d0rkyd00d, you’re wrong because your login name has zeros in it.
Please respond, this is going somewhere.
Wrong about what?
D0rky said that there’s no such thing as right or wrong. I want to show him that there is, and in fact, right and wrong are more solid than logic, which is something he finds great value in. My opening statement, in my attempt to prove this point, is,
D0rky, you are wrong because you have zeros in your login name.
It’s important that I don’t explain the significance of this statement until after he reacts to it. Some people could guess what I have in mind.
Our moral values have come about through logic…they’re strategically linked, but logic definitely came first.
Well, on second thought, evolutionary survival came first, but logic came second. 
Nope, I’m afraid not, d0rky. You’re wrong because you have zeros in your login name.
Our moral values came about because of logic?
How bout proving that one logically, Dorky?
Don’t confuse logic with rationality now…
Yeah, don’t get me twisted in the linguistics of it, let me make my point a little more clearly.
Everything that somebody believes that has no clear scientific backing for believing it is known as faith.
Objective morals, good and bad, right and wrong, cannot be proven scientifically, nor will they ever be. If you can show me any scientific journals about what right and what wrong are, as well as the data used to support their theories, I would love to see them.
It won’t happen. If you believe it, it’s because of faith.
I’ve already proven you wrong, d0rkyd00d. Have a little courage, and face my argument. Just say what it is.
I’m honestly clueless. lol.
I think you know more than you give yourself credit for in this case. Let me ask you this:
Am I right? Are you wrong about morality becaue of the zeros in your name? How does that strike you? Are you busy right now developing a logical refutation to that point?
Hrmm…not exactly.
Are you correct? Well, your argument doesn’t even make sense. I guess your argument is about as scientific as believing in absolute objective morality! 
You’re up to something Uccisore.
Now say it before we beat it outta ya!
Ucci is confusing two different meanings of ‘right’. Dorky is presenting the is/ought fallacy as something remarkable.
It’s only remarkable that so many people believe in an objective morality…
Sorry for neglecting this thread, I’m in the process of moving, you know how it can be.
The first thing I’m trying to point out is that my argument
d0rkyd00d is wrong because he has zeros in his login name
can be ruled out without using a logical or rational process. d0rky didn’t need to use a syllogism, he didn’t even need to point out a fallacy in my reasoning (though he could if he was determined). Experientially, he just saw that my argument was invalid. The actual logical process of examination and analysis is for a certain kind of difficult situation- discerning between two opposite claims that both seem like they could be true, for example.
What I’d like to say here is that we do that constantly- were are bombarded by propositions and possibilities constantly that we rule out automatically, based on a ‘feeling’ that there is nothing to them. I would further sumbit that that feeling is not very different from moral feelings.
At root, most practical reasoning is done at the level of the gut, and is not that much different from morals at all. My argument about d0rky's zeros is seen wrong as a value judgement long before it's seen logically incorrect.
That’s one parallel between morality and logic. There’s another one that goes along with it, but I want to see how this flies first.
Any practical reasoning done at the “gut” level is probably false. If it’s true, then it should be able to be backed by logic, reason, and science.
For a large portion of mankind’s history, we thought the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun revolved around it. That was a gut feeling, based on watching the sun go across the sky every day.
Just because something “feels” right, DEFINITELY doesn’t make it so.
It’s easy to spot illogical arguments because of practice and conditioning, not because I had a gut feeling about it from the gate. Most people wouldn’t know an illogical argument if they saw one. Most people wouldn’t recognize their ass from a hole in the ground.
But you must be wrong about that, because 99% of all the reasoning we do exists at that level. Everything from finding our car keys in the morning to your response to my “wrong because of the zeros in your name” argument. You said my argument “Didn’t even make sense”. Grammatically, it certainly did make sense, so you must mean something else. Are you saying you were ‘probably false’ when your gut told you my zeros argument was wrong?
Logic, Reason, and Science are only used (only NEED to be used) in the tiniest minority of situations for us, when the ‘gut’ isn’t good enough. So I would disagree, reasoning done at the gut level is probably true- in it’s time and place.
It was more than a gut feeling, it was the most logical, the most reasonable conclusion for the evidence available at the time. This is a case of logic and reason being unable to find the truth- it’s also a good example of why you can’t lump them in with science, which is another thing altogether.
I think you underestimate others. I think almost everybody who can read English would know my "Zeros" argument didn't work- or at the very least, would have serious reservations about it until I explained my self.
You really think seeing through the 'zeros' argument took some special conditioning and logical training? You really think you employed those skills when you found my argument so bafflingly stupid that you couldn't even formulate a response?
EDIT: And really, this doesn’t change anything. Even if your gut reaction to the ‘zeros’ argument was brought about by logical and rational conditioning, the fact remains that you experienced the denial of my argument as a value-judgement, and not as the conclusion of some intricate thought process.
But, that’s besides the point- we can disagree about the reliability of the gut. All I wanted to point out so far was that most of the ‘rational’ decisions we make in life- even the correct, good decisions- never get addressed by our logical or scientific tools.
Next question, and a slightly different point:
Do you care whether or not your beliefs are correct or incorrect?
OBW:
Also, does my point here count as me confusing two meanings of right? I am saying they feel related, but I’m doing it intentionally, not from any confusion, I hope.
When PersonA looks at your dorky zeros argument and rejects it, they might do so because they see no applicable rule of inference between the premise and the conclusion. PersonB, who might not even know what ‘inference’ means, would still reject it but based on completely different feelings, such as “Hang on a minute, what does his name have to do with his point?”. To say these processes are the same thing would be a mistake, because if they were the same then they would be the same in all ways, and yet you cannot use the second process to answer more complicated arguments whereas you can do so with the first.
Obw
I [i]think[/i] that's my point- personA and PersonB are not doing the same thing. It's possible to deny my argument with a proper logical refutation, like Person A did, but my point is that that isn't normal and isn't necessecary. For example, a person can realize instantly that my zeros argument is wrong, but only after that realization begin the process to prove [i]why[/i].
I’m also seeing logic and reason as primarily linguistic, and value judgements as coming before language. For example, your “Hang on a minute…” example. That person realized my argument was wrong instantly, impulsively, and slightly after that put his impulse into words. A proper logical examination should reach it’s conclusions after the terminology has been properly identified and examined. If a person gets the impulse that my argument is wrong, and then sets out to show why through a logical argument, it would incorrect to say that their original disagreement was on purely rational grounds. I think it was something else.
What I want to establish before I move on is that logic and value judgements are much more closely connected than d0rky seems to give credit for- one can arise from the other, and usually does.