TRUMP AHEAD?

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, let's do it then.

You could start by explaining what you think morality actually is.

Funny...that's exactly the first question I was going to put to you. So I agree: let's start there.

I have some idea of what "morality" means. You have none I can identify. So help me out here. Let's agree on what any "moral" system (objective, subjective, Nihilistic, or whatever) must be able to deliver at minimum.

I don't know how we suddenly came to be talking about this concept of a "moral system". While I am happy to discuss morality, I'm afraid I know nothing about moral systems.

You and I can discuss moral things and be talking about the same basic stuff: rightness, wrongness, fairness, rudeness, and so on. To this extent at least there is something that can be called systematic underlying all that. Mister Can of course wants to railroad you into defining some tight prescriptive little system that applies at least one categorical imperative, which would naturally be to to his faux Kantian advantage, but he's never been a man for subtle moves.

There's no need to throw out baby and bath water in once heave, Mannie can be denied without embracing some private moral language. We have some sort of systematic approach to forming and discussing our moral beliefs which makes sharing some sort of moral information possible. That's the actual minimum that any moral "system" would need.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes in theory, but you try to do it in practice anyway.

You have no idea what I do, of course, or of whatever motivates me to do it. What you would know is what argument I raise...if you'd ever address it. Throwing mud is sooo much easier than thinking.

We all had those arguments when we were adolescents, here they were refuted in like 2 minutes.

Ad hominems, like the above? Of course they're childish. But I wasn't the one foisting them on the conversation.

[Atla]

You have no idea what I do, of course, or of whatever motivates me to do it. What you would know is what argument I raise...if you'd ever address it. Throwing mud is sooo much easier than thinking.

We all had those arguments when we were adolescents, here they were refuted in like 2 minutes.

Ad hominems, like the above? Of course they're childish. But I wasn't the one foisting them on the conversation.

An ad hominem would be if I immediately assumed that this adolescent level stuff is indeed high philosophy for someone.

[Sculptor]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

I think IC has the potential to be intelligent.
His trouble is that his final flield of reference; his final arbiter; and rational measure is a fantasy world.
When you rely on an imaginary friend the only evidence for is a book which ranges between 3000 years old and 1300 years old wirten by disparate and contradictory sources, then you are bound to come across as a little bit idiotic. And IC relies in this fantasy all the time. It is the thing to which all
things are ultimately compared.
This makes him completely useless on a philosphy forum, except as a running joke.

[Immanuel Can]

We all had those arguments when we were adolescents, here they were refuted in like 2 minutes.

Ad hominems, like the above? Of course they're childish. But I wasn't the one foisting them on the conversation.

An ad hominem would be if I immediately assumed that this adolescent level stuff is indeed high philosophy for someone.

Well, that's not the meaning of ad hominem, but this site admits everybody, so not everybody's really going to know what we're talking about. And to such, it's bound to look unnecessary and irrelevant. Not everybody's cut out for deep thought or rational analysis.

But nobody's keeping you here...certainly not me. You're free to go where the level of discussion meets your personal needs, of course.

[Atla]

I'm not going to change my mind about the subjective nature of morality, because I know what it is from personal experience.

You can continue this for years, IC can never imagine what you're talking about because he has never experienced the feeling of the conscience before. Now most sociopaths are somewhat intelligent, so at this point most of them figure out that others do have this feeling and they don't. But IC isn't intelligent either, so he just thinks that you're making up stuff.

I think IC has the potential to be intelligent.
His trouble is that his final flield of reference; his final arbiter; and rational measure is a fantasy world.
When you rely on an imaginary friend the only evidence for is a book which ranges between 3000 years old and 1300 years old wirten by disparate and contradictory sources, then you are bound to come across as a little bit idiotic. And IC relies in this fantasy all the time. It is the thing to which all
things are ultimately compared.
This makes him completely useless on a philosphy forum, except as a running joke.

I'd prefer a dumb religious sociopath over an intelligent non-religious sociopath though. One of the reasons Christianity was successful was that it forced an artificial conscience onto the sociopaths and other Cluster B types, decreasing the damage they did to others.

[Atla]

Ad hominems, like the above? Of course they're childish. But I wasn't the one foisting them on the conversation.

An ad hominem would be if I immediately assumed that this adolescent level stuff is indeed high philosophy for someone.

Well, that's not the meaning of ad hominem, but this site admits everybody, so not everybody's really going to know what we're talking about. And to such, it's bound to look unnecessary and irrelevant. Not everybody's cut out for deep thought or rational analysis.

But nobody's keeping you here...certainly not me. You're free to go where the level of discussion meets your personal needs, of course.

Yes yes ad hominem always means something else to you than it does to others.
I don't really care about your whining. If you don't like my posts then don't reply to them.

[Immanuel Can]

An ad hominem would be if I immediately assumed that this adolescent level stuff is indeed high philosophy for someone.

Well, that's not the meaning of ad hominem, but this site admits everybody, so not everybody's really going to know what we're talking about. And to such, it's bound to look unnecessary and irrelevant. Not everybody's cut out for deep thought or rational analysis.

