Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cause and effect
John
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 33 (22948)
11-16-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by forgiven
11-16-2002 6:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
if you have any, post them...
Well... it starts here, post #27:
quote:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest...
And graduates quickly to this in post #29:
quote:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it
Then on to post #38 where we find this:
quote:
now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?
and this:
quote:
sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood
And this:
quote:
john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...
all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

Then there is #44 where we find this:
quote:
what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?
Then post #1 of this thread:
quote:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
quote:
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)...
quote:
the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe..
Post #3 of this thread:
quote:
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...
quote:
once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...
Post #7:
quote:
i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks
Ok. This was just funny, in context.
Post #10, this thread:
quote:
john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs...
And here:
quote:
i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive...
quote:
i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject...
Post #12:
quote:
yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on
quote:
then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed
i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...
when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse... and it also shows why the following is true
quote:
forgiven: having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen
quote:
John:
Did I refuse this?
quote:
forgiven:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate of my premises?
quote:
John:
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.
is that a refusal?
in a formal debate, with rules and moderators, logical fallacies will be brought out by an objective third party... ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...
there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 6:29 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 7:43 PM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 33 (22949)
11-16-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mister Pamboli
11-16-2002 3:13 PM


hello mr p
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B]Great reply. Thanks "forgiven" - you've made my day! I love this stuff.[b][quote]does pamboli mean to say that one of the three terms is ambiguous?[/b][/quote]
[/quote]
happy to oblige
quote:
I think all the terms are ambiguous![b][quote]i suppose he wants me to offer proofs that i began to exist[/b][/quote]
yes I do - but not in the casual way you suggest. I want you to show that "things that begin to exist" all must do so in the same way - otherwise "I" might not be part of the category of the first clause. Here's a simple example.
I have a cow which will give birth to calf. The calf will be killed and skinned. Its skin will be made into leather. The leather will be cut into shapes. The shapes will be sewn into a shoe. When does the shoe "begin to exist?" Now, does the "I" in your second clause begin to exist in this way? Can you compare your beginning to exist, with all other things which begin to exist. Though you later deride my brick wall example, you still show the same error. Consider if it is only true that "those things which are composed of preexisting things have a cause." This is the issue you have to disambiguate.
ok, fair enough... this gets to the irreducibly complex discussion that you rightly said should have its own thread... but i'll touch on it here to show what i mean... let's take something simple, like the pair of shoes ("simple" being *extremely* relative)... we can trace the existence of the shoe back to the cow calving, or even further, and write any number of arguments as we go back... eventually we'd reach some irreducibly complex organism...
the problem with that is obvious, it isn't needed to prove that the existence of the shoes has a cause... to me, the same goes for the "I" in the 2nd premise... you could go back to a protein molecule (or even further i suppose) and go forward, forming an argument each step of the way, i just don't see the need for it
quote:
Now I am not saying that this proposition is true or false, just that it is entirely relevant to your first clause. The category of the first clause therefore seems to me quite ambiguous, and the inclusion of "I" in that category poorly defended.
if it was poorly defended, i hope the above explanation suffices... i see no ambiguity, simply a desire to point to something that exists, something that hasn't *always* existed, and arrive at some sort of agreement as to the truth of its causation...
quote:
quote:
he caught me writing what i chose to write rather than what he might want me to write, and to make matters worse he caught me writing it in "very careful language"... drat, eh?
Hee hee. Naughty of me, huh? But actually, I was just ensuring that casual readers didn't fall into the trap of assuming "all that begins to exist" is even more universal than it might at first seem. Forgiveable, no?
well.. ok, this time.. heheh... just try not to point out any more attempts i make to fool those casual readers, ok?
quote:
[b][quote]whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant... another straw man...[/b][/quote]

I hope I have shown that it is very relevant indeed.
sorry, as the above on irreducible complexity was meant to show, i was simply attempting to look at something (me) that obviously exists and see if there was a cause for my existence... and whether or not i began to exist in the same manner as a pair of shoes still seems irrelevant to my syllogism
quote:
[b][quote]as for pamboli's question on the definition of "begin to exist," i'll let him define the term his way...[/b][/quote]
Ok. How about "those things which, not being composed of pre-existing things, begin to exist." I could tighten that up a bit, but the language should be clear enough without being technical, and besides it's Saturday morning and I have a hangover
i'll send you my famous bloody mary recipe.. and it *is* famous... perfect hair of the dog, although it's been a long time since that dog has actually bitten me... your definition seems to rule out all things that actually exist, unless you want to jump right to the singularity (assuming bb holds up to the latest attacks).. my hope was to get there eventually anyway
quote:
[b][quote]ahhh our old friend S.M. again... strange, isn't it? *when* it began to exist isn't at question (yet)... the fact of its existence and whether or not that existence had a cause is what (i thought) we're discussing...[/b][/quote]
Oh dear oh dear. Nice wriggle, but what a mess to get into. You are not deriving the conclusion of a cause from "the fact of its existence" but from the its "beginning to exist" - which you correctly identify here as differnet things. Are you changing your premisses half way through the discussion? Tut tut tut ...
no, that would be naughty of *me*, wouldn't it? :/
quote:
[b][quote]sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling... besides, i don't know the discipline from which pamboli gets his expertise, it isn't readily evident from this post...[/b][/quote]
Nice personal dig while eschewing personal digs.
hey!! i plead guilt by association.. nah, i honestly didn't mean to criticize either your character or intelligence... my apologies if i appear to have done so
quote:
By the way, I would have thought that someone attempting to be careful in their logic would be more careful in their language. The casual use of "ad hominem" as a term for general disparagement of an opponent is to be regretted. An "ad hominem" argument is one which attempts to show the truth or falsity of a proposition - I was not doing that, only making a little fun of you.
actually, an ad hominem is an attempt to show the error in another's stance by attacking the person instead of the stance:
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
but i agree with you that the term is used far too often.. if you've followed some of these posts i think you'll agree that while the term has been used too often, the charge has been true
quote:
[b][quote]now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence? pamboli's explanation, the "point in time" one, begs the very question... he's saying, "space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... [/b][/quote]
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that "potential" being a temporal term cannot apply to things existing co-extensively with time. That's all really - but it's a huge hole in your argument.
we live temporally, temporality doesn't apply *to my syllogism*... it might (and will) have a bearing later, depending on the direction things take, but my original post had nothing to do with "things existing co-extensively with time"... it had everything to do with the subject of the 2nd premise (yours truly), who exists *in* time
quote:
BTW, I don't understand your reference to irreducible complexity. Better for another thread, perhaps?
yes, but it's a subject that will require others from fields i'm far from expert in, such as microbiology... but it is fascinating, eh? [quote] [b][quote]the first premise includes all things that begin to exist, which it clearly states... we'll leave it to you to show how it need NOT include all things when it expressly states that it does... [/b][/quote]
So, you are now saying that "all things" are "things that begin to exist" - but that was the very point I made at the beginning, that if "all things begin to exist" you assume that God has a cause. However, I think you didn't mean to say exactly what you said here, did you?[/B][/QUOTE]
no, i'm saying "that which begins to exist" (in other words, all things that haven't always existed, such as you or me or aunt tilly or egypt or earth or or or)... i believe the above was slightly out of context, but perhaps this clears it up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-16-2002 3:13 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 33 (22950)
11-16-2002 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by John
11-16-2002 7:28 PM


i left everything in so that others can look and judge for themselves whether or not any of those remarks are ad hominem... you even posted a few where i accuse you of personal attacks (attacks you were not only quick to confirm but proud of)... now if it's an ad hominem to point out another's ad hominem, whew.... but i won't comment on any of the below, i'll let others look and decide
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
if you have any, post them...
Well... it starts here, post #27:
quote:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest...
And graduates quickly to this in post #29:
quote:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it
Then on to post #38 where we find this:
quote:
now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?
and this:
quote:
sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood
And this:
quote:
john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...
all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

Then there is #44 where we find this:
quote:
what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?
Then post #1 of this thread:
quote:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
quote:
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)...
quote:
the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe..
Post #3 of this thread:
quote:
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...
quote:
once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...
Post #7:
quote:
i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks
Ok. This was just funny, in context.
Post #10, this thread:
quote:
john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs...
And here:
quote:
i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive...
quote:
i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject...
Post #12:
quote:
yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on
quote:
then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed
i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...
when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse... and it also shows why the following is true
quote:
forgiven: having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen
quote:
John:
Did I refuse this?
quote:
forgiven:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate of my premises?
quote:
John:
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.
is that a refusal?
in a formal debate, with rules and moderators, logical fallacies will be brought out by an objective third party... ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...
there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...



This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by John, posted 11-16-2002 7:28 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 33 (22952)
11-16-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by forgiven
11-16-2002 6:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]if you have any, post them...
Well... it starts here, post #27:
quote:
sigh... you gave me no answer at all, neither honest nor complicated nor simple nor dishonest...
Mild, yes, but what you refuse to realize is that I have answered you in dead earnest, especially in the beginning. You don't like that answer. Tough. It was in dead earnest. This kind of dismissive response is really quite irritating.
And graduates quickly to this in post #29:
quote:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest... what i don't seem to realize is why you appear to fear answering the question, given the number of times it's been asked and the number of opportunities you've had to answer it
Nope. Not a non-reply. The best reply I've got. And what is this about fear? Quite a skillful attempt to discredit me. This, and all I have done thus far is try to answer your question.
Then on to post #38 where we find this:
quote:
now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?
More of that bully-debate tactic you are so fond of using. Topped off with the suggestion of spinelessness.
and this:
quote:
sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood
Subtle jab at my ability to comprehend the argument, and essentially a brush off of my post.
Yes, this gets old very quickly.
And this:
quote:
john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...
This is a restatement of your premises after I have made a criticism of those premises. In effect, you are ignoring what I have said. Notice, how you have yet to actually respond to any comment I have made. Everything you've said thus far is a string of statements about what you think is valid and appropriate. Bully debate tactics again.
quote:
all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue
Here we have the suggestion that I neglect 'accepted standards of logic' then the accusation that I am dodging the issue.
Then there is #44 where we find this:
quote:
what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?
More jabbing me for what you think is avoiding the issue. When, and I repeat-- please pay attention-- I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOU HONESTLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.
Then post #1 of this thread:
quote:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
More of the same....
quote:
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)...
Ouch....! Need I explain this?
quote:
the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe..
My remarks are vague and apparently meaningless... and of course you still haven't addressed any of them.
Post #3 of this thread:
quote:
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...
Now how does this apply to the question I asked? This was about parallel lines remember? What form of syllogism do you propose would be a valid way to ASK A QUESTION? Can't think of one. Looks like just another chance to imply that I am not logical.
quote:
once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...
Here we go again... more accusations that I do not respond to you. I do.
Post #7:
quote:
i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks
Ok. This was just funny, in context. Nice attempt to dress yourself up and dress me down.
Post #10, this thread:
quote:
john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs...
This, dear forgiven, is simple deceitful. I stated that you were wrong and told you why.
quote:
John:It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge.
And here:
quote:
i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive...
Well, any HONEST person would I suppose....
Again, you brush off the point made in the paragraph. The paragraph was an attempt to explain to you why I answer the way I do. Another good faith effort; another brush off and another jab.
quote:
i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject...
Need I repeat... I have answered you in dead earnest.
Post #12:
quote:
yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on
Not rely upon... deploy when my serious responses are brushed away like dirt. Imagine that?
quote:
then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed
Funny, since you have brushed away all of my efforts to do this. Mostly without a response beyond "You can't do that!!!!!"
quotejohn again speaks for pamboli][/quote]
Is it improper to build upon what someone else has said? I see no point to this statement, which you made a few time, other than to discredit me.
And right below it:
[quote][b]one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each.../b][/quote]
Indicative that you haven't paid attention to anything I have said to you.
quote:
simply form an argument for something that began to exist and show how it is uncaused.. it isn't enough merely to assert that a thing is false, build a case for its falsity
More logic lessons. Irritating because it positions you as 'teacher'. Bully debate tactic.
quote:
yet another bald assertion by john.
And this is deceptive. The "bald assertion" was part of a request that you clarify your position.
quote:
you can't make me mad, but you can and have shown others the caliber of your arguments
Right-o. And you have responded to not a one of them, but brush everything off as not being relevant. The caliber of my arguments is just fine, thanks. The caliber of my ad hominem attacks ain't bad either, but the two are not the same.
Of course, I am leaving out the countless logic lessons. All of which paint you as teacher.
quote:
i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...
This statement is simply amazing to me. Unaware? Really? At least I am aware when I impune your character and intelligence. I wish you'd show the same consideration.
quote:
when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse...
hmmm... the same immaturity is demonstrated when one refuses to acknowledge another's honest answers.
quote:
is that a refusal?
Didn't know I had an offer to refuse.
quote:
ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...
Lets see.... what was that again.....?
quote:
when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse...
quote:
there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...
Likewise there seems no point in continuing a discussion in which I am allowed to say not one damn thing with having my opponent-- and apparently judge, jury and executioner of the laws of logic and debate-- brush it off as an evasive tactic.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 6:29 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 10:53 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 33 (22961)
11-16-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by John
11-16-2002 8:21 PM


you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation... i posted the definition of ad hominem earlier, i honestly don't see that any of the remarks in your post fall in that category... but if you think i was casting aspersions on either your character or your intelligence, then i sincerely apologize

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-16-2002 8:21 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-17-2002 6:08 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 33 (22975)
11-17-2002 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by forgiven
11-16-2002 10:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...
quote:
if you have any, post them... i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...
So much for standing by your word, but I figured as much. Do you think that if you choose you words carefully you can remain squeaky clean? Apparently, it seem to be the method.
You've been unable to see your own blatant crap thus far, why should that change?
quote:
i posted the definition of ad hominem earlier, i honestly don't see that any of the remarks in your post fall in that category...
Didn't actually say they did. Nor, in fact, did you require it. What you will see is a lot of misrepresentation, a lot of avoidance, some red-herrings, and a whole lot of hard-headedness. (you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...) Most of it is the bully debate tactics, where you refuse to admit anything not in your plan. Though I don't think you realize it, this is not good debate.
quote:
but if you think i was casting aspersions on either your character or your intelligence, then i sincerely apologize
After the disclaimer, I am not impressed.
Oh, I really don't see what I may have said to offend you, but I am sincerely sorry.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002]
[This message has been edited by John, 11-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 10:53 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-18-2002 8:23 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 33 (23086)
11-18-2002 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by John
11-17-2002 6:08 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
So much for standing by your word, but I figured as much. Do you think that if you choose you words carefully you can remain squeaky clean? Apparently, it seem to be the method.
You've been unable to see your own blatant crap thus far, why should that change?
i chose (usually) my words carefully to avoid ambiguity and to make sure i didn't commit the fallacies you are fond of... i take exception to your "blatant crap" remark.. my crap is *not* blatant
quote:
quote:
i posted the definition of ad hominem earlier, i honestly don't see that any of the remarks in your post fall in that category...
Didn't actually say they did. Nor, in fact, did you require it. What you will see is a lot of misrepresentation, a lot of avoidance, some red-herrings, and a whole lot of hard-headedness. (you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation...) Most of it is the bully debate tactics, where you refuse to admit anything not in your plan. Though I don't think you realize it, this is not good debate.
well, i accused you of ad hominems, you made a statement that i'd done the same to you.. you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were speaking of the same thing i was, i'm used to people keeping discussions in context... as for "good" debate vs. bad, are you sure you're qualified to comment on that? does "good" debate include the type of postings you make?
quote:
quote:
but if you think i was casting aspersions on either your character or your intelligence, then i sincerely apologize
After the disclaimer, I am not impressed.
darn... and i *so* wanted to impress you [quote] Oh, I really don't see what I may have said to offend you, but I am sincerely sorry.[/B][/QUOTE]
apology accepted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-17-2002 6:08 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-18-2002 9:39 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 33 (23090)
11-18-2002 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by forgiven
11-18-2002 8:23 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i chose (usually) my words carefully to avoid ambiguity and to make sure i didn't commit the fallacies you are fond of...
This is very interesting. Now remember, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation. That said, you have been given a list of fallacious and deceptive practices which you are fond of committing, yet deny them. Wording hardly excuses you. Surely these is every bit the crimes as are mine?
quote:
i take exception to your "blatant crap" remark.. my crap is *not* blatant
Then it is simply crap. You do try to hide your own faults. Remember, mind you, you might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.
quote:
well, i accused you
Wait a minute.... you accused?
quote:
of ad hominems, you made a statement that i'd done the same to you..
And herein lies much trouble, you do assume a great deal and then defend yourself by appealing to your own assumptions. (You might dislike any or all of the things i said, but there's a difference between dislike and accusation.) What you actually said was that if I had evidence -- ie posts-- demonstrating that you have impuned my character, then please post them. I did. You did not require that anything meet the deinition of an ad hominem attack. (By the way, much of what you call an ad hominem fallacy, isn't. To be a fallacy, it has to be within an argument. Otherwise, it is just a insult.)
quote:
you'll have to forgive me for assuming you were speaking of the same thing i was, i'm used to people keeping discussions in context
Gee whiz, is that another effort to impune my character? Really, for all your whining, you launch these things with frightening regularity.
quote:
as for "good" debate vs. bad, are you sure you're qualified to comment on that? does "good" debate include the type of postings you make?
What do ya know? Yet another assault. And all I said was that your debate tactics are poor. Rather than address the issue, you criticise the man. Hang on, isn't that an ad hominem?
Let's review one thing here, and that is this:
quote:
quoteriginally posted by John:
ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....
yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on
What I notice is that you quite obviously object the comment I made about you not getting it. What I also notice is that you class this as an [/i]ad hominem[/i] fallacy. Now, if one were to review post #16 of this thread, it is quite apparent that your initial responses to me are the functional equivalent of this ad hominem attack. Your wording is different, but the meaning is the same. I see no effort to address what I said, which would have been greatly appreciated being as it is that I am here to learn something. What I see is you telling me that I am not getting it. This, by your own standards, is an ad hominem attack. Surely, you can see this?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-18-2002 8:23 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by forgiven, posted 11-18-2002 11:46 AM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 33 (23097)
11-18-2002 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by John
11-18-2002 9:39 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
What I notice is that you quite obviously object the comment I made about you not getting it. What I also notice is that you class this as an [/i]ad hominem[/i] fallacy. Now, if one were to review post #16 of this thread, it is quite apparent that your initial responses to me are the functional equivalent of this ad hominem attack. Your wording is different, but the meaning is the same. I see no effort to address what I said, which would have been greatly appreciated being as it is that I am here to learn something. What I see is you telling me that I am not getting it. This, by your own standards, is an ad hominem attack. Surely, you can see this?
[/B][/QUOTE]
i see the same things others see... any mention i've made of a formal debate, complete with rules and moderators, has been brushed aside...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by John, posted 11-18-2002 9:39 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 11-18-2002 12:34 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 33 (23099)
11-18-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by forgiven
11-18-2002 11:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
i see the same things others see... any mention i've made of a formal debate, complete with rules and moderators, has been brushed aside...
Are you serious? This is a response to my post? The post where I demonstrate that you blatantly disregard your own rules of conduct? This is sticking to the topic? This is not changing the subject? This is answering a direct question? This is not yet another ad hominem? This is not misdirection? This is not avoidance? This is not forgiven speaking for "others"? This is not similar to John speaking for Mr.P. for which I was criticised? This in not a non-answer, like those of which you are fond of accusing me? Do your rules not apply to you?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by forgiven, posted 11-18-2002 11:46 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by forgiven, posted 11-19-2002 11:55 AM John has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 33 (23249)
11-19-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
11-18-2002 12:34 PM


