the "no true Scotsman" problem solved

[Trajk Logik]

Yet, you have someone in this thread that has done just what you define a good troll as being in Flash. Flash is good at being a troll, and I'm bad at being a troll, which is another way of saying I'm not a troll.

Just go back and read the responses Flash has provided. His initial responses to both Advocate and I were straw-men and ad-homs. A majority of his posts are short containing no philosophical arguments and only personal attacks, where as mine are philosophical propositions and questions that you seem to be incorrectly interpreting as rhetorical.

None of what you've said is a falsification of anything I've said, and your avoidance of the questions I've asked shows how intellectually dishonest you are. If this thread were a Philosophy class you'd fail.

Oh, and here's another link you can reject for no reason other than you have an emotional attachment to the idea that "TrajkLogik is wrong in everything he says" that supports what I've been saying:
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/scotsman.html

See how the NTS is a sub-fallacy of the Redefinition fallacy? But yeah, keep coming back and digging your hole.

Pretty weak trolling. Of course there is real or pretended redefinition and real or pretended discounting of evidence in the NTS, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If it was, the NTS would be a formal fallacy.

Pretty weak philosophical argument. There is also a real and pretended Scotsman, which is the point.

But it isn't, that's why there is nothing to be solved here. The NTS argument is just an informal dick move. But you and Advocate claim to have solved the NTS. So you two don't get it. Or at least he doesn't, and maybe you do by now but the hole you dug is maybe already too deep to get out.

Where did I ever claim that it was solved? You're getting faulty information from Flash and he's making you look stupid. You and Flash can only straw-man my arguments because you can't find anything fallacious with what I have said, but I'm happy to keep going at this you calling me a troll, and me continually posting links that show support my proposition, like this:
https://www.shortform.com/blog/formal-a ... fallacies/

In informal fallacies, the premises are wrong.

In other words, you don't even need to get to the conclusion to know that a mistake has been made. The initial premise is a category mistake. Maybe you find the NTS fallacy useful because you only engage with people of a lower intelligence than you (and I'm surprised that is even possible for you), because in a debate with me, you would never even get to the conclusion of, and therefore never commit, a NTS fallacy, as I would be calling you out well before that.

The NTS is only for low-class philosophers to learn to be able to spot because they simply can't hang with the upper-class that would tease out the definition of the terms used before the fallacy could even be committed.

It's just a moving-the-goalposts fallacy, aka. arguing in Bad Faith, or intellectual dishonesty.

It's perhaps one of, if not the-most common fallacies, especially on this forum. And why is it so common? Why do people regularly argue in bad faith? Because people don't want to risk 'losing' arguments, which is why they hide their premises. If a person spells out his logical premises and definitions honestly, from the start, then he stands to gain and learn from his errors. Most "thinkers" and philosophy hobbyists, don't want to actually learn, but instead seem to want the dopamine hit of 'winning', aha, gotcha!

Hence, there's never any truuuuuuuuuuue Scotsmen. Always fake ones.

Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Certainly you see this as well as many others on this forum. Just look at all the fallacies just in this thread alone mostly committed by Harbal, Flash and Atla while at the same time claiming that only they are the authority of logical fallacies.

If there are only fake Scotsman and no actual Scotsman (I try to avoid qualifying anything as "true"), then "Scotsman" is really a meaningless string of scribbles. Besides there has to be an actual Scotsman for you to even assert that there are fake ones, kind of like you have to already know the facts to be able to tell an intentional lie.

Philosophers don't use language like we do in everyday conversations. They like to play games with their words. The meaning of "Scotsman" is how it is used in everyday conversation. If someone was to mention that their cousin is a Scotsman, listeners would understand that they are saying that their cousin was born in, or is native to Scotland, not that their hair is red or that they eat porridge with or without sugar.

Everyday language is used for communicating. Philosophy is a critique of language use, namely it's own. Most philosophical problems, not everyday problems, arise from the improper use of language in some proposition that is made in a philosophical context. As such, there aren't many legitimate problems in philosophy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply determining the definitions of the terms you are using beforehand, and those terms in which there isn't a clear definition of can be cast out as useless terms. Terms like "God" and "Perfection" are some of those terms that are meaningless, yet people still use them in everyday use because it has become a habit. But when you actually investigate their meanings you find that there is nothing there. Instead we find other useful terms to refer to what it is we are actually talking about, and we can always adjust our definitions with new information. But some terms are attached to human-made concepts, like Scotland. Would it make any sense to talk about Scotsmen if there wasn't something called Scotland, and is Scotland something that exists independent of our minds, like planets and stars?

[Atla]

Yet, you have someone in this thread that has done just what you define a good troll as being in Flash. Flash is good at being a troll, and I'm bad at being a troll, which is another way of saying I'm not a troll.

Just go back and read the responses Flash has provided. His initial responses to both Advocate and I were straw-men and ad-homs. A majority of his posts are short containing no philosophical arguments and only personal attacks, where as mine are philosophical propositions and questions that you seem to be incorrectly interpreting as rhetorical.

None of what you've said is a falsification of anything I've said, and your avoidance of the questions I've asked shows how intellectually dishonest you are. If this thread were a Philosophy class you'd fail.

Oh, and here's another link you can reject for no reason other than you have an emotional attachment to the idea that "TrajkLogik is wrong in everything he says" that supports what I've been saying:
https://www.fallacyfiles.org/scotsman.html

See how the NTS is a sub-fallacy of the Redefinition fallacy? But yeah, keep coming back and digging your hole.

