dunsscot

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 302 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dunsscot

• 
  37

  Concerning Supercalifragilisticexpealideosis

  by messenger in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i used a bigger word than dunscot......

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Seeker,

  :I see anti-intellectualism is alive and well here. That's sad to see, for it is another form of discrimination -- one rampant through American culture and society.
  I have no problem with the way duns writes. I don't happen to like it, but I can live with it. But I know as someone who uses whatever appropriate word comes to mind first, regardless of its length, that a person could be using less common words for a number of reasons. Compensating for some inadequacy, as people have been joking here, is not the only reason. For instance, if duns is surrounded by people who speak this way, he would naturally think of those words first. People in highly technical professions often develop a jargon that is not familiar to outsiders.:

  Thanks for your understanding words. I think you hit on a point that people need to understand here.

  This forum is partly serious and partly recreational for me. Maybe I am bored because I am out of school this summer, and I do not have an awful lot to stimulate my mind. Maybe I just want to keep on top of my "jargon" game that I am used to in school. (Philosophy, however, is not just about "jargon." The use of certain terms are purposeful as you note.) So I use a lot of big words to express certain concepts. But folks must remember that the character called Duns is just that. I have kids and I do not communicate with them by using high-falutin words. The man behind Duns lives in the "real" world. He goes to work, writes papers, and socializes with students and JWs. He knows how to use varying registers for different situations. But here, I get to relax and have a little fun, while hopefully planting a few spiritual and intellectual seeds. Lastly, I do not take the jokes seriously. Many times I am lying on the floor with laughter. But I thank you for understanding Duns. :-)

  Sincerely,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear "pop" larc,

  :I got the impression that Duns was still at the undergraduate level. If he gets into a graduate program, he better watch his deportment. If he irritates any of his profs, he will likely get washed out. Graduate schools are very political places.:

  I am already in graduate school and I am faring well so far. Duns can be quite the politician when he wants to be. My professors have shown nothing but love for Duns. They even put up with my anti-societal ideas.

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Trilo,

  Did you read my post carefully? Evidently not, for you failed to see that I was challenging sixofnine's earlier comments. All the other material you cite is therefore really not germane to this discussion.

  :In reality, the origins of sexual behavior are complex and cannot be reduced to one liners.:

  Who reduced it to one liners? The origins of sexual behavior are probably complex. I am by no means belittling the issue. I just wonder if sixofnine is consistent in his/her rationale when it comes to the claim of innate directedness toward God.

  :However, this seems not to be your main point. What is quite apparent from you post, however, is that you are prone to committing logical fallacies.:

  Can you please point out any "logical fallacies" that I committed?

  :Whether people are born homosexual or not has no connection with the question of whether people are born with the desire to worship God. You might as well make the argument that accepting the claim of a man that he was born without his left foot requires that we also accept that people who claim to have an innate desire to worship God should be believed.:

  Speaking of logical fallacies. :-) Where did I ever say that we should believe Joelbear OR people who claim they possess an innate desire to worship God? I simply wanted to know IF sixofnine accepted the syllogism I proposed. But I never suggested that we are required to accept that the desire to worship God is innate. You are making a strawman argument, plain and simple. What is more, your analogy about the man born with no left foot fails miserably, because--from certain empirical and verifiable evidence in this case--we can genuinely infer that the man who tells us he was born with no left foot was either born with no left foot or lost it at some point after he experienced natality or is either tricking us in some novel manner and really does have a left foot. But how can we verify joelbear's claim or the person who claims there is a sensus divinitatis, empirically? We cannot. Even if there were empirical indicators of joelbear's supposed innate sexual orientation, we could not say for sure on the basis of physical data alone.

  Lastly, I must say that there is nothing wrong with arguing from analogy. You evidently have not exposed yourself to some of the great philosophical works of antiquity or modernity. My analogy between the sensus divinitatis and one's sexual orientation have more in common than your analogy of the man born with no left foot.

  :All I can say is that you should less time on this board and more practicing for your dissertaion defense. Unless you go to a real hole in the wall school, which I suspect you do given your attraction for big words, you will be torn to shreds at your defense. And rightly failed.:

  First, I am going to get back to my paper in the next few weeks. School takes precedence over this board.

  Secondly, I assure you, I do not go to a hole in the wall school. I cannot help it if your college did not prepare you for the GRE, Tril. What a pity! Its sad that they seemingly fostered a hatred in you for footlong words. The overall anti-intellectualism that is prevalent on this board is unbelievable!

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear Englishman,

  Are you talking about Nicolas Malebranche? He was Descartes' famed deviant disciple.

  Sincerely,
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  julien: Why don't you explain the definitions of each word and why only interlocutor will do.

  I did not say "only interlocutor" will do. Let's get the story straight. I simply made the comment that interlocutor was more appropriate. I might add, in this situation, it is more appropriate. It is also less ambiguous than "poster" (a homonym). Besides, the person with thom I was carrying on a conversation was not simply a poster, IMHO.

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  julien: would you stop saying INTERLOCUTOR already?!! jeez just say the poster..

