Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Case for Idealism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 41 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

This demonstrates that you have spent exactly 0 effort in trying to understand what people are trying to explain to you


Actually that would be you. We were just having a dialogue a second ago and you're retreating back to that same bullshit you pulled last time where you refuse to actually give a counter argument to my arguments and points. Stop ignoring what I just told you with this 2 word response to everything I say and give an actual rebuttal you coward... You pointing back to the very things I just gave an argument against doesn't count as a rebuttal.
Wed Aug 29, 2018 11:52 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
This demonstrates that you have spent exactly 0 effort in trying to understand what people are trying to explain to you


Actually that would be you. We were just having a dialogue a second ago and you're retreating back to that same bullshit you pulled last time where you refuse to actually give a counter argument to my arguments and points. Stop ignoring what I just told you with this 2 word response to everything I say and give an actual rebuttal you coward... You pointing back to the very things I just gave an argument against doesn't count as a rebuttal.


Look, I'm not being impolite to you, nor I am being disrespectful to you. So I would appreciate if you could give me the same courtesy.

If you look at it, I have pointed out exactly the mistakes you did in your argument. Mainly that you put no effort in trying to understand what I am saying. Because I had just pointed out in the previous post certain mistakes you did in understanding, and on the very next post you make exactly the same mistakes I just said you shouldn't make.
I copy pasted those back, because this point is not getting to you.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:05 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Look, I'm not being impolite to you, nor I am being disrespectful to you. So I would appreciate if you could give me the same courtesy.


I have no problem being courteous but I do not appreciate dishonesty or disingenuity. If you want us to have a polite and honest discussion then I need you to be upfront about something: you admit that you have at least some understanding of the mind, yet momo claims to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. This entails that on this particular topic, you and I agree on the mere fact that there is at least some understanding of the mind, while momo does not agree with us. Just be honest with me man, put the animosity aside, just be real: you and I both agree that there is some understanding of the mind, and momo doesn't. I know you know about the law of excluded middle, there are no contradictions. It is literally logically impossible for it to be the case that you have some understanding and no understanding in any shape or form. Only one of those can be true, and since you've claims you have some then you agree with me and disagree with momo... You've already admitted this, I just need you to come out with it again for the sake of clarity and to progress this dialogue.

I copy pasted those back, because this point is not getting to you.


You pointing back to the very things I'm refuting is just you going in a circle.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:15 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:You pointing back to the very things I'm refuting is just you going in a circle.

You are not refuting anything. I have pointed out exactly what part of the quotes you omitted addresses the objections you raised.

You are not refuting, you are cherry picking, you are having selective reading, you pick what vaguely resembles something that may support your case and then forget everything else that goes against it.

You are going out of your way to misrepresent everything anyone is trying to explain to you.

And you should have started to see a theme here, as I have been saying this over and over.
You are not equipped to have this sort of debate.
You may protest this, but at the end of the day, we can not have a conversation with you because you refuse to get it.

Forget about your OP, we are miles from even having that discussion, what is at stake here is if you can even have a discussion to begin with.
And it is clear to me that the answer is no.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:54 am
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I've been taking a back seat on this thread to see what others are saying, and to find out if I'm the only one who sees the problem here. Obviously I'm not, because everyone seems to have the same objection(s)

MI - are you simply saying that acknowledging the existence of X necessarily means having some understanding of X? If that's not what you mean, then I'm very unclear as to what your claiming. If that is what you mean, then I find it objectionable. Simply affirming that X exists doesn't necessarily entail having an understanding of X - at least not on any appreciable scale. There are many things I'd be happy to acknowledge the existence of, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I understand them on any level worth bickering over.

If all you mean is "I acknowledge that X exists" is the same as saying "I have at least some understanding of X (however minor)" then whatever, but that tells us nothing of the degree of understanding so it's not very useful.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:08 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You are not refuting anything.


Yes I am, I gave you counter arguments and even included scholarly sources proving you wrong. All you did was repeat the very same things that I just refuted.

You are not equipped to have this sort of debate.


No that would be you. You dodged my question yet again you coward... You're so intellectually dishonest that you can't even put your ego aside for a second to accept that we both agree on the mere fact that there is at least some understanding of mind. Your animosity gets in the way of truth so much that you can't even bring yourself to admit that we agree on this even though we clearly do... Absolutely pathetic... It is you that cannot have this conversation, your tribalism and ego and animosity overrides whatever commitment to truth you think you have. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong: admit that we both agree on that particular topic and disagree with momo.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:34 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

MI - are you simply saying that acknowledging the existence of X necessarily means having some understanding of X?


