The response Jake and Ryan asked for concerning "why not use vulgarity?"

[RadialJett]

Profanity to emphasize an extraordinary situation.

Profanity as your default adjective or used like “um”.

 

[grfox92]

Ew.

Don't hold it against me. I fled that place for a reason.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

 

[tony]

8 F$&cking pages

 

[S-3 ranch]

I don’t listen to their podcasts, I’m no angelic holier than tho person
But agree listening to some bearded ass clowns dropping F bombs every other word is what that podcast consists of then it makes me feel less likely to tune into it.
Does it contain any kind substance of good information or are they just two dopey clowns getting high again and talking nonsense?

 

[307]

I don’t listen to their podcasts, I’m no angelic holier than tho person
But agree listening to some bearded ass clowns dropping F bombs every other word is what that podcast consists of then it makes me feel less likely to tune into it.
Does it contain any kind substance of good information or are they just two dopey clowns getting high again and talking nonsense?

If we can somehow manifest "Bearded Ass Clowns" into existence as the new name of the podcast I think all of humanity would be united in this agreement.

 

[S-3 ranch]

If we can somehow manifest "Bearded Ass Clowns" into existence as the new name of the podcast I think all of humanity would be united in this agreement.

Ass clown “”A person who, while making a serious attempt as something, fails to realize what a complete foolhe has made of himself””
I hope the ass. Hat podcast is free and available to the public
And their is a link to this so I can get a solid idea how bad it is

 

[RyanT26]

The Profanity doesn’t bother me. The dumb f’ing intros make me wanna jerk the wheel into a goddamn bridge embankment every time I hear them.

 

[mt terry d]

Warning, it is 13 pages single spaced. I've tried to make a mostly non-religious argument, and Included what I think are the most noble reasons to use profanity and vulgarity, so as not to demonize it. PM me if you're interested.

Well worth reading.
Thanks.

 

[nagibson1]

1) You should not assume any of us have bothered to read any of the drivel in any of the pages of this thread. This is the Internet, and most of us are fiddle farting around here while we shite away at work. Sometimes literally.
2) Morals are subjective and inherently relative. FPS, BC, and insulation metrics are all objective with subjective perceptions on what the marginal utility is and whether the marginal cost is justified. Your comparison is inapposite, which bodes poorly for your deductive reasoning skills. Making an argument about relative superiority based on moral positions is fundamentally illogical.
3) In all forms of persuasive communication the number one rule is to know your audience. Your posts speak for themselves as to your lack of adherence to that precept. Your posts in this thread also are bloated with redundant language as you try to stumble into a point. This only reinforces both my certainty that what you say in 13 single spaced pages could be better said in fewer and my lack of desire to ever have to proof or edit your writing.

In virtually every philosophy department in the world a view that amounts to moral relativism is considered self-refuting. Literally everywhere. There was a blip between the 1960's and 1990's where people flirted with MR, but it imploded when people couldn't be tolerant, and we got modern progressivism.
Moral relativism is universally considered the most problematic and least persuasive moral school. This is true synchronically throughout the world and diachronically through history. It is true religiously, classically, midevally, modernly. The majority of atheist materialists don't even argue for moral relativism- even when they can't give morals a sufficient grounding or justification. They realize it means that raping a woman and torturing a baby is morally indistinguishable from dying for your country or sacrificing for your family. The minute you say these propositions are not morally equivalent, you are not a relativist. And if you are not, you need some ground for that moral distinction. Boom, you are a moral objectivist. Moral relativism is completely indefensible and always leads to the worship of desire and power. (for those that haven't read it, C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man covers this incredibly well in just 80 pages.)

#2 is also not a deductive argument and shows that reasoning for nearly everything is composite. You just admitted that our determinations on hunting categories includes objective facts, but is not limited to them and deduction. You admit to several other steps of inductive reasoning, intuition, comparison, relative likely outcome- all of which are also part of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning often starts with measured externalities of things like wellbeing, distributional outcomes, and so on. All of these are objective measurements. Then these are applied toward goals (values) through reasoning- exactly what you say we do here.

Also, virtually all forms of knowledge are not deductive. The fact that you are attacking me on this point confuses the real shape of epistemology- how we know things. It's true that some things are "objective" or "deductive", but actually extremely few things, and nothing in the realm of value or meaning. You can't live one minute on just deductive facts. That doesn't make everything else relative. So you can measure a building objectively, but you can't decide why to build it or whether you should do so by deduction.

Most knowledge is a hybrid of sense experience (which is not objective or deductive), reasoning, intuition/experience, and many other forms of information reasoned through on the basis of supplied values.

