-->
@secularmerlin
And how do you know I can’t recognize them? Your grasping at straws here.
Necessary evils
Posts
Total:
691
-->
@Tarik
Because i do know how to evaluate an arguments structure.
-->
@secularmerlin
You mean like if one's agency is impeded by extreme poverty or if one were coerced into "working for a living"?
If one is impeded by extreme poverty, but is otherwise able-bodied and simply refuses to work for an income to get out of poverty, including getting an education to improve one's potential for income, but instead, chooses to remain poor and expect others to pay for living expenses, that is pure robbery of another's freedom.
If one must be coerced into working for a living, when, otherwise, that person, again, assuming they are able-bodied sufficient to makew a living for themselves, chooses to be a freeloader, that also is pure robbery of another's freedom.
Being able-bodied but unwilling to go to work, or get an education to improve working skills, is the denial of personal responsibility of every person who practices such irresponsibility.
-->
@fauxlaw
One must be coerced into accepting hazardous, tedious, unfulfilling and or dangerous work especially if it does not pay enough to allow you to rise out of poverty.
-->
@fauxlaw
#153
It is as simple as that...but not as easy as that.
And it's easy to sit back and say that.
Motivating from a position of poverty, is not the same as expecting motivation from a position of security.
Notwithstanding exceptions to the rule.....Security breeds security and poverty breeds poverty.....Based on a predesignated distribution of wealth and aspiration.
Should have tried harder isn't particularly helpful.
Nonetheless, success and survival of the fittest and brightest is perhaps how things are meant to be.
And it's probably necessary that the fittest and brightest to keep dangling the carrots of achievement.
Evolution as it were.
-->
@secularmerlin
Because i do know how to evaluate an arguments structure.
And what PROOF do you have that I don’t? If you have no support for your unwarranted claims then for the purposes of discussion your opponent has every right to dismiss them, did your philosophy textbook put you on to that or that lying as an attempt to get the high ground in an argument is a weak fallacious move? Enough with your filibustering/red herrings, I’ve had it up to here with your pathetic tactics and it’s time I’ve called you out.
-->
@Tarik
Tarik it is ok to not know something you don't have to be embarrassed.
-->
@secularmerlin
Your right I have nothing to be embarrassed about, however you’re a liar and that’s embarrassing.
-->
@Tarik
Ok well until you prove to me you can evaluate an argument to determine if it is valid and then separately evaluate the soundness of an argument there will be no profit in our discussions. That doesn't mean I will never respond to you. I just will do so with the understanding that you are not able to join the discussion effectively.
-->
@secularmerlin
I just will do so with the understanding that you are not able to join the discussion effectively.
The only way you can understand that is if you have evidence proving that, which you don’t so enough of your lies.
-->
@Tarik
You have this backwards. You need to have evidence BEFORE you believe something you don't believe EVERYTHING you cannot disprove. Otherwise in order to be consistent you would be forced to believe multiple mutually exclusive and or logically contradictory propositions.
-->
@secularmerlin
You need to have evidence BEFORE you believe something
And you believe that I can’t evaluate the soundness of an argument, I’m simply asking you based off of what made you come to that conclusion because we’ve spoke in length about more detailed topics than this and the fact that you can’t recall ONE TIME I’ve displayed the accusations you accuse me of is enough to tell me that your lying about all of it.
-->
@Tarik
Yes so in order for me to believe that you are able to make the necessary distinctions at this point I would have to see evidence that you can. Until then I just won't be able to believe it based on the available evidence.
If you can evaluate argument sufficient to have these discussions your behavior thus far indistinguishable from someone who cannot.
Please understand that this is not meant in the spirit of an ad hominem attack. I'm genuinely interested in communication and I think it is a shame that you are unable or unwilling to understand me when I try to communicate with you.
-->
@secularmerlin
Until then I just won't be able to believe it based on the available evidence.
You don’t have to believe it, but you also don’t have to believe that I can’t. Claiming that I can’t requires evidence which you do not have.
unable or unwilling to understand me when I try to communicate with you.
Are you? Because by the looks of it your just trying to throw over the table by sending false accusations my way.
Tarik, I have literally never seen you interact with a member where you don't end up angry at them and making them angry at you.
Well unlike you at least I don’t have being banned from DART on my track record.
-->
@Tarik
You don’t have to believe it, but you also don’t have to believe that I can’t.
See this is a prime example of what I mean.
You have this backwards for logically valid argumentation.
I no more need to assume you can evaluate arguments than that you can fly without an airplane or astraly project. The default is skepticism and then you begin to believe things as they are demonstrated.
-->
@secularmerlin
It’s one thing to be skeptical it’s another to boldly say I’m incapable, and since you’ve claimed the latter it requires proof otherwise it’s a lie period.
-->
@Tarik
It is up to YOU to prove you can. I cannot prove it for you. The positive must be demonstrated and the mere fact that you keep having misunderstings like this is not a good sign.
-->
@secularmerlin
I cannot prove it for you.
I never told you too (yet you want to attack my comprehension skills) but it is up to you to prove that I can’t considering that’s what your claiming, you can claim philosophy all you want but by the looks of it you can learn a thing or two from me not the other way around, your such a casual.
-->
@Tarik
yet you want to attack my comprehension skills
This is ot an attack tarik it is an offer. An offer to help you improve your cognitive skills.
-->
@secularmerlin
What’s wrong with my cognitive skills?
-->
@Tarik
What’s wrong with my cognitive skills?
Exactly. You lack the basic skills necessary to recognize the problem.
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the problem? For a guy that’s so willing to “help” me you seem to lack the ability to answer simple questions.
-->
@secularmerlin
cognitive skills
Fine thing to diss Tarik for cognitive skills when you're stuck on one of several definitions of "objective," apparently even unaware it exists in two realms of grammatical quibble. A mirror is your worst enemy. How objective is that?
A goal is an objective in that it represents a stated means to achieve. Achievement IS the goal. The objective is the means to do so and the accomplishment of it. No philosophy, just pure doing. "Do, or do not," said the prophet, Yoda, "there is no try." Subjectify that.
-->
@secularmerlin
@fauxlaw
Thanks fauxlaw, secularmerlin is making a complete FOOL of himself.
-->
@Tarik
No prob. A bit cheeky to slam someone else with one's own mistakes. We all do, it, however. Our faults are most easily reflected by someone else, and it's difficult to avoid the recognition. It's why Jesus said to take the beam from our own eye before removing the mote in some else's eye. So, it is, as well, self-directed criticism. To me, that is. But, glad if it helped.
-->
@fauxlaw
Jesus said to take the beam from our own eye before removing the mote in some else's eye.
Amen to that.
-->
@fauxlaw
Clearly you can still try. Yoda was wrong.
-->
@fauxlaw
Please provide your preferred definition of objective for consideration.