Philosophy Now Forum

Well I'd be happy to do that.

Not so long ago I spent a night discussing Ayn Rand with a very close friend (he was pro in case you didn't guess) and neither of us ended up punching the other. In some respects it was actually quite hard work because we both had assumptions that we took for granted but when the other challenged those assumptions we had to actually think, and justify, how we'd arrived at them. Admittedly neither of us changed our overall view (ideological assumptions are hard to eradicate) but there was some give-and-take and we reached an "agree to disagree" position in the end that involved no violence. I'm up for discussing anything, no matter how contrary it is to my initial position (with the caveat that I actually feel I know anything about it and that I find it interesting to discuss).

No, the difference is that I give arguments. The insults I dish out aren't substitutes for arguments. I don't do ad hominems. Again, you should probably look up these logical terms, because you are a repeat offender.

I don't mind talking philosophy with tyros, provided that they're not arrogant pricks. That's called sharing knowledge.

Arrogant pricks are tolerable (for me, at least) if they can contribute philosophically to the discussion. Any insults hurled my way usually get met with insults, but none of this affects my assessment of the the philosophical stuff they offer.

The worst kind of debaters, though, are people like you, because every objection against you, any rebuttal with any force at all, falls before the mighty force of your ad hominem about people's motivations. How can anyone lend any weight to such a moronic idea? Yet for you it's the trump of all trumps. Logic and reasons fall to the wayside because Typist is having a guess about what psychologically motivates someone to think that demonstratives are determined by physical pointings, that moral acts are justified by their particular circumstances, that Shroedinger's cat is neither dead or alive, that minds are in the world, that there are smaller and bigger infinities. Yes, folks, study philosophy, learn it well, work hard to hone your skills, formulate a compelling argument, and then watch it get obliterated by "You only think that because you miss your mom." Come, everybody, meet Typist, the diviner of motivations more powerful than any argument you can muster.

You are the epitome of an intellectual joke, my friend. You have cut off all roads to understanding for yourself.

Ok, let's review where we are.

When I act like you, which I admit I do quite often, you don't like it, are offended and outraged etc, and don't find the conversation inviting or useful.

However, when John communicates with you in a constructive non-insulting adult manner, you find conversation with him to be interesting and productive.

What does this tell you about your own posting style?

Here's what you don't like about me Mr. FiveApples guy.

I'm a lot like you.

Hello F,

I have a question for you, if you are right, and it is moral to lie to Hitler in order to save the Jews. Then is it also moral/right for us to give up our freedom in order to save people from being murdered.

I came across this article about the pastor in Florida who Burned the Koran on March 20th in front of 50 people and then posted it on his website. Was it also immoral for him to burn the Koran since he knew and was warned in advance that the Taliban would retaliate? The pastors actions caused these deaths. If he had not burned the Koran those people would not have died. Were his actions immoral?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/wor ... le1966938/

So by "I act like you" you mean you insult people? Ha. You're under-describing how I act. In some sense, all of you act like I do: you type. I have never invoked someone's motivations as part of a philosophical argument. I have never insulted someone as a way to undermine his arguments. I'll say it again: I do not do ad hominems. The day you can give arguments and refrain from ad hominems and specious assumptions, then you can claim to 'act like me'. Until then, you're flattering yourself.

I don't recall John sucking me into a long debate about a claim he couldn't defend well, only to close that argument by invoking such a specious claim. I don't recall John offering up a challenge to me but poisoning the well against me. I don't recall John painting a false dilemma about my options. I don't recall John invoking anyone's motivation as if it carried any philosphical weight -- yet you did this as though it settled everything.

Nothing at all. My style is characterized by good reasoning and insults. The insults are never ad hominems. I undermine claims with arguments. I support claims with arguments.

Sorry, guy, you are nothing like me. You lack the philosophic ability and intellectual integrity to pull off that trick. Just because you're belicose and insulting doesn't make you like me. Chaz Wyman is also like that, but he's not like me, either.

