11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "It's not trying to prove anything (except for hot-headed Ivanhoe who thinks everything is a competition). It's the pursuit of truth. Discussing and being prepared to abandon an
Originally posted by dottewell
[b]I do not believe taking one's own life is necessarily wrong. But it is something that has ethical implications. Surely you agree?
I'm not even sure what this says. All moral acts have ethical implications. If you don't
define the conditions that make things necessarily right or wrong and then discuss why ...[text shortened]... eing prepared to abandon an
inferior line of thinking is all part of that pursuit.
Nemesio[/b]
inferior line of thinking is all part of that pursuit."
Your manipulative techniques have no end. Besides that, your accusation that "Ivanhoe .... thinks everything is a competition." is a pertinent falsehood.
Nemesio: "It's the pursuit of truth"
If this is the case then please state what that truth is in regard to this thread's issue, described in the first post.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument. Either their argument can be met by rational argument in return or it cannot; in either case, the argument itself is seperate and distinct from any possible motivation of the speaker. Do you know the name of the logical fallacy you are committing? HINT: You use the term incorrectly in these forums all the time.
[b]marauder: "where all you do is criticize other people's debating methods?
Firstly, criticising the debating methods used in this thread is not "all I do" as you are able to discover if you read this thread.
Secondly, critising one's debating methods is an absolute necessity, because at the heart of a good and honest debate lies the fundamen ...[text shortened]... the heart of the debate. If the method stinks, the results can never smell like roses, marauder.[/b]
Application of the rule you are here creating would mean that every single thread in this and any other forum would ignore the actual topic and denigrate into an examination of the supposed "motives" of the debaters. This is exactly what you do in every thread you are in. You poison the intellectual well of every discussion by taking it off into your petty personal vendettas against certain posters. This is childish and immature.
As someone who enjoys healthy intellectual debate between people of opposing viewpoints and regard even heated exchanges of ideas as a good thing, I resent your attempts to destroy the free exchange of ideas here by dragging every discussion down to attacks on people's supposed motives and tactics. A fire must protect its source and I think that your idiotic obession with certain other posters is destructive of the intellectual back and forth that is the heart of these forums for most people here. They and I don't care about your petty psychological problems with others, Ivanhoe; stay on the actual topics or STF up.
11 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by windmillOne of the AIMS of logical argument is to demonstrate whether or not the original assumption was accurate. If the assumption leads to absurd results, then you can show the original assumption mustn't be right.
I don't understand how it is right to have an argument on a topic based on a possible lie.To me this is wrong....it makes me sad if you cannot see this because if things like this are acceptable then what follows next?Do we run a downhill slide into moral unacceptable behaviour?
This form of proof is used all the time in areas such as mathematics.
It should be perfectly possible to assume something for the sake of argument. One of the best ways of showing an 'opponent' that they're wrong is to assume that they're RIGHT and show them where that leads. If they don't like the result, then challenge them to change their mind.
As a matter of fact, no1 does this all the time. People wrongly attribute all sorts of ideas and beliefs to him because of this.
Many, MANY people aroud here don't seem to be able to grasp what's going on.
Ivanhoe, I have to say you are one of the worst offenders. If nemesio asks you a multi-part 'quiz' question, it's so he can use the answers to demonstrate a point. If you don't LET him make a point, the debate goes nowhere. Why not answer the question, let him argue the conclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why.
11 Dec 05
6 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument."
No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument. Either their argument can be met by rational argument in return or it cannot; in either case, the argument itself is seperate and distinct from any possible motivation of the speaker. Do you know the name of the logical fallacy you are committing? ...[text shortened]... out your petty psychological problems with others, Ivanhoe; stay on the actual topics or STF up.
It all depends. What is your argument in this thread ? ... and what is your accompanying reasoning ?
Marauder: "Application of the rule you are here creating would mean that every single thread in this and any other forum would ignore the actual topic and denigrate into an examination of the supposed "motives" of the debaters."
I am not creating any rule. I am criticising the method's of debate you and Nemesio are using in this thread. They can, of course, be linked with the debater's motives, but that is not my first concern.
Marauder: "HINT: You use the term incorrectly in these forums all the time."
..... all the time ...... Which term do I use incorrectly "all the time" in these forums ? The term "intention" or the term "motive" or the term "hint"?
marauder: "This is exactly what you do in every thread you are in.
Again an unsubstantiated and silly accusation. I criticise your and in this thread Nemesio's debating techniques, but certainly not everyone's debating techniques and certainly not in "every" thread I am in.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Marauder: " ..... is destructive of the intellectual back and forth that is the heart of these forums"
Now that is a good point, marauder. The issue of the "intellectual heart of these forums" and what is destructive to this heart.
