New Testingstan

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:17 am**

wong's taken too many cheap shots at philosophy over the years for me to give him any benefit of the doubt; i think he actually just can't think through to what logically obtains from the things he advocates

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:32 am**

Nietzslime wrote:
Knubble tov wrote:Respond to him, then.
what positive repercussions do you imagine will be effected by that choice of action

I think it would be better to address them than to be another TStan member who bitches and does nothing. I bowed out of the thread for a reason: this shit is over my head. But you seem to know enough to call his views stupid but you'd rather bitch about it here than to tackle it head on.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:34 pm**

Nietzslime wrote:wong's taken too many cheap shots at philosophy over the years for me to give him any benefit of the doubt; i think he actually just can't think through to what logically obtains from the things he advocates

yeah

he's repeated this exact same thing, combined with cheap shots at "western individualism", so many times that the only conclusions that can be made are that he is either incompetent and too prideful to realize it, an out-and-out advocate of repressive social hierarchy, or else both

edit:

Grumman wrote:
bobalot wrote:Libertarianism in action.
Anarchism in action. The difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is that a libertarian recognises that unified threats justify a unified response.

Wrong, motherfucker. Anarchism (actual anarchism, not wheedling little libertarians trying to gain dignity by thieving Proudhon and Goldman) is a collectivist philosophy.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:44 pm**

wong's post in the hongi thread is almost identical to his posts in the sok thread in 2004

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:49 pm**

Dudes he is pro-eugenics, in favour of intelligence tests to vote and would bully his kids to quite Christianity. There is no point in arguing with this man, you won't get anywhere.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:05 pm**

Where has he said he'd bully his kids and shows that he's pro-eugenics?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:09 pm**

Oh jesus, that was years back. In a what would you do in your kid was a fundie thread.

I don't remember what thread the eugenics came up in. Unfortunately the search has been borked for years.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:10 pm**

Do you remember the context of what he said in the fundie thread?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:12 pm**

I remember that he claimed he would use his position as a father to force them out of it.

Something like that.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:23 pm**

I'm so confused. Is DW arguing against himself? I'm pretty sure he just replied to Bakustra with a restatement about the non-deontological complaint with meaner language.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:26 pm**

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:Okay, social success, which I take from your context to mean the prolongation, strengthening, and continued survival of the society.

So, from this ethical perspective, do you consider Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia from 1984 (or at least, the endstates of those societies postulated by O'Brien) to be moral paramounts, given their nature as societies which have made the undermining of their social success impossible?

Bahahaha checkmate.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:33 pm**

it's nowhere near a checkmate yet - in fact, i think i might have brought that ad absurdum up a bit too soon, and it's maybe a bit too blunt

but any defence he uses can only make his position more problematic at this point

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:34 pm**

Does the naturalistic fallacy work like this: something is right because it's natural?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:43 pm**

Knubble tov wrote:Does the naturalistic fallacy work like this: something is right because it's natural?

essentially.

"Homosexuality is bad because it's not natural!"

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:08 pm**

yeah, or by the same token, homosexuality is okay because animals do it therefore it's natural

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:26 pm**

Or, much more commonly, (insert drug of choice here) is natural and therefore it is completely harmless.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:35 pm**

Aaron wrote:I remember that he claimed he would use his position as a father to force them out of it.

Something like that.

The search wasn't that hard...

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 7&t=134518

Darth Wong wrote:I would argue with him until he sees reason.

Seriously, that sounds like a flip answer but it's pretty much accurate. The fact is that fundamentalist arguments do not have anywhere near as much intrinsic validity as atheist and scientific arguments, and so the only way for fundamentalists to uphold their belief system is to use a combination of "la la la la I can't hear you" tactics and grossly dishonest tactics. Frankly, those kinds of tactics work far better for a fundie parent than for a fundie child, who cannot easily ignore his parents or shout them down with authority tactics.

So I guess it depends on the definition of bully. "argue...until he sees reason" could probably be taken that way, depending on circumstances. Well, such as 'argue SDN style' or not... Theoretically he'd be a lot nicer to his kids, though. Because if you went all flamewarrior with your kid you'd probably just alienate them and they'd ditch you as soon as they can and not look back, if they were serious enough about it.

And I do give DW enough credit to know that, so I doubt he'd really "bully" his kids about it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:44 pm**

Interesting how I'm harder on him then things really deserve.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:47 pm**

That godawful theme!

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:33 pm**

Knubble tov wrote:Where has he said he'd bully his kids and shows that he's pro-eugenics?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0#p3642620

edit emphasis added

edit2 i don't know if that's what he really thinks, because he quickly backtracked a bit to make it sound like 'hey it's a good idea in theory but maybe not in practice ok', but that last paragraph came out of nowhere and i remember double-taking when i first read it

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:10 pm**

Aaron wrote:Interesting how I'm harder on him then things really deserve.

Yeah. At first I thought it was him saying he wouldn't let his kids be religious in general, but now that I've actually read through that thread he's mostly arguing against letting them go hard-core fundamentalist, which is arguably the correct choice.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:41 pm**

Re: how do we address a specific institutional issue in the police force (lack of oversight):

Nova Andromeda wrote:Are you looking for something that is likely to work given all the current realities? I don't know of anything like that. Honestly, the rational humanist part of society needs to gain control of politics, but that's also a mission statement. I guess I'd start by organizing atheist, humanists, etc. and try to put together some sort of 'tradition' to replace that part that is so appealing about religion. I'd also encourage you to have more kids. I fear the fight will be generations at best.

The best part is I can see the fingers of religion all over this kind of thinking. I doubt atheists would talk like this (as much, anyway) in a culture that wasn't so heavily influenced by a missionary religion like Christianity.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:51 pm**

*sigh* what's a rational humanist?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:53 pm**

someone who believes what i believe

Posted: **Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:28 am**

an engineer

New Testingstan

Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN

Re: Godammed SDN