Concerning Innateness

by dunsscot 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dunsscot

  julien: would you stop saying INTERLOCUTOR already?!! jeez just say the poster..

  There is a difference between a "poster" (this word is a homonym) and an interlocutor, julien. If you do not believe me, look it up! ;-)

  As a side note, the word interlocutor almost seems to have a somewhat primitive semantic value. No wonder Derrida talks about the infinite play of signifiers and wants to dismantle the metaphysics of presence posited by Plato in his Cratylus. It almost seems as if the only suitable synonym of interlocutor is "interlocutor."

  Chillin',
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  julien

  Why don't you explain the definitions of each word and why only interlocutor will do.
• 

  dunsscot

  julien: Why don't you explain the definitions of each word and why only interlocutor will do.

  I did not say "only interlocutor" will do. Let's get the story straight. I simply made the comment that interlocutor was more appropriate. I might add, in this situation, it is more appropriate. It is also less ambiguous than "poster" (a homonym). Besides, the person with thom I was carrying on a conversation was not simply a poster, IMHO.

  Duns the Scot
• 

  seven006

  Duns,

  I know I said I wouldn't post in response to anything you write, but damn it, I am just getting to like you too much.
  In regard to your way of writing and giving the explanation of every word you write, you once again rate a hearty golf clap.

  I have a serious question for you an I'm going to use a simple and common way to ask it, so please forgive me.
  The question is, has anyone ever taken you out behind the barn and kicked the living shit out of you?

  I am in no way suggesting that I or any other simpleton on this board would want to do that, I am just wondering
  because of your irritating style of communication of anyone else had.

  Again, I am sorry for breaking my vow of silence with you but I just had to ask.

  Your buddy

  Dave
• 

  Englishman

  Ah, Duntrollin',

  If only you would tell us exactly which great exponent of Cartesian duellism it was that reduced psycholgical phenomena to a physical state yet insisted there was no point of contact between the extended and the non-extended I would be eternally in your debt although doubting that my return to dub dom was imminent.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.
• 

  Trilobite

  Duns,

  There are numerous examples of homosexual behavior in animals and even insects, and, therefore, there are reasonable grounds for supposing that homosexuality or the potential for homosexuality is "innate" in the individual entity displaying this behavior.

  If you maintain that homosexuality is "unnatural behavior" and that heterosexuality is the default _inborn_ condition then a quandary results; if that were the case then obviously homosexuality must result from the lack of whatever it is that makes heterosexuality "natural." When a creature is born lacking something then its condition is by definition "innate."

  If, on the other hand, you are making the case that homosexuality is learned behavior then you run into the issue of whether heterosexual behavior is also learned behavior. Presumably the mere fact that people claim they are heterosexual from birth carries no weight with you? Otherwise you would have to consider on an equal footing the claims to innateness made by homosexuals. If all sexual behavior is learned then the concept of "natural behavior" becomes meaningless. This wouldn't go down at all well in Dub and Fundie Land.

  In reality, the origins of sexual behavior are complex and cannot be reduced to one liners.

  However, this seems not to be your main point. What is quite apparent from you post, however, is that you are prone to committing logical fallacies.

  Whether people are born homosexual or not has no connection with the question of whether people are born with the desire to worship God. You might as well make the argument that accepting the claim of a man that he was born without his left foot requires that we also accept that people who claim to have an innate desire to worship God should be believed.

  All I can say is that you should less time on this board and more practicing for your dissertaion defense. Unless you go to a real hole in the wall school, which I suspect you do given your attraction for big words, you will be torn to shreds at your defense. And rightly failed.

  I've often pondered the apparent inverse relationship between average word size and the intelligence of the one abusing them. It's a bit like dicks; the smaller it is the more one engages in penile (or is that penal) bragadoccio.

  T.
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Englishman,

  Are you talking about Nicolas Malebranche? He was Descartes' famed deviant disciple.

  Sincerely,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 

  larc

  I got the impression that Duns was still at the undergraduate level. If he gets into a graduate program, he better watch his deportment. If he irritates any of his profs, he will likely get washed out. Graduate schools are very political places.
• 

  WhyNow2000

  Dunscott,
  I present herewith an artless exhortation (five inscriptions to be authentic) from a non erudite person:

  “You need coitus.”

  Translation: Here is a simple advice (five words to be exact) from a common person:

  “You need to get laid. “
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Trilo,

  Did you read my post carefully? Evidently not, for you failed to see that I was challenging sixofnine's earlier comments. All the other material you cite is therefore really not germane to this discussion.

  :In reality, the origins of sexual behavior are complex and cannot be reduced to one liners.:

  Who reduced it to one liners? The origins of sexual behavior are probably complex. I am by no means belittling the issue. I just wonder if sixofnine is consistent in his/her rationale when it comes to the claim of innate directedness toward God.

  :However, this seems not to be your main point. What is quite apparent from you post, however, is that you are prone to committing logical fallacies.:

  Can you please point out any "logical fallacies" that I committed?

  :Whether people are born homosexual or not has no connection with the question of whether people are born with the desire to worship God. You might as well make the argument that accepting the claim of a man that he was born without his left foot requires that we also accept that people who claim to have an innate desire to worship God should be believed.:

  Speaking of logical fallacies. :-) Where did I ever say that we should believe Joelbear OR people who claim they possess an innate desire to worship God? I simply wanted to know IF sixofnine accepted the syllogism I proposed. But I never suggested that we are required to accept that the desire to worship God is innate. You are making a strawman argument, plain and simple. What is more, your analogy about the man born with no left foot fails miserably, because--from certain empirical and verifiable evidence in this case--we can genuinely infer that the man who tells us he was born with no left foot was either born with no left foot or lost it at some point after he experienced natality or is either tricking us in some novel manner and really does have a left foot. But how can we verify joelbear's claim or the person who claims there is a sensus divinitatis, empirically? We cannot. Even if there were empirical indicators of joelbear's supposed innate sexual orientation, we could not say for sure on the basis of physical data alone.

  Lastly, I must say that there is nothing wrong with arguing from analogy. You evidently have not exposed yourself to some of the great philosophical works of antiquity or modernity. My analogy between the sensus divinitatis and one's sexual orientation have more in common than your analogy of the man born with no left foot.

  :All I can say is that you should less time on this board and more practicing for your dissertaion defense. Unless you go to a real hole in the wall school, which I suspect you do given your attraction for big words, you will be torn to shreds at your defense. And rightly failed.:

  First, I am going to get back to my paper in the next few weeks. School takes precedence over this board.

  Secondly, I assure you, I do not go to a hole in the wall school. I cannot help it if your college did not prepare you for the GRE, Tril. What a pity! Its sad that they seemingly fostered a hatred in you for footlong words. The overall anti-intellectualism that is prevalent on this board is unbelievable!

  Duns the Scot