Home | Community | Message Board


Marijuana Demystified
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Philosophical Debate
    #8667651 - 07/22/08 02:58 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

In this thread: http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/6787104/an/0/page/0

Diploid suggests we start a thread to discuss the nuances of Philosophical debate.

If you wish to participate in this discussion, I highly suggest you read, or at the very least, skim the above link ^^^.

Too many people around here, are using bad debate tactics... and these tactics are killing what could be very interesting discussions.

In order to have a compelling debate you must have people who DISAGREE with you. People with OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS are VITAL. Without them... every thread would stop before it started.

So why do SO MANY people in this forum PERSONALLY ATTACK their opponents? Opponents are a GOOD THING. Personal attacks and bad tactics are unfair... and they keep many people from participating in this forum. Without participants... we are left without opponents.

A few suggestions:

If you didn't start a thread, it is not your job to lead the discussion... or for that matter it is not your job to ask too many questions. Leave that duty to the OP. If you have a lot of questions, either start a new thread, or wait until the current discussion dies down.

If you DID start a thread, don't expect people to agree with you. Not in this forum. In fact, the fewer people who agree with you, the better your discussion might become. Enjoy the discussion. Enjoy the debate. Don't take things personally. Remember: this is supposed to be fun.

If you disagree with someone, make your case by debating the posts... not the poster. In no time, you'll be making friends with the very people you disagree with.

For the next little while, I'm gonna' be a bit of a hall monitor... and I am going to point out people when they use bad tactics. Please, feel free to do the same with me. If we practice proper debate techniques, this will become a more inviting forum... and we'll be able to have EVEN MORE HEATED DISCUSSIONS!

Questions? Comments? Discuss...


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8667686 - 07/22/08 03:07 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Is this a chance for posters to make a case? May I challenge the basis and practical implications of certain rules in this thread?

should probably see what a mod thinks


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667689 - 07/22/08 03:08 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

You are free to say whatever you want... about the post. :smirk:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8667816 - 07/22/08 03:40 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

A personalism is by no means a fallacy. The most that you could make a case for, is it being a case of bad etiquette. Actually many of these supposed "fallacies" have much more to do with etiquette than reason.

In fact the real fallacy is to think that one can epistemologically conduct themselves in reason without relying on a subject.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667848 - 07/22/08 03:46 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

A personalism is by no means a fallacy. 




Incorrect. A personalism is not  just a fallacy, personalisms are also against the rules. :wink:

If you have to insult a person's tie... you have failed to use your reasoning to debate their post.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8667879 - 07/22/08 03:53 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

um, care to debate my post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667887 - 07/22/08 03:54 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Incorrect. A personalism is not  just a fallacy, personalisms are also against the rules.




What is your REASON.

I gave reason, and you basically just said, uh no it isn't


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667898 - 07/22/08 03:56 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Using an attack on the person rather than the idea often is a fallacy. The only thing important in a debate are the ideas. Anyone taking part in a debate should be blind to anything but the ideas being put forth.

For instance, ponder upon this hypothetical situation. Imagine if a convicted war criminal authors a brilliant piece on economic theory while in prison for his crimes. One may say "Why should his ideas be taken seriously? He is a criminal who has committed horrific acts". In reality, his crimes have absolutely no bearing on the validity of his theories. This is an obvious example of a fallacy that occurs while addressing the debater.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667971 - 07/22/08 04:15 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

A flame or "personalism" is an example of the logical fallacy known as Ad Hominem.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblederanger
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668002 - 07/22/08 04:24 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668045 - 07/22/08 04:35 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Let's take the idea of allowing flaming in this forum to its' natural extension...it becomes the philosophical version of OTD.  :thumbdown:

Negative remarks concerning other posters have no place in this forum.  If one cannot cogently debate the ideas posted, then one should lurk and learn.

How do you debate a remark such as "you're stupid"?  Defending oneself is NOT the point of philosophical debate. 


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblederanger
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668048 - 07/22/08 04:36 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

it was a joke

seriously... this seriousness... it's all too serious


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668148 - 07/22/08 04:58 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Epistemology is built from the ground up, from the consideration of subjectivity.

It is how we conduct ourselves here, to address the grandiose statements of other posters, and understand what validity they have outside of this subjective consideration. Subjectivity is always necessary to consider, and this subjectivity is the personal character of posters in this forum.

It seems that whoever conceived the personalism rule, must have thought that these subjective considerations, were somehow distinguishable from "personalisms". So here is my proof and argument, that this is NOT the case.

I was banned for this:

Quote:

Cervantes, if you'll recall, you started a thread with this post:

Quote:

Cervantes said:
What the fuck is a Chakra?

How do you open one?

What does it look like when you have an open chakra?

How many chakras are there?

What good do they do?




Considering these many questions, most particularly - "what the fuck is a chakra", I thought I would at first try to clarify where I was going with this. Conductive to reason, before these many other considerations concerning practice, and philosophy, and so on could be addressed, it is important to realize the degree of objectivity involved, that is, validation.

So, in accordance to my line of thought, I attempted to clarify this. To be polite, I noted that he could correct me if I was not understanding his post correctly.

My pretext was a consideration of what the fuck is?"

Quote:


Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be searching for some kind of validation rather than a philosophy or practice?
(This was the personalism that I was banned for)

I would not vouch in a debate oriented discussion for the mystical effects of chakras in the mind and body. But I have become aware of this system, whatever it is, and my experience happened before I knew there was any common experience described as this. I could not deceive myself into feeling some named mystical force, because I had never heard of chakras at the point. I had what I would describe as a very unique and decisive experience, and later discovered an in depth description of what this was. I would describe this experience as subjective, but not exactly imaginative.





My response, is perfectly aligned to my pretext, as well as Cervantes post. Cervantes, you even noted in the following post, that this was interesting to you, and there was no need to "correct me if I am wrong."

What made my post personal rather than a subjective consideration? What distinguishes any post in this way?

This is my question to all of you, who support this rule.

Later in the thread it was stated that I could legally said: "correct me if I am wrong, but your post seems to beg the question of validation...etc"

The only difference here is that I said you, rather than of your post.




I understand the intent here, but it is easy to abuse this rule, just as it is easy to get around it, and be an asshole.

Aren't we pragmatists here at the shroomery? I live by my philosophies, and it would make no difference to me whether someone derided me by saying "your post" rather than "you". It is very easy to insult someone, if he is a philosopher, by insulting his ideas. Call the ideas hippy shit. Call the ideas idealist. To a philosopher who lives by his ideas, there is no difference.

A pragmatic philosopher will realize that this line drawn "personalism", while well intended, is drawn in the wrong place. There is no difference between subject and person. It is contradictory to spend all of ones time telling people that it is HIS subjective opinion, (which is what we all do) and pretending that this is not personal.

I would not take the time just for an ego battle, although it makes it interesting and enjoyable I will admit. In all seriousness, I would not hold my ground like this if I did not firmly believe I was correct.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668155 - 07/22/08 05:00 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Quote:

Incorrect. A personalism is not  just a fallacy, personalisms are also against the rules.




What is your REASON.

I gave reason, and you basically just said, uh no it isn't




Ignoring a person's answer... and pretending they didn't offer one... is a combination of several of the fallacies mentioned in the thread I linked to... in my first post.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668183 - 07/22/08 05:08 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Cervantes I am asking why you say it is a fallacy, based upon reason. Not whether it is or not it is, based upon the rules of this forum.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668187 - 07/22/08 05:09 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

And I asked YOU to, at the very least, SKIM the link I provided... BEFORE you replied to this thread. :wink:


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668203 - 07/22/08 05:13 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Well, I did

Quote:

In fact the real fallacy is to think that one can epistemologically conduct themselves in reason without relying on a subject.





We must always take into account that our experience of the world is bound to subjectivity. This is the basis of epistomology.

If you do not understand why, in light of this, read my larger post for elaboration.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 days, 35 minutes
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668204 - 07/22/08 05:14 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

But since you asked, here's some:

Needling

This is simply attempting to make the other person angry, without trying to address the argument at hand. Sometimes this is a delaying tactic.

Needling is also Ad Hominem if you insult your opponent. You may instead insult something the other person believes in (Argumentum Ad YourMomium), interrupt, clown to show disrespect, and numerous other tricks.

Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)

Using the arguments that support your position, but ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against.

Uri Geller used special pleading when he claimed that the presence of unbelievers (such as stage magicians) made him unable to demonstrate his psychic powers.

On the internet, those who claim the ability to astral project also claim that it doesn't work when being tested, but it works fine the rest of the time.

Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)

Refusing to accept something after everyone else thinks it is well enough proved. For example, there are still Flat Earthers.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,174
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668291 - 07/22/08 05:34 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Did you just entirely ignore my post?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Redstorm]
    #8668296 - 07/22/08 05:36 PM (9 years, 2 months ago)

Yep, and mine, too.  :mad:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate DiploidM 32,258 1 04/14/07 03:48 PM
by Diploid
* The futility of philosophical debate. infidelGOD 1,506 14 06/06/03 04:49 PM
by HagbardCeline
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate kimikiri 1,487 7 09/06/07 09:58 AM
by fireworks_god
* these days, most of my philosophical debates happen on Shroomerites Anonymous Sophistic Radiance 894 10 02/26/09 11:59 AM
by Icelander
* The 'Wear you Down' Fallacy OrgoneConclusion 1,137 3 09/20/07 11:06 AM
by fireworks_god
* Debate Technique OrgoneConclusion 2,399 18 03/03/08 11:49 AM
by fireworks_god
* How to find a chakra
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Rahz 4,349 68 11/15/07 02:52 AM
by Kinematics
* Chakras? Do they exist?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 all )
RoseM 13,731 307 02/04/10 12:57 PM
by Icelander

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
9,319 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:

Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 17 queries.