Home | Community | Message Board


Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
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: < Back | 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: 18 days, 1 hour
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8669558 - 07/23/08 12:07 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:rotfl:

Yeah, I don't mind personalisms too much either... but just this weekend, I had THREE separate personalisms hurled at me, by three separate posters in three separate CONSECUTIVE posts... in the SAME thread.

It just got me to thinking... you know?

IMO personalisms are just the tip of the iceberg... but if we could reduce personalisms in here, (especially when discussing topics I started :wink: ) it'd be a great start.


--------------------
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]
    #8669867 - 07/23/08 01:34 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

PhantomCat, I get ya.

We all know what the ideal philosophical discussion is, its when your tripping with someone, Right? Haha I have never debated someone when I trip, that would be pretty ridiculous, I imagine. Tripping is more like point and counterpoint harmony. Lately I have been thinking that getting deep is more a matter of timing than anything else.

I would say debate is kind of like an intellectual sport, while philosophical discussion is more like a dance.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8670153 - 07/23/08 03:01 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry to butt in so late in the game guys but since this is a question related to the subject of the OP I'll ask.

Isn't this...

Quote:

Cervantes said:

Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)

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




...argument an ad populum fallacy? Saying something is true only because it's widely accepted (keyword "thinks"). Sure some things might seem absurdly obvious but isn't this just a ticket towards ill debate?

Interesting discussion so far tho..


--------------------

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


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: 18 days, 1 hour
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8670214 - 07/23/08 03:40 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in so late in the game guys but since this is a question related to the subject of the OP I'll ask.

Isn't this...

Quote:

Cervantes said:

Argument By Pigheadedness (Doggedness)

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




...argument an ad populum fallacy? Saying something is true only because it's widely accepted (keyword "thinks"). Sure some things might seem absurdly obvious but isn't this just a ticket towards ill debate?

Interesting discussion so far tho..




Well played wyld! You got me... well, sorta'.

By posting that example, I may have suggested that EVERYONE in the world believed daytripper broke a rule... everyone except for daytripper himself.

I have no clue what EVERYONE believes about the matter... but by posting that snippet It may have suggested that I did.

That WOULD have been a fallacy... if they were MY words... and daytripper himself had not asked for examples from that thread.

I copied and pasted the 'fallacy'. The only reason I didn't put it in
Quote:

quotes


was: they would have lost their formatting.

Before or after I pasted the snippet, I could have said something like: "Everybody talking to you right now, mr. daytripper, seems to agree that what you said was personal. And personalisms are not allowed." ... but I didn't.

Instead, I copied and pasted an example without adding any qualifiers and amendments.

So you got me... sorta'.

BUT...

You failed to notice something else I may have done. The 'fallacy' I copied and pasted may have suggested daytripper is pigheaded... which can almost look like a flame... if you are wearing special glasses.

:tongue:


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



Edited by Rose (07/23/08 04:07 AM)


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: 18 days, 1 hour
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8670259 - 07/23/08 04:00 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
PhantomCat, I get ya.

We all know what the ideal philosophical discussion is, its when your tripping with someone, Right? Haha I have never debated someone when I trip, that would be pretty ridiculous, I imagine. Tripping is more like point and counterpoint harmony. Lately I have been thinking that getting deep is more a matter of timing than anything else.




I agree. Tripping with friends around the fire... that is when you figure out all the answers... then forget 'em far too quickly.

This forum comes close to that experience... but it moves much slower.

Discussions in this forum are focused on a single topic rather than talking with your friends around the campfire about life the universe and everything.

You have to spend time here... get to know the posters... talk WITH them. PARTICIPATE in their discussions. Go with the flow.

You can't cover everything in one thread, like you can in one trip... but over time, this forum starts to feel quite a lot like tripping with friends and discussing philosophy.

BUT, if you don't practice good debate technique... at least, when you ARE debating... the old-timers here will eat you alive.


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



Edited by Rose (07/23/08 04:14 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8670328 - 07/23/08 04:29 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

quote]Veritas said:
Well, the idea of this forum is to engage in heated debate, to utilize all the intellectual weaponry you have, to dissect and demolish your opponent's arguments, and to show why their ideas are incorrect.




