Philosophy Now Forum

Are you aware that lots and lots of your posts reference how you are brilliant and others are stupid? It's the predominant theme of your writing. This is not a theory. It's a fact, documented all over the forum, in your own words.

You say you're here to discuss the moral permissibility of waterboarding KSM, but really you are here to discuss you, and why you rank higher than everybody else. That's what the evidence shows.

Because you are brilliant, fearless and unconcerned about your ego etc etc, why shouldn't we discuss the moral permissibility of waterboarding you?

I say it is permissible to waterboard you, because to do so is simply to accept and agree to the standard of behavior you yourself have set.

The inner contradiction in the brilliant writing you are offering us is that you like to dish it out, but you can't take it in return. Nothing could be more common and ordinary.

So, a bunch of idiots say a bunch of idiotic things, and you wonder what could possibly motivate me to call them idiots. Gee, the possibilities are endless.

My behavior bothered you, so what did you do --- you disingenuously began a discussion about the philosophical relevance of the role psychological motivations play in philosophy. I explain why your argument is rubbish, dismissing your motivational premises as pop psychology nonsense, and to this you respond by invoking just such a premise in your rebuttal. The type of premise you couldn't defend against me is then invoked (by you) as a supposed defeater. Intellectual quackery.

Unable to draw me into your dicussion, you resort to (admittedly) sabotaging this thread. Just what do you think you're accomplishing? What do you think follows from your unwillingness to discuss the actual topic of this thread? Do you think I need you in this debate? All you're doing is outing yourself as a rather incompetent thinker. I won't change the topic of my own thread, so your "philosophical" response is to throw a hissy fit. Simply precious.

You've abandoned argumentation. You've given everyone ample reason never to discuss anything philosophical with you, because no matter how badly you're getting philosophically beaten, out comes your secret weapon: the psychological motivation more powerful than any logic that preceded it.

You're the Zoolander of Philosophy Now Forum.

Personally I'm enjoying the points you make in your conversation with Typist, but being picky I'd point out that you've not yet completed your argument for waterboarding KSM.

You're right, of course, I haven't completed the argument. That's still the plan.

As for Typist, my insults (probably less so the ones directed at him than those directed at others) rub him the wrong way. This is understandable: we are compassionate beings, so even if you think the insult is merited, you might still not like seeing someone talked to like that. It's also true that my insults prevent some -- usually my targets -- from fully appreciating the force of my arguments/objections. I get that, but it's not dissuading me from posting such comments, obviously. Unable to find a way to curb or stop my behavior, he's adopted very unethical behavior and specious reasoning. He has available to him a fair criticism against me, but that would be the end of it. He isn't satisfied with my admission to crassness if it doesn't also include a concession to stop insulting people. I won't give him that, so he is on his warped mission to sabotage this thread. It's not a pretty picture he's painting of himself.

Not quite. Your lack of curiosity and clarity, combined with your often repeated declarations of self brilliance, trip my debunker button.

I actually think you are wise to express your "nature" honestly, with enthusiasm, and without apology, assuming you are willing to accept the price tag involved.

This is what I try to do myself. I'm not really interested in trying to sell people a cleaned up fantasy version of Typist. There's enough lying in the world already, and writing just isn't fun unless at least the attempt to be authentic is there.

The point of my exchanges with you were this really.

On the surface there is "me vs. you" which is represented by the rowdy typing many of us here do. On the surface is "this idea vs. that idea" which is a game we all enjoy here.

It interests me to try to go below this surface level, and investigate where all this activity is coming from. I propose that both "me" and "you" and "this idea" and "that idea" are all made of the same thing, thought, and it's the nature of thought itself which is the driver of both the personal and ideological conflict.



This is a tricky one. In face to face contact, I agree manners is the wiser course. We're all human, and that reality should be faced.

But in an environment like this, where each reader has total immediate control over their experience, the insults can serve a purpose, if they lead us towards taking responsibility for our own experience. Ultimately, that's the only real solution to insults.



Yes, by writing from our emotional need, we trigger the reader's emotional needs too, and reason goes out the window. I plead guilty to this too.



Right. So the intelligent question is, why?



By adopting "unethical behavior" I am simply agreeing to the standard you have set for yourself, and going along with your game plan. Not that I can't manage it on my own of course.

This is what I mean about a lack of clarity. You proudly proclaim your intention to be rude, but then play the victim when others join you in it. That's not a very credible position.

Pick one.

1) Be polite, and ask others to be polite too.

2) Or be your true wild self, and welcome others to do the same.

Your desire to have your cake and eat it too, to dish it out but not take it, is what I'm objecting to.

I'm going to explain to you why you're an idiot. This may sound harsh and is unsolicited, but it can be useful. It will at the very least expose you for the fraud you are, on various levels, and I will be done with your grade-school scheming once and for all.

