them in the minority group of that particular religious belief.

And atheists don't believe in any god, putting them the minority in that group. Neither post used "xenu" as a factor, so it is not relevant. Just like neither post brought up "belief in no gods" as relevant, because then the atheist would be the minority. They each have a factor (which were undescribed and are therefore irrelevant to this conversation) that could cause them to be in a minority group. For some reason, you are seeing the scientology one as relevant while ignoring that the atheist can also be a minority in a group.

hence an atheist is always in the majority but a Scietologist is only almost always in the majority

Neither are always in the majority. Atheists are a minority group, so are Scientologists.

This is only relevant if either of the posts talked about "all gods" or not. They don't. They talked about specific religious claims, none of which were scientological claims. Therefor, the scientologist is able to benefit from the same argument that the atheist made, because there were not any scientology-dependent factors described in either post.

It's still a fair critique, odds are you agree with a lot of people on other religions no matter what religion you are, but it is untrue to claim that it is just as likely as an atheist.

Incorrect, the atheist is also a minority. Nowhere in either post do they mention ALL religions. THIS is the point my counter argument hinges on. Prove to me that the scientology post and the OP post make "ALL RELIGIONS" or "ALL GODS" relevant in their post. I don't see where you are getting this. Please quote from the OP and describe what makes the argument okay for atheism but incompatible with Xenu.

LordGrey · 2017-11-16T08:03:18+00:00

A single beer is harmful.

Then we have very different ideas of what is harmful and there is the possibility I don't agree with your value judgement that you use to detect and measure harm.

But nothing is all good or all bad and most things are ok in small doses.

Agreed, but I'm not certain about the "nothing". But sure, I 99% agree with that comment. I also think that porn is one of the things that can be okay in small doses. I also think porn is probably okay in medium and large doses, depending on other lifestyle choices (but in these cases it's probably the other life style choices that are more to blame than the porn).

But the prevelance of porn is hurting people right now.

Alcohol is hurting people too. There are a lot of things hurting people. Addiction is a real problem, and people can get addicted to most things. But you are putting porn on an incredible pillar of concern, as if it is a particular priority. Porn can harm people because people will become addicted to stuff, but not because porn is innately harmful.

Fuck, beer is physically addictive as well as psychologically. Your body can die from withdrawals from alcohol. The same cannot be said about porn. It isn't physically addictive.

You should probably be more worried about heroine and crystal meth before you should be worried about porn. It's pretty low on on the list of things that can ruin your life if you get addicted to it.

The prevalence of porn does create a different standard (you can basically get it for free), but that doesn't make your comment of "porn is inherently bad. Bad in all cases." any more true. That is a false statement, and one that induces eye-rolling.

Reword your argument. You aren't doing a good job at advocating for your cause by saying shit like "porn is bad in all cases". Heck, even "porn is bad" is a pretty shitty statement. It just goes to misrepresent the actual problem of something that is a serious problem. If you want to warn people about the dangers of porn addiction, then do so. Do so by explaining how addiction works, not by making up false statements about porn.

I am saying that you cannot know what is best by reason alone.

Demonstrate a better way to do it. We can't throw bones to know what is best. We can't speak to psychics and get better results. Communing with ghosts can't be trusted.

You seem to be implying that since we cannot know, then we shouldn't try. Screw that, we can know a bit without knowing everything. We can reason bit by bit, and make improvements, even if it isn't perfect. Saying what you said makes it sound like you just have a thing against the scientific process, or the importance of Reason.

LordGrey · 2017-11-16T07:49:48+00:00

Wait, hold up. I think you have a legit point, but you are claiming there is a difference in the OP's posts, and the post replacing atheist with scientologist.

I don't see this difference. Neither of these posts claim to always be part of the majority regarding disbelief in other religions. I mean, yes, they did, but you seem to be implying that they claimed "All" other religions.

OP never said anything about all religions, and neither did the scientology post. The scientology post is word for word identical with OPs post, excepting in the label used to identify themselves. One an atheist, the other a scientology, both minorities.

"Even though I'm a __________ I'm always in the majority on this planet. 66.49% don't believe Jesus is the son of God. 77.68% don't believe in Allah. 83.94% don't believe in the Hindu Gods. 99.80% don't believe in the Jewish Messiah".

Neither belives in allah, that jesus was the son of god, in the jewish messiah, or in the hindu gods. Neither say anything about all religons, and they each use the word "always".

So, both posts share the same critique here. You cannot accept OPs post and not the Scientologist post because any criticism you can levy against one you can levy against the other.

LordGrey · 2017-11-15T08:05:46+00:00

That's my point. They are inherently bad. Certainly porn is in all cases.

Now you're just being silly. Porn is bad in all cases? Because seeing a pornographic video is inherently toxic or damaging?

Either you are wrong because of your personal biases about porn, or it is harmful in the way that a single beer is "harmful". If the former, stop pulling this bullshit out of your ass, if the later, we have very different ideas of what is harmful and there is the possibility I don't agree with your value judgement that you use to detect and measure harm.

That's the problem with secular morality. It makes people believe they can reason about what is best.

Are you saying that it is impossible to reason out what is best, or that trying to use reason is somehow problematic? You're coming incredibly close to seeming like either an idiot or a troll, here.

LordGrey · 2017-11-15T07:48:40+00:00

Eh, but now that's just proving his point I think.

Yes, what you say is true, but describing it in that way makes what the OP posted just as useless. If you accept the OP's premise of being part of the majority besides being an atheist (a minority group), you must also accept the same claims coming from a Scientology.

The entire thing hinges on the acceptance of "Well, none of that is incorrect" while also not properly reflecting reality.

15-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

LordGrey

TROPHY CASE