Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 79 to 91 of 171
  1. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,976
    I could eat a whole pig right now, just slather some butter on it. Pork and butter, It is sort of like God's gift to man, we have people on here asking for proof of God.

    You have pork and butter, that is basically a miracle.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  2. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    I could eat a whole pig right now, just slather some butter on it. Pork and butter, It is sort of like God's gift to man, we have people on here asking for proof of God.

    You have pork and butter, that is basically a miracle.
    It's my belief, and I feel I have a right to it, that the best feed I ever had was a pig cooked in a pit one Christmas.

    The bloke who butchered it shot it point blank with a .22 pistol. It seemed to just make it cranky.

    They had to do the job with a .222 rifle.

    The veggies cooked in its gut and it melted in the mouth.

    Did you notice how I just got back on topic?
    Mistakes are a part of being human. Appreciate your mistakes for what they are: precious life lessons that can only be learned the hard way. Unless it's a fatal mistake, which, at least, others can learn from. Al Franken, "Oh, the Things I Know", 2002

  3. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Slatts View Post
    It's my belief, and I feel I have a right to it, that the best feed I ever had was a pig cooked in a pit one Christmas.

    The bloke who butchered it shot it point blank with a .22 pistol. It seemed to just make it cranky.

    They had to do the job with a .222 rifle.

    The veggies cooked in its gut and it melted in the mouth.

    Did you notice how I just got back on topic?
    That sounds delicious! I think bacon is the best part of the pig, best cooked with some black pepper. I typically eat 8 or 12 pieces at a time, not your usual restaurant order,.. LOL. Waitresses seem to have trouble getting my order right. On the grill, I like pork chops, grilled in typical BBQ sauce. I doctor the sauce to get my own blend. I don't know if you guys have that in Australia or not.

    I can't go home, have to work tomorrow and it is too far so I am stuck at the shop in the city. I may go to the "waffle house" later and order a dozen bacon.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  4. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,301
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    I am an atheist because I have failed to believe there is any god.
    We all know what a moon is, so claiming there are four moons orbiting earth is ridiculous.

    We all have different ideas of what god is. Since you refuse to tell us what your definition of god is, your belief in no god is baseless.

    I could give many definitions of god, as could you. Please list all the different descriptions of god you do not believe exist.

    You infer that you are talking about all the cultures that believe in a 'man in the clouds'. Why don't you just come out and admit it? Your refusal to tell us exactly what you do not believe in is a weak link in your argument.

  5. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,521
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Folks from outside the USA seem to think all they have to do to understand our founding documents is to read a part here and there... at a glance... and they think they get it...

    THEY DO NOT

    Further: If one is gonna speak on something... the least they can do is understand of what they speak.

    If anyone wants to learn what the founders were thinking and their intent when they wrote the founding documents of the USA... here is a place to learn:

    www.hillsdale.edu Lots of free lectures by learned folks there. One would grow between their ears if they listened... and it is free.

    Now if someone who thinks they understand, yet for whatever reason is not willing to educate themself... well what they are speaking is nothing more than opinion... which it would appear the libs here are against.

    SOOO:

    Logic would suggest (well probably demand) that either someone become educated on a topic, or keep their mouth shut... as they are not allowed to have opinions anymore (according to the latest mental jerk-off).

    You libs amaze me... it is easier than waving candy in front of a baby... to lead your feeble minds down a road.

    What ever happened to discernment and wisdom?
    You do realize that this topic has nothing to do with the founding fathers, the constitution....or even the USA....

    Oh wait.... you dont.....lol
    May Allah Guide Us Towards The Right Path and move us towards a better understanding of Allah and Allahs Creation.

  6. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by corny View Post
    You do realize that this topic has nothing to do with the founding fathers, the constitution....or even the USA....
    It's merely about rights and duties - the topic of rights and duties stands entirely independent of any constitution particular to any country.

  7. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,521
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    It's merely about rights and duties - the topic of rights and duties stands entirely independent of any constitution particular to any country.
    Aye Cap'n..... I was just pointing that out to our resident mensa member.......
    May Allah Guide Us Towards The Right Path and move us towards a better understanding of Allah and Allahs Creation.

  8. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,976
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    It's merely about rights and duties - the topic of rights and duties stands entirely independent of any constitution particular to any country.
    I think you dismissed philosophy in an earlier thread as mental musing. No practical application. I agree.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,976
    Quote Originally Posted by corny View Post
    Aye Cap'n..... I was just pointing that out to our resident mensa member.......
    Corny, we do not have any menstruating members here.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  10. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,220
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    No body has a right to their opinions - because no body has a duty to give them true opinions.

