26 Jun 2012, 8:04 pm
DC wrote:
Robdemanc wrote:
I think it depends on what we are reasoning about. If we count everything that can be reasoned about then I don't think its uncommon.
Also consider the fact that an animal can "reason" whether to approach a human or not. Dogs seem to be able to detect if their owner wants to be left alone. This could be called "reasoning" on the dogs part.
Also consider the fact that an animal can "reason" whether to approach a human or not. Dogs seem to be able to detect if their owner wants to be left alone. This could be called "reasoning" on the dogs part.
But I can't do that.
Does that mean I'm less capable of reason than a dog?
Perhaps I should schedule more time for licking my own balls.
bahahahaha!! !! !!
26 Jun 2012, 8:07 pm
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
26 Jun 2012, 10:57 pm
27 Jun 2012, 11:51 am
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 2:01 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Joker wrote:
Their is a huge difference between having the ability to reason and choosing to use it. In America Liberals, are more likly to reason with you Conservatives are more likely not to.
First, you're using two different senses of the word "reason."
Second, your second statement is entirely unreasoned. You have no empirical basis on which to draw the conclusion that liberals or conservatives are more or less likely than each other to do anything.
Since I live in AMERICA I would say my statement is pretty accurate sunshine
27 Jun 2012, 2:43 pm
Joker wrote:
Since I live in AMERICA I would say my statement is pretty accurate sunshine
I would say that your statement reflects your beliefs, and your perception of your experiences. And I accept it as equally valid to anyone else's statement of beliefs and perception.
But it will always be subordinate to a rational argument based on evidence. If you can cobble that together, then I will be prepared to accept your claim as reasoned.
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 2:49 pm
visagrunt wrote:
Joker wrote:
Since I live in AMERICA I would say my statement is pretty accurate sunshine
I would say that your statement reflects your beliefs, and your perception of your experiences. And I accept it as equally valid to anyone else's statement of beliefs and perception.
But it will always be subordinate to a rational argument based on evidence. If you can cobble that together, then I will be prepared to accept your claim as reasoned.
Some thing's in life don't require evidence.
27 Jun 2012, 4:57 pm
27 Jun 2012, 5:03 pm
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 5:24 pm
27 Jun 2012, 5:35 pm
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 5:36 pm
27 Jun 2012, 6:15 pm
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 6:22 pm
27 Jun 2012, 7:11 pm
Joker wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Joker wrote:
Some people are unreasonable you can't reason with a sociopath now can you.
But that's you using a different sense of the word again.
Can the sociopath think, "I am hungry, therefore I will eat?" So long as the sociopath can do that, the sociopath can reason. The fact that you might not be able to convince a sociopath of something is an entirely separate question from whether or not the sociopath has the capacity to respond to environmental stimuli in a conscious fashion.
As for the case of Patau syndrome, or microcephaly, or a vegetative state, we are moving in the realm of the exceptional. Do we expect that any generalized statement to apply to 100% of human beings? Of course not. We acknowledge that there are limits imposed by speaking in generalities, because if we tried to state the case that would be universal, we would state no case at all.
You're not seeing the point of what I mean by reasoning with a sociopath.
Please quit making excuses for being oblivious to the grammatical difference between "your" and "you're". Sheesh!
Joker
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
27 Jun 2012, 7:14 pm
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Joker wrote:
Some people are unreasonable you can't reason with a sociopath now can you.
But that's you using a different sense of the word again.
Can the sociopath think, "I am hungry, therefore I will eat?" So long as the sociopath can do that, the sociopath can reason. The fact that you might not be able to convince a sociopath of something is an entirely separate question from whether or not the sociopath has the capacity to respond to environmental stimuli in a conscious fashion.
As for the case of Patau syndrome, or microcephaly, or a vegetative state, we are moving in the realm of the exceptional. Do we expect that any generalized statement to apply to 100% of human beings? Of course not. We acknowledge that there are limits imposed by speaking in generalities, because if we tried to state the case that would be universal, we would state no case at all.
You're not seeing the point of what I mean by reasoning with a sociopath.
Geez Joker! Stop making excuses for being oblivious to the grammatical difference between "your" and "you're". I notice that you tend to argue by making assertions, and when you're assertions are rebutted you make the same assertion repeatedly in the belief that you're winning.................................All in VAIN.
Pleas try to not bore me sweet pea and say something worth me responding too KK
