PDA

View Full Version : A Lament for Skepticism



RWGR
06-17-2013, 09:46 AM
...The problem with the evidentialist objection, however, is that the evidentialist purports to know exactly how every individual should go about fulfilling his or her epistemic duty: you should examine each of your beliefs to see whether you can come up with sufficient reasons to believe what you do, and if the evidence is found to be lacking, you should discard those beliefs. In other words, you should assume that all of your beliefs are guilty unless proven innocent. You can only be considered rational after careful reflection upon all your beliefs.

There might not seem to be anything wrong with this position until one asks the question of why all our beliefs should be guilty until proven innocent as opposed to the other way around. Isnít it a quite pessimistic picture of the way our intellectual faculties work? Indeed, under this picture of humanity, the skeptic seems to be given more epistemic credence than someone who just takes things at face value. We even have a name (and indeed, a whole category of jokes that go along with it) for the person who naively takes beliefs to be innocent until proven guilty: gullible. How did things get this way? Why are we so pessimistic about our abilities to know things about the world?

http://manna.mycpanel.princeton.edu/revisions/2013/06/a-lament-for-skepticism/

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:11 PM
...The problem with the evidentialist objection, however, is that the evidentialist purports to know exactly how every individual should go about fulfilling his or her epistemic duty: you should examine each of your beliefs to see whether you can come up with sufficient reasons to believe what you do, and if the evidence is found to be lacking, you should discard those beliefs. In other words, you should assume that all of your beliefs are guilty unless proven innocent. You can only be considered rational after careful reflection upon all your beliefs.

There might not seem to be anything wrong with this position until one asks the question of why all our beliefs should be guilty until proven innocent as opposed to the other way around. Isn’t it a quite pessimistic picture of the way our intellectual faculties work? Indeed, under this picture of humanity, the skeptic seems to be given more epistemic credence than someone who just takes things at face value. We even have a name (and indeed, a whole category of jokes that go along with it) for the person who naively takes beliefs to be innocent until proven guilty: gullible. How did things get this way? Why are we so pessimistic about our abilities to know things about the world?

http://manna.mycpanel.princeton.edu/revisions/2013/06/a-lament-for-skepticism/

Some religious based beliefs should be guilty until proven innocent, like ones that interfere with the rights of others... Christianity for instance.

official soonet pu$$ycat
06-17-2013, 04:16 PM
Some religious based beliefs should be guilty until proven innocent, like ones that interfere with the rights of others... Christianity for instance.

The reason you spend 90% of threads saying "i never said that" is because you throw out empty statements. If you make that comment tell us which rights you are referring to. "Not off the top of my head" won't cut it. Seriously enough of the cliches.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:25 PM
The reason you spend 90% of threads saying "i never said that" is because you throw out empty statements. If you make that comment tell us which rights you are referring to. "Not off the top of my head" won't cut it. Seriously enough of the cliches.

So if you wanted to know, simply ask....

In most states in America gay are not given the same rights a heterosexual couple is given. These rights are infringed upon by Christian beliefs that marriage is for a man and a woman.

Would you like this sourced? and in what format would you like my references sourced in?

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:27 PM
Some religious based beliefs should be guilty until proven innocent, like ones that interfere with the rights of others... Christianity for instance.

and as an example ...

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:32 PM
I just provided one :)

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:33 PM
I just provided one :)

Where?

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:34 PM
post #4

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:39 PM
In most states in America gay are not given the same rights a heterosexual couple is given. These rights are infringed upon by Christian beliefs that marriage is for a man and a woman.

That would be true, if America were a Theocracy like Iran, but it most obviously is not.

America has a secular government, and under the auspices of that government runs the democratic process, which is only partially influenced by Christian ideals; Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc, all take part in the American political process, and as such to say gays do not enjoy rights of hetero couples because of Christian beliefs is clearly factually incorrect.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:41 PM
Why was the debate of same sex marriage ever even brought up?

RWGR
06-17-2013, 04:44 PM
Why was the debate of same sex marriage ever even brought up?

