in this video here.
Putting aside for a moment that AVFM has full gone into full Conservapedia-Andrew Shlafly mode and created the “AVFM Wiki” page (facts brought to you with an <insert bullshit worldview> bias!), I find it incredibly ironic that a man guilty of tax forfeiture would be complaining about the tax exempt status of other organizations.
I can think of one person who would approve of this sort of financial transparency, go ahead and read what he has to say on the topic!
Follow me on:
(the following is the text version of this video here).
Let’s take a look at Sye’s whole argument and not just the single premise he spent ten minutes explaining why he felt he’s not required to offer reason or support to justify. To defend that premise Sye used the; “but I’m really super-cereal special” defense of God, Let’s look at his whole argument this time.
Premise 1: It is reasonable to believe that which is true.
Premise 2: It’s true that God exists.
Conclusion: Therefore, it’s reasonable to believe that God exists.
I’m getting the impression that Sye is trying to do a runaround on justified true belief. Justified true belief is a philosophical concept that dates back to Plato. Up until the 1960s it was treated as the accepted, established definition of what knowledge is.
Then a philosopher named Edmund Gettier came along and with a few simple observations did the philosophical equivalent of drop a nuclear bomb on the Justified True Belief definition of knowledge, and the field of epistemology hasn’t been the same since.
For half a century now no one has really been able to offer a definition of what “knowledge” is that has the strength and certitude of the now defunct JTB definition of knowledge.
Which brings us back to Sye.
He appears to be trying to come up with a definition of knowledge that doesn’t involve justified true belief but when you examine premise one and three you see that all he’s doing is a poor reordering and rewording of the justified true belief definition of knowledge (I’ve reordered his premises here for clarity’s sake and I am treating Sye’s conclusion as a premise as it is an unsupported, and therefore more premise than conclusion).
Sye is using the word “reasonable” in the place of “justifiable” in premise thre and if you apply consistency to Sye’s usage of the word “reasonable” then premise two is also a statement of justification as well. In other words, it’s a statement of justified belief; in the context of the premise a justified true belief.
But I suspect Sye knows Gettier killed the justified true belief definition of knowledge (he didn’t just kill it, Gettier dragged it into a back alley, stole its wallet, pummeled it to death and then uploaded a bunch of selfies of himself with the corpse for the whole world to see). So rather than say these beliefs are justified Sye is saying that they are “reasonable”.
What Sye has given us is a definition of knowledge which has two assertions of justified belief with no establishment of belief. I had originally thought that Sye’s argument is viciously circular but upon closer examination I’m seeing that it isn’t even that. It’s just incredibly incoherent. Sye presenting a circular reasoning argument would actually be an improvement on what he’s offered here. In the end run all Sye has done is shown that he’s proven he doesn’t know anything.
Don’t forget to subscribe and if you think helping me do my part to expose those who fight against reason and knowledge is important then follow the link below to my patreon page where you can offer your support. remember, your support helps make this all happen.
Follow me on:
which is now
*same day edit to fix picture and add sign-off
Courtney Caldwell of Skepchick.org received an Open Carry 12 gauge shotgun double-aught buckshit blog response to her recent piece titled; “Machine Gun Misogynists: How Open Carry Texas Tried To Silence Me .”
So far in my experience I’ve had no exchanges with Open Carry activists that haven’t ended with them exposing their lack of understanding of logic and poor reasoning ability. But hope springs eternal! So let’s take a look at this response by blogger Robert Farago.
“From a distance, they almost looked like Confederate flags. I live in Texas, so this was disappointing, but fairly unsurprising.” The lead for Machine Gun Misogynists: How Open Carry Texas Tried To Silence Me leaves the impression that Ms. Caldwell wishes the Open Carry flags she spied from a distance wereConfederate Flags. Ms. Caldwell’s misplaced disappointment indicates that she considers Texans racist. By extension, despite the fact of the matter, the Open Carry advocates are racists, too. So, basically, she’s off to a flying start, ad hominem wise . . .
I’d like to take this moment while we’re all thinking about “Nice Guy” Eliott Rodger and his revenge-killing spree against women (for the crime of not being his fuck-toys) to flashback to this once popular video that tapped into the; “Nice Guy myth”. A video that catapulted a Youtube content provider to stardom (or what passes for stardom in the online activism community).
Take special note of the underbar where the video maker wistfully asks;
Perhaps “feminists” find “nice” guys “unfuckable” because their brains are letting them know they aren’t really nice guys at all but sociopaths with anger and resentment issues.
Considering the video has hundreds of thousands of views and was well received by the MRM community?
I’m thinking it may be time to apply some critical thinking to the concept of “The Nice Guy” and put an end to this socially damaging concept once and for all.
After all, it’s all in the brain, dotcha know?
more to come.
Follow me on:
which is now
The Open Carry groups adopted the following policies after causing months of angst, fear and disruption in many communities with their delusions that make them think that it’s okay to go into family restaurants armed to the teeth.
In keeping with the whole; “responsible gun owner” meme the NRA and their buddies keep pushing I’m taking this moment to point out that the fact that they DIDN’T have such a policy in place (for months their policies consisted of harassment, bullying, terrorizing and just being all around douche-bags to those who objected to their activities) means that during all their protests, by their own new definition THEY WERE NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS.
Here’s their new policy.
For all further open carry walks with long guns, we are adopting the following unified protocol and general policy to best ensure meeting our respective legislative mission to legalize open carry:
1) Always notify local law enforcement prior to the walk, especially the day of
2) Carry Flags and signs during your walk to increase awareness
3) Carry the long gun on a sling, not held
4) Do not go into corporate businesses without prior permission, preferably not at all
5) If asked to leave, do so quietly and do not make it a problem
6) Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business
7) Do not go into businesses with TABC signs posted with a long gun (Ever)
8) If at all possible, keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly
So thank you Open Carry people for showing America that irresponsible gun owners aren’t just people who go on killing sprees, get their guns stolen by others or shoot their buddies and themselves by accident! Thank you for showing everyone that irresponsible gun owners exist in our society today and they’re some of the most vocal, active members of the NRA. Thank you for showing all of us that you are capable of lacking the common sense to act responsibly with a gun and desperately need the rest of society to regulate your activities since you’re too damned slow to know this shit on your own!
Follow me on:
which is now