Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Trolls, Wannabe's and Pseudo-intelectuals

YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 11:52:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 11:30:02 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
t(-_-t)

Hey. At least I can spell "intellectual."

I'm an infamously bad speller of English words.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 11:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 11:29:58 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
Can I nominate myself for all three categories?

haha, no
Tsar of DDO
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 1:18:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/11/2013 11:52:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/11/2013 11:30:02 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
t(-_-t)

Hey. At least I can spell "intellectual."

I'm an infamously bad speller of English words.

You're not alone, see sig ;)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 8:04:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 1:18:34 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 11/11/2013 11:52:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/11/2013 11:30:02 PM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
t(-_-t)

Hey. At least I can spell "intellectual."

I'm an infamously bad speller of English words.

You're not alone, see sig ;)

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 12:34:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:02:16 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
So what is the difference between and intellectual and a psuedo-intellectual?

The former is a person who has a highly developed level of intellect (implying both that such individuals are clever and well educated), whereas the latter would like to be the former, but can only pretend to be the former.
Tsar of DDO
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 2:40:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:34:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:02:16 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
So what is the difference between and intellectual and a psuedo-intellectual?

The former is a person who has a highly developed level of intellect (implying both that such individuals are clever and well educated), whereas the latter would like to be the former, but can only pretend to be the former.

Why do you put them up with the trolls and "wannabes" (what exactly do those people want to be anyways?) as if it is a bad thing to want to be an intellectual?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 2:58:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 12:34:12 PM, YYW wrote:
The former is a person who has a highly developed level of intellect (implying both that such individuals are clever and well educated), whereas the latter would like to be the former, but can only pretend to be the former.
No - an intellectual does not have to be clever/intelligent. An person who puts value on knowledge and reason, and chooses to pursue both, is an intellectual. If his intelligence is low and makes him appear dumb nonetheless, he remains an intellectual. Some people only have one quality, others have them both.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:03:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@YWW, about 90% of the people who post in the philosophy forum. If I were at all interested in that type of philosophy, Rationalthinker's threads would be the forum's only redeeming quality. But alas, it's all kind of gone to crap.
: 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: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:09:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:03:37 AM, Noumena wrote:
@YWW, about 90% of the people who post in the philosophy forum.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the threshold would be that high.

I, however, properly fit into the "troll" category.

If I were at all interested in that type of philosophy, Rationalthinker's threads would be the forum's only redeeming quality. But alas, it's all kind of gone to crap.
Tsar of DDO
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 4:32:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:03:37 AM, Noumena wrote:
@YWW, about 90% of the people who post in the philosophy forum. If I were at all interested in that type of philosophy, Rationalthinker's threads would be the forum's only redeeming quality. But alas, it's all kind of gone to crap.

wat
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 5:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:02:16 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
So what is the difference between and intellectual and a psuedo-intellectual?

A pseudo-intellectual is best thought of as someone who buys Plato's Republic and sits in a coffee shop in front of everyone to "read" it.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 6:15:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 5:23:23 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:02:16 AM, Wren_cyborg wrote:
So what is the difference between and intellectual and a psuedo-intellectual?

A pseudo-intellectual is best thought of as someone who buys Plato's Republic and sits in a coffee shop in front of everyone to "read" it.

That book is so good that just being in its presence would make you an intellectual for the moment -_-
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 6:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 6:08:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:54:15 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
jat93 would count, I suppose.

IMO Jat93's pretty sharp.

Not sure if joking. I could go back and find all of his stupidest moments, but I barely remember the threads.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 6:41:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 6:26:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:08:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:54:15 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
jat93 would count, I suppose.

IMO Jat93's pretty sharp.

Not sure if joking. I could go back and find all of his stupidest moments, but I barely remember the threads.

I agree with OMG. I certainly disagree with Jat a fair amount, but I don't think he is whatever you are implying about him.
Debate.org Moderator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 7:31:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The phony phenomena: Noumena

YWW:..of the Philosophy forum.

Who are they?

Noumena: @YWW, about 90% of the people who post in the philosophy forum. If I were at all interested in that type of philosophy, Rationalthinker's threads would be the forum's only redeeming quality. But alas, it's all kind of gone to crap.

The Fool: You are not in the position, nor do you have the credentials, nor the credibility, nor are you able to support 90% of what you say, for what you think to even matter in regards to anything philosophical.

You are barely out of your first year, and so far all I've heard from you is ideological philosophy. You've been here for a long time, and you still have not been able to put together a simple structured philosophical argument.