Pretty weak trolling. Of course there is real or pretended redefinition and real or pretended discounting of evidence in the NTS, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If it was, the NTS would be a formal fallacy.

Pretty weak philosophical argument. There is also a real and pretended Scotsman, which is the point.

But it isn't, that's why there is nothing to be solved here. The NTS argument is just an informal dick move. But you and Advocate claim to have solved the NTS. So you two don't get it. Or at least he doesn't, and maybe you do by now but the hole you dug is maybe already too deep to get out.

Where did I ever claim that it was solved? You're getting faulty information from Flash and he's making you look stupid. You and Flash can only straw-man my arguments because you can't find anything fallacious with what I have said, but I'm happy to keep going at this you calling me a troll, and me continually posting links that show support my proposition, like this:
https://www.shortform.com/blog/formal-a ... fallacies/

In informal fallacies, the premises are wrong.

In other words, you don't even need to get to the conclusion to know that a mistake has been made. The initial premise is a category mistake. Maybe you find the NTS fallacy useful because you only engage with people of a lower intelligence than you (and I'm surprised that is even possible for you), because in a debate with me, you would never even get to the conclusion of, and therefore never commit, a NTS fallacy, as I would be calling you out well before that.

The NTS is only for low-class philosophers to learn to be able to spot because they simply can't hang with the upper-class that would tease out the definition of the terms used before the fallacy could even be committed.

It's just a moving-the-goalposts fallacy, aka. arguing in Bad Faith, or intellectual dishonesty.

It's perhaps one of, if not the-most common fallacies, especially on this forum. And why is it so common? Why do people regularly argue in bad faith? Because people don't want to risk 'losing' arguments, which is why they hide their premises. If a person spells out his logical premises and definitions honestly, from the start, then he stands to gain and learn from his errors. Most "thinkers" and philosophy hobbyists, don't want to actually learn, but instead seem to want the dopamine hit of 'winning', aha, gotcha!

Hence, there's never any truuuuuuuuuuue Scotsmen. Always fake ones.

Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Certainly you see this as well as many others on this forum. Just look at all the fallacies just in this thread alone mostly committed by Harbal, Flash and Atla while at the same time claiming that only they are the authority of logical fallacies.

If there are only fake Scotsman and no actual Scotsman (I try to avoid qualifying anything as "true"), then "Scotsman" is really a meaningless string of scribbles. Besides there has to be an actual Scotsman for you to even assert that there are fake ones, kind of like you have to already know the facts to be able to tell an intentional lie.

Philosophers don't use language like we do in everyday conversations. They like to play games with their words. The meaning of "Scotsman" is how it is used in everyday conversation. If someone was to mention that their cousin is a Scotsman, listeners would understand that they are saying that their cousin was born in, or is native to Scotland, not that their hair is red or that they eat porridge with or without sugar.

Everyday language is used for communicating. Philosophy is a critique of language use, namely it's own. Most philosophical problems, not everyday problems, arise from the improper use of language in some proposition that is made in a philosophical context. As such, there aren't many legitimate problems in philosophy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply determining the definitions of the terms you are using beforehand, and those terms in which there isn't a clear definition of can be cast out as useless terms. Terms like "God" and "Perfection" are some of those terms that are meaningless, yet people still use them in everyday use because it has become a habit. But when you actually investigate their meanings you find that there is nothing there. Instead we find other useful terms to refer to what it is we are actually talking about, and we can always adjust our definitions with new information. But some terms are attached to human-made concepts, like Scotland. Would it make any sense to talk about Scotsmen if there wasn't something called Scotland, and is Scotland something that exists independent of our minds, like planets and stars?

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest. This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen. Keep it short geez.

[FlashDangerpants]

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest.

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

[Atla]

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest.

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Will they be moving in with each other?

[FlashDangerpants]

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest.

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Will they be moving in with each other?

They could all live inside the same head already for all I know.

[Wizard22]

Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Certainly you see this as well as many others on this forum. Just look at all the fallacies just in this thread alone mostly committed by Harbal, Flash and Atla while at the same time claiming that only they are the authority of logical fallacies.

If there are only fake Scotsman and no actual Scotsman (I try to avoid qualifying anything as "true"), then "Scotsman" is really a meaningless string of scribbles. Besides there has to be an actual Scotsman for you to even assert that there are fake ones, kind of like you have to already know the facts to be able to tell an intentional lie.

Philosophers don't use language like we do in everyday conversations. They like to play games with their words. The meaning of "Scotsman" is how it is used in everyday conversation. If someone was to mention that their cousin is a Scotsman, listeners would understand that they are saying that their cousin was born in, or is native to Scotland, not that their hair is red or that they eat porridge with or without sugar.

Everyday language is used for communicating. Philosophy is a critique of language use, namely it's own. Most philosophical problems, not everyday problems, arise from the improper use of language in some proposition that is made in a philosophical context. As such, there aren't many legitimate problems in philosophy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply determining the definitions of the terms you are using beforehand, and those terms in which there isn't a clear definition of can be cast out as useless terms. Terms like "God" and "Perfection" are some of those terms that are meaningless, yet people still use them in everyday use because it has become a habit. But when you actually investigate their meanings you find that there is nothing there. Instead we find other useful terms to refer to what it is we are actually talking about, and we can always adjust our definitions with new information. But some terms are attached to human-made concepts, like Scotland. Would it make any sense to talk about Scotsmen if there wasn't something called Scotland, and is Scotland something that exists independent of our minds, like planets and stars?

