srh88
Well-Known Member
I understood like 6 words this time. I'm getting smarter
Gonna beat myself up for being a nerd now
Gonna beat myself up for being a nerd now
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
taint
Well-Known Member
Your maffs are getting better two.......
This separation between science and human values is an ILLUSION. The idea that facts are facts and values are values, and they're different is simply wrong. Human values ARE a certain kind of fact. "It is a fact based upon the well-being of conscious creatures".
There is a correct way to deduce morality from science, and it works. It all comes from the idea of suffering and what we can do to reduce suffering. There IS objectivity in morality, happiness and suffering that can be derived from the teachings of science.
Science CAN answer the most important questions of human life. Science does not just get us what we value, but it also gets us what we OUGHT to value (aka morality). Science CAN be used to derive all your morality from. In fact, it is the best way to derive your morality from. Sam Harris, renown Neuroscientist & Philosopher, argues this in detail below.
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
On this, can you provide reference links?
Yes you it's Sam Harris's main argument from a Neuroscientist standpoint. It comes from the standpoint of suffering and what science can say about reducing suffering. He talks about it in his TED talk I linked. Youtube "Sam Harris debates" & "Sam Harris interviews" and there's a lot of material there as well.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
No I mean real links, not youtube
Watch it and use your brain via thought experiment. Your brain is there to proofread, otherwise you're just lazy and too narrow-minded to review incoming info. Which you asked for lol. The video is there to invoke you to think, this is irrelevant asking for a "scientific-journal-level" link to tell you the methodology and conclusion.
Scientific arrogance is as good as scientific ignorance. How ironic right?
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Links to peer-reviewed text please
Dope Fly
Active Member
Yeah, doctors that have worked in the delivery room, such as myself, have known this forever.
Most babies aren't born with a P or a V. They're born with a non-binary form of genitalia called a mallard, which resembles an arm with a claw at the end. In order to give the newborn a binary gender, you must determine the baby's dominant gender, be it male or female, and then give it a special drink that morphs its mallard into a taco or a sausage.
I was born biologically female but my brother and sister had to be given those special drinks after birth at the hospital because they were non-gendered/third-gendered babies. It's different than being a hermaphrodite so it'd be inaccurate to say that they were born intersex.
Most third-gender babies are born without buttholes and urinary openings, too, so they also need another special drink that morphs their nether regions even more, so they can poop and pee.
You know what THAT means...
Most people aren't even worth their own butthole
Most babies aren't born with a P or a V. They're born with a non-binary form of genitalia called a mallard, which resembles an arm with a claw at the end. In order to give the newborn a binary gender, you must determine the baby's dominant gender, be it male or female, and then give it a special drink that morphs its mallard into a taco or a sausage.
I was born biologically female but my brother and sister had to be given those special drinks after birth at the hospital because they were non-gendered/third-gendered babies. It's different than being a hermaphrodite so it'd be inaccurate to say that they were born intersex.
Most third-gender babies are born without buttholes and urinary openings, too, so they also need another special drink that morphs their nether regions even more, so they can poop and pee.
You know what THAT means...
Most people aren't even worth their own butthole
Dope Fly
Active Member
... seriously?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The fact that you ridicule my requesting peer-reviewed information is puzzling to me if I don’t misassume that the opinions stated above don’t qualify as research. I am asking after the scientific literature that has withstood review from the practitioners in the field.
I further ask that the information comes from the fields of science or medicine. I reject cultural anthropology as politics masquerading as objective study. Until then, it is all unsupported opinion and has no scientific or educational value at all.
For example, when I search on the term “mallard” I find nothing to support or refute your offered definition. A link to the literature would assist in defining the inquiry. Until then, I cannot exclude the possibility that your definition is specious, with erosive effects on the rest of your credibility.
It is always the job of the idea’s presenter to make with the corroborating literature. The surest way to mark yourself as a dishonest broker is to say “do your own research”, which your “seriously?” comes dangerously close to saying.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Until there is a physical unit for suffering and or well-being, and that unit describes something detectable and quantifiable by a nonconscious instrument or device, that is exactly what I oppose. Sentiments and values are not facts in the scientific sense. What Harris develops here is not a hypothesis that is amenable to experiment or instrumented observation. (I exclude deliberate hijack of the scientific method of the sort that Scientologists practice.) Fact must exclusively draw on objective, measurable and reproducible phenomena.
Consider that he implied that a Bible verse contained factual information about the presence and properties of what at our stage of progress is the ultimate immeasurable: the spiritual or divine. There might one day be a science of sentiment, value and even spirit. But not now or even soon.
But at present we are very far from that. We cannot even ask questions that work within the scientific method. We have no science of the subjective. The nearest thing we have is statistical treatment of the observed behavior of conscious systems. Psychiatry and psychology don’t conform to the definition of science, though they are legitimate and useful disciplines. Their irreducible foundation on subjectivity means not science.
Thus I characterize what he says as philosophy at best and pseudoscience with the way he does an injury to what the word fact means.
Dope Fly
Active Member
Medicine and science are FULL of fucking agendas, prejudices, fears and biases. You incorrectly assume that either of those fields of study are objectivity-based. In a perfect world, that would be true, but let's not get all idealistic here.
"Mallard" isn't textbook terminology; we called third-gender genitalia a mallard because the babies born with them were affectionately and informally known as Mallory, or mallories as opposed to boys or girls.
So, I'm not surprised if Google doesn't feature any links to scientific journalism focusing on "mallards" or "sporks", another jargon term thrown around for Mallory's 'nads.
If you're really that curious, the next time you're at a hospital, ask about the diets they give babies shortly post-birth. They call the special drinks "diets", for whatever reason. Even animal breeders and pet stores have the same diets available for animals that are born with wonky doo-dads instead of the standard set.
Dope Fly
Active Member
What if you're an insider?
What if the subject at hand is recent, or so controversial that there isn't any quality literature on the topic that can be made easily accessible to the public, or at all?
You make it seem so clear-cut, which is misleading.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In science, the only accepted source of information is peer-reviewed primary publication. All else, like Harris’s books, is opinion.
Your first paragraph is so full of subjective bias that I am abandoning this thread of sermons dressed in the costume of discourse.
Then you have nothing.
Dope Fly
Active Member
No, you could seriously take it upon yourself and ask an animal breeder or doctor about mallards and gender morphing drinks and get the same response I offered.
Or, keep stroking your dignified neckbeard while serving up pseudointellectual fluffernutters. I doubt you'll look into the matter any further regardless of how easy it is to find a commoner that breeds dogs or cats, or a doctor that has delivered babies.
Or, keep stroking your dignified neckbeard while serving up pseudointellectual fluffernutters. I doubt you'll look into the matter any further regardless of how easy it is to find a commoner that breeds dogs or cats, or a doctor that has delivered babies.
Last edited:
sarahJane211
Well-Known Member
I don't think I've seen such a display of mental illness in a public forum before.
Added to my Ignore list, I don't want to read your pain.
Added to my Ignore list, I don't want to read your pain.
Last edited: