Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A challenge to charleslb

bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 6:10:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Resolved: forum posts should be limited to 3,000 characters

He would obviously be con.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 6:32:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 6:28:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
Good luck reading the essay that is to come. If I were you, I'd hide all the sharp objects in case you get an urge to end your life halfway through.

Fix'd
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 6:47:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We all know that charleslb doesn't do debates because he'd rather use this website to advertise his blog and simultaneously not lose his credibility by actually defending his belief, like a debat site should.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 6:49:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is that possible for war and peace . . . ?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2010 12:43:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 6:47:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
We all know that charleslb doesn't do debates because he'd rather use this website to advertise his blog and simultaneously not lose his credibility by actually defending his belief, like a debat site should, and he is a narcissistic egotist that gets off penning his own thoughts.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 4:55:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 6:47:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
We all know that charleslb doesn't do debates because he'd rather use this website to advertise his blog and simultaneously not lose his credibility by actually defending his belief, like a debat site should.

You're in error factually here, I've received three requests to debate and accepted two, the third I declined because the topic was too similar to the topic of a debate I had just finished and I didn't wish to rehash the same arguments. So how is it that you say that I shy away from debates? BTW, that's a rhetorical question, since I just refuted your accusation that I won't do a debate. And I've frequently replied to criticisms of my posts, for all practical purposes debating my positions in the post sections, so it's really a lame cheap shot to accuse me of cowering away from debating. If you don't like my views then why don't you attack them head on rather than making erroneous personal observations? I've written plenty to reply to, read a post or two of mine and see if you can actually come up with a cogent rebuttal.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 4:59:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 6:10:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Resolved: forum posts should be limited to 3,000 characters

He would obviously be con.

Heck, why not turn the site into a debater's Twitter with a limit of 140 characters! I'm sure anyone with a really short attention span would go for such an idea.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:01:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 4:56:33 PM, Koopin wrote:
lol

Ah, the witty and constructive response of a juvenile conservative.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:01:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 4:56:33 PM, Koopin wrote:
lol

Ah, the witty and constructive response of a juvenile conservative.

I count 67 characters, that has got to be some new record for you. Eh charleslb?
kfc
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:40:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 6:32:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/24/2010 6:28:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
Good luck reading the essay that is to come. If I were you, I'd hide all the sharp objects in case you get an urge to end your life halfway through.

Fix'd

Hey, annhasle, has it ever occurred to you, as a self-professed nihilist, that it's a little inconsistent for a believer in a "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth" (a part of Webster's definition of a nihilist) to be as strongly opinionated as you are? After all, if you don't believe that there's such a thing as truth, or the knowability of truth, then what's the point in holding a view on any subject, or holding a view with any degree of spunkiness, and you are spunky (to your credit), well, what's the point, hmm? If you think that any view you form is just the subjective intellectual construct of the meaningless mental processes of the meat in your head, well, why get worked up about any philosophical question or any opinion that someone else expresses, why not just be totally intellectually apathetic?

The answer of course is that relativists, perspectivists, radical skeptics, and nihilists can't even begin to apply their principle of the denial of truth to itself, to their own stance, because they know that it will not pass the self-reference test, it will quite promptly refute itself.

That is, if there's no truth, no right & wrong, no morality, nothing except pretentious intellectual fools deluding themselves that they know what truth and goodness are, then the same hold for this view itself, for nihilism itself. Nihilism and other forms of radical skepticism would all then turn out to be truthless stances invented by intellectual fools deluding themselves that they've hit upon the right stance to take.

You're kind of in the same position as the subject in the liar's paradox, for you the paradox goes: "All opinions are just opinions without objective truth, but that means that this opinion is itself just an opinion without objective truth and therefore another worthless opinion to be rejected. But on the other hand, if the opinion that all opinions are mere opinions without objective truth is true and worth holding, then that would mean that there is such a thing as a true opinion and once again the opinion that all opinions are without objective truth would actually be false. Oh my, either way I find myself going around in a circle that doesn't confirm my opinion that all opinions are just opinions without objective truth! Oh dear, perhaps being a nihilist, skeptic, or relativist is not so logically sound after all!" Just a little double bind I've made up, but if there's a way for you to avoid falling into it please enlighten me.

Well, have you ever confronted this inherent defect in the logic of your nihilistic stance? If not, why not? Give it a go, see if you can reason your way out of the inexorable double bind.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:45:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:16:26 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/26/2010 5:01:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 4:56:33 PM, Koopin wrote:
lol

Ah, the witty and constructive response of a juvenile conservative.

I count 67 characters, that has got to be some new record for you. Eh charleslb?

I suppose so, now that you've made that brilliant point why don't you go berate some welfare mom for being a lazybones, or harass women going into a Planned Parenthood center, or whatever else turns on a young Republican such as yourself.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:53:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:40:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2010 6:32:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/24/2010 6:28:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
Good luck reading the essay that is to come. If I were you, I'd hide all the sharp objects in case you get an urge to end your life halfway through.

Fix'd


Head up, I shortened it so I could address the main point of your rant.

Hey, annhasle, has it ever occurred to you, as a self-professed nihilist, that it's a little inconsistent for a believer in a "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth" (a part of Webster's definition of a nihilist) to be as strongly opinionated as you are?

That's so sad... You truly believe that nihilists cannot have opinions or beliefs? Well, once again, that's incorrect. I'll explain below.

After all, if you don't believe that there's such a thing as truth, or the knowability of truth, then what's the point in holding a view on any subject, or holding a view with any degree of spunkiness, and you are spunky (to your credit), well, what's the point, hmm?

Nihilism denies the possibility of "inherent meaning". However, many nihilists - myself somewhat included - have agreed that you can ascribe your own meaning to life. So, even though my life is inherently meaningless and I have no inherent purpose, I can still find my own meaning and purpose. Do you understand the difference?

Also, I have never professed to have "the truth" and have, on multiple occasions, stated that I do not have "the truth". I know that my own knowledge is limited and my understanding weak. However, it is not weak enough to believe that I'm here for some unknown purpose that was put into effect before my time came. Just like I will never have THE truth - except I will have my own interpretation of what I believe to be "true".

Even as a nihilist, I can have meaning or purpose.

If you think that any view you form is just the subjective intellectual construct of the meaningless mental processes of the meat in your head, well, why get worked up about any philosophical question or any opinion that someone else expresses, why not just be totally intellectually apathetic?

Because, even though I'm a nihilist, I'm not brain-dead. And for that very reason, I will continue to express opinions and question others. The pursuit of knowledge is not limited only to relativists or objectivists. Come on. Although there is no inherent meaning, I take on the challenge of finding my own way, my own purpose, my own life. That's liberating not limiting like you think.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:57:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:45:29 PM, charleslb wrote:

why don't you go berate some welfare mom for being a lazybones, or harass women going into a Planned Parenthood center.

Sorry, I like your mom to much to do that to her.

ZING!!!!
kfc
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 5:59:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
. . .
http://www.debate.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 6:03:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
J Kenyon wanted to debate you Charles, but so did I. I think I'll let him have dibs because I got Caramel, but if he doesn't, watch out.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 7:58:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:53:30 PM, annhasle wrote:

Nihilism denies the possibility of "inherent meaning". However, many nihilists - myself somewhat included - have agreed that you can ascribe your own meaning to life. So, even though my life is inherently meaningless and I have no inherent purpose, I can still find my own meaning and purpose. Do you understand the difference?

So even though you're conscious of the fact that your views about the meaning of your life are inventions with no basis in objective truth and values, since there are no such things, they're satisfying to you, hmm? You just play a little mind game with yourself in which you tell yourself that even though your views are a crock of your own making you're going to be committed to and passionate about them just as if there was more to them? And this is supposed to be an intellectually honest and respectable stance? As people say online, lol!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:05:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 7:58:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
So even though you're conscious of the fact that your views about the meaning of your life are inventions with no basis in objective truth and values, since there are no such things, they're satisfying to you, hmm?

As far as I know Ann does not deny that there is truth, only that there is no objective value and that there is no meaning.

This is also the position I hold.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:07:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 7:58:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 5:53:30 PM, annhasle wrote:

Nihilism denies the possibility of "inherent meaning". However, many nihilists - myself somewhat included - have agreed that you can ascribe your own meaning to life. So, even though my life is inherently meaningless and I have no inherent purpose, I can still find my own meaning and purpose. Do you understand the difference?

So even though you're conscious of the fact that your views about the meaning of your life are inventions with no basis in objective truth and values, since there are no such things, they're satisfying to you, hmm? You just play a little mind game with yourself in which you tell yourself that even though your views are a crock of your own making you're going to be committed to and passionate about them just as if there was more to them? And this is supposed to be an intellectually honest and respectable stance? As people say online, lol!

Haha once again, you fail to see what I'm trying to convey. I do not know THE "truth" and neither do you. Does that stop you from having opinions? Think about it - would a stance like, "I might be wrong so I'm not going to have an opinion about anything" make sense? No, it wouldn't. I take the knowledge that I have along with the information I have gained to make informed decisions that I can justify. If I can logically justify it as "fact" or the "truth", I will do so. However, unlike you, I take great caution in doing so. I'm, unlike you, aware of fallacies which will undoubtedly affect my work or perspective.

Now, do you not do the same thing? You profess to have th truth but you cannot justify a single thing you have posted on this site! I can sit back and quite comfortably say, "There is not inherent meaning" but that does not negate the possibility of meaning altogether! And I can state that I do not have THE truth about everything and that my views could quite possibly be wrong, but that does not abolish my opinions or the things I DO profess to be true! Can you comprehend this?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:08:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:05:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 11/26/2010 7:58:54 PM, charleslb wrote:
So even though you're conscious of the fact that your views about the meaning of your life are inventions with no basis in objective truth and values, since there are no such things, they're satisfying to you, hmm?

As far as I know Ann does not deny that there is truth, only that there is no objective value and that there is no meaning.

This is also the position I hold.

Correct. Thank you, Reasoning.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:10:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 4:55:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2010 6:47:38 PM, darkkermit wrote:
We all know that charleslb doesn't do debates because he'd rather use this website to advertise his blog and simultaneously not lose his credibility by actually defending his belief, like a debat site should.

You're in error factually here, I've received three requests to debate and accepted two, the third I declined because the topic was too similar to the topic of a debate I had just finished and I didn't wish to rehash the same arguments. So how is it that you say that I shy away from debates? BTW, that's a rhetorical question, since I just refuted your accusation that I won't do a debate. And I've frequently replied to criticisms of my posts, for all practical purposes debating my positions in the post sections, so it's really a lame cheap shot to accuse me of cowering away from debating. If you don't like my views then why don't you attack them head on rather than making erroneous personal observations? I've written plenty to reply to, read a post or two of mine and see if you can actually come up with a cogent rebuttal.

Alright, I'll take that challenge. Finals are coming up though, but once winter break starts I'll debate you about any one of your blog topics.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:13:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 4:59:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/24/2010 6:10:52 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Resolved: forum posts should be limited to 3,000 characters

He would obviously be con.

Heck, why not turn the site into a debater's Twitter with a limit of 140 characters! I'm sure anyone with a really short attention span would go for such an idea.

lol, is this you accepting?
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:23:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:07:07 PM, annhasle wrote:

Now, do you not do the same thing? You profess to have th truth but you cannot justify a single thing you have posted on this site!

Not so, I can "justify" my positions, simply not to your or everyone's satisfaction. This fact per se doesn't refute my positions, just as the fact that not everyone in the world is satisfied that the planet is roundish (the flat earthers) or that evolution is real (creationists), refutes these objective and known truths. After all, a truth doesn't need to be justified in everyone's eyes or mind for it to be a truth, or for me to know that it's a truth; someone doesn't have to win an argument and have this recognized to be right (those in the right often lose arguments for one reason or another, for example in the era of slavery abolitionists often lost the debate about slavery as far as their listeners were concerned because of the prejudice of their listeners), etc. The upshot here is that there are truths and values, and they are known by some, and they are rejected by others, and this rejection does not diminish the reality of these truths and values or the legitimacy of some people's knowledge and appreciation of them.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:25:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:23:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 8:07:07 PM, annhasle wrote:

Now, do you not do the same thing? You profess to have th truth but you cannot justify a single thing you have posted on this site!

