Necessary evils

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 691
Topic's author
#121
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
No but if your of the belief that EVERYBODY should be in AGREEMENT in regards to this stars popularity then it’s hypocritical to say that when in the next breath you DISAGREE with them. You see it’s not the DISAGREEMENT that’s the hypocrisy it’s the fact that you preached AGREEMENT and went against just that.
No one is asking you to agree to a favorite sports star only that you don't dismiss other people's choice and stop the conversation until they agree with you.
#122
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not even so much rejecting the dictionary
Claiming there’s a difference when the dictionary says there isn’t is literally the definition of rejecting the dictionary, don’t act slow now.
Topic's author
#123
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I'm not rejecting the dictionary's definitions I'm just using a particular definition which may or may not appear in any given dictionary. 
Topic's author
#124
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
In English one word may have multiple meanings. In every language the meaning of words evolves and changes over time. Some words are forgotten and others invented. No dictionary is the final arbiter of all possible definitions. That is in fact a preposterous idea.
#125
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
In every language the meaning of words evolves and changes over time.
Well unless you can prove that the terms at hand evolved to what your saying it has, the definition in the dictionary still stands.

That is in fact a preposterous idea.
You thinking you can just go against the grain and define words as you wish and be correct is a preposterous idea.
#126
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
@fauxlaw
Fauxlaw:
Life and death do; life and death of any organism
Secularmerlin:
I disagree. Death is not the opposite of life it is a part of it. 
I’m in the middle if you guys thought that impossible.
I say it’s the absence of lives.
Topic's author
#127
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Well unless you can prove that the terms at hand evolved to what your saying it has, the definition in the dictionary still stands.
We can adapt the language to our use. The dictionary cannot stop us. All it takes is you to say you understand what I MEAN when I use any given term. It doesn't even matter if I am using the word "correctly" whatever that even means only that you understand what I am trying to communicate to you.

You have the ability to have the conversation if you want to. The only thing standing in your way is you.
You thinking you can just go against the grain and define words as you wish 
Yes
be correct is a preposterous idea.
I told you I don't care about correct only about communication of an idea.
#128
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It doesn't even matter if I am using the word "correctly"
What about validly/soundly?
Topic's author
#129
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece101
Opposites are an abstraction. They are only useful if you make an assumed opinion about something. The opposite of something isn't necessarily just its absence. Like the opposite of a rock isn't no a rock.

Tall is the opposite of short in as much as we as humans are using the words that way. It is subjective. But we don't say that the opposite of tall isno measurable height whatever. 

Saying this or that is an opposite is a comparison and comparisons are generally subjective. You could call death the opposite of death and because it is subjective you wouldn't be wrong but that doesn't mean it is objectively true either and it certainly doesn't mean having an opposite is a prerequisite for existence. 
Topic's author
#130
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
What about validly/soundly?
Those words in the context I have been using them do not apply to single words or their definitions but only to the structure (validity) and provable truth value (soundness) of an argument. 
#131
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,975
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m saying absent, not opposite. 

You aren’t replying to fauxlaw, you’re replying to me. 


#132
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Those words in the context I have been using them do not apply to single words or their definitions but only to the structure (validity) and provable truth value (soundness) of an argument. 
...So? You can still know if the structure and provable truth value of an argument is valid/sound through a dictionary.
Topic's author
#133
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Reece101
I’m saying absent, not opposite. 

You aren’t replying to fauxlaw, you’re replying to me. 
You will have to forgive me I thought that was in the way commentary on that issue. I would be most greatfull if you would clarify your point and how it relates to the larger conversation. 

Topic's author
#134
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
You can still know if the structure and provable truth value of an argument is valid/sound through a dictionary.
No. You cannot. Again the dictionary ONLY describes popular usage. Nowhere in any dictionary I have ever seen is a guide to examining philosophical arguments for validity and soundness presented. That takes more than just understanding the most agreed upon definition (if that can even be determined).
#135
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Opposition, like the force against the tendency of an object to move in a straight line to pull it into the orbit around an object of greater mass was not the invention of Newton in his first law of motion, but merely his observation of the natural phenomenon of opposing forces already in place and function billions of years before Newton was.
#136
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Nowhere in any dictionary I have ever seen is a guide to examining philosophical arguments 
No, but it can be used as a guide to understand the meaning of terms such as validity and/or soundness and once you realize that those two terms are fundamentally the same thing you can apply that understanding when examining arguments of any kind.
Topic's author
#137
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
That is not much help when trying to evaluate the DIFFERENCE between a SOUND and a VALID argument as I am using the term.
#138
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You mean the fallacious way?

