Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Brian Peacock]

In the interests of common sense...

Ok if the subjective/objective discussion is confusing things let us dispense with arguing about that and concentrate on the cental question.

"Attack the idea, not the person" is supposedly simple.

And yet ideas exist in the same reality as people.

So what, exactly, is it about an idea that means it is ok to attack it?

And what, exactly, is it about a person that means it is not ok to attack it?

How do you differentiate a person from an idea?

How do you exclude the concept of ideas from your definition of what a person is?

So how do you reason this through?

[JimC]

Exi5stentialist wrote:

Trouble is, that's the level this discussion is being held on. There's very little rational justification going on. Very little rationalia here. Just a rewording of the original assertion with words that can be found in a thesaurus followed by some vaguely insulting snottiness. It's just silly.

As I'm sure has been said before, if we are so bad, find another forum more in keeping with your august standards...

[Forty Two]

An idea can be held by many people. If a person says that "mankind is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" then that assertion stands independent of the person enunciating it. One can attack the statement, without attacking the person advancing the notion.

Ideas exist in the same reality as people - assuming that to be true, so what? Rocks exist in the same reality as breasts, but breasts are not rocks and rocks are not breasts.

What about an idea makes it o.k. to attack it? It's not a living entity. So, it's kind of like how you can kick a soccer ball, but generally not a testicle. Moreover, one of the purposes of discussion forums is to attack ideas. One of the purposes of a Fight Club or a boxing ring is to attack people.

How does one differentiate an idea from a person? Well, a person is a human being, and an idea is a thought, suggestion, aim, or purpose. Characteristic of human beings is life and a functioning brain which can produce thoughts, suggestions, aims or purposes. So, I differentiate these things by recognizing that a human being is physical, alive and sentient, whereas an idea is an incorporeal, non-living, thought produced by the human being's brain. We can analogize this to human beings vs. farts. Both are real. Both exist in the same reality. A human being produces farts. But farts are not human beings.

How do we exclude ideas from the definition of what a person is? Well, people are people regardless of whether they have or communicate ideas. And, ideas are ideas, regardless of which person communicates them. For example, Barack Obama may say that the sky is green, and so may Joseph Stalin. However, the merits of the idea are independent of the persons communicating the idea. So, I can say that saying the sky is green is stupid, because of X, Y and Z, and that is not an attack on Obama or Stalin. However, if I say that Obama or Stalin are stupid people, then I've attacked them personally. Even very very smart and very very good people may advance very very stupid ideas, from time to time. Even Newton believed in alchemy.

[Forty Two]

It's my contention that an idea can only exist in the consciousness of a living being. It's not a static thing like a brick. Therefore to attack an idea is to attack a part of a person. If people think it's ok to attack a part of a person as long as it's not the whole of a person, then I can't do much about that. If someone says it's not okay to attack me all over but it's all right to stamp on my toe, then that's just an ideology I'd have to accept. It's crap, but when in Rome you can't kick against the pricks, as they say.

Trouble is, that's the level this discussion is being held on. There's very little rational justification going on. Very little rationalia here. Just a rewording of the original assertion with words that can be found in a thesaurus followed by some vaguely insulting snottiness. It's just silly.

An idea can, of course, only be produced by the consciousness of a living being. However, that doesn't make the idea a "part" of the person. An idea, like semen, is produced by a person, but semen is not a person, and when that semen ejaculates out from a person it is no longer part of that person's person. Thus, if a person attacks semen it is not the same thing as attacking the person from who the semen emanates Likewise, an idea, once it ejaculates from the person, and splatters across these forum message boards, it is not the same thing as or even part of the person who ejaculated it.

Nobody is saying it's o.k. to attack a part of a person. Part of a person would be, say, to attack a person's foot. That's not allowed because it is part of a person. The semen, and an idea, were ONCE part of a person, but once they have been cast forth, like pearls (necklaces or wisdom, whichever), then they are not part of the person.

[Exi5tentialist]

As I'm sure has been said before, if we are so bad, find another forum more in keeping with your august standards...

That's pretty snotty. Come to think of it, every contribution you're making to this discussion is a snotty attempt to stop it in its tracks. I would invite you to enter into the spirit of seeking an unfolding rationale, rather than just trying to stop the conversation.

[Exi5tentialist]

In the interests of common sense...

Ok if the subjective/objective discussion is confusing things let us dispense with arguing about that and concentrate on the cental question.

"Attack the idea, not the person" is supposedly simple.

And yet ideas exist in the same reality as people.

So what, exactly, is it about an idea that means it is ok to attack it?