Two questions I would like you to adress very openly and freely about this issue you raise:
- Do you think insulting people like you do so often, also in this thread, is destroying the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing these annoying methods destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"?
- Do you think applying manipulative techniques is destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing them destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"
What are your answers to these simple questions ?
Of course I can add the following interesting question:
- Do you think bullying is destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums" or is adressing bullying destructive to the "intellectual heart of these forums"[/b]
What's your answer, Marauder ?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy answer to your simple minded questions is that they are off-topic as well as filled with incorrect premises and untruths. Start another thread about debating methods or some such rot and maybe I'll contribute.
Marauder: "No, Ivanhoe, you are committing a logical fallacy; people's intentions are not relevant to their argument."
It all depends. What is your argument in this thread ? ... and what is your accompanying reasoning ?
Marauder: "Application of the rule you are here creating would mean that every single thread in this and any other forum would i ...[text shortened]... "intellectual heart of these forums"
What are your answers to these simple questions ?[/b]
11 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll open a thread in which I will repost the last part of my previous post. I hope you will show the moral courage and the intellectual integrity of seriously answering these questions about the issue you raised.
My answer to your simple minded questions is that they are off-topic as well as filled with incorrect premises and untruths. Start another thread about debating methods or some such rot and maybe I'll contribute.
Edit: The thread is called "Destructive .... "
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by orfeo
One of the AIMS of logical argument is to demonstrate whether or not the original assumption was accurate. If the assumption leads to absurd results, then you can show the original assumption mustn't be right.
Of course, he calls this (incorrectly) 'Game Theory.'
If you don't LET him make a point, the debate goes nowhere. Why not answer the question, let him argue the conclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why.
Please, let me tell you why, Orfeo. It's because he knows that by answering the questions
and explaining the reasons for his answers he will expose a plentitude of logical fallacies.
He wants his cake ('XYZ is right'😉 and to eat it to ('I won't answer any questions about XYZ'😉.
And, all the while, he is asserting that he is the 'academic debator.'
It's outrageous.
I, personally, am very torn on the morality of suicide. But I am not torn on what should and
should not be legal. I think the whole point of #1's first post was to raise eyebrows: there
is this assumption that forcing death to come in a manner of your own choosing is sinful.
Yet, no one in their right mind would judge these people for jumping. The whole point of
the question was to get people to reevaluate what they believe.
This was the point of my 4 examples: which is why I asked 'Is this suicide or not? What are
the reasons for your evaluation of this.' My question was to challenge everyone -- including
myself -- about how we view suicide in relation to the salvific economy.
Nemesio
12 Dec 05
6 edits
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: Of course, he calls this (incorrectly) 'Game Theory.'
Originally posted by orfeo
[b]One of the AIMS of logical argument is to demonstrate whether or not the original assumption was accurate. If the assumption leads to absurd results, then you can show the original assumption mustn't be right.
Of course, he calls this (incorrectly) 'Game Theory.'
..... in relation to the salvific economy.
Nemesio[/b]
Ivanhoe: "You (Nemesio) are applying some sort of "game theory" in which you set all the rules and in which you determine the context and settings, by constructing these questions and their context."
.... some sort of "game theory" ...... did I say ... and please don't forget the rest I said above.
12 Dec 05
3 edits
Originally posted by orfeoOrfeo: "Why not answer the question, let him argue the conclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why."
One of the AIMS of logical argument is to demonstrate whether or not the original assumption was accurate. If the assumption leads to absurd results, then you can show the original assumption mustn't be right.
This form of proof is used all the time in areas such as mathematics.
It should be perfectly possible to assume something for the sake of argume ...[text shortened]... onclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why.
I extensively explained why I do not want to subject myself to his methods. The last part is the crux of the matter. I am not free to explain why, because he will force me back into his framework of his questions and the settings he used in them. He will, if necessary in his view, even change the questions and the settings to "prove" his point. This has nothing to do with fact- and truthfinding but everything with trying to win points against a political and ideological opponent. *)
Besides, I don't feel like discussing things with him because of the abusive and controlling nature of his debating techniques.
I explained why my answer to the Marauder's question is "NO". It is the same answer Nemesio gave.
On top of that I explained why I think the jumpers did not commit suicide. This must be enough. No, Nemesio thinks otherwise and tries to force me into answering his questions (he reveals why: he wants to catch me because he is convinced I will use fallacies) by accusing me of all sorts of things among which being an "automaton" .... of course the Roman-Catholic Church has to come into the picture again when he is accusing me, while he himself isn't prepared to tell people which denomation he belongs to, he is not even willing to tell people whether he is a Christian or not, because he considers this to be "private". Mentioning this Nemesio categorises as "harrassment" but accusing people of all kinds of silly things in order to force them to subject themselves to his manipulative "Quizzmaster" methods is of course something completely different.