Because it looked to redefine a cultural institution. Such things are not easily waved off or ignored in a deliberative democracy, not should they be.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 04:49 PM
And you are suggesting that the Christian influence on this matter was minimal?

RWGR
06-17-2013, 05:00 PM
And you are suggesting that the Christian influence on this matter was minimal?

Ahhh, so the goalposts have been moved. Rightly so, I may add :)

I would say the Christian view played a significant, but not overwhelming, part.

Such is the democratic process, God bless it.

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 05:03 PM
I am not moving the goal posts. If Christain views played a significant role, then Christian beliefs are preventing some people from having the same rights as other people.

RWGR
06-17-2013, 05:23 PM
I am not moving the goal posts. If Christain views played a significant role, then Christian beliefs are preventing some people from having the same rights as other people.

You are indeed moving the goalposts. You started by saying Christianity alone was responsible for homosexuals not having certain rights. Now, it's "to what degree are Christians responsible"

First of all, what rights are denied homosexuals? Many companies provide equal coverage for a partner in a relationship that they offer a married man and woman.

What right are denied? Are they denied certain jobs? Access to college? Loans? Do they have to sit in separate parts of restaurants?

Second, what of other groups that disagree with homosexual marriage? Are they ignored?

dancingqueen
06-17-2013, 05:43 PM
My argument is that Christianity is one of the religions that do interfere with the rights of others. It doesn't matter what independent companies do, they are separate from the gov't, it's the gov't allowing religious views to interfere with people's rights.

official soonet pu$$ycat
06-17-2013, 09:22 PM
So if you wanted to know, simply ask....

In most states in America gay are not given the same rights a heterosexual couple is given. These rights are infringed upon by Christian beliefs that marriage is for a man and a woman.

Would you like this sourced? and in what format would you like my references sourced in?

Yes please. Religion is not something I know much about but I enjoy reading this section.

What I don't get is why are you so interested in traditional marriage when it follows such Christian ways. I realize Christians didn't invent marriage but the way we go about it even today seems to come from Christian values.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 09:24 AM
My argument is that Christianity is one of the religions that do interfere with the rights of others. It doesn't matter what independent companies do, they are separate from the gov't, it's the gov't allowing religious views to interfere with people's rights.

Again I ask: what rights are homosexuals denied?

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 09:38 AM
Protection from being denied a job on the basis of sexuality.

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 09:40 AM
Yes please. Religion is not something I know much about but I enjoy reading this section.

What I don't get is why are you so interested in traditional marriage when it follows such Christian ways. I realize Christians didn't invent marriage but the way we go about it even today seems to come from Christian values.

Lets be clear, I am not personally interested in traditional marriages, but there are many that are.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:11 AM
Protection from being denied a job on the basis of sexuality.

What jobs refuse to hire anyone based on sexuality?

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:29 AM
any job can, that is the problem. You can also be let go with just cause for being homosexual.
Having no protection from this is a right that they do not have in the USA.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:35 AM
any job can, that is the problem.

Really? I've yet to see an ad in the paper, or on TV, that advertises for help and doesn't note that they will not base their decision on "race, sexuality ..."

You will have to provide concrete proof. Saying "any job" is like admitting you can't think of one.

You can also be let go with just cause for being homosexual.

Really? source? Link?


Having no protection from this is a right that they do not have in the USA

Really?? Source? link?

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:38 AM
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment_discrimination

RWGR
06-18-2013, 10:40 AM
From the federal govt's site:

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex.

Sex discrimination also can involve treating someone less favorably because of his or her connection with an organization or group that is generally associated with people of a certain sex.

Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 10:47 AM
from your link:

Employment Discrimination laws seek to prevent discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical disability, and age by employers.
seek to, as in this is not in place and employers are currently able to.
It doesn't matter the individual company's policy, though it is nice to see. The LAW does not provide this protection.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 02:42 PM
from your link:

seek to, as in this is not in place and employers are currently able to.
It doesn't matter the individual company's policy, though it is nice to see. The LAW does not provide this protection.

