Why is the Terrestial Forum more frequented ...

[_marg]

Oh my gosh, you are still at it MsJack...sorry I'm not even going to read your post. My issue is with EA, I'm not interested in what you have to say, and I spent enough time responding to you yesterday..and you had absolutely nothing to say of any interest to me.

[_LDSToronto]

marg, what's with you policing the board lately?

H.

[_MsJack]

marg ~ Given how terrible your arguments in this thread have been (even by your standards), and how your personal attacks get more unwieldy and vicious every time you post, I'm glad to see you bowing out.

Happy holidays, and good luck with your magical mind-reading powers.

[_marg]

I'm glad to see you bowing out.

You have no argument.

[_marg]

marg, what's with you policing the board lately?

If you'll notice LDST I have only commented in threads the sort you are referring to in which my name was used...hence my interest in those posts.

[_Jersey Girl]

I want to ask a question based on the following, so long as I don't get clubbed for asking it. I'm just curious about it...

Ms Jack

It's pretty obvious that you're someone who's participation is decided first and foremost on whether you have a good or bad history with a person, and only then is the topic brought into play.

I think that you and others, may have see marg and I in exchanges on this board. Does it seem as though our exchanges are based on a good history with each other?

I'm honestly curious about this.

[_Jersey Girl]

In an effort to yank the thread back on topic...the reason the Terrestrial Forum is more frequented is because it's dedicated to general topics and the nature/style lends itself to exchanges of ideas without supplying cites/evidences, though it's certainly okay to request them. The requirements, if you will, are a bit looser.

With regards to the OP. I see nowhere on this board where any poster, including myself, has requested that the Terrestrial Forum follow any other rules than those specifically stated for the Terrestrial Forum.

To imply that any poster has requested that measures be taken to moderate this forum, following CF rules, is grossly overstating the case.

[_EAllusion]

Goodness. Marg, you insisted that it would be surprising if Dawkins was a determinist, then linked that book to say that he's not. I pointed out that it wouldn't be surprising if he was a determinist given that people who hold the ideas he does generally are, at least in the way that was relevant to the discussion at hand. Your link does not, at any point, provide evidence that he's not a determinist. All it does is show that he is not a genetic determinist (you are your genes), which is not the same thing. You have somehow warped this into me arguing with that Dawkins is a determinist in order to shift some burden on me I don't have. The topic of conversation is the fact that your citation doesn't say what you think it says. That's it.

If the world was deterministic then genetic determinism would be included.

No it wouldn't. It does not follow from the fact that if all current states are caused by prior states that all phenotypic traits are reducible to genetic causes. One is a general statement about causation, the other is a statement about types of causes. What Dawkins is saying is that if you are the byproduct of some set of chain of causes, then it is not more sinister if those causes happen to be genetic ones. He's also saying that genetic determinism doesn't prove the broader determinist view. Dawkins actually comes off nicely in that chapter, which is a helpful reminder that when he sticks to biology related issues he's good. So this wasn't a total waste.

[_RayAgostini]

We're all aware of Dr. Peterson's publishing history. It's how many of us are aware of his endorsement of a range of crackpot ideas in the first place.

So let me ask for clarification. You think that Christianity is also full of "crackpot ideas"?

[_RayAgostini]

He's wise not to discuss his idea that the 2nd law of thermodynamics means a god "wound up" the universe with Tarksi, but if it was all margs around, he'd be happy to jump in that pool. Funny how that works out. That he defended this view in an article in Merdian Magazine doesn't change this dynamic at all.

So what you're saying is that marg is so stupid that she should never be taken seriously, and by DCP actually taking her seriously, he's a "small fish bully", more or less? That marg is just too stupid to be taken seriously by anyone of even minimal intelligence? But Tarski, because he knows mathematical equations and has a working knowledge of "formal logic", should be taken seriously?