Armor Games

AfterBurner0

• Member since: 8/11/2011

Today's forecast: We have a 50% chance.

1. Bladerunner679 says:

   Posted at 6:48pm on 5/8/2012

   "You couldn't have possibly typed that with a straight face. My point is that God made it pretty obvious that he exists. Just go to google images and type in: "hubble telescope pictures" or something. And be honest, did you watch the whole video?"

   I did, and the fact that you said "with a straight face" proves that the video is emotional rhetoric. thanks.

   "Alrighty. Where do you get your morals?"

   we get our morals from the laws of the land, mixed with a bit of personal interpretation. that's how religion got their morals too, they just never admitted it.

   "So are you saying that in order for something to be logically deduced, then the items involved have to exist?"

   no, they just need to be able to be proven with credible observation, not twisted logic. credible observation isn't the bible, or that special feeling you get when you think something is related to god.

   "Alright. It has been proven that DNA is not made of spaghetti. Therefore, there is no such thing as pastaism. However, it has not been proven that God exists. Therefore, it can not be proven that there is no such thing as perfection."

   beside the point, you said make up a concept, and I did. doesn't matter what science says, I say my DNP exists (sound familliar?)

   that argument of yours fails because there is a bunch of scientific evidence disproving god, but your indoctrination easily prevents you from acknowledging it.

   "Are you saying that if you aren't aware of something, then it doesn't exist? So just because at one point and time, people didn't know about Bryozoa, that means that they didn't exist?"

   so what? we then found evidence they existed, and then they are now scientific fact. find scientific evidence that god exists, and then he will be scientific fact.

   "So you're just one-sided. You have only one mindset and that is 100% debate mode. I feel bad that you don't think outside the box."

   I consider it more along the lines of focused. in fact, I'm a rather dynamic character, but when there is a serious topic, I expect serious adherence to the topic. kind of the same way a teacher who is grading a students essay expects the student to adhere to the topic of the essay. you consider it robotic, I consider it necessary for a debate.

   "You are being most very black and white. You see two alternatives. You see positive reinforcement and then you see furious, abusive and destructive violence. And like I said, there is a balance."

   actually, I was basing that little piece off of your many posts from that wonderful little thread you made known as "has the world gotten wimpy?" (or along those lines)

   -Blade

2. Kasic says:

   Posted at 6:16pm on 5/8/2012

   "So, if you don't want it done to yourself, then you shouldn't do it to someone else."

   Doing otherwise is being a hypocrite. Why should I do to others what I myself don't like, when I know they don't like it as well?

   "Your goal in life is to be happy, right? "

   I never said that. It's nice to be happy, and I try to be happy, but that's not my goal. Happiness is something that comes with being content in my opinion.

   "But then I say, that you are only responsible for your own happiness, not theirs. "

   This is where the chain broke. You had it right up to here in a simpleminded kind of way.

   If I cause someone else to be unhappy, that makes me unhappy as well. Feelings such as empathy, pity, and sympathy are the cause of this.

   "Because you can have a lot of fun with 100 dollars. "

   I actually don't really care for money. It's required to do pretty much everything, so I value it because others value it. I have no special desire to own a concept though.

   " The person you stole that money from can always steal someone else's money, right?"

   You're moving into a different style of society now. I believe I've said before that depending upon the situation certain acts that one may consider immoral may become moral or simply just an act neither good or bad.

   If it was a society where stealing was expected, taught how to do, and the best came out on top, that sounds a whole lot like being expected to work, taught how to do it, and the best coming out on top, just in a different style.

   "Thus, you should steal, because it makes you happy,

   But it doesn't. I don't know why you think that selfish acts make everyone happy. Unless you think everyone is as mature as a 5 year old?

   "And we come back around the circle where you say, "

   No, we come back around to your circle which you try to shove into my mouth yet again.

   Stop with the "you say, and then I say, and then you say" as it takes us no where and only serves to show your misunderstanding.

   "I think we're stuck in a rut."

   No, just you. You seem to refuse to stop trying to shove your already responded to incorrect presumptions down my throat and thus initiate the spiral where I have to once again tell you that no, you're arguing a strawman instead.

   "Like dropping the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945?"

   That would be one of them, yes. It was done with the intention of protected the U.S and stopping the war, but killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and caused radiation damage to people and earth as a result.

   "Here we are in the circle again..."

   Just you. I've been sitting on the bench 10 feet above you watching you argue a mirror for a while now. Tell me when you decide to stop, there's a staircase behind you.

   "So you said evil is just a 'term.' So I'm slightly confused here... Perhaps you could just rephrase and sum up everything."

   There's no "evil" particle, is there? There's nothing generated when "evil" is done. Thus, it is not "real." It is a name we have given acts which we find disfavorable in the extreme to our moral standpoint, which is also just a concept by the way.

   "Happiness is a concept and it is not measurable. "

   Happiness is just being content and not wanting for things I believe. Something which you either have or don't I think. You can see happiness in every animal by this definition whenever they are fed, hydrated, not threatened, and (usually) in a social group.

