Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

wtf wrote:

alpha wrote:neither. it's best to not have existed at all.

What is it, then, that did not exist at all? Does it have a name? Is it "you?" What does it even mean to imagine that one has never existed? It's a contradiction. You have to exist in order to even ask the question. Some guy named Descartes said something about this. "I think therefore I am." Actually he said it in French. The French are always saying clever things like that.

Exactly! One cannot say that to not exist would be better, as nothing could judge such a human ambiguous term, that is at least something.
In addition, nothing wouldn't know of something, such that a comparison could not be made.

This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.

Bullshit. You know exactly what nothing would entail, but throw it out there, along with the ad hominems. Read the damn book.

If I was never born, I'd have never been harmed. I'd not experience suffering, nor known of or missed joy. I would just not have been. Same for any of you. So cut the crap. Admit you just don't understand, instead of wasting our time. There's no loss of face in not grasping a concept as nonexistence. There is in being aggressively ignorant about it. So, either ask alpha and I direct questions on that which you are unclear, or desist on the ill-informed (you haven't read the book, have you?) commentary.

alpha wrote:neither. it's best to not have existed at all.

Dalek Prime wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

wtf wrote:
What is it, then, that did not exist at all? Does it have a name? Is it "you?" What does it even mean to imagine that one has never existed? It's a contradiction. You have to exist in order to even ask the question. Some guy named Descartes said something about this. "I think therefore I am." Actually he said it in French. The French are always saying clever things like that.

Exactly! One cannot say that to not exist would be better, as nothing could judge such a human ambiguous term, that is at least something.
In addition, nothing wouldn't know of something, such that a comparison could not be made.

This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.

Bullshit. You know exactly what nothing would entail, but throw it out there, along with the ad hominems. Read the damn book.

If I was never born, I'd have never been harmed. I'd not experience suffering, nor known of or missed joy. I would just not have been. Same for any of you. So cut the crap. Admit you just don't understand, instead of wasting our time. There's no loss of face in not grasping a concept as nonexistence. There is in being aggressively ignorant.

It's you that's full of bullshit, using ad-hominem's in the same sentence that you denounce one using them.

As to the question of which is better, existence or nonexistence, one shall only ever actually know half the story, such that one really doesn't know what they're taking about. Existence the only case allowing one to ask the question in the first place. Gawd some people are just so oblivious, it's not funny!

No, you're just stupid, I realize. And where is my ad hominem? Correctly stating you couldnt get off your lazy ass and read something you want to pontificate on? I've given you the opening to ask questions on that which you don't understand, and all you do is waste the opportunity in bickering, because your ego is bruised.

Dalek Prime wrote:No, you're just stupid, I realize. And where is my ad hominem? Correctly stating you couldnt get off your lazy ass and read something you want to pontificate on? I've given you the opening to ask questions on that which you don't understand, and all you do is waste the opportunity in bickering, because your ego is bruised.

No, but you're a drunkin fool, apparently! So keep on playing the idiot, you wear it well!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:No, you're just stupid, I realize. And where is my ad hominem? Correctly stating you couldnt get off your lazy ass and read something you want to pontificate on? I've given you the opening to ask questions on that which you don't understand, and all you do is waste the opportunity in bickering, because your ego is bruised.

No, but you're a drunkin fool, apparently! So keep on playing the idiot, you wear it well!

You're busy with the crown, so I'll wait my turn.

Don't drink, BTW. Apparently you can't get anything right.

Anyways, READ THE BOOK before you spout ignorance again. No excuses. You've had half a year.

Do people think that ad hominem sounds better than "insult"?
If they want to appear clever they would do well to know the difference between ad hominem and insult rather than conflate the two things.

Regarding insults. I'm not particularly fastidious in differentiating ignorant attacks on my argument from puerile attacks on my persona. I myself am neither here nor there, so neither this nor that unkindness can hurt me. "You're full of shit" or "That's bullshit" are two impostors I treat just the same.





(pace, Ruddy)

Skip wrote:Regarding insults. I'm not particularly fastidious in differentiating ignorant attacks on my argument from puerile attacks on my persona. I myself am neither here nor there, so neither this nor that unkindness can hurt me. "You're full of shit" or "That's bullshit" are two impostors I treat just the same.





(pace, Ruddy)

Neither example represents an ad hominem, which rather leaves the question unanswered.

Which question?

Do people think that ad hominem sounds better than "insult"?

Yes, they do. And they're right; it does.

Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

what other grounds? when debating philosophical viewpoints, saying such things (that spheres usually attributes to those who disagree with him) is the epitome of ad hominems.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Ad hominem: attacking the argument by calling into question the character or personality of the person making it. SoB did this to alpha, calling into question his mental outlook. Did it to me in my intro, where I called him on it.

Insult: calling me a drunk, baselessly.

What he said was "This young one has a problem thinking clearly, but seemingly has limited freedom, thus requires cheering up.".
For this to be more than an insult and an ad hominem SoB would have had to say that the argument was thus, because this young one has a problem thinking, but that is not the case, as he explained why the argument was thus on other grounds.

what other grounds? when debating philosophical viewpoints, saying such things (that spheres usually attributes to those who disagree with him) is the epitome of ad hominems.

You are wrong because you never finished college.

{is an example of an ad hominem}

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong because you never finished college.

{is an example of an ad hominem}

no, that's an example of a false accusation. although, it can also be an ad hominem at the same time.

alpha wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are wrong because you never finished college.

{is an example of an ad hominem}

no, that's an example of a false accusation. although, it can also be an ad hominem at the same time.

Try and use your brain. Your sentence is self contradictory.