If we want to just start with informal logical fallacies in your post, we could start with ad hominem.
There is also an equivocation fallacy being committed in your use of the word deductive.

If we can sort out basic informal logical fallacies, we can judge if I'm making deductive fallacies. If you think I've made a deductive error, please put my argument in a modal form and show me my mistake.
If I have made any personal attacks against you, please point them out and I will apologize.

 

[MuleDeerMike]

I don't even register swear words when people say them anymore.

 

[Swamp Fox]

TL

In virtually every philosophy department in the world a view that amounts to moral relativism is considered self-refuting. Literally everywhere. There was a blip between the 1960's and 1990's where people flirted with MR, but it imploded when people couldn't be tolerant, and we got modern progressivism.
Moral relativism is universally considered the most problematic and least persuasive moral school. This is true synchronically throughout the world and diachronically through history. It is true religiously, classically, midevally, modernly. The majority of atheist materialists don't even argue for moral relativism- even when they can't give morals a sufficient grounding or justification. They realize it means that raping a woman and torturing a baby is morally indistinguishable from dying for your country or sacrificing for your family. The minute you say these propositions are not morally equivalent, you are not a relativist. And if you are not, you need some ground for that moral distinction. Boom, you are a moral objectivist. Moral relativism is completely indefensible and always leads to the worship of desire and power. (for those that haven't read it, C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man covers this incredibly well in just 80 pages.)

#2 is also not a deductive argument and shows that reasoning for nearly everything is composite. You just admitted that our determinations on hunting categories includes objective facts, but is not limited to them and deduction. You admit to several other steps of inductive reasoning, intuition, comparison, relative likely outcome- all of which are also part of moral reasoning. Moral reasoning often starts with measured externalities of things like wellbeing, distributional outcomes, and so on. All of these are objective measurements. Then these are applied toward goals (values) through reasoning- exactly what you say we do here.

Also, virtually all forms of knowledge are not deductive. The fact that you are attacking me on this point confuses the real shape of epistemology- how we know things. It's true that some things are "objective" or "deductive", but actually extremely few things, and nothing in the realm of value or meaning. You can't live one minute on just deductive facts. That doesn't make everything else relative. So you can measure a building objectively, but you can't decide why to build it or whether you should do so by deduction.

Most knowledge is a hybrid of sense experience (which is not objective or deductive), reasoning, intuition/experience, and many other forms of information reasoned through on the basis of supplied values.

If we want to just start witth informal logical fallacies in your post, we could start with ad hominem.
There is also an equivocation fallacy being committed in your use of the word deductive.

If we can sort out basic informal logical fallacies, we can judge if I'm making deductive fallacies. If you think I've made a deductive error, please put my argument in a modal form and show me my mistake.
If I have made any personal attacks against you, please point them out and I will apologize.

TL/DR

... although I think a few of the attacks on you and your writing style have been really phuckin' unfair.

I'm not unsympathetic to an argument well laid out.

But "wall of words" and "Lighten up, Francis" are two phrases that come to mind here ...

 

[RadialJett]

TL

TL/DR

... although I think a few of the attacks on you and your writing style have been really phuckin' unfair.

I'm not unsympathetic to an argument well laid out.

But "wall of words" and "Lighten up, Francis" are two phrases that come to mind here ...

Well said. I’m ruminating on wether “bearded ass clown” should have been “bearded, ass, clown”, or “bearded ass-clown”, or “bearded-ass clown” and @nagibson1 is dropping epistemology on our reductive asses.

 

[tony]

The Profanity doesn’t bother me. The dumb f’ing intros make me wanna jerk the wheel into a goddamn bridge embankment every time I hear them.

Yeah, what is that even supposed to be anyway? I just fast forward it.
I'd rather hear a clip of the bro country or the hipster drum banging and chanting most other podcast use.

 

[KurtR]

My podcasts are mainly dog training but damn now I’m going to have to listen to this one just to see what all the hype is. It better be some Billy Bob Thornton bad Santa quality swearing to have this much publicity. Any specific episode that is especially vulgar.

