Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 75
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaT View Post
    Wouldn't it just be easier to state that you are always right and Tool Slinger is wrong?
    Strictly speaking "right" and "wrong" are moral terms - they're not epistemic, metaphysical or semantic terms - they come from the realm of subjective ontology - to do with sociology and status functions.

    Arguments, unlike propositions, can never be true or false - only good or bad. Evidence too can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    Tool-Slinger might have stated a truth - that this particular philosopher is an idiot - I so far cannot agree with this since the man seems quite cogent to me - if he has got things "wrong" then at most he is mistaken - which is not the same as being an idiot. What I would need from Slinger is an argument for me to follow - a line of reasoning toward his conclusion - only then would he/she have given something that could also be valid.


  2. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,711
    It would be so easy to sell you a "certain" bridge.
    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money.
    - Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

  3. #29
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,026
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Strictly speaking "right" and "wrong" are moral terms - they're not epistemic, metaphysical or semantic terms - they come from the realm of subjective ontology - to do with sociology and status functions.

    Arguments, unlike propositions, can never be true or false - only good or bad. Evidence too can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    Tool-Slinger might have stated a truth - that this particular philosopher is an idiot - I so far cannot agree with this since the man seems quite cogent to me - if he has got things "wrong" then at most he is mistaken - which is not the same as being an idiot. What I would need from Slinger is an argument for me to follow - a line of reasoning toward his conclusion - only then would he/she have given something that could also be valid.

    okay, I'll play

    Although Mr McMahn is using a philosophical approach to a physical issue he does not make a good argument. Im not trained as a philosopher so this may sound chaotic.

    I believe his basic argument is that if no one had guns, everyone would be safer. correct???

    well the reality is that guns have been a round for a couple of centuries, if McMahn or any liberal minded individual wanted to stop gun violence they should have started right after Mr Nobel stabilized gun powder. The simple reality is, there are to many guns on the planet right now. Even if we took all the guns away, it is human nature to dominate the next person, village, town and so on. It is human nature to destroy what your neighbor built in order to dominate.

    It's also human nature, as with all animals to defend ourselves from predators and other humans. We will do that using all necessary means. Claws, feet, hands and if necessary we will invent tools to make that job easier. Some animals use camouflage, some use bright colors, some have fangs or venomous spines.

    Even in prison, where all the occupants are disarmed, death is a frequent occurrence. How can this be if all the occupants are disarmed?

    Since there are so many guns prevalent in society (world wide) the only thing to do is arm everyone. a armed society is a polite society.

    As corny as that sounds, if you think about it, it is true. How often would you engage someone you don't know if your knew they are armed.

    With the world population growing, certain groups of humans will try to expand there territory. they will do this through force. This has been proven time and time again throughout human history. Guns are the best deterrent.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    The guy is a philosopher. Any such claim therefore would be true.

    We should keep separate the notions of argument and explanation.

    We argue toward the truth of some proposition when its truth is to be derived from other more general truths or the summation of accumulatively contributing truths.

    We give explanations when the truth of some proposition is not doubted and instead questions arise as to how its truth came about.

    Validity has to do with the logical form of arguments - not the non-logical components called propositions.

    So arguments, which must be comprised of at least two propositions, have a syntactical structure and then semantic inserts.

    But it is only the syntactical structure that can be spoken of in terms of validity - valid or invalid.

    Regarding propositions...
    Truth has only to do with propositions.
    There are analytic and synthetic truths.
    There are a priori and a posteriori truths.
    There are necessary and contingent truths.
    There are necessary a posteriori truths. (Water is H2O)
    There are a priori contingent truths. (The designated length of 1 meter)
    But Kant's synthetic a priori truths seem to have been dispensed with by the new non Euclidean geometries.

    So your use of the term "valid" is a category mistake on two dimensions. First, your statement is an assertion and so has no logical structure to analyse and secondly since it is less than two propositions there is no argument that could possibly be either valid or invalid.

    These are elementary aspects of philosophical logic learned within the very early hours of study of philosophy and its methods.
    No, I submit you are factually wrong and your BRAINY PHILOSOPHIR guy is an idiot.

    I admit I did not watch the whole video, the guy lost me claiming he was safer with everyone disarmed as he was dealing with an intruder. That 'collective think sh1t' doesn't work in real life. There is more than dealing with an intruder, you might have a foreign invasion or a dictatorial political entity to deal with. No guns? They bring friends. Don't pass that reality in some snobbery philisophophical dismissal. It happens, and it has happened all throughout the history of mankind. Philosophy in ignorance of human history, and human nature, is sheer stupidity of the most arrogantly fallible kind.

    You are finding ways of trying to define truth, and anylyze it and measure it.

    Truth has only to do with propositions.
    There are analytic and synthetic truths.
    There are a priori and a posteriori truths.
    There are necessary and contingent truths.
    There are necessary a posteriori truths.


    But your PHILOSOPHER GUY has no Idea what the truth is. I do. I am telling you this PHILOSOPHER GUY is an idiot and has no f'n clue what the real world is. He is an idiot. He is a fool and knows nothing, he just theorizes on conceptual BS ideas that have no connection or consideration with the real world application.

    Most nof us here debate what the truth is, we have no actual problem defining it,... that is a practice for pointy-headed idiots like the PHILOSOPHER GUY. He can go pound sand.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kaufman county, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Quote Originally Posted by thermophysics View Post
    Strictly speaking "right" and "wrong" are moral terms - they're not epistemic, metaphysical or semantic terms - they come from the realm of subjective ontology - to do with sociology and status functions.

    Arguments, unlike propositions, can never be true or false - only good or bad. Evidence too can never be true or false - only strong or weak.

    Tool-Slinger might have stated a truth - that this particular philosopher is an idiot - I so far cannot agree with this since the man seems quite cogent to me - if he has got things "wrong" then at most he is mistaken - which is not the same as being an idiot. What I would need from Slinger is an argument for me to follow - a line of reasoning toward his conclusion - only then would he/she have given something that could also be valid.

    Valid comment, I just replied in my earlier post, sorry for the late reply.

    Like JMAC alluded to, theoretic concepts have to be weighed against historical evidence and modern realities of the day for validity. I repeat, you PHILOSOPHICAL GUY is an idiot. He does have valid philosophical thinking, but it is rooted within ignorance of historical, political, practical, and personal safety.

    He is an idiot. That may sound like an overly simpleton conclusion. I don't need to analyze it or debate it or question the meaning. Sometimes simple answers are the most accurate. I deal with facts better than hypothetical nonsense. He is a proven idiot. That is all you need to know.
    "You boys are really making this thing harder than it has to be". Me

    "Who ARE you people? And WHAT are you doing in my SWAMP!?" Shrek

    Service calls submitted after 3PM will be posted the next business day.

    I give free estimates [Wild Ass Guesses] over the phone.

    "Ain't nobody got time for that". Corny

  6. #32
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Valid comment, I just replied in my earlier post, sorry for the late reply.

    Like JMAC alluded to, theoretic concepts have to be weighed against historical evidence and modern realities of the day for validity. I repeat, you PHILOSOPHICAL GUY is an idiot. He does have valid philosophical thinking, but it is rooted within ignorance of historical, political, practical, and personal safety.

    He is an idiot. That may sound like an overly simpleton conclusion. I don't need to analyze it or debate it or question the meaning. Sometimes simple answers are the most accurate. I deal with facts better than hypothetical nonsense. He is a proven idiot. That is all you need to know.
    come on Tool, idiot is a little strong don't ya think.........maybe moron would be a better adjective. The guy lives in academia, the real world is a distant theoretical place totally unfamiliar to him.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  7. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,711
    Well, according to his own definition of things he's an idiot only if people believe he is an idiot. Just as he states money is of no value unless people assign a value (function) to it.

    So we have to take a vote to see how many agree with the idiot assessment.

    I think he gets way too much time to sit in a room with himself and think with himself.

    Intellect breeds intellect and here we have postive proof of that. And on the backside of that camera are the voters of tomorrow, well, last years voters and in their hands lies the future.
    "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money.
    - Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta,GA.
    Posts
    809
    put him in a chicago hood at night and see if he can use his philosophy to survive the night

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Caledonia WI
    Posts
    877
    thermophysics, since critical thinking is clearly not your forte I will help direct you into a more satisfying and productive hobby enjoy.

    Nothing is magic, it works or doesn't work for a reason.

  10. #36
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,026
    Im sorry, but that is just funny.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Tool-Slinger View Post
    Valid comment, I just replied in my earlier post, sorry for the late reply.

    Like JMAC alluded to, theoretic concepts have to be weighed against historical evidence and modern realities of the day for validity. I repeat, you PHILOSOPHICAL GUY is an idiot. He does have valid philosophical thinking, but it is rooted within ignorance of historical, political, practical, and personal safety.

    He is an idiot. That may sound like an overly simpleton conclusion. I don't need to analyze it or debate it or question the meaning. Sometimes simple answers are the most accurate. I deal with facts better than hypothetical nonsense. He is a proven idiot. That is all you need to know.
    Sorry to come late here, but the basic philosophical point here is simply that "truth" can only be what people decide it is.

    Now, you may think that is foolish in that you may believe that many share your view, for example, but that does not necessarily invalidate the philosophical argument.

    You simply might have majority opinion. Note that I am not even stating that you do, or not, as even that would be a point of view thing.

    Mostly anyway. Unless there were clear votes to the contrary, but even then, the basis of those votes would be derived by things YOU hold to be true.

    I'm not sure I can adequately explain the difference between practical and philosophical arguments.

    Nonetheless, philosophical matters when applied to real life usually indicate a dead end situation as the two cannot be rationally taken together in most cases.

  12. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Caledonia WI
    Posts
    877
    And quite fitting, if I do say myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    Im sorry, but that is just funny.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    3,147
    What determines truth here is if you can get the guy to leave the thread...which seems has happened.

    Hurray. Chock up another win!!!

    What is it about ten members now that have been run off?

    You guys rock!!!

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event