Devil's Advocate: Proving the Unarguable

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
In summary: Nature vs. Nurture.Nature vs. Nurture is a debate that has been going on for centuries. On one side is nature, which is seen as being the force that shapes people and determines their personalities. On the other side is nurture, which is seen as the force that shapes people and determines their personalities through their environment.There is no clear answer, as both sides have some valid points. For example, it is natural for children to be influenced by their environment - this is why parents have a significant impact on their children's development. On the other hand, parents do not have a significant impact on the development of adults, as adults are largely shaped by their own personalities.Ultimately,
  • #36
oh well i figured that some one would elaberate on that. Also it got the fourm posted at the top agian, kind of like this post. But if someone dosent eleaberate on it i will post a question
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Existence implies reality. Reality is defined as that which does not go away if you stop believing in it. It all those who work on Quantum Field theory cease to study it and to belief that it is worth studying, then it would as a theory cease to be present. Therefore, it is not real, but an abstract, imaginary entity. Therefore it does not exist.
Really, too easy...

Freedom is not worthwhile.
 
  • #38
may i just take time out to thank you for creating this.

ok enough sucking up
Freedome is anything but worth it's prices. let's take Africa, it was imperlized by england mostly and they fought it. Many died and never saw freedome, others were weeded out and their villages burned down and sufferd that burdan of guilt. And the onese taht did aviod this never saw freedome it never happened it their life time. And when freedome finally came those who recived it did nothing comparead to the ones before. Freedome is a slow procces and gradually England let Africa free law by law village by village, so those living at the end of their imperlism did not appreciate it as much s thos ewho fought and died for it. also i am too lazy to do it so as*es to that...

Ok Question: i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute"
 
  • #39
Originally posted by The Grimmus

i can not be charged if i where to say "i thouht the cop was a prostitute" [/B]

Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)

Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"
 
  • #40
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"

Hey I thought "General Discussion" was supposed to be an escape from the world of physics! Us ignoramuses can't answer those kinds of questions.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Plead insanity. (brought on by the clap or Karposi Sarcoma on the brain)

Your statement:

"I can prove that gravity is an effect of electro-magnetism"

Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, there is not other known particle to satisfy QM's need for "force-carrier" particles to attribute to each of the forces. I can't really prove this one though. How about a suggestion, quantumcarl?

Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.

Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).

The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.

Does this help with your statement?
 
  • #43
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Try looking at the magnetic field of a planetary body and superimposing the gravitational field of the same body onto the former field. Now find the similarities and the variations.

Use rate of change (calculus) when introducing other bodies (such as the moon or asteriods) to determine any synergistic relationships between the actions (changes) in the two afore mentioned fields (gravitational and magnetic).

The magnetic field is electromagnetic in terms of static resulting from certain alignments of trace and random particles and their relative reactions to one another.

Does this help with your statement?

Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Mentat
Good enough. Are you going to post a new statement for us?


You don't need proof to prove something.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by quantumcarl
You don't need proof to prove something.

Man! You come up with some really hard ones. Here goes nothing (please no debates about "nothing", it's just an expression :wink:)...

Well first off, you could just appear to have proof, and someone could still believe you.

But, more importantly, Godel's theorems show that to attempt to prove a system by use of that system leads to paradox. Since proof itself is technically a system, I can't prove my proof, without resulting in paradox. However, I have, on numerous occasions, proven something to someone. So, obviously, since proof doesn't exist outside of paradox, I have never used proof to prove any of things I've proven.

That's the best I could think of, off the top of my head.
 
  • #46
Here's my point, for you to try to defend:

Shooting someone in the stomach is better than shooting them in the head.
 
  • #47
well when you pop a cap in the head their dead but when u pop a cap in nthe stomache they may die whcih will help the autopsy report by mkaing a huge gaping "insicion" in the stomache. I they don't die then they are rushed ot the hospital and their stomach is sewed back together, this makes it smaller and helps them lose weight. So by shooting in the stomahc your just calling them fat.

a hostage situation is like a tea party with EDIT:guns
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Originally posted by The Grimmus


a hostage situation is like a tea party with gund

I assume you meant "guns".

At a tea party, you sit; do what the host/ess tells you to do; leave after being formally dismissed (please note the possibility of applying the term "formally dismissed" to being shot); try not to speak, and when you do, to speak of things that you hope the host/ess will find appropriate; most of the people that are at a tea party are trying to get out (as quickly as possible) and those that aren't are probably insane anyway.

Alright, enough goofy ones.

The next statement to be defended:

Evolutionary Psychology rules, in spite of the fact that the H and G tribes were relatively non-violent. (If you don't understand what I'm talking about, I reference you to RageSk8's reply to me, on the last page of the thread, entitled "Free Will. A hoax?".)
 
Last edited:
  • #49
i don't have a good defencse but i wanted to revie this thread..if i think of soemthing i will edit this
 
  • #50
Here, I'll just post a new point to defend:

Prophecy is solid proof of God's existence. (I can't argue this one, but I could argue it's inverse - "Prophecy is not solid proof of God's existence. I only posted it the way I did because most PF members are atheistic, in my experience.)
 