Topic's author
#139
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I mean in the way you would learn to if you took a course in philosophy. 
#140
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
So why is the difference between valid and sound arguments relevant here? 

Topic's author
#141
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Because this is the philosophy section of a debate webserver. Knowing what valid and sound mean specifically as they apply to evaluating the logic of an argument will always be important in every discussion here. In order to avoid logical fallacies the structure of an argument is every bit as important as the provable truth of the conclusion. You must be able to evaluate the two seperate issues in order to fully evaluate the logic of any argument. This is very philosophy 101 stuff.
#142
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes but what invalid and/or unsound argument have I made or logical fallacy have I committed that makes you bring all this philosophy 101 stuff up?
#143
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I fear you have ignored my other argument in order to be sidetracked by opposition. To repeat my other argument in my initial post #28:

Our challenge is to either ignore, or embrace evil. By complete ignorance of evil, I don't mean that we should be stupid as a reaction to evil, but that we be aware of it and choose to ignore its influence while acknowledging its existence. 
That argument implies that a necessary evil does not exist; simply that evil, without qualification, does exist. What is necessary is to avoid evil in any of its forms. I consider any thought or action by one directed to the physical, mental, or spiritual impairment or obstruction of another is evil. As all are given free agency, wherein we are all agents unto ourselves, to impede another's agency to think and act for themselves, or for the useful benefit of others, is evil, and none of it has a necessary purpose.
#144
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
As I've noted to secular, I fear the discussion of opposition has sidetracked the discussion. Thus, my redirection as noted on my post #143
Topic's author
#145
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Yes but what invalid and/or unsound argument have I made or logical fallacy have I committed that makes you bring all this philosophy 101 stuff up?
It's just that you don't actually seem to know the difference at all. I've offered before and the offer still stands to explain what makes an argument valid and how you can evaluate them.
Topic's author
#146
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
in order to be sidetracked by opposition. 
Yes sorry I do tend to wander.
As all are given free agency, wherein we are all agents unto ourselves, to impede another's agency to think and act for themselves, or for the useful benefit of others, is evil, and none of it has a necessary purpose.
You mean like if one's agency is impeded by extreme poverty or if one were coerced into "working for a living"?
#147
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
It's just that you don't actually seem to know the difference at all.
How so? I mean the only way thing I can think of is if I’m guilty of invalid and/or unsound arguments or I’ve committed some logical fallacy I’m not privy too but if you’re gonna be vague and have nothing specific to say then the only thing I can take from that is your just yanking my chain with this philosophy 101 stuff, because although this is the philosophy section of the forums that doesn’t mean we have to discuss it in such a broad context.
Topic's author
#148
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
If you are willing to learn how valid arguments are structured you can go back through our correspondence and see for yourself where you either presented an invalid argument or incorrectly evaluated valid arguments as invalid.
#149
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If you are willing to learn how valid arguments are structured you can go back through our correspondence and see for yourself where you either presented an invalid argument or incorrectly evaluated valid arguments as invalid.
That makes no sense, first let’s assume for a second that your right and I don’t know how a valid argument is structured, you sending me on some random goosechase within our past discussions isn’t gonna help me find it. Second as far as I’m concerned I’m not guilty of any of these fallacies your accusing me of so it doesn’t make sense for me to go searching for something that isn’t there, your the one making the claims about me so the BOP is on you to support them, in fact accusing someone of a fallacy when there’s none present is a fallacy in itself “mr philosophy”.

Topic's author
#150
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
It doesn't matter if I show them to you when you can't recognize them.

I see no profit in such an activity. The learning must come first.