Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:56 pm FDP said:

"You used to be some sort of above averagely bright young man if the story you tell us is true. But now you are the guy who starts all the shittest conversations on the internet, and thinks that the motto in this phrase is profound..."

Just one of the guys, same as you (but I don't do ad homs).

PhilX

Explain where I have used a fallacious ad hominem against you.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:02 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:56 pm FDP said:

"You used to be some sort of above averagely bright young man if the story you tell us is true. But now you are the guy who starts all the shittest conversations on the internet, and thinks that the motto in this phrase is profound..."

Just one of the guys, same as you (but I don't do ad homs).

PhilX

Explain where I have used a fallacious ad hominem against you.

You're supposed to be bright. Figure it out.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:05 pm You're supposed to be bright. Figure it out.

I can't be all that clever. I waste a lot more time on your bullshit than I would otherwise. Especially when, like now, you are boring me and I have stuff I ought to do.

In this instance though, there are no examples to display. I know what the ad hominem fallacy is and I don't use them. You just don't know the difference between ad hom and just any old insult.

That's becuase you are deeply stupid. <--- not an ad hom

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:16 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:05 pm You're supposed to be bright. Figure it out.

I can't be all that clever. I waste a lot more time on your bullshit than I would otherwise. Especially when, like now, you are boring me and I have stuff I ought to do.

In this instance though, there are no examples to display. I know what the ad hominem fallacy is and I don't use them. You just don't know the difference between ad hom and just any old insult.

That's becuase you are deeply stupid. <--- not an ad hom

It's your time to waste so it's none of my business what you choose to do.

You say I'm deeply stupid, yet you choose to waste your time with me. Just goes to show you how bright you really are.

PhilX

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:58 pm You need to realise that you are smart, before you can expliot it and reach your potential.

The average IQ of all of humanity = 100. Smart people have a 120 IQ atleast. So not all who might want to, can become scientists.

My best guess is that 1% of all people have the potential, but only a few of them know it, have the interest, and go for it.

'I Q' tests are pseudoscience. The only thing they tell you is whether or not you are good at 'I Q' tests. I know people who come across as idiots in some ways, but they can put anything together without instructions and are brilliantly clever when it comes to practical things.
The most clueless people I have encountered have been psychologists with Phds, and professional academics with rubbish degrees like 'communications' and 'media studies'.

FDP said:

"In this instance though, there are no examples to display. I know what the ad hominem fallacy is and I don't use them. You just don't know the difference between ad hom and just any old insult."

Based on this FDP just loves to insult because it's his nature to do so. So you can expect "... just any old insult" from him because he thinks that's a good argument.

PhilX

Science should be for everyone, but I've noticed that when a scientist gets upset, he either throws the science at you really hard, or just takes it home.... Oh wait, that's footy.

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:42 pm Science should be for everyone, but I've noticed that when a scientist gets upset, he either throws the science at you really hard, or just takes it home.... Oh wait, that's footy.

Speaking of -- Have you noticed how rough the pros are getting? And how many fouls the referees are overlooking, just to keep the ball in play?
Crudity seems to be pan-disciplinary mood of the day.

Skip wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:15 pm

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:42 pm Science should be for everyone, but I've noticed that when a scientist gets upset, he either throws the science at you really hard, or just takes it home.... Oh wait, that's footy.

Speaking of -- Have you noticed how rough the pros are getting? And how many fouls the referees are overlooking, just to keep the ball in play?
Crudity seems to be pan-disciplinary mood of the day.

A bit. All I know for certain is I'm disappointed England lost to Croatia, and won't be playing France. I really wanted to sing, 'I see England, I see France. I see football players in their underpants'.

Not much to ask, is it?

Dalek Prime wrote: ↑Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:00 pm I really wanted to sing, 'I see England, I see France. I see football players in their underpants'.

Not much to ask, is it?

Ahhhh...maybe next time. Only two years to the limp-pics.
I was rooting for England, too, just because they behaved better. The Croats are good and have some physical advantage: most of the players are long-legged and tall, and don't mind getting extra height by climbing on an opposing player's back. Too disgusted to watch the final. Actually, it's about time to stop pretending these are sporting competitions.

But, hey, maybe you can attend the Nobels and sing to the scientists. "I see chemists in ..." scans better anyway.

Not met a chemist yet whom I wanted to see sporting underroos lol.

Okay, so the football players have nice foundations. But I bet Kate Biberdorf doesn't have hers covered in horrid tattoos.
How does a football player even know where his bruises are?

I've never quite figured out tattoos either. I can see a sudden urge for a change-up, but if that passes, so does the urge to get the tattoo. Having let those slide by in sober reflection, I have none. And happy for it.