   "Is pain physical? You may say yes, but can you touch pain? Can you see pain?"

   Touch no, see yes. We can see the areas of the brain respond to the input from the nerves which register pain. A physical reaction is taking place. Therefore, it is not a concept.

   " You yourself believe that one usually does not bring harm to others because they know how it feels to be hurt. So if you show the child how it feels to be hit, then the child will not want to cause that pain to others."

   You don't need to hit the child for them to know what pain is, I'm sure they have already experienced it some other way.

   Also, the hitting alone will never change their thinking/behavior, it will just make them avoid that one thing. I would prefer to teach my child how to think for himself so that he/she may deduce the answer to any question and not instead be limited to whatever people tell him/her. This comes with the benefit of being able to decide if what one tells you is right/wrong as well, instead of being a gullible moron.

   "Talking. Never. Works. No matter how many times you tell a child to stop, they will keep doing it."

   You don't just tell them to stop. You have to get their attention, whether you raise your voice, go over and physically stop them (but not harm) or take something away for a period of time.

   "All they want is enjoyment for themselves, they don't care about other people. They just think it's funny when you get irritated.

   That's because they haven't yet learned all of the above. They don't -realize- that what they are doing is wrong or mean. They just see your face scrunch up and think that's funny, or think it's funny when you try to scramble after them if you chase them. They don't understand yet. Now if they're 7-8+ they should understand most of the basics, if they've been taught them.

   " By spanking, you can show them that their unruly behavior will not be tolerated. Thus it is more effective discipline."

   No, by spanking you show them that it is alright to cause pain in order to get your way (war anyone?) and that that single action for which you punished them for results in pain. You do not teach them why it is wrong. You do not teach them not to do it, only to not do it when no one is looking. You do not teach them that you are punishing them to correct their behavior, only that pain is a deterrent. You teach them nothing, and instead inflict an aversion.

   "Punishment is effective. If you are punished for doing something wrong, then you will avoid doing wrong because you want to avoid being punished. It's that simple."

   Yes, it is. But you don't seem to realize that there are far better ways of achieving the same result and that your way can easily go wrong in a multitude of ways.

   Ever heard the proverb, "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime."?

   "Right. Because after spanking, there needs to be a follow-up talk. "

   You must first dance before you go to the toilet. Otherwise you can't go.

   No, wrong, simply. The spanking is unnecessary. The talk is the only part that does anything of real value.

   "But you can't have just a talk either, because that in itself does not work. It's all about finding the balance."

   I agree that talking might not always work alone. But inflicting pain isn't the solution. There's such things as positive and negative reinforcement, in which you take or add something for certain behaviors. Positive/negative doesn't refer to good or bad, just +- btw.

   For example: A child comes home and refuses to do his homework. You explain to the child why homework is given out, why they should do it, and offer to help them with it. If they refuse, you have many options other than spanking.

   #1: Tell them that for every 30 minutes they put it off you will add another chore which they must do.

   #2: Tell them that for every 30 minutes they put it off they will lose a toy until that homework is completed.

   #3: Tell them that they are not allowed to leave their room until their homework is completed.

   I could go on for a while. Times/actions are completely replaceable.

   Oh, and I'll say this again because I see you mentioned it to Blade.

   Positive reinforcement isn't a reward all the time. Nor is Negative reinforcement a punishment all the time.

   Examples:

   A kid gets a A+ on test, you take away a chore he had to do. This is Negative reinforcement.

   A kid hits his brother, you make him spend an extra 30 minutes practicing an instrument alone in his room. This is positive reinforcement.

3. Bladerunner679 says:

   Posted at 5:47pm on 5/8/2012

   there is one thing that I am going to post reguarding kasic's debate with you however.

   "And positive reinforcement is good and all, but you do need consequences for bad actions too. There is a balance that must be achieved."

   very true, but that doesn't give you the right to hit a child with the fury of an overzealous nun. that is what I am trying to explain to you.

   -Blade

4. Bladerunner679 says:

   Posted at 5:15pm on 5/8/2012

   "I assume you didn't watch the whole video... One of my favorite things he said in that video goes something like this: There is an enormous star called "Betelgeuse." Now suppose you have an infinite supply of golf balls. Now take your infinite golf balls to the Superdome. Fill the Superdome with golf balls. Then take the golf balls out and put them in a pile. Now REFILL the Superdome with NEW golf balls. Now empty the Superdome and add those golf balls in the pile. Now just repeat that process 3,000 times. Now count how many golf balls that you used. Now make each golf ball the size of the earth. And hey presto! You've got enough earths to make the size of the star named 'Betelgeuse.'"

   ...your point? all that points to is the fact that stars can get really big and powerful, not god did it.

   "What's wrong with causing harm to someone else?"

   ...quit doing this, it only makes you look foolish. it is wrong because other people don't want to be wronged. quit assuming atheists have no morals, we've told you multiple times we do, with no god needed.