For instance, I'm saying it's contradictory to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form while also claiming you understand mental illness. If you can't understand what mind is at all in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to then say you understand not only that there is a mind, but a mind that is ill... You can't comprehend "mental illness" without first comprehending the first part of that term "mental"

Look SD, you have already admitted to me that you understand what I'm saying. It's momo who keeps pretending they don't understand what you and I clearly do. Why don't you ask momo some questions since they are clearly contradicting themselves? Why don't you be a bit more objective and address them for once...?
Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:42 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
MI - are you simply saying that acknowledging the existence of X necessarily means having some understanding of X?


For instance, I'm saying it's contradictory to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form while also claiming you understand mental illness. If you can't understand what mind is at all in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to then say you understand not only that there is a mind, but a mind that is ill... You can't comprehend "mental illness" without first comprehending the first part of that term "mental"

Look SD, you have already admitted to me that you understand what I'm saying. It's momo who keeps pretending they don't understand what you and I clearly do. Why don't you ask momo some questions since they are clearly contradicting themselves? Why don't you be a bit more objective and address them for once...?


In reverse order -

Because momo isn't the OP, that's you. And it's you that wishes to make a case for something.

I've read momo's replies to you, at least a good chunk of them anyway, and his objections and questioning seem to be much the same as other posters.

For clarity, what I "admitted" is that I accept the I exists. And something else about children which wasn't particularly interesting, relevant or important. I didn't say anything about understanding the I, which is why I asked the question in my last post (the one you didn't answer in your reply) - question being, Are you equivocating an acknowledgement that <whatever> exists with understanding the <whatever> - so are you? Yay or nay?

And just a friendly tip, one random internet user with nothing to lose to another - your condescending and patronising tone isn't making you any more persuasive.

I don't want to hear about mental illness, I want an answer to the question I actually asked. Not some other question I didn't ask.

Thank you.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 3:49 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Because momo isn't the OP, that's you


You're not even addressing the OP so I know this is a disingenuous response from you... You're jumping in the middle of a conversation between 2 people and taking sides to express disagreement/questions yet you've admitted you agree with me which entails a disagreement with momo. It's inconsistent for you to grill me but not grill the guy you actually disagree with (momo)

his objections and questioning seem to be much the same as other posters.

No they are not at all. Momo is the only one who is acting like they have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form. You and everyone else has admitted they can grasp the self and the mental. You've admitted this outright...

For clarity, what I "admitted" is that I accept the I exists.


Wow, I can't believe I have to correct you on this again... You didn't just say you accept that the I exists you admitted that you COMPREHEND the I. I have direct quotes of you admitting this:

SD: And I have acknowledged the existence of the I

Monistic Idealism: That's nice, but you haven't answered my question and I can't continue without an answer. Dear sir, I'm being patient and courteous and merely asking for a yes or no answer to my request for clarification: My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

SD: I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child. And that includes (by default, since I'm not an 18 month old child) the question you asked. So, therefore, yes <--- there's your answer.


Boom, you admitted right there that you COMPREHEND my explanation of the word "I". We already have an understanding of the "I" then by your own admission. You understand, along with everyone else. It's only momo that apparently doesn't even have as much of an understanding as an 18-month old child...

your condescending and patronising tone isn't making you any more persuasive.


Stop projecting your own condescension and patronising onto others. I'm just laying out the facts.

I don't want to hear about mental illness, I want an answer to the question I actually asked.


I literally just did answer your question. In our last conversation I told you where we are at in the conversation as of now: all I'm doing is pointing out the contradictions momo is making. I'm showing how it's contradictory for him to claim he has absolutely no understanding of the I in any shape or form while also claiming he understands that there is an I that notices. He claims he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet claims he understands mental illness... that's a blatant contradiction... How is that not a contradiction? Answer my question, don't dodge...
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:02 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You're not even addressing the OP


Correct.

so I know this is a disingenuous response from you.


You clearly don't, because it isn't.

You're jumping in the middle of a conversation between 2 people


This is an open thread in a public forum. If you'd prefer a one-on-one debate - with anyone at all - then ask them, if they agree then the mods will be only too happy to set that up for you and your debate opponent. Until then, members are obviously free to chip in as they wish.

and taking sides


If asking questions constitutes "taking sides" in your estimation, wonderful.

to express disagreement/questions


Oh, so you do understand. Glad we cleared that up.

yet you've admitted you agree with me which entails a disagreement with momo


There is no "admission" - you keep using that word but it's not really appropriate. This isn't a court trial. It's not even a debate.

It's inconsistent for you to grill me but not grill the guy you actually disagree with (momo)


So because I've asked you a few questions, that means I have to ask other people questions too? Why is that? If it's you I want answers from, what good is asking momo? Does he speak on your behalf?

No they are not at all. Momo is the only one who is acting like they have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in anyY shape or form. You and everyone else has admitted they can grasp the self and the mental. You've admitted this outright...


I've been very clear about what I've "admitted" (yes, your honour) - I have no need to backtrack or flip flop, I'm fully aware of what I said and what I acknowledged. Your attempts to twist my words will not fly here.

Wow, I can't believe I have to correct you on this again... You didn't just say you accept that the I exists you admitted that you COMPREHEND the I. I have direct quotes of you admitting this:


You provide me a direct quote, where these are the words used. I'll wait.
Heads up - the quotes you provided do not reflect your claim. Nowhere does it say I COMPREHEND the I. Acknowledging the existence of the I is not the same as "I COMPREHEND" the I. Your inability to understand the difference is outside of my control.

Boom, you admitted right there that you COMPREHEND my explanation of the word "I". We already have an understanding of the "I" then by your own admission. You understand, along with everyone else. It's only momo that apparently doesn't even have as much of an understanding as an 18-month old child...


Nope. Unless of course all you mean is... oh no wait I already asked that twice and you didn't answer. No need for a third attempt, the text still exists and people are capable of reading it.

Stop projecting your own condescension and patronising onto others. I'm just laying out the facts.


The consensus disagrees. There's been no condescension on my part, this is quite obvious. But even if there were, it wouldn't be in the same league as the levels you deploy.

I literally just did answer your question. In our last conversation I told you where we are at in the conversation as of now: all I'm doing is pointing out the contradictions momo is making. I'm showing how it's contradictory for him to claim he has absolutely no understanding of the I in any shape or form while also claiming he understands that there is an I that notices. He claims he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet claims he understands mental illness... that's a blatant contradiction... How is that not a contradiction? Answer my question, don't dodge...


Unfortunately, none of it matters at this point. Which is quite the shame really. You could be the worlds most profound expert on the subject and it wouldn't make an ounce of difference - your ability to communicate and conduct a civilised discourse are desperately lacking. Shame.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:49 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Correct.


Then you're full of shit by your own admission, the excuse you gave earlier doesn't hold water...

You're jumping in the middle of a conversation between 2 people


This is an open thread in a public forum.


You just said you weren't engaging with momo because of the OP but you're not even addressing the OP... you're jumping in the middle of a random conversation that isn't even yours. If you can address your questions and criticisms to me then you can do so to momo as well....

If asking questions constitutes "taking sides" in your estimation, wonderful.


No you're lobbing criticism as well, misunderstood criticism by the way..

There is no "admission"


Yes there is, you confessed that you understand. I have direct quotes of you doing so.

You provide me a direct quote, where these are the words used. I'll wait.


Dude, can you not read or something...? I literally just showed you the direct quotes in my last message to you, the direct quotes of you are right here:
SD: And I have acknowledged the existence of the I

Monistic Idealism: That's nice, but you haven't answered my question and I can't continue without an answer. Dear sir, I'm being patient and courteous and merely asking for a yes or no answer to my request for clarification: My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

SD: I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child. And that includes (by default, since I'm not an 18 month old child) the question you asked. So, therefore, yes <--- there's your answer.


Boom, you admitted right there that you COMPREHEND my explanation of the word "I". We already have an understanding of the "I" then by your own admission. You understand, along with everyone else. It's only momo that apparently doesn't even have as much of an understanding as an 18-month old child...

Nowhere does it say I COMPREHEND the I.


Yes it does, you said you grasp it:
Image


You admitted that you grasp the concept of the I, which is the same thing as saying you comprehend what is meant by the I. You understand the I. You admitted this, come on man quit the dishonesty...

So because I've asked you a few questions, that means I have to ask other people questions too?


You're expressing criticism as well and it makes no sense for you to grill and criticize me on something that you have already admitted you agree with yet you can't say anything at all to the other guy whom you admittedly do disagree with this... there's some dissonance here

what good is asking momo?


This entire discussion is taking place in the context of me talking to momo. You're jumping in the middle of that conversation. If you weren't being such a coward and just actually addressed the OP then yeah this would be great, you and I could have our discussion, but no you're jumping in the middle of someone else's discussion (and not even taking the whole conversation into context).

The consensus disagrees


your logical fallacy is: appeal to popularity
learn how to logic...
Also if we're playing the game of consensus then it's in MY favor since everyone else understands what is meant by the I and the mental. Momo is the only one who doesn't even have the understanding of an 18-month old child apparently...

