Puberty blockers - no parental consent.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I always knew Ican was a relgious nut-job, but I actually didn't think he was quite as moronic as a creationturd.

[Immanuel Can]

So long as you're agreeable!

Of course. I try to stay "agreeable," meaning "polite" with people. That means no ad hominems, among other things, as you point out.

But being polite doesn't mean you have to be "agreeable" in the other sense, which is that of "always agreeing with everything anybody says." That's patronising, rather than actually agreeing, of course; or it would signal the absence of independent thought. Neither of us, I trust, is aiming for that.

We're on a Philosophy forum: we are going to disagree with other people's propositions sometimes, for sure, at least if we try to do any important thinking here. But we can remain polite and agreeable while we do, I would suggest.

[Vitruvius]

So long as you're agreeable!

Of course. I try to stay "agreeable," meaning "polite" with people. That means no ad hominems, among other things, as you point out.

But being polite doesn't mean you have to be "agreeable" in the other sense, which is that of "always agreeing with everything anybody says." That's patronising, rather than actually agreeing, of course; or it would signal the absence of independent thought. Neither of us, I trust, is aiming for that.

We're on a Philosophy forum: we are going to disagree with other people's propositions sometimes, for sure, at least if we try to do any important thinking here. But we can remain polite and agreeable while we do, I would suggest.

I'd be agreeable too, but cannot believe a word you say! The worst of it is that, you're not honest with yourself. Are you afraid?

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

God helps them who helps themselves

That's pop culture. It's not in the Bible, nor is the idea found anywhere therein.

I think you mean Matthew 7: 7-8, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."

[Belinda]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

God helps them who helps themselves

That's pop culture. It's not in the Bible, nor is the idea found anywhere therein.

I think you mean Matthew 7: 7-8, "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."

This is the value of having an Aunt Sally on the forum, that a piece of scripture such as the above (thanks Vitruvius and uwot) gets a chance to be interpreted in modern terms.

[mickthinks]

That just doesn't happen to me. You must be really fucking smart!

I'd be agreeable too, but cannot believe a word you say! The worst of it is that, you're not honest with yourself.

Yep, that's Manny—fucking smart and thoroughly dishonest!

[Sculptor]

And by the way, I've found that when people say "it's irrefutable," they usually really mean, "Please don't test me on this, because I don't know what I'm actually talking about, and don't want you to point that out."

Just saying.

This is the very definition of an ad hominem.
You avoiding making your own counter argument by drawing attention to some character flaw rather than addressing the issue.

Normally on these sorts of Foums people confuse insults for ad hominems, so it is rare to actually get a real one that is not also just foul langauge

[uwot]

...in the irony void between Mr Can's ears:

...I try to stay "agreeable," meaning "polite" with people. That means no ad hominems, among other things, as you point out.

...I normally ignore uwot. He's a suicidal loon.

[Vitruvius]

That just doesn't happen to me. You must be really fucking smart!

I'd be agreeable too, but cannot believe a word you say! The worst of it is that, you're not honest with yourself.

Yep, that's Manny—fucking smart and thoroughly dishonest!

Manny really believes in dodging tax! And reciprocally, the tax man wants to believe he has a soul! Win win!

[Immanuel Can]

Are you afraid?

I don't even understand the justification of the question. But perhaps you'll tell me...

[Immanuel Can]

Manny really believes in dodging tax!

I have not, in any of my posts, spoken of tax at all, V. Check back: you'll see.

[Vitruvius]

Manny really believes in dodging tax!

I have not, in any of my posts, spoken of tax at all, V. Check back: you'll see.

Then why go to all the trouble of denying science if not for the tax breaks?

[Immanuel Can]

Then why go to all the trouble of denying science if not for the tax breaks?

I don't even get the questions, because a) I'm not at all "denying science," by insisting that only real science, science done according to the scientific method, with integrity, testing, evidence and controls, should be called "science" -- that is exactly what "science" entails.

Don't you know that?

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks."

So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

[Vitruvius]

Then why go to all the trouble of denying science if not for the tax breaks?

I don't even get the questions, because a) I'm not at all "denying science," by insisting that only real science, science done according to the scientific method, with integrity, testing, evidence and controls, should be called "science" -- that is exactly what "science" entails. Don't you know that?

So you think you; and let's be fair, a religious nutjob - are best qualified to decide what is, and is not scientifically valid? You who; and again let's be fair - have a vested interest in maintaining your dogma, think you know better than scientists who are methodologically obliged to strive for objectivity, and valid knowledge of reality? Such that what scientists agree is real science, you know isn't?

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks."

So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

Religions are largely tax exempt. Did you not know that either? Look at this holy order of tax dodgers established by a paedophile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionaries_of_Christ


Scandal-ridden Legionaries of Christ named in Pandora Papers
By Inés San Martín
Oct 6, 2021
Rome Bureau Chief

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-ameri ... ra-papers/

[Immanuel Can]

Then why go to all the trouble of denying science if not for the tax breaks?

I don't even get the questions, because a) I'm not at all "denying science," by insisting that only real science, science done according to the scientific method, with integrity, testing, evidence and controls, should be called "science" -- that is exactly what "science" entails. Don't you know that?

So you think you...are best qualified to decide what is, and is not scientifically valid?

Not at all. I'm just saying what "science" is. It's not my opinion: it's the actual definition. If something doesn't conform to the rigours of the Scientific Method, then sorry...it's just not "science" -- not because I say so, but because the word "science" has a specific meaning.

See https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bound ... ic-method/

And b), I have said no word about "taxes," and don't know how "denying science" would even GET anybody "tax breaks." So that doesn't even remotely make sense to me. Sorry.

Religions are largely tax exempt.

Well, yes, many are; but it's not at all clear to me how that would make "denying science," as you put it, even among those "religions" that do it, the cause of any "tax" break.

Let's take Humanistic churches, like the United or the Unitarians...they worship anything that is even given the name of "science," including Evolutionism. Are you saying you don't think they get exactly the same tax breaks?

Sorry...that's just verifiably not so. Check it for yourself. It's very clear that even "religions" that do not "deny science" still get the same tax breaks as any that do. They get their tax status because they're "religions," not because of any attitude they hold or don't hold toward science.

So it's pretty clear that "denying science" has nothing at all to do with "taxes," one way or the other.

You're not making sense.