My lack of curiosity and clarity about what exactly?--Oh, that's right, about my own motivations for claiming what I claim, which is not only not the topic of this thread but has been argued to be an asinine topic (by yours truly). Reasons for one's claims are not good enough, all of a sudden, we must seek your psychological motivation for thinking that 2 + 2 = 4. You are an idiot because you can't make sense of the very project you wish to pursue, because you are trying to impose the topic on me, and because this isn't the place for your topic. And you are a moron because it's lost upon you that you have no justification for your actions here.

And you, the diviner of motives and seer into people's souls, are privy to my nature, right? You're suggesting you have some special ability to know people's natures, an ability the rest of us lack, so when we put the question to you of why what you say is right, why we should believe your stupidities, your response is never anything more than, "Oh, I know, believe me." Stop telling me what my nature is as if your guess is any better than anyone else's. Stop talking like you've in any way made your topic legitimate. You are a philosophical astrologist.

Nobody cares about you, stupid. Get that through your head. You're trying to make your words sound credible by volunteering unflattering opinions of yourself. That's idiotic. You might as well say, "Well, I admit that I have homosexual fantasies, so I think all men should admit they have them too. They should be honest about themselves like I am." We call this sophistry. The only moron persuaded here is you. You are a self-deluded idiot.

Again, idiot, just because you're willing to admit unflattering things about yourself doesn't suggest in any way that those things are true about me, or anyone else, too. Rhetorical tricks by an amateur thinker. Nothing more. Your interests are not important. You lack humility.


LMAO. I choose (3): continue giving compelling polemical arguments. Oh that others could follow my example. Sadly, all I get is cheap imitations and wannabes like you. Your polemics lack punch. Nothing you say hits a nerve. Your insults are the equivalent of "doodie head." You see, I don't just go around calling people idiots. That would be innocuous. I show why people are idiots. When people are confronted with their own stupidity, exposed in public like that, they typically respond in one of two ways. They stubbornly refuse to accept what's already been proven, or, which amounts to the same thing, they cannot comprehend what's been shown them. The other responses is to simply ignore what's happened, but they can't forget it. These people cannot escape from what I've done to them. Chaz Wyman and ArtisticSolution are such people. Eventually, they go away, because dealing with me will bring only more of the same: exposure. You fall into the former category. It hasn't hit you what an idiot you actually are yet. Maybe it'll never hit you. More likely, you'll continue on this line of pathetic reasoning you're on, and continue to talk to me like I have to choose from the false dilemma you're offering. You're the only one on the outside of this inside joke.

That is, you are going to explain to me why you rank high, and I rank low, which is pretty much the only subject you're sincerely interested in, despite claiming repeatedly you could care less.

Okay, have it your way. I just explained why you rank low and, obviously, why I rank high.

Nobody cares what motivates me to give this explanation. Maybe I'm a fierce champion of the truth. Maybe I dislike you. Maybe I'm full of myself. Maybe I have low self-esteem. Maybe I think you need to be knocked down a peg or two. Maybe, maybe, maybe -- none it matters and all of them are possibilities. Nothing follows regarding my claim that you're an idiot once we do determine, if it's even possible, what motivates me to make such a claim. You want people to participate in a search that you can't even articulate, because you're unsure how it could work. Not only that, you want this search to take place here. Wrong place. Not only that, you want to go on this adventure with the guarantee that it will not tell us anything about whether you're an idiot or not, or whether it's morally permissible to waterboarding KSM or not. Hmmm....so enticing.

Philosophically, what matters is whether my reasons hold up. Are they good reasons for my claim that you're an idiot? If they're good reasons, then you have to take my claim seriously, perhaps be forced to believe it, and doubt the claim that you're not an idiot. We can learn something about the topic of the claim. We can learn whether it's morally permissible to waterboard KSM from analysing my reasons.

Your moronic project could be asked in every thread in this forum. You can hijack every single thread: "Hey, guys, I know you think 2 + 2 = 4, but isn't what's more important looking into the psychological reasons why you say that it is?" Again, just so enticing.

I give philosophical arguments. You do pop psychology whose only purpose can be to steer us away from the philosophical topic. You have no way to challenge my argument, so you want to lend credence to the position that we shouldn't even consider such an argument, that something else is more interesting and magically relevant. You are a idiot trying to get over on someone who knows every rhetorical ploy in the book. The sad part is that you don't even realize the sophistry you're offering us.

The only thing that's happening in our exchanges, and it's mainly why I keep responding to you, is people are getting a new appreciation for how well I reason. Having no part of themselves invested in this fight (i.e., neither they personally nor one of their cherished beliefs is being attacked), they see now better than ever the strength of my arguments. Anyone not on their knees praying you'll put me in my philosphical place will see what a buffoon you're turning out to be and how soberly I reason. You are indirectly helping my KSM argument proceed, because people will have gained an appreciation for just how seriously they should, philosophically, take me. You are robbing them of the lie the told themselves: there's no need to take this fiveredapples guy seriously.

So, you serve a purpose here, despite your efforts to the contrary. I can only thank you.

Sincerely,

fiveredapples