• Show Spoilers
• Night Vision

11th Oct '17 4:55:41 PM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message

The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause. The proponents naturally try to justify this (for instance, arguing infinite regress is impossible, and thus the "uncaused cause" necessarily must exist) though of course many don't accept that argument.

to:

The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause. The proponents naturally try to justify this (for instance, arguing infinite regress is impossible, and thus the "uncaused cause" necessarily must exist) though this simply creates another case of course many don't accept that argument.
special pleading (as there is no reason to believe an uncaused cause is more able to exist than an infinite regress): there's a reason this gets called the "existence paradox."
4th Jan '17 6:59:30 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause.

to:

The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause.
cause. The proponents naturally try to justify this (for instance, arguing infinite regress is impossible, and thus the "uncaused cause" necessarily must exist) though of course many don't accept that argument.
22nd Oct '16 5:29:06 PM AndIntroducingALeg
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* When there really is a reason why someone should be given special treatment. For example, an exemption for murder is often granted for someone acting in self-defense.

to:

* When there really is a reason why someone should be given special treatment. For example, an exemption for murder is often granted for someone acting in self-defense. Or, to link to an example above, "I'm an ambulance driver on duty, so I shouldn't have to stop at red lights".
21st Aug '16 11:06:42 AM garthvader
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Though this may "disprove" not only a creator, but the Big Bang (though accurately speaking, the Big bang theory is not about the very beginning of the universe or what was before it, but how it was very early at its beginning, 10-43 seconds after "time zero" at which the expansion began) , necessarily implying that the universe has no beginning, and thus that the Steady State theory is true, [[LogicBomb even though that has already been disproved]], and [[MemeticMutation my oh my I've gone cross-eyed]].
7th Mar '16 1:17:02 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some-especially atheists-as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy-and most sane theology since then-is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply do not work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony. Of course, many people also reject such arguments precisely on the basis that they ''are'' irrational.

to:

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some-especially atheists-as some--especially atheists--as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy-and philosophy--and most sane theology since then-is then--is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply do not work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony. Of course, many people also reject such arguments precisely on the basis that they ''are'' irrational.
7th Mar '16 1:16:28 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message

:: This is the fallacy of asking to be given an exemption to a rule that others are held to. It's typically used as [[ScrewThisIndexIHaveTropes an excuse for special treatment others don't receive]], or to win arguments by claiming to have special insights others don't have.

--> "I'm a judge, so I shouldn't have to stop at red lights."

:: This is fallacious because even if someone has certain expertise or is part of a specific group, they still have to provide evidence and cogent reasons for their position.

::A fairly well-known example is the common argument that the universe must logically have a creator. This goes:

-->Everything that has a beginning has a cause\\

to:

::
This is the fallacy of asking to be given an exemption to a rule that others are held to. It's typically used as [[ScrewThisIndexIHaveTropes an excuse for special treatment others don't receive]], or to win arguments by claiming to have special insights others don't have.

--> -> "I'm a judge, so I shouldn't have to stop at red lights."

:: This is fallacious because even if someone has certain expertise or is part of a specific group, they still have to provide evidence and cogent reasons for their position.

::A A fairly well-known example is the common argument that the universe must logically have a creator. This goes:

-->Everything ->Everything that has a beginning has a cause\\

::The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause.
:: Though this may "disprove" not only a creator, but the Big Bang (though accurately speaking, the Big bang theory is not about the very beginning of the universe or what was before it, but how it was very early at its beginning, 10-43 seconds after "time zero" at which the expansion began) , necessarily implying that the universe has no beginning, and thus that the Steady State theory is true, [[LogicBomb even though that has already been disproved]], and [[MemeticMutation my oh my I've gone cross-eyed]].

to:

::The The special pleading here is that it's insisted that an ultimate cause exists; to avoid the infinite regress, it's claimed that this cause is the sole exception and does ''not'' require a beginning, and therefore does not itself require a cause.
::
cause.

Though this may "disprove" not only a creator, but the Big Bang (though accurately speaking, the Big bang theory is not about the very beginning of the universe or what was before it, but how it was very early at its beginning, 10-43 seconds after "time zero" at which the expansion began) , necessarily implying that the universe has no beginning, and thus that the Steady State theory is true, [[LogicBomb even though that has already been disproved]], and [[MemeticMutation my oh my I've gone cross-eyed]].

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some-especially atheists-as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy-and most sane theology since then-is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply do not work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony. Of course, many people also reject such arguments precisely on the basis that they ''are'' irrational.
* You've done this, probably today. And of course you had a very good reason for doing so. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway. This is known as ''Fundamental Attribution Error'', and it entails assuming that other people do things according to their personalities even as you attribute your own actions to your circumstances.

to:

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some-especially atheists-as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy-and most sane theology since then-is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply do not work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony. Of course, many people also reject such arguments precisely on the basis that they ''are'' irrational. \n* You've done this, probably today. And of course you had a very good reason for doing so. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway. This is known as ''Fundamental Attribution Error'', and it entails assuming that other people do things according to their personalities even as you attribute your own actions to your circumstances.
27th Oct '15 8:20:46 PM R1ck
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* You've done this, probably today. Want to know some good news though? You were right. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway. This is known as ''Fundamental Attribution Error'', and it entails assuming that other people do things according to their personalities even as you attribute your own actions to your circumstances.

to:

* You've done this, probably today. Want to know some And of course you had a very good news though? You were right.reason for doing so. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway. This is known as ''Fundamental Attribution Error'', and it entails assuming that other people do things according to their personalities even as you attribute your own actions to your circumstances.
3rd Jan '15 7:24:15 AM imadmagician
Is there an issue? Send a Message

:: Though this may "disprove" not only a creator, but the Big Bang, necessarily implying that the universe has no beginning, and thus that the Steady State theory is true, [[LogicBomb even though that has already been disproved]], and [[MemeticMutation my oh my I've gone cross-eyed]].

to:

:: Though this may "disprove" not only a creator, but the Big Bang, Bang (though accurately speaking, the Big bang theory is not about the very beginning of the universe or what was before it, but how it was very early at its beginning, 10-43 seconds after "time zero" at which the expansion began) , necessarily implying that the universe has no beginning, and thus that the Steady State theory is true, [[LogicBomb even though that has already been disproved]], and [[MemeticMutation my oh my I've gone cross-eyed]].
31st Aug '14 4:47:02 PM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message

* You've done this, probably today. Want to know some good news though? You were right. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway.

to:

* You've done this, probably today. Want to know some good news though? You were right. You didn't drive fast because You're a careless driver but simply because You were late. You didn't get fast food because You're a glutton but because You simply didn't feel like cooking. And You didn't lose Your temper because You're a naturally angry or aggressive person but because You'd simply been pushed to breaking point by circumstances. It's just amazing that we never let anyone else have the same leeway. This is known as ''Fundamental Attribution Error'', and it entails assuming that other people do things according to their personalities even as you attribute your own actions to your circumstances.
22nd Jul '14 6:54:36 PM Fireblood
Is there an issue? Send a Message

** Technically, this ''is'' a justification for the 'creator' argument, as a being who is outside of time would never require a regress point, as there would be no point at which it could have changed from non-existing to existing (time only exists where change does). Therefore, this being would have special properties (no beginning) and therefore immune from the recess issue. As logic dictates, infinite recess is impossible and [[SherlockHolmes "once you remove the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"]]
*** There still remains the whole "How does a being outside of time act on time?" problem, though.
**** Some theologians have thrown out the idea that since God is outside of time, He can act at all points at once, like an axle would on all of a wheel. The axle has been turning itself forever, but the wheels (universes?) are on different places on it. [[YourHeadAsplode HAS YOUR MIND EXPLODED YET?]]
**** Yes, but axles imparting force upon a wheel is limited by the propogation of that force upon the matter which the force acts upon, requiring time. This does not address the issue.

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some--especially atheists--as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy--and most sane theology since then--is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply don't work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony.

to:

* The philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard strikes some--especially atheists--as some-especially atheists-as a kind of special pleading, since it is based on the idea of the "leap of faith", used as a justification for believing in things like miracles (which are special pleadings to the laws of nature). However, Kierkegaard's philosophy--and philosophy-and most sane theology since then--is then-is essentially ''irrational'': it explicitly argues that the rules of logic simply don't do not work when exploring the deeper questions of human experience. Whether or not you agree, it is highly important to understand this about that area of philosophy, and attempting to make an attack on it on the grounds of this particular logical fallacy is rather like critiquing pop music for ignoring the rules of polyphony. Of course, many people also reject such arguments precisely on the basis that they ''are'' irrational.
This list shows the last 10 events of 29. Show all.