Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Given:
1. “might” is defined as ability to impose positive and negative consequences, immunity to reprisals, lack of needs requiring exogenous sources of fulfillment, and endurance.
2. “right” in this application specifically excludes mathematically correct solutions to specific problems, mechanically sound design, etc... we are speaking SOLELY of the form/concept of “right” tied to “morality”
Postulate:
“right” is always defined by might, and that definition's range and power is always proportionate to the might of the one making the definition.
Challenge:
Provide one case where the above is clearly not operant….
to “answer a challenge” is to rise to a challenge to provide whatever item, innovation, example, or solution the terms of the challenge demand.
so, in this case, the “answer” you would put forth would be one which you believe meets the challenge to name a situation or example in which morality-linked definition of right, as limited in the given, is NOT made by might, as defined in the given. It is satisfactory to demonstrate how the terms of the given are incorrect, thus falsifying the terms of the challenge, if you can do so.
note: "assert" does not equate to *demonstrate*
surely you know how a dialectic works?
Just making sure we’re on the same page here, King Prout!
Sure I know how “dialectic works.” Hegel and Marx gave such exemplary examples, the first “theoretical,” the other spectacularly “practical.” Which is why I prefer dialogue, or debate.
Anyhoot, it’s easy to give an example of “a situation or example in which morality-linked definition of right, as limited in the given, is NOT made by might.”
My example: The Constitution of the United States of America or, more precisely, the moral order it established.
And so I dispute your Postulate. Unless the free consent of We the People can be construed as "might."
You mentioned or rather suggested you didn’t have much use for Plato, preferring Aristotle instead, Plato’s great pupil.
Would that be this Aristotle:
Of things constituted by nature some are ungenerated, imperishable, and eternal, while others are subject to generation and decay. The former are excellent beyond compare and divine, but less accessible to knowledge. The evidence that might throw light on them, and on the problems which we long to solve respecting them, is furnished but scantily by sensation; whereas respecting perishable plants and animals we have abundant information, living as we do in their midst, and ample data may be collected concerning all their various kinds, if only we are willing to take sufficient pains. Both departments, however, have their special charm. The scanty conceptions to which we can attain of celestial things give us, from their excellence, more pleasure than all our knowledge of the world in which we live; just as a half glimpse of persons that we love is more delightful than a leisurely view of other things, whatever their number and dimensions. On the other hand, in certitude and in completeness our knowledge of terrestrial things has the advantage. Moreover, their greater nearness and affinity to us balances somewhat the loftier interest of the heavenly things that are the objects of the higher philosophy. Having already treated of the celestial world, as far as our conjectures could reach, we proceed to treat of animals, without omitting, to the best of our ability, any member of the kingdom, however ignoble. For if some have no graces to charm the sense, yet even these, by disclosing to intellectual perception the artistic spirit that designed them, give immense pleasure to all who can trace links of causation, and are inclined to philosophy. Indeed, it would be strange if mimic representations of them were attractive, because they disclose the mimetic skill of the painter or sculptor, and the original realities themselves were not more interesting, to all at any rate who have eyes to discern the reasons that determined their formation. We therefore must not recoil with childish aversion from the examination of the humbler animals. Every realm of nature is marvellous: and as Heraclitus, when the strangers who came to visit him found him warming himself at the furnace in the kitchen and hesitated to go in, reported to have bidden them not to be afraid to enter, as even in that kitchen divinities were present, so we should venture on the study of every kind of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something natural and something beautiful. Absence of haphazard and conduciveness of everything to an end are to be found in Nature's works in the highest degree, and the resultant end of her generations and combinations is a form of the beautiful. — De Partibus Animalium.Thanks so much for writing King Prout!
Are those studies of written language? I mean, those civilisations who spoke those older languages would have to be evolved enough to have developed a written form? You don't think writing evolved hand-in-hand with speech?
That's because all languages that work are as complex as they need to be, no more and no less. Languages don't "evolve" from "simple" to "complex." Many evolutionists cringe at thinking that lifeforms do as well. Evolution means "change" not necessarily "getting more complex."
Oh you fine example of integrity(NOT). You are really a comedian. You get no evidence because it is my contention. I feel that way. It is a "glorified" opinion and I have no need nor desire to justify my opinion/contention to one such as you. Dr. Sternberg was treated shabbily and the fact that you cited a hack blogger to deny the mistreatment of the Dr. is evidence of your "integrity". So bluster all you want, use whatever adjective you wish, you are getting nothing.