DQ, people stray from the law all the time, it's why we have police, watchdog groups, bureaucratic agencies...they watch for abuses all the time. Just because some wayward employer may fire someone for being gay doesn't mean being fired for being gay is the norm, it means one person crossed the line.

It's illegal to fire someone for their religious views, but it happens from time to time. That doesn't mean religious people are discriminated against, it means from time to time an employer crosses the line.

Again, this is why the homosexual community gets a lukewarm response from many people, and why it is absurd, even disgusting, that the homosexual community compares itself to the African-Americans of the Fifties, or women of the Sixties: Those groups actually had real issues to deal with, and fought hard to make gains. The homosexual community more and more comes off as whining and petulant, seeing ghosts and goblins at every turn, and crying 'woe are we!' to anyone that will listen.

I've asked you to provide specific instances of homosexuals' rights being denied, and you've simply provided generalities with no source or basis.

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 04:19 PM
You are either unwilling, or unable to distinguish the differences between what an employer does, or does not do with what the law allows an employer to do or not do. Lets be clear, there is no bias here as I am not an employee in the USA and therefore does not directly apply to me.
In the USA a person can be fired due to their sexual orientation, this is permissible by law the fact that it happens infrequently is irrelevant. Protection from this discrimination is not afforded to homosexuals.

RWGR
06-18-2013, 05:35 PM
You are either unwilling, or unable to distinguish the differences between what an employer does, or does not do with what the law allows an employer to do or not do.

Okay, now in English :)


In the USA a person can be fired due to their sexual orientation, this is permissible by law the fact that it happens infrequently is irrelevant. Protection from this discrimination is not afforded to homosexuals

No, they cannot. I provided a source showing as much. You, on the other hand, make things up out of thin air. Please, show me where it is permissible to fire someone in the USA due to sexual orientation

dancingqueen
06-18-2013, 07:15 PM
again....

from your link:

seek to, as in this is not in place and employers are currently able to.
It doesn't matter the individual company's policy, though it is nice to see. The LAW does not provide this protection.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 10:30 AM
Still waiting ....

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:36 PM
It says so right there in black and white, you are refusing to see it.

seek to prevent discrimination
as in the discrimination exists and this group is trying to prevent something that is in place currently.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:39 PM
It says so right there in black and white, you are refusing to see it.

as in the discrimination exists and this group is trying to prevent something that is in place currently.

It is "in place" for everyone, if you're going to use that criteria.

According to your mindset, speeding laws are useless,because some people break the speed limit.

So, you have no tangible proof homosexuals are discriminated against. Good, let's move on

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 12:46 PM
Does the USA state in their laws that one will not be discriminated against based off of sexual orientation?

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:48 PM
yes, I already linked to it on the EEOD website

kalam
06-19-2013, 12:48 PM
Hi RWGR,



So, you have no tangible proof homosexuals are discriminated against. Good, let's move on


I would be surprised to find that some homosexuals are not being discriminated against. It is because of this, that the US and Canada both have very clearly made it illegal to do so. I believe that it is this point which is escaping DQ, presently. Handyman would be able to clearly articulate this to DQ, and help DQ's understanding as well, I believe.

KaL

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:49 PM
Does the USA state in their laws that one will not be discriminated against based off of sexual orientation?

Does Canada state in their laws that no one will be discriminated against because of their religious views?

RWGR
06-19-2013, 12:52 PM
Hi RWGR,




I would be surprised to find that some homosexuals are not being discriminated against. It is because of this, that the US and Canada both have very clearly made it illegal to do so. I believe that it is this point which is escaping DQ, presently. Handyman would be able to clearly articulate this to DQ, and help DQ's understanding as well, I believe.

KaL

An obvious point DQ refuses to see. He likes to argue from the standpoint of victim.

African-Americans were discriminated against once. So were Catholics. So were women. So were Native Americans. so were...

and on and on it goes.

