Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:41 pm Just curious. Has it never really dawned on you that you are a sociopath...

Just curious: do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" means?

It doesn't matter WHO says a thing: it only matters whether or not THE THING SAID is TRUE. So critiques of my hair colour, race, sex, hat size football team loyalty and mental hygiene are all simply irrelevant to the question in hand.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:41 pm Just curious. Has it never really dawned on you that you are a sociopath...

Just curious: do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" means?

It doesn't matter WHO says a thing: it only matters whether or not THE THING SAID is TRUE. So critiques of my hair colour, race, sex, hat size football team loyalty and mental hygiene are all simply irrelevant to the question in hand.

I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:00 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:41 pm Just curious. Has it never really dawned on you that you are a sociopath...

Just curious: do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" means?

It doesn't matter WHO says a thing: it only matters whether or not THE THING SAID is TRUE. So critiques of my hair colour, race, sex, hat size football team loyalty and mental hygiene are all simply irrelevant to the question in hand.

I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.

mebbe Mannie seems to be an exception cuz, in fact, he ain't a sociopath, yeah?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:24 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:00 pm
Just curious: do you know what "ad hominem fallacy" means?

It doesn't matter WHO says a thing: it only matters whether or not THE THING SAID is TRUE. So critiques of my hair colour, race, sex, hat size football team loyalty and mental hygiene are all simply irrelevant to the question in hand.

I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.

mebbe Mannie seems to be an exception cuz, in fact, he ain't a sociopath, yeah?

If he ain't a sociopath then why is he always roleplaying one?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:57 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:23 pm
Actually, the conclusion that follows from that is that you are inclined to believe in things you don't believe exist ...which, of course, makes no sense at all.

This point continues your theme of just assuming moral realism

I'll do this slowly, so you can grasp it: not...assuming...moral...realism. Assuming what you believe: anti-realism.

Got it, chief?

So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist because you suppose that if morality isn't 'real' in whatever sense you think it is, then the only possible alternative is reprehensible fraud, then you are relyiing on moral realist assumptions to make that argument, and thus your argument is circular.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:49 pm Acquired preference.

now, was that so hard?

you were taught; you haven't seen fit to question the learnin', to suss out the possible underlyin' principle; as a wee lad, an adult informed you and that's good enough for you

okay, good deal

your morality is transmitted culture; thank goodness you weren't raised by christians or deists, yeah?

I was sent to Sunday school as a child, I had a moderately Christian upbringing. I didn't believe in it, maybe never did, or perhaps stopped, not sure.

Exactly how different do you really think your moral opinions are to those of your neighbours and parents and friends? You've done a whole routine about there being two Americas, it was predicated entirely upon the people nearby to you tending to think in much the same way that you do, and that way of thinking being different from fancy city folks. So to you are fooling yourself if you think you've created your own moral schema from reason. You've absorbed without question far more than you have made up for yourself and so has everybody else.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:49 pm All that anyone ever does with their moral realist arguments is reverse engineer an explanation to justify whatever it is they already believe.

that indeed may be the case

I can only speak for me: I was an anti-realist (for a long time), now I'm a realist; I believe I have good cause for the shift

The operative word there is believe.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 6:57 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:20 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 4:47 pm

did this link not interest anyone?

should I copy/paste the text of it to make it easier for you?

It's not hard to understand, the issue really is that the best place to link this would be that other discussion where somebody was complaining that every time he sees scientists trying to do metaphysics the results are very poor. This is just the tale of some guy who prodded some brains and hey, what do you know? He didn't find a part of the brain labelled "free will", so with that as his evidence base, he decided to believe in celestial immaterial substances. It's just not good.

no, this is the best place for the link, and other such links

this thread is about personhood (what is it? who is it?)

as I see it, mind is integral to the topic

and -- yes --it's an excellent lil piece: it encapsulates exactly what's on the table

if, however, such offerings are beneath you, there's a big old forum for you to meander 'round in

ain't no reason I can see for you to expend yourself here, in this thread

I read it when you first posted it and ignored it because it's just not a good argument. I only commented because you posted it a second time, soliciting comments with an insinuation attached. If you don't want to get unfavourable comments on the thing, don't pull that "make it easier for you" bit. Or if you need to do that, just live with the results without whining.

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 pm I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.

Do you suppose that if I question somebody else's moral framework it has to imply that I don't believe in morality at all myself? Why would you think that? It's nowhere near logical.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:31 pm So long as you keep painting me as an amoralist because you suppose that if morality isn't 'real' in whatever sense you think it is

I'm asking you in what sense you believe it's "real"? You won't come up with anything any sensible person can believe.

You just say, "Well, people believe in morality." If that were a logical explanation, it would mean that Atlantis is real, alien abductions are real, and the earth is flat. There are people who believe in them, too. So just because somebody believes in something doesn't make it real.

In what sense is morality real, then, in your world?

reprehensible fraud

You don't believe in things being "reprehensible," remember? And in your world, "fraud" is not " bad." There's no objective reality to these assessments, you think.

I was sent to Sunday school as a child, I had a moderately Christian upbringing. I didn't believe in it, maybe never did, or perhaps stopped, not sure.

okay

are we still goin' with this?

I mean, true to my word, I accepted your answer: if you feel the need to explicate, please do...but you don't need me for that, yeah?


You've done a whole routine about there being two Americas

actually, it was a schtick about multiple 'muricas, not just two


The operative word there is believe.

I think the important part is I was/now I am

If he ain't a sociopath then why is he always roleplaying one?

doesn't seem to me that he is

I read it when you first posted it and ignored it because it's just not a good argument.

I find it to be an excellent argument


I only commented because you posted it a second time, soliciting comments with an insinuation attached. If you don't want to get unfavourable comments on the thing, don't pull that "make it easier for you" bit. Or if you need to do that, just live with the results without whining.

I didn't whine: I disagreed

I still do

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:00 pm If he ain't a sociopath then why is he always roleplaying one?

doesn't seem to me that he is

That's your problem, now shoo

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:51 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:14 pm I'm just slightly curious why you seem to be such an exception, that's all.

Do you suppose that if I question somebody else's moral framework it has to imply that I don't believe in morality at all myself? Why would you think that? It's nowhere near logical.

I don't care about such stupid diversions

I was wondering, what if a sociopath is religious and also not very bright? Maybe this way, they could remain pretty confused about the natural moral difference between them and most other people?

Arguments about what a naturally constitutes a person are academic. What matters in practice is who is to have rights .