Quote:
Originally posted by filtherton
In general, most philosophical debate is poorly reasoned and based on false or erroneous assumptions.
|
In general, any philosophical or meta-philosophical statement made by you that I have seen has been poorly reasoned and based on false or erroneous assumptions.
In general, any philosophical or meta-philosophical statement I have seen you interprit has been poorly misunderstood or you missed the reasoning or you showed yourself incapable of understanding what the base assumptions are.
These statements not as bad an overgeneralization as your statement was. Do you now understand how ridiculous your statement was and is?
Quote:
|
That's what i was getting at.
|
No, actually, I made a statement that meant nearly the exact opposite of your assertions.
Quote:
|
I was paraphrasing. Re-read.
|
I read it, and I read you, already. Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth.
Quote:
|
Which i think was my poorly articulated argument from the get-go.
|
Hence the arguement, that maybe philosophical debate isn't the problem, but you are. =)
Look, if I where to post in the Politics forum that "in general, americans did not vote for Bush in 2000", I would be called out of making an idiotic overgeneralization.
This is what you did.
And then, when people called you out on this overgeneralization, you expressed shock and dismay that they would dare misunderstand you, and proceeded to poorly redefine your statement repeatedly.
I am aware that bad philosophical debate exists. Quite possibly every debate you have ever engaged in has been poor, and quite possibly every debate you tried to understand looked poor to you.
I claim you have attribution error: you are attributing the crappyness of philosphical debate to the nature of philosophical debate. I am attributing it to your failings.