Home | Community | Message Board


Zamnesia.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: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,303
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 16 days, 22 hours
Philosophical Debate
    #8667651 - 07/22/08 02:58 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667689 - 07/22/08 03:08 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667848 - 07/22/08 03:46 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8667898 - 07/22/08 03:56 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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, 3 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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668155 - 07/22/08 05:00 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668187 - 07/22/08 05:09 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668204 - 07/22/08 05:14 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668291 - 07/22/08 05:34 PM (9 years, 3 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, 3 months ago)

Yep, and mine, too.  :mad:


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668299 - 07/22/08 05:36 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

No I saw it, It just felt it was necessary for me to establish this basis.

I will address it now.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668308 - 07/22/08 05:38 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

BTW, you were NOT banned for the personalism you just quoted.  You were warned about that one, and banned because you persisted in posting additional flames.  If you had left it at the first one, and proceeded to participate in a fruitful discussion of the topic, you would not have been banned.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668476 - 07/22/08 07:20 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
should probably see what a mod thinks




Yeah, you probably should.

There is no reason to argue with me... I didn't ban you.

Believe it or not, this thread has nothing to do with rules. It has to do with bad debate tactics... some of which you have used in this very thread.

It becoming clear to me that you do not intend to discuss the subject of this thread.

So you can stick around and I can keep making an example of the bad tactics you use in your future posts... or you can send Diploid a PM and he can tell you what we ALL have told you countless times before: No PERSONALISMS in P&S.


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



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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668511 - 07/22/08 07:31 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Redstorm, what you describe, I would agree could easily be interpreted as a fallacy. This fallacy might happen to be personal. My detailed post is not an outright justification to make any personal remarks willy nilly, but a demonstration that

A. A "personalism" is not necessarily a fallacy. (my case)
B. It is necessary to acknowledge subjectivity in philosophical debate.
C. there is no way in my mind to actually determine the difference between what is "personal" and "subjective" - the latter of which is in philosophical debate claimed every 2 seconds or so.

Veritas, my persistence was merely my attempt to defend myself. Although later, it became a practical demonstration, this was only something I considered necessary, as to impress the absurdity of this ruling. This is besides the point though. To keep things simple, lets use this particular instance as the root of our discussion.

Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.




I will uphold that I was not guilty of this. I am unsure of what exactly you are referring to, other than it having to do with this:

"Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be searching for some kind of validation rather than a philosophy or practice?"

Its only fitting that you make your accusation before I make my defense. Why precisely is this a fallacy? (Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning)

But before we go to this, which I am sure will become annoyingly complex, perhaps we can resolve the issue right here. As a pretext to possible debate, answer me this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was told that this as an alternative, would not have been an offense:

"correct me if I am wrong, but your post seems to beg the question of validation rather than philosophy or practice"

Do you agree with this? If this "you" rather than "your post" is the basis of accusation, I have already defended this at length, and do not believe I can make the absurdity of this any clearer. I really don't know how someone can uphold this idea with a straight face.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668532 - 07/22/08 07:39 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

From the OP:

Quote:

Cervantes said:

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.




Daytripper,

What makes you think this is the place to talk about your rinky-dink ban?

What makes you think EVERY THREAD I START, is a place for you to talk about your rinky-dink ban?

Why can't you start your own thread?

Why can't you ask a mod?

In this case, it is you against the world. Everybody but you seems to understand what rule you broke, when you broke it, and why you were banned.

Get over it, or get out... M&P is calling... but they hate personalisms even MORE in there... so be careful.


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



Edited by Rose (07/22/08 07:44 PM)


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, 3 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668536 - 07/22/08 07:40 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I do agree with you that a personalism is not always a fallacy.

Say that, instead of a war criminal, the proposed theorist was an ex-governmental economic adviser. Under his advice, the executive leader of a country launched an economic plan that devastated the country and its population.

It would not necessarily be a fallacy to point out in a debate the past effects of this theorists economic policies.


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Redstorm]
    #8668552 - 07/22/08 07:44 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Reminds me of my own misgivings about a madman and his ideas, Friedrich Nietzsche.


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668587 - 07/22/08 07:55 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
From the OP:

Quote:

Cervantes said:

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.




Daytripper,

What makes you think this is the place to talk about your rinky-dink ban?

What makes you think EVERY THREAD I START, is a place for you to talk about your rinky-dink ban?

Why can't you start your own thread?

Why can't you ask a mod?

In this case, it is you against the world. Everybody but you seems to understand what rule you broke, when you broke it, and why you were banned.

Get over it, or get out... M&P is calling... but they hate personalisms even MORE in there... so be careful.




Cervantes, this post is pretty much exemplary of why I continue to stand my ground. Again, I don't think I have broken any rules in this thread. I even asked you if it was acceptable for me to make my case in my first post.

But still it is shady whether you are accusing me of being someone you dislike, or someone who has broken a rule. Just like before, if I have broken a rule, point it out to the mod, and I will fight it just the same as last time.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668603 - 07/22/08 07:59 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I neither dislike you, nor do I think you have broken a rule... in this thread.

Rather, you are being a perfect example of what NOT to do in a thread.

You have taken a thread about ONE THING... and insisted we ALL TALK about SOMETHING ELSE.

You've ignored every single answer you've been given... at least, untill people complain.

You've ignored the subject of this thread.

If you want to talk about something else... START YOUR OWN THREAD.

This is really simple stuff, man.

I'm actually quite happy to have you setting a bad example in this thread, it helps me make my point with ease... but I'm afraid, in hindsight, you won't like how it makes you look.

Lick your wounds... and come back to fight another day.

I know what I am talking about. Remember when I predicted your ban? :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]
    #8668622 - 07/22/08 08:02 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

O so offtopic eh?

I disagree. But I have spoken my mind anyhow, I will leave your thread. I am open to a possible debate with Veritas though, so I might return to haunt your thread later.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668630 - 07/22/08 08:04 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

By all means... if someone replies to you... reply back to them.

Otherwise, stay on topic.


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



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: Rose]
    #8668650 - 07/22/08 08:09 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:yawn:

rule makers,
rule breakers
...
same coin


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668663 - 07/22/08 08:12 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SyntheticMInd said:
:yawn:





You just wake up?

Good Morning!

Again, this is not a discussion about rules... it is a discussion about logical fallacies. Tactics used by people to derail, mislead, misdirect or confuse what could otherwise be an interesting discussion.


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



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668717 - 07/22/08 08:26 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

IMO, it would be more productive for you to have this discussion with Diploid via PM.  It is up to the mods to interpret the rules.  Logical fallacies are not against the rules, but they will likely be pointed out to the one committing them.  THIS thread is about such fallacies, and not about what constitutes a flame.

If you believe you were treated unfairly, you may fill out a support ticket & the Admins will review your case.


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: Rose]
    #8668747 - 07/22/08 08:34 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

but that makes this place all that more interesting.

I don't mind rules, but I just think there's too much authority in this forum, especially when it's not even the mod waving the rule book.  it just stinks like a shit tonne of whining to me, and it's kind of embarrassing and nauseating.  and with all the fallacies :nerd:, it doesn't make up for a good debate imo.


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668776 - 07/22/08 08:40 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Well yea I agree, this is what I said in the first post. Personalisms might be a matter of etiquette. I was a few times written off to the M+P forum so naturally I wondered if my offence had to do with that "kind of split"


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668793 - 07/22/08 08:44 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Understanding a fallacy is in most if not all cases, just realizing the difference between causation and correlation. The rest of the work is sorting through the complex hierarchy of related ideas and concepts that arise.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668807 - 07/22/08 08:48 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SyntheticMInd said:
but that makes this place all that more interesting.

I don't mind rules, but I just think there's too much authority in this forum, especially when it's not even the mod waving the rule book.  it just stinks like a shit tonne of whining to me, and it's kind of embarrassing and nauseating.  and with all the fallacies :nerd:, it doesn't make up for a good debate imo.




I like a heated debate as much as the next guy... and fallacies can add color to a debate. BUT in here, too many debates get stopped by PACKS of FALLACIOUS MASTER DEBATERS. :wink:

Let me over-generalize:

If a person starts a LOGICAL thread with a LOGICAL thesis... the OPPONENTS should ALSO use LOGIC to debate the POST.

People debate in the Politics forum until the cows come home... and they use LOGIC to debate one another. LOGIC does not mean you all BELIEVE the same thing. Rather, LOGIC is your scaffolding of reasoning for believing what you actually believe.

Yes Veritas, I KNOW that isn't the actual definition of logic. :wink:

In here (remember, I am still over-generalizing) when somebody uses LOGIC... it seems 90% of the time, somebody else hides behind their FAITH... and pretends that the OP has HURT THEIR FEELINGS.

If your feelings are hurt, there is only one person who could've hurt them.


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



Edited by Rose (07/22/08 08:55 PM)


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: daytripper23]
    #8668818 - 07/22/08 08:50 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

it's just when people use it as an excuse and change the topic of what once was an interesting debate into a rule-bible thumping game.


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668825 - 07/22/08 08:52 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Didn't you say rule breakers and makers are the same coin?


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: Rose]
    #8668827 - 07/22/08 08:53 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I still don't see any difference from that and a pile of whiny BS. 

Master debation is fun as hell, and is killed by rule-bible thumping authorities.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668830 - 07/22/08 08:53 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Yes, it would be terrific if interesting threads were not interrupted by blatant rule-breaking in the first place. 

Now, how about those logical fallacies:wink:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668838 - 07/22/08 08:54 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
I'm afraid, in hindsight, you won't like how it makes you look.
.
Lick your wounds... and come back to fight another day.




Just curious, what tactic/fallacy/method is this....?
I am not on any sides here (except my own), but isn't this bordering on a personalism....?

The words don't seem philosophical nor like debating, but more like posturing and/or otherwise talking down to someone.....    :shrug:

:popcorn:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


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: daytripper23]
    #8668844 - 07/22/08 08:55 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
Didn't you say rule breakers and makers are the same coin?




it was more of a joke, I love breaking the rules.


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]
    #8668847 - 07/22/08 08:56 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Yes, it would be terrific if interesting threads were not interrupted by blatant rule-breaking in the first place.




that's not specifically what I'm talking about, if you read back a bit.


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: PhanTomCat]
    #8668854 - 07/22/08 08:57 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

PhanTomCat said:The words don't seem philosophical nor like debating, but more like posturing and/or otherwise talking down to someone.....    :shrug:




you must be talking about a... authority complex?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668859 - 07/22/08 08:58 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I know that's not what you're saying, I was saying something different.:lol:  You're saying that it is fun to break the rules, that you like breaking the rules, and that it spoils the fun to have authorities telling you to quit breaking the rules.  Right?

OTD is exactly what you're looking for!  :smile:


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]
    #8668872 - 07/22/08 09:00 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

no, that was more of a joke too.  I like heat.  and all this shit I'm bashing gives me the shivers.  if I liked breaking the rules that much I would have been banned by now.


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]
    #8668879 - 07/22/08 09:01 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:OTD is exactly what you're looking for!  :smile:




you've GOT to be kidding me :lol:


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8668886 - 07/22/08 09:02 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

PhanTomCat said:
Quote:

Cervantes said:
I'm afraid, in hindsight, you won't like how it makes you look.
.
Lick your wounds... and come back to fight another day.




Just curious, what tactic/fallacy/method is this....?
I am not on any sides here (except my own), but isn't this bordering on a personalism....?

The words don't seem philosophical nor like debating, but more like posturing and/or otherwise talking down to someone.....    :shrug:

:popcorn:


>^;;^<




Yup... you would be correct... if I weren't addressing his questions.
I used the qualifier 'I'm afraid' to show that it was my fear, rather than daytripper himself, which caused my concern.

In several posts, daytripper has admitted he is wounded (although he has not to my knowledge used the word 'wounded' to describe his wounds), so my comments about 'Licking his wounds' were actually in direct reference to his posts.

It is my belief, if someone admits something personal about himself in a thread, you should be able to use that personal info to rebut their point.

But thanks for playing Cat. I was hoping someone would dare to call me on MY bullshit. :wink:

Dig far enough and you'll see that even I am not perfect.


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



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668889 - 07/22/08 09:03 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SyntheticMInd said:
Quote:

PhanTomCat said:The words don't seem philosophical nor like debating, but more like posturing and/or otherwise talking down to someone.....    :shrug:




you must be talking about a... authority complex?




In my mind, I was thinking "bullying" (which I didn't find), but there were a lot of different "authority" fallacies....
I couldn't pick one after just skimming them all....    :tongue:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668893 - 07/22/08 09:04 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

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.

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


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: Rose]
    #8668896 - 07/22/08 09:04 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Dig far enough and you'll see that even I am not perfect.

that's what this forum is for! :smile:


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]
    #8668904 - 07/22/08 09:06 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:negative descriptions of other posters, attempts to psychoanalyze other posters, rude remarks, etc...




that would be cooler, if you were a mod.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668909 - 07/22/08 09:08 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Ah, I see, you are qualified to criticize the rules, but only mods can speak in support of the rules?  :lol:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668914 - 07/22/08 09:10 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
Dig far enough and you'll see that even I am not perfect.




No one is perfect, and if there was a perfect being, it would be scary....    :wink:
I do, however, like to play.....!    :grin:    :thumbup:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


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


Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,227
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8668916 - 07/22/08 09:10 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Idealistically speaking, a philosophical debate should be one completely free from logical fallacy and personal attacks.  However, in a real competition of ideas such this it ain't always the most true that win--those that do are the ones that sound the best, have the most free-flowing rhetoric, and skillfully employ the best sophistry and subtle ad-hominem to win over supporters and discredit their opponent's position.

I've seen way too many correct arguments get submerged or completely sunk; either by the pre-established post charisma of their opponents or by the fact that they were less motivated to play the word manipulation game than others.  :shrug:


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.


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]
    #8668925 - 07/22/08 09:11 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Ah, I see, you are qualified to criticize the rules, but only mods can speak in support of the rules?  :lol:




guess that's the difference between us kids and you adults.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668938 - 07/22/08 09:14 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I don't think it has anything to do with age, though emotional maturity might be a factor.  It seems to me that allowing personal attacks in a philosophical debate forum would be appealing to the lowest common denominator.  By raising the bar, we are encouraging posters to truly examine the ideas being presented, rather than resorting to the easier method of flaming.

But, again, the RULES of this forum are not open for debate.  This thread is about the use of logical fallacies, and how we might improve the quality of our debates here.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8668940 - 07/22/08 09:15 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

PhanTomCat said:

In my mind, I was thinking "bullying" (which I didn't find), but there were a lot of different "authority" fallacies....
I couldn't pick one after just skimming them all....    :tongue:






Interesting point.

I agree.

But I think there is an exception to the rule. I think the OP of a thread should be given a bit more flexibility, in order to direct the flow of the discussion they began... like a moderator of a debate (not like a moderator of a forum). Good Moderation of a thread by the OP can cut a LOT of bullshit before it starts.

If YOU start a thread, you should be allowed more of an ability to dismiss one person's arguments (like I did to daytripper earlier in this thread) in order to keep YOUR discussion on track. ESPECIALLY when others are going off-topic or ignoring YOUR logic.


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



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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668945 - 07/22/08 09:15 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

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




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

There is little difference between revealing that a persons ideas are silly, and revealing that this actual person is silly.

What if you took the word negative out of this statement?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668966 - 07/22/08 09:20 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Even positive descriptions of other posters are irrelevant to the debate of their ideas.  However, compliments are much less likely to result in defensiveness and a degeneration of the discussion. 

There is a great deal of difference between demonstrating through the use of logical arguments that an idea is silly, and stating that the person is silly.  Debate is about the ideas, NOT the idea-generators.  If someone wants to identify themselves with their ideas, that's their business.


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]
    #8668975 - 07/22/08 09:22 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

It's not the rules I'm specifically talking about, though you can continue making your assumptions. 

it's mainly about those who resort to labeling an aspect of a discussion as a fallacy, as a means to avoid deeper discussion, and make themselves seem "right".  I have seen it countless times.

not only that, but the veterans here imply personalisms all the time to other members.  and this is supposed to be considered "emotional maturity". :puke:


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8668978 - 07/22/08 09:23 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

No i mean take out the whole spectrum of positive and negative.

When to people are speaking about philosophy - what they believe, and how they live, there is no way for it to be impersonal.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8668988 - 07/22/08 09:25 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Your posts have referred to the rules, so I did assume we were discussing the rules.  I cannot read your mind.

When someone clearly demonstrates that another poster is utilizing a logical fallacy, this is somehow avoiding a deeper discussion?  :confused:  If you've seen it "countless" times, perhaps you can find one example?  Ditto for the "implied" personalisms by the veterans.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8668999 - 07/22/08 09:27 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:

When to people are speaking about philosophy - what they believe, and how they live, there is no way for it to be impersonal.




Tell THAT to Diploid. :crazy:

You DO realize you are still OFF TOPIC... no?


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



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8669007 - 07/22/08 09:29 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
No i mean take out the whole spectrum of positive and negative.

When to people are speaking about philosophy - what they believe, and how they live, there is no way for it to be impersonal.




It's simple:  if your post addresses a negative assertion of WHO you think someone is, rather than addressing their IDEAS, it is against the rules.  Of course our beliefs and lifestyles are personal, and discussing these topics IS the purpose of this forum, but flaming can only detract from that purpose.

There are many times, and your particular episode may be one of them, when the personalism is on the borderline of acceptability.  In those cases, it is a judgment call.  Often it is more effective to "nip it in the bud" before a full-on flame war has ensued, rather than ignoring the subtle personalisms. 


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8669011 - 07/22/08 09:30 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:lol:

fallacies, or rules?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8669025 - 07/22/08 09:33 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

What?


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]
    #8669034 - 07/22/08 09:35 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:When someone clearly demonstrates that another poster is utilizing a logical fallacy, this is somehow avoiding a deeper discussion?




when the thread completely turns around, yes.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8669039 - 07/22/08 09:38 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

In a perfect forum, yes, there could be perfect debates that stay on track thru the whole course of the thread....
But with "control" being an illusion, and the nature of people vs rules, strictness can breed contempt, or even lack of interest....

Maybe I just don't take it all seriously enough, and I am not sure if I can....
I mostly come here to discuss ideas, but not as a given do I come here to "debate"....
And not all forms of philosophy are strictly a debating environment....

The kicker being that one does not have to believe in a topic to debate it and "win"....
Which turns the whole thing into a game of the fastest tongue, and not necessarily a good informative debate....    :ohwell:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


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

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: daytripper23]
    #8669041 - 07/22/08 09:38 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


:lol:

fallacies, or rules?





How about both?

I realize that there is well intended sentiment to draw the line at personalisms, as a matter of upholding peace around here.

But, where do you draw the line between subjective consideration, and personal?

Nobody has even attempted to address this. A personalism should be neither considered a rule of etiquitte or a fallacy if this cannot be definitively answered. My case is a good example of this, and this is why I posted it.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8669055 - 07/22/08 09:43 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SyntheticMInd said:
Quote:

Veritas said:When someone clearly demonstrates that another poster is utilizing a logical fallacy, this is somehow avoiding a deeper discussion?




when the thread completely turns around, yes.




I think Synthetic is talking about a discussion we had yesterday. We were discussing astral projection, and the discussion turned towards: What is real?

I did not want to discuss what is really real... and I said as much to Synth.

This did, in fact, dismiss an interesting line of discussion between Synth and me... and in hindsight, I regret doing it. However... the thread had already been ravaged by SO many fallacies, that by the time Synth and I began our discussion, I was getting fed up.

I dismissed Synth's argument in order to get back on topic... but my need to get back on topic had to do with other posters... not Synth himself.

Synthetic? Am I on to something here? :wink:


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



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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8669079 - 07/22/08 09:46 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

PhanTomCat said:

I mostly come here to discuss ideas, but not as a given do I come here to "debate"....




That is fine... but as I'm sure you know, this IS a debate forum.

Quote:


And not all forms of philosophy are strictly a debating environment....





True... but I think M&P is lame as hell, for that very reason.


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



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: Rose]
    #8669089 - 07/22/08 09:50 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:Synthetic? Am I on to something here? :wink:




that's one example of how shit gets twisted around here.

but in all honesty, this isn't out of seriousness.  it was started for fun, and just throwing out my opinion.


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
    #8669093 - 07/22/08 09:51 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

SyntheticMInd said:

but in all honesty, this isn't out of seriousness.  it was started for fun, and just throwing out my opinion.




And THAT is why I like you.


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



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: Rose]
    #8669102 - 07/22/08 09:52 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8669199 - 07/22/08 10:27 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Cervantes said:
That is fine... but as I'm sure you know, this IS a debate forum.




Well, I understand that debating is an accepted method in this philosophy and spirituality forum, but not necessarily the rule for the method of discussion....
I am not opposed to debating - not at all....
It IS one of the methods of the exchange of ideas, and some people are very good at it....
But, debating something implies that there is a person that is right, and one is wrong....
Some discussions/debates turn out to be stalemates in the end, and could be no other way....
What works for you in your life methods may not work for me - for reasons neither of us may ever understand because of our own life experiences....

For an example, how can one effectively debate spirituality on either side when the inherent nature of spirituality is subjective....?


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8669248 - 07/22/08 10:39 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

You don't have to debate cat, but this IS a debate forum. So chances are, somebody WILL want to debate.

And yes, this is a Spiritual and Philosophical forum... which means we discuss MANY things that can't be answered... or even clearly defined.

This is precisely WHY we should adhere to as many GOOD discussion tactics as we can... we're not gonna' find many answers... but we CAN have good discussions. Fallicies get in the way.

I don't look at this forum as a place for winning or loosing. But what we do in here is a game. And it is no fun to play tag, when a LOUD minority won't play by the rules.

Now... for shit's and giggles... Here's an example of P&S tag.

A: "Tag, you're it!"

B: "No, We are all 'it."

C: "I don't believe 'it' exists."

A: "Go fuck yourselves."

B & C Together: "MOMMY! Waaaaaaa!"


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



Edited by Rose (07/22/08 10:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhanTomCat
Teh Cat....
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/07/04
Posts: 5,908
Loc: My Youniverse....
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8669326 - 07/22/08 10:58 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:lol:

Yes, "good form" and/or etiquette is a trait that one could hope that most people have and adhere to....
I don't condone personalisms, and I try my best not to do it myself (it seems like a sign of weakness)....
On the other hand, when someone aims one at me, it doesn't bother me either - it usually makes me laugh....!    :ohwell:

D. We are all "it", but there is no "it"....  And now I will go take A's advice and go masturbate....    :muppet:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."

>^;;^<


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: 16 days, 22 hours
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: 16 days, 22 hours
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: 16 days, 22 hours
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
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: Veritas]
    #8671079 - 07/23/08 12:09 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question. World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say? A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.


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

"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
Invisibledaytripper23
?
Male

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671085 - 07/23/08 12:10 PM (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.




Well next time you go correcting another's use of language, make sure youve got it right.

American heritage definition of worldview:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world. 2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
A world view is a view (subjective) of the world (objective)


world (objective) view (perspective - therefore subjective)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671087 - 07/23/08 12:11 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Thoughts occur only within one's own mind, and are therefore subjective.  When thoughts begin to occur outside of the mind, then you might have a point regarding their objective existence.  Until then, you are quite incorrect.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671099 - 07/23/08 12:15 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question.




You can't look at a color?  You can't listen to a song?  Sorry, but these examples do not work.  A worldview exists only within the mind, and cannot be demonstrated to the senses.  This means that it is subjective.

Quote:

World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say?




They would say no, human beings acting upon their subjective worldviews exhibit phenomena.

Quote:

A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Not unless you can demonstrate the actual existence of said subjective truths.


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]
    #8671107 - 07/23/08 12:18 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
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.
   




Yes, just for shits and giggles, if a thought were only contained in or proceeded from a single person's mind, it would be subjective.  Hallucinations are purely subjective.  A particular hallucination can also be an intelligible object of thought if two people discussing it have a common experience thereby making even hallucinations objective.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671118 - 07/23/08 12:22 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Because thoughts and shared hallucinations exist in the external world?  :confused:


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]
    #8671135 - 07/23/08 12:26 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

daytripper23 said:
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.




Well next time you go correcting another's use of language, make sure youve(sic) got it right.




I've "got it right," but I'm sure youre confused about it.

Quote:

American heritage definition of worldview:

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.




That isn't subjective, but I don't have all day to explain standard dictionary definitions.  #1. does not imply or indicate subjectivity.  See my post at Veritas.

Quote:

2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.




And neither does that definition.

Quote:

A world view is a view (subjective) of the world (objective)




That is your interpretation based on a misunderstanding of the word 'subjective'.  Try again.


Quote:

world (objective) view (perspective - therefore subjective)




Incorrect, but I shouldn't have to  :beatadeadhorse:


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


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]
    #8671140 - 07/23/08 12:27 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Thoughts occur only within one's own mind, and are therefore subjective.  When thoughts begin to occur outside of the mind, then you might have a point regarding their objective existence.  Until then, you are quite incorrect.




I'm sorry, but your view is still incorrect.

See my post before this one.

:shrug:


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


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: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671146 - 07/23/08 12:29 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
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: wyldeman007]
    #8671174 - 07/23/08 12:37 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question. World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say? A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Well put other than the analogy is weak as all analogies are.

:thumbup:


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


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: Veritas]
    #8671200 - 07/23/08 12:47 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
Sorry to butt in...
Aren't world views simply philosophical outlooks that exist from culture to culture? These ideas can be studied anthropologically so must they exist as well. A shared view is objective because it can be observed. Can you hold a "world view" in your hand and look at it? No, but you can't hold a song in your hand or a color, that doesn't put their objectivity into question.




You can't look at a color?  You can't listen to a song?  Sorry, but these examples do not work.  A worldview exists only within the mind, and cannot be demonstrated to the senses.  This means that it is subjective.




Yes the wavelength of light is objective, and the sonic harmonies do exist, but your personal experience of them doesn't exist in the objective world. A world view exists in multiple minds, it's subjective in multiple minds that is an objective fact. World views can be demonstrated to have effects on the physical world.

Quote:

World views do exist, and impose an effect on the real world. You may ask an anthropologist: "do world views exhibit phenomena" what would they say?




Quote:

They would say no, human beings acting upon their subjective worldviews exhibit phenomena.



Acting on their shared world views, they all agree upon a zeitgeist which to each individual is subjective, but to an observer objective.

Quote:

A collaborative of widely accepted subjective truths constitutes an objective one.




Quote:

Not unless you can demonstrate the actual existence of said subjective truths.


What is an ethic? Can you demonstrate the existence of one, or tell me how they aren't objective?


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

"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]
    #8671216 - 07/23/08 12:50 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

By Jove I think he's got it!

:congrats:

Well done.  :thumbup:


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671363 - 07/23/08 01:32 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Until you've clarified how the definition of subjective I've posted is NOT the actual definition, your insistence is meaningless.  Do thoughts exist in the external world, or within the mind?  Unless something exists outside of the mind, and can be demonstrated to exist in the external world, it is NOT objective.  You have not provided the slightest support for your assertions.


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: Veritas]
    #8671414 - 07/23/08 01:43 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I argue that a world view can exist outside the mind and is not the same as a thought.


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

"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
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671425 - 07/23/08 01:45 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

OK, show me a worldview.  What color is it?  How large is it?  Can I put it in my pocket?  Is it heavy?  Is it alive?  Is it wet or dry?  How many worldviews would fit inside a VW Beetle?

Quote:

World views can be demonstrated to have effects on the physical world.




Really?  All by themselves? Without humans thinking about them and taking action based upon those thoughts? How do they accomplish this, exactly?


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671510 - 07/23/08 02:07 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

How nice would it be if people in this forum would agree to use words properly? If a word MEANS something... it MEANS something.

We can only use your WORDS to figure out what you are trying to SAY! We can't use your body language, or tone of voice.

People who take your words LITERALLY are actually doing the best they can to figure out what you are trying to say. ESPECIALLY when you don't post too often in this forum... 'cause it takes time to get to know a person.

We are not allowed to use personalisms in here, we have your post to go by... and nothing else.

Don't fault someone for taking your posts at face value.


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



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: Veritas]
    #8671514 - 07/23/08 02:07 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

A world view can be shown through literature, religion, art and politics.

You're right, the truths behind a world view ARE subjective. A world view itself, irrespective of it's subjective convictions, is a containable tangible phenomenon.

It exists in the annals of communication and culture, it is a property of culture and it is known universally by a population. It's the verbal surrogate of an ideal, which directly effects reality. If you apply a lens that negates the substance of the world view, there would be behaviors unexplainable throughout the group of individuals. Those behaviors are the world view.

How many blues can you hold in your pocket? What color is hot? What does an ethic look like? These are all objective truths dependent of a mind they cannot be quantified by physical means.


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

"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
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: wyldeman007]
    #8671538 - 07/23/08 02:14 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

All ideas are the product of the mind.  The fact that one can write down or paint said ideas does not lend the ideas objective existence.  In that case, the book or painting has objective existence, yet the subject depicted therein does not. 

Claiming that behaviors = worldviews is erroneous.  One's behavior may be inspired or influenced by ideas, but this does not make the ideas exist in the external world.

Let's look at it this way, if every human on the planet was suddenly rendered amnesiac and all expressions of a particular worldview were destroyed, would that worldview still exist?


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]
    #8671547 - 07/23/08 02:17 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

wyldeman007 said:
A world view can be shown through literature, religion, art and politics.

You're right, the truths behind a world view ARE subjective. A world view itself, irrespective of it's subjective convictions, is a containable tangible phenomenon.

It exists in the annals of communication and culture, it is a property of culture and it is known universally by a population. It's the verbal surrogate of an ideal, which directly effects reality. If you apply a lens that negates the substance of the world view, there would be behaviors unexplainable throughout the group of individuals. Those behaviors are the world view.

How many blues can you hold in your pocket? What color is hot? What does an ethic look like? These are all objective truths dependent of a mind they cannot be quantified by physical means.




Clear as a bell to me.  The fact that others cannot understand such a simple concept is really beside the point.

Thank you for the explication.  The fact that a single person here can understand what should be obvious, gives me hope.

:laugh:


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


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]
    #8671620 - 07/23/08 02:33 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:
Until you've clarified how the definition of subjective I've posted is NOT the actual definition, your insistence is meaningless.  Do thoughts exist in the external world, or within the mind?  Unless something exists outside of the mind, and can be demonstrated to exist in the external world, it is NOT objective.  You have not provided the slightest support for your assertions.




I've clarified it repeatedly and used it properly.  Perhaps their are blinders you are unaware of.

This post went unanswered:
Quote:

Yes, just for shits and giggles, if a thought were only contained in or proceeded from a single person's mind, it would be subjective.  Hallucinations are purely subjective.  A particular hallucination can also be an intelligible object of thought if two people discussing it have a common experience thereby making even hallucinations objective.




This post went unanswered as well:
Quote:

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.




Until you can provide an adequate defense for those posts which expose the shaky philosophy your ideas are built on your insistence is less than meaningless.

The materialists' world is a prison of delusion, trapped in a world of their own making they cannot escape nor understand a common dictionary.

It's fairly easy to see why this forum should be avoided if one were looking for actual philosophical dialogue/argument.*

*Please note that a philosophical argument does not by necessity include tendencious polemic.

Too much heat, not enough light.

Nuff said.

Cheerio(s)


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8671677 - 07/23/08 02:44 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I'm neither confused nor wearing blinders, but thanks ever so much for your concern.  :rolleyes:

I have answered both posts you quoted, and you have continued to ignore what I've said.  Perhaps this is pointless, as you continue to state that the definition of subjective is NOT what the dictionary clearly says it is.

It boils down to this: if it does not exist in the external world, but rather within the mind, it is BY DEFINITION subjective.  If it is subjective, it cannot be objective.  The two are antonyms.

Quote:

The materialists' world is a prison of delusion, trapped in a world of their own making they cannot escape nor understand a common dictionary.





Delusion: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.

As there is an unsurprising lack of "invalidating evidence" for the existence of the material world, describing materialism as a delusion is laughable. 

If you don't have anything to offer in support of your assertions, I'll consider this debate over.


Edited by Veritas (07/23/08 02:57 PM)


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8671926 - 07/23/08 03:43 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Veritas said:

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.




And yet, EVERY SINGLE DAY, somebody fails to understand this nuance... :shrug:

I'm often surprised by how many people seem to think debate is a bad thing... and how willing they are to debate their point!?!


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



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: Rose]
    #8672002 - 07/23/08 03:57 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

All depends on how you define 'debate' doesn't it?

See my previous for the actual definition.

Arguing with dictionaries is like arguing with signposts.  You can argue all day and still be lost.

In the end, it's best to leave some arguments up to the perception of the reader.  They, alone, can determine for themselves where the truth lies.

I've explained this before, but at the risk of repeating myself, something I'm giving to in the futile attempt to explain something that cannot be understood by some people, tendencious polemic is not by necessity a part of philosophical argumentation.

The tendency can be driven by the need for an adrenaline surge and the accompanying endorphins that follow it.  I have neither the time nor the patience nor the energy to allow others to "get high" off of their conversations with me.

Heat and light are not the same thing.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll find something that actually interests me.  Quibbling over common definitions in the dictionary in the hopes that a common ground may be had isn't one of them.

Cheerio then...


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


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8672115 - 07/23/08 04:26 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos said:
All depends on how you define 'debate' doesn't it?
See my previous for the actual definition.





No.

In our last posts, Veritas and I BOTH used the word 'debate' as a noun, meaning an argument between opponents... according to YOUR definition.

Yet, you STILL took exception!?!

So, IF Veritas and I are BOTH using YOUR word according to YOUR definition, why are you still arguing your point to us? You're preaching to the choir... man.


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



Edited by Rose (07/23/08 04:43 PM)


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8672174 - 07/23/08 04:41 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Also, your definition... well, it sucks.

Here's a more complete definition for the word 'debate'. I bolded all the non-archaic stuff.

de·bate 

Audio Help  /dɪˈbeɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.

–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 

3. deliberation; consideration.


4. Archaic. strife; contention. 

–verb (used without object)
5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating. 

6. to participate in a formal debate. 

7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.


8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel. 

–verb (used with object)
9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will. 

10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island. 

11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton. 

12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter. 


13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

[Origin: 1250–1300; (v.) ME debaten < OF debatre, equiv. to de- de- + batre to beat < L battere, earlier battuere; (n.) ME debat < OF, deriv. of debatre]

—Related forms
de·bat·er, noun
de·bat·ing·ly, adverb


—Synonyms 1. argument, controversy, disputation, contention. 5. dispute, contend. See argue.


