Reputation: 146
Nothing like getting curb stomped with a clause value right?Originally Posted by Paladuck
Well, my initial comment to him was that using logic to disprove a philosophical theory is like using intelligent design to disprove evolution.
And his response was to tell me I had no reading comprehension and then he proceeded to bludgeon me to death with complex logical constructs. At which point I gave up.
Reputation: 235
So did I, just sayin'.Hian did a pretty good job of making the case without using circular logic. Just sayin'.
I can go like the Energizer bunny as long as you do if you keep firing shots. You're flat out wrong. Paladuck's agreeing because he's been on the sharp end of a whooping. Nobody likes that.
Reputation: 372
Read my post above.Well, my initial comment to him was that using logic to disprove a philosophical theory is like using intelligent design to disprove evolution.
And his response was to tell me I had no reading comprehension and then he proceeded to bludgeon me to death with complex logical constructs. At which point I gave up
Secondly, this is probably the most ignorant statement I've heard on the topic of philosophy since I joined this forum.
All philosophical discourse rests on the ability to formulate logically consistant arguments. Philosophical theories are constantly being argued, changed and disproved through the use of logic.
Your example is completely faulty and misplaced. If anything, you saying that one cannot argue philosophical statements using logic, is much like saying you can't prove the shape and size of the earth using science.
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 208
It's a shame that one thing I say gets taken by the guy who thinks everyone is arguing and twisted completely out of proportion.
if I have to defend my morals, then you do too. You don't get to say "I don't have to defend my morals but you do." so please learn to argue correctly.
Reputation: 785
Not really, Arri. His arguments seemed pretty on-spot and relevant and respectful to me.
Reputation: 235
Laws are simply collective opinions. They're not objective rights or wrongs.
Reputation: 265
Reputation: 235
Paladuck, if you can't eat with manners then sit at the kids' table.
Either get on topic or go spam pics elsewhere.
Reputation: 208
When I can talk about my morals, then he comes along saying "Prove them" but when I say "If I have to prove mine then you have to prove yours" he says "Irrelevant" then no, it's not respectful.
None of these arguments are spot on, either. Morals aren't anything you can prove or disprove. You can't argue about them at all. The only reason for this thread is really for Norrin and others to bicker back and forth with each other.
Someone pulled the murder card and I responded. Then I get called out about how apparently my view is wrong or can't be proven. To me that is not respectful, especially when doing so I get the "your wrong lololol" card pulled.
Reputation: 146
The thing is you asked V-op why its morally right to kill.
The whole theme of subjective morals is that they're individual ideals.
hes not making the claim.You are.The fact that hitler walked the earth and did what he did testifys to that.
Reputation: 208
No thanks, It doesn't do anything for me.
He pulled out a murder card and I just responded. You're the one who decided to blow it out of proportion because you wanted someone to argue with that wasn't Norrin.
Disproved me? disproved what? my morals which are subjective or objective or whatever you want to call them? You disproved my thoughts about it's wrong to kill? Please, you didn't disprove anything.
Reputation: 265
Can we all at least agree that this is the most epic argument thread to ever go down in the history of OnRPG arguing.
It rages on between like 5 people over pages and pages. And then just when you think it's dead, it comes back in a new thread and then rages on again. I think I actually forgot what my own stance was for like 10 seconds.
Reputation: 208
The fact still stands that you can't prove or disprove anything in this thread, meaning it's completely and utterly pointless.
I'd move it to the lounge, but you know...Lol +1 posts and all.
Reputation: 372
Funny, how little sense you make.
No, I responded because I thought the post you made was stupid. Last time I checked this was a public forum. If you can't handle criticism for the posts you make, I suggest you stop posting. The fact that you'd even wander into a thread like this, with such blatant heavy debating and react like you do now for being called out, is just baffling to me.
And no, I disproved your blatant assertion that it wouldn't be possible to qualify murder as a good thing. I just did. You don't have to agree, but the fact remains, that it is possible for individual to consider murder a good moral act, regardless of what you think or feel about it.
Not a fact. Philosophical arguments are debunked all the time on basis of lack of logical consistancy.
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 235
If I'm right, he wasn't saying your beliefs are wrong. He was saying that the burden of proof is on you if you're going at him. If you want to counter his claim, you must provide the counter. You're essentially saying, "I disagree. Prove yourself right." Which he wasn't even trying to do in the first place. He was only trying to show that he can't be proven wrong.