Not so, I can "justify" my positions, simply not to your or everyone's satisfaction. This fact per se doesn't refute my positions, just as the fact that not everyone in the world is satisfied that the planet is roundish (the flat earthers) or that evolution is real (creationists), refutes these objective and known truths. After all, a truth doesn't need to be justified in everyone's eyes or mind for it to be a truth, or for me to know that it's a truth; someone doesn't have to win an argument and have this recognized to be right (those in the right often lose arguments for one reason or another, for example in the era of slavery abolitionists often lost the debate about slavery as far as their listeners were concerned because of the prejudice of their listeners), etc. The upshot here is that there are truths and values, and they are known by some, and they are rejected by others, and this rejection does not diminish the reality of these truths and values or the legitimacy of some people's knowledge and appreciation of them.

Are you familiar with the term intellectual masturbation? cuz you do it with both hands
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:33:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 5:57:38 PM, Koopin wrote:
At 11/26/2010 5:45:29 PM, charleslb wrote:

why don't you go berate some welfare mom for being a lazybones, or harass women going into a Planned Parenthood center.

Sorry, I like your mom to much to do that to her.

ZING!!!!

The art of witty repartee is not dead! And sadly my mom is, so you're not about to be seeing her in the welfare office or walking into a Planned Parenthood center my facetious friend. BTW, your respect for other people's mothers doesn't say much for your respect for your own. Show a little more respect and class and focus your insults at your opponent the way I directed one at you, and leave parents and other innocent bystanders alone.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:35:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:23:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 8:07:07 PM, annhasle wrote:

Now, do you not do the same thing? You profess to have th truth but you cannot justify a single thing you have posted on this site!

Not so, I can "justify" my positions, simply not to your or everyone's satisfaction. This fact per se doesn't refute my positions, just as the fact that not everyone in the world is satisfied that the planet is roundish (the flat earthers) or that evolution is real (creationists), refutes these objective and known truths. After all, a truth doesn't need to be justified in everyone's eyes or mind for it to be a truth, or for me to know that it's a truth; someone doesn't have to win an argument and have this recognized to be right (those in the right often lose arguments for one reason or another, for example in the era of slavery abolitionists often lost the debate about slavery as far as their listeners were concerned because of the prejudice of their listeners), etc. The upshot here is that there are truths and values, and they are known by some, and they are rejected by others, and this rejection does not diminish the reality of these truths and values or the legitimacy of some people's knowledge and appreciation of them.

However, there's a key difference. What you call the "truth" is your opinions and emotionally driven stances. I have yet to find one thing you have stated which can be PROVEN. Now, when I call something the "truth", it means that I can justify it. Those who deny evolution in favor of creationism at least try to use pseudo-science to prove their sad tales. You simply state something and then run away. And as many have noted, that's a problem on a debate site.

Now, since you haven't addressed anything else I have stated in favor of finding one sentence you 'disagree' with, does that mean you concede?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:35:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:25:39 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 11/26/2010 8:23:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/26/2010 8:07:07 PM, annhasle wrote:

Now, do you not do the same thing? You profess to have th truth but you cannot justify a single thing you have posted on this site!

Not so, I can "justify" my positions, simply not to your or everyone's satisfaction. This fact per se doesn't refute my positions, just as the fact that not everyone in the world is satisfied that the planet is roundish (the flat earthers) or that evolution is real (creationists), refutes these objective and known truths. After all, a truth doesn't need to be justified in everyone's eyes or mind for it to be a truth, or for me to know that it's a truth; someone doesn't have to win an argument and have this recognized to be right (those in the right often lose arguments for one reason or another, for example in the era of slavery abolitionists often lost the debate about slavery as far as their listeners were concerned because of the prejudice of their listeners), etc. The upshot here is that there are truths and values, and they are known by some, and they are rejected by others, and this rejection does not diminish the reality of these truths and values or the legitimacy of some people's knowledge and appreciation of them.

Are you familiar with the term intellectual masturbation? cuz you do it with both hands

Good line, I don't think it's a fair charge, but it's a good line, kudos.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2010 8:39:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/26/2010 8:23:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
The upshot here is that there are truths and values, and they are known by some, and they are rejected by others, and this rejection does not diminish the reality of these truths and values or the legitimacy of some people's knowledge and appreciation of them.

Truth is not determined by majority opinion, correct. (Well, unless the truth in question is, "In majority opinion, are cats cute?" or something of the like.)

Nevertheless, it is the existence of objectively correct values that I reject. Could you, perhaps, explain how know, knowledge being justified true belief, that such values exist in objective reality?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran