History Main / SpecialPleading

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
added a small clarification of the big bang idea
:: 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
I've moved this natter to the discussion page it belongs on.
** 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.
18th Feb '14 7:20:12 PM ifly6
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
**** 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.
2nd Feb '14 10:23:09 AM thenightmareman
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 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 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.polyphony. * 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.
3rd Jan '14 5:34:49 PM karstovich2
Is there an issue? Send a Message
* Mitigating circumstances not admitted in trial may be considered in sentencing; after the court has established guilt, it seeks to determine what penalty the particular case warrants.
to:
* Mitigating circumstances not admitted in trial may be considered in sentencing; after the court has established guilt, it seeks to determine what penalty the particular case warrants.warrants. * 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.
9th Dec '13 7:43:23 AM nlpnt
Is there an issue? Send a Message
**** Some theologians have thrown out the idea that since God is outside of time, He can act at all points at once, like an axel would on all of a wheel. The axel has been turning itself forever, but the wheels (universes?) are on different places on it. [[YourHeadAsplode HAS YOUR MIND EXPLODED YET?]]
to:
**** Some theologians have thrown out the idea that since God is outside of time, He can act at all points at once, like an axel axle would on all of a wheel. The axel axle has been turning itself forever, but the wheels (universes?) are on different places on it. [[YourHeadAsplode HAS YOUR MIND EXPLODED YET?]]
24th Sep '13 9:48:24 PM inmyhonestopinion
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 the infinite recess is impossible and [[SherlockHolmes "once you remove the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"]]
to:
** 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 the logic dictates, infinite recess is impossible and [[SherlockHolmes "once you remove the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"]]

**** Some theologians have thrown out the idea that since God is outside of time, He can act at all points at once, like an axel would on a wheel. The axel has been turning itself forever, but the wheels are on different places on it. [[YourHeadAsplode HAS YOUR MIND EXPLODED YET?]]
to:
**** Some theologians have thrown out the idea that since God is outside of time, He can act at all points at once, like an axel would on all of a wheel. The axel has been turning itself forever, but the wheels (universes?) are on different places on it. [[YourHeadAsplode HAS YOUR MIND EXPLODED YET?]]
24th Sep '13 9:46:34 PM inmyhonestopinion
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 and therefore immune from the recess issue. As the infinite recess is impossible and [[SherlockHolmes "once you remove the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"]]
to:
** 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 the infinite recess is impossible and [[SherlockHolmes "once you remove the impossible, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth!"]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 23. Show all.