   "Well explain it one more time, why don't logic and imagination coexist? But I think you're wrong because an example like: I own an Xbox. If everyone who owns an Xbox has an Xbox controller, then I must have an Xbox controller."

   that is good logic, but what you are doing when you mix imagination and logic is distorting logic, and corrupting it to suit your needs, which is also a logical fallacy (I set up earlier that logical fallacies are bad for arguments).

   the problem with your god theory is that god is a supernatural creature of supposed ultimate power, and a rather short fuse. an x-box is a piece of machinery, and many people in the U.S either own, or have seen one, before. nobody has seen god before, so that "logic" you used cannot work.

   "I would like for you to make up a new concept."

   easy, my DNA is made of spaghetti, I call it DNP (deoxyribonucleic pasta). I have DNP in my system, and show signs of pastaism, which means having DNA made of pasta. sound absurd? well my pastaism to you is your god to me.

   "That's my point. We don't have proof of aliens or God. But does that mean they don't exist? I am holding a sandwich. You have your eyes closed. Are you going to assume the sandwich does not exist just because you have no evidence?"

   without actual evidence, to back up that it exists, it is only speculation, which means it is probably made up. that is faith to me, support for a made up belief without evidence of credibility.

   "So you're saying that unless there is proof for it, it doesn't exist. So let's assume that there is an undiscovered galaxy that is hundreds of millions of light-years away. So by your logic: If it hasn't been found, then it doesn't exist. That logic is absolutely preposterous."

   without proof of existience, then chances are it doesn't exist. the difference between a galaxy and god is that you can look into a telescope to find a galaxy, but you can't look into a telescope to find god (meaning, you have no way to prove that he exists, while we have a way to prove a galaxy exists).

   "Just trying to be friendly, but instead you accuse me of fallacies. Thus you have given me the impression that atheists are cynical, unfriendly and arrogant."

   you're not the first one to call me this. I"m not arrogant, but when I'm in a debate, I expect my opponent to stay within the subject. if you wanted to have a friendly conversation, you shouldn't have put it in the same post as your demented theory as to why a concept exists.

   also, as for the part with the debate between kasic and you, I'm backing out of it because of my respect in kasic, and my confidence in his abilities. you can read the whole conversation between me and him to confirm this.

   -Blade

5. Kasic says:

   Posted at 9:12pm on 5/7/2012

   "Why do you believe that causing pain in someone is wrong?"

   I know I've told you before, but here we go again.

   Because I know how it feels to have physical/emotional pain and would not want others to feel that for no purpose. Pain caused by say, surgery, isn't evil because its ultimate intent is to help -and- it works. Emotional pain caused by say, an intervention, also is not evil because it is aimed to help and it works (well, sometimes. It's better than leaving people on their own.)

   "It isn't evil because the surgeon has good intentions.

   Just to clarify in addition to the above, intent to help or do good doesn't make something not evil. Some of the most evil acts in human history have been done with good intentions.

   "What's wrong with doing something for selfish reasons?"

   Because by doing something selfish, such as ****, you are finding pleasure at the expense of another. No person is so above another that it is "right" to cause harm for pure personal gain.

   "So what is a 'concept' in your definition?"

   A concept is something which does not actually exist, but is described by us. Evil doesn't exist in nature, because there is no intent. Is it evil of a tree to cast shade on the smaller ones around it as it grows, thus effectively stealing their food? No. It just is.

   "Because there's no such thing as a "Happy" meter, or a "Pain" meter, or a "Success" "

   These are measurable whether through nerves or physical achievements. They are not concepts.

   "meter, or a "Stupidity" meter, or an "Excitement" meter."

   Stupidity is a concept, as it is relative to intelligence. Excitement is iffy, as it differs between individuals and things.

   "If you ever have kids, don't punish them and see if they still won't run off and do something. "

   Not punish doesn't mean not do anything.

   If your kid hits another kid, you would spank them? The punishment for hitting is hitting...hmm. No. You tell them why hitting is wrong, how it makes the other person feel, why they shouldn't do it and make sure they understand.

   Punishments are a deterrent, they are not correctives. They are there to prevent such things from happening and enforced only to ensure that people do avoid said act which comes before the punishment.

   "And besides, people still do bad things even though they know that there IS punishment"

   Yes, they do. However, it's not because they aren't afraid of the punishment (usually) it's because they think they can get away with it or value the end result more than the risk involved. This in itself proves that punishment doesn't work as a teaching tool.

   "So the only logical conclusion is that if no punishment will be made then they will do bad things even more."

   Not if they understand why a punishment for that act exists, and are brought up to be morally conscious and introspective.

   "P.S. Have joo seen the new Avengers movie? It's so Epic! :D"

   Nope, I saw the trailer for it though at the Hunger Games movie and I'm interested in seeing it. Marvel movies are usually pretty good, but I rarely see them in theaters (the only one I saw in theaters was Iron Man at the dollar theater) so I'll probably just watch it when it gets to the library.