Logical Thinking

[itsmeJonB]

can a mod please get rid of mazhur, he has completely hijacked this thread and obviously has issues, lol at the quote stuff! you cant take legal action over an internet persona!

OK wyndex, where is the best area to post lateral thinkers? cheers

somewhere completely obscure. like family/relationships

 

[retro]

you do know me...I am a fellow member and the forum has my contact addy etc...

tomorrow i will ask barrister chacha to prepare a legal notice for piracy of my intellectual property
without permission -rather forbiddance.

you can continue with the debate....and others too.. but it's you who are responsible for your lack of respect for law.

no need to respond with your rant...see ya in the court if you still won't desist!

:24: :24: :24: :24:

Who is Barrister Chacha? Does he dance the cha cha? :24: Your "intellectual property" (if you can call it that) has not been stolen, pirated, or otherwise misused. I've referenced you as the original poster of what is in my signature (a fact that you obviously agree with), as such you couldn't even accuse me of plagiarism. I'm not claiming your quotes in my signature to be my own original content either. Even if this were a legal issue, you wouldn't have a proverbial leg to stand on.

I have plenty of respect for the law... you on the other hand, not so much. I don't know you other than the garbage that you spew here on a regular basis and the fact that you are very quickly being recognized across the forum as a troll by many different people. Other than that, I don't know a thing about you. So for all I know you could simply want my address in order to kidnap and rape me.

 

[retro]

somewhere completely obscure. like family/relationships

:24:

the standard Philosophy & Debate forum where this is should work just fine

Family/Relationships is where mazHur posts jokes.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Back on topic, take it to PMs, completely drop it, or I'll be issuing infractions.

Thank you.

 

[Carlton]

somewhere completely obscure. like family/relationships

I bet it will get moved!

 

[Springsteen]

that's an admission, chap! You will soon get in trouble..

Me? Get caught? Good luck finding me, I'm behind proxies (although anyone who doesn't know how to BitTorrent correctly doesn't deserve hands)

 

[cam elle toe]

I am NOT attacking YOU! On the contrary YOU are pulling my leg everywhere by publicising my name every where
with malafide intentions and ulterior motives. YOU are doing something which YOU have NO right to do legally, understand?
On the contrary I just noticed you are 'playing' with my name in your posts...that is not acceptable.
Put your OWN name against your siggy or whatever you call it.. NOT MINE....unless you remove it I will hold you liable for libel and illicit conduct.

:24::24::24::24::24:

Now THAT is Logical thinking.....NOT:sarcasm

 

[mazHur]

Those who are bent on ascribing divinity to aught beside God will say, "Had God so Willed, we would not have ascribed divinity to aught but Him nor would our forefathers [have done so]; and neither would we have declared as forbidden anything [that He has allowed]." Even so did those who lived before them give the lie to the truth—until they came to taste Our punishment! Say: "Have you any [certain knowledge which you could proffer to us? You follow but [other people's] conjectures, and you yourself do nothing but guess."


Al_Quran...Al-Ana'am 148-149

 

[retro]

Those who are bent on ascribing divinity to aught beside God will say, "Had God so Willed, we would not have ascribed divinity to aught but Him nor would our forefathers [have done so]; and neither would we have declared as forbidden anything [that He has allowed]." Even so did those who lived before them give the lie to the truth—until they came to taste Our punishment! Say: "Have you any [certain knowledge which you could proffer to us? You follow but [other people's] conjectures, and you yourself do nothing but guess."


Al_Quran...Al-Ana'am 148-149

So you believe what the Qur'an has to say about free will then? Since I had asked for your thoughts, and this is what you posted.

It looks to me as though it's saying that we don't have free will, that God wills things how he wants them to be. Or that things can only happen if they are in his will? Am I reading this incorrectly?

 

[Accountable]

Another better-than-average thread fucked up by juvenile sniping and passive-aggressive bullshit.

 

[venichhe]

I have a whole unit/subject on it in my Psychology degree this year, well, this semester. So I'm studying it for weeks. We require logical thinking as part of the course, and being a psychologist obviously.

In basic terms, we define logical thinking (or also known as critical thinking) as a kind of skill - being able to accept both sides of an argument while still keeping your own side...being able to critique things - say what is good and bad about a source for example...

We're learning about the different types of arguments, like how things are worded, explicit or implicit things, etc.

