“You only think that because X” is a motive fallacy. Showing that someone has a reason to think something doesn’t show that they’re wrong. Everyone has a reason for everything they think or say or do, you’re not saying anything meaningful with that, you’re just being snotty.
Indeed. I’m the goofball on the forum and here we are. Thick in moral debate. Which. I think is still oddly enough on topic. If a little odd in the direction it has taken.
No. Actually I was joking. If I read Mein Kampf. I infer a lot and think as a rational thinking individual and not as a person reading a script to abide.
I like to think I can read something without feeling compelled to find a reason why it should be part of my life. More than pondering the work and judging it by all that which I learned up to that point in my life.
I’m getting the feeling that you’ve got selective blindness when it comes to passive aggressive sniping. Redxlaser owned up to his, but you’re in denial.
If you want to deescalate the argument, that’s a noble goal, and doing it with humor is fine, too. But what you did there was basically akin to saying “you’re deluded lol j/k” which is trying to spit out one last personal attack under cover of a joke, while shutting down the conversation to prevent reply.
Cut that shit out, it’s why people think you’re obnoxious and rude.
And you’re still insinuating that you are a rational thinker (while showing precious little evidence of it) and that I must be a robot who mindlessly parrots things without question, which is the crux of my problem with your debate tactics. It’s a logic-free ad hominem.
While I won’t bash you over the head with it again. I do want to express that I am self judging and aiming for neutral.
The guy you cite is making assumptions and assertions that are subjective as you or I in each our opinions. This is what I keep getting back to. There is danger, as you already spoke of, in literature.
There is much danger in labels of mental disorder. Because each person and creature will be different as varied as we are in populace. Common in most case. But not uncommon in challenging each other in perspective.
I won’t deny either of those things. But they’re no reason to throw evidence out in favor of unadulterated gut feeling.
No you placed an insulting comment at me. Insinuating I would be unable to rationalize what I read and take from written work anything I wasn’t told to comprehend(by the work written or otherwise).
Inference is to logically deduce information not expressly cited. So I was saying I could think for myself irregardless of your opinions.
Inference is not 100% gut feeling mate. It is all that you have on hand from life experience + subjectively experiencing another new form of information. Reading, being told/taught. Opinions. Many sources
Where did I do that? I’ll grant things got pretty heated for a bit there, and I might have said something that could be read that way, but I really don’t believe that I intended to say anything like that at any point during this conversation.
I made a joke based on this little crack. I was also thinking you may find it amusing. But you responded as though, offended.
Oh well >_>
Yeah, I know what that is, and that’s gut feeling. It has no rigor or standards. It’s what most people rely on in their day to day lives, but it’s worth squat in a formal debate because it only ever approximates “good enough” to get you through from day to day.
You can’t prove anything based on “well, I’ve seen a lot and I know X.”
Okay, I can see how you could read it that way. For that, I apologize. It was not intended to question your ability to read, just to say A) that history books are loose approximations of what happened that are often full of bias, and shouldn’t be used for reasoning about human nature, and B) inference is shaky ground for an argument.
That “little joke” was still pretty clearly a snipe, though. Frankly, I’m more offended by you refusing to own up to it and just say “oh, sorry, my bad” than by the remark itself.
Um…that went over your head a bit friend. You just cited a paper a few times about some dude and his inference of people as a species through all of our history. Which in short is still an opinion.
This actually makes me chuckle cause I have been saying that labeling based upon such information becomes dangerous. The opinions we share are just that. Not about who is 100% right. Maybe in 100 years from now we will be eating Soylent Green and think back on us silly people for not enjoying cannibalism lol
Not even offended mate. You discuss well enough. I wouldn’t mind you joining me over in the grey zone though. Hehehe.
Wow. You really think there’s no difference at all between just sitting around and saying “yeah, this is how it is” and spending years studying data and writing up what it shows?
Well yeah, and I guess if we’re going with snarky quips as the level of debate, then I’ll say “I’ve been there before, it was called being a teenager and it sucked, man!”
Shakespeare was a great writer. A humanist to a fault. An observer of our humanity and well. Gosh darn the guy wrote some beautiful work. For all he writes. Observes in our nature of who and what we are. Down to the core of our being. Even those we can define very accurately.
We. Will. Be more than this.
So yes. Well put and versed. Even looking at good examples. We can still surprise each other. This time and again. Inferred and observed as well. Can prove we are more than labels. Even well written observations will change over time. We evolve.
Why would I apologize to you? I DO think for myself. Doing rather well by it my whole life as you have and that guy who wrote that paper xD
Sad to think you feel that way about our little discussion. But…if that is what you got out if this. I cannot tell you not to believe it.
Edit: I inferred a fair amount. Thanks for chatting =)
I don’t, I just figure I’d give as good as I got.
I don’t know, you engaged in a disingenuous, underhanded tactic and owning up to it would make you look better? But that’s up to you.
I wish I could put a heart on the rest of your post, though, because it’s gold.