I tried to type that last sentence as sarcastically as I could.

I agree there are true Scotsmen out there in the world, somewhere... likely Scotland.

[Wizard22]

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Jewish neuroticism in all its glory folks... White peoples' brains must be so perplexing to you.

What do you imagine it's like to be a white American or European? Imagine for a moment.

[Iwannaplato]

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Jewish neuroticism in all its glory folks... White peoples' brains must be so perplexing to you.

What do you imagine it's like to be a white American or European? Imagine for a moment.

Wow, someone who conflates bluntly expressed distaste with neuroticism.

[Atla]

Skip to the end. That's where he lays down the terms of an amazing alliance he is forming with the narcissist who thinks he is the greatest philosopher of all time, and the delusional nazi who thinks God uses him as a conduit to complain about some global Jewish homosexuality conspiracy.

Promising stuff. We need to introduce him to Eggnog7 for the full effect though.

Will they be moving in with each other?

They could all live inside the same head already for all I know.

But I already thought that Trajk must be spending all his free time on failed trolling, and now you're telling me that I have to multiply that time by 2-3. As all the personalities need access to the computer. Oh dear.

[Wizard22]

Wow, someone who conflates bluntly expressed distaste with neuroticism.

Taste implies you dislike something once and spit it out.

In flashdirtypants' case, he's obsessed, bringing up a litany of his previously failed arguments everytime I post on this forum, no matter the thread, no matter to whom, no matter the context.

That's neurosis, not "taste".


You're starting to sound like a false Scotsman, Ivanna...

[Iwannaplato]

Taste implies you dislike something once and spit it out.

Distaste. And further you seem to not understand how distaste is used as a description of an emotional reaction. This may be news, but some things are not literal (for example, not literal in relation to their etymological origins). Give that a mull.

In flashdirtypants' case, he's obsessed, bringing up a litany of his previously failed arguments everytime I post on this forum, no matter the thread, no matter to whom, no matter the context.

That's neurosis, not "taste".

Well, no. If you were correct, it would be obsession. That's what you said above. You can be neurotic and obsessed or obsessed without being neurotic. And, of course, non-Jews are quite capable of all these states.

You might want to consider that your positions and the manner in which you communicate might be just that distasteful.

[Wizard22]

Obsession means that your brain is focused on an object or person.

Neurosis means obsession in addition to paranoia, usually leading to irrational thoughts.

A person can be obsessed and remain rational. A person cannot be neurotic and remain rational.

[Age]

BUT I do NOT usually go in 'that direction', if EVER.

Ah, ha. Then you use language in ways that will be regularly misinterpreted by people at the time this is being written.

Would you like to provide some examples of where, when, and/or how I, supposedly, use language in ways that WILL BE, regularly, MISINTERPRETED by people, in the days when this is being written?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I think it would be good if you treated current English as a foreign language.

Okay. But WHY, EXACTLY?

Okay I will let 'you' give 'me' a hint here about the social interactions in the days when this is being written.

YES I COULD HAVE.

AND, by the way, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE, that is; IF 'you' JUST ASKED 'me' A CLARIFYING QUESTION, which involved a 'Yes' or 'No' ANSWER.

OK, so you have a rule, it seems, that someone must ask you clarifying questions or you will not respond to content. [/quote]

It may well SEEM 'this way' TO 'you', BUT 'this' IS CERTAINLY NOT necessarily what IS ACTUALLY True, AT ALL.

Good to know.

Here we have ANOTHER example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK, and AT PLAY.

'This one' MADE the ASSUMPTION that I have some 'rule', that someone MUST ask me a clarifying question or I will NOT even respond to content. Which, besides being OBVIOUSLY False and Wrong, is just a Truly CLOSED PERSPECTIVE of 'things', but worse still 'this one' THEN JUMPED to the CONCLUSION that 'its' OWN PRESUMPTION was, and IS, true AND right. As can be CLEARLY SEEN by 'its' OWN WORDS here.

But then, I find a more varied approach useful.

Okay. If 'that' is what WORKS, FOR 'you', and what 'you' WANT TO DO, then by all means CARRY ONE in 'that way'.

How much MORE SIMPLER and EASIER could this have been?

Actually, your version is more complicated.

So, TO 'you', ASKING SIMPLE and OPEN QUESTIONS, in order to OBTAIN and GAIN CLARITY, FROM the "other's" perspective, IS MORE COMPLICATED.

I put forth an idea and then must as a clarifying question.

BUT there is NO 'must' here.

'you' ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' 'you' LIKE here.

I could simply put forth an idea of what is happening and you could respond to that idea, without needing the prompt.

ONLY if 'you' ARE CURIOS, and INTERESTED, then 'you' WOULD ASK A QUESTION. But NO one says that 'you' HAVE TO BE CURIOS, NOR even INTERESTED.

But, I see that you want that extra step.

FINALLY.

I HAVE BEEN, for quite a while now, been SAYING; I LIKE to be CHALLENGED, and/or QUESTIONED, OVER what I SAY and CLAIM here.

Fine. I can think of that as your culture. But while thinking it's fine for you to expect everyone to conform to your culture and to judge them if they don't, I may well ask clarifying questions, but I will not be adhering to this as a rule.