Is this what you think logical thinking is? Or is it something different?

To me, there was a problem to begin with when you mentioned logic and critical thinking in the same sentence. I don't believe logical thinking is = to critical thinking. Though it may have similar thought process, but end results are completely contradictory. I believe logical thinking is simplicity and critical thinking to be explanatory. The end results for logic is completion and the end result of critical thinking is satisfaction.

 

[venichhe]

Another better-than-average thread fucked up by juvenile sniping and passive-aggressive bullshit.

I agree

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Wow, this exciting, this is the longest one of my threads have ever been

 

[Abcinthia]

I can't believe how downhill the topic has gotten. I've forgotten what we were originally debating :surrender

 

[Accountable]

This is where it was before the puppies started tearing things up:
http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=66398&page=4

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Ahh yeah.
Okay well I sorta remember the posts...

I'll admit I don't know an outstanding lot about the world views, and I forget a lot that I've learnt...

Maybe my example fits more on indeterminism?

I just want to ask, do you think determinism is the opposite of free-will?


And in regards to another thing that was posted...behaviour is an event - it is an observable phenomena whether by the act itself or the 'consequences' of it. If behaviour was not an event, we wouldn't be doing anything. It's not an event as in 'everyone had a party' event, it's an event as in 'something occurred' or 'something happened'.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

To me, there was a problem to begin with when you mentioned logic and critical thinking in the same sentence. I don't believe logical thinking is = to critical thinking. Though it may have similar thought process, but end results are completely contradictory. I believe logical thinking is simplicity and critical thinking to be explanatory. The end results for logic is completion and the end result of critical thinking is satisfaction.

Interesting...

I think they're the same, and use them interchangeably. Both require impartiality, reasoning, critiquing, etc. It's just thinking rationally lol.

 

[Accountable]

Ahh yeah.
Okay well I sorta remember the posts...

I'll admit I don't know an outstanding lot about the world views, and I forget a lot that I've learnt...

Maybe my example fits more on indeterminism?

I just want to ask, do you think determinism is the opposite of free-will?


And in regards to another thing that was posted...behaviour is an event - it is an observable phenomena whether by the act itself or the 'consequences' of it. If behaviour was not an event, we wouldn't be doing anything. It's not an event as in 'everyone had a party' event, it's an event as in 'something occurred' or 'something happened'.

Labels only serve to limit, and ism labels seem to limit the most of all. I reject labelism.

While behavior may be stretched to fit loosely within a general definition of 'event' it can't then called synonymous with random events, with no volition or responsibility (liability). People choose to behave, and are responsible for the immediate results even if jumping when startled, such as knocking some poor lady down and crushing her groceries. You can't just point at the car that just splashed water on you and say "You should sue that driver. He owes you a dozen eggs."

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Okay, I've figured something out lol.

If we agree that free-will is having freedoms to make choices regardless, and that not all things are caused...

A free act can be any accidental event that just occurs randomly, and nobody could claim ownership of it. But if we attribute an act of free-will to a person, people tend to say that that act comes from that person, hence the person produced it, and it was caused.
Thus, did the person really have a 'free choice' if their choice was caused by something in them?

Is it fair to say that supporters of free-will like to retain some form of determinism for some events? Because if there wasn't any form of determinism, all events that occurred would be random events because they aren't caused by anything at all. And most people wouldn't like random events to occur (from my experience lol).
A free act could just cut across the determinist system at any time if it chooses to interfere with determined events on some occasions. You couldn't have determinism at all because that free act would eradicate any way in which you could specify that a certain set of physical antecedent conditions will lead to a set of physical consequential conditions.
Therefore having no determinism at all would result in complete randomness.

The implication of this was in the example I told earlier about the person not being liable for their actions. If free-will is the opposite of determinism or that not all events are caused (that nothing caused the person to commit the act, it was just random), then is that person really responsible? (This sort of ties in with indeterminism).
We all would just like to attribute this act to the person, but if we did that, that wouldn't be free-will because it recognises that the person produced it and caused it and there was no 'free choice' in that.
And that's where compatibilism comes in, where people try to mix the two.

Anyway, that's my argument against free-will.

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

Do you get what I'm saying though? To attribute the act to the person isn't free-will, it's compatibilist. I don't think I attributed the act to the guy in my example lol.

I just realised what I wrote (in previous post) may be confusing lol.