Philosophy Now Forum

Are our vested interests significant in this area compared with, say, the vested interest we have regarding monetary and fiscal policy, or in housing, immigration or decision to go to war in the first place? Once the war is under way, the manner in which its professionals conduct themselves are covered by ethical rules considered by those far more qualified than anyone here. Numerous aspects would have been considered that no one here would know about, but we can always pretend we understand as much as they do without our zero experience in the field.

Meanwhile, the only one who has seemingly spent serious time studying the subject matter of this thread is so deeply biased that nothing he says (in between the insults and bragging) can be considered reliable. So, with our incomplete information and biases, all in this thread are voting with their hearts and then constructing post hoc rationalisations. To that end, I'm fine with the popular view - torture perhaps being sometimes necessary but harms must be minimised for both ethical and strategic reasons. I could construct many rationalisation to pretend that that's philosophy as has been done, but it's pointless in this thread.

Greta wrote:Are our vested interests significant in this area compared with, say, the vested interest we have regarding monetary and fiscal policy, or in housing, immigration or decision to go to war in the first place? Once the war is under way, the manner in which its professionals conduct themselves are covered by ethical rules considered by those far more qualified than anyone here. Numerous aspects would have been considered that no one here would know about, but we can always pretend we understand as much as they do without our zero experience in the field.

Meanwhile, the only one who has seemingly spent serious time studying the subject matter of this thread is so deeply biased that nothing he says (in between the insults and bragging) can be considered reliable. So, with our incomplete information and biases, all in this thread are voting with their hearts and then constructing post hoc rationalisations. To that end, I'm fine with the popular view - torture perhaps being sometimes necessary but harms must be minimised for both ethical and strategic reasons. I could construct many rationalisation to pretend that that's philosophy as has been done, but it's pointless in this thread.

How on earth do you become 'qualified' to comment on something like torture? Why would a person directly involved have any more right to comment on torture than anyone else? I think I have enough imagination and reasoning ability to understand the topic. There were also many rational arguments on his other identical thread that blew his 'argument' to bits. Rational arguments against torture are easy to come up with, with or without 'heart'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How on earth do you become 'qualified' to comment on something like torture?

How does one become qualified to speak with authority on anything?

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How on earth do you become 'qualified' to comment on something like torture?

How does one become qualified to speak with authority on anything?

I suppose it depends on what the 'thing' is, or how you define authority.

When I'm in a righteously foul mood.

Greta wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:How on earth do you become 'qualified' to comment on something like torture?

How does one become qualified to speak with authority on anything?

By being well-informed and learning as much as they can about any given subject. Can't one be well-informed about the circumstances and decisions made to conduct torture? Does one have to have 'hands on' experience (-excuse the pun)?

One rotten apple that tries to spoil the whole bushel basket is just that. His reason to choose the topic at hand is obvious! That he spouts like puke, his so called intellectual prowess, is also an indicator. His purpose is only to disrupt, his little pea pickin' mind finds it fun. That is when he can hook a fish, as he is certainly trolling for game. For me he sucks his own far too much, making his diatribe quite laughable, as if we can't see his little pecker in his mouth! It's quite obvious!

You're the man! You're the man! You're the man!

Feel better?

Good!

Now grow up son! Only you can fill that empty void!

Where did you go Fiveredapples? I'm waiting for more.

