den_wolf