This is generalizing generalizations. You're ironically going against your own logic.
Not all generalizations are false, and this is one that isn't. Read the thread. That is a fact.
@
@GeckoBus The self-contradiction is strong with this one
I cum hard in the front yard! YES!
Exactly!
It's like when people say, "you should never pick an extreme position, always take a balanced approach"
-> that's literally an extremist position since it says "you should
never do x."
It's impossible not to be an extremist because the truth is by definition divisive. I splits everything into two things - truth and falsehood.
Hence Jesus says in the bible, I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Jesus is the truth in the bible. In the christian worldview, truth is a person, hence Jesus is divisive.
Besides this, nice_try constantly generalizes. Every time he makes an appeal to basic needs or what you should do or not do, he applies universal moral laws that he considers obvious and unbreakable to everyone. Yet he never gives a reason for this. I have already explained in my previous reply why grounding these in nature does not work. His only moves are to ground them in himself as authority, which would be arbitrary and a form of might-is-right, or he grounds them in God.
The first option would not work though because might-is-right as a justification criteria invalidates his own claim. It's circular reasoning to say might is right, since your justification for why might is right is also might is right. Additionally, might is right leads to a form of determinism that eliminates the possibility of knowledge and person-hood.
This is so because there are no choices we can make that we do not choose. If you did not actively make a decision, there would be no choice.
But if volition, aka might is right, is the only thing behind every choice, and there is no way to determine which choices are good or bad, then there are no choices. All choices are "good" because as long as you will them, want them etc, they are good. This leads to something like "everything I want is good, because I want it. Why is it good that I want it? Because I want it."
On this model, there are no bad choices. Or rather, there is no choice at all. Anything you do, you would have done anyway. So you have turned yourself into a mechanism and eliminated free will.
The problem is, without free will, you can not know things. Knowledge requires choice. It requires an object of knowledge, and a knower choosing to know. If you can't make choices then you have turned yourself from a conscious agent who picks and chooses bits of knowledge and compares them based on criteria like good, bad into a earthworm that just mechanically eats whatever is thrown in his way, unconsciously.
When you plug in your USB drive into a laptop, you would not say, "the computer has learned the contents of the usb drive." No, the computer just consumes whatever you feed it. If there is a virus on the USB drive, it will just consume it anyway. It makes no distinctions between the data on the computer. Even when you run anti-virus software to filter the contents of the USB drive, the anti-virus software is just a digital coin-sorting mechanism. It's like building a dam and diverting the incoming water through different holes into the dam, some of it going into a pond, some of it back into the river.
Nobody would say that the dam is acting intelligently or somehow choosing to pick which water goes where.
But I digress. This is why these types of argument do not work. Appealing to nature, authority, consensus - all of these fall flat. No matter the claim, we can always ask ourselves, "what is the criteria by which the claim is justified?" Like, what is the justification for why this is true. This is often a much more important question than looking at the claim itself.
I have explained this before with claims such as "one man can impregnate multiple women, so men are less valuable, evolutionary speaking."
This is wrong on many levels.
Let's look for the criteria by which the claims are justified.
There are none.
It's a non-sequitur. The premise that one man can impregnate multiple women is an IS, the rest is all OUGHT.
I could also claim men are more valuable based on the same premise.
The next issue is that evolution does not know advantages or values. If we are true to evolutionists claims, then evolution is completely random. But if it is random, then there is no selection. Based on this, we literally can not know which traits or behaviors are advantageous or not. There are no advantages or disadvantages in evolution. Something that may seem like a disadvantage to us may be an advantage without us knowing.
Take for example that monogamous, religious people have more children on average. Does this not make them "evolutionary successful?" By this metric, evolutionists should view religion as a "successful adaptation" - that is, if they view having a high reproductive rate as "good." - which again, is an arbitrary value judgement which they can't make if they believe in evolution.
Why can't they make it? Because evolution and appealing to nature fallacy are identical. If everything is evolution/nature, then there is nothing not proving it true, since everything is evolution/nature. Technology, religion, murder - it would all be evolution.
But anyway, enough of this.
link.springer.com