*) Nemesio: "Please, let me tell you why, Orfeo. It's because he knows that by answering the questions
and explaining the reasons for his answers he will expose a plentitude of logical fallacies.
He wants his cake ('XYZ is right'😉 and to eat it to ('I won't answer any questions about XYZ'😉.
And, all the while, he is asserting that he is the 'academic debator.'
Nemesio is not on a fact- and truth-finding mission. He is on a mission to score points against his political and ideological opponents, as the above quote shows. I never claimed to be an "academic debater". I claimed his methods were not academic, not scientific or "open, free and honest" if you like.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeSome people asserted that those who jumped from the buildings weren't committing suicide because, inter alia, they were merely choosing to avoid a more painful death. It is a perfectly valid argument to point out that in other instances where someone ends their life to avoid a more painful death i.e. in the case of someone shooting themselves when they have an incurable, painful disease - that it is standard to consider those people suicides. Thus, the people who are arguing that the people on the ledges did not commit suicide should be able to make a rational distinction between that case and the other cases presented. To act all offended by this rather simple and commonplace debating technique is utterly ridiculous. It shows that you are more interested in your silly personal vendettas than having a rational debate on the issues presented.
Orfeo: "Why not answer the question, let him argue the conclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why."
I extensively explained why I do not want to subject myself to his methods. The last part is the crux of the matter. I am not free to explain why, because he will force me back into his framewor ...[text shortened]... emselves to his manipulative "Quizzmaster" method is of course something completely different.
12 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Thus, the people who are arguing that the people on the ledges did not commit suicide should be able to make a rational distinction between that case and the other cases presented."
Some people asserted that those who jumped from the buildings weren't committing suicide because, inter alia, they were merely choosing to avoid a more painful death. It is a perfectly valid argument to point out that in other instances where someone ends their life to avoid a more painful death i.e. in the case of someone shooting themselves when they ...[text shortened]... terested in your silly personal vendettas than having a rational debate on the issues presented.
They did, marauder. But if you read the thread you and Nemesio are not prepared to accept their answers.
You and Nemesio want to force people in an unacceptable and manipulative way to accept the moral permissibility of committing suicide. Thát is what is going on here .... and I explained why I consider these methods unacceptable.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeMost haven't or have presented superficial arguments that some of us wanted to explore further; that's what you do in a rational discussion. When we did that, you started your usual hysterical shrieking about other people's debating techniques, characters, motives, etc. etc. etc. etc. For about 10 pages that's all you have talked about while a few posters like Orfeo, Nemesio and others have tried to return to the issues of the thread. For whatever reason, you have chosen to sabotage the discussion by mass spamming your off-topic comments. Why don't you get out of the thread if you have nothing further to say about the topic and stop trying to short-circuit the discussion others are trying to have? Your actions are destructive of the purpose of these forums; you really need to grow up and stop being so narcisstic.
[b]Marauder: "Thus, the people who are arguing that the people on the ledges did not commit suicide should be able to make a rational distinction between that case and the other cases presented."
They did, marauder. But if you read the thread you and Nemesio are not prepared to accept their answers.[/b]
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think you just don't like being presented with a dilemma.
They did, marauder. But if you read the thread you and Nemesio are not prepared to accept their answers.
You and Nemesio want to force people in an unacceptable and manipulative way to accept the moral permissibility of committing suicide. Thát is what is going on here .... and I explained why I consider these methods unacceptable.
Do you think all dilemmas constitute manipulation on the part of the person who constructs them? If not, what is special about the one presented here? That you are the one caught on the horns?
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by orfeoOrfeo: "As a matter of fact, no1 does this all the time. People wrongly attribute all sorts of ideas and beliefs to him because of this.
One of the AIMS of logical argument is to demonstrate whether or not the original assumption was accurate. If the assumption leads to absurd results, then you can show the original assumption mustn't be right.
This form of proof is used all the time in areas such as mathematics.
It should be perfectly possible to assume something for the sake of argume ...[text shortened]... onclusion it leads to, and if you disagree with the conclusion you are then free to explain why.
Then what is the marauder doing in your view "all the time"?
Could you explain what he is doing in this thread ?
Could you also give other examples of what the marauder is doing in your view "all the time"?
Orfeo: "Many, MANY people aroud here don't seem to be able to grasp what's going on."
I agree, but I'm afraid not in the way you understand things. Please enlighten us. In particular I would like you to adress Marauder's insulting and bullying sprees in the context of your claim that "Many, MANY people aroud here don't seem to be able to grasp what's going on."