Total Posts:200|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evaluate the User Above You

YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 4:22:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you think about the person who posted above you? What is your opinion of them, their values, their political beliefs, their contribution to the forum, etc.? Rate members on a scale of 1-10.

I suppose I'll be the first subject.
Tsar of DDO
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:24:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 4:22:52 PM, YYW wrote:
What do you think about the person who posted above you? What is your opinion of them, their values, their political beliefs, their contribution to the forum, etc.? Rate members on a scale of 1-10.

I suppose I'll be the first subject.

I'll put you at a 7. you seem civilized at most topics but sometimes you can be very and I mean very, hostile on some. I agree with half of your political beliefs. your contribution to the forums is wonderful. you also seem to have good values of things
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:17:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 6:24:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:22:52 PM, YYW wrote:
What do you think about the person who posted above you? What is your opinion of them, their values, their political beliefs, their contribution to the forum, etc.? Rate members on a scale of 1-10.

I suppose I'll be the first subject.

I'll put you at a 7. you seem civilized at most topics but sometimes you can be very and I mean very, hostile on some. I agree with half of your political beliefs. your contribution to the forums is wonderful. you also seem to have good values of things

Yeah, fair point. I can be extremely hard on a select few people, but never without provocation or with malice. Thanks for the review!

I don't know much about you, but you seem like a good member. I don't know much more to say beyond that, only because I don't want to speak when ignorant.
Tsar of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:22:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:17:43 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 6:24:48 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/22/2013 4:22:52 PM, YYW wrote:
What do you think about the person who posted above you? What is your opinion of them, their values, their political beliefs, their contribution to the forum, etc.? Rate members on a scale of 1-10.

I suppose I'll be the first subject.

I'll put you at a 7. you seem civilized at most topics but sometimes you can be very and I mean very, hostile on some. I agree with half of your political beliefs. your contribution to the forums is wonderful. you also seem to have good values of things

Yeah, fair point. I can be extremely hard on a select few people, but never without provocation or with malice. Thanks for the review!

I don't know much about you, but you seem like a good member. I don't know much more to say beyond that, only because I don't want to speak when ignorant.

9.9
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:34:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:22:56 PM, 16kadams wrote:

I'd definitely give you a 9/10, (decimals just get too finite). I think you genuinely mean well and substantively contribute to the site. I also think that you would make a great college professor one day.

In other news, the principle reason I'm curious is because I am getting last semester's instructor reviews back on me today and I thought it would be interesting to contrast the way I am described there with the way I am here.

And I'm totally cool with bad reviews (I might post some of the more colorful ones later, just for fun), because I am concerned with honesty before anything else.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 7:57:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

I think you're a pretty sharp kid, and that I wish you posted more. You, Cody and Biebz are the bedrock of the Philosophy forum.

9/10.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:57:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

I think you're a pretty sharp kid, and that I wish you posted more. You, Cody and Biebz are the bedrock of the Philosophy forum.

9/10.

Yer forgetting Phantom. He's horribly underrated. He hasn't gotten into some of the finer aspects of philosophy yet but he posts in there a hella lot more than I do. And what about Kinesis the lovable British agnostic. I think I might have to bump you down a point for forgetfulness.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:04:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:57:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

I think you're a pretty sharp kid, and that I wish you posted more. You, Cody and Biebz are the bedrock of the Philosophy forum.

9/10.

Yer forgetting Phantom. He's horribly underrated. He hasn't gotten into some of the finer aspects of philosophy yet but he posts in there a hella lot more than I do. And what about Kinesis the lovable British agnostic. I think I might have to bump you down a point for forgetfulness.

Yeah, I make no claim to see everything or consider myself even hugely associated with the philosophy column. I post mostly in the politics column, but what I've seen of Phantom I like -it's just that I don't see that much. I actually don't think I've ever had a conversation with Kinesis either... do what you must, lol.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:10:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

7/10.

Though I do take a lot of issue with your beliefs, you aren't afraid to defend them, and I really respect that.