The uncomfortable truth is that I am better at philosophy than almost everyone here. I never need to invoke any specious reasoning or assumptions to defend my claims or undermine other people's claims. If we play by the rules of good argumentation, then I will almost always win because I play this game a lot better than any of you. This is not lost upon you, but you'll never fully come to grips with it, and so you must resort to cheating (i.e. sophistry, specious reasoning, and informal fallacies) in order to stay in the debate; otherwise, conceding that you're losing the argument is your only genuine option. You aren't going to give up any of your precious beliefs, so you cheat. And I will always call you out on it, because nothing -- I mean nothing -- gets by me. So you aren't cheating me, because I see through your nonsense -- you're just cheating yourselves and the naive.

You amuse me.

If you haven't noticed -- which you obviously haven't -- I've been here arguing that a particular moral case (the Home Intruders case) is significantly analogous to another particular moral case (the KSM case). I did this by analyzing the circumstances of the Home Intruders case, because those circumstances are our grounds that inform and support our moral judgment, and have said that (and will explain why) the circumstances at play in the KSM case are fundamentally the same circumstances as in the Home Intruders case (e.g., someone is in the middle of an immoral act, people's lives have been placed in danger, someone has forfeited certain righs, etc.). We're on page 17 now in this thread. I've been defending my analyses of these two acts from specious and irrelevant objections how long now? And now here you come and simply want me to accept that the Lying to Hitler case is fundamentally circumstantially similar to the 'Pastor Jones Burning the Koran' case? LMAO. So while conservatives have to argue for every bit of their positions, you just get to assert things?

Sorry, where's your Get Out of Thinking card? Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail.

Yea, that's what I mean.



This is a seriously delusional statement. Insulting people is a key component of most of your posts. I leave it to readers to examine the extensive evidence for themselves. I leave it to readers to see your tap dancing rationalizations for what they are.

Again, I wish to stress I'm not a Christian trying to make you feel guilty by accusing you of a moral failing etc. It's your keyboard, your forum account, and you are free to type whatever you wish.

Rather, I'm accusing you of an extreme lack of clarity and insight regarding your own behavior, and stating this is exactly what any of us will get if we do as you do, and make a proud religion out of refusing to investigate why we do what we do.

Philosophy that is pursued without investigating why we're doing philosophy, is a blind stupid exercise. It's no different than running around our house naked after we finish each post, and having no idea why we're doing that. That is not brilliance, that is blindness.

You don't like this whole line of inquiry, because declaring yourself brilliant is key to your activity here, and you'd rather not do the work of finding out if your assertion is actually true.



I agree. You are articulate, and your reasoning is often clear.

And so because you do often show good reasoning, please return to this question and analyze it.

What do insults have to do with good reasoning and philosophy?



This is confused tap dancing. You're trying to draw an imaginary line so you can declare your rank to be higher than mine. It's a baloney sandwich, and you can do better.



Well, let's us see, let us see. You may be right.

At the moment you are running like a scared little rabbit from the challenge being presented, so we haven't even made it to the discussion yet. All this typing, typing, typing is necessary just to bump you out of your normal little routine, and find the courage and curiosity to investigate things you clearly aren't comfortable with.

So, we can be patient, insult each other for awhile, and see if you are eventually able to move in to new territory.





Here it is. Again. In your own words.

Your ongoing obsessive concern with rank, rank, rank.

It's not a crime. Most of us do it to one degree or another. All that's being asked is that you man up and admit the obvious, that which is already documented extensively in so many of your posts.

Like this.

We are quite alike, your illusions to the contrary. We're both articulate, and both have a natural knack for the logic game. And because we're good at this game, we like playing the game, as we often win the game. What's not to like?

And, we're both somewhat bullies about using our natural abilities to dominate those who aren't quite as nerdy as us. Neither of us really know when and how to accept victory gracefully and with class, and we both like to rub the other parties nose in their defeat, as I'm doing with you now.

The only real difference I see between us is that I'm willing to say these truths out loud, while you still think you can wallpaper over the extensive evidence you've left all over the forum with a bunch of fancy footwork rationalizations.

