Probably a silly question.

[Age]

And what do you mean by "the lesser of two-evils"?

I mean, is your reason for inappropriate capitalisation such that not to capitalise would make what you write even worse than the capitals do?

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

[henry quirk]

And what do you mean by "the lesser of two-evils"?

I mean, is your reason for inappropriate capitalisation such that not to capitalise would make what you write even worse than the capitals do?

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

What is that specific reasoning?

[Harbal]

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

Well I'm just saying that I find it distracting. Others might enjoy seeing capital letters where they wouldn't normally expect to see them, I don't know.

[FlashDangerpants]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

The questions of philosophy don't really get answered, naieve bullshit about philosophy being some sort of search for wisdom obscures what is actually going on - namely that we are arguing about how to recognise a correct answer to certain questions, not even how to actually answer them. There's fuck all to learn about reality in itself or which toothpaste God recommends. You can learn about arguments and how they work or fail, and sometimes somebody will raise one you are not familiar with and you will have to endure the excruciating pain of thought.

But you can still get some value out of some fairly dire conversations if you aim for moderate goals. Vaginal Armpit for instance, did inspire me to re-read at least two books I hadn't thought about in years, and even to purchase one I have never read to see what that's about*. The fact that his own output is total garbage and can be safely ignored is partially counteracted by the question of how he thinks Kant or Wittgenstein supports him, sometimes.

If you try to maintain a little variety by looking to provide a new counter-arg every now and then, even if the other guy is just repeating the same mantra he's been broadcasting for years with little alteration, that is good excercise too. An argument with one glaring hole that you spotted in the first 10 seconds 5 years ago perobably has other and more interesting faults, you should collect them. There is no prize for collecting them all, but there isn't a prize for winning an argument on the internet either.

* I haven't actually read it yet, it looks a tiny bit boring now I have it to hand.

[Age]

I mean, is your reason for inappropriate capitalisation such that not to capitalise would make what you write even worse than the capitals do?

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

[Age]

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

Well I'm just saying that I find it distracting.

And I am just saying that I do not find it distracting at all. As I was saying, what is 'inappropriate' to one is not necessarily to another.

So, how could we have both written our sentences where the actual and irrefutable Truth is conveyed, instead of just our 'own' subjective truths were being conveyed, and which were not really true after all?

Others might enjoy seeing capital letters where they wouldn't normally expect to see them, I don't know.

[Age]

In a philosophical debate, such as those commonly to be found here, should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns, no matter what, and simply refuse to acknowledge the slightest possibility of our being wrong about something, even when it is obvious that we are, or should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with?

Or, to put it another way, are we here to indoctrinate or to learn?

The questions of philosophy don't really get answered, naieve bullshit about philosophy being some sort of search for wisdom obscures what is actually going on - namely that we are arguing about how to recognise a correct answer to certain questions, not even how to actually answer them. There's fuck all to learn about reality in itself or which toothpaste God recommends. You can learn about arguments and how they work or fail, and sometimes somebody will raise one you are not familiar with and you will have to endure the excruciating pain of thought.

But you can still get some value out of some fairly dire conversations if you aim for moderate goals. Vaginal Armpit for instance, did inspire me to re-read at least two books I hadn't thought about in years, and even to purchase one I have never read to see what that's about*. The fact that his own output is total garbage and can be safely ignored is partially counteracted by the question of how he thinks Kant or Wittgenstein supports him, sometimes.

If you try to maintain a little variety by looking to provide a new counter-arg every now and then, even if the other guy is just repeating the same mantra he's been broadcasting for years with little alteration, that is good excercise too. An argument with one glaring hole that you spotted in the first 10 seconds 5 years ago perobably has other and more interesting faults, you should collect them. There is no prize for collecting them all, but there isn't a prize for winning an argument on the internet either.

* I haven't actually read it yet, it looks a tiny bit boring now I have it to hand.

What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable, which makes that argument an actual Truth, which is irrefutable forever more. But as can be seen throughout this forum is that absolutely everyone of the 'arguments' put forward here, in 'trying to' argue or fight for some particular position is not sound and valid, and therefore really not worth even repeating ever again.

If, and when, a sound and valid argument is presented, then that is and will be a Fact, which no one could refute. Until then 'you' are all just 'trying to' 'argue' over, literally, nothing worth arguing over.

The 'holes' in every one of the so-called 'arguments' presented in this forum can be and are clearly seen and noticed.

[Harbal]

And I am just saying that I do not find it distracting at all. As I was saying, what is 'inappropriate' to one is not necessarily to another.

Well you wouldn't would you? You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.

I was just giving you (uninvited) feedback, it's certainly not for me to tell you how to write.

[Age]

And I am just saying that I do not find it distracting at all. As I was saying, what is 'inappropriate' to one is not necessarily to another.

Well you wouldn't would you?

Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.

You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.

That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.

And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.

See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.

See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.

Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.

I was just giving you (uninvited) feedback, it's certainly not for me to tell you how to write.

I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.

I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.

See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

[Harbal]

What 'you', people, seem to forget is that a sound and valid argument is irrefutable, which makes that argument an actual Truth,

Well we can all insist our arguments are irrefutable, can't we?

But as can be seen throughout this forum is that absolutely everyone of the 'arguments' put forward here, in 'trying to' argue or fight for some particular position is not sound and valid, and therefore really not worth even repeating ever again.../...The 'holes' in every one of the so-called 'arguments' presented in this forum can be and are clearly seen and noticed.

Do you include your own arguments in this assessment?

If, and when, a sound and valid argument is presented, then that is and will be a Fact, which no one could refute. Until then 'you' are all just 'trying to' 'argue' over, literally, nothing worth arguing over.

Okay, I'll put you down as being in the "doggedly sticking to your guns no matter what" camp then.

[Iwannaplato]

1a) should our main objective be to stick doggedly to our guns,
2a) should our prime purpose be to try to arrive at the truth without having an unshakeable certainty that we already know what it is to start with
1b) to indoctrinate
2b) to learn

So I took some liberties with your post. !a and 1b are rephrasings as are 2a and 2b. Or as you say the b versions are putting the a versions another way.
OK. I think there's a lot of room to have other reasons and also these aren't mutually exclusive. For examples...
1) one could be sticking doggedly to one's guns in order to learn possible weaknesses in your own argument and the arguments of others, so you can be even more dogged in the future. (you might be polite and acknowledge those weaknesses or you might not, but my point is that learning can be coupled with doggedly sticking with one's position) So, not mutually exclusive.
2) One might be arguing to stem the (easy) spread of certain ideas. IOW you are not indoctrinating. you don't expect to convince many people (and after a couple of decades of this, I think this is very rare). But you might want to make it harder for others to indoctrinate OR to feel completely at ease with their positions. There could be all sorts of motivations: spite, for justice and the good of the universe, experimentation, playing to the gallery for honorable or other reasons (for example, to reach the people sitting on the fence). So, other reasons for doing this.

I am sure there are others. I guess in a way if I look at your schema one might think someone arguing against pedophilia and retaining the same position is not interested in learning and wants to indoctrinate.

But don't take that as simply criticism. I think the topic is a good one and I certainly know what brings it up.

[Harbal]

And I am just saying that I do not find it distracting at all. As I was saying, what is 'inappropriate' to one is not necessarily to another.

Well you wouldn't would you?

Of course not, and I hoped that this would be Truly obvious. But, obviously, it was not obvious.

You are the one writing it, but I am looking at it from the perspective of a reader, who, I pressume, you want it to be understood by.

That is the 'thing', and which I have mentioned a few times already, not that I expect 'you' to be aware of it, seeing as how long since you have been on here "harbal". I have already explained on a couple of occasions that I am NOT writing for 'you', posters, to necessarily understand. I am writing to SHOW other readers just how simply and easily the brain, through the belief-system, along with while assuming, MISSES the messages that can be very simply and easily seen and noticed, if absolutely no assuming nor believing is involved.

And, as 'you', "harbal", have also proved True here, once again, it is 'assuming' and 'assumptions' that let 'you', people, down.

See, if you did not 'presume' that what I was saying and writing here was to be 'understood', by 'you', readers here, in the day and age when this was being written, then you would not have made the mistake of 'assuming' what the writer/speakers intention is, and, if you were Truly 'open' and 'curious', then you would have sought 'clarification'.

See, it is through 'clarification', itself, where if not all, just about each and every bit of 'confusion' and 'misunderstanding' can be cleared up or resolved.

Presuming, assuming, and believing prevents and stops 'clarification' from occurring, and it is through 'clarification' and 'clarity' where 'understanding' lives or lays, and prevails.

I was just giving you (uninvited) feedback, it's certainly not for me to tell you how to write.

I KNOW exactly what you were 'intending' or 'trying to' to do.

I was just SHOWING how you, and I, could have written absolutely and irrefutably accurately and/or Factually.

See, I just more or less copied your words, which made my statement and claim Factually Wrong as well, and through 'clarification' or through OPEN and Honest answers to my clarifying questions, then it could have been SEEN how by just adding two more words BOTH of our sentence would have been irrefutably True, Right, and Correct.

Now I realise what's going on.

You are clearly nuts.

[Harbal]

So I took some liberties with your post.

So I see.

Either you get what I am driving at or you don't, and I can live with that. Especially if it means I don't have to produce a lengthy essay in precise philosophy language, which is probably beyond me anyway.

[henry quirk]

No.

And, 'inappropriate' is a very relative word.

Obviously, my capitalization is not 'inappropriate' at all, especially considering the very specific reasoning that I do it for.

What is that specific reasoning?

To show;

Just how easily distracted people used to get.

How people did not concentrate on the actual words, and what those could be referencing exactly, but rather would get distracted and talk about other things.

That even when words are emphasized, and even in capital letters, to convey a message people would miss the actual message being conveyed within the sentence or statement.

That once the true message/s are fully understood, then what will be noticed on re-read is that I emphasized the actual words that I was pointing out and wanting to be fully understood here.

I'm sorry, my mind wandered...can you repeat that?

[bobmax]

In my opinion, there are moments in life when you are more likely to learn, and other moments when you want to express the ideas that have matured.

However, I am noticing that new ideas never arise in me unless prompted by comparison with others.
New ideas that may even have little to do with the ongoing discussion.

What is indispensable for the comparison to be productive is good faith.

Guided by a passion for truth.
Which prompts me to support what I believe is true.
That may turn out to be false tomorrow, but as long as it is true for me, I am there.