  There is a difference between a "poster" (this word is a homonym) and an interlocutor, julien. If you do not believe me, look it up! ;-)

  As a side note, the word interlocutor almost seems to have a somewhat primitive semantic value. No wonder Derrida talks about the infinite play of signifiers and wants to dismantle the metaphysics of presence posited by Plato in his Cratylus. It almost seems as if the only suitable synonym of interlocutor is "interlocutor."

  Chillin',
  Dan

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Commie: BTW duns, this is probably the clearest post by you so far. I beg you not to follow through on your threat to "develop it in more detail".

  Duns: Okay, Commie. I will not develop it in detail on this board. Besides, I have to stick to the 25 post a day rule. :-)

  Duns "slipping" Scot

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Hmmm: Hoping I don't regret this:

  I don't accept the original syllogism [carpe diem].

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition"

  I'm not sure I'd accept anybody's verbal claims about anything [quid pro quo]. I'm not talking about innate sexual disposition, or religious inclinations, but about our inability to really KNOW [tyrannosaurus rex] our own motives. What about the person who says that they're innately straight, then in their twenties, realizes that they are gay? What about the person who says they were "called" [habeus corpus] by God at an early age, then becomes agnostic or atheist? I would accept a rewording of the theory, but that would kill [proclivitus] the discussion:

  Keep in mind that the original syllogism presents Duns' understanding of his INTERLOCUTOR'S position. His opponent said:

  "If Joel SAYS it is indeed "innate" (and he does), then it would be rather stupid to go about saying "I don't think homosexuality is innate". It certainly is not innate in me, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate."

  Duns the Scot
• 
  32

  Concerning Innateness

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.

  the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.

  it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Dear wonderful folks of J-W.com,

  The other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if Joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay. Who am I to question Joelbear, since HE said his sexual preference is an inborn disposition.

  I thought about my beloved interlocutor's comments last night, and here is what I concluded. Please bear with me. This argument is only a sketch form of something I would like to develop in more detail.

  It seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.

  1) S verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition
  
  [Ergo]

  3) We can believe S when he verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  This syllogism seems to accurately represent my opponent's view on innate sexual preference. If he thinks this proposition is sound and valid, then fine. But let's rework the syllogism this way, and then see how my distinguished debate partner reacts:

  1) S verbally claims that his inclination to worship God is innate

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes about his religious inclinations

  [Ergo]

  3) We can believe S when he verbally claims that his inclination to worship God is innate.

  Does my antagonist accept the reworked syllogism? Inquiring minds would like to know. :-)

  Duns the Scot
• 
  62

  Working on a Logical Problem

  by dunsscot in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear good people of j-w.com,.

  i am sitting in my office working on a problem and i need your help.

  do you think that these sentences are true?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dunsscot

  Greetings larc,

  :Hello Duns,
  I will take your obscure sentence and translate it. You are interested in the real nature of race and the question of intelligence as it applies to minorities. Since you are interested in this subject, why don't you tell us your conclusions?:

  I have not arrived at any definite conclusions, yet. I am still reading a number of African-American thinkers, who share disparate perspectives on this issue. Certain thinkers, such as Kwame Appiah, think that we should do away with the category of race altogether. He even appeals to science to support his ideas. His approach has been called neopositivistic. But Lewis R. Gordon and Lucius T. Outlaw both think that we should retain the category of race. Outlaw suggests that race, however, encompasses biological, social and cultural factors. Naomi Zack has also done some excellent research on so-called mixed races. Gordon discusses Zack's theory in his _Africana Existentia_.

  At any rate, I am still forming my own ideas on the subject. I right now think that "race" could be a social construct (i.e., it is not an essential or substantial category). Nevertheless, there might be good reasons for maintaining the classification "race" for now. Preserving the category does not mean that one supports racist ideologies, however.

  :You also state that you want to help the mentaly ill. What have you done in this regard?:

  I have endeavored to stress proper respect and concern for the mentally ill in my very congregation. I've also taken active steps to encourage others to take advantage of depression screening day in our area. Furthermore, I have encouraged certain brothers and sisters to take advantage of professional counselors, if they feel the need. I also think Paul's counsel in 1 Thess 5:14 is quite apropos when one is dealing with depressed souls. Duns would like to see certain congregational policies change vis-à-vis mentally ill persons as well.

  :Since you missdiagnosed yourself with a diagnostic category that does not exist, I think you have some homework to do. By the way, what role do the demons play in the world of mental illness?:

  First, in case you haven't figured it out yet, Duns was joking about associative personality disorder. Secondly, Duns did not say that he diagnosed himself. He said that someone else did. But this comment was made in jest. Do I have to smatter my submissions with emoticons so that you guys know Duns is joking? Besides, I am not a psychologist nor do I want to be. I am a philosopher, pure and simple, who is interested in psychological issues. I study psychology from that angle.

  As far as the demons go, I really cannot say what part they play in mental illness. While I do not believe that loyal Christians can be demon-possessed, for example, I think that the demons can exacerbate certain conditions. But demon activity is not in the purview of science, is it?

  :Duns, I am starting to loose respect for your intellectual integrity.:

  Did you have any respect for my intellectual integrity in the first place?

  Dan

  Duns the Scot