I have a complaint.: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Feedback » I have a complaint. » I have a complaint.

I have a complaint.

I have a complaint.

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/04/08 - 02:36 PM: Subject: I have a complaint.	#1
With all due respect. Why has my thread on "Indicators of reality aside from pinching noses -- eviscerating idealism and solipsism" been deleted on the ground of 'low quality'? Pachomius

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 01/04/08 - 10:17 PM:	#2
As you'd know if you selected in your profile options to be notified of moderator actions, it was deleted by hyena_in_petticoat for the reason "low quality" -- so it'd be best to ask her. Glancing through it, though, some things are apparant: It's 95% quote. A topic about how you wrote a topic elsewhere makes for poor, disorganized reading. Just present the issue. Smells like you're spamming for the other site the way you did it, though I'm too lazy to check into indicators of whether you own said site. It's (in the quote) rambly and makes a grand sweeping claim. It's also a self-defeating topic: it argues that arguing is a fallacy. It seems to indicate either a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word fallacy or a confused mind. The "story" creates a trivial strawman of skepticism to burn down by saying "that's silly and stupid", or basically pointing to what a natural or practical behavior is when that isn't the issue. It's like saying the earth is flat because you have to act in everyday life as though it were, and don't worry about sliding off. You write "Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!" That should always be grounds for immediate deletion. In the end, your theory appears to be that instead of presenting arguments we should laugh at anyone who disagrees with something we strongly believe. I think philosophy can get along without you. Edited by Paul on 01/04/08 - 10:27 PM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

Inkstain
Another Pen

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 05, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 99

Posted 01/05/08 - 10:50 PM:	#3
I must congratulate you paul. It's so hard to find the ability to burn someone at least 10 times in such a sophisticated way. No offense pachomius but... damn.
_____________________ When the clock strikes end, will anyone stop to look over their shoulder?

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/06/08 - 10:09 PM:	#4
<p>I will rewrite the post to introduce a new thread on the same topic, and remove all the objectionable parts whereby it is judged to be of low quality, would that be all right with hyena in petticoat?<br /> </p> <p>There were just three reactions when it was in less than four days time deleted, unless I am mistaken about the number of days it was in the public view for serious consideration as regards the substance of my topic.<br /> </p> <p>And these three reactions do not go to the topic, but make smart remarks of no relevancy in regard to the argument that a pseudo philosophy can be debunked by challenging the advocate and adherent of such a philosophy to live his philosophy in his everyday existence.</p> <p> </p> <p>The principle being put forward is that any philosophy should be judged on the basis of the last frontier of human discourse, whether it can be of any use to the conservation and advancement of life with mankind or not, starting first with the advocate and adherent himself of such a philosophy, for example, solipsism and idealism.</p> <p><br /> The advocate and adherent of solipsism maintains that he only is sure of his existence in his own mind; if he would be sincere and honest and logical, then he should also be disposed to with mere thinking about food and drink and money to get along in everyday life at home, in the office, and in the traffic, instead of working for it outside the world of his thinking mind.</p> <p> </p> <p>For example of an advocate of a philosophy living his philosophy and dying for it, anyone in the Civil War of the USA who fought and died with the noble thought of abolishing slavery in the land of the free and home of the brave.</p> <p><br /> In the case of an advocate and adherent of solipsism, he should also put to actual practice in everyday life his advocacy that thinking in one's own mind is the only ground for certainty of his existence for himself.</p> <p> </p> <p>Anyway, I will introduce the same argument again in a new thread on the same topic without the so alleged offensive parts. Would that be all right with hyena in petticoat?</p> <p> <br /> </p> <p>The only way to find out is to do it in real life, so I will introduce that new thread on the same topic without the so alleged offensive parts whereby it is judged as a thread of low quality.</p> <p> </p> <p>cotner</p>

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/06/08 - 11:04 PM:	#5
I'm sorry, I missed this until now. Sure, you can always start a new thread about it if you really think it's worthwhile. It seems you have much to say. I hope you really had something substantial underneath the garbage I deleted. Honestly, no matter how many times I read it, I find it everything but sensible. So...okay. Give it another shot.
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/06/08 - 11:10 PM:	#6
Oh and yeah... Did the reactions (3 of them, yes) appear encouraging to you? I doubt it. You should have noticed something might be wrong with it when it got ignored in that other site where you posted it first.
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/06/08 - 11:53 PM:	#7
Hi hyena in petticoat: I will just put the proposed rewrite here for�your examination, instead of starting another thread on the same topic. ============================= Title of thread: Debunking solipsism and idealism It is my suspicion that, since everyone has been conditioned in philosophy to establish facts by words through arguing, you can't convince anyone to see the fact of any particular case at issue by using words alone, if your opponent is a perverter of reason; because your opponent will just bring in more and more words to muddle the question, so that you lose your cool because you know that he is malingering, even though he himself might not know it for being himself the victim of his own muddling with words and believe himself to be very keen and logical. That is why also Alfred Nobel, in my humble opinion, did not establish a prize for philosophy. How do we expose the fallacy of what I might call muddling with words? Very simple: in our present context, the issue is your and my and his and every human person's factual existence distinct from any other's, you must go outside words and request of your opponent to do a simple harmless experiment, together with you, namely, that your opponent pinch his nose and your nose and you will do likewise; if he refuses to undertake that simple experiment, you can proceed to everyday questions about physiological functions like bowel movement and breaking wind. Here is a story from yours truly which I hope can serve as an example of how solipsism cannot be put to practice by the solipsist himself without incurring his own termination from the world of concrete factual existence in the world of flesh and blood which depends on food and water to continue in existence, and not on thinking in one’s mind and claiming that to be the ultimate ground of certainty: A good king once runs his kingdom so well that everyone has the wherewithals to live a happy existence and die contentedly having lived a full life as luck would enable him to do so. One day a pseudo-philosopher came by and started telling the people that they could not be sure they exist except in their own each one's mind by thinking. The people were all perplexed no end. The king happened to be pretty smart himself and smarter than the pseudo-philosopher, so he had the pseudo-philosopher hauled to a solitary glass cubicle where everyone could see and talk to him through small holes in the glass panels. The king then told his people that since this dude believes that he only exists in his mind by his thinking, then he could think his way to food and water. Now, there are two endings to this story: One ending goes like this: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he admits and declares that he now knows for sure as he shits and farts that he exists outside his mind even when he is not thinking; the king released him from his solitary confinement, and he, the pseudo-philosopher, took his leave pronto and expresso. And no pseudo-philosopher ever sets foot again in this king's realm. The other ending goes like as follows: When the pseudo-philosopher realizes that his game was up, he was so stubborn and proud to admit it, saying to himself that he would rather die than confess to his stupidity of a philosophy, and he did die from starvation and dehydration in an agonizing death. And you know what? Again, no pseudo-philosopher also ever sets foot in the realm of that king as long as he lives; but pseudo-philosophers outside proclaim their dead and non-longer existing comrade as a martyr to the cause of non-existence. That story is from myself to serve as an example that real life scenario must be the last frontier of human discourse, on the basis that a philosophy that cannot be put to practice in actual concrete human existence by the proponent himself without his incurring his own extinction has no worth whatsoever except as entertainment on make-belief. ====================== May I just say that I am sorry you feel offended with my original thread, and hope that you will see the substance of my topic and its essential concern, namely, that the final frontier of human discourse is life as it is existing with humankind, so that any philosophy that put into practice will do away with the advocate and adherent himself cannot be a philosophy that is of worth for living humans, and living humans who take it as to also put it to practice will also end up extinguishing themselves, and if the whole mankind take up that philosophy putting it to dead serious implementation, mankind will end up as an extinct species even without the nuclear holocaust. <p>Thanks just the same for this board where I and people in my situation can seek explanations for the adverse actions from mods and admins taken against them, and learn to be guided accordingly so that everyone can lead a happier existence in this philsophy forum. Pachomius Edited by hyena in petticoat on 01/07/08 - 12:14 AM. Reason: Removed <p>...</p> thing.