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



Edited by Rose (07/23/08 04:52 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8672177 - 07/23/08 04:42 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

:rofl2:  :lol:  :crazy:

Just another day at the zoo...er, forum!  :smile:


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8672208 - 07/23/08 04:51 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I am oft surprised by how many people use their words... to make the 'words have no meaning' argument.


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



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,088
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8672446 - 07/23/08 05:42 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

No, no, words DO have a meaning, just not the one that YOU or I think they have, nor the one the dictionary says they have.  :lol:


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
    #8672824 - 07/23/08 07:20 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

So... now that we know what 'debate' means... :smirk:

Let's get back to fallacies.

It is pigheadedness (see the link in the first post) to hide behind creative definitions of words... and it is one of the most common bad tactics, used against logical arguments, in this forum.

The "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." argument will not fly around here.

Another example of pigheadedness, is when people hide behind their 'faith'.

The most common faith in here seems to be Judeo-Christian New-Age Jack-Buddhism.

This means countless people hide behind their 'Buddhist' beliefs in order to claim things are not real... or reality itself is not real... or words have no meaning.

While these things can make great threads in their own right, they are terrible tactics to use in debate. Suddenly the discussion turns to reality itself, or the meaning of 'meaning'... and the thread about yoga immediately goes off track. I'm guessing 90% that of the deep-thoughts expressed in this forum, are used as diversionary tactics. :smile:

Another note about 'faith'.

If you believe in something FINE. But in this forum, if you say you believe something... IT IS SELF-EVIDENT that somebody else may point out why your beliefs are not real, true, and/or logical.

People in this forum often seem to confuse DEBATE about spirituality, for a personal attack.

Say you start a thread about your bersonal beliefs:

When a person replies and  questions your 'faith', THEY ARE OBEYING THE RULES.

When someone else rebuts by hurling insults, they are BREAKING THE RULES.

This is how the forum works. All the old-timers know it. If you are new to this forum... for the love of God, please don't tell the old-timers how you think this forum works... unless you actually know how this forum works.



Beware all ye who enter here.

Post at your own risk.

Keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times.

Play fair and have fun.


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



Edited by Rose (07/23/08 07:33 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinebackfromthedead
Activated


Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 3,592
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
    #8673686 - 07/23/08 11:01 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Dang.:tongue:


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


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: backfromthedead]
    #8673848 - 07/23/08 11:40 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

That was a bit of a rant, wasn't it?


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



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepolantis
Prototype v7.3 Alpha
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/24/08
Posts: 2,367
Loc: Austraalis Flag
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: backfromthedead]
    #8673857 - 07/23/08 11:42 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Umm, I'd like to start a debate if thats OK with you guys. Don't mean to interrupt the debate about debating lol.

I was thinking about studying Philosophy at Uni last year. Until I came to this conundrum;

If Philosophy is trying to understand ones thoughts; and in my belief, arranging thoughts into a logical sequence.
Wouldn't it be un-philosophical to dedicate one's self to learning other people's philosophies? 
And then, if I did go to uni and graduated. I couldn't actually contribute any answers to the field as nothing in philosophy can actually be proved.


--------------------
We do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is the fact.
Jean-Paul Sartre


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: 16 days, 22 hours
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: polantis]
    #8676283 - 07/24/08 02:57 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I degree in philosophy would probably only help you if you wanted a cerreer teaching philosophy. It would be fun to study though.


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



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: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8677444 - 07/24/08 08:54 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Senor_Hongos:
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.




Objectivity is not obtained through the direction or focus of intelligible thought. Objectivity only applies to what is undeniably and absolutely true. As extreme skepticism/solipsism is a conjecture which cannot be logically/reasonably denied, objective truth is arguably nonexistant.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible513orangejuice
...
Female


Registered: 07/19/08
Posts: 397
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: dirtydirt]
    #8680240 - 07/25/08 02:31 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

WOH are people debating over the word 'debate' ? lol, you people are debataholics and your all addicted ta debatahol


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




                        America is a rapist.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCameron
Too Many Words
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/31/07
Posts: 4,437
Loc: Canada
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: 513orangejuice]
    #8680585 - 07/25/08 04:22 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

lol, you people are debataholics and your all addicted ta debatahol




Them's debatin' words! :box:


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: Cameron]
    #8680607 - 07/25/08 04:28 PM (9 years, 3 months ago)

I'll debate that


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

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fallacies of Philosophical Debate DiploidM 32,514 1 04/14/07 03:48 PM
by Diploid
* The futility of philosophical debate. infidelGOD 1,528 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 905 10 02/26/09 11:59 AM
by Icelander
* The 'Wear you Down' Fallacy OrgoneConclusion 1,144 3 09/20/07 11:06 AM
by fireworks_god
* Debate Technique OrgoneConclusion 2,507 18 03/03/08 11:49 AM
by fireworks_god
* How to find a chakra
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Rahz 4,408 68 11/15/07 02:52 AM
by Kinematics
* Chakras? Do they exist?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 15 16 all )
RoseM 13,944 307 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
9,400 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.152 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 19 queries.