Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[pErvinalia]

In which case, if you attack the idea, strictly speaking, you are attacking an idea in your own head anyway.

Oh look at that. Even you can see the absurdity that I pointed out in your argument in my previous post. So why the fuck did you make it if you see the absurdity in it?!?

[jamest]

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?

I still pop in here but haven't posted much recently. Been working towards my nobel prize over at ratskep.

I'm glad to see you back, btw. And I also hope Seth changes his mind.

[piscator]

Meanwhile, the more astute of us have downloaded all his material and sold the lot of it for big data medical experiments...

[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?

I still pop in here but haven't posted much recently. Been working towards my nobel prize over at ratskep.

I'm glad to see you back, btw. And I also hope Seth changes his mind.

I suspect I'll be moving on again in a little while. The new "stick up arse" approach to moderation doesn't sit well with me.

[pErvinalia]

Meanwhile, the more astute of us have downloaded all his material and sold the lot of it for big data medical experiments...

[JimC]

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?

I still pop in here but haven't posted much recently. Been working towards my nobel prize over at ratskep.

I'm glad to see you back, btw. And I also hope Seth changes his mind.

I suspect I'll be moving on again in a little while. The new "stick up arse" approach to moderation doesn't sit well with me.

And we're so careful to lubricate it first!

[Exi5tentialist]

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.

I don't refuse to use logic. My argument is a logical one. If you're going to say I'm not being logical you need to point to the bit in the sentence which is not logical. Just putting out the accusation that I refuse to use logic doesn't cut it.

But when you accept the first premise (which you did)

WHAT exactly is "the first premise"? The first premise in WHICH sentence? There are lots of sentences and paragraphs in this thread, each of which has a "first premise." It is necessary to be very precise or confusion will reign. Please quote the sentence containing the "premise" that you are referring to. This is a long thread and there are a lot of first premises. And if it is possible to state this "first premise" for me without wrapping it up in a barbed parcel saying "You can't read" or "This is simple stuff" which actually doesn't help the process of logic unfold, then I would be most grateful. This has been a long thread and there are potentially several "first premises" . It is absolutely essential to be precise and to say what is meant.

, then you realise that attacking an idea that is not your own is not an attack on you.

Bur rEvolutionist, you are not adding ANYTHING to the original assertion under debate. "Attack the person, not the idea" is what you are re-stating. An argument can't be supported just be re-stating using different words.

It's simple stuff, really.

Oh God. A velied, barbed insult. How does this help the process of unfolding logic? Honestly, rEvolutionist, logical argument needs to be a little bit more grown-up than this.

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?

How exactly does asking me if I am able to read property help the process of cool, logical argument? It doesn't does it? It's just a distracting put-down designed to express some frustration. That sort of approach is just going to end up derailing the conversation.

I wrote the post in normal coherent English.

Oh Gawd.

I must say, I don't have high hopes for this "debate".

Logic, please rEv, logic.

Looking at what others have said, it looks like you have a history of obfuscation and wilful ignorance.

I'm still waiting for a single logical response to the previous post. Is this what you mean by "addressing the argument"?

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:

This series of needling insults will turn me to religion soon. Oh Jesus.

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.

So you're back to saying the same thing as me!!!!

I say exactly that!!! Ideas are a subset of personality!!!

Therefore, to attack an idea is to attack a person!!! My toe is a subset of my body. Therefore to attack my toe is to attack me. You are saying exactly the same thing as me now!!!

The orignal statement under debate was not, "Attack a part of a person, not the whole person". The original statement was "attack the idea, not the person." You have just stated EXACTLY the reason why I say that is a crap statement. By rejecting the dualism of "idea" in one realm, "person" in another, you have arrived at exacly the same conclusion that I have!!!

Now you're going to go and change it, aren't you...

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.

Oh thank you for tellling us it is simple again. Without that I wouldn't have known. Without a re-statement of the argument we have been trying to debate all along, I might have forgotten what it is. By re-stating it, obviously that reinforces it. Telling us it is "simple" (and by implication that I am even more simple than simple for not accepting it) clearly makes the argument "attack the idea, not the person" unassailable.

Not.

It is 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.

Not exactly. That just establishes that your position is based on intransigent emotions, not rationality. I don't mean that as an insult. Honestly, in this reply you have presented no logical support to your position and at one point in this reply you aligned yourself with my view exactly - you said that ideas are a subset of personality. For a moment there, we were singing from the same hymn sheet until you went back to using these pointless little sniping shots like "This is simple stuff". Really, rEv. Two can play at that game, but I will try not to. Now please, provide some logic to refute the argument (YOUR argument and mine) that ideas are a subset of personality.

[JimC]

Simple question, Exi old chap.

Why the fuck do you post here?

Your posts are only carping complaints about the forum anyway...

A bit masochistic, really...

[Brian Peacock]

Exi is telling us what we need to be concerned about. How would we know otherwise?

[pErvinalia]

Well she needs to start employing logic if she wants to affect anything.

[JimC]

Exi is telling us what we need to be concerned about. How would we know otherwise?

[Hermit]

Simple question, Exi old chap.

Why the fuck do you post here?

Because he knows exactly how forums must be run. So he's telling us how to run this one. That's what almost all of his 1174 posts to date are about. Compulsive obsessions manifest themselves in many ways. This is one of them. Personally, I have no objection to this one.

He was accused of "intentional malicious trolling" in November 2011, whereupon he took an extended break that lasted until a week ago. I hope this does not happen again. Exi5tentialist's obsession does no harm and he does not break any forum rules. If you find a poster who does not break forum rules annoying, use the ignore feature or the scroll wheel.

[JimC]

Simple question, Exi old chap.

Why the fuck do you post here?

Because he knows exactly how forums must be run. So he's telling us how to run this one. That's what almost all of his 1174 posts to date are about. Compulsive obsessions manifest themselves in many ways. This is one of them. Personally, I have no objection to this one.

He was accused of "intentional malicious trolling" in November 2011, whereupon he took an extended break that lasted until a week ago. I hope this does not happen again. Exi5tentialist's obsession does no harm and he does not break any forum rules. If you find a poster who does not break forum rules annoying, use the ignore feature or the scroll wheel.

From memory, he received a brief suspension, but chose not to return when it ended. To date, none of his posting output deserves anything more than ridicule and scorn...

[Svartalf]

Or being ignored, amm he posts fall in my tb:dr category without even need of the ignore list (which he would get if he engaged in too many walls of text)

[pErvinalia]

I'll write a wall of text in reply when I get home. Can't let that level of willfully ignorant wibble go unchallenged.