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/07/08 - 01:22 AM:	#8
Now that's better but still a bit rough. Lets just say I did get the point (I hope it is THE point) but somehow, the relationship of the supposed premises in support of the main idea wasn't really that strong or well established. It's okay, but since you did put it here for review, I gave my opinion on it. I hope you refine it more and then we'll see how other people will respond.
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 01/07/08 - 09:12 AM:	#9
It seems to me that writing something out of vanity is a waste of time. Perhaps some people do it because they think their ideas are profound or offer new insite into the world, typical prophet syndrome. So yeah. I don't know whether deleting the thread was the right action or not, as I;m not in a position to judge, and judgement shouldn't come out of other peoples responses to the stimuli. Although we can't ignore the mob e that doesn't mean we should give in to their demands. So what should we do ? I don't really know.
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/07/08 - 03:36 PM:	#10
Hi hyena in petticoat: If I may inconvenience your further, you say: Now that's better but still a bit rough. Lets just say I did get the point (I hope it is THE point) but somehow, the relationship of the supposed premises in support of the main idea wasn't really that strong or well established. It's okay, but since you did put it here for review, I gave my opinion on it. I hope you refine it more and then we'll see how other people will respond. Could you be more specific perhaps telling me what words are not acceptable to you, or ways of sentence construction? Otherwise I will publish the thread as it now stands, believing that people here can already get my essential message, and if they have some relevant reactions in confirmation or in disputation of my thoughts, they will respond accordingly. Then also I believe that if a post is not reacted to for several days or never, it could be because people can't find any good reasons to dispute the thoughts of the author, or they truly feel that the thoughts of the author are not worth their time and labor to react to in any way they can, which is already a reaction of sorts for readers who are not concerned with reacting but with just reading the thread to look for something useful, for example, visitors and also members here who read but practically don't post any messages at all. Pachomius

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/07/08 - 05:46 PM:	#11
hypothesis, It's not giving in to demands. That's not how it goes. I entertained the idea of him reposting it and giving my thoughts on it, because (1)I am the one who deleted the thread because it appeared nonsensical. (2)He (the poster) seems willing enough to cleanup his acts and I'd be willing to help (3)I'm just too much a believer of second chances (4)I can't really stop him from reposting right? I'd rather bear with a semi-okay thread than having to clean up garbage over and over. Do I appear condescending? Pachomius, You just have to construct your arguments better and articulate your point better. In my opinion, the essence of your post is really still rather vague. I don't really feel like going with you through posting with a step by step procedure. If you can't make it better then you just have to risk it. Believe in yourself. I'm not the only moderator here and this issue isn't about my opinion solely. Anyway, if you really believe you've got something going on there, there's always chance to clear up ambiguous matters during the potential discussion. So there. Good luck. I wish you get something out of this/ it. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 01/07/08 - 05:51 PM
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 01/08/08 - 12:19 AM:	#12
hyena in petticoat wrote: hypothesis, Do I appear condescending? Yes you do and I that's how I like it.
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/08/08 - 12:39 AM:	#13
hypothesis wrote: Yes you do and I that's how I like it. Eh... and I thought I'm too friendly and modest!
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Hypothesis
Free Spirit

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613

Posted 01/08/08 - 10:39 AM:	#14
hyena in petticoat wrote: Eh... and I thought I'm too friendly and modest! Oh now you're just flirting with me .
_____________________ over and over and over and over and over like a monkey with a miniature cymbal the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/08/08 - 11:19 AM: Subject: Nonsensical or against civil decorum or both?	#15
Hi hyena in petticoat: hyena in petticoat wrote: It's not giving in to demands. That's not how it goes. I entertained the idea of him reposting it and giving my thoughts on it, because (1)I am the one who deleted the thread because it appeared nonsensical. (2)He (the poster) seems willing enough to cleanup his acts and I'd be willing to help (3)I'm just too much a believer of second chances (4)I can't really stop him from reposting right? I'd rather bear with a semi-okay thread than having to clean up garbage over and over. You are concerned with a post initiating a thread whether it is making sense or it is nonsensical, but not principally with otherwise whether the post is against the rules of this forum, in particular that the poster wrote without regard for civil decorum? Or both? Pachomius

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/08/08 - 11:33 AM:	#16
Hypothesis says: quote: It seems to me that writing something out of vanity is a waste of time. Perhaps some people do it because they think their ideas are profound or offer new insite into the world, typical prophet syndrome. Some people also and many there be who write because they sincerely want to share an idea which they think others might have an interest to hear about and to react to, even though some others might get the impression that the writer is acting from vanity or from prophet syndrome. If you judge in exercising your power to delete a writing on the ground of its being a vanity act or a display of prophet syndrome, and therefore deserving of deletion, then you are if I may use the words into censorship on grounds of writer's vanity in writing or his suffering a prophet syndrome, which I believe is the most bigoted of bias and prejudice inspired censorship. Pachomius

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/08/08 - 05:48 PM:	#17
hypothesis wrote: Oh now you're just flirting with me Hahahahahaha! Pachomius, What, do I have to justify my actions to you now? The thing about mods is that we've been put here for a reason and the administration believes that we could do something for the betterment of PF. It's not just about rules, it's also about good judgment. Mistakes are inevitable. But I don't think I made a mistake with this. You just have to live with the fact that your post didn't pass the standards, thus has been deleted. Give it a rest will you? Grow up. Edited by hyena in petticoat on 01/08/08 - 07:43 PM
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11513