Okay. If 'you' just WANT TO TELL 'us' YOUR VIEWS, ONLY, and ARE NOT INTERESTED IN "other's" VIEWS, then 'this' is ALL WELL and GOOD. Well TO 'me' anyway.

Or you could have said that it was partly true or you could have asked for clarification.

But I did NOT need clarification. 'you' expressed what SEEMED, TO 'you'. 'This' is FAIRLY WELL EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD, which TO 'me' does NOT need ANY further CLARITY.

Right, that was one of a number of options.

As for 'me' SAYING that 'it' was 'partly true', 'not true', or 'fully true' would be A Wrong 'thing' for 'me' to do. As HOW could 'I' TELL 'you' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'. OBVIOUSLY, ONLY 'you' KNOW what DOES or DOES NOT 'SEEM' like, TO 'you'.

Yes, people in this time, at least many of them, understand that it is possible to then move forward and express how it seems to them. [/quote]

AND, WHEN, and IF, 'they' DO, then, ONCE AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY NO one could, logically AND actually, INFORM 'them' that what SEEMS TO 'them' could be WRONG.

To reply to the content of my assertions. To build or critique.

IF some 'thing' SEEMS, TO 'you', then so be it.

AND, if you WANT TO EXPRESS what SEEMS, TO 'you', then, by ALL MEANS, go on AHEAD.

'you' EXPRESSED what 'SEEMED' TO 'you'. I LEFT 'that', literally, AS 'that'.

Well, no, you didn't. You asked me if I could be wrong about what seems to me to be the case.

YES I DID.

I WANTED TO CLARIFY some 'thing', in regards to YOUR VIEW/S here.

Perhaps the people in your time use the verb 'seem' in a different way.

I DOUBT it. BUT, THEN AGAIN, 'we' have YET TO UNCOVER what the 'seem' word MEANS and/or REFERS TO, TO 'you', AND, TO 'me'.

I have YET to even UNCOVER what 'you' MEAN, EXACTLY, when 'you' USE the words 'people in your time', let alone MOVING ON TO OTHER 'things' here.

But that seemed like a truly unnecessary tangent, especially in the context of no response to content.

There are other possibilities.

Okay. But for 'now' I will NOT ASK what 'they' ARE NOR COULD BE.

Fine: I think 'or' likely conveys what you meant better than 'NOR' here.

Okay, ACCEPTED.

But here is a GOOD TIME to POINT OUT a GREAT example of how DIFFERENT cultures, even in the EXACT SAME times, have, and hold, DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT 'things'.

But, as usual, you chose to not move forward or try to in the conversation.

YES. BECAUSE, as usual, 'you' did NOT ASK 'me' FOR CLARITY. 'you', INSTEAD, as usual, TOLD 'me' what 'SEEMED' like, TO 'you'.

Notice the way you are not responding to what I wrote here.

Okay. I WILL, and DID.

I said you chose not to move forward or try to in the conversation.

It seems like 'you' do NOT want to MOVE FORWARD or even just try to in the conversation, here.

You say that you did not do this because I did not ask you for clarity. I think this is a limited approach to conversation and actually restricts moving forward, if it is the only conception of moving forward in a conversation.

Okay, but it seems like 'you' REALLY do NOT want to JUST MOVE FORWARD here, now.

And NOTHING ELSE?

Same here.

What do 'you' MEAN here by SAYING, 'Same here'?

I ASKED 'you' the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'And NOTHING ELSE?' in regards to 'your CLAIM' that 'you see language as eliciting experiences'.

I will make 'this' SIMPLER, FOR 'you' now.

Do 'you' ONLY see 'language', itself, as 'eliciting experiences' and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then 'this' would HELP TREMENDOUSLY in EXPLAINING HOW and WHY 'you' interact the way 'you' DO, socially.

It doesn't seem like you have much interest in what I wrote in the post, except to get at clarifications of terms.

Is there, REALLY, ANY 'thing' WRONG in GETTING CLARIFICATION OF TERMS, from the "other's" PERSPECTIVE?

I FOUND GAINING and OBTAINING CLARIFICATION OF TERMS, FROM "another's" PERSPECTIVE, leads to GAINING and OBTAINING A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF "the other".

It seems like 'you' REALLY LIKE JUDGING 'me'.

Are you interested in the philosophy of language? The phenomenology of language? Other ways of viewing what is happening during communication?

YES.

Are 'you' INTERESTED in UNDERSTANDING "others" AND even "your" OWN 'self' BETTER?

You could have given your take on things.

YES I COULD HAVE.

BUT, considering 'you' did NOT SHOW ANY CURIOSITY through INQUISITIVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, I just LET 'you' EXPLAIN what 'SEEMS', or 'SEEMED', TO 'you', and left 'that', AS 'that'.

Again, I think you have a limited sense of what shows curiosity.

Okay. BUT did 'you' ACTUALLY SAY and/or POINT 'this' OUT, PREVIOUSLY?

We are here in a philosophy forum. If I post to someone it is in that context.

In 'what' CONTEXT, EXACTLY?

I have NOT even GAINED CLARITY as to what the 'philosophy' word even MEANS or REFERS TO, TO 'you', YET.

I express views and ideas with the assumption that the other person has chosen, as you did, to respond to the issue/points I raised in response to someone else.

I suggest, AGAIN, that ASSUMING 'things' can ALL TOO EASILY, ALL TOO SIMPLY, and/or ALL TOO QUICKLY LEAD one ASTRAY.

You're happy to imply or state things about me as a person.

Okay.

