Thinking Things Anew

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by creativesoul »

FlashDangerpants wrote:Oh fuck off.
Oh, come now...

I find it quite interesting that I find myself in agreement with many of your own beliefs(assuming sincerity in speech). Other threads reinforce this notion as well. I struggle to understand why you cannot get past your inaccurate preconceptions of me and my worldview in order to engage in our agreements. For instance, much of one of your recent posts simply agrees with things I already believe and/or know regarding "if" American legislators listened to (some certain) economic experts...

:mrgreen:
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by creativesoul »

Flash wrote the following regarding the most recent stock market crash...

"It was the projected securitised risk of those mortgages not the interest rates of them. I'm not sure if you are aware, but the projections were correct and all bar a tiny handful of those instruments returned exactly the advertised rates."

Really now?

Tell that to all the folk who were left holding the bag... the 'owners' of said mortgage back instruments. The mortgages were bad from jump for many different reasons depending upon the mortgage in question. The original underwriter, the real estate agent and the lending institution knew that those mortgages were doomed to fail. Thus, they sold the mortgages along with their projected interest in various financial instruments to unwary folk. They even changed the rules of the game so that they could sell the projected interest in much smaller 'chunks' of time than before. 10 year 'investments' turned into 5, then into single years. Conforming mortgages are traditionally dependable returns... The mortgages in question were not conforming mortgages.

Are you denying this much?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by FlashDangerpants »

If you wanted to engage me in conversation you wouldn't have done that rehtorical drivel line.

I just can't be arsed with people like you.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by creativesoul »

FlashDangerpants wrote:If you wanted to engage me in conversation you wouldn't have done that rehtorical drivel line...
Another falsehood about me(my moral/ethical compass in particular) which is yet another argumentative fallacy(ad hom) disguised as an acceptable post. But, I'm curious...

So then, does that mean that you wouldn't write something like that if you wanted to engage someone in conversation, and because you wouldn't say such things, then you expect the same from others? Nah. That's clearly not the case.

:mrgreen:

I have been more than willing to overlook far worse than that thus far, I would certainly overlook a "rhetorical drivel" line from you. The thread itself is more than adequate evidence to prove that much. Seeing how within that drivel you felt compelled to call me a hypocrite...

What counts as hypocrisy again?

I mean, come on. Get a grip and let's get on with talking about the important stuff...
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by creativesoul »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
creativesoul wrote: Show me how my position rests it's laurels(is grounded solely upon) logical possibility alone. The argument could be easily made that that is what all of the unjustified/unjustifiable conspiracy theories have in common.
That question doesn't make any sense...
Indeed. Here's how/why that is the case...

It's sensibility requires the reader to already have a firm grasp upon what counts as logical possibility. That directly applies to your continued false comparisons between what I'm arguing and what climate change deniers argue. In particular, the question isn't fully understood unless the reader also understands that logical possibility alone has an irrevocably inherent weakness. It cannot be used to ground more complex belief, for it suffers from not being able to escape a reductio ad absurdum.

In other words, when we are deciding what sorts of statements make good premisses, we do ourselves a favor by weeding out those that are based upon logical possibility alone. My comments here regarding "economic experts" do not share the same flaws of reasoning that conspiracy theories share. If you cannot understand that much, then you'll never see the error in continuing to say that I'm using the same logic as climate change deniers.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by FlashDangerpants »

You should stop trying to bamboozle people with philosophy words. You are failing to use the simpler ones correctly.

You have got the bit about fallacious ad-hominem arguments wrong. An actual example of such a failing would come about if I were to offer you case studies to justify an empirical claim I had made, but you were to reply that you wouldn't trust the evidence if it came from me. This has happened already. Actual fallacious ad-hom arguments are very rare, idiots on the internet accusing each other of using them seem to be much less so.

You don't appear to know what logical and metaphysical possibilities are, and that attempt to link them to the reductio was just totally weird and useless.

You pulled some stunt elsewhere in this thread about your 'academic' standards for defining fallacies, and I let it pass then because I am nice. But, like many others here (but presumably not you), I have a philosophy degree. So I spotted immediately that you are a bullshitter. Would you please stop trying to impress your superiority upon me by throwing around terms I understand and that you do not.

