I said nothing about the possibility of a god existing, Shockadelic.

I spoke only of the fact that there was no evidence for a god (at least no reliable evidence), which would mean that determining the possibility of a god's existence was impossible.

I proved nothing for you.

Still no fear.

AJ,

1. The issue of nuclear families....

Gild the lily any way you want. This is how it played out: I made a point in regards to SSM being that the nuclear family was a bedrock of society. You sought to refute my point by claiming that the nuclear family was a recent (1940s) invention. I treated that claim with the respect it deserved (ie nil) and gave evidence that it'd been around for the better part of a millennium. You demurred. I gave more evidence. You finally realised your error and then sought to retreat by changing your claim to being just about Australia. You sought to support that new lunacy by new evidence ie linking to an advertisement for a book!!

Many years ago, on this site's precursor, a women, who I much respected, chided me for not giving people a face-saving way of retreating from their errors. Over the years I've tried (imperfectly) to do that. So in this case, since it would have been obvious to all and sundry that you'd screwed up I decided to not press the point and to leave you with a modicum of self-respect. This obviously rankled. Hence 6 months later you now seek to re-write the event.

2. Re your various fallacy fallacies.... I've noticed that, when a point is made that you (1) don't like and (2) can't refute, your go-to solution is to assert, without argument, that it is one of your myriad 'fallacies'. So I make a point about the nature of Marxism and this becomes a fallacy, without any explanation as to why. I quote Orwell and this becomes a fallacy. Basically your 'Fallacy' defense is short-hand for saying, "I don't want this to be true, and therefore it isn't".

3 "What you’ve said about education systems is inaccurate. An evidence-based approach supports what Finland has been doing, and they have the best (and most progressive) education system in the world."

Well that's just rubbish. I see more face-saving on the horizon.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-math-science-reading-skills-2016-12?r=US&IR=

/cont

/cont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathematics_and_Science_Study

I thought you were in favour of evidence based research!

4. "<<The best ways to structure society … has been developed over many generations and significant trial and error.>>

No, those alone are the long ways. The best way is to take an evidence-based approach."

Yes, obvious we need short-cuts to making a better world!! This, at its heart, the the essence of the disagreement. There is this conceit that we can analyise, dissect and summarise society and human nature and then tweek them so as to improve things the way progressive thinks is best. I understand how people can be mesmerized by their models and think they are the real world.

Unfortunately the results of this tweeking of society has an abysmal record. See education above. Marxism (or more exactly Leninism) had this same conceit in regards to the interaction of human nature and the economy. Do I need to explain how disastrous this was for humankind.

Our society is sick and unraveling due, primarily, to our deliberate and/or unthinking rejection of the wisdom of the ages. Things will get much worse before they get better. Hopefully that wisdom of the ages won't be lost to western culture.

mhaze,

Your recollection of the events of that past discussion of ours’ is utterly distorted. You even added two posts in there that never happened. Is it any wonder that you don’t provide any links to these posts?

<<I made a point in regards to SSM being that the nuclear family was a bedrock of society.>>

Correct (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226765)

<<You sought to refute my point by claiming that the nuclear family was a recent (1940s) invention.>>

No, I said that it was the most common form of family only from the 1940s to the 1970s.
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226768)

<<I … gave evidence that it'd been around for the better part of a millennium.>>

Correct (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#226789), but how long it had been around was never at issue.

<<You demurred. I gave more evidence.>>

No, that never happened. You’ve added this bit in to make it sound like I was floundering and desperately clinging to a dearly held belief. That’s dishonest. You have no integrity.

<<You finally realised your error and then sought to retreat by changing your claim to being just about Australia.>>

Finally? No, without “demurring” or receiving any more evidence from you (as you claim happened), I immediately double-checked my source and corrected myself by clarifying that the facts to which I had referred only applied to Australia.

<<You sought to support that new lunacy by new evidence ie linking to an advertisement for a book!!>>

No, it wasn’t an advertisement. It was a link to the book, from which I had obtained my information, on Amazon. A Book I own, not just a random book I Googled.

I tried to be as thorough and helpful as possible, and now you throw that back in my face to make me look pathetic. That’s really low.

<<I've noticed that, when a point is made that you (1) don't like and (2) can't refute, your go-to solution is to assert, without argument, that it is one of your myriad 'fallacies'.>>

That’s because fallacies don’t support your argument, because, funnily enough, they’re fallacies. I didn’t need to take it any further, in those instances.

Continued…

…Continued

<<So I make a point about the nature of Marxism and this becomes a fallacy …>>

Correct, because you attempted to associate evidence-based approaches to Marixism in a fallacious appeal to emotion, without demonstrating why an evidence-based approach is flawed or not preferable. That’s not an argument against a scientific approach, that’s just fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

<<… without any explanation as to why.>>

The links explained why.

<<I quote Orwell and this becomes a fallacy.>>

Correct, because the quote, in itself, didn’t support the claim it was making. Instead, you relied entirely his air of authority to prove the point.

<<Basically your 'Fallacy' defense is short-hand for saying, "I don't want this to be true, and therefore it isn't".>>

Apparently not.

Thanks for your link to the education stats. Finland’s right up near the top. By the way, education is about more than just maths reading and science.

<<Yes, obvious we need short-cuts to making a better world!!>>

More misrepresentation. I said nothing about “shortcuts” (which implies a risky, hazardous cutting of corners).

<<There is this conceit that we can analyise, dissect and summarise society and human nature and then tweek them ...>>

In my studies, I don’t recall seeing anything about “human nature”. Too problematic. Again, you know absolutely nothing about social science research.

<<Unfortunately the results of this tweeking of society has an abysmal record.>>

“Tweeking”. As if data were being tampered with.

Nice touch.

<<Marxism (or more exactly Leninism) had this same conceit in regards to the interaction of human nature and the economy.>>

The Association fallacy again.

And there’s that “human nature” bit again, too. Which reminds me of another reason as to why your fallacious appeal to emotion is, well, fallacious: it fails to account for the fact that the data on which Marxists based their alleged “scientific” approach, or their methodology, may have simply been unreliable.

<<Do I need to explain how disastrous this was for humankind.>>

No, because it’s irrelevant. See above.

Try again, mhaze, and next time, how about you employ a little more honestly and a little less emotive rhetoric, eh?

Oh, I forgot to add, mhaze, that the fact that we have done things a certain way for a long time isn’t evidence that those ways are the right ways, and your suggesting that they are is fallacious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Yes, there’s another fallacy for you to chew on. Try to take it as constructive criticism this time, rather than simply utilising it to pretend that I don’t have answers.

Once you start to base your arguments on evidence, rather than common fallacies, then perhaps we can get to what the evidence actually says. You’ll have all the opportunity in the world to pick apart the research I cite, then, with your apparent expertise that supposedly surpasses the knowledge of every expert in the social sciences. You'll want to brush up on your statistical analysis beforehand, though.

Or perhaps you can just pretend that it's all advertising material?