And I repeat, I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.
Differently from a conductor?
Axing about Elsie bordens on decapitalization.
"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as follows:'If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out-of-date," we just drop it.'" – T. Save-Soderbergh and Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology." [This source is from 1970.]
Indeed, most of the radiocarbon results are tossed out:
"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators." – J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon." [This source is from 1977.]
Sorry, this is total BS. Just look at the age of your sources. Radiocarbon dating wasn't even invented until the late 1940s! Don't you think things have advanced just a little since the 1970s?
I have done far more radiocarbon dates than you can probably count. You, I suspect, have done none. You, I suspect, know next to nothing about this subject--without google.
I can picture you casting about the web looking for anything to support your position, not knowing what the actual facts are, and whether the quotes you find are accurate or not. Quote mining, I think they call it.
If you want to debate radiocarbon dating, I will take you on one-to-one, no searching the web for supporting links or sources. Real time, mano-a-mano, as they say a bit south of here.
You up to the challenge, or do you have to rely on the web for your "knowledge"?
Differently from a conductor?
Axing about Elsie bordens on decapitalization.
Dr. Sto, you really are on a roll tonight!
What can I say; the straight men have been so helpful tonight. (Or maybe they're gay; I don't ask; they don't tell.)
It would take me a couple of hours to rebut this garbage, and you would just pop up with the same stuff on the next thread, as if I hadn't posted a thing.
Sorry, its late and I haven't shaved. Believe what you want (but if you're smart, you won't bet the rent money on the scientific accuracy of what you find on creationist websites).
And a straight line is the shortest distance between two puns...
Son; Dad, I looked in the mirror and I think I see some slight changes and differences from you and mom.
Dad; I will not raise a heretic. Did you not learn nothing from that last whipping!!!!!!!
Whack, Whack, Whack, Whack, Whack, Whack, Whack,
Dad: Now remember there is no evolution, change or difference, Now repeat after me,
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
I am a clone!!!
Probably bred in a testube at the Clone-Slettering medical center.
Your argument amounts to a conclusion that sexual reproduction is compatible only with evolution, which is absurd.
I am. You don't see Tom Cruise mentioned there do you?
So do people in mental institutions.
Since you deny being a mind reader(or so it seems), you must be speaking as an example of a person in a mental institution.
In other words, you CAN'T or WON'T back up your silly claims.
Won't, and silly is your contention.
Dr Sternberg was treated shabbily.
I presented Dr. Sternberg's side of the story and he was there, the blogger wasn't so it is a refutation.
Your "source"
Name: Daniel Morgan (a.k.a. Brother Danny) Home: Gainesville, FL Ph.D.-seeking chemistry grad student at UF President, AAFSA at UF, contributor, Debunking Christianity, blogger profile, webpage, facebook, email
AAFSA = Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF (Gainesville, FL)
Plus martyr and treated shabbily are not synonymous. You're too easy.
I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Classic "Creation 'Science'" logic: presented with snide sarcasm -- and Stuck on Stupid...
Whenever a new datapoint is inserted into a dataset, an additional "gap" is, indeed, created -- but the mean distance between points is always reduced -- not increased ...and the distance between the extremes remains unchanged.
Only the willfully ignorant contend that incrementally-advanced knowledge increases ignorance!
(No wonder that "Creation 'Science'" anti-TOE advocates continue to be an embarassment to thoughtful Christians!)
You have observed a clone by reproduction? Evolution is small changes and differences whether by reproduction or nature. There are ~6.7 billion people on earth. Which one is a clone? If the purpose of sexual reproduction is not to produce slightly changed and different offspring, what is it's purpose? To produce clones?
So, you have nothing to refute the facts that the blogger presented?
Facts!?
The Sternberg saga is turning into a creationist canard and martyr complex for all those "poor, persecuted" IDers. The myth is that Sternberg is some kind of heroic spotless lamb who was lambasted for choosing to believe in God by godless hacks like me. A guest columnist recently wrote that science is being "silenced":
What a loon you have for a source. And he admits to being a hack.
And yet you claim it has been falsified. Curious.
It should be curious, since I made no such claim.
I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.