Philosophy Now Forum

"you've started spelling your words correctly."

Aren't you proud of me?

henry quirk wrote:"you've started spelling your words correctly."

Aren't you proud of me?

Yes, henry. Sometimes it's like you're almost human.

Would you mind giving it a rest now, henry, I'm getting bored now.

Am I compelling your participation?

If bored, go do sumthin' else.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... fact and opinion are not the same thing.

How could I doubt it, when daily, as it seems, you provide me an exact illustration of the truth of that axiom?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:... fact and opinion are not the same thing.

How could I doubt it, when daily, as it seems, you provide me an exact illustration of the truth of that axiom?

Listen carefully sweetie pie. I am not the one pretending to know the objective truth of morality. That is your failing.
I rarely, if ever, pretend to express anything I claim to be objective unless it is the most banal and obvious physical fact.

Your problem is that you think your opinions are facts, and when they come across other's opinions you get all shaky and upset. I'm not sure a philosophy discussion group is for you if you can't accept a challenge without putting figurative cloth in your figurative ears. Ignoring people just makes you look silly and overbearing.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's no surprise that Mr. Can only reads fascistically included news.

So your belief is this: "any conservative source of news or research is simply lying. So is any American one. So is any source that gave money to a political cause the Left doesn't like. And Johns Hopkins is a fascist organization, not a medical research facility and hospital."

Mr Can, you cannot use quotation marks on words that people haven't said; that really is "simply lying". I don't know whether Hobbes Choice holds any of the beliefs you attribute to him, and nor do you, because none of it follows from the actual quote of his you referenced.
Johns Hopkins has nothing to do with this, since they didn't publish any of the material you cited; the fact that someone works for an establishment does not mean everything they say and write is endorsed by that establishment.

Immanuel Can wrote:You won't check the truth of the facts; you'll just criticize the origin of the statement, based on your perception of its nationality, political orientation, or worse -- whether or not it tells you what you already want to believe....

The point is rather that some people won't criticise the origin of a statement, precisely because it tells them exactly what they want to believe. It is so widespread, it even has a name: confirmation bias. What is notable about Mr Can's citations is that they all come from sources that have explicitly conservative agendas. That in itself doesn't make the 'facts' wrong, but which facts you choose, and how you interpret them, is rarely determined by an honest quest for objectivity.
Only one of Mr Can's sources isn't tabloid fluff (The Wall Street Journal is an august publication in its field in spite of it owners, but it is not a psychology journal). The paper in The New Atlantis is very thorough, it is 116 pages long and well researched (another 27 pages of notes and references), but the fact that it is published by The Ethics and Public Policy Center which "describes itself as "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_an ... icy_Center ) rather than a peer reviewed academic journal seriously undermines any claim to impartiality. It is unavoidable that people will have their own bias, and that is part of the reason why so few individual papers are taken as authoritative. As the author admits: "More research is needed to uncover the causes of the increased rates of mental health problems in the LGBT subpopulations. The social stress model that dominates research on this issue requires improvement, and most likely needs to be supplemented by other hypotheses." Only someone who has not read the paper, or is a complete idiot, could conclude that it contains facts that debunk anything. But that is what Mr Can has done:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If such people want to commit suicide it is because they are shunned by people in society like ImaCant.

Immanuel Can wrote:A myth. See again, page 1. It's debunked by the facts.

Immanuel Can wrote:Okay, I guess. One can't argue with "logic" like that.

Well, the fact that you have attributed this "logic" to someone who hasn't stated it notwithstanding; maybe you can't, Mr Can, but I can.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Ignoring people just makes you look silly and overbearing.

Interesting. I'm not the one who's felt threatened, and hence has needed to float insults. I think that's actually a pretty good indicator of who's feeling besieged.

Meanwhile, I actually have no anxiety of the type you're describing. Au contraire, I would describe my state as bemused...and a bit amused too.

However, I eagerly await your contribution of something substantive to this discussion...some important fact, some logic, something not touchy or personal...you know, something "philosophical."

I'm not optimistic, but I happily await.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Ignoring people just makes you look silly and overbearing.

Interesting. I'm not the one who's felt threatened...

Well, that should finish off any lingering doubt that Mr Can has had an irony by-pass.

Immanuel Can wrote:.... Au contraire, ...

I'm not optimistic, but I happily await.

"overbearing" and arrogant.

QED.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:Ignoring people just makes you look silly and overbearing.

Interesting. I'm not the one who's felt threatened...

Well, that should finish off any lingering doubt that Mr Can has had an irony by-pass.

uwot wrote: Well, that should finish off any lingering doubt that Mr Can has had an irony by-pass.

It makes one wonder what kind of by-pass that others on this forum have had? Sophistication comes to mind.

thedoc wrote:It makes one wonder what kind of by-pass that others on this forum have had? Sophistication comes to mind.

It's a fair point, doc, but there's no need to kick Mr Can when he's down.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:It makes one wonder what kind of by-pass that others on this forum have had? Sophistication comes to mind.

It's a fair point, doc, but there's no need to kick Mr Can when he's down.

Not kicking Mr. Can, he seems to be the most sophisticated of the lot.

thedoc wrote:
Not kicking Mr. Can, he seems to be the most sophisticated of the lot.

The Devil is a master of deception, doc.

thedoc wrote:Not kicking Mr. Can, he seems to be the most sophisticated of the lot.

Given that you don't get the joke, what other criteria do you apply, that qualifies you as a judge?