Actually, that is your interpretation of the forum's intent.  The description of the forum is:

Quote:

General philosophical discussion covering the topics of epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics. This forum is debate oriented and designed for those who seek a lively discussion full of dissenting opinions and rebutted arguments.




Heat and light aren't the same thing.

This :duel: isn't the same as :otd:

Quote:

NONE of these goals are furthered through negative descriptions of other posters, attempts to psychoanalyze other posters, rude remarks, etc...


 

I see very little of that here, however, in keeping in line with the OP's intent:

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.

Pretty common until July 3rd.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)

Attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."

Plenty of this though I'm not sure if it is born from ignorance or just :fishing:

Special Pleading (Stacking The Deck)

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

Bunch o' that.

I saw a few others, but those leapt to the forefront.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8670362 - 07/23/08 04:38 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:


It is necessary to establish a context though, which considers either debaters subjective worldviews.






Jesus fuckin' christ on a popsicle stick!  If I read the word subjective misused one more time I'll fuckin' scream!

:kingcrankey:

Is this a forum anomaly or is it board-wide?

I see this over and over again.  In order to discredit your opponent's views, a person labels them the dreaded:

SUBJECTIVE

What a weak, pathetic, silly, inane comeback that is.

Can a mod sticky a dictionary to the forum?  We sorely need one.  :rolleyes:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedirtydirt
Strangerest
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/05/08
Posts: 134
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8670437 - 07/23/08 04:59 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

i think that, as it is very difficult to extract objective truth from subjective experience, fallacies must arise from a permutation of the skeptic's argument (brain in a vat). it is important to "properly define" objective truth through communication, using subjective experience. i think fallacy, then, arises from inexperience and/or poor communication.

inexperience is a tricky thing though. should people be required to become fully learned in philosophy before engaging in "proper" philosophical debate? as most people are not fully learned, most debate is not "proper." as most people understand that not everyone has the same version of the truth, the problem has to be with communication.


--------------------


Edited by dirtydirt (07/24/08 08:26 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: dirtydirt]
    #8670445 - 07/23/08 05:02 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Subjective?

:rofl2:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinewyldeman007
Student
Male User Gallery


Registered: 06/03/06
Posts: 309
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8670469 - 07/23/08 05:13 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here." - Richard Dawkins


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8670500 - 07/23/08 05:37 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGEETER!

:minigun:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 93,974
Loc: underbelly
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8670908 - 07/23/08 10:56 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

, just as it is easy to get around it, and be an asshole.

Hey, quit bringing me into this. :mad2:

It's easy to get creative. :wink:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Icelander]
    #8670988 - 07/23/08 11:30 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Jesus fuckin' christ on a popsicle stick!  If I read the word subjective misused one more time I'll fuckin' scream!

:kingcrankey:

Is this a forum anomaly or is it board-wide?

I see this over and over again.  In order to discredit your opponent's views, a person labels them the dreaded:

SUBJECTIVE

What a weak, pathetic, silly, inane comeback that is.

Can a mod sticky a dictionary to the forum?  We sorely need one.  :rolleyes:




I can clearly see you know very intensely what your talking about, its just that you aren't expressing any of this as a coherent idea.


It is necessary to establish a context though, which considers either debaters subjective worldviews.


You can make all the angry faces you want, and argue that this statement is weak, pathetic, silly, inane, but you have to give a reason. So enlighten me, how exactly was this a misuse of the word subjective.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8671006 - 07/23/08 11:40 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Any "worldview" can be an object of intelligible thought.  Since that is the case, all "worldviews" (other than those based entirely on hallucinations) can be and are objective.  The very dialogue exchanged adequately proves this.

And for the record, my dismissal was a lettle tongue in cheek.

It's not really a debateable point unless a person doesn't own, and cannot understand, a simple common dictionary.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671013 - 07/23/08 11:45 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
Quote:

Veritas said:
Well, the idea of this forum is to engage in heated debate, to utilize all the intellectual weaponry you have, to dissect and demolish your opponent's arguments, and to show why their ideas are incorrect.




Actually, that is your interpretation of the forum's intent.  The description of the forum is:

Quote:

General philosophical discussion covering the topics of epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics. This forum is debate oriented and designed for those who seek a lively discussion full of dissenting opinions and rebutted arguments.







