Thread: Cher berates 'bigots' attack on son's role in TV show

Originally Posted by Little Wing

your argument reminds me of christian science bullshit like the world is perfect

I made it clear early on it's an abnormality and was careful not to place any value. I stated that people who believe it literally are bigots and then a few pages later I have people fighting tooth and nail about a situation that supposedly doesn't apply to them and they keep using the same terminology.

hey, nature fucked up as it sometimes does.

I'm sorry you can't use this to make an argument. Whether it's intentionally a metaphor is irrelevant, it's a fallacy. Not only is it a fallacy but it's even used as a common example for one. Here's another website with a list of fallacies: The Autonomist - Logic Fallacies

Here it's the very first example.

Hypostatization fallacy - ( See Reification.) Attributing actual existence or qualities of actual existents to something that is only a name, a relationship, or abstraction; or attributing qualities of one kind of existents to a different kind of existents, (e.g. personification). (Also described as attributing concreteness to the abstract.)

The hypostatization fallacy is very subtle and easily misunderstood. The description of hypostatization applies to rhetorical devices, as well, such as metaphor and personification, which are not fallacies at all, but important and useful tools of language in literature and poetry. The distinction between treating abstractions as material existents rhetorically or using them in arguments that result in false conclusions, is often difficult to detect, or even to describe, especially when the fallacious use is intentional.
Hypostatization (together with the closely related fallacy of reification) may be the most common of all fallacies. Whole systems of philosophy, politics, religion, science, and social theories are built on or supported by this fallacy.11

Examples:

"Nature's purposes are always pure, therefore we should always accede to her." Nature has no purposes.

So if you have a point to make, quit using the fallacy. If you don't have a point, I'm not interested. Also, for the record, I think I have a good understanding of language as it relates to logic. I understand people's need to use things like metaphors; even to the point of them not able to do otherwise. I once had a friend who said there's no objective truth. After pointing out that that was a contradiction (it's an objective statement), she replied 'no it's not, it's just my opinion there's no objective truth.' She didn't realize that while it may be true she holds that as an opinion, it's also irrelevant. She couldn't help but equate opinion and truth. Maybe it is just a metaphor but can you escape it?

Originally Posted by troubador

There's a good reason why I asked you to clarify. I'll answer as if you are being literal.



No. Again, this is an anthropomorphic fallacy. 'Life' does not perform actions or have intentions. Wiki even has examples including nature. For instance "Nature abhors a vacuum" Pathetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



No, of course not then it wouldn't be random. I'll assume you're trying to equate errors in DNA replication to 'life makes mistakes'. Again 'life makes mistakes' is still an anthropomorphic fallacy. And no, DNA replication does not equal 'life', there are other forms of genetic mutation and DNA can be replicated absent of life.

Even if you could make this equivocation that 'genetic mutation' equals 'life makes mistakes' then you have diluted the meaning as it relates to this thread. In other words, we'd all be 'born in the wrong body.'

If the DNA strand that contains the coded digital blueprint for life itself, and therefore gives rise to every single feature of our body including our predetermined mind, the mind that is not shaped by our external environment cannot be classe as "life" then tell me, what would you define as 'life'?

Apart from the fact any biologist right down to the common moron could agree that, DNA is a form of life. It seems to be that you are suggesting that for any mistake to occur it would required that a conscious observer [being the human] must exist in order process the information and on then make judgement before anything could labeled anything as a mistake.

Taking into account you are trapped within your own consciousness and therefore you only have the ability to imagine what other people's personal reality resembles then you, by your analogy, lack the ability to form an educate opinion or judgement upon anybody but youself.

Originally Posted by troubador

No one is born into the wrong body and nature doesn't make mistakes.

Mistakes? Maybe not, but giving thousands upon thousands of people, now and throught history the genuine "illusion" that they are born into the wrong gender until it drives them insane and would much rather be dead than to endure another day deserves some inverstigation with an open mind, in my opinion.

Luckily, society in gereral is become more open minded in regards to these topic. Only 40 years ago if you were dealing with any of these issues you be forced to take them to the grave, often by your own hand.
Ive have the ability to call this a biological mistake or circumstance without needing to dive into the linguistic world of metaphors and literals.

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

If the DNA strand that contains the coded digital blueprint for life itself, and therefore gives rise to every single feature of our body including our predetermined mind, the mind that is not shaped by our external environment cannot be classe as "life" then tell me, what would you define as 'life'?

