For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
If you don't agree with my assessment I don't suppose you'd be good enough to not mention it, would you?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Oh right. I 'wikid' him instead. Much quicker.
He didn't really do it for me either.Harbal wrote:If you don't agree with my assessment I don't suppose you'd be good enough to not mention it, would you?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Oh right. I 'wikid' him instead. Much quicker.
lol Oh I see what you did there, my friend. So witty!Harbal wrote:Then go take a shower because it sounds like you've had an accident.mickthinks wrote:I smell bullshit, friend Harbal.
Hobbes has been throwing quite a lot of it around so it could be anywhere.mickthinks wrote: Just to be clear then, the smell of bullshit is definitely coming from your direction.
This doesn't seem to mean anything. Perhaps you could rewrite it so it makes sense, assuming that what you were trying to say did make sense.Where your story about disagreeing with
Oh, now you've finished the sentence I see what you were trying to say but I don't know why you had to deliver it in instalments. No matter, you're just being pedantic so I'm not going to pay any attention.mickthinks wrote:where your story about disagreeing with Kwame Anthony Appiah's ideas bifurcated into two; one in which you thought some of what you heard was hogwash, and the other in which you thought all of what you heard was hogwash.
I think it more being black, public school and from a wealthy high-labour tradition.Harbal wrote:For a start, I found the man intolerably patronising, which, I admit, did not dispose me sympathetically towards him. He obviously had his own agenda and I think the fact that he was both black and gay very much determined his point of view. ...Arising_uk wrote:So what was the hogwash?
How are you using "species" when applied to Man?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Next the 'progressives' will be insisting there's 'no such thing' as species. ...
Arising_uk wrote:How are you using "species" when applied to Man?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Next the 'progressives' will be insisting there's 'no such thing' as species. ...
lol You can pretend not to pay any attention, and you can use as a pretext the fact of my being forensically incisive in my examination of your words and what they reveal. It all adds to the general impression you are giving of being unwilling to answer for yourself.Harbal wrote:No matter, you're just being pedantic so I'm not going to pay any attention.
Okay, just lock me up and throw away the key.mickthinks wrote: lol You can pretend not to pay any attention, and you can use as a pretext the fact of my being forensically incisive in my examination of your words and what they reveal. It all adds to the general impression you are giving of being unwilling to answer for yourself.
The difference between your two stories would not be significant if you had stuck to either one. They say pretty much the same thing; you disagree strongly with Kwame Anthony Appiah.
But you haven't stuck to one or the other, you have tried to elide between the two in an attempt to avoid Arising's inquiry into the detail. Why? Perhaps because you cannot supply the detail that, if the first version of the story were true, you would be able to supply. So here's the thing; it doesn't make a difference whether you disagree with some of what Appiah said or with everything you heard him say.
; one in which you thought some of what you heard was hogwash, and the other in which you thought all of what you heard was hogwash.
It's just mick being nitpick mick. It's what he does. He has no discernible sense of humour.Harbal wrote:Okay, just lock me up and throw away the key.mickthinks wrote: lol You can pretend not to pay any attention, and you can use as a pretext the fact of my being forensically incisive in my examination of your words and what they reveal. It all adds to the general impression you are giving of being unwilling to answer for yourself.
The difference between your two stories would not be significant if you had stuck to either one. They say pretty much the same thing; you disagree strongly with Kwame Anthony Appiah.
But you haven't stuck to one or the other, you have tried to elide between the two in an attempt to avoid Arising's inquiry into the detail. Why? Perhaps because you cannot supply the detail that, if the first version of the story were true, you would be able to supply. So here's the thing; it doesn't make a difference whether you disagree with some of what Appiah said or with everything you heard him say.
; one in which you thought some of what you heard was hogwash, and the other in which you thought all of what you heard was hogwash.
You brought up the idea in relation to Appiah's thoughts about identity with respect to colour, country, creed and culture. So I was wondering how the idea of "species" applied?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Applied to what? Where did I mention Appiah? I was probably referring to Hobbes.Arising_uk wrote:You brought up the idea in relation to Appiah's thoughts about identity with respect to colour, country, creed and culture. So I was wondering how the idea of "species" applied?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
"Next the 'progressives' will be insisting there's 'no such thing' as species." You were talking about your wiki of Appiah so presumably you meant him as this 'progressive'. If so I wonder why you brought up "species" as you appear to be using it to affirm the idea of 'race'?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Applied to what? Where did I mention Appiah? I was probably referring to Hobbes.