I don't think I've ever asked you to clarify what you think I am like as a person or what we are all like as people in the time this is being written.

Okay.

I, sometimes, LIKE to EXPRESS MY VIEWS ABOUT the way 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, MIS/BEHAVE to FIND OUT and SEE IF there ARE ANY of 'you' who WANT TO BE Truly Honest, and/or who WANT TO SERIOUSLY CHANGE, FOR the BETTER.

If 'you', people, THEN WANT TO just 'TRY TO' "justify" or "minimize" YOUR Wrong DOING, then by ALL MEANS KEEP DOING SO.

Either way is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

And yet you manage to offer this, even when it is off topic. Here I was talking about a way of viewing language and it seems like you could not weigh in on the issue, unless I asked you a clarifying question. Yet, you can manage to weigh in on other things without that question.

If 'this' IS 'the way' 'it' SEEMS, or IS, TO 'you', then OKAY.

It's fine with me if you don't want to express any thoughts on what I was writing about. But it makes you vastly less interesting as a discussion partner, to me, that is.

Okay. AND, if 'you' do NOT WANT TO BE OPEN and Honest ABOUT the Wrong that 'you' ARE OBVIOUSLY DOING, then 'this' might make 'you' LESS INTERESTING, TO 'me'.

'you' SEEM MORE inclined to WANT TO EXPRESS 'your OWN VIEWS' rather then FINDING OUT and/or CLARIFYING "another's" VIEWS here.

I consider most people to be adults who don't need to be invited to speak. I read people's views all the time here. I am interested and show this in a wide set of ways, a wide set of ways understood at the time this is being written.

ARE 'your', people's, VIEWS being REALLY UNDERSTOOD, in the days when this is being written?

If yes, then WHY IS there SO MUCH BICKERING, DISAGREEING, and 'ARGUING' here, in this forum, and SO MUCH BICKERING, DISAGREEING, and KILLING here, on earth, in the days when this being written.

SOME might ACTUALLY SAY and CLAIM that, REALLY, 'you', adult human beings, are NOT UNDERSTANDING "each other" AT ALL, REALLY.

You seem interested in two things: asking clarifying questions and judging people.

AND, TO 'me', you seem interested in EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS and HAVING 'them' UNDERSTOOD and AGREED UPON, and, JUDGING 'me'.

You seem to only want to do these two things and judge others who do not do the former as much as you think they should.

AND, TO 'me', 'you' seem to ONLY want to do these 'things' and JUDGE 'me' for NOT DOING what 'you' WANT 'me' TO DO.

We have our preferences, you and I.

YES, 'you' prefer some 'things' OVER other 'things', just like 'I' DO.

But you see conversation, primarily, as requesting that others answer more and more questions.

What other BETTER WAY is there to GAIN and OBTAIN what the "other" IS ACTUALLY Truly SAYING, and MEANING?

You can triangulate by responding with your ideas.

BUT 'my' OWN personal ideas or views are of NO REAL SIGNIFICANCE, in the ACTUAL SCHEME of 'things'.

This can quickly lead to, for example, me saying, ah, perhaps you thought I meant X,

I PREFER to just ASK 'you' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS LIKE: Do 'you' think, or BELIEVE, 'x'?

and then adding more of my position or asking something about yours or noting what seem like areas in common...and so on.

I FOUND it MUCH QUICKER, MUCH SIMPLER, and MUCH EASIER to JUST ASK FOR CLARITY, INSTEAD of EXPRESSING what SEEMS-LIKE, TO 'me'.

That is; OBVIOUSLY ONLY IF the "other" IS Truly OPEN, and Honest, and PREPARED TO BE Truly OPEN, and Honest.

Is there ANOTHER BETTER WAY to UNDERSTAND the "other" FULLY?

My point is not that you should give up clarifying questions. It seems you think this is THE tool, period, and then also judgments. I think that's limited. I suppose I think having a more diverse way of interacting is better, yes.

Okay. SO, 'yes', 'you' SUPPOSE, 'you' THINK that HAVING a MORE DIVERSE WAY of interacting is A BETTER WAY, then ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

Now, I HOPE 'you' ANSWERED my NEXT CLARIFYING QUESTION.

We will, as I say, WAIT, TO SEE.

If yes, then what IS that OTHER BETTER WAY?

And, is ASKING, PRESUMED, MORE and MORE, QUESTIONS NOT the BEST WAY to ASCERTAIN whether the "other" Truly KNOWS what 'they' ARE SAYING and CLAIMING?

I don't know what you think gets lost if you had simply phrased this in statement form.

I am NOT that 'self-centered' to THINK nor IMAGINE that 'my views', in statement form, are THAT IMPORTANT. I MUCH PREFER TO OBTAIN and GAIN "other's" VIEWS and PERSPECTIVES. I DO 'this' SO that I CAN LEARN MORE, and NEW 'things', FROM 'them'.

At the time this is being written we are quite aware of implicit assertions and expressions of incredulity.

Okay, BUT 'you' ARE NOT ANSWERING my CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. Which, to some, this could be INFERRED AS 'you' REALLY DO NOT KNOW OF ANY OTHER, ACTUAL, BETTER WAY.

if no, then what is A BETTER WAY?

By the way, 'this here' IS a philosophy forum, do 'you', people, here COME NOT expecting to be QUESTIONED and/nor CHALLENGED OVER 'your' CLAIMS?

Of course.