But nobody's keeping you here...certainly not me. You're free to go where the level of discussion meets your personal needs, of course.

Yes yes ad hominem always means something else to you than it does to others.

No, it means something other than the way you're using it. Here: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html
So it's you who are wrong, and you who are out of step with "others"...which, by the way, is another fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy".

[Atla]

Well, that's not the meaning of ad hominem, but this site admits everybody, so not everybody's really going to know what we're talking about. And to such, it's bound to look unnecessary and irrelevant. Not everybody's cut out for deep thought or rational analysis.

But nobody's keeping you here...certainly not me. You're free to go where the level of discussion meets your personal needs, of course.

Yes yes ad hominem always means something else to you than it does to others.

No, it means something other than the way you're using it. Here: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html
So it's you who are wrong, and you who are out of step with "others"...which, by the way, is another fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy".

If you would open your own link, you would see that I was using ad hom correctly.

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

And being out of step with others (and insisting on it) would be like the opposite of the bandwagon fallacy.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes yes ad hominem always means something else to you than it does to others.

No, it means something other than the way you're using it. Here: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html
So it's you who are wrong, and you who are out of step with "others"...which, by the way, is another fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy".

If you would open your own link, you would see that I was using ad hom correctly.

You clearly didn't open the link...or did, but didn't understand what "fallacy" means.

And being out of step with others (and insisting on it) would be like the opposite of the bandwagon fallacy.

Should I bother trying to explain this to you? I'll try, but it's my last go. If you don't get it, I'm out.

Bandwagon fallacy is the mistaken belief that popularity determines truth. I am more than happy to be recognized as somebody who prefers truth to the follies of popular opinion. But as it is, I don't believe your opinion is actually the "popular" one at all, anyway...not that a care a fig.

So you're missing on every cylinder. I can't help you.

[Atla]

No, it means something other than the way you're using it. Here: https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resourc ... minem.html
So it's you who are wrong, and you who are out of step with "others"...which, by the way, is another fallacy called "bandwagon fallacy".

If you would open your own link, you would see that I was using ad hom correctly.

You clearly didn't open the link...or did, but didn't understand what "fallacy" means.

And being out of step with others (and insisting on it) would be like the opposite of the bandwagon fallacy.

Should I bother trying to explain this to you? I'll try, but it's my last go. If you don't get it, I'm out.

Bandwagon fallacy is the mistaken belief that popularity determines truth. I am more than happy to be recognized as somebody who prefers truth to the follies of popular opinion. But as it is, I don't believe your opinion is actually the "popular" one at all, anyway...not that a care a fig.

So you're missing on every cylinder. I can't help you.

Yeah at this point you just seem to be producing text that is unrelated to anything I actually wrote. Like are you throwing a dice, what fallacy to bring up next?

You clearly didn't open the link...or did, but didn't understand what "fallacy" means.

Ad hom

Should I bother trying to explain this to you?

Ad hom

Bandwagon fallacy is the mistaken belief that popularity determines truth. I am more than happy to be recognized as somebody who prefers truth to the follies of popular opinion. But as it is, I don't believe your opinion is actually the "popular" one at all, anyway...not that a care a fig.

Nowhere was I talking about some "popular opinion". We can simply use the definition you linked.

So you're missing on every cylinder. I can't help you.

Ad hom

[Immanuel Can]

So you're missing on every cylinder. I can't help you.

Ad hom

Not ad hom. Based on your responses. Were they sincere? If they were, then the evidence is in.

But I can't waste any more time with you. It's clear you're not up to the game.

[Atla]

So you're missing on every cylinder. I can't help you.

Ad hom

Not ad hom. Based on your responses. Were they sincere? If they were, then the evidence is in.

But I can't waste any more time with you. It's clear you're not up to the game.

Nice that you are congratulating yourself, but first you have to play the game. Let's see if you can actually point out where and why I was using ad hom incorrectly, initially.

Here is the definition you linked:

(Attacking the person): This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.

(who knows, maybe you'll finally win a game)

[Immanuel Can]

(who knows, maybe you'll finally win a game)

No longer interested.

[Atla]

(who knows, maybe you'll finally win a game)

No longer interested.

You're no fun, do I have to explain it all myself?

You see, an ad hom fallacy is when "you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person". Now the lack of the moral sense in Cluster B personality types is centrally relevant to the issue of.. well, morality. Morality is relevant to morality. Opposite of irrelevant.

Calling that an ad hom fallacy is like saying that it's an ad hom fallacy to call a blind man blind, when discussing blindness.

On the other hand, I said "an ad hominem would be if I immediately assumed that this adolescent level stuff is indeed high philosophy for someone". Well I debated most of the God issues when I was like 13-14, it was totally behind me when I became an adult. And that's true for many people.

Automatically assuming that someone in his 40s or 50s or so, is still at that intellectual stage, would be in my opinion a grave insult to intelligence. An unnecessary ad hom fallacy.