And what, exactly, is it about a person that means it is not ok to attack it?

How do you differentiate a person from an idea?

How do you exclude the concept of ideas from your definition of what a person is?

So how do you reason this through?

Throughout the discussion I'm providing my reasoning, from post to post. I suggest you try to do the same.

[JimC]

As I'm sure has been said before, if we are so bad, find another forum more in keeping with your august standards...

That's pretty snotty. Come to think of it, every contribution you're making to this discussion is a snotty attempt to stop it in its tracks. I would invite you to enter into the spirit of seeking an unfolding rationale, rather than just trying to stop the conversation.

It should be pretty clear by now that I don't give a fuck what you think about the forum...

[Brian Peacock]

In the interests of common sense...

Ok if the subjective/objective discussion is confusing things let us dispense with arguing about that and concentrate on the cental question.

"Attack the idea, not the person" is supposedly simple.

And yet ideas exist in the same reality as people.

So what, exactly, is it about an idea that means it is ok to attack it?

And what, exactly, is it about a person that means it is not ok to attack it?

How do you differentiate a person from an idea?

How do you exclude the concept of ideas from your definition of what a person is?

So how do you reason this through?

Throughout the discussion I'm providing my reasoning, from post to post. I suggest you try to do the same.

Hmmm. In that post you set out some issues which you think we should be addressing. But I'm interested to know what you consider to be reasonable, rational responses to those apparently vital concerns, so I have invited you to be explicit.

No obligation of course, but it would benefit the discussion to know what you think are the right kind of answers to those questions, rather than getting side-tracked with knit-picking other people's responses. Finding fault with the opinions of others doesn't necessarily further or bolster one's own argument - particularly when that argument has been put forward or can only be inferred in passing.

So, how about it?

[Brian Peacock]

Correction to the above...

... - particularly when that argument hasn't been put forward or can only be inferred in passing.

So, how about it?

Sorry, on the phone.

[Exi5tentialist]

An idea can be held by many people.

A brick can be held by many people. Probably about ten. But an idea? Conceiving of an idea as being analagous to a brick may help the conversation flow, but is it actually true? Surely any concept has to exist in each of the brains that "hold" it. But since each brain holds ideas in its own unique way, based on its own experience, with its neurons arranged in its own unique way... can it really be said to be the same idea? I don't think so. If someone is saying it's the same idea they are either saying it just for the sake of argument or they're not looking deeply enough into each of the brains which are holding what looks on the surface like the same idea.

If a person says that "mankind is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" then that assertion stands independent of the person enunciating it.

Well, the sentence - the arrangement of the words and letters - stands independent of the person enunciating it. But the idea? The meaning and understanding that goes with the idea? I don't think so. Each person will have a different way of storing the memory required to build up the understanding of that sentence - each word has numerous references which are different for each person, each person's experience of learning each word is different, the significance they attach is different. So no, I don't think that "assertion" (idea) stands independent (or outside) of the person enunciating it. Every idea is part of a person.

One can attack the statement, without attacking the person advancing the notion.

Well sorry but that's just another rehash of the original statement that we're debating: "attack the idea, not the person"

Ideas exist in the same reality as people - assuming that to be true, so what?

So ideas do not float on an untouchable plane. They exist in our heads. Our personalities are made up of ideas.

Rocks exist in the same reality as breasts, but breasts are not rocks and rocks are not breasts.

Every object exists in the same reality: the material reality. But surely breasts are a part of people. My argument isn't that all objects are the same thing.

What about an idea makes it o.k. to attack it? It's not a living entity.

I envision an idea, with its essential meaning and understanding, as being located somewhere in the brain as a dynamic structure that depends on brain tissue to exist. I think we know enough about neuroscience for this to stand up to scrutiny. Words can exist on a page but until a living brain gets to work creating an idea using the prompts on the page, it isn't an idea.

So, it's kind of like how you can kick a soccer ball, but generally not a testicle.

So a soccer ball is like a brick: not part of a person. A testicle is. We are agreed on that.

Moreover, one of the purposes of discussion forums is to attack ideas.

Has this been agreed as a Forum objective? I suspect not.

One of the purposes of a Fight Club or a boxing ring is to attack people.

So such places simply do not have the same rule as Rationalia. That doesn't undermine my argument.

How does one differentiate an idea from a person? Well, a person is a human being, and an idea is a thought, suggestion, aim, or purpose. Characteristic of human beings is life and a functioning brain which can produce thoughts, suggestions, aims or purposes. So, I differentiate these things by recognizing that a human being is physical, alive and sentient, whereas an idea is an incorporeal, non-living, thought produced by the human being's brain. We can analogize this to human beings vs. farts. Both are real. Both exist in the same reality. A human being produces farts. But farts are not human beings.

But a fart is released from the body and becomes disconnected from it. But an idea stays in the person's brain, even if the person attempts to express it. If a person expresses a fart, others around them experience it immediately as an involuntary sensation. If the person expresses an idea, others around have to use the expression of it to cause processes in their own brain to occur in order to create the idea in their own head.

How do we exclude ideas from the definition of what a person is? Well, people are people regardless of whether they have or communicate ideas. And, ideas are ideas, regardless of which person communicates them. For example, Barack Obama may say that the sky is green, and so may Joseph Stalin. However, the merits of the idea are independent of the persons communicating the idea. So, I can say that saying the sky is green is stupid, because of X, Y and Z, and that is not an attack on Obama or Stalin. However, if I say that Obama or Stalin are stupid people, then I've attacked them personally. Even very very smart and very very good people may advance very very stupid ideas, from time to time. Even Newton believed in alchemy.

If you say that "saying" something is stupid, then you are saying an act undertaken by a person is stupid. To attack a person's acts is to attack the person. Hell, we've already established in your argument that a person is not defined by their ideas. Now you're saying a person is not defined by their acts. So I come back to the fundamental question which remains unanswered: what on earth is a person once they are detached from all their ideas and all their acts? Just flesh and bone. Just an outline of matter that may be slightly differently arranged than another person's. I think a person is more than that. I think a person is the sum of their ideas and their acts. They may be contradictory and confusing but they are all of those things.

To attack a person's idea is to attack a person. Failure to recognise that is to cause unwarranted pain. And some people here are even encouraging it. Thus, Seth has been hurt.

[Exi5tentialist]

An idea can, of course, only be produced by the consciousness of a living being. However, that doesn't make the idea a "part" of the person. An idea, like semen, is produced by a person, but semen is not a person, and when that semen ejaculates out from a person it is no longer part of that person's person.
Thus, if a person attacks semen it is not the same thing as attacking the person from who the semen emanates.

I can probably agree with that, it's like a brick in its own way.

Likewise, an idea, once it ejaculates from the person, and splatters across these forum message boards, it is not the same thing as or even part of the person who ejaculated it.

Well if anything it's actually more complicated than that. Since the written word can't contain ideas it just becomes an invitation for others to form their own ideas in their brains. In which case, if you attack the idea, strictly speaking, you are attacking an idea in your own head anyway. But if we're talking about regulating the pattern of words on the screen in front of us then it's probably necessary to enter into a collusion that the sentence we're reading in front of us is conveying an idea from the other person. But then if we're colluding in that, it goes for both you in your argument and me in mine equally, so we're back to discussing whether to attack an idea is to attack a person. And I think it is.

Nobody is saying it's o.k. to attack a part of a person. Part of a person would be, say, to attack a person's foot. That's not allowed because it is part of a person. The semen, and an idea, were ONCE part of a person, but once they have been cast forth, like pearls (necklaces or wisdom, whichever), then they are not part of the person.

If nobody is saying it's ok to attack a part of a person the why was Rachelbean earlier talking about an attack being unacceptable because it attacks the whole person? I don't accept your differentiation between a bodily substance and an idea. The bodily substance doesn't depend on neural processes in the brain for its existence whether inside or outside the body. Body fluids once outside the body are like bricks. Ideas are still in it. They define what a person is.

[Exi5tentialist]

Hmmm. In that post you set out some issues which you think we should be addressing. But I'm interested to know what you consider to be reasonable, rational responses to those apparently vital concerns, so I have invited you to be explicit.

No obligation of course, but it would benefit the discussion to know what you think are the right kind of answers to those questions, rather than getting side-tracked with knit-picking other people's responses. Finding fault with the opinions of others doesn't necessarily further or bolster one's own argument - particularly when that argument has been put forward or can only be inferred in passing.

So, how about it?

Oh I see. I didn't think you meant that, sorry. I shall oblige.

So what, exactly, is it about an idea that means it is ok to attack it?

I don't think there should be any carte blanche to attack ideas. All that happens is that people just look for way of creating a nasty atmosphere or putting someone down that don't fall foul of the "attack the idea, not the person" rule. It's okay as long as people are more or less in agreement. But if they're not, then a forum can get quite nasty with loads of foul language being used and people being excluded (believe me, this hurts) you just end up with either a nasty atmosphere or a Forum that's entirely inhabited by silly old codgers spewing bile. And actually I think a person is made up of their ideas and the things they do in life.