Okay. BUT I WAS, PREVIOUSLY, THINKING that 'you' would COME here EXPECTING to be QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED OVER 'your' CLAIMS.

You imply positions, but don't assert them.

Is there something wrong with 'this'?

If yes, then what IS that 'thing/s', EXACTLY?

Because it keeps the onus on other people only. You get to imply things and claim you have no beliefs. It's disingenous. I don't like it.

AH, so 'this' is ABOUT what "iwannaplato" LIKES and/or DISLIKES, AND HOW "iwannaplato" EXPECTS "others" to BEHAVE, or REACT.

You judge, but don't offer something.

BECAUSE, as I have PREVIOUSLY STIPULATED, I WAIT FOR 'those' who seriously Want TO CHANGE, for the better, and who ARE Truly OPEN, and Honest.

I don't experience you this way.

Okay.

I don't experience you as someone interested in other people's ideas.

REALLY?

'This' is QUITE SURPRISING, especially considering the AMOUNT OF 'time' and/or 'effort' I SPEND trying to DELVE DEEPER and FULLY INTO people's IDEAS and VIEWS.

You seem extremely fixed and set in your ways.

And what ARE 'those ways', which I SEEM, TO 'you', 'extremely fixed and set' IN, EXACTLY?

I don't get the impression you are interested in changing or learning from others.

Okay.

But what 'we' could have here is just ANOTHER PRIME example of 'CONFIRMATION BIASES', in 'its' EXTREMIST FORM.

You communicate in ways that, at the time this is being written, are condescending.

Is 'this' the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth, OR, just what SEEMS or APPEARS TO 'you'?

And with regularity.

The ACTUALITY, OR the PERCEPTION?

Could it even be A POSSIBILITY that I HAVE NEVER BEEN 'condescending' AT ALL?

Or, that 'I' have been 'condescending' IS the ACTUAL Truth here?

Despite your claim to not have any beliefs (and I mean beliefs in the sense of 'things that you believe are true) you imply and state beliefs about a rather large number of things.

1. WITHOUT 'you' FIRST CLARIFYING 'you' WILL NOT and DO NOT KNOW WHAT 'I' IMPLY, in what 'I' SAY and WRITE here.

2. What 'you' SAY and CLAIM 'I' IMPLY is JUST what 'you' HAVE INFERRED, INSTEAD.

3. If 'you' REALLY WANT TO think or BELIEVE and PERSIST that 'I' STATE BELIEFS, (and A RATHER LARGE NUMBER of 'them'), then 'I' WILL ONCE AGAIN SUGGEST that INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING and CLAIMING that 'I' DO, 'you' START backing up and supporting YOUR CLAIM here with SOME ACTUAL 'evidence', or better still with SOME ACTUAL 'PROOF'.

4. Despite 'your BELIEF, and 'your CLAIM', that 'I' HAVE BELIEFS, 'you' have, YET, to PROVIDE ANY 'thing' of ANY SUBSTANCE, which SUPPORTS 'your BELIEF' here.

Imagine a relationship where one partner always is asking for justification for everything, claims to not have any beliefs and doesn't add much direct content to the conversations. That's a dominance pattern, in the time that this is being written.

If 'this' is what 'you' SAY and BELIEF SO, then so be it.

It is putting people on t he defensive.

People in relationships do NOT USUALLY talk TOGETHER and HAVE DISCUSSIONS in 'philosophy forums', WHERE one WANTS TO MAKE CLAIMS are, USUALLY, AWARE that 'they' ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND 'their' VIEWS and/or IDEAS.

Now, ONCE AGAIN, if one can NOT back up, support, and/or DEFEND 'their' VIEWS, and/or IDEAS, BEFORE 'they' MAKE 'them' PUBLICLY KNOWN, especially in A 'philosophy forum', then I, AGAIN, SUGGEST that 'they' do NOT EXPRESS 'them', PUBLICLY here.

Now you might be able to claim that they are responsible for this, but since you so often express judgment for the people of this time and laugh at them

I HAVE NEVER LAUGHED AT people here.

I SUGGEST 'you' REALLY SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARITY FIRST "iwannaplato" BEFORE 'you' MAKE these kinds of Truly False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTIONS, and/or BELIEFS.

That way 'you' WILL NOT BE SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.

Also, 'you' SPEAK as though 'you', adult human beings, do NOT DO Wrong, in the days when this is being written, or do NOT LIKE HAVING what 'you' DO Wrong POINTED OUT, and/or SHOWN.

in general and in the specific, that claim is not even weak, it's groundless.

WHAT CLAIM are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

ONLY IF, and WHEN, 'you' NAME 'that claim', EXACTLY, then, ONLY THEN, I COULD SHOW and PROVE whether 'that claim' IS GROUNDED, or NOT.

'your' CONTINUAL ALLUDING TO 'things' WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY STIPULATING what 'they' ARE, EXACTLY, is NOT HELPING 'you' here IN ANY WAY, AT ALL.

It's our responsibility and we get blamed for the conflicts of our time, all while your attitude leads to conflicts via its judgments.

BUT My 'judging' is NOT based upon on ANY 'superiority' NOR 'inferiority' AT ALL.

Then you would include yourself in those judgments. It would be 'we' not 'you'.

WHAT HAPPENS IF 'I" AM NOT YET 'an adult'?

OR, WHAT HAPPENS IF 'I'' AM NOT 'an adult'?

