Originally posted by Bardock42
Were they banned from watching/analyzing the Office?
no, the courses just never focused on things like "here is why everything you believe is false and you probably will never be aware of it"
given how much trouble the students have internalizing Libet, I can't blame them
Originally posted by inimalist
pfft, now you are just making names up
No, no, I copy pasted it, I swear.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, the courses just never focused on things like "here is why everything you believe is false and you probably will never be aware of it"given how much trouble the students have internalizing Libet, I can't blame them
Ah, that sucks. That sounds like the most fun part. Honestly I think http://youarenotsosmart.com/ should be required reading for everyone.
Hopefully to this effect:
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no, I copy pasted it, I swear.Ah, that sucks. That sounds like the most fun part. Honestly I think http://youarenotsosmart.com/ should be required reading for everyone.
Hopefully to this effect:
Love that cartoon. :-)
Thank you Bardock.
Originally posted by Utsukushii
well what would you define a person to be?
That's what I'm trying to figure out. People claim the fetus isn't a person, yet can't define a person.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats the beauty of his positionhe never has to provide that, simply say that it is impossible, thus no abortion
is it unfalsifiable, a logical fallacy and a misconstruction of the burden of proof? of course. Is there any real way to argue against it? nope.
It isn't any of those things. If you want to claim the fetus isn't a person, you should at least be able to tell me what a person is. I'm not saying the fetus is or isn't a person. But you all seem to be alright with killing it regardless of the fact that you can't show me it isn't a person. There's something wrong with that way of thinking.
Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't any of those things. If you want to claim the fetus isn't a person, you should at least be able to tell me what a person is. I'm not saying the fetus is or isn't a person. But you all seem to be alright with killing it regardless of the fact that you can't show me it isn't a person. There's something wrong with that way of thinking.
indeed, like I said, you have a profound misunderstanding about how the burden of proof works.
If I said there were an 8 legged dog, it is not up to you to prove that 8 legged dogs don't exist, but rather for me to prove they do.
If you believe a fetus is a person, it is not up to me to prove it is not, but for you to prove it is.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Ah, that sucks. That sounds like the most fun part. Honestly I think http://youarenotsosmart.com/ should be required reading for everyone.
oh, I agree, its just, you know, profs don't want to alienate a large portion of the class
though, I sort of disagree with that whole principle. Psych tells us they would consider themselves part of the "knowledgeable" for whom this isn't a problem, because, you know, they are smart psychologists
like, we all wish the XKCD comic were true, however, it is way more likely that hearing it out loud would simply reconfirm how sure they were about it
Originally posted by TacDaveyI can't define a chair by its features exactly. Some chairs have four legs (some have none), some have backs, some are squarish and some are round.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. People claim the fetus isn't a person, yet can't define a person.
I can however tell you that this is not a chair: