21 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrOk. So consistency of 'recognition of value' is the root of your morality? This seems to be what you're saying:
Obviously I don't think that in a world without valuers there would be anything like value. That is, I think that it is something about us as persons in virtue of which other things have value. You should know what this is, as I've remarked on it in other threads. I think that moral notions are derived from rules of rationality. You take yourself to be a ...[text shortened]... y take advantage of you. Failing to extend this recognition of value to others is inconsistent.
"You take yourself to be a locus of intrinsic value, in that you feel others have done something wrong when they take advantage of you. Failing to extend this recognition of value to others is inconsistent."
This is of course logical, but to say that this inconsistency is what constitutes immorality is to answer the above question affirmatively. This is still fine. Most people's morality is on far flimsier ground. However, I have one more question about this that I might like to get into if I haven't been exasperating enough already...
Also, you have no idea when I think others have done something wrong. I rarely do.
21 Jul 03
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat's exasperating is skepticism without even the pretense of argument in its favor. If your question is going to be a reiteration of this skepticism, then I'm just not interested. I'm also not interested in prividing necessary and sufficient conditions, or precise definitions, for the terms I employ. The call for such definitions outside of the deductive sciences is just an intellectually disingenuous (not to mention lazy) way to argue. Only in logic does one find such definitions. Even 'bachelor' (the paradigm case) isn't precisely defined by 'unmarried adult male', as some connotations of the term are left out (Is 'bachelor' well applied to the Pope?). Chances are that our concepts just aren't structured in a manner such that each can be broken down without remainder into other concepts.
However, I have one more question about this that I might like to get into if I haven't been exasperating enough already...
Also, you have no idea when I think others have done something wrong. I rarely do.
21 Jul 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrCan we not accept there are some bad apples here?
What's exasperating is skepticism without even the pretense of argument in its favor. If your question is going to be a reiteration of this skepticism, then I'm just not interested. I'm also not interested in prividing necessary and suff ...[text shortened]... t each can be broken down without remainder into other concepts.
Let us,"the honest" not let them spoil what alot of hard work went into the building of this site.
Just ignore.
Everyone knows now who to avoid.
Shun them.
Give them the cold shoulder.
This site is bigger and better than a couple(who pick screen names to annoy).
Turn a deaf ear to them.
Do not fuel them by responding.It makes them think they have a case.
These people can support this site but they want to be destructive.
Let them be.
Linda
21 Jul 03
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrWhat I have been on about here is not really an attempt to argue; I have no real thesis beyond our discussion in the 'Rights' thread (which was conducted in a more civilised manner than this one). Instead, I should point out that I would tend to agree with you to a great extent on the morality you propose. My skepticism was more an attempt at cross-examination than an argument in favour of a particular thesis, and I was unaware that such things are proscribed by the rules of discourse. As to my insistence on saying what it is we are talking about, I am aware that this is something I do to too great an extent, but which can occasionally provide useful ideas. Not in this case; I shall try to keep it under control.
What's exasperating is skepticism without even the pretense of argument in its favor. If your question is going to be a reiteration of this skepticism, then I'm just not interested. I'm also not interested in prividing necessary and suff ...[text shortened]... t each can be broken down without remainder into other concepts.
I also probably should not have initiated this in such a belligerent manner. However, one of the tenets of the 'morality of courtesy' hinted at in 'rights' is that one must take moral offense only to things directed at them, and I think that most of the people who responded to Tosser's contemptible figgishness were not actually affected. I did not realize my hypocrisy then.
So I shall halt the mud-slinging here. We do tend to discuss morality a lot, and I tend to vacillate more in my moral opinions than many people. So I'll thank you for what I will consider advice, and we can continue this discussion elsewhere if you like. I'll try to be less formal and more coherent...
Tosser deleted the (unrated) game without moving.
21 Jul 03
Originally posted by bbarrCan I be your agent?
What's exasperating is skepticism without even the pretense of argument in its favor. If your question is going to be a reiteration of this skepticism, then I'm just not interested. I'm also not interested in prividing necessary and sufficient conditions, or precise definitions, for the terms I employ. The call for such definitions outside of the deducti ...[text shortened]... tructured in a manner such that each can be broken down without remainder into other concepts.
Walt Disney wants you.
Think about it.
Linda
23 Jul 03
1 edit
Originally posted by Mephisto2you are, simply put, a fraud.... PLEASE shut ur *ss...
I think so too. Read his profile. If he is Ioan Rees, and I have no reason to doubt this, then he is listed on the Fide ratings playing in Wales. His rating as of today is 2179 (as opposed to his profile several weeks ago).
Why dont pay a subscription for ur computer? I guess u don't know how a pawn moves.
Get a life boy, u don't belong here ðŸ˜
Julia
03 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by mmanuellooks like the maroof/arbab axis of suspicion has expanded to include homayounfar... his (singluar) latest 'trick': use the new beginning rating to generate an artifically high starting rating, by deliberate losses to self (and prob a few reals too i think), and then using the intermediate provisional rating to 'back up' claims for open invites of 1700+ only...
You would think he would try to disguise the cheating just a little bit... what confuses me is that arbab has apparently beaten 18 other legitimate users, only to be 'beaten' by Maroof a further 18 times later... had the guy not cheated he would still have had a pretty decent rating with arbab
Edit: Boy oh boy did this thread get long! I was quoting page one... i just remebered the maroof 'scandle' so searched and replied to that, not realising the thread had effectively changed topic a long long long time ago!
04 Aug 03
Originally posted by ToeMaybe if he put the amount of effort into actually trying to learn how to play chess that he put into manipulating his rating, he could eventually achieve that rating legitimately and have learned something along the way. It seems like an extraordinary amount of wasted time to gain essentially nothing.
looks like the maroof/arbab axis of suspicion has expanded to include homayounfar... his (singluar) latest 'trick': use the new beginning rating to generate an artifically high starting rating, by deliberate losses to self (and prob a few reals too i think), and then using the intermediate provisional rating to 'back up' claims for open invites of 1700+ only ...[text shortened]... plied to that, not realising the thread had effectively changed topic a long long long time ago!
-mike
05 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by Talem31the manner of their games win/loss generate the suspicon: too easy given the ratings.
Actually Im playing agaist maroof and at this moment I can't see nothing suspicious. only their games aginst a guy of the same country with some quick mates.🙄
But i agree that he (singular) doesn't seem to be a bad player by any means, when you look at his honest games.
which just makes it all the more bizaar. why bother? he seems capable of getting the rating legitamately.