^^^ no, it was an attempt to find a better forum for both your replys and mine... one where the format allows others to better follow the arguments, and with rules of engagement and objective moderators

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 11-18-2002 12:34 PM John has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 33 (23259)
11-19-2002 1:06 PM


I`ve been following it fine, you made a lot of assumptions about the nature of causality, John pointed out (admittedly in an oblique and mildly abrasive fashion) that the usual rules don`t apply as you aproach a singularity and that in fact causality is a meaningless concept before the end of the Planck era...
In reply to which you merely dogmatically reassert your original assumptions and proceed to cry foul (accusation of ad homs) which retards the dialouge to its present level...
Personally I don`t understand why John is bothering with you and the only reason I have been following this thread is a morbid curiosity as too how long it will continue like this before (if ever) returning to the issue....
Do us all a favour, turn the other cheek and get on with debating causality instead of squawking and crying foul when the discussion doesn`t proceed the way you expected it too....

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 11-19-2002 1:23 PM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 33 (23264)
11-19-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by joz
11-19-2002 1:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
admittedly in an oblique and mildly abrasive fashion
Well, you're not getting your bribe this week
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 1:06 PM joz has not replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 33 (23273)
11-19-2002 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by forgiven
11-16-2002 3:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
john seems to be saying here that everything that begins to exist only includes everything that begins to exist in the same manner... for example, my premise would be ok for a ford f-150 pickup but not for a dell dimension 8800... anyone reading this knows that 'everything that begins to exist' includes, by definition, all things that haven't always existed... what those things are is irrelevant to this discussion, although i had hopes some of them would become relevant... [quote] Why did you not include things that did not BEGIN to exist.
In other words why wasn't your argument:
All things Exist
All things have a cause
All things that exist have a cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 3:07 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 5:09 PM RedVento has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 33 (23773)
11-22-2002 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RedVento
11-19-2002 3:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
/B]
ummm... because that isn't my argument? if you like that one, go for it... i don't happen to believe it's true, but you're free to attempt a proof or disproof
EDIT: let me give you a better answer... some thing, some existing thing (*any* existing thing) either began to exist or always existed...
my original argument concerned things that began to exist, but i should have started slower.. i started a new thread that might do that very thing.. in any case, you'd be very hardpressed to prove what you wrote, if proving it is your agenda... if trying to force me to use your premises for my argument is your agenda, good luck
hey john, have you had a chance to read any of craig's articles on middle knowledge? regardless of your position on the subject, it is thought provoking eh?
[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RedVento, posted 11-19-2002 3:20 PM RedVento has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 1:13 AM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024