 

[nagibson1]

1) You should not assume any of us have bothered to read any of the drivel in any of the pages of this thread. This is the Internet, and most of us are fiddle farting around here while we shite away at work. Sometimes literally.
2) Morals are subjective and inherently relative. FPS, BC, and insulation metrics are all objective with subjective perceptions on what the marginal utility is and whether the marginal cost is justified. Your comparison is inapposite, which bodes poorly for your deductive reasoning skills. Making an argument about relative superiority based on moral positions is fundamentally illogical.
3) In all forms of persuasive communication the number one rule is to know your audience. Your posts speak for themselves as to your lack of adherence to that precept. Your posts in this thread also are bloated with redundant language as you try to stumble into a point. This only reinforces both my certainty that what you say in 13 single spaced pages could be better said in fewer and my lack of desire to ever have to proof or edit your writing.

Sorry for the repeat- on my screen #150 didn't appear posted. this is shorter.

#2 In the field of philosophy, if a moral argument can be reduced to relativism it is considered refuted. No one, not even neurological determinists take relativism seriously. It's like showing an epistemological argument amounts to epiphenomenalism. Moral Relativism is defended by virtually no one because it is impossible to be consistent without being a moral monster. Relativism is impossible to defend, cannot be held without hypocrisy, and leaves those subjected to it to naked power and desire.

Relativism entails that raping a woman and torturing a baby are morally indistinguishable from giving your life for your country (Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori) or sacrificing for your family. Once you accept that these cannot be morally interchangeable, you do so on the basis of some principle that is by nature not relative, and QED, you are a moral objectivist. If a moral system is 1 part objectivist and 99 parts relative- it is still an objectivist philosophy. The question becomes: on what grounds?

Also #2- you are conceding my point in your refutation. Moral arguments often begin with reasonable claims to objective knowledge, some of which are measurable and empirical. This includes wellness outcomes, empirical fairness, externality effects, established facts about human nature, and deductions about properly basic moral foundations or necessary truths. From these are added rationality, experience, tradition, values, and so on- through an inductive and composite method. No one can live one minute of their life without beliefs of this kind- related to morality, meaning, epistemology or metaphysics. Virtually no belief you hold is PURELY empirical. There is virtually always some premise of value sneaking around in there somewhere. Thus my analogy is apt.

Before we determine if my abilities of deduction are faulty, can we clean up your use of informal logical fallacies? It will be cleaner that way.
I count:
1. ad hominem- personal attacks standing in for arguments
2. unwarranted generalization- not everyone on Rokslide feels as you do
3. Equivocation- using the word "deductive" with two definitions- taking the logical force of one definition while using the other, less formal definition to make your point. it is having your cake and eating it too by using imprecision of language.
4. Straw man- you're using a weakened, misstated form of my argument to refute it.
5. Faulty analogy- you are claiming I have made an inapt analogy, but I think you are mistaken.

If I have treated you unfairly or attacked you personally, please point it out and I will apologize.

 

[IDVortex]

The Profanity doesn’t bother me. The dumb f’ing intros make me wanna jerk the wheel into a goddamn bridge embankment every time I hear them.

Odd, I feel like this when the stocky commercials come on. Especially when im driving home after a long day, barely awake and it comes on louder than Kamalas Hackale.

 

[tony]

The intro and out is some creepy voice, I can't even make out what its saying. I just buzz by it.

 

[wind gypsy]

Has anyone used good will hunting Harvard nerd memes yet?

 

[johnnycake]

If we can sort out basic informal logical fallacies, we can judge if I'm making deductive fallacies. If you think I've made a deductive error, please put my argument in a modal form and show me my mistake.
If I have made any personal attacks against you, please point them out and I will apologize.

Hard pass. I don't work for free.

 

[Schmo]

I’ll add my thoughts into this mess of a thread (not a mess because of the OP).

Just so I don’t get called out and told that I’m “emotionally sensitive”: I fully understand that the S2H podcast is Jake and Ryan’s podcast, and that they can conduct it how they please.

Personally, because of my values, I don’t appreciate the language. This means that I don’t listen to some of the podcasts. Some episodes have very minimal cursing, and others are loaded. I can tell within 30 seconds to a minute after the intro concludes if it’s one I’ll listen to or not. The recent one with Dioni for example. I could tell it was going to be loaded, and while the topic of the podcast was intriguing to me, I chose not to listen. So if they are cool with excluding an audience because of the language they choose to use, that is their choice. In a similar vein, I would like to wear a UM hat or shirt because the company does some good stuff, but I won’t because of the vulgarity and profanity associated with the brand.

I haven’t talked with Form, but most of the podcasts he’s in, his language is pretty clean. I’m sure it’s not this way at a S2H class, but he cleans it up for a podcast, and I appreciate that. He is able to share information without dropping F bombs.

I’d be really grateful if they dropped the profanity and vulgarity from the podcast, but if they choose not to, then I’ll just continue skipping some episodes.