[Perkwunos]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Logic, as we know it and understand it, is an attempt at regulating language so that certain attributes (almost always, truth) are consistent throughout the communication.

It is a very powerful tool because it allows us to effectively communicate and analyse rational and correct ideas. It is not, unfortunately, a transcendent truth.

The logic we use (as compared to some perfect ideal logic) is a human construct, and therefore is influenced by culture. This means that cultures have used different logics (some of which are better than others), logic is influenced by concrete human relations, and logic does not necessarily transcend history or gender (or class, or race, etc).

If we are discussing how humans actually use logic (instead of some ideal perfect logic that we attempt to attain but rarely reach), then there is nothing incorrect in saying that the imperfect and human attempts we make to attain this perfect ideal are diverse, and are influnced by our historical contexts.

So, if you believe I am misusing it now because of my bias, it is also logical to assume that sexist men have also misused logic according to their biases.

As long as your answer was, it was not an answer to my questions. Let's try again:

Which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I'm not interested in vague generalities about "different logics". I want details. Which logics are better than others? Classical? Ternary? Fuzzy? Paraconsistent? Non-monotonic? What rules of inference do not transcend gender, class or race? I already asked, for example, whether the law of non-contradiction does or does not transcend these factors. Well, does it or doesn't it? If not, why?

I am not interested in more beating around the bush from you. Do not think you can weasel out of this. Answer my questions. I demand Ebuhdins™ for your claims.

Your source makes the absurd claim that there must a God for atheists not to believe in.

The widespread belief in kami is not atheistic.

A broader problem with claims people make about Japan is that it is overall an über-rational utopia. If that were the case, then belief that blood types influence personality would not be so widespread either.

[Pants-of-dog]

As long as your answer was, it was not an answer to my questions. Let's try again:

Which logics are better than others? Why? How does logic not transcend gender, class or race? Why no examples?

I'm not interested in vague generalities about "different logics". I want details. Which logics are better than others? Classical? Ternary? Fuzzy? Paraconsistent? Non-monotonic? What rules of inference do not transcend gender, class or race? I already, for example, whether the law of non-contradiction does or does not transcend these factors. Well, does it or doesn't it? If not, why?

I am not interested in more beating around the bush from you. Do not think you can weasel out of this. Answer my questions. I demand Ebuhdins™ for your claims.

I started this discussion with you when you expressed your feelings about Ms. Watson. When it became clear that you were merely discussing your feelings, I stopped caring.

Now you want to talk about your misunderstanding of some other feminist's work. I do not care about this ther person's critique of logic.

[Besoeker]

Atheism isn't a cult.

[Perkwunos]

I started this discussion with you when you expressed your feelings about Ms. Watson. When it became clear that you were merely discussing your feelings, I stopped caring.

Now you want to talk about your misunderstanding of some other feminist's work. I do not care about this ther person's critique of logic.

Again: not an answer. Don't let your mouth write any checks that your tail can't cash. Let's see if your Superior™ Logical™ mind can come up with an appropriate answer to the following questions:

I'm not interested in vague generalities about "different logics". I want details. Which logics are better than others? Classical? Ternary? Fuzzy? Paraconsistent? Non-monotonic? What rules of inference do not transcend gender, class or race? I already asked, for example, whether the law of non-contradiction does or does not transcend these factors. Well, does it or doesn't it? If not, why?

For your claim that there has been a "misunderstanding" on my part to be Ebuhdinsed™, you need to demonstrate you know a damn thing about logic. You have not done so.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure. I know nothing about logic.

Good thing that has nothing to do with the claom that this woman was anti-logic.

Or anything to do with Ms. Watson discussing sexual assault.

Let me know when you want to get back to that. Thanks.

[Perkwunos]

Sure. I know nothing about logic.

Good thing that has nothing to do with the claom that this woman was anti-logic.

For you to say that someone is not anti-logic, first you have to know what logic is. You have claimed this but not Ebuhdinsed™ that claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, since we agreed that I know nothing of logic, but this feminist that you dislike so much does know about logic, we can move on.

Or we can go back to talking about how Ms. Watson did not actually do anything except discuss something that you feel is unimportant.

[Truth To Power]

The widespread belief in kami is not atheistic.

Japanese rarely actually believe in kami. Kami are just part of Shinto tradition, like the Easter Bunny in the USA.

A broader problem with claims people make about Japan is that it is overall an über-rational utopia.

I wouldn't say that. But I would say the Japanese are on average smarter and more rational than Americans, and the quality of their society shows it.

If that were the case, then belief that blood types influence personality would not be so widespread either.

Some Japanese do subscribe to a few superstitions, much as we in the West might cross our fingers for good luck, but they are generally atheistic.

