I wonder if someone hacked Stephen Hawking's laptop, because he's too smart to be that stupid.
I wonder if someone hacked Stephen Hawking's laptop, because he's too smart to be that stupid.
Quest (07-06-2017)
fuego (07-06-2017), GodismyJudge (07-06-2017), Romans828 (07-06-2017), Susan (07-06-2017), Valiant Woman (07-07-2017)
Valiant Woman (07-07-2017)
Yeah, if someone feels that they are a gay elephant in a human looking transvestite satyr's body then they will probably be declared right and to be protected in whatever the resulting lifestyle amounts to and that because it is self apparently true and doesn't need a shred of scientific evidence even though every last bit of everything else always does.
Yep.
You find many that have to support ridiculous claims even though they may not privately agree with it (we'll never know) because they know to disagree with even the most outlandish claims, then it erodes their own argument for whatever it is they believe in that maybe isn't quite as extreme.
Romans828 (07-06-2017)
I think I got at least 90 percent of that sentence figured out...
It makes me think that a lot of allegedly science based claims boil down to being based on social consensus on top of social consensus within the community throughout time more than neutral and objective evidence based reason. One of the things I would like to figure out when I get to heaven is exactly what all of that really looks like !
Agreed.
Yeah, I knew the sentence was kind of convoluted. lol.
An example of what I mean by the post. Say I believe that homosexuality is OK. Somebody else believes pedophilia is ok, but I really don't. But I understand the argument that once you deviate from the norm then basically anything becomes acceptable. Because I know that argument is sound, if I disagree that pedophilia is wrong, I have now undermined my own argument for homosexuality being OK. Therefore I have to publicly agree with pedophilia even though privately I still think it's wrong, and maybe even see the hypocrisy in my own argument for homosexuality.
So the pedophile argues that what they do is ok. But now someone asks them about beastiality. They understand the same argument that once you deviate from the norm then anything basically becomes acceptable. So when asked publicly, they basically have to agree it's ok, because to disagree they understand it undermines their own argument for that being a pedophile is ok, even though privately they think beastiality is wrong. So you have these people publicly agree with all forms of insanity even though they privately may disagree with it. Anyway, you get the idea.
They do try to figure it out. For instance they will say that bestiality is wrong because the animal is "incapable of forming consent" just like they will say that a child is incapable of that. But killing the animal is ok without its consent and letting the 7 year old decide it is in a body with the wrong gender and let it have a sex change is ok. It's just insanity but they will make it sound intellectual and rely on social consensus to make it stick.