I wish that you'd maybe be more open to reading the literature supporting ideas that you disagree with (ie anarchism), but I understand--time is always a constraint.

All in all, you're a good member of DDO--if we may not see eye to eye too often (if at all).
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:11:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:07:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:04:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:57:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

I think you're a pretty sharp kid, and that I wish you posted more. You, Cody and Biebz are the bedrock of the Philosophy forum.

9/10.

Yer forgetting Phantom. He's horribly underrated. He hasn't gotten into some of the finer aspects of philosophy yet but he posts in there a hella lot more than I do. And what about Kinesis the lovable British agnostic. I think I might have to bump you down a point for forgetfulness.

Yeah, I make no claim to see everything or consider myself even hugely associated with the philosophy column. I post mostly in the politics column, but what I've seen of Phantom I like -it's just that I don't see that much. I actually don't think I've ever had a conversation with Kinesis either... do what you must, lol.

Mysterious (well, sort of), well-spoken, and , well, awesome for lack of a better word. You're the common sense guy around these forums. 9/10.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:07:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:04:13 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:57:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

I think you're a pretty sharp kid, and that I wish you posted more. You, Cody and Biebz are the bedrock of the Philosophy forum.

9/10.

Yer forgetting Phantom. He's horribly underrated. He hasn't gotten into some of the finer aspects of philosophy yet but he posts in there a hella lot more than I do. And what about Kinesis the lovable British agnostic. I think I might have to bump you down a point for forgetfulness.

Yeah, I make no claim to see everything or consider myself even hugely associated with the philosophy column. I post mostly in the politics column, but what I've seen of Phantom I like -it's just that I don't see that much. I actually don't think I've ever had a conversation with Kinesis either... do what you must, lol.

And you get a 9/10.

You tell it like it is, man. I don't agree with SOME of what you say, but you're a definitely honest person. You have a lot of insight to boot. I really respect that, and you. Thank you for contributing here, mate.

I could go on, but I think I'm just going to leave it there.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

I continue to maintain that you never quite understood what I was actually saying. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to message me I'd like to start a dialogue on it as well as some other important philosophical matters I suppose it would be prudent to discuss with you.

As an overall evaluation I'd give you a 6 probably as well. You seem like there was a time when you were budding philosophically but you don't seem to know what to do once you get to both a rejection of normativity and an adaptation of skepticism. The entire range of postmodern/Coninental philosophy whic is so enriching seems lost on you. But again that's getting sidetracked. I think you certainly have potential (even if its not in politics lol). Just don't think that philosophy stops with nihilism and you'll be dandy.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:31:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:16:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

I continue to maintain that you never quite understood what I was actually saying. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to message me I'd like to start a dialogue on it as well as some other important philosophical matters I suppose it would be prudent to discuss with you.

As an overall evaluation I'd give you a 6 probably as well. You seem like there was a time when you were budding philosophically but you don't seem to know what to do once you get to both a rejection of normativity and an adaptation of skepticism. The entire range of postmodern/Coninental philosophy whic is so enriching seems lost on you. But again that's getting sidetracked. I think you certainly have potential (even if its not in politics lol). Just don't think that philosophy stops with nihilism and you'll be dandy.

You get the full fledged 10/10.

Always a good one for political discourse, and you were willing to discuss damn near about anything, philosophy, politics, even Misc. stuff. When I was starting out (although I still consider myself a novice of sorts now), you didn't judge me for asking really basic philosophical/political theory questions. You were very...maybe "understanding" isn't the right word...but accepting of someone who wasn't really adept at philosophical jargon. A*
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

8/10

I enjoy your insightful comments, but I'm not too fond of your propensity to resort to ad homs and vicious belligerence you direct towards those who may have opposing views.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:35:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

8/10

I enjoy your insightful comments, but I'm not too fond of your propensity to resort to ad homs and vicious belligerence you direct towards those who may have opposing views.

I'd say 6/10.

I don't think I've had very many encounters with you. Although, you're a libertarian, so I gotta have some bias there ;)
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:31:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:16:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

I continue to maintain that you never quite understood what I was actually saying. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to message me I'd like to start a dialogue on it as well as some other important philosophical matters I suppose it would be prudent to discuss with you.

As an overall evaluation I'd give you a 6 probably as well. You seem like there was a time when you were budding philosophically but you don't seem to know what to do once you get to both a rejection of normativity and an adaptation of skepticism. The entire range of postmodern/Coninental philosophy whic is so enriching seems lost on you. But again that's getting sidetracked. I think you certainly have potential (even if its not in politics lol). Just don't think that philosophy stops with nihilism and you'll be dandy.

You get the full fledged 10/10.

Always a good one for political discourse, and you were willing to discuss damn near about anything, philosophy, politics, even Misc. stuff. When I was starting out (although I still consider myself a novice of sorts now), you didn't judge me for asking really basic philosophical/political theory questions. You were very...maybe "understanding" isn't the right word...but accepting of someone who wasn't really adept at philosophical jargon. A*

I doth remember an early conversation we had on the existential significance of Seinfeld. Nice stuff. Yer pretty kewl yourself. Ill give you a 9. I detract a point because you don't have the balls to be an anarchist. You're also bi which is interesting unto itself. I don't detract for that its just something interesting imo. It's hard for me to grasp attraction to both genders. Perhaps we can discuss it via Pm later. Why am I rambling so much? Anyways 9/10.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:43:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:38:29 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:35:41 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

8/10

I enjoy your insightful comments, but I'm not too fond of your propensity to resort to ad homs and vicious belligerence you direct towards those who may have opposing views.

I'd say 6/10.

I don't think I've had very many encounters with you. Although, you're a libertarian, so I gotta have some bias there ;)

8/10

I haven't seen much of you, but from what I've seen you appear to be insightful, reflective, and well-spoken (well-written, if we're being technical). I look forward to our story debate.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:49:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Didn't do this a few weeks ago? Looks like DDO loves to compliment each other and honestly, it isn't bad for morale. I've worked for a department in my university that did that and it definitely helped team spirit and such.

I won't "rate" people since I don't see the point from a morale-boosting standpoint.

Skepsikyma: I haven't interacted much with you, but from what I have seen, your posts always come across as very mature and well-thought out. Hope to get to know you better and maybe debate sometime.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:51:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Wait how old is f-858? I always presumed that he was like 15.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:49:54 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Didn't do this a few weeks ago? Looks like DDO loves to compliment each other and honestly, it isn't bad for morale. I've worked for a department in my university that did that and it definitely helped team spirit and such.

I won't "rate" people since I don't see the point from a morale-boosting standpoint.

Skepsikyma: I haven't interacted much with you, but from what I have seen, your posts always come across as very mature and well-thought out. Hope to get to know you better and maybe debate sometime.

I think F-16 is a top tier DDO member. He is a great judge and pays close attention to the fine point of the debates he reads. His is also a fine debater, capable of holding his own against other top-shelf members like Roy (though I think F-16 lost his wind power debate...). If F-16 were a beer, I would buy a case of him for my best friend's birthday.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If Raisor posted more in the philosophy forum I'd get right back in there. That's my evaluation.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:51:43 PM, Noumena wrote:
Wait how old is f-858? I always presumed that he was like 15.

Noumena is also a pretty chill dude. Sometimes I confuse f-16 and Noumena due to their superior levels of chillness (not even joking). If Noumena were a can of Coors Light, his mountains would be blue- because he is that chill.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 8:58:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Raisor also isn't too rough around the edges ;)
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
daytonanerd
Posts: 6,769
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 11:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:58:46 PM, Noumena wrote:
Raisor also isn't too rough around the edges ;)

9

Noumena is a cool dude, as I knew him back in his mafia days when we played together.
#FeeltheFreezerBern
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 3:10:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many thanks, Ethan and DetectableNinja.

I would give both of you probably a 9/10 as well. You're both bright, regular contributors, and when you contribute, both of you make valuable contributions.

In other news, here are some quotes from my instructor reviews last semester. Obviously, I can't speak to the demographic of the students (other than that they were university undergraduates) but here they are:

The prompt was "evaluate the classroom environment," or something like that...

"[The instructor] is exceptionally bright, but exceptionally harsh when students voice controversial opinions. He softened up over the semester, but I really don't feel like he was sensitive enough to the class."

"[The instructor] was really rude to me when I tried to argue with him. He was demeaning and disrespectful of my opinion."

(If this applies to the case I'm thinking of, the student was arguing that gay's shouldn't be able to join the military or marry because homosexuality is a sin in the bible. And yes, I berated him in class. I took some heat for it, but no one in the department seemed to care. This was also the only time I did it.)

When asked "what were the worst parts of the instructor's teaching"

"[He] rushed through things and assumed that we understood a lot more than we did. He really should slow down."

When asked "would you recommend this class to other students"

"I would recommend the class because I thought I gained a lot from it. While the instructor was really demanding of the class, I think that was a good thing. He always knew what he was talking about too, and nothing caught him off guard."

When asked "do you think assignments were graded fairly"

"[The instructor] told us how he was going to grade assignments, yeah. He was really hard though, and I worked harder to get a B- in this class then I usually do to get As in others."

Some other remarks included how I needed to be more sensitive to religious diversity, how I need to be less crass and condescending and how my standards were too high.

All in all though, I wasn't disappointed.

My favorite response was this, when asked if the student would recommend me:

"Absolutely not. No matter what I had to say nothing was right and he seemed to call me out every chance he got. I will never take him again. He was horrible."

*smiles*

I'm pretty sure I know who that kid was too.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 3:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 3:10:50 PM, YYW wrote:
Many thanks, Ethan and DetectableNinja.

I would give both of you probably a 9/10 as well. You're both bright, regular contributors, and when you contribute, both of you make valuable contributions.

In other news, here are some quotes from my instructor reviews last semester. Obviously, I can't speak to the demographic of the students (other than that they were university undergraduates) but here they are:

The prompt was "evaluate the classroom environment," or something like that...

"[The instructor] is exceptionally bright, but exceptionally harsh when students voice controversial opinions. He softened up over the semester, but I really don't feel like he was sensitive enough to the class."

"[The instructor] was really rude to me when I tried to argue with him. He was demeaning and disrespectful of my opinion."

(If this applies to the case I'm thinking of, the student was arguing that gay's shouldn't be able to join the military or marry because homosexuality is a sin in the bible. And yes, I berated him in class. I took some heat for it, but no one in the department seemed to care. This was also the only time I did it.)

When asked "what were the worst parts of the instructor's teaching"

"[He] rushed through things and assumed that we understood a lot more than we did. He really should slow down."

When asked "would you recommend this class to other students"

"I would recommend the class because I thought I gained a lot from it. While the instructor was really demanding of the class, I think that was a good thing. He always knew what he was talking about too, and nothing caught him off guard."

When asked "do you think assignments were graded fairly"

"[The instructor] told us how he was going to grade assignments, yeah. He was really hard though, and I worked harder to get a B- in this class then I usually do to get As in others."

Some other remarks included how I needed to be more sensitive to religious diversity, how I need to be less crass and condescending and how my standards were too high.

All in all though, I wasn't disappointed.

My favorite response was this, when asked if the student would recommend me:

"Absolutely not. No matter what I had to say nothing was right and he seemed to call me out every chance he got. I will never take him again. He was horrible."

*smiles*

I'm pretty sure I know who that kid was too.

So, all in all I'm kind of a bastard at times...
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2013 5:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 8:16:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 4/22/2013 8:06:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/22/2013 7:39:17 PM, Noumena wrote:
7/10

Yer alright. Philosophically you seem pretty adept. Far above my own level by I feel at least qualified to pass some level of judgement.

6/10

very open-minded; and since open-mindedness is the only way for anyone to find what's true, I think it matters a lot. You also seem to have a lot of knowledge about philosophy. However -4 points because your arguments are sometimes very, very stubbornly myopic, especially with regard to morality and the ethical foundation of anarchy. There was a time that you insisted that somehow an illogical action was tantamount to an immoral action, and that if a certain course of reasoning could be found as performatively contradictory, then somehow it ought not to be done. All of this was absolutely asinine, no matter what way you looked at it. So despite all the knowledge of philosophical history and flying jargon at your disposal, the actual logical content of your arguments aren't the strongest.

I continue to maintain that you never quite understood what I was actually saying. But that's neither here nor there. If you want to message me I'd like to start a dialogue on it as well as some other important philosophical matters I suppose it would be prudent to discuss with you.

As an overall evaluation I'd give you a 6 probably as well. You seem like there was a time when you were budding philosophically but you don't seem to know what to do once you get to both a rejection of normativity and an adaptation of skepticism. The entire range of postmodern/Coninental philosophy whic is so enriching seems lost on you. But again that's getting sidetracked. I think you certainly have potential (even if its not in politics lol). Just don't think that philosophy stops with nihilism and you'll be dandy.

I'm not a student of philosophy. I set out to find new conclusions about the complex that is moral responsibility and the freedom of mind on which it is established. I found that morality is inherently unjustifiable and freewill is impossible. That's all I care about.

For the whole discourse ethics argument you had, speaking of the structural base of your reasoning, you start off with an appeal to logic and end with an appeal to morality. There can be no misunderstanding in that transfer- it just isn't possible. Logic cannot produce morality. The only way there can be a misunderstanding here is if you didn't intend to produce any morality. Which apparently you did.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2013 2:05:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/23/2013 5:02:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
For the whole discourse ethics argument you had, speaking of the structural base of your reasoning, you start off with an appeal to logic and end with an appeal to morality. There can be no misunderstanding in that transfer- it just isn't possible. Logic cannot produce morality. The only way there can be a misunderstanding here is if you didn't intend to produce any morality. Which apparently you did.

Okay, maybe it would be helpful to set something straight: for Habermas, there was something about the structure of discourse--particularly, relative to Kant, the conditions of possibility of a rigorous interpersonal communication--from which analogous truths, in the realm of ethics, could be derived (or, more appropriately, through which the structure of legitimate moral norms could be understood), as in the case of certain presuppositions, e.g., that all parties are rational, are persuaded only by argumentation, do not exclude any relevant argument, and have arbitrarily high processing power and access to information. Though there's a sense that normativity is being derived from the factual constraints on communication on this understanding of discourse ethics, I don't think this is what spinko advocates.

I think he leans toward the Hoppean variant, in which context the term "ethics" is misleading if you understand ethics only as a prescriptive endeavor. Ethics is used loosely here to indicate a set of rules, customs, or values concerning how to conduct affairs, including structural parameters. When spinko condemns certain species of behavior as performative contradictions, he does not, on my understanding, suggest that these contradictions are immoral just because they're illogical--I think he argues, as Hoppe argues, that, because there are certain actions which cannot coexist--like persuasion and physical violence--argumentation ethics, as a method of structuring (or understanding the limits of) human behavior, must both acknowledge and articulate these constraints. In this sense, argumentation ethics isn't a question of what we ought or ought not to do, but what we are capable or incapable of doing. According to argumentation ethics, binding someone against their will is not immoral, but it is incompatible with any attempt to persuade them to acquiesce to binding.

tl;dr Argumentation ethics isn't normative--it says that, in getting someone to do X thing, you have the option either to persuade or coerce them, and you can't do both at the same time. Hence, trying to coerce someone in the name of justice isn't "immoral" in the sense that you shouldn't do it, but it is "unethical" in the sense that it breaks the rules by being contradictory.