Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Everybody on DDO

thett3
Posts: 14,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2013 11:52:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:23:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I disagree.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:39:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That "argument" itself is applied to both situations, too, is probably counterproductive. What if we associated such discourses as are necessary with something more positive?
MassiveDump
Posts: 3,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:52:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

Oh, benevolent!

...

...

I disagree!
*drives off*
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:52:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Metaphors We Live By is a book dylancatlow suggested me by the way, and it's fascinating; though, eerily, I stopped reading at 10%... I'm thinking I might have some reprogramming to do.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 5:53:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:52:28 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

Oh, benevolent!

...

...

I disagree!
*drives off*

*shouts after MassiveDump: "You ginger f*ck!!"*
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 6:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:53:45 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:52:28 PM, MassiveDump wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

Oh, benevolent!

...

...

I disagree!
*drives off*

*shouts after MassiveDump: "You ginger f*ck!!"*

I lol'd
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:11:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

But if people aren't willing to correct their views in the present state, how can you hope that realizing this metaphor will cause people to move away from that state by correcting their present views? It would seem to be a non-starter.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:22:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:11:41 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

But if people aren't willing to correct their views in the present state, how can you hope that realizing this metaphor will cause people to move away from that state by correcting their present views? It would seem to be a non-starter.

Resistance is a common obstacle in hypnosis; hypnotists deal with it by removing the assault element, often themselves; it's possible, just hard. And then what if there never was perceived an assault element; or as regards civilized, open forum discussion anyway?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:56:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:22:56 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:11:41 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:34:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 5:20:47 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 3:34:55 PM, benevolent wrote:
You could've made a decent "philosophy of argument" thread with this maybe.

Argument = War, as per Metaphors We Live by, and it's retarded.

I'm willing to engage in that topic.
But are you impugning formal philosophical argumentation, or generic human quarrels? The latter variety of dispute are, to be sure, ugly and vociferous little creatures. But I must take issue with your characterization if you also intend its application to proper dialectic.

They're one and the same, though, for most people. Consider the dialogue of even formal argumentation. You "attack" someone's argument, "concede" a point, etc. Spreading awareness of this might be rather beneficial to us. As is, people aren't very willing to correct their views, because, perhaps, this is death.

But if people aren't willing to correct their views in the present state, how can you hope that realizing this metaphor will cause people to move away from that state by correcting their present views? It would seem to be a non-starter.

Resistance is a common obstacle in hypnosis; hypnotists deal with it by removing the assault element, often themselves; it's possible, just hard. And then what if there never was perceived an assault element; or as regards civilized, open forum discussion anyway?

So you suggest a non-discursive reprogramming of conversational participants? Just reach in deep below their substrate of conscious thought and implant a vulnerability to persuasion? Wouldn't this bottom-up restructuring overdetermine the act argumentation and reduce it a frictionless assembly procedure of beliefs, rather than a hard-won decomposition and analysis of them?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:05:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:01:43 PM, benevolent wrote:
We wont cease to be rational in becoming more cordial.

We may, however, become more rational, I do believe.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:08:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/6/6 6:66 PM, benevolent wrote:
i think that means god agrees with me

Sorry, it actually means that satan agrees with you. I also couldn't help but notice the date and time of your quote on this very post.

^^COINCIDENCE? NO: SATAN.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:10:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:08:13 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 6/6/6 6:66 PM, benevolent wrote:
i think that means god agrees with me

Sorry, it actually means that satan agrees with you. I also couldn't help but notice the date and time of your quote on this very post.

^^COINCIDENCE? NO: SATAN.

well f*ck it anyway
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:13:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.

Ok, now in all seriousness, what negative impacts are you talking about? Those pertaining to the hypnotic reprogramming you alluded to earlier?
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:13:13 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.

Ok, now in all seriousness, what negative impacts are you talking about? Those pertaining to the hypnotic reprogramming you alluded to earlier?

Well the one you were talking about: the stagnation of argument, increasing gullibility.