My only claim to rank higher than you here is that I'm being clear and honest about the reality of "our nature", while you are not. You can undo my higher rank anytime you wish simply by finding the balls to do the same.



You rank SO VERY HIGH, and we are SO VERY IMPRESSED!!!!



You rank SO VERY HIGH, and we are SO VERY IMPRESSED!!!!

This has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal. Your argument has the childish reasoning of tit for tat morality.

Insulting people is "a key component" of my posts? What does that mean? My claim is that I don't use insults as ad hominems. Is your vaguely stated accusation supposed to be a rejection of that claim? If it is, you're wrong, and I dare anyone to show where I've done this. Since you have "extensive evidence" of this, then it shouldn't be hard to do. I'll wait.

I'm not accusing you of trying to make me feel guilty. I couldn't care less either way. You're making claims with no evidence. You said that if I didn't accept your challenge that it would because I knew I couldn't meet it and any response refusing to do so would be rationalizations (you know, because I can't be honest and just say 'I can't meet it'). Wow. The blatant bad faith in which you debate people is just amazing.

LOL. So when I don't agree with your specious assumptions it's because it's a lack of clarity and insight on my part. Ha ha ha. Please, make more unsubstantiated assumptions and then tell me how it's my lack of clarity which prevents me from agreeing with you. That's just so compelling.

Pop psychology. Have fun.

I don't like this inquiry because it's not philosophical. And I especially don't like it in my KSM thread. Stop hijacking my thread with your inanities. Here's an idea: start your own thread about this topic.

There's a long tradition of polemics in philosophy. If you say something stupid and I explain why it's stupid, then I've done my philosophical job. If I wish to throw in an insult on top of it (like 'you're an idiot'), then that's my perogative. To me what's more offensive is your specious reasoning: it's a specious way of getting people to think your argument is stronger than it is. Again, it's called lacking intellectual integrity.

It's not my problem that you don't know what an ad hominem is.

So my refusal to participate in an exercise I've explained is nonsense and not philosophy is characterized by you as "running like a scared little rabbit" -- how charitable of you. But if I accept your challenge, then it means I have "courage and curiosity" to investigate something I'm "clearly" not "comfortable with" -- I'm blown away by your charity yet again. You have no class. You have no arguments. You only have schoolboy antics: "If you don't sleep with me, young lady, it's because you're a man-hating prude. So sleep with me and prove you're not those vile things." Good luck at the pub, old chap.

Ha! Oh yes, ignore my objection that you're wanting to bypass all philosphical work. Ignore the fact that you're simply stipulating that these acts are circumstancially similar. Ignore the fact that I've had to argue for just that very thing: a similarity in circumstances. Don't bother to analyze the very cases you're offering. But please do object that I said "conservatives." I tell you what, change "conservatives" to "I", and now slink away.

The funny thing is that you can't even understand my pages and pages of argument. You don't have the ability. Stick to what you do best and risk your life to save mine. And please don't fuck things up with your insane sense of morality and make the world more unstable, causing us to need more of you than we already do. I will sit on the sidelines cheering you on to water board, kill, burn the Koran, etc., while thinking I am moral for doing so....

Oh yeah, the guy who articulates philosophical positions clearly is the one incapable of understanding your oh-so-deep philosophical position.



Nice argument. From the empty set it follows that I have an insane morality. Beautifully argued.

You don't have to justify yourself to me. Be an idiot all your life. I could care less. Obviously nothing has stopped you so far, so I wouldn't presume to think I could.

The main thing I want all of you to understand, my key point, is as follows...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

Of course because all of you are small, low ranking idiots, I will need to make this point repeatedly for you to get it.

So let's try it again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again....

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

And again...

I am big, and you are small.

I rank high, you rank low.

I am important, you are a nothing.

I am brilliant, you are an idiot.

I am the Chief, you are the indians.

Well, I think that nicely illustrates what you do here. Good job.

Thank you.

I have understood your argument and exposed it. My argument you have never understood so you can't expose it.