Scott Jennings says that we finally have a President again

[RocksInMyHead]

Again, by this logic we can't discuss Aristotle's ideas because he's not here to defend them, and for that reason they are largely worthless.

If you just post a link to Aristotle's work without comment, that's not discussion.

 

[Chesterton]

If you just post a link to Aristotle's work without comment, that's not discussion.

Perhaps I want to know what other people think, and just want to follow their discussion.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps I want to know what other people think, and just want to follow their discussion.

Then you'll likely end up with a thread that looks a lot like this one. Personally, I think "stirring the pot" and trying to get other people to argue for your amusement is kinda disrespectful and rude. If you're going to start a discussion, you should participate in it.

 

[RDKirk]

Then you'll likely end up with a thread that looks a lot like this one. Personally, I think "stirring the pot" and trying to get other people to argue for your amusement is kinda disrespectful and rude. If you're going to start a discussion, you should participate in it.

Opening the door and tossing in a hand grenade.

 

[Chesterton]

Then you'll likely end up with a thread that looks a lot like this one. Personally, I think "stirring the pot" and trying to get other people to argue for your amusement is kinda disrespectful and rude.

No, no, nothing like that. I've done this in the Science forum a couple of times over the years. I read an article or see a video, maybe I'm not sure what to make of it, so I'll post it in there where most people know more about science than I do, and just ask them "Hey guys, what do you think about this?" If I'm lucky maybe I learn something.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

No, no, nothing like that. I've done this in the Science forum a couple of times over the years. I read an article or see a video, maybe I'm not sure what to make of it, so I'll post it in there where most people know more about science than I do, and just ask them "Hey guys, what do you think about this?" If I'm lucky maybe I learn something.

Asking for help in understanding something is participating in the discussion. That's not what's happening in the OP though.

 

[Chesterton]

Asking for help in understanding something is participating in the discussion. That's not what's happening in the OP though.

For Pete's sake, he shared some political comments that he liked in the Politics forum. Are you accusing him of having bad intentions because he didn't say more about them?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

For Pete's sake, he shared some political comments that he liked in the Politics forum. Are you accusing him of having bad intentions because he didn't say more about them?

No, I'm saying that posts like the OP are disrespectful and rude, and that it's reasonable to ask the OP to elaborate (for example, by explaining who the person they're talking about is and why we should care about that person's opinion) when he provides nothing more than a link to an article in a discussion forum. Which we've somehow managed to spend 4 pages arguing about.

 

[Chesterton]

No, I'm saying that posts like the OP are disrespectful and rude, and that it's reasonable to ask the OP to elaborate (for example, by explaining who the person they're talking about is and why we should care about that person's opinion) when he provides nothing more than a link to an article in a discussion forum. Which we've somehow managed to spend 4 pages arguing about.

I think it's rude and lazy to expect other people to do your homework for you. If that's what you need to read a linked article, maybe you should just ignore the thread. I had never heard of Jennings, but I clicked on the article and read the comments which the OP is about. I'm egalitarian like that. I judge comments based on their merit, on a case by case basis. It doesn't matter who Jennings is. I also don't need a synopsis from the maker of the OP. If someone says they found something interesting, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'll check it out for myself to see if I think it's interesting.

 

[BCP1928]

For Pete's sake, he shared some political comments that he liked in the Politics forum. Are you accusing him of having bad intentions because he didn't say more about them?

Not for that reason, no.

 

[SimplyMe]

Again, by this logic we can't discuss Aristotle's ideas because he's not here to defend them, and for that reason they are largely worthless.

Not for most things since Aristotle left plenty of reasons and logic to support his opinions, he didn't just state an opinion without any rational such as you have presented Jennings opinion. So we can debate the logic Aristotle used, how strong the facts to support his opinion are -- something we can't do with just "we finally have a President again."

 

[A2SG]

Why not? Underneath your avatar it seems to indicate you're a religious person.

Well, I chose "other", the parameters of the site added the religion part.

Although it seems odd that you're apparently unwilling to name the religion.

"Other" is all I'll admit to.

Maybe it's a religion you're embarrassed about? I don't know.