HOW COULD 'I" Accurately LABEL and/or NAME 'me' WITH 'you', adult human beings. WHO ARE the ONLY ones here that COULD, and DO, DO Wrong.

My 'judging' is JUST STATING that 'this' is what 'you' DO. And, if 'you' are NOT CURIOUS AT ALL regarding 'this judgment call', the so be it. LEAVE 'it' and MOVE ALONG.

Well, 1) it is disingenous to say it is just stating, since you often accompany your judgments with LOLs,

HOW MANY TIMES do 'you' HAVE TO BE INFORMED that 'you' have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE AS TO WHAT those three letters MEAN and REFER TO, EXACTLY. That is; UNTIL 'you' EVER BEGIN TO SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUALLY CLARIFICATION, AND CLARITY.

for example. 2) I don't believe you.

AND, as I CONTINUALLY SAY and STATE, WHILE 'you' BELIEVE some 'thing' IS true, then there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the WHOLE Universe, and even INCLUDING the WHOLE Universe, Itself, which could SHOW and PROVE TO 'you' OTHERWISE.

Also, if 'the way' 'life' IS, in the days when this is being written, IS NOT BE-CAUSE of 'you', adult human beings, then WHO CAUSED or CREATED 'this was of life'?

This question implies that I have said that humans haven't cause a lot of the problems.

WELL 'you' seem to KEEP CRYING and WHINGING ABOUT 'me' JUST SAYING, STATING, and CLAIMING that it IS 'you', adult human beings, who ARE DOING Wrong, in the days when this is being written.

1. ONLY 'you', human beings, can CAUSE and CREATE, ACTUAL, 'problems'.

2. ONLY 'you', human beings, have CAUSED and CREATED 'the way' 'the world' or 'life' IS.

I have said to you elsewhere, at least I think it was you, that problems are also created by the situation we are in.

Well 'you' can KEEP SAYING 'things' for AS LONG AS 'you' LIKE, but UNTIL 'you' EVER EXPLAIN what an ACTUAL 'problem' IS, EXACTLY, then I WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA NOR CLUE AS TO HOW 'problems' ARE, SUPPOSEDLY CREATED BY 'SITUATIONS'.

'you' OBVIOUSLY HAVE and ARE USING A VERY DIFFERENT definition for the word 'problem' then 'I' HAVE and USE.

But the problems are also being caused by you. You are hear, judging and laughing at people,

ONCE AGAIN, and ONCE MORE, 'your ASSUMPTION and/or BELIEF' here could NOT be ANY FURTHER AWAY FROM what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, EXACTLY.

judging also their more diverse set of ways of communicating. There are other causes, but none of them have anything to do with the issue I wrote about in the post you first responded to.

And NONE of what 'you' COMPLAINING and WHINGING ABOUT here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH what I have been SAYING and WRITING here.

I see little evidence you are interested in that topic.

I see little evidence you are interested in what I talk ABOUT and POINT OUT here.

OKAY. AGAIN, if ''this' is 'what' 'SEEMS' TO 'you', then I can WAIT TILL 'you' ARE READY, OPEN, and Honest ENOUGH, TO ANSWER.

More judgments.

WELL IF 'you' ARE NOT ANSWERING, then 'this' is JUST EXACTLY what 'you' ARE DOING.

Are 'you' UNDER SOME SORT OF DELUSION that 'I' am NOT CAPABLE of JUST POINTING OUT and SHOWING what 'you' DO, WITHOUT judging?

Just because I do not conform to your priorities in an interaction and your preferences and satisfy your desires, you conclude that the reason I am not responding the way you want is because I am not open and honest enough to answer.

So WHAT IS THE REASON WHY 'you' JUST DO NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL SIMPLE and OPEN QUESTIONS I JUST ASK, JUST FOR CLARITY and UNDERSTANDING PURPOSES, ONLY?

Also, have 'you' NOT been CLAIMING that 'I' am NOT conforming to 'your priorities' in an interaction and to 'your preferences' and 'satisfy your desires' here?

That is a belief.

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS, SUPPOSEDLY, A BELIEF?

I do NOT KNOW HOW to MAKE 'this' ANY CLEARER, BUT WHEN 'you', people, USE words like 'that', 'it', or 'this', then, IF I ASK FOR CLARITY AS TO WHAT those words REFER TO, EXACTLY, and 'you' DO NOT ANSWER, then I WILL, STILL, have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE NOR IDEA as to WHAT 'it' IS 'that 'you' ARE MEANING and/or REFERRING TO.

LOOK, I could ALSO SAY, 'That is a belief'.

Now, do 'you' HAVE ANY CLUE AS TO WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT?

And, If 'you' WANT TO CLAIM that 'that' word REFERS TO 'your CLAIM' ABOUT 'your CONCLUSION' ABOUT what 'I' have 'concluded' IS A BELIEF, then IS 'this' A BELIEF OF 'yours'?

If yes, then COULD 'your BELIEFS' BE Wrong?

You know those things you claim not to have. It was a poor assumption. And it's a dominance move.

You didn't do what I want....you have these qualities

Welcome to the time we are writing in. You are part of the problem. And I cannot respect you if you cannot see this and admit it.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' just ALLUDE TO 'things'.

WHAT are the 'this' AND the 'it' word here REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

Will 'you' PLEASE STOP ALLUDING TO 'things', and JUST START STIPULATING 'things', EXPLICITLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

And that was an example of you going in a direction you claimed not to ever go in, right up there in the beginning of my quotes in this post.

