 |
Sinfest
welcome to the fest
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lich Mong
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 388
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ShadowCell wrote: | | Lich Mong wrote: | | ShadowCell wrote: | | you are conflating "is" with "ought" |
I'm not. |
yes, you are. |
No, I'm really not.
| ShadowCell wrote: |
literally the only thing Sam has said is that your argument is weak. |
No, unless I am really misunderstanding, he is also saying weak arguments will not sway him, and is -at least- implying that strong arguments are better than weak ones.
Do you REALLY believe he feels weak arguments have the same value as strong ones? Is that REALLY what you're getting from his posts?
| Quote: | | you have moved from this to "ought my arguments be not weak?" that is different. |
You'll note that's the question I'm asking him. However, I'd rather hear what he thinks from HIM as opposed to you.
You can tell me what YOU think, if you like, but I really could care less what you think he thinks and am only mildly interested in what you think I think. Mainly, only in evaluating if you're right or wrong about it, which I can't do with what you think he thinks because I don't think like he thinks and nether do you.
| ShadowCell wrote: |
he doesn't have to construct some elaborate ethical theory to justify his claim that your argument is weak. nobody does. all he has to do is follow the laws of logic, and he has. |
The question I am asking is WHY he feels one should follow the laws of logic.
If ANYONE would bother to go back and read my argument, they would see THAT is what I'm saying. That arguments constructed with logic are more useful, have value, and are what one SHOULD be doing. That it is "Good" to follow the laws of logic and "bad" not to.
| ShadowCell wrote: |
the challenge you keep posing whenever someone disagrees with you is irrelevant, for the same reason that the defense in court doesn't have to prove that the plaintiff is the one who's really guilty of the crime; it is unnecessary to the task at hand. |
I'm not "proposing" a "challenge."
I am simply trying to point out that people already ARE using my definition whenever they criticize me.
This WHOLE argument started with me making the statement that the TRUTH was good and that falsehoods were bad.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ShadowCell
Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 5245
Location: California
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
you are misunderstanding him. at no point has he said that
| Quote: | | weak arguments have the same value as strong ones |
it has always been about whether or not your argument is strong or weak and not whether or not it should be strong or weak or whether or not arguments should be strong or weak or whether or not logic should or should not be followed or whether or not logic is good or bad.
in fact, your argument with Sam started when he criticized your definition of "the good." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lich Mong
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 388
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ShadowCell wrote: | you are misunderstanding him. at no point has he said that
| Quote: | | weak arguments have the same value as strong ones |
|
I did not say he did.
That's why I was asking him. I don't ask questions of people unless I want answers from those people. It's a character trait of mine.
| ShadowCell wrote: |
it has always been about whether or not your argument is strong or weak and not whether or not it should be strong or weak or whether or not arguments should be strong or weak or whether or not logic should or should not be followed or whether or not logic is good or bad. |
I'll talk to him about it then. I'd like to know why he thinks it matters if it's weak or not. Why he bothered trying to point it out in the first place.
| ShadowCell wrote: | | in fact, your argument with Sam started when he criticized your definition of "the good." |
That definition came from qualities I had shown "the Truth" to have. It was a definition ABOUT the truth, but -again- people would have to, you know, READ to know that. But, as always, asking people to read the thread they are posting on is simply too much. So, here we are.....
Anyway, I'm pointing out the simple fact that he seems to be using my definition while he is arguing against it.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sam
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 8832
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shadowcell pretty much has it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lich Mong
Joined: 31 May 2012
Posts: 388
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sam wrote: | | Shadowcell pretty much has it. |
Then you should not argue that truth and honest inquiry do not have merit while simultaneously both assuming that truth and honest inquiry do have merit and having your argument rely on the person you are arguing against holding those same values.
_________________
A MtG Webcomic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