Four years later, I am here to respond. I should have listened to Nietzsche: there are too many flies in the marketplace. After years of posting in philosophy forums, I've come to realize what a giant waste of time these places are. There has been one exception: ephilosopher.com, which no longer exists and which turned to shit eventually, anyway. You can only really gain philosophically by exchanging ideas with philosophically-abled people, which are rare in forums as these simply because the idiots drive them away. You can't argue with these people because they don't know how to argue. People trained in philosophy are the only ones qualified to judge arguments, so when you get a bunch of tyros together, you get a bunch of carping, fallacies, and idiocy. I could post a beautiful argument, and I would then have to spend days explaining to the morons, er, the members here why they have misunderstood my argument. In other words, I would get no constructive feedback on my argument because people can't do philosophy here. It's that simple. So, sites like this one are a waste of time if your goal is to improve philosophically, better your arguments, discover weaknesses in your reasoning, etc. Nobody here, with the possible exception of one or two people, has the philosophical acumen to slide down a water slide. My intellectual energy is finite, and less by the year, so I can't spend it teaching retards how to color within the lines, let alone how to do philosophy. I can't be bothered to explain to people why their reasoning is wrong, which it almost always is. It cannot be my responsibility to not only put forth strong arguments but, also, to hold people's hands as they attempt to understand what I write. And I don't write poorly. Quite the contrary, I'm a clear writer. I could be the Dr. Seuss of philosophy writing, and still morons will misunderstand what I write. I refuse to help these people, especially when they aren't civil enough to ask for help but rather attack me with fallacies. Nobody gains in such exchanges. I'm satisfied to let idiots be idiots for the rest of their lives. As Bertrand Russell said, "Some people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."

SpheresOfBalance writes:

One rotten apple that tries to spoil the whole bushel basket is just that. His reason to choose the topic at hand is obvious! That he spouts like puke, his so called intellectual prowess, is also an indicator. His purpose is only to disrupt, his little pea pickin' mind finds it fun. That is when he can hook a fish, as he is certainly trolling for game. For me he sucks his own far too much, making his diatribe quite laughable, as if we can't see his little pecker in his mouth! It's quite obvious!

Case in point. Look at this idiot's comment above. It's just ad hominems! I don't mind polemics, but it can't just be polemics -- you need arguments. There's no mention of a single premise of mine, because he wants nothing to do with my argument. Instead, he's doing cult thinking or pop psychology to try to win approval from the peanut gallery, which isn't hard. But if you're not a complete imbecile, then this nonsense is transparently idiotic and useless. And, frankly, I don't even understand his criticism, because if I could suck my own dick, I should be praised, not maligned -- amirite?

fiveredapples wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:43 am Four years later, I am here to respond. I should have listened to Nietzsche: there are too many flies in the marketplace. After years of posting in philosophy forums, I've come to realize what a giant waste of time these places are. There has been one exception: ephilosopher.com, which no longer exists and which turned to shit eventually, anyway. You can only really gain philosophically by exchanging ideas with philosophically-abled people, which are rare in forums as these simply because the idiots drive them away. You can't argue with these people because they don't know how to argue.

People trained in scientific reasoning know arguing is a pretty stupid way to spend one's time. I can give you all the data/information that I have - I can't force you to interpret the data/information the way I interpret it.

So what are we really arguing about? Semantics? Interpretation? Facts? Framing? To what end are we arguing? So that you can persuade me? So that I can persuade you? What if neither of us want to be persuaded?

Unless the interlocutors are certain they have a shared objective arguing and arguments are truly a waste of time.

You want to learn to reason empirically/iteratively? Learn to program. Then you'll understand how little you know about constructing sound/valid arguments.

fiveredapples wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:43 am Four years later, I am here to respond. I should have listened to Nietzsche: there are too many flies in the marketplace. After years of posting in philosophy forums, I've come to realize what a giant waste of time these places are. There has been one exception: ephilosopher.com, which no longer exists and which turned to shit eventually, anyway.

The grapes that the Fox cannot reach are always SOUR.

fiveredapples wrote: ↑Mon Aug 16, 2021 7:43 am

SpheresOfBalance writes:

One rotten apple that tries to spoil the whole bushel basket is just that. His reason to choose the topic at hand is obvious! That he spouts like puke, his so called intellectual prowess, is also an indicator. His purpose is only to disrupt, his little pea pickin' mind finds it fun. That is when he can hook a fish, as he is certainly trolling for game. For me he sucks his own far too much, making his diatribe quite laughable, as if we can't see his little pecker in his mouth! It's quite obvious!