[Perkwunos]

Japanese rarely actually believe in kami. Kami are just part of Shinto tradition, like the Easter Bunny in the USA.

Uhhh:

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-peopl ... e-atheists

"We do believe in gods, but they are very different from Christian/Islam God.

According to the survey by Yomiuri news in 2008,

72% of Japanese people don’t belong to any religion but 26% of Japanese people believe in some kind of religions.

However, 94% of Japanese people respect 祖霊 sorei. This can be translated as ancestor gods but I probably should translate the word as ancestor spirit. We don’t consider them as the creators of the world but we do respect them.

Also 56% of the Japanese believe something supernatural from the nature (nature gods).

But if I can redefine the definition of religion and define it as belief and respect towards something supernatural, then 94% of Japanese people are religious."

I wouldn't say that. But I would say the Japanese are on average smarter and more rational than Americans, and the quality of their society shows it.

If that were really the case, then pachinko or any other game with a negative expected value would not be so popular and there would not be such a thing as default deference to elders (who can (very) frequently be full of shit).

Some Japanese do subscribe to a few superstitions, much as we in the West might cross our fingers for good luck

And all of that is dumb and not rational.

Well, since we agreed that I know nothing of logic, but this feminist that you dislike so much does know about logic, we can move on.

Or we can go back to talking about how Ms. Watson did not actually do anything except discuss something that you feel is unimportant.

We started here:

viewtopic.php?p=14794164#p14794164

"For me the most heinous thing that these people did was divert the (albeit even then limited) focus of the skeptic and atheist movements away from the goal of rational thought as such to a bunch of stupid pet ideological issues about which they became utterly dogmatic."

As someone who finally admitted to ignorance of logic after trying to play a little shell game that I didn't opt in to, I imagine you don't see the problem here.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, I long ago pointed out that discussion about minimising sexual assault is, in my opinion, far more important than discussing if god exists or not.

We also agreed that you were of another opinion, which is why you shrieked about it for pages and pages.

But since that is simply a matter of differing opinion, I let it go. Unless you have some sort of evidence or logic based argument as to why discussing sexual assault is solely irrational or ideological, there is no more to discuss.

[Rich]

@PerkwunosWow! POD only replies to posters whose arguments he respects (or so he would have us believe), clearly by entering into page after page of conversation with you, POD must have a very deep respect for your arguments.

[Perkwunos]

Yes, I long ago pointed out that discussion about minimising sexual assault is, in my opinion, far more important than discussing if god exists or not.

Well I guess it's too bad I wasn't only talking about whether God exists or not.

[Besoeker]

Yes, I long ago pointed out that discussion about minimising sexual assault is, in my opinion, far more important than discussing if god exists or not.

So is reducing the huge number of deaths from starvation every day.
But the topic is atheism.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well I guess it's too bad I wasn't only talking about whether God exists or not.

Yes, you never clarified what would be more important than discussing sexual assault. You just minimised the importance of discussing rape.

---------------

So is reducing the huge number of deaths from starvation every day.
But the topic is atheism.

I completely agree.

[Perkwunos]

Yes, you never clarified what would be more important than discussing sexual assault.

"For me the most heinous thing that these people did was divert the (albeit even then limited) focus of the skeptic and atheist movements away from the goal of rational thought as such"

Can you read?

[Pants-of-dog]

I guess my confusion is caused by my idea that it is perfectly rational to want to minimise sexual assault.

[Perkwunos]

I guess my confusion is caused by my idea that it is perfectly rational to want to minimise sexual assault.

When I refer to rational thought I am not talking about maximizing a particular utility function but thinking in accord with logic and probability theory.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh.

How does complaining about Ms. Watson somehow maximise thinking in accord with logic and probablity theory?

[Perkwunos]

Oh.

How does complaining about Ms. Watson somehow maximise thinking in accord with logic and probablity theory?

In one sense, it's orthogonal to that goal altogether. In another sense, abhorring the behavior of these people who aren't actually skeptics but instead are content to indulge in a little circlequeef about how they have Rational™ Objective™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™ on their side when they're really frauds—like what you tried to do before I called your bluff—explicitly sets myself in opposition to these reerees, affirms this goal for me, and makes me more determined to achieve it.

[Pants-of-dog]

In one sense, it's orthogonal to that goal altogether.

So you are indulging in the same behaviour you condemn, as far as I can see.

In another sense, abhorring the behavior of these people who aren't actually skeptics but instead are content to indulge in a little circlequeef about how they have Rational™ Objective™ Logical™ Ebuhdins™ on their side when they're really frauds—like what you tried to do before I called your bluff—explicitly sets myself in opposition to these reerees, affirms this goal for me, and makes me more determined to achieve it.

How is Ms. Watson not really a skeptic? Is the mere mention of sexual assault enough to make you a fraud in the atheist movement?