DQ and crew want you to believe homosexuals are today's version of African-Americans in the 1890s. That is an abhorrent comparison, for obvious reasons.

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 03:25 PM
yes, I already linked to it on the EEOD website

sex =/= sexual orientation.....
Just cause the word is in there does not mean it's the same thing.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 05:35 PM
sex =/= sexual orientation.....
Just cause the word is in there does not mean it's the same thing.

Wow!! Beyond obtuse, even by DQ standards!! LOL

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 05:48 PM
in this context sex is the gender of the person, what is between their legs...
Sexual orientation is completely different.

Your sex is male, as is mine.
Your sexual orientation is heterosexual, mine is gay. Do you see the difference now....
Not at all obtuse....

RWGR
06-19-2013, 05:50 PM
in this context sex is the gender of the person, what is between their legs...
Sexual orientation is completely different.

Your sex is male, as is mine.
Your sexual orientation is heterosexual, mine is gay. Do you see the difference now....
Not at all obtuse....

I don't know what the question is...was...should be

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 05:51 PM
that was not a question, I was explaining the difference between "sex" (within the context of the article) and "sexual orientation"

RWGR
06-19-2013, 05:59 PM
that was not a question, I was explaining the difference between "sex" (within the context of the article) and "sexual orientation"

Okay.

What does that have to do with our discussion?

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 06:02 PM
*sigh* you must be doing this on purpose, I KNOW you are not this daft.
You say homosexuals cannot be prevented jobs in USA, you use a source that discusses the law in relation to discrimination based on sex (ie gender) this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Thus, your source does not defend the fact that gays are able to be fired or refused a promotion/job due to their sexual orientation.

RWGR
06-19-2013, 06:42 PM
*sigh* you must be doing this on purpose, I KNOW you are not this daft.

I'm not. Have you ever tried following your logic??? :)

You say homosexuals cannot be prevented jobs in USA, you use a source that discusses the law in relation to discrimination based on sex (ie gender) this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Wrong. It covers both gender and orientation.

again, we're stuck, because you read what you want to read, not what's actually there.

official soonet pu$$ycat
06-19-2013, 06:56 PM
Quick question for DQ. When you say someone can get fired for being gay do you the mean boss says "you're gay so you're fired" or does the boss say "you um um aren't doing your job right so you're fired"?

dancingqueen
06-19-2013, 09:26 PM
You say homosexuals cannot be prevented jobs in USA, you use a source that discusses the law in relation to discrimination based on sex (ie gender) this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Wrong. It covers both gender and orientation.

again, we're stuck, because you read what you want to read, not what's actually there.

Show me, because I read it and it is not covered.

RWGR
06-20-2013, 10:09 AM
Discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. This is also known as gender identity discrimination. In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims. These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination, such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 11:13 AM
MAY bring sex discrimination claims
again, words have meaning.... you should pay more attention.

RWGR
06-20-2013, 11:20 AM
MAY bring sex discrimination claims
again, words have meaning.... you should pay more attention.

LOL...what do you want it to say: "SHOULD bring sex discrimination claims..."

You've now passed the Clintonian "depends what the meaning of 'is' is". You've created a whole new level of absurdity that even Clinton would blush at

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 11:45 AM
What it SHOULD say is "the law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation" but the law goes very far out of it's way to "not" say that.

RWGR
06-20-2013, 12:03 PM
In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 01:27 PM
yes.... "sex discrimination" claims, says nothing about sexual orientation claims.

dancingqueen
06-20-2013, 01:28 PM
I tire of this. you have not shown me anything that says discrimination based off of sexual orientation is illegal, you just keep playing with words to try and "win"

RWGR
06-20-2013, 04:38 PM
I tire of this. you have not shown me anything that says discrimination based off of sexual orientation is illegal, you just keep playing with words to try and "win"

You should be tired of it, because everyone but you will admit the obvious. You were asked to show an example of bias against homosexuals in the workplace and you have completely failed to do so. When the opposite is shown, you twist words to try and keep your dead argument alive.