Well we have dictionaries for that but let's take your definition. Life is "the mind that is not shaped by our external environment"... so if 'Life makes mistakes' then the mind made the mistake. That doesn't quite make sense. GID is classified as a mental disorder btw. (Edit: I'm not exactly sure what you intended because of how your commas were placed. If you meant DNA is life just ignore and move to the next line.)

Or let it be DNA replication - Mistake is defined as "an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc." In which way did DNA cause the 'mistake' - was it poor reasoning, carelessness or insufficient knowledge? Of course it's none of those. It's not a mistake, it's random.

Also you haven't offered any evidence that GID occurs because of DNA replication. So as of now it's a non-issue.

It seems to be that you are suggesting that for any mistake to occur it would required that a conscious observer [being the human] must exist in order process the information and on then make judgement before anything could labeled anything as a mistake.

No, look at the definition of mistake. It doesn't require an observer, it requires someone to make the mistake - someone with poor reasoning, carelessness or insufficient knowledge. Even saying DNA makes mistakes seems like an anthropomorphic fallacy.

Taking into account you are trapped within your own consciousness and therefore you only have the ability to imagine what other people's personal reality resembles then you, by your analogy, lack the ability to form an educate opinion or judgement upon anybody but youself.

So... you know that about me because unlike me you're not trapped within your own consciousness and were able form an educated judgement about me?

Intentionally quoting me out of context in such way that it no longer resembles anything Ive stated, and then disecting that quote to suit your arguement won't hold any ground here.
Neither will the twisting of words and analogies of others to suit your own views. It just makes responding to you a futile exercise.

Originally Posted by BillHicksFan

Intentionally quoting me out of context in such way that it no longer resembles anything Ive stated, and then disecting that quote to suit your arguement won't hold any ground here.
Neither will the twisting of words and analogies of others to suit your own views. It just makes responding to you a futile exercise.

I used your exact words and of course I dissected it to suit my argument. However, I don't even need to pin down what you said other than you used the word 'mistake'. Now tell me, based on the definition of mistake, what made an error caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, or insufficient knowledge?

Nature does make mistakes. That's how people like you come into being.

Originally Posted by troubador

I used your exact words and of course I dissected it to suit my argument. However, I don't even need to pin down what you said other than you used the word 'mistake'. Now tell me, based on the definition of mistake, what made an error caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, or insufficient knowledge?

No, you continuously make straw man arguments. Its annoying, and it shows that you don't have anything worthwhile to say about the subject.

Originally Posted by KelJu

No, you continuously make straw man arguments.

My claim is that life/nature/biology does not make mistakes. If that's a straw-man then he's welcome to admit my claim is not contrary to his position.

This thread is sort of amazing. I think just about every aspect of gay/lesbian/bi/trans issues have been discussed except for one, unless I missed it after I tuned out this morning. Cher's love life has been sort of a train wreck. She's a multi-divorce and, by most accounts including her own, has been very promiscuous most of her adult life. She is a Gay icon and is very popular in those social circuits. Is it any shock that her daughter, the one child of her two that lived and was primarily raised by her, was/is sexually confused?

Originally Posted by troubador

My claim is that life/nature/biology does not make mistakes. If that's a straw-man then he's welcome to admit my claim is not contrary to his position.

This is quoted directly from the source provided. If you want to argue any futher I suggest you contact wikipedia as they are always looking for people to point out fallacies in their documentation.


"In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. They can be defined as sudden and spontaneous changes in the cell. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errorsthat occur during meiosis or DNA replication.[1][2][3] They can also be induced by the organism itself, by cellular processes such as hypermutation."


Source------> Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Little Wing

hey, nature fucked up as it sometimes does.

for sure...random phenomena is analyzed via mathematics (probability theory). perfection is an illusion there is no such thing.

Originally Posted by troubador

My claim is that life/nature/biology does not make mistakes. If that's a straw-man then he's welcome to admit my claim is not contrary to his position.

i see what you are saying but you are insisting we are using the word mistake as in not just an abnormality. we aren't. no one is saying mother nature like it is in an way aware. jeeze.

and disclaimer i didn't read it all it's late n you're kind of a windbag albeit an interesting one tho so i'll read it tomorrow . i think bill hick's fan kicked your ass with the error thing tho huh?