    However, the government does pro-actively secure everybody's right to express their opinions.

    But being ensured the liberty to express any opinion, so long as it is not something like shouting "fire" in a crowded hall, is not at all the same thing as having the right to any opinion.

    You see, when someone expresses a false opinion which is shown to be contrary to evidence or some such they might say something like "Yeah, well, I have a right to my opinion" and when they say this they do not mean "I have a right to express my opinion" which would be a weird thing to say - what they actually mean is that I have the right to consider all my opinions to be true.

    The problem then is that if they do have such a right then we have a duty to ensure that they have true opinions which means the the debate should continue - not stop - and continue until such time as their right has been fulfilled and the prior violation of that right - them holding a false opinion - is remedied by way of the continued debate.

    But they usually appeal to the fictional right just when they no longer want the discussion to continue - but they try stopping the discussion by appealing to the right which if existed then the conversation should in fact go on until their right is no longer being violated.

    You see - they would never admit to meaning that they have a right to hold false opinions so they should just be left with their false opinions. Even if they did there actually is no such right.

    “No body has a right to their opinions - because no body has a duty to give them true opinions.


    While I certainly appreciate the patience you are demonstrating (or in the very least your copy and paste skills) in restating key components of the OP; it actually does nothing to address my specific criticisms of the work. Merely regurgitating the idea will not make it any more practical or true. I understood your premise at first glance and reread it, dissecting it slowly in order to be sure I did not miss anything. I know what you are marketing; I just don’t believe it will sell per the following.

    “However, the government does pro-actively secure everybody's right to express their opinions.”

    But being ensured the liberty to express any opinion, so long as it is not something like shouting "fire" in a crowded hall, is not at all the same thing as having the right to any opinion.”


    Again, this is hugely impractible as it is directly contradictory to the human experience. Regardless of country, constitution, charter or creed; we all feel an innate right to our beliefs and opinions. I do not anticipate this ever changing and all the philosophers who ever lived can do nothing to change this (we’ll get back to this momentarily)*

    “You see, when someone expresses a false opinion which is shown to be contrary to evidence or some such they might say something like "Yeah, well, I have a right to my opinion" and when they say this they do not mean "I have a right to express my opinion" which would be a weird thing to say - what they actually mean is that I have the right to consider all my opinions to be true.”

    You are bemoaning those who would end a discussion with a typically exasperated “I have a right to my opinion” and you either assume they have no evidence or outright deny any subjective feelings as not credible. This presents an enormous problem: Only in your own mind do they “owe” you any evidence or validation…any more than you feel they have no valid right to their “false” opinion. Dude…really – good luck with that. An old Who song suddenly comes to mind.

    Not to mention the very practical reality that most people are far and away much too busy with life to sit down, demonstrate and defend their belief system to some guy on the internet. They may have more than enough facts and evidence if they simply had the time. The hungry toddler down the hall shall be the priority. And then there may very well be a personal experience of taking the time to prepare all manner of documentation, only to have it shot down with silliness or ignored altogether.

    “The problem then is that if they do have such a right then we have a duty to ensure that they have true opinions which means the the debate should continue - not stop - and continue until such time as their right has been fulfilled and the prior violation of that right - them holding a false opinion - is remedied by way of the continued debate.”

    This statement, gentleman, should have all eyebrows raised, neck hairs standing on end and spidey senses tingling up a storm. For at the moment he is using the term “debate.” Does the OP envision a time when debate will ultimately devolve to a consensus, belief system and finally enforcement of same? Is the OP old enough to understand what atrocities have occurred using this very same formula?

    This is probably an opportune time to discuss criteria. I’ve read the words “facts” and “evidence” repeatedly in this thread without really seeing much in the way of specific hot button examples. And this is really where we are going, is it not? We aren’t going to debate how to arrive at superheat and sub cooling, are we? No. We are headed straight for the brick wall of social engineering; where the mortar of subjectivity, tradition, religion, no religion, ethics and morals must somehow comingle with the brick of science to form a wall sturdy enough to stand on.

    So…criteria. Evidence. Facts.

    Whose? Who decides and who declares them trustworthy?

    If they announce tomorrow they have identified the gene responsible for a specific behavior and that said behavior is therefore a normal, scientifically demonstrable and protected behavior; why should the lay people (having little understanding, means nor access to verify) believe them? Because they said so? There goes that Who song again. And what if the behavior in question poses some sort of detriment to certain groups…financial consequences or significant inconvenience? Furthermore, what if a contingent of the scientific community disputes the findings? How now brown cow?