And what, exactly, is it about a person that means it is not ok to attack it?

I think a person can be hurt. But since ideas are part of people, attacking an idea can hurt a person too.

How do you differentiate a person from an idea?

I don't. Really. To exist, an idea has to have meaning (which is a brain process) and there has to be understanding (also a brain process). Ideas exist in brains. Brains are made up of matter and the matter includes ideas. They may be chemical or electrical or both, but they are physical things that have an existence in someone's brain.

How do you exclude the concept of ideas from your definition of what a person is?

I don't.

The obvious question is that if I think the "attack ideas, not people" rule should be scrapped, what should replace it? Do I think it should be okay to attack all ideas? No, I don't, because I think people can be hurt that way. Do I think it should be prohibited to attack any ideas? No, because sometimes it's necessary to risk some discomfort to others. So what do I think? I think that attacks, exchanges of views and statements should be proportionate and reasonably sensitive. How can that be judged? I cannot offer any objective way of doing that - it will always have to be a subjective judgement. So isn't that unsatisfactory and won't it take up the time of moderators? Yes, it is unsatisfactory and yes it will take moderator time. So isn't it better to have a "clear, simple rule" like "attack ideas, not people"? No, it isn't, because you end up with a Forum of grumpy old codgers who think nothing turning nasty when someone walks in the room who doesn't agree with their grumpy old codgering. A more situation-specific type of moderation would allow for a better quality of discussion.

[pErvinalia]

What's a fascist liberal? Is it anything like a republican monarchist?

Seth has never been too concerned with making sense.

Where ya been, JT?

[pErvinalia]

An idea doesn't have to be associated with the mind that is proposing it. I could be offering the idea that someone else put forward.

Have you ever tried to do that? Whenever I try to do that, I always couch it in terms of "this is my interpretation of what x person's idea is". Unless I feel no need to quote x, in which case it is my idea. In both cases, the idea is actually mine.

An idea is different from a brick. We can point to a brick, and pass it round, and it stays the same. But an idea... that has to be interpreted, the interpretor has to create an understanding of it, and assimilate it into their consciousness, then disseminate it.

You attacking that idea is in no way an attack on me.

Yeah that's the point of contention that we're debating. Asserting it again doesn't really add anything.

Well if you refuse to use logic, then sure. But when you accept the first premise (which you did), then you realise that attacking an idea that is not your own is not an attack on you. It's simple stuff, really.

You could, if you were taking this to the absurd limits that you seem to be, claim that this was an attack on the other person.

Well, I don't know what you mean by "this". Do you mean "this post"?

Can you not read properly? I wrote the post in normal coherent English. I must say, I don't have high hopes for this "debate". Looking at what others have said, it looks like you have a history of obfuscation and wilful ignorance.

And if you had of read the rest of my post you might have been able to avoid making the nonsense dualism mistake.

Sorry but I don't see that. Just because I only quoted the first clause doesn't mean I didn't read to the end. And when I read to the end of your post, I saw no argument against my assertion that this "idea-person" dualism borrows heavily from the dualistic "realm of God-realm of man" dualism.

Yes, it seems you can't read too well:

How do you exclude the concept of ideas from your definition of what a person is?

Ideas are a subset of personality. Any single idea isn't the totality of a person's existence/meaning.

It's no good saying "it's a logical fallacy" unless the logic is explained.

Attacking the person is not addressing the idea. This is simple stuff.

It's my contention that an idea can only exist in the consciousness of a living being. It's not a static thing like a brick. Therefore to attack an idea is to attack a part of a person. If people think it's ok to attack a part of a person as long as it's not the whole of a person, then I can't do much about that.

Good. End thread.

[pErvinalia]

An idea can be held by many people.

A brick can be held by many people. Probably about ten. But an idea? Conceiving of an idea as being analagous to a brick may help the conversation flow, but is it actually true? Surely any concept has to exist in each of the brains that "hold" it. But since each brain holds ideas in its own unique way, based on its own experience, with its neurons arranged in its own unique way... can it really be said to be the same idea? I don't think so. If someone is saying it's the same idea they are either saying it just for the sake of argument or they're not looking deeply enough into each of the brains which are holding what looks on the surface like the same idea.

This is nonsense reasoning. Using the same reasoning we can say that the person attacking the "idea" is actually attacking a different idea as it is neuronally arranged in a unique way in the attacker's mind. Therefore no personal attack.

Moreover, one of the purposes of discussion forums is to attack ideas.

Has this been agreed as a Forum objective? I suspect not.

So the forum is simply here for individual monologues, is it?