No, you don't.

But, perhaps it's time to move on, since there have been claims this tangent is derailing the thread.

-- A2SG, Scott Jennings (whoever he is) is the subject of this thread, not me....

 

[A2SG]

Again, by this logic we can't discuss Aristotle's ideas because he's not here to defend them, and for that reason they are largely worthless.

I addressed this idea before, when you used Einstein as an example. We can absolutely discuss Aristotle's ideas, by offering our own opinions about them, and having a discussion about that. But if you want to initiate a discussion on that subject, simply quoting Aristotle isn't sufficient.

-- A2SG, especially if no one had any idea who he was.....

 

[Pommer]

Wow, this Trump fanboy has the vapors thread is still going?

He’s glad that we have a President (again)?

Good for him.

 

[BCP1928]

Wow, this Trump fanboy has the vapors thread is still going?

He’s glad that we have a President (again)?

Good for him.

Well, since I thought we've had a President all along I guess I'm not part of the "we." Evidently he's not talking to me, so I needn't pay any attention to him.

 

[Chesterton]

Not for most things since Aristotle left plenty of reasons and logic to support his opinions, he didn't just state an opinion without any rational such as you have presented Jennings opinion. So we can debate the logic Aristotle used, how strong the facts to support his opinion are -- something we can't do with just "we finally have a President again."

You obviously didn't even read the article. Jennings said a bit more than that. So we shouldn't link to a few comments, we should only link to entire books. Truth is, we can discuss an idea encapsulated in a single short sentence, such as, "I think therefore I am".

...simply quoting Aristotle isn't sufficient.

Sure it is.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think it's rude and lazy to expect other people to do your homework for you.

How is asking someone to participate in a discussion that they initiated on a discussion board "expecting other people to do your homework for you"?

If that's what you need to read a linked article, maybe you should just ignore the thread.

Did I say that?

I had never heard of Jennings, but I clicked on the article and read the comments which the OP is about. I'm egalitarian like that. I judge comments based on their merit, on a case by case basis. It doesn't matter who Jennings is.

If we're going to discuss Jennings' opinions, then it does matter who he is - knowing a person's qualifications and potential biases or blind spots is important when determining the merit of their comments. If I offer my opinion on medical treatments, then you'd probably want to know that I'm not a doctor and have zero training in medicine - even if what I say sounds like it has merit, you would be advised to at least ask me to provide good evidence to support my opinions rather than just taking me at my word.

I also don't need a synopsis from the maker of the OP. If someone says they found something interesting, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'll check it out for myself to see if I think it's interesting.

Bully for you. That's not discussion though.

 

[Chesterton]

How is asking someone to participate in a discussion that they initiated on a discussion board "expecting other people to do your homework for you"?

That's not what you said in your post #68.

Did I say that?

Uh, yeah.

If we're going to discuss Jennings' opinions, then it does matter who he is - knowing a person's qualifications and potential biases or blind spots is important when determining the merit of their comments. If I offer my opinion on medical treatments, then you'd probably want to know that I'm not a doctor and have zero training in medicine - even if what I say sounds like it has merit, you would be advised to at least ask me to provide good evidence to support my opinions rather than just taking me at my word.

Okay. In that case I refuse to read your opinions on CF anymore until you post to me your curriculum vitae. And it needs to be notarized.

Bully for you. That's not discussion though.

You're the one who said in post #66 that me simply saying "Hey guys, what do you think about this?" is "participating in the discussion".

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's not what you said in your post #68.

Uh, yeah.

Uh, no.

Okay. In that case I refuse to read your opinions on CF anymore until you post to me your curriculum vitae. And it needs to be notarized.

I'm sure I will survive. Somehow.

You're the one who said in post #66 that me simply saying "Hey guys, what do you think about this?" is "participating in the discussion".

The OP did not say that.

 

[A2SG]

...simply quoting Aristotle isn't sufficient.

Sure it is.

To be is to do - Socrates
To do is to be - Sartre
Do Be Do Be Do - Sinatra
― Kurt Vonnegut

-- A2SG, that should open up a ton of discussion....