The only reason, that it could possibly appear to you in that way, is because you are concurring, with people who "only know what you know as well". Which is nothing but a false consensus effect combined with the belief bias, concepts that should be intuitive to you, before you even pick up a philosophical work. These are basic, social psychological concepts, that even Badgers knows.

If you're going to make a claim, BACK IT UP, with an argument, get some quotes, give some examples, show contradictions, or your thesis follows. I don't know what kind of professors you have, but you can even getaway with a basic university "essay" without having a thesis and premises which lead to the conclusion.

So don't give me this prissy Bull-sh-i-t like you know what you're talking about. I will call you out EVERYTIME!

All I got to do is argue with you in front of people and you will be brought to

If you have to fall into subjectivity, ideology, or anarchy, then that's a philosophical FAIL!..

You should go back to your cowering, and continue as you do, to give merely whiny ideological opinions, without justification, and leave the "rational" argumentation, to those with the faculty of reason. For you work best, hidden in, and behind the safe population walls, as you cannot stand, as a man, in the front lines, on your own, without the support of others.

There are in people here, who probably have not even read any philosophy, but they have a better ability to work with concepts than you do. As some philosophical potential, is better, then any NEO- Religious Parrot.

Who's next, let me see..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 7:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Phony Phenomena: Noumena
Part 2

The Fool:: If I didn't know any better, I would say it sounds like a good old witch hunt, except, switch which with troll.

And then "say" that subordinate clause, three times fast, without pause.

To be honest with you, it reeks of bad intention.

The evidence for this, is that you have three pejorative terms, which are not mutually exclusive.

Such smearing together, suggest that something is being forced, to give an impression of more, than one has warrant to claim.

In addition, the criteria is extremely vague, and sounds almost impossible to actually identify.

Let's roll with troll first:

The Fool: Internet troll, was originally used to refer to people who partook in forum discussions, insincerely, with the intent to trick or ruin discussions..

But like many, such terms, over time, they become abused, by the general population and become ideological weapons of mass, marginalization.

That is words, that are used against those that somebody or some group wants to harm, lower the status of, and/or silence.

It can be extremely hard to tell the sincerity of somebody's post, and whether or not they're just different, or don't know any better.

The widespread use of the term, is now considered subjective. (recall my explaining, how things become suddenly subjective)

"Some readers may characterize a post as"trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any"pejorative"term, it can be used as an"ad hominem"attack, suggesting a negative motivation."

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)#cite_note-2

Or perhaps they in fact do know better, where left side up, was right side down, And the outward smirk, was an inner frown.

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YYW
Posts: 36,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 7:50:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 7:31:08 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The phony phenomena: Noumena

YWW:..of the Philosophy forum.

So, what do you think of me?
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 8:44:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...
The phony phenomena: Noumena

Part 3


As for the charge of pseudo-intellectualism, which implies, that somebody's expression of intelligence is fake, might sound, sound, on the first sound, round, but funny, and found fallacious, when brought forth, for the second time now.

For from this follows the first intuitional but fruitless question:

"So what is the difference between and intellectual and a psuedo-intellectual?"

It's probably not because he doesn't know the answer, as it is obvious, but rather recognizes the fundamental problem with the possibility of its probation..

Perhaps he perceives, how very awkward, outlandish, and insincere it sounds for someone to, "out of the blue" assume such , of others, implied in a question, where the chances of answering sincerely, and being justified, are slim and none.

For he may even have astounding English grammar and spelling, but perhaps, from lack of practice, does not as of "yet" have the necessary precision given, by a philosophically, consolidated intellectual Apparatus, to create, concise, crisp, clean, cuts, in, between, concepts, to ask, de-marcate, argue, give, and/or receive key critical questions.

Perhaps it is not something, you can learn by reading overnight or even in a short amount of years.

As bombardments of information, without conceivable means, can be more a cause of confusion, then having less with a clear and distinct, qualitative conscience.

Perhaps, he was wanting, to ask something more like "by what criteria did you already, and or do you, yourself, ---->distinguish<----- the difference" in OTHERS, for it to be a fallible claim. And so synonymously "a valid claim".

By fallible, I mean, there must be a recognizable, (more than to yourself), "identifiable" difference between the conditions of a person, which necessitate, them to be of each class of people you are claiming. If, and only if, and only if,( and 1), there in fact even exist, any actual corresponding entities at all. As conceptions, alone, are still merely, and alone, only categories of ideas.

And the truth significance, of your claim, at best, can only be as good as the magnitude by which each criteria, can be distinguished one from another.

But you know that already, so then, never mind..

<(8D)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 8:53:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:44:52 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

Part 2.5<---

The Fool: Want-to-be and pseudo-intellectual are specifically pejorative, and have an even more sketchy criteria to meet or "Not", as it is probably intended to desecrate, someone's reputation, when one cannot figure out how to do it honestly.

To identify a want-to-be you would have to know what one sincerely, ,in their own mind, (as appose to the accusers) aspires to be. And that they do not "to themselves" in fact, achieve what they aspire.

For it is perhaps foolish, that seems to me, at least from afar, that the justification would virtually depend on the actual testimony of the one being persecuted.

However it is obvious, that you imply, that one knows in fact, that the accused actually aspire to be intelligent, and as though, it is, a futile, and irrational thing to do.

This, on the one ball, is bluntly boisterous and on the other, quiet and completely superfluous
perhaps to give a "sketchy" sense of more-ness.

You do have balls, but they're not as potent , as my foolish balls.

<(89)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:53:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 7:50:57 PM, YYW wrote:
The phony phenomena: Noumena
Final. (Part 4)


YYW: The former is a person who has a highly developed level of intellect (implying both that such individuals are clever and well educated), whereas the latter would like to be the former, but can only pretend to be the former.

The Fool: The clue here, is that clever is not clear, nor is there consideration, of the indignation, caused by fraudulent education. Watch and learn, how philosophy, is done, Hill style.

Argument from synonymy:

The Fool: An intuitive, problem with your claim is that the one being accused of as pseudo-intelligent, must express intelligence, or at least something which shares some recognizable intellectual value, for it to be rightly called, and/or synonymously attributed as being intellectual at all, And at the same time, it must not be the case that it is in fact intellectual.. If it is to be fake, that is, not intellectual, but only seemingly.

<(8D)

QED

Argument from knowledge:

The Fool: But another, "mutually exclusive",(means that they each individually all have to be knocked down)" and fatal argument is that, if one could merely pretend, to be intellectual, and not in fact be intellectual, in any way, then how would they know what to pretend to be like?

Especially, since knowledge, itself, is necessarily an aspect of intelligence. And in this case, "Knowledge of intelligence"!!!!!!!!!!

<(8O)
a.k.a. intellectual knowledge.

Which by necessity requires intellectual Aptitude.

<(8D)

QED


The Fool: Regardless this would commit you, to the absurdity, that intellectual knowledge, would be in fact, un-intellectual.

But for even if they had no knowledge, of what is intelligence. It would have to be a fluke, to pretend, to act that way,

But if it is a fluke they cannot be pretending, as pretending, is an intentional action.

QEDEither way.

Argument from the Hill:

The Fool: Perhaps you are incredulous to how pompously, and practically impossible the criteria is in principle, since it requires that you be much more intelligent, in particular, knowledgeable, to be able to demarcate, the higher, from the lower and fiend forms of intellect.

But that would be like claiming, that you knew what is over your heads, when it is in fact, the very thing, above your heads.

For it is on a hilltop high, where I, the fool, myself, do my dance, beyond your heads.

As to be false, intellectual wise, requires, that someone think themselves wise, while actually being the otherwise, that is, OTHER WISE. That is, the wise I despise.

<(8D)

For the false wisdom of the past, becomes the new mythology of the now.

And so in the same way, it should be expected, "that" much of what we learn now, is to be refuted, surmounted, and surpassed in the future, and so on, and so forth, and forever, but always in fashion.

Your Favorite Fool"On the hill.

Against the Ideologist".
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:29:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 6:41:53 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:26:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:08:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:54:15 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
jat93 would count, I suppose.

IMO Jat93's pretty sharp.

Not sure if joking. I could go back and find all of his stupidest moments, but I barely remember the threads.

I agree with OMG. I certainly disagree with Jat a fair amount, but I don't think he is whatever you are implying about him.

I'll do it. I may not be able to find all of them, though.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:33:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 10:29:49 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:41:53 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:26:38 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 11/13/2013 6:08:20 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:54:15 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
jat93 would count, I suppose.

IMO Jat93's pretty sharp.

Not sure if joking. I could go back and find all of his stupidest moments, but I barely remember the threads.

I agree with OMG. I certainly disagree with Jat a fair amount, but I don't think he is whatever you are implying about him.

I'll do it. I may not be able to find all of them, though.

It's not worth wasting your time. It's not going to change my opinion about him and I doubt it will OMG's either.
Debate.org Moderator
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 10:53:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So if I opened a dictionary and found "pseudo-intellectual," which DDOer's picture would most likely be represented? I need to know who we're talking about here...