I am not going to bother reliving this entire stupid discussion with you. You aren't clever or interesting enough. I get that you are a slave to obsessional resentments; the number of times you have posted twice with an hour or more between them shows that all too clearly. But you need to let this one go.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by creativesoul »

More of the same, though it's becoming toned down quite a bit more...

When one continually attacks the person rather than the content of the writing, it's a clear sign that their position has no argumentative substance, and that is an example of ad hominem as well as what you just offered(to the man). However, I've not argued that I wouldn't trust the evidence because it came from you. Evidence is judged on it's own merit. The evidence in question here is, I think, the studies you referred to earlier regarding how undocumented immigrants do not take American(or other country's citizen's jobs. The link you provided earlier names a purported 'fallacy' that I am simply not guilty of.

You entered this thread making wild accusations regarding my understanding(or lack thereof) regarding economics. It has turned out to be the case that those accusations were levied at an imaginary opponent.

Here's the problem...

I think that you are confusing my reporting of how many Americans feel and think with a report of how I feel and think...
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Good Afternoon, creativesoul

As close as I can tell, your excellent start on this thread degraded into an unhealthy exchange of caustic remarks reminiscent of Shakespeare's, tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. If that was your intent, then I apologize for intruding.

However, I think not. In your initial post, you wrote two things that caught my attention.
"Words do not have intonation and/or body language. People do."
and
"I personally loathe a two party system."
Would you care to use those two thoughts as cornerstones for "Thinking Things Anew"?

I have no interest in discussing economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary. My sole interest is in helping create the machinery needed to realize what President Lincoln called, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Shall we give it a try?

Fred Gohlke
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by Walker »

Fred Gohlke wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:29 am
I have no interest in discussing economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary. My sole interest is in helping create the machinery needed to realize what President Lincoln called, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Fred Gohlke
What shall be the innards of the machine if the not the gears of motion left casually strewn about, like aimless cogs that don't fit?
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Walker wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:35 pm
Fred Gohlke wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:29 am
I have no interest in discussing economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary. My sole interest is in helping create the machinery needed to realize what President Lincoln called, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Fred Gohlke
What shall be the innards of the machine if the not the gears of motion left casually strewn about, like aimless cogs that don't fit?
Good Morning, Walker

You've written a pretty good description of the task facing us. But, it's not insurmountable. Part of it is identifying the "aimless cogs that don't fit" and getting them out of the way.

Will you help?

Fred Gohlke
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by Walker »

Fred Gohlke wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:25 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:35 pm
Fred Gohlke wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 2:29 am
I have no interest in discussing economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary. My sole interest is in helping create the machinery needed to realize what President Lincoln called, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Fred Gohlke
What shall be the innards of the machine if the not the gears of motion left casually strewn about, like aimless cogs that don't fit?
Good Morning, Walker

You've written a pretty good description of the task facing us. But, it's not insurmountable. Part of it is identifying the "aimless cogs that don't fit" and getting them out of the way.

Will you help?

Fred Gohlke
According to your posting, the aimless cogs are: "economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary."
However without these, what moves the machinery?
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Good Morning, Walker
According to your posting, the aimless cogs are: "economics, ideologies, President Trump, or any of the material that inspires news commentary."
However without these, what moves the machinery?
So far, the machinery does not exist.

As I said, my interest is in "helping create the machinery ..."

A truly democratic process will let the entire electorate participate in defining the issues the government must address and selecting the individuals best equipped to resolve those issues. The size of the electorate and the varying level of interest in public affairs among the populace make the matter of including everyone a challenge.

Will you help?

Even skepticism as to specific points can be helpful, unless its purpose is nonsensical and ridiculous.

Fred Gohlke
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6264
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Thinking Things Anew

Post by FlashDangerpants »

So you are really just discussing the minutiae of representation and trying to make it sound clever with all that 'machinery' shit?

And what's the deal with all this good afternoon stuff? Do you stop to straighten your bow tie before you approach the internet?

If you want to host a thread about representation, just start one. Don't necromantically hijack a deceased conversation only to explicitly refuse to consider the entire contents of it.
Post Reply