|
 daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc: 
|
 Re: Philosophical Debate  [Re: Rose]
#8668299 - 07/22/08 03:36 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
No I saw it, It just felt it was necessary for me to establish this basis.
I will address it now.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
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.
|
 Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
|
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.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
#8668511 - 07/22/08 05:31 PM (15 years, 8 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.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
#8668532 - 07/22/08 05:39 PM (15 years, 8 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 05:44 PM)
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 27 days
|
|
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.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Redstorm]
#8668552 - 07/22/08 05:44 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Reminds me of my own misgivings about a madman and his ideas, Friedrich Nietzsche.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
#8668587 - 07/22/08 05:55 PM (15 years, 8 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.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
|
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? 
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
#8668622 - 07/22/08 06:02 PM (15 years, 8 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.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
|
By all means... if someone replies to you... reply back to them.
Otherwise, stay on topic.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
#8668650 - 07/22/08 06:09 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
rule makers,
rule breakers
...
same coin
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
#8668663 - 07/22/08 06:12 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SyntheticMInd said:
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.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
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.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Rose]
#8668747 - 07/22/08 06:34 PM (15 years, 8 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  , it doesn't make up for a good debate imo.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: Veritas]
#8668776 - 07/22/08 06:40 PM (15 years, 8 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"
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
|
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.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 8 months
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
#8668807 - 07/22/08 06:48 PM (15 years, 8 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 , 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.
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.
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 06:55 PM)
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
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.
|
daytripper23
?
Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 3,595
Loc:
|
Re: Philosophical Debate [Re: deranger]
#8668825 - 07/22/08 06:52 PM (15 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Didn't you say rule breakers and makers are the same coin?
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
infidelGOD
thePatient
Anonymous
spud
1 2 all )
yousuck
shroomydan
Positronius