Actually, I was paraphrasing the forum rules:

Quote:

You are free to present pretty much anything of a philosophical or spiritual nature that you want to put up for consideration - you can even espouse ideas most people would find ludicrous or repugnant. What you can't do is attack the person making the ludicrous or repugnant statements. You can bring to bear all your rhetorical skills and articulate arguments in an attempt to expose the idea under discussion as ludicrous, repugnant or whatever - as a matter of fact you are encouraged to do so - but the acceptable method is to direct all your weaponry at the IDEA being presented, not at the person presenting the idea.

If you choose to post in this forum be prepared to have your ideas and opinions challenged, refuted, disputed, rebutted, analyzed, shredded, pooh-poohed, and yes - even supported. If having your beliefs, opinions, and positions scrutinized critically makes you uncomfortable, this is not the forum for you.




Obviously, this is not "MY" interpretation.  "Debate-oriented" means :duel:  not :otd: 

The M&P forum was created for the sole purpose of providing a safe place to engage in discussion without fear of debate.  Thus, P&S is the :duel: forum.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671023 - 07/23/08 11:52 AM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
Any "worldview" can be an object of intelligible thought.  Since that is the case, all "worldviews" (other than those based entirely on hallucinations) can be and are objective.  The very dialogue exchanged adequately proves this.

And for the record, my dismissal was a lettle tongue in cheek.

It's not really a debateable point unless a person doesn't own, and cannot understand, a simple common dictionary.




I don't know what dictionary YOU are using, but here's what mine says:

Quote:

Objective
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
  a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair 1.
  b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.





Which of these definitions would you say applies to one's thoughts about the world?  :confused:  Clearly a worldview cannot be a material object, nor have actual existence or reality.  It MIGHT be uninfluenced by emotion or prejudice, but it's not bloodly likely!  It also MIGHT be based on observable phenomena, but this is clearly not the case with worldviews which require faith.

Just for shits & giggles, let's look at the dictionary entry for "subjective":

Quote:

1.
    a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
    b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
  2. Moodily introspective.
  3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
  4. Psychology: Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
  5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
  6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
  7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
  8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.





Hmm...existing only in the mind.  Sounds like a "worldview" to me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671054 - 07/23/08 12:02 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

It's still your interpretation.

Quote:

debate

1. To consider something; deliberate. intransitive verb

1. To deliberate on; consider.  transitive verb

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument. noun





Your interpretation relies more on obsolete meanings: 

4. To fight or quarrel.
4. To fight or argue for or over.
4. Conflict; strife.

There is a decided difference between a philosophical argument and a street fight argument.  If you want I can post the definitions for those as well.

But since all of these meanings are purely subjective, it doesn't really matter, does it?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671063 - 07/23/08 12:05 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, the difference between a philosophical debate and a street fight argument would be the use of flames.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671070 - 07/23/08 12:07 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Your confusion is caused by the terms 'actual' and 'real' in the second definition. Do a quick study on ontology, it might clear it up. If we follow your line of reasoning, thoughts do not exist--reductio ad absurdum.

This is but one problem with the materialists' view.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
 User Gallery


Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671075 - 07/23/08 12:08 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Yes, the difference between a philosophical debate and a street fight argument would be the use of flames.




Fallacy of the excluded middle(man).


--------------------


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

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate DiploidM 32,528 1 04/14/07 03:48 PM
by Diploid
* The futility of philosophical debate. infidelGOD 1,532 14 06/06/03 04:49 PM
by HagbardCeline
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate kimikiri 1,498 7 09/06/07 09:58 AM
by fireworks_god
* these days, most of my philosophical debates happen on Shroomerites Anonymous Sophistic Radiance 906 10 02/26/09 11:59 AM
by Icelander
* The 'Wear you Down' Fallacy OrgoneConclusion 1,146 3 09/20/07 11:06 AM
by fireworks_god
* Debate Technique OrgoneConclusion 2,509 18 03/03/08 11:49 AM
by fireworks_god
* How to find a chakra
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Rahz 4,410 68 11/15/07 02:52 AM
by Kinematics
* Chakras? Do they exist?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 all )
RoseM 13,945 307 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
9,404 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 17 queries.