Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Exi5tentialist]

Justification on the ground of experience will just have to do until someone comes up a criterion by which we can justify something objectively. Good luck with finding it.

We are being told that a supposedly objective criterion is justified on the basis of "experience". There's no substance at all to that argument. And the criterion is applied inconsistently so it isn't even objective in the first place.

The question remains, if ideas and people exist in the same reality (which they do) - what is it that makes it justifiable to attack an idea and not a person? What is it that makes a person different from their ideas? The only way people seem to be able to answer that by defining the rule in terms of itself, as a circular argument, or by saying it's "clear and simple". It's a circular argument supported by a trite assertion. That's all there is to it.

It is deeply, deeply flawed, and it supports an authoritarian culture.

[Hermit]

It's not just a matter of teh rulz though Hermy - consistently defining people into some nominal group (Marxists, feminazis, fundamentalists, whatever) and then lambasting them on the basis of that presumed group-membership is a dishonest cheep shot no matter how it's phrased, classic ad-homming, and it amounts to a goodly portion of some member's discursive 'tactics', particularly when their ideas were backed up against the wall with their pants down.

Isn't that what I said here?

Now to indirect personal attacks: It is one thing to describe, say, Marxism as the most pernicious and destructive idea ever and opine that it should be wiped from the face of the earth. Fine. It's altogether a different matter to at best call all Marxists and sympathisers of socialism, at best, useful idiots while accusing half the forum's members of being Marxists and sympathisers of socialism. Not at all fine.

[Hermit]

Justification on the ground of experience will just have to do until someone comes up a criterion by which we can justify something objectively. Good luck with finding it.

We are being told that a supposedly objective criterion is justified on the basis of "experience".

I challenge you to point to the words by anybody at all that claim anything about objective criteria.

[Brian Peacock]

Justification on the ground of experience will just have to do until someone comes up a criterion by which we can justify something objectively. Good luck with finding it.

We are being told that a supposedly objective criterion is justified on the basis of "experience". There's no substance at all to that argument. And the criterion is applied inconsistently so it isn't even objective in the first place.

The question remains, if ideas and people exist in the same reality (which they do) - what is it that makes it justifiable to attack an idea and not a person? What is it that makes a person different from their ideas? The only way people seem to be able to answer that by defining the rule in terms of itself, as a circular argument, or by saying it's "clear and simple". It's a circular argument supported by a trite assertion. That's all there is to it.

It is deeply, deeply flawed, and it supports an authoritarian culture.

Please show your working out.

[Exi5tentialist]

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?

[JimC]

Whatever...

[Brian Peacock]

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?

[pErvinalia]

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?

Ideas don't have sentience and feelings. Simple.

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

Because it's a logical fallacy. Simple.

How do you differentiate a person from an idea?

One is a living being, the other is a concept.

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

Whatever...

That's pure abdication of responsibility

[Exi5tentialist]

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

Ideas don't have sentience and feelings. Simple.

I'll come back to the rest because I don't have time now, but I can't resist having a go at this in the short time I have available this morning.

I agree this is a simple sentence and even I have the ability to conceptualize the point you are making.

But knowing the science of consciousness as we all do, this has got to be pure, neurological crap. Ideas can only exist as a neurological process in the brain of a living being. To suggest that that process cannot be perturbed neurologically in a way that causes discomfort is to fly in the face of the science that has been done about brain tissue over the last 100 years.

If this answer to my question isn't based in science I have to ask myself where it comes from. It looks like it comes from dualism: that there is one reality which is in a different realm from us humans and that we have no connection do it. It is antiquated philosophy which flies in the face of science.

[JimC]

Whatever...

That's pure abdication of responsibility

No, it's shrugging my shoulders about meaningless garbage...

Your posts haven't changed much...

[pErvinalia]

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

Ideas don't have sentience and feelings. Simple.

I'll come back to the rest because I don't have time now, but I can't resist having a go at this in the short time I have available this morning.

I agree this is a simple sentence and even I have the ability to conceptualize the point you are making.

But knowing the science of consciousness as we all do, this has got to be pure, neurological crap. Ideas can only exist as a neurological process in the brain of a living being. To suggest that that process cannot be perturbed neurologically in a way that causes discomfort is to fly in the face of the science that has been done about brain tissue over the last 100 years.

If this answer to my question isn't based in science I have to ask myself where it comes from. It looks like it comes from dualism: that there is one reality which is in a different realm from us humans and that we have no connection do it. It is antiquated philosophy which flies in the face of science.

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

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

[jamest]

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

[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.

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"?

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.

I'm just not seeing much rational argument here supporting the "attack the idea, not the person" doctrine. The only arguments seem to be couched in terms of the original question. It's no good saying "one is a living being, the other is a concept" because "living being" is just another word for "person" and "concept" is just another word for "idea".

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

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.

[Exi5tentialist]

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

Well exactly and if there was any common sense being applied, it would be so obvious that such an attempt at an insult is so internally contradictory that it's worthless as an attack. Therefore it nowhere near justifies a suspension. A better way of dealing with it would be to simply subject it to the ridicule it totally deserves.

But, said the park keeper to the young mum helping her toddler to play on the swings for the first time, Rules is Rules. No Adults in the Children's Playground.