Side note: I was here for exactly when you posted, 0 seconds. God is telling me to keep it up, I'm doing good work.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:20:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I actually hadn't considered the stagnation of argument and was thinking more on a personal level, but again, thinking we'd be left less rational seems to stretch credulity.
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:22:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm just talking about fostering a greater want in people for reconciliation; it needn't necessarily come with any negatives.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:39:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:16:29 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:13:13 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.

Ok, now in all seriousness, what negative impacts are you talking about? Those pertaining to the hypnotic reprogramming you alluded to earlier?

Well the one you were talking about: the stagnation of argument, increasing gullibility.

My suggestion was that bottom-up reprogramming would nullify argumentation entirely; discourse and dialectic would cease to exist as a meaningful exercise, and persuasive acts would be trivialized. All of these are, in varying but congruent ways, top-down exercises in which attitudes and convictions are mutated by exposure to critical scrutiny and decompositional sense-making activities.

A problem which inheres to this kind of exercise is that, for some two positions with sufficiently few premises in common between them, there will exist no effective strategy of persuasion available to either party: the discourse is still-born. There is no way to inaugurate such a conversation sensibly, and it is in such cases that the argument often becomes war in the literal sense: a visceral, large-scale form of ad hominem.

Side note: I was here for exactly when you posted, 0 seconds. God is telling me to keep it up, I'm doing good work.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:45:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:39:37 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:16:29 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:13:13 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.

Ok, now in all seriousness, what negative impacts are you talking about? Those pertaining to the hypnotic reprogramming you alluded to earlier?

Well the one you were talking about: the stagnation of argument, increasing gullibility.

My suggestion was that bottom-up reprogramming would nullify argumentation entirely; discourse and dialectic would cease to exist as a meaningful exercise, and persuasive acts would be trivialized. All of these are, in varying but congruent ways, top-down exercises in which attitudes and convictions are mutated by exposure to critical scrutiny and decompositional sense-making activities.

A problem which inheres to this kind of exercise is that, for some two positions with sufficiently few premises in common between them, there will exist no effective strategy of persuasion available to either party: the discourse is still-born. There is no way to inaugurate such a conversation sensibly, and it is in such cases that the argument often becomes war in the literal sense: a visceral, large-scale form of ad hominem.

this is what i'm talking about stretching credulity dude. and your war exists now. sorry to reply so flippantly, but i don't really have anything more to say.

except: stop resisting me bro :3
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:57:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 9:45:49 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:39:37 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:16:29 PM, benevolent wrote:
At 7/1/2013 9:13:13 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 8:59:41 PM, benevolent wrote:
I had considered it might have a negative impact all right, which was why I specifically referred to open forum debates; but even still, suggesting it might have a very severe negative impact seems to be stretching credulity.

Ok, now in all seriousness, what negative impacts are you talking about? Those pertaining to the hypnotic reprogramming you alluded to earlier?

Well the one you were talking about: the stagnation of argument, increasing gullibility.

My suggestion was that bottom-up reprogramming would nullify argumentation entirely; discourse and dialectic would cease to exist as a meaningful exercise, and persuasive acts would be trivialized. All of these are, in varying but congruent ways, top-down exercises in which attitudes and convictions are mutated by exposure to critical scrutiny and decompositional sense-making activities.

A problem which inheres to this kind of exercise is that, for some two positions with sufficiently few premises in common between them, there will exist no effective strategy of persuasion available to either party: the discourse is still-born. There is no way to inaugurate such a conversation sensibly, and it is in such cases that the argument often becomes war in the literal sense: a visceral, large-scale form of ad hominem.

this is what i'm talking about stretching credulity dude. and your war exists now. sorry to reply so flippantly, but i don't really have anything more to say.

except: stop resisting me bro :3

What do you mean in saying that I'm stretching "credibility"?

Are you implying that my intentions are hostile? Be assured to the contrary.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
benevolent
Posts: 1,040
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 9:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
oh sorry, i responded much too flippantly... i'm just talking at you at this stage i guess. hypocritical of me maybe :P i'ma leave it at this for the night, i'll reply tomorrow maybe.