  • #51
Mentat, there is a common misconception of the word "prophecy." Most people believe that the word means to predict the future, the word simply means to speak for.

So, if the prophet is a prophet of God, it means they are speaking for God, if they are speaking for God then God exists (if he did not exist, they would be a prophet of nothing).

My turn. I have to admit that I haven't been following this thread completely, so if I use a point that has been used, let me know.

Please defend this:

The United States should go back to being an English Colony.
 
  • #52
What a truly excellent idea!
Think of the billions and trillions of dollars that could be saved by not having to provide its own defence. Sure, the Crown would get ticked off about this eventually and want to raise taxes, but a simple tax on tea and a 'stamp act' would cost nothing in comparison.
The events of 9/11 would likely never have happened either, or if they did it would have happened over there on 'the Island' which is certainly better a place than NYC. Besides, everyone secretly loves having a King and Queen anyway, and those who disagree are simply lying to show they have pride in their independance rather than admit the truth that they are frightened little sheep who need a mommy and daddy to look out for them. Not only that but it is such a natural thing to pin the blame on someone else that people would be much relieved to blame someone overseas for their problems...

Now defend this;
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.
 
  • #53
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.

They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).

So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?

Here is the next one:

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.

(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)
 
  • #54
Originally posted by BoulderHead
If your testicles offend you, it is better to cut them off.

That reminds me of some words Jesus once spoke: "If your left hand causes you to masturbate, then cut it off."

eNtRopY
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Artman
They say that eunicks (sp?) could (can) actually create and sustain large erections for many hours (they just can't impregnate).

So who needs the pesky things hanging around anyway?

Here is the next one:

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value.

(Actually, in a science forum the inverse may be the popular opinion, just state which ever you want to defend)

Art is a useless waste of time, with no redeeming value. Think of the great artists that existed in times past. When did their work become truly recognized? Many years after their death. They obviously can redeem nothing from this now, they are dead. The truth is, if you are good at art, it will not be appreciated until the world is ready to handle it, and by then you'll be dead. If you are not good at art, then others may recognize it, but you will redeem no self-respect/self-esteem from it, because you will know (even if you never say it) that it could have been better.

Defend this:

Homosexuality is actually natural.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Mentat


Defend this:

Homosexuality is actually natural.

well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.

and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished
 
  • #57
Originally posted by steppenwolf
well it is an oft observed phenomenon that men find lesbians to be a real turn on, the opposite is also party true although there have been no studies, homosexuality is therefore beneficial to the mating process and thus logical from an evolutionary and thus natural point of view.

and now... woman's right to vote should be abolished

Women's right to vote should be abolished. Think about it. In the last Michigan election (for governor (sp?)), studies showed that most women were voting for Senator Grantholm (sp?), because they wanted to have the first female governor of Michigan. If women are easily swayed by gender, while men would vote for males or females equally (and believe me, quite a few men voted for the female candidate :wink:), then men are (demonstrably) more reasonable in their choice of leadership.

Plus, other studies have shown that women are more emotionally influenced than men. While this is ok in some areas of life, do you really want the majority of votes (there are more women than men) to be based on emotion, when choosing leadership?

(Please note, these are not my views. While it may seem that that goes without saying (because the name of the thread) I just want to make sure that I don't give offense.)

Point to defend
Only men should be nurses.
 
  • #58
Now, it is a matter of fact that the evolution of society is based on the idea that men do the dangerous work.
*Hides from attacks of enraged feminists*

Look at primitive societies for example. The fact remains that the male sex is adapted towards risk taking, somewhat excessively, and that physically we are suited to this kind of work. It can come as no surprise therefore that males take on the majority of harzardous professions, and hence get most exposure to all threats biological, chemical, mental or physical. So men simply end up in hospitals more often. Obviously.

Now, hospitals in reality serve a double function. (a) actually treat the patient, but (b) discourage the patient from getting in the same predicament. The secondary function has been suppressed lately (damn you international convention for human rights), but it certainly fills an important function in society. And without it, we observe the problems in the medical service we currently suffer.

Now, a key part of the failure of area b is, dare I say it, sexual attraction. Remember your old films and fantasies about affairs involving nurses? Given that the majority of males are not homosexual, populating the system with ugly men would work well to generate a negative sexual impulse. Given time, this can insinuate itself into the subconscious, and reinforce the will to keep out of danger. There are further purposes too. Women are in general more empathic and gentle than men. Empathy is something to be avoided in the medical profession. At such high stakes, objectivity is paramount, and the ability to ignore distractions - eg. screams of pain, pools of blood etc etc. A cold blooded man would be far better suited in this category.

From a pure economic aspect, single sex occupations are cheaper. No longer having to design two uniforms. Having unisex toilets instead of wasting an extra room. The possibilities are endless...

Next:
The minimum age allowed to vote should be lowered to 4.
 
  • #59
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?



Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by Ben-CS
A lot of voters have a mental age of two. If we let them vote, why not individuals who actually are?



Topic: Regardless of age, only individuals with an I.Q. over 150 should be permitted to vote.

Simple, we just plain know better (he said, grinning because of being almost exactly 150 in I.Q. :wink:).