Unfortunately, the truth doesn't matter at this point


great....
Also you said before that you would never dodge a question. Well you just dodged my question, liar... if you're not a liar then answer the question: He claims he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet claims he understands mental illness... that's a blatant contradiction... How is that not a contradiction? Answer my question, don't dodge...
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:12 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You have a very poor grasp of how this sort of thing works. It is unfortunate, but as previously - it's outside my control. The weird thing (or weirdest) is I haven't criticised you.

You're clearly not getting anywhere, but you can carry on at your leisure. As can anyone else who fancies posting. If I wanted repetition - I'd have kids, they love it.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:19 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You have a very poor grasp of how this sort of thing works.


Way to fail at giving a rebuttal to my arguments...

The weird thing (or weirdest) is I haven't criticised you.


Yes you have, you even appealed to the criticism of others and tried to say theirs is valid when you actually admitted that you agree with me so you've just been contradicting yourself.

You're clearly not getting anywhere


Dude, you're the one choosing to not response to my arguments. You're the one who is not getting anywhere.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:24 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Oh, just one quick thing, because I knew you'd spout "appeal to popularity fallacy" - er, no, it isn't. This is one of the most abused charges among those hard of understanding. It's not a fallacy to make the observation that most people take issue with your position. If I'd said "the consensus is against you, therefore you are wrong" - THAT would be an appeal to popularity fallacy. It requires a "therefore" - otherwise it's just an observation. So that's another misunderstanding on your part.

Anyway, as you were.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:43 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

er, no, it isn't.


Yes it is. You tried to negate what I said by resting on a consensus, a consensus that you failed to understand actually as I explained to you and you ignored... Now stick to your word and just go away, you have nothing to contribute here.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:46 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
er, no, it isn't.


Yes it is. You tried to negate what I said by resting on a consensus, a consensus that you failed to understand actually as I explained to you and you ignored... Now stick to your word and just go away, you have nothing to contribute here.



You don't decide who stays or leaves, any more than I do.

And it still isn't (and wasn't) a fallacy. Please continue making your self look like a wally.
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 6:57 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You don't decide who stays or leaves, any more than I do.


You're the one saying they were done and told me to carry on at my leisure and that you had only one more thing to say. So stick to your word and go away already. Or do you just have no principles and can't stick to your word?

And it still isn't (and wasn't) a fallacy.



Yes it is. You tried to negate what I said by resting on a consensus, a consensus that you failed to understand actually as I explained to you and you ignored
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:01 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
You don't decide who stays or leaves, any more than I do.


You're the one saying they were done and told me to carry on at my leisure and that you had only one more thing to say. So stick to your word and go away already. Or do you just have no principles and can't stick to your word?

And it still isn't (and wasn't) a fallacy.



Yes it is. You tried to negate what I said by resting on a consensus, a consensus that you failed to understand actually as I explained to you and you ignored


I said one quick thing, I didn't say "this is my last and final post and I swear before the judge and jury I will never post to this topic again"

And no, it isn't. You can insist it is if you like, it won't change the fact that it isn't. If you think that's the fallacy of appealing to popularity you are making your self look rather silly.

Are carrots better than peas?

Everyone - yes they are

Observation - Everyone here thinks carrots are better than peas < the observation is a statement of fact>

Fallacy - Everyone here thinks carrots are better than peas so THEREFORE you are wrong when you say peas are better than carrots.

It's you who doesn't get it.

Please do carry on - you're amusing :)
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:11 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I said one quick thing


You also said for me to carry on without you and that you were done repeating yourself yet here you still are and repeating yourself at that... no principles

And no, it isn't.


Case in point, you're just going to keep repeating yourself even though you said you wouldn't do that, no principles. I guess it's time for you to have kids lol

You can insist it is if you like


Yes it is. You tried to negate what I said by resting on a consensus, a consensus that you failed to understand actually as I explained to you and you ignored
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:17 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Ya know, MGK has summed you up very accurately. You do cherry-pick, you focus on little bits that could give the idle reader the impression that you're right, whilst ignoring swathes of discourse that show you to be wrong. It's pretty disingenuous. I'm not sure what you'd like to achieve, but at this point you're doing little more than trolling. I don't mind a little troll bait, sometimes I'll bite but only if it's for the greater good. In your case it is beneficial for people to bite, so that others can benefit from seeing your nonsense exposed for what it really is.

Highlight the word "yes"

Attempt to give the impression that one word agrees with your whole position

Insult others

Claim victory

You got it all, kid ;)
Image
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:24 pm
WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 41 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
cron