View Single Post
Unread 10 Jul 2006, 19:02   #22
Phang
Aardvark is a funny word
 
Phang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm No Nino Rota
Posts: 5,923
Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Phang has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Logical Fallacies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
The naturalistic 'fallacy' is bullshit (like the intentional 'fallacy' and the phenomenological 'fallacy'). You cant just start with your own baseless ideological position and then claim that anyone who disagrees is automatically committing a logical fallacy, otherwise I could invent the Atheist fallacy (the fallacious belief that emprical evidence should have greater weighting than scripture) and the Aryan fallacy (giving credence to arguments made my people who do not come from the master race).

The naturalist fallacy relies on a supernatural view of ethics where terms like 'Good' (capital letter!) are thought to be denote some kind of spooky intrinsic 'property 'of objects/actions rather than simply being words in the English language, like the rest of our adjectives.
what?


surely the ought/is debate by its very nature goes against the idea of objective morality?
__________________
Efficiency, efficiency they say
Get to know the date and tell the time of day
As the crowds begin complaining
How the Beaujolais is raining
Down on darkened meetings on the Champs Élysées
Phang is offline   Reply With Quote