Page 5 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Seabass
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 199

22 Nov 2012, 4:57 pm

marshall wrote:
I guess this thread just serves to prove that intelligent debate is impossible. All I see are both sides banging their heads against the wall over irreconcilable ethical disagreements. There is a quote, I don't remember from where, that human beings are rationalizing rather than rational. The root of all arguments don't boil down to logic but to a fight over which monkeys deserve the best position at the watering hole. We might as well not even have debates. Might as well settle our differences with clubs and fists. Historically that's what it seems to always come down to whenever sh** really hits the fan. :roll:


By posting this you're just becoming another member in the clash of the monkeys. There's nothing wrong with a little passion. It's when the ad hominem's and undue condescension come out that the true monkeys wiggle out of the woodwork.



blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

22 Nov 2012, 5:50 pm

marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Capitalism forces people to work for a boss to survive. I can't even run around and pick berrys because all the land around me has been privatized.


What about people who start their own businesses or make their living as freelance writers, consultants, repair persons, etc. There were not forced to work for a boss but they still had to labor to get their bread.

ruveyn

You mean people born into families with purchasing power?


I know several "poor boys" who made it on their own efforts.

Andrew Carnegie who became a genuine billionaire come from Scotland with only the clothes on his back and a few coins in in pocket. Ben Franklin was a juvinile delingujant who made it good in Philadelphia with no help from his parents who had given up on him.

You are really committed to your sociologically and economically bigoted world view, aren't you.

ruveyn


Is there even a name for this "the rare exception discounts the common rule" type of fallacy. :roll:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)


_________________
"Meaninglessness inhibits fullness of life and is therefore equivalent to illness. Meaning makes a great many things endurable ? perhaps everything.?


Seabass
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 199

22 Nov 2012, 6:01 pm

blackelk wrote:
marshall wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Capitalism forces people to work for a boss to survive. I can't even run around and pick berrys because all the land around me has been privatized.


What about people who start their own businesses or make their living as freelance writers, consultants, repair persons, etc. There were not forced to work for a boss but they still had to labor to get their bread.

ruveyn

You mean people born into families with purchasing power?


I know several "poor boys" who made it on their own efforts.

Andrew Carnegie who became a genuine billionaire come from Scotland with only the clothes on his back and a few coins in in pocket. Ben Franklin was a juvinile delingujant who made it good in Philadelphia with no help from his parents who had given up on him.

You are really committed to your sociologically and economically bigoted world view, aren't you.

ruveyn


Is there even a name for this "the rare exception discounts the common rule" type of fallacy. :roll:


Yeah, it's called "the only absolute is that there are no absolutes". That's why top-down systems of government don't usually work, with plenty of evidence to back that up.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Nov 2012, 7:29 pm

Jacoby wrote:
marshall wrote:
I guess this thread just serves to prove that intelligent debate is impossible. All I see are both sides banging their heads against the wall over irreconcilable ethical disagreements. There is a quote, I don't remember from where, that human beings are rationalizing rather than rational. The root of all arguments don't boil down to logic but to a fight over which monkeys deserve the best position at the watering hole. We might as well not even have debates. Might as well settle our differences with clubs and fists. Historically that's what it seems to always come down to whenever sh** really hits the fan. :roll:


To have an intelligent debate the 'other side' needs the intellectual honesty and capacity to debate the subject on hand. Otherwise there isn't much left to do besides point and call them stupid.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Market dogmatism is as boneheaded and in denial of reality as any kind of leftist dogmatism.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

22 Nov 2012, 7:34 pm

...



Last edited by marshall on 24 Nov 2012, 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Nov 2012, 7:35 pm

marshall wrote:
I guess this thread just serves to prove that intelligent debate is impossible. All I see are both sides banging their heads against the wall over irreconcilable ethical disagreements. There is a quote, I don't remember from where, that human beings are rationalizing rather than rational. The root of all arguments don't boil down to logic but to a fight over which monkeys deserve the best position at the watering hole. We might as well not even have debates. Might as well settle our differences with clubs and fists. Historically that's what it seems to always come down to whenever sh** really hits the fan. :roll:

Marshall, quit being ridiculous. Debates are simply a cheaper and easier way than clubs and fists. The winner of the debate is the side that has the best use of rhetoric and most impressive supporting statements to make. So a person can win a debate, and they win them all of the time, and it's cheaper than fighting.

Intelligent debates are harder, but remember to throw your weight around. An intelligent debate is simply one where status gains are more centrally based upon displays of intellectual superiority, so use everything you can to signal intellectual superiority and to mock people who show incompetence in that field. Basically, you just need people who understand how to play that game, and how the points are scored. :P

(That being said, I think the banging is in many places more of a matter of poor thinking. So, there are possible debates that would go along the lines you'd want them, but they'd require intelligent participants who knew what they were saying in the overall context. Ironically, if "intelligent debate is impossible" then this should also prove that you are not capable of engaging in an intelligent debate. :P )