What do you think of Al Franken's new Radio Talk show?

[atlantabiolab]

Perhaps it was the years of massive oxycontin abuse. That could be a sign of insecurity.

Or it could be the more logical addiction to pain medication due to back troubles. Occam's Razor works nicely, try it.

 

[atlantabiolab]

actually rush limbaugh is an example of what you just said. He provides rhetoric with no support. listen to one of his shows and you'll see what I'm talking about. Same with Bill Orieley. And probably the same with Al Franken.

I have and he does present support for many of his claims. I have not listened to Franken, but I presume that he too presents some form of support. Using some form of reasoning to support your claim is not the end of the issue, as the reasoning may be incorrect, which requires individuals to consider the information presented as suspect unless they know it or have determined to be true.

Hannity would be the example of one who has little reasoning to support his claims; he simply labels his opponents as liberal or left and then alludes to Reagan or Bush as if they were answers to the debate.

 

[the nature boy]

Or it could be the more logical addiction to pain medication due to back troubles. Occam's Razor works nicely, try it.

perhaps all other oxycontin abusers have had back problems as well?

 

[Lao Tzu]

If one accepts the principles of many of the variants of "skepticism", which are very prevalent today, then nothing can ever be proven. So you either believe that things can be truthfully known or they cannot.

So you're saying nothing can ever be proven and that justifies Rush Limbaugh opinion that counters the opinion of a plethora of qualified medical personnel working independently? Even if you adopt that philosophy, you can prove something to be so likely that there not being a connection is so small to be almost statistically impossible.

PS, way to skirt the issue.

 

[OMEGA]

I think it going to do very well

 

[Synpax]

So you're saying nothing can ever be proven and that justifies Rush Limbaugh opinion that counters the opinion of a plethora of qualified medical personnel working independently? Even if you adopt that philosophy, you can prove something to be so likely that there not being a connection is so small to be almost statistically impossible.

PS, way to skirt the issue.

Rush supports everyone one of his opinions. Now, he may have made a point a few weeks/months/years ago and backed it up (why Capitalism is a good thing). I know he did in his books because I own them. And then today, he makes a statement that is premised on that point but does not regirgitate all of the support behind it.

Otherwise, every time he made a point he would have to go allll the way back to Aristotle and Rand's philosophical axioms that are at the center of his philosphy and then explain every abstraction between that to the point that Kerry is a dirty lying whore. That is simply impractical to do every single time.

Rush: "Because A = A and existence exists, therefore Kerry is a dirty lying whore."

Not supporting a point is what you did when you posted that website, and I explained to you how they were incorrect (the bank eats the lost interest and not all student loans are backed by the feds). And rather than apologizing to the board for posting incorrect information and offering to send me a fruit basket, an amp opener, or some kind of peace offering, you pretended it didn't happen.

 

[atlantabiolab]

So you're saying nothing can ever be proven and that justifies Rush Limbaugh opinion that counters the opinion of a plethora of qualified medical personnel working independently? Even if you adopt that philosophy, you can prove something to be so likely that there not being a connection is so small to be almost statistically impossible.

PS, way to skirt the issue.

You did not understand my post, what I stated is that many today DO NOT believe that anything can be proven (pragmatists), that moral principles are relative (moral subjectivism, relativism, deconstructionists), and these people are often the ones who attack conservative or Libertarian views. So, in essence they are showing the failure of their philosophy when they use such ideas as "proven" or "good" or "bad", since they claim to not believe in these concepts in debate, yet allude to them personally.

 

[Tiervexx]

You did not understand my post, what I stated is that many today DO NOT believe that anything can be proven (pragmatists), that moral principles are relative (moral subjectivism, relativism, deconstructionists), and these people are often the ones who attack conservative or Libertarian views. So, in essence they are showing the failure of their philosophy when they use such ideas as "proven" or "good" or "bad", since they claim to not believe in these concepts in debate, yet allude to them personally.

great post.

I only recently got over my own moral subjectivism.

 

[Lao Tzu]

You did not understand my post, what I stated is that many today DO NOT believe that anything can be proven (pragmatists), that moral principles are relative (moral subjectivism, relativism, deconstructionists), and these people are often the ones who attack conservative or Libertarian views. So, in essence they are showing the failure of their philosophy when they use such ideas as "proven" or "good" or "bad", since they claim to not believe in these concepts in debate, yet allude to them personally.

not to get into a long debate but moral relativism is still a form of moral absolutism. Moral relativism is usually based on the premise of 'society creates morals' to explain why one society condemns something that another society ignores. The idea that all societies endorse social conformity is a moral absolutist concept, even if the conformity comes in different forms.

Secondly, i dont think that the average 'liberal moral relavist' actually believe that his/her philosophies on agriculture or religion apply to scientific data gathered in labs.

 

[Synpax]

not to get into a long debate but moral relativism is still a form of moral absolutism.

No. It's not. Absolutely.