    Don’t you see, OP, that we are really discussing who controls the information? And compelling people to abandon their opinions and feelings, acquired through years of experience, hard lessons and observation is truly a frightening proposition – virtually begging to end quite badly?

    I had a footnote back there somewhere…Ah yes. Despite the more chilling aspects of what I suspect you are ultimately pointing toward; there are the spirit-killing ramifications. We are not robots. It is our beliefs, feelings, passions, dreams etc. that make humans capable of awesome, astounding feats of courage, beauty and goodness. And, if were honest – horrible things. However you may not, IMHO, remove any ingredients from the wall and expect it to stand. Remember my wall? I purposely constructed it as one that will stand, using all the materials human beings have to offer. Not just the materials approved by a dictating group of scientists and philosophers.

    Because it is the very facets of the human existence I suspect you would forbid in the name of philosophy, science, humanism or what have you; that have and will continue to overcome injustices, hate and all other malignancies over time - without ever doing away with them completely. For it is just a matter of who we are as a species.

    You will not affect a faster, more successful remedy by stifling human expression and opinions.

    Even if most would agree they are wrong.

    Respectfully,

    h

  11. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by hurtinhvac View Post

    “However, the government does pro-actively secure everybody's right to express their opinions.”

    But being ensured the liberty to express any opinion, so long as it is not something like shouting "fire" in a crowded hall, is not at all the same thing as having the right to any opinion.”


    Again, this is hugely impractible as it is directly contradictory to the human experience. Regardless of country, constitution, charter or creed; we all feel an innate right to our beliefs and opinions. I do not anticipate this ever changing and all the philosophers who ever lived can do nothing to change this (we’ll get back to this momentarily)*
    You still don't get it.

    When someone says "Yeah, well, I have a right to my own opinion" they are making a wholly irrelevant statement.

    Imagine you and a friend walk back into the kitchen to find I have arrived and am seated eating the toast you had put on just before leaving for a second. You say to me "Buddy, that's our toast". Your friend agrees with you saying "Hey dude, you've taken our toast". Then I reply to you both "Hey gents, both of you are talking about toast - did you know toast is made from bread?".

    Sure toast is made from bread - so what? What has that got to do with the fact that I have taken your toast?

    So why would someone want to remind you that they have a right to EXPRESS their opinions? Surely they were just expressing an opinion a moment ago and did so with the assumption you understood all that already?

    The reason why people appeal to the right is because you have shown them something inconsistent with their beliefs - something that questions their beliefs.

    Usually what has happened is that they started of expressing those beliefs with a very obvious degree of personal attachment - like they wanted to force the belief to be true - and now they want to save face under the light of counter evidence.

    They want to claim a right to have their beliefs be considered as true as any other - they are no longer interested in the truth - they are only interested in saving face.

    The trick is to do what the ancient Greek sceptics did - don't turn any of your beliefs into a dogma in the first place. It's okay to have firmly held beliefs but never assume any are indefeasible. The Vatican didn't just firmly believe the sun orbits the earth - they thought that belief was indefeasible and even believed they had a divine right to such beliefs.

    The best direction we could go in is actually to deny any such right altogether - instead people should be ensured the right to challenge other beliefs and defend their own - that's about all that really makes sense.

    The people should never have been denied the right to challenge the Vatican's belief that the sun orbits the earth but at the same time the Vatican should still have the right to defend it - this is the best form of tolerance - fighting beliefs only with counter beliefs - with philosophic debate.

    The better practice we all get at challenging and defending beliefs the better our societies tend to become all around.

    This is why the media are so important in our Western Democracies.

    This is another reason why we should be challenging the beliefs of the religious all the time - especially Islam...

    "Paradox of Success: the more successful a policy is in warding off some unwanted condition the less necessary it will be thought to maintain it. If a threat is successfully suppressed, people naturally wonder why we should any longer bother with it." (James Piereson, "On the Paradox of Success." Real Clear Politics, Sep. 11, 2006)

  12. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,976
    Quote Originally Posted by hurtinhvac View Post

    “No body has a right to their opinions - because no body has a duty to give them true opinions.


    While I certainly appreciate the patience you are demonstrating (or in the very least your copy and paste skills) in restating key components of the OP; it actually does nothing to address my specific criticisms of the work. Merely regurgitating the idea will not make it any more practical or true. I understood your premise at first glance and reread it, dissecting it slowly in order to be sure I did not miss anything. I know what you are marketing; I just don’t believe it will sell per the following.

