I could say that was a good attempt at side stepping the issue of you not yet providing an argument, but I will not. As it is plainly obvious that you still can not provide an argument for your belief. I can feel your worry and fear from here.
fiveredapples wrote:ken wrote:Why would you even expect an imbecile, nincompoop, and numbskull, like Me, to be able to spot an argument?
Because you keep using the word "argument" like you know what it means, and you're a member of a PHILOSOPHY FORUM -- you know, just the place where people go to give arguments.
So why do YOU not give arguments here?
You might say you have given an argument here, but if you look again and more closely you will see the truth.
I do not have a view either way here on this issue. I have just been trying to gain a perspective of HOW you believe torture is morally permissible, but your consistincy in side stepping this is showing us that you have nothing to support your own belief.
fiveredapples wrote:ken wrote:You say that you are not worried, so why do you not just clearly and distinctly write your argument for Me here and now, so that I can take a look at it? I will then be able to comment on it. If, however, you do NOT produce one for Me, then I will take that as plainly obvious that you are very worried and very scared.
I will present my thoughts as I see fit.
Yes that is what I am asking you to do. Present your thoughts, as you see fit, but do not expect us to wait around for much longer.
fiveredapples wrote:This thread is about unpacking the general conception of torture, a conception that does not include the notion of moral impermissibility.
I will ask again, what is
your conception of 'torture' that does not include the notion of moral impermissibility, which by the way you believe is the "general" conception, right?
fiveredapples wrote:Look in any dictionary -- none will say that torture is inherently morally impermissible.
.
Are you trying to say the only reason you have for torture being morally permissible is because no dictionary states torture is inherently morally impermissible? If so, then your line of reasoning does not sound to cogent at all. If you also take a look NO dictionary will say that torture is inherently morally permissible
fiveredapples wrote:So I have no idea what country or planet people are from who are claiming that torture is by definition morally impermissible.
Who is claiming that? I do not and have not done that anywhere. Can we just get on with what you want to say?
fiveredapples wrote:You don't get to make up your own language out of convenience. Maybe on Bizarro Earth 'torture' is inherently morally impermissible, but here on Earth it's not inherently morally impermissible. So, those Bizarro Philosophers owe us an argument, or they should keep their idiocy holes closed.
Why do you not have to owe an argument when it is YOU who states torture is morally permissible, but you expect an argument from others who state otherwise?
fiveredapples wrote: Ihave no interest in you judging my arguments. That's pretty preposterous. You're not qualified to judge arguments, let alone my arguments.
Until you provide an argument you will never know if I am qualified or not. With you speaking like this and trying to side step providing an argument is just more obvious proof of your incapabilities.
fiveredapples wrote:What hubris to think that someone of your intelligence, of your obvious philosophical ineptitude, or your ignorance slathered in arrogance, could objectively weigh my arguments.
Again, awaiting your "arguments".
fiveredapples wrote:Nobody is awaiting your judgment.
.
Are you absolutely of this?
fiveredapples wrote:I will post my comments, my explanation, my reasoning, my arguments, and then I will weigh in on what I've said. That's really the only reasonable way this thread can develop intelligently
.
And the only reasonable response is with the question, '
When will you post your explanation, your reasoning and your arguments?'
fiveredapples wrote:All you will do is make 10 pronouncements and wait for me to spend 3 days undermining your pronouncements with arguments.
How are you so sure of this? And how sure are you of your belief here?
fiveredapples wrote:I'm sorry, that doesn't seem like a fair exchange. You rattle off stupidity in a minute and I explain your assumptions, your fallacies, your poor reasoning, and for what? Just to show that you are littering this thread? Uhm...no thanks. Your opinions are worthless at this point.
Are you still unaware that I have not provided any assumptions nor any opinion yet. All I have done here is try to get out of you what it is that you keep alluding to here, that is you believe torture is morally permissible. I am still waiting for some examples of how torture is morally permissible, and still waiting for your reasoning of how torture is morally permissible.
fiveredapples wrote:So, up, up, and away you go, back to Bizarro Earth, where you're "good" at philosophy, where you provide "arguments", and where you're not a clown.
Okay all mighty one.