Decision making

[Davian]

Here's another Google: humor.

Try it. It's great.

Don't think I do not find the responses here humorous and entertaining.

Will you be humouring us with an answer to post #49? Or is it too provocative for you?

 

[Received]

Don't think I do not find the responses here humorous and entertaining.

Will you be humouring us with an answer to post #49? Or is it too provocative for you?

It's easy. I'm too scared.

 

[Davian]

It's easy. I'm too scared.

Fear is good. It kept our ancestors wary of predators, real or imagined. As a basis for what you will or will not explore philosophically, somewhat dated.

I have noted that you do tend to abandon threads just as they get interesting.

 

[Received]

Fear is good. It kept our ancestors wary of predators, real or imagined. As a basis for what you will or will not explore philosophically, somewhat dated.

I have noted that you do tend to abandon threads just as they get interesting.

And surely there's only one reason for this.

 

[Davian]

And surely there's only one reason for this.

I do not know why you come to this forum, or what you are trying to get at. I do try to keep my presumptions to a minimum. The ball is in your court.

 

[Received]

I do not know why you come to this forum, or what you are trying to get at. I do try to keep my presumptions to a minimum. The ball is in your court.

I'm trying to get at the idea that putting down a provocative statement with a massively loaded question (post 49) is something that nobody with dignity has any reason to respond to. It's not just morally dirty, but also fallacious. This being the case, I find it much more useful to play games.

This moral part of debates is what you're either totally blind to or are ignoring for some other psychological gain.

So yeah, the ball is actually in your court.

And yeah, I'm already predicting your response here.

 

[Davian]

I'm trying to get at the idea that putting down a provocative statement with a massively loaded question (post 49) is something that nobody with dignity has any reason to respond to.

What has philosophy to do with dignity? For instance, do you think I actually like, or feel good about philosopher Thomas Metzinger's description of human consciousness? It teeters, unpleasantly, in view of nihilism.

It's not just morally dirty, but also fallacious.

How so? I have never encountered the phrase, "morally dirty".

This being the case, I find it much more useful to play games.

And here I thought you might be here to do philosophy.

This moral part of debates is what you're either totally blind to or are ignoring for some other psychological gain.

This not a debate, and what have I to gain? Do you really want the discussion to be kept to slow lobs? Are you going to pull the "morally dirty" card out whenever your religious presuppositions are scrutinized?

So yeah, the ball is actually in your court.

And yeah, I'm already predicting your response here.

Then next time, put it in your post, so that statements like this do not appear as empty rhetoric.

 

[Received]

What does philosophy have to do with dignity? So if someone rapes another person's wife and then proceeds to debate and is like, "uh, why the long face, guys? We're doing PHILOSOPHY," you'd be okay with this?

Stop the playacting, Davian.

ETA: you're arbitrarily neglecting ethical rules in consideration of debate rules. Just like the good hypercapitalist who keeps appealing to supply and demand when an evil liberal keeps repeating that people are getting screwed under this system.

 

[Davian]

What does philosophy have to do with dignity? So if someone rapes another person's wife and then proceeds to debate and is like, "uh, why the long face, guys? We're doing PHILOSOPHY," you'd be okay with this?

Of course not.

Did you just equate the bruising of your religious presuppositions with rape? Seriously?

Stop the playacting, Davian.

Do you presume to know how I think?

ETA: you're arbitrarily neglecting ethical rules in consideration of debate rules. Just like the good hypercapitalist who keeps appealing to supply and demand when an evil liberal keeps repeating that people are getting screwed under this system.

I do not see how this analogy fits, but it does sound like "No fair - you are throwing the ball too hard!"

 

[Received]

Of course not.

Did you just equate the bruising of your religious presuppositions with rape? Seriously?

Nope. I said, basically, that you're patently wrong by insisting philosophizing has no relation to dignity or other ethical concerns. The ethical applies to you and me when philosophizing just as much as it does in other situations; therefore for you to make loaded questions and implicitly belittle a person's values is an unethical thing to do. That's what you're not seeing, and the very argumentative fact that you'd make such comparisons is fallacious in itself given it's not related to the thing we were just debating. It's a non-sequitur.

Do you presume to know how I think?

Yes. Deducing thoughts from statements and other behaviors is how it works on a day to day basis for anyone.

I do not see how this analogy fits, but it does sound like "No fair - you are throwing the ball too hard!"

Spoken from the person who thinks there's no need for dignity in discussion, this makes sense.