    “However, the government does pro-actively secure everybody's right to express their opinions.”

    But being ensured the liberty to express any opinion, so long as it is not something like shouting "fire" in a crowded hall, is not at all the same thing as having the right to any opinion.”


    Again, this is hugely impractible as it is directly contradictory to the human experience. Regardless of country, constitution, charter or creed; we all feel an innate right to our beliefs and opinions. I do not anticipate this ever changing and all the philosophers who ever lived can do nothing to change this (we’ll get back to this momentarily)*

    “You see, when someone expresses a false opinion which is shown to be contrary to evidence or some such they might say something like "Yeah, well, I have a right to my opinion" and when they say this they do not mean "I have a right to express my opinion" which would be a weird thing to say - what they actually mean is that I have the right to consider all my opinions to be true.”

    You are bemoaning those who would end a discussion with a typically exasperated “I have a right to my opinion” and you either assume they have no evidence or outright deny any subjective feelings as not credible. This presents an enormous problem: Only in your own mind do they “owe” you any evidence or validation…any more than you feel they have no valid right to their “false” opinion. Dude…really – good luck with that. An old Who song suddenly comes to mind.

    Not to mention the very practical reality that most people are far and away much too busy with life to sit down, demonstrate and defend their belief system to some guy on the internet. They may have more than enough facts and evidence if they simply had the time. The hungry toddler down the hall shall be the priority. And then there may very well be a personal experience of taking the time to prepare all manner of documentation, only to have it shot down with silliness or ignored altogether.

    “The problem then is that if they do have such a right then we have a duty to ensure that they have true opinions which means the the debate should continue - not stop - and continue until such time as their right has been fulfilled and the prior violation of that right - them holding a false opinion - is remedied by way of the continued debate.”

    This statement, gentleman, should have all eyebrows raised, neck hairs standing on end and spidey senses tingling up a storm. For at the moment he is using the term “debate.” Does the OP envision a time when debate will ultimately devolve to a consensus, belief system and finally enforcement of same? Is the OP old enough to understand what atrocities have occurred using this very same formula?

    This is probably an opportune time to discuss criteria. I’ve read the words “facts” and “evidence” repeatedly in this thread without really seeing much in the way of specific hot button examples. And this is really where we are going, is it not? We aren’t going to debate how to arrive at superheat and sub cooling, are we? No. We are headed straight for the brick wall of social engineering; where the mortar of subjectivity, tradition, religion, no religion, ethics and morals must somehow comingle with the brick of science to form a wall sturdy enough to stand on.

    So…criteria. Evidence. Facts.

    Whose? Who decides and who declares them trustworthy?

    If they announce tomorrow they have identified the gene responsible for a specific behavior and that said behavior is therefore a normal, scientifically demonstrable and protected behavior; why should the lay people (having little understanding, means nor access to verify) believe them? Because they said so? There goes that Who song again. And what if the behavior in question poses some sort of detriment to certain groups…financial consequences or significant inconvenience? Furthermore, what if a contingent of the scientific community disputes the findings? How now brown cow?

    Don’t you see, OP, that we are really discussing who controls the information? And compelling people to abandon their opinions and feelings, acquired through years of experience, hard lessons and observation is truly a frightening proposition – virtually begging to end quite badly?

    I had a footnote back there somewhere…Ah yes. Despite the more chilling aspects of what I suspect you are ultimately pointing toward; there are the spirit-killing ramifications. We are not robots. It is our beliefs, feelings, passions, dreams etc. that make humans capable of awesome, astounding feats of courage, beauty and goodness. And, if were honest – horrible things. However you may not, IMHO, remove any ingredients from the wall and expect it to stand. Remember my wall? I purposely constructed it as one that will stand, using all the materials human beings have to offer. Not just the materials approved by a dictating group of scientists and philosophers.

    Because it is the very facets of the human existence I suspect you would forbid in the name of philosophy, science, humanism or what have you; that have and will continue to overcome injustices, hate and all other malignancies over time - without ever doing away with them completely. For it is just a matter of who we are as a species.

    You will not affect a faster, more successful remedy by stifling human expression and opinions.

    Even if most would agree they are wrong.

    Respectfully,

    h
    Wow, that is an amazing post.... Great job.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "I am sorry for interrupting, please continue with your quarreling" Some chick on TV

  13. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    7,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Wow, that is an amazing post.... Great job.
    What amazed me was that he use IMHO in there....lol
    May Allah Guide Us Towards The Right Path and move us towards a better understanding of Allah and Allahs Creation.

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event