Case in point. Look at this idiot's comment above. It's just ad hominems! I don't mind polemics, but it can't just be polemics -- you need arguments. There's no mention of a single premise of mine, because he wants nothing to do with my argument. Instead, he's doing cult thinking or pop psychology to try to win approval from the peanut gallery, which isn't hard. But if you're not a complete imbecile, then this nonsense is transparently idiotic and useless. And, frankly, I don't even understand his criticism, because if I could suck my own dick, I should be praised, not maligned -- amirite?

No, wrong as usual.
There is a difference between ad hominems and open insults. If you were half the philosopher you think you are you should know that.
No SoB is just reacting to your usual disruptive behaviour and lack of reasonable argumentation. And all you seem capable of is reposnding with insults of your own.
But none of the comments above can justifiably be called ad hominems

But none of the comments above can justifiably be called ad hominems

So proclaims the imbecile without an explanation or argument! You are the paradigm online philosophaster: too stupid to know when you're speaking to someone lightyears ahead of you philosophically. This is MY THREAD, one in which I've posted several arguments, yet you're here adding what exactly -- dumb shit, as always. Say something philosophical for once. LOL...I laugh knowing how daunting that must sound to you.

Let me help you. An argument is composed of premises and a conclusion. The premises are intended to logically support the conclusion. To attack someone's argument, you can attack one or all of the premises, or you can challenge that they support each other or the conclusion in the way the author claims. When someone tries to belittle me with name calling, it's because they want to undermine my argument without actually bothering to take on my argument. That's the very definition of ad hominem, imbecile. See how I explain myself? See how we don't have to wonder about what I'm saying or meaning? See how logic pours forth from my words? You offer nothing to reasonable people. You offer puerile shit. Do you have something to say about the topic of torture being morally permissible? Of course not -- because that would take philosophical thought, something you've been bereft of your entire pathetic life. DO PHILOSOPHY, STUPID. That's an injunction to end your idiocy.

fiveredapples wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:13 pm This is MY THREAD, one in which I've posted several arguments, yet you're here adding what exactly -- dumb shit, as always.

You forgot to stamp your foot. Perhaps a few tears would help.

fiveredapples wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 8:13 pm

But none of the comments above can justifiably be called ad hominems

So proclaims the imbecile without an explanation or argument! You are the paradigm online philosophaster: too stupid to know when you're speaking to someone lightyears ahead of you philosophically. This is MY THREAD, one in which I've posted several arguments, yet you're here adding what exactly -- dumb shit, as always. Say something philosophical for once. LOL...I laugh knowing how daunting that must sound to you.

Cheap empty insult.

The premises are intended to logically support the conclusion.

Yeah that's you all over - invent premises to support you false conclusion.

To attack someone's argument, you can attack one or all of the premises, or you can challenge that they support each other or the conclusion in the way the author claims.

Shame you just thrash about like a loon, rather than think.

When someone tries to belittle me with name calling, it's because they want to undermine my argument without actually bothering to take on my argument. That's the very definition of ad hominem, imbecile.

No it is not, fuckwit.
A cheap insult is not related to any argument. It's just anem calling.
Educate yourself or fuck off!
I don't know why you crawled out from under your rock, but but time away from the Forum has not made you any better.

See how I explain myself?

Yes, from ignorance.

See how we don't have to wonder about what I'm saying or meaning? See how logic pours forth from my words?

If you call a pile of shit "logic", then there is plenty of logic in your posts

You offer nothing to reasonable people. You offer puerile shit. Do you have something to say about the topic of torture being morally permissible? Of course not -- because that would take philosophical thought, something you've been bereft of your entire pathetic life. DO PHILOSOPHY, STUPID. That's an injunction to end your idiocy.

Yes, we'll allow others to make up their own minds.
Now fuck off back under your rock with the bugs.
You'l never understand the subtleies of ad hom, and I am not going to waste my time trying to axplain that to an idiot.