 

[Davian]

Nope. I said, basically, that you're patently wrong by insisting philosophizing has no relation to dignity or other ethical concerns. The ethical applies to you and me when philosophizing just as much as it does in other situations; therefore for you to make loaded questions and implicitly belittle a person's values is an unethical thing to do. That's what you're not seeing, and the very argumentative fact that you'd make such comparisons is fallacious in itself given it's not related to the thing we were just debating. It's a non-sequitur.

Yet you used the example of rape.

Yes. Deducing thoughts from statements and other behaviors is how it works on a day to day basis for anyone.

You do not appear to be very good at it.

Spoken from the person who thinks there's no need for dignity in discussion, this makes sense.

Of course there is need for dignity in discussion, but in the context of poking at the philosophical and neurological mechanics of how the brain works dignity has to take a back seat. Presuppositions do not help here.

If you were a flat-earther, and we were in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, would I need to dignify your belief that the Earth is flat?

 

[Received]

Yet you used the example of rape.

That's true. I'm waiting.

You do not appear to be very good at it.

You appear to have appearances.

Of course there is need for dignity in discussion, but in the context of poking at the philosophical and neurological mechanics of how the brain works dignity has to take a back seat. Presuppositions do not help here.

If you were a flat-earther, and we were in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, would I need to dignify your belief that the Earth is flat?

Dignity never takes a back seat. If it did, it would be totally possible to talk with someone who is being a complete jerk argumentatively because the subject matter is somehow more important. This is what being ethical means: considering your interlocutor as a person toward whom you show respect at all times, not just arbitrarily when you think the subject you're discussing scraps it off the plate.

 

[Davian]

That's true. I'm waiting.

For what?

You appear to have appearances.



Dignity never takes a back seat. If it did, it would be totally possible to talk with someone who is being a complete jerk argumentatively because the subject matter is somehow more important. This is what being ethical means: considering your interlocutor as a person toward whom you show respect at all times, not just arbitrarily when you think the subject you're discussing scraps it off the plate.

If you were a flat-earther, and we were in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, would I need to dignify your belief that the Earth is flat?

 

[Received]

For what?


If you were a flat-earther, and we were in the Physical and Life Sciences forum, would I need to dignify your belief that the Earth is flat?

No man, that's not what I'm saying at all. The content of the argument is one thing, the person toward whom you're speaking is another. Right?

 

[Davian]

No man, that's not what I'm saying at all. The content of the argument is one thing, the person toward whom you're speaking is another. Right?

I do not see how I am to avoid hurting the feelings of the flat-Earther.

 

[dysert]

I do not see how I am to avoid hurting the feelings of the flat-Earther.

Would you like to know?

 

[Davian]

Would you like to know?

Sure.

 

[dysert]

Sure.

I'm not a professional, so feel free to ignore my advice, but if you want to dignify the person while not accepting their position on something (the Flat Earth example) here are what I think are some dos and don'ts:

• Don't demean the person.
• Don't imply that they are somehow inferior because they believe something different.
• Don't patronize.
• Give the person the benefit of the doubt.
• Acknowledge that you understand their position.
• Be polite.
• Don't use insulting language (e.g., calling the person a "Flat Earther" may be insulting in and of itself)
• Read the book "How to win friends and influence people" (optional)

That's probably a good starter list. I think you'll be amazed at the level of discussion that ensues when you follow these principles. Good luck.

 

[Davian]

I'm not a professional, so feel free to ignore my advice, but if you want to dignify the person while not accepting their position on something (the Flat Earth example) here are what I think are some dos and don'ts:

• Don't demean the person.
• Don't imply that they are somehow inferior because they believe something different.
• Don't patronize.
• Give the person the benefit of the doubt.
• Acknowledge that you understand their position.
• Be polite.
• Don't use insulting language (e.g., calling the person a "Flat Earther" may be insulting in and of itself)
• Read the book "How to win friends and influence people" (optional)

That's probably a good starter list. I think you'll be amazed at the level of discussion that ensues when you follow these principles. Good luck.

I don't see how that helps with the flat Earther (or member of the Flat Earth Society). I have followed the above, and put up with alot of patronizing from Received.

When beliefs are scrutinized, people get defensive, and egos get bruised.

There is no objective evidence for gods. Is this news to anyone?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't see how that helps with the flat Earther (or member of the Flat Earth Society). I have followed the above, and put up with alot of patronizing from Received.

When beliefs are scrutinized, people get defensive, and egos get bruised.

There is no objective evidence for gods. Is this news to anyone?

This is why, when believers go outside of themselves and try to justify their beliefs to non-believers, it doesn't go well.

Faith beliefs are personal beliefs, that simply don't hold up well to objective scrutiny.

If one doesn't want their faith beliefs to be questioned or supported, they should do one of two things; keep them to themselves, or discuss them with people who have similar faith beliefs.