Quote:
Originally posted by Yakk
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?
|
I stand by my usage of the word "general". I take it to mean
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...ral&x=17&y=16: GENERIC
5 a : applicable to or characteristic of the majority of individuals involved. The "individuals" here being philosophical discussions. It still doesn't sound ridiculous to me.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Why are you here? Looking for the truth are you? It seems like you already have a handle on your version of the truth. Try reading yourself before you proclaim bold truths about the motivations of others. Indeed if my arguments are as flimsy as you seem to think, the person with nothing to prove wouldn't feel the need to "break me down".
Quote:
|
Hence the arguement, that maybe philosophical debate isn't the problem, but you are. =)
|
The problem here is that you are attempting to take over an argument for someone who stopped caring a long time ago. In doing so you have stated no clear position for yourself, just rebutted half-statements without addressing the main point of the thread. It is difficult to argue with someone when they haven't made even a remotely direct statement about their opinion on the topic at hand.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Actually, using the generic definition above it would seem to be a technically accurate statement. If gore got the majority, than in general, americans did not vote for george bush. Since to qualify as "general" for the generic definition something has to be applicable to or a characteristic of the majority of individuals involved.
Perhaps it was the interpretation that was idiotic. I'm sorry if you were thinking of one of the other definitions of "general", but that is not my problem.
Quote:
|
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.
|
My shock and dismay was more the result of the shock and dismay expressd by my critics. I try to respond with tone matching that of my fellow debaters. As for poor redefinition, i'll try harder in the future if you promise you'll stop acting like a philo prof.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Imagine the possibilities. Imagine you, missing the
thousands of times in this thread where i have stated my belief in the value of good philosophical discussion, imagining me never having recieved any benefit from discussions.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I wouldn't call them my failings. I'd call it my lack of desire to waste valuable masturbation time debating things that don't have value to me and may result in the lessing of my already diminishing intelligence.