You then made the critical error of disagreeing with someone by asking for them to prove their, simply because you disagree. What you should be doing is bringing evidence as to why you disagree. You're not.
V-Op's example was that morals are subjective and you can't prove him wrong. Your response was that he had to prove himself right.
You were, and are, utterly wrong to do so.
Also, I'd advise not to keep bringing my name up as if I'm the Harbinger of Debates. Eriond derailed a thread just to pop off a shot and I created a separate thread to bury all comers. I do what I do, and I don't mind being labelled for that, but don't act like this is something I wanted. Eriond was the one expressing desire not to let something slide.
Reputation: 677
I knew it was only a matter of time.
Reputation: 154
I've already made my opinion on the matter known in the past, and everyone in this thread keeps misinterpreting and misunderstanding each other, so it's pointless to jump into the fray now.
However, this thread could definitely be a candidate in the "Debate of the Year" category of the Onnie Awards.
Reputation: 372
Something about a law of some sorts... I could have sworn there was a law for these instances
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 208
And now you move into trying to put words in my mouth to make it seem like you're the good guy.
You replied because you thought my post was stupid? Guess what? I replied because I thought V-Oplis' post about how you can't prove murder is wrong was stupid.
And just so you know, I'm not accusing anybody, like you're trying to say I am.
I'm wrong? Okay, sure. Why should I care? It's the internet and of all the things you guys are arguing about, you're arguing about MORALS. The one thing NOBODY can prove or disprove. Really?
Reputation: 235
Why are you staying here then, Arri?
We're discussing something. If you don't want to, feel free not to. Don't come in and say how stupid this all is, repeatedly, when you've joined in and it hasn't worked out.
Reputation: 146
The tyrant has a good way of solidifying points in this kind of setting lol.
Reputation: 208
Because, and I quote hian: "Last time I checked this was a public forum."
Also, I'm a mod. Guess what my duties are? To make sure these things don't erupt into a flame war, granted I got pulled into an argument I really don't care to continue.
Unless you want to tell me I'm not allowed to look through threads to make sure trouble doesn't start?
Reputation: 372
For Ifrits sake, this is just getting out of hand.
Please show me were I put words into your mouth? Please show me were I'm trying to "pass off as the good guy".
I don't care if you think V-Oplis post was stupid. I'm responding to you.
And I'm not saying your accusing anybody for anything. Again, now you're just making no sense.
I simply pointed out, as everybody is getting by now, that I thought your assertion regarding the morality of murder to be incorrect.
If you don't care, good for you. I'm not saying you should. Again, if this is too much for you, and you think this debate is so stupid, why are you here?
Why not just let this go? You're clearly overreacting, and this is not contributing to the discussion at hand.
Well, you can easily do that duty without posting yourself until there is an actual problem. Whether you're a mod or not is irrelevant to the post you made, with which you actively partook in the discussion.
Nobody is telling you to butt out, or anything like that. My point was simply that if you don't want people to respond to your posts, then don't take part in the debate. If you do post, it's hardly fitting to go on a tangent about it.
The Common Sense United Front
ZAZAZAZAAAA, DADADADAAAA DAAAA, SHWAMSHWAMSHWAMMMM DUUUU DIIIII DAAAAAAAAAA
Reputation: 235
It wasn't ever going to erupt into a flame war. Nobody involved is dumb enough to resort to that. I'm not, Eriond isn't, Strider's questionable, but neither is anyone else. Hian isn't flaming you, nobody's flaming anybody.
There were enough mods present, and watching, to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. When Run made a questionable comment, Shadowsworn quickly told him not to and then the debate resumes. You haven't helped matters by petulantly diving into this thread, getting things by cockily and wrongly replying to V-Op's post, and then being upset because the rest of your debate didn't work out well. All while claiming you don't care to debate, that it's stupid, but you'll stay here and do it anyway.
THAT is how flame wars start, when people who are out of their depth start barging their way into a heated, but civil debate and get angry that they can't keep up.
No offense, but that's not anyone's fault but your own.
Reputation: 677
This thread has turned into a practical example of the relevance of it's own topic.
We might probably take it as close to fact now, that people do not have acquired anything like an agreement based on an objective "real" base, that could be shaped into a common set of objective morals.
Posting Permissions