AND what is the 'that' word here REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

[Trajk Logik]

Pretty weak trolling. Of course there is real or pretended redefinition and real or pretended discounting of evidence in the NTS, but THAT IS NOT THE POINT. If it was, the NTS would be a formal fallacy.

Pretty weak philosophical argument. There is also a real and pretended Scotsman, which is the point.

But it isn't, that's why there is nothing to be solved here. The NTS argument is just an informal dick move. But you and Advocate claim to have solved the NTS. So you two don't get it. Or at least he doesn't, and maybe you do by now but the hole you dug is maybe already too deep to get out.

Where did I ever claim that it was solved? You're getting faulty information from Flash and he's making you look stupid. You and Flash can only straw-man my arguments because you can't find anything fallacious with what I have said, but I'm happy to keep going at this you calling me a troll, and me continually posting links that show support my proposition, like this:
https://www.shortform.com/blog/formal-a ... fallacies/

In informal fallacies, the premises are wrong.

In other words, you don't even need to get to the conclusion to know that a mistake has been made. The initial premise is a category mistake. Maybe you find the NTS fallacy useful because you only engage with people of a lower intelligence than you (and I'm surprised that is even possible for you), because in a debate with me, you would never even get to the conclusion of, and therefore never commit, a NTS fallacy, as I would be calling you out well before that.

The NTS is only for low-class philosophers to learn to be able to spot because they simply can't hang with the upper-class that would tease out the definition of the terms used before the fallacy could even be committed.

It's just a moving-the-goalposts fallacy, aka. arguing in Bad Faith, or intellectual dishonesty.

It's perhaps one of, if not the-most common fallacies, especially on this forum. And why is it so common? Why do people regularly argue in bad faith? Because people don't want to risk 'losing' arguments, which is why they hide their premises. If a person spells out his logical premises and definitions honestly, from the start, then he stands to gain and learn from his errors. Most "thinkers" and philosophy hobbyists, don't want to actually learn, but instead seem to want the dopamine hit of 'winning', aha, gotcha!

Hence, there's never any truuuuuuuuuuue Scotsmen. Always fake ones.

Agree with everything you said except the last sentence. Certainly you see this as well as many others on this forum. Just look at all the fallacies just in this thread alone mostly committed by Harbal, Flash and Atla while at the same time claiming that only they are the authority of logical fallacies.

If there are only fake Scotsman and no actual Scotsman (I try to avoid qualifying anything as "true"), then "Scotsman" is really a meaningless string of scribbles. Besides there has to be an actual Scotsman for you to even assert that there are fake ones, kind of like you have to already know the facts to be able to tell an intentional lie.

Philosophers don't use language like we do in everyday conversations. They like to play games with their words. The meaning of "Scotsman" is how it is used in everyday conversation. If someone was to mention that their cousin is a Scotsman, listeners would understand that they are saying that their cousin was born in, or is native to Scotland, not that their hair is red or that they eat porridge with or without sugar.

Everyday language is used for communicating. Philosophy is a critique of language use, namely it's own. Most philosophical problems, not everyday problems, arise from the improper use of language in some proposition that is made in a philosophical context. As such, there aren't many legitimate problems in philosophy. You can save yourself a lot of trouble by simply determining the definitions of the terms you are using beforehand, and those terms in which there isn't a clear definition of can be cast out as useless terms. Terms like "God" and "Perfection" are some of those terms that are meaningless, yet people still use them in everyday use because it has become a habit. But when you actually investigate their meanings you find that there is nothing there. Instead we find other useful terms to refer to what it is we are actually talking about, and we can always adjust our definitions with new information. But some terms are attached to human-made concepts, like Scotland. Would it make any sense to talk about Scotsmen if there wasn't something called Scotland, and is Scotland something that exists independent of our minds, like planets and stars?

Glanced over maybe half of it and skipped the rest. This has got to be some of the most inept trolling I've ever seen. Keep it short geez.

If keeping it short is being a troll, then look in the mirror.

Besides, my posts aren't for you since I already know you aren't reading them. They are for the rational people that are reading this thread, and not necessarily participating in it.

Here's another link that describes the effect of making fallacious arguments, like you and your troop of dumb-dumb stupid-dumbs continually make:
https://human.libretexts.org/Courses/Ci ... aking_Them

Whether a fallacy is an error or a trick, whether it is formal or informal, its use undercuts the validity and soundness of any argument. For example, if someone defines a key term in her argument in an ambiguous, vague, or circular way, her argument will appear very weak to a critical audience.

In addition, when listeners or readers spot questionable reasoning or unfair attempts at audience manipulation, more than the author’s argument (logos) may be compromised. Their evaluation of the credibility of the speaker/writer (ethos), and perhaps their ability to connect with that speaker on the level of shared values (pathos), also may be compromised. At the very least, the presence of fallacies will suggest to an audience that the speaker or writer lacks argumentative skill.

So, at the very least, you have shown the audience that you lack argumentative skills. You can't even define "troll" in a way that isn't ambiguous, vague, or circular. You have your primary troll in this thread that meets your initial definition, but would rather ignore that and redefine it to be the opposite just so you can call me a troll, troll.

But I'm willing to gracious and give you the tldr here: I won, you lost.

[Trajk Logik]

I tried to type that last sentence as sarcastically as I could.

I agree there are true Scotsmen out there in the world, somewhere... likely Scotland.

Yes, I'm sure that is where you will find most of them.

Atla thinks this is a troll post.