Wow, and the two boobs still go pretending they know what they're talking about.
KYF, I'm the one who seriously doubt you actually observed child behavior to think Freud's hyper-simplistic approach to it holds any water. While children do have simpler behavior patterns than adults, they aren't devoid of behavioral complexity. And no, my nephew is just like any other kid, you simply don't know any kid to even consider they're simply selfish and don't have basic morals. They are just like adults, some more selfish, others more altruistic, it's just like AMA said, if anything they act more on their whims than adults do.
Oh and the one link you pretend to have read but clearly only bothered to read the summary isn't enough? Don't worry, here are more links if you aren't satisfied:
- Social Evaluation by Preverbal Infants
- The considerations by the same team of the previous studies about a possible refutation
- The Moral Life of Babies
- Emerging Morality: How Children Think About Right and Wrong
- Varieties of Altruism in Children and Chimpanzees (with the bonus of denoting the difference between the two species' altruism, meaning that chimpanzees, while to a much lesser degree, also are altruistic, a concept that is vital for morality, so the link between instinct and morality you love to mock is serious)
- Children's Altruism in Public Good and Dictator Experiments
And I'd link you to a documentary on apes' behavior that also included child behavior (namely altruism and basic morality), but I saw it on TV and I unfortunately I still haven't tracked it down on the net.
2). I never said the writers of the paper were "arguing from ignorance",
They do not actually confirm the motivation of the act, just try to argue that such Prosocial acts can equal altruistic without ANY evidence to show it...
Gee, you could have fooled me. Because I actually know what argument from ignorance and knew YEARS before you did, thank you very much, spare me of your noxious strawmen of my arguments when you pretty much lie through your teeth trying to deny what you blatantly said.
And you don't need credentials, only common sense. Oh my, I didn't know your delusions were common sense nor that common sense superseded scientific knowledge (I'd love you to apply common sense to quantum physics). No, you DO need credentials if you are claiming better knowledge of the subject than people who specialized in the field. So yeah, until you actually show a paper with your name on it to justify your claims, I'll stick to the position of thinking you're just an arrogant bastard bullshitting his way through to not admit defeat.
Finally, I love how you accuse me of projection when you project the most. I don't know anything about conditioning but somehow I know that conditioning DOES require two stimuli because the whole point of conditioning is to evoke with the conditioned stimulus the normal response to the unconditioned stimulus, so do tell me how the fucking hell can you pull conditioning when you lack one of its core components? Oh yeah, you fucking don't, because it's not conditioning, it's just a bullshit excuse by KYF to defend Kishimoto's sloppy writing!
And, just like your fellow boob MrBig, you still haven't address the issue of the roots of morality, considering them being taught causes an infinite regress.
And speaking of him, pathetic is how MrBig completely ignores the portion where I explain how it is a paradox just to push his bullshit all the way through. Just follow my analogy here, if a person neither likes or dislikes chocolate, what would you think is that person's relation to chocolate? If you find an option that isn't apathy or plain ignorance of what chocolate is (which would be irrelevant in the discussion being made), please, do tell me what it is, because I'm having an excruciatingly hard time figuring out what the hell it is.
And how funny is you to join KYF in your little projection trip. I say "save face" and you instantly repeat it towards me, how cute! You may cherry-pick all the definitions you want, but if you don't actually use your brain to understand them, they won't be of use to you. Your constant repetition of "pure agnostics" is idiotic because you're arguing a position that is logically impossible and, in my experience, those advocating they're on it are simply fence-sitters that don't want to own their position due to fear of hate from either field.
And I find hilarious your point on saying that if the links you post don't contradict what I said, then I'm arguing just to argue. It's not the links I'm arguing against, I'm arguing against your misunderstanding of their actual meaning and your weaselly tactics when cornered with proper understanding. You even try to argue you defined terms but you only did after I pushed you to them, not by your own initiative/knowledge. You seem to think you're the first trying to throw this kind of bullshit my way but even in this forum I've already countered it a few times.
And I got to love your silly argumentation. "I said he wasn't purely an atheist, he is an agnostic atheist and agnosticism and atheism are different things". What fucking part of intersecting simply refuses to dig its way into your goddamn thick skull? He's both an atheist AND an agnostic, so arguing from the "pure" definitions is, guess what, silly. And you didn't say he wasn't "purely" an atheist, you said he wasn't an atheist and an agnostic period. Only then, by some weird reason that contradicted the previous one, you used the eternally phony "atheistic agnosticism" line that only a faux-intellectual like you would profess. So, please, don't think I'm that stupid to fall for that.
And, poster boy for failed Philosophy classes, you can refute a claim of knowledge with a claim of ignorance, that's the whole point of asking for proof, since you're ignorant of the knowledge of the other. And you still haven't fit in your head the whole burden of proof issue with positive and negative claims, haven't you? Hell, the link you provided was about proving a negative, not about falsifying a negative which was I was talking about, you dolt. You do know what falsification of a claim is or do you have to Google it? And burden of proof is only on the positive claim, I don't care if you call it folk logic like you straight out copied from the link your provided, it is only logical that you can't ask someone to prove their ignorance. You'd know that if you actually knew what you were talking about instead of pretending so.
Moving on, I referred you to Evolutionary Morality for you to acknowledge that is consideration on the evolutionary roots of morality, not for you to be stupid enough to create a goddamn strawman about how I said morality is only evolutionary and hasn't anything to do with civilization.
God exists thus his moral laws must be true
WRONG. Fixing that premise, God has AGENCY, thus his moral laws must be true. If God only existed and didn't have agency, he wouldn't have moral laws, is that simple. So yeah, morality in the discussion of God's existence? Totally irrelevant to anyone that isn't a dimwit.