New Topic: I.Q. should determine social status.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by Mentat
I.Q. should determine social status.
Of course it should !
I.Q. tests are the ultimate intellegence scale
and smart people can only do things better.

New topic: All dogs hate all cats.
 
  • #62
Originally posted by drag
Of course it should !
I.Q. tests are the ultimate intellegence scale
and smart people can only do things better.

New topic: All dogs hate all cats.

This is a demonstrable fact. I used to have a cat, and my dogs hated it with a passion. If there is a dog that likes cats, it loses it's "dog status" and becomes a "cat-lover" (IMO)

Next Topic:
We, and all of our perceived reality, are all the product of one Mind - the Mind of God.
 
  • #63
Originally posted by Mentat
Next Topic:
We, and all of our perceived reality, are all
the product of one Mind - the Mind of God.
Hmm...
I mean...
Well...
I think...
Well... isn't it just plain abvious ?

Next topic :
PF's boring. (No ! Don't ban me ! I'm kidding ! )
 
  • #64
It is boaring, it takes 1 day for soemone to reply to your post and then post just die you never have an actual conversation with people just simple back and fourth e-mail technology...crap. And then when you don't know what is going on it takes for ever to find out that what soemone was tlaking about is just boaring jibber jabber talking about time space deelies.

Next topic- Green is not a color
 
  • #65
Color is merely a figment of our imagination. In reality, there are only wavelengths of light, and these do not correspond exactly to "color". Hence, green is not a color because colors do not exist.

Next Statement to Defend: If two persons perception of reality agree perfectly, at least one of the individuals does not exist.



P.S.: This is post #1000000binary on this thread!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Next Statement to Defend: If two persons perception of reality agree perfectly, at least one of the individuals does not exist.

To test the validity of the concept that two people's perceptions of reality agree, we would need to be inside of the mind of two people at the same time. This is not a possiblility. We can only test this for one person (Ourself). Therefore, the second person cannot exist.

Please defend the following: (Please remember that I don't agree with this point, the topic is an undefensible point of view)

Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Artman
To test the validity of the concept that two people's perceptions of reality agree, we would need to be inside of the mind of two people at the same time. This is not a possiblility. We can only test this for one person (Ourself). Therefore, the second person cannot exist.

Please defend the following: (Please remember that I don't agree with this point, the topic is an undefensible point of view)

Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship.

Children should be the last ones to leave a sinking ship. And the order should go from oldest to youngest. Think about it, if a very yound child escapes with his/her life, they can't tell the story of what happened accurately, to any of the people who want to know. And the child will probably be scarred for life by the incident, as children are much more impressionable.

OTOH, an adult will be able to recall details. S/he will more likely be able to explain what really happened (even if just relaying that which they over-heard), to those who question them later. And an adult is not likely to be "scarred for life" by the incident.

Anyway, there's a weak attempt to justify something that I don't agree with.

Next Point to defend:

Mathematics isn't useful for describing any "real-life" phenomena.
 
  • #68
Mathematics isn't useful for describing any "real-life" phenomena.

Let's look at a typical mathematics problem: If John is on a train going South at 75 mph and Bill is going North on a train going 85 mph and they are meeting in Walawala Washington, which is 1/3 closer to Sam then Bill, And Sam is flying in a Helicopter circling the two trains, then who cares who gets there first?

The answer is no one! No one cares where Sam, Bill and John are going or how fast.

Or, If I have three sandwiches and I give you one, what do I have?

The answer is lunch! Stop complicating things!

Math is stupid!


Next one: Civilization should revert to Hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
 
  • #69
In the interest of getting this post moving again, I will defend this one myself.

I think that the world should revert to hunter/gatherer lifestyle because it does not support large quanities of people, so that the population will dwindle to a size that the world can support. Layabouts such as insurance and business executives would probably go early on (although there is the killer instinct that could keep them around for awhile) followed by priests who are only used to working one day a week, lawyers would probably be domesticated and used for food (although I imagine they wouldn't be very good eating), street people would take over as the master gathering race and dominate everyone else, after their years of training gathering reclaimable soda bottles, cans, etc. You know the more I defend this lifestyle change, the better it sounds.

Next one: The beach should be air conditioned.
 
  • #70
The beach should be air conditioned.
Absolutely, why I’m certain that anyone who gives this idea even brief consideration will come to such a conclusion. There are several reasons that quickly come to mind;

1) Those beaches are often just too damn hot for most people to enjoy them. Going into the water is an invitation to be shark-bit, and for certain we humans are conceited enough to know that we have more inherent value than the number of calories we might provide to the marine life.

2) It is apparent from the above that the beach is such a tough environment that you need to be young, tan, and fit, in order to extract a significant measure of enjoyment out of a visit there. I think it would be a testament to human achievement if there were more paste-white, flabby, old folks at every beach. Air-conditioning could be a way to achieve this.

3) Lastly, if there were enough air conditioners aimed at the beaches, blowing on high speed, it might help to deflect hurricanes and tsunami’s away from inhabited areas.

Now, defend this;
We need to drain the oceans.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
730
  • Earth Sciences
3
Replies
95
Views
17K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
27
Views
12K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top