Posted 01/09/08 - 05:05 AM:	#18
pachomius2000 wrote: You are concerned with a post initiating a thread whether it is making sense or it is nonsensical, but not principally with otherwise whether the post is against the rules of this forum, in particular that the poster wrote without regard for civil decorum? Let me assure you, as the site's creator, that making sense is a central part of the site's goals and guidelines. Moderators are instructed to remove nonsensical topics, in order to provide the busy reader with only high quality content. Put simply, though this is still an open forum it's intended to be more toward the edited journal end of the spectrum than the community chalkboard end. Not everyone qualifies to participate, just as not every journal submission is accepted and not everyone in a philosophy class passes. I'd like the standards to be higher than they are now, in fact, but it's just not practical when I'm not willing to devote the time to reading everything. There are, of course, many other sites where you can post freely. It works out best for everyone if you go and do that. pachomius2000 wrote: Some people also and many there be who write because they sincerely want to share an idea which they think others might have an interest to hear about and to react to, even though some others might get the impression that the writer is acting from vanity or from prophet syndrome. I agree there are some such people. It's unfortunate that they either aren't able to express themselves well enough or don't rigorously examine their arguments, and I wouldn't cast them into the fiery pits of hell for it, but I'd still ban them for it if they're not contributing positively to the site even if they're trying to. Edited by Paul on 01/09/08 - 05:26 AM
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/09/08 - 01:13 PM:	#19
hyena in petticoat wrote: Hahahahahaha! Pachomius, What, do I have to justify my actions to you now? The thing about mods is that we've been put here for a reason and the administration believes that we could do something for the betterment of PF. It's not just about rules, it's also about good judgment. Mistakes are inevitable. But I don't think I made a mistake with this. You just have to live with the fact that your post didn't pass the standards, thus has been deleted. Give it a rest will you? Grow up. Yes, and will you also grow up, if I may and with all due deference to your office of moderatorship? Paul wrote: [ See, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/u-guys... ] About blatant rudeness, would you consider calling someone's post garbage time and again an example of blatant rudeness? -- Pachomius Sure, to be bluntly honest is usually rude. There's a difference between being rude as a matter of habitual directness and desire to cut to the point (which a large percentage of us here are) and actually trying to hurt someone with words, and more difference between trying to be hurtful and telling people to kill themselves. Then there's an infinite difference between making a post which has a point but is rude, versus just flaming or trolling. In the case of a thread like this, of course, the whole topic was complete flaming so the rules are off and the best bet is to have a little fun with it. It says here in this forum's help section: Job description [of moderator]: Keep the forum in good order, eliminate problems, keep things on topic and intelligent, and try to be diplomatic while doing so. Moderation is a form of editoral control. The standards for a discussion forum obviously aren't as strict as for a book or journal, but the basic idea is the same. People submit content, and you review the content to determine whether it aids or harms the purpose of this website. If it harms the quality of the site, you take action to either improve or eliminate said content. While you have to do your job, may I just suggest that there is no need to adopt a belligerently antagonistic and personally insulting attitude toward a poster you don't agree with as regards the sense of his posting and the style of his writing -- that is certainly not being diplomatic. You can just say instead of calling a post garbage, that the post is not acceptable. I will introduce again my thread as already redrafted above, as soon as I have put in my share of feedbacks in this feedback board. pachomius

pachomius2000
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 13, 2004
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 25

Posted 01/09/08 - 02:43 PM: Subject: Let us just reason calmly...	#20
Paul wrote: As you'd know if you selected in your profile options to be notified of moderator actions, it was deleted by hyena_in_petticoat for the reason "low quality" -- so it'd be best to ask her. Glancing through it, though, some things are apparant: I agree perfectly, thanks, Paul, except for your allegation that "some things are apparant," which I -- with all due deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum -- submit that one should not trust in appearances which can be very subjective and arbitrary. It's 95% quote. A topic about how you wrote a topic elsewhere makes for poor, disorganized reading. Just present the issue. Smells like you're spamming for the other site the way you did it, though I'm too lazy to check into indicators of whether you own said site. I am sure it is not all 95% quote, that is an exaggeration from your part; may I just suggest that as the creator and operator of this forum and as one with philosophy for an ongoing concern, please adopt an attitude toward the posters who have registered themselves to be members here and are writing here, of treating them with diplomatic hospitality as befits people like yourself with a philosophical orientation. The fact is that the post we are talking about from me was originally put in the philosophy and humanities board of visibly secondary importance in the Hypography Science Forums which is a purely science forum. I put it here in your forum as an initiating post for a thread on disproving solipsism and idealism, because it is a purely philosophy forum, expecting there would be people here who would want to read it and to react to it on its substantial thoughts. You have noticed that Kris and Hypothesis were still asking for it when they could not find it any longer. See, http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/change... It's (in the quote) rambly and makes a grand sweeping claim. It's also a self-defeating topic: it argues that arguing is a fallacy. My claim is that a philosophy advocated and adhered to by its proponent as his personal philosophy which however he does not want to put to practice in his everyday life or cannot, is a pseudo philosophy. I say that there is a fallacy which I call arguing for the sake of arguing, instead of reasoning and taking into account that reasoning must be founded before anything else, on the fact that we must first be alive, living and can live and do actually live physiologically, before we can even talk about anything at all, and that a philosophy that already in its at least implied and logically embedded premises posits a non-life world where mankind is not present and cannot be a living presence is already fundamentally a fallacious way of doing philosophy -- unless it is just for an amusing make-believe scenario for pastime and recreation, but it is not doing philosophy. It seems to indicate either a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word fallacy or a confused mind. That is your opinion, but I submit with all due deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum, that you have a limited understanding of what a fallacy is and its implications. The "story" creates a trivial strawman of skepticism to burn down by saying "that's silly and stupid", or basically pointing to what a natural or practical behavior is when that isn't the issue. It's like saying the earth is flat because you have to act in everyday life as though it were, and don't worry about sliding off. I never used the words "that's silly and stupid" in that post, please show me those words and I will take back my words and apologize to you. The earth is not flat and everyone knows it now, but what I am saying is not that the earth is not flat or is flat, but that we are living entities with a life physiology and any philosophy that is founded upon a denial of that physiological life, by advocating that we don't exist except in our mind by our thinking and the whole world also, that is a pseudo philosophy, a fallacy of thinking, or a perversion of reasoning. You write "Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!" That should always be grounds for immediate deletion. On that basis, H.L. Mencken could never have written and published and contributed so much to our knowledge of human nature and human thinking and human behaving, for he said: One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent. [ Citation available on request ] In the end, your theory appears to be that instead of presenting arguments we should laugh at anyone who disagrees with something we strongly believe. I think philosophy can get along without you. That is your conclusion not mine, and therein lies a fallacy somewhere. With all deference to your creatorship, ownership, and operatorship of this forum, I remain Yours most sincerely, Pachomius

hyena in petticoat
Cheeky Possum.

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Dec 14, 2006
Location: Here.
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 856

Posted 01/09/08 - 05:49 PM:	#21
Yes, and will you also grow up, if I may and with all due deference to your office of moderatorship? Hah. You say I am being antagonistic? Seriously, I highly doubt if the words garbage replaced with not acceptable would have made any difference at all. Cause if you were as open minded as you try hard to project, you wouldn't have dragged the matter this long when I indicated the reason behind the deletion of your thread is "low quality" (and that's being overly polite on my part, believe me) and I also believe you have read about the reason in the automatic PM sent to you. You're just being difficult, obviously. And if you keep being like this...
_____________________ Running running run. If you can't say anything nice about someone, say nothing. Then creep up behind them with a baseball bat and really let 'em have it. "What's the point of goin' out and riding if you're gona be a pussy..." - Ecce

easyjacksn
Almost there...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1041

Posted 01/09/08 - 09:58 PM:	#22
pachomius2000 wrote: I say that there is a fallacy which I call arguing for the sake of arguing, instead of reasoning and taking into account that reasoning must be founded before anything else, on the fact that we must first be alive, living and can live and do actually live physiologically, before we can even talk about anything at all, and that a philosophy that already in its at least implied and logically embedded premises posits a non-life world where mankind is not present and cannot be a living presence is already fundamentally a fallacious way of doing philosophy -- unless it is just for an amusing make-believe scenario for pastime and recreation, but it is not doing philosophy. Not only do you seem to think that this type of post is not an example of half coherent pedantic rambling, but you seem utterly incapable of differentiating between this and a quality post. How many ideas do you feel it is necessary to shove into one "sentence"? How you could possibly have been at this site for 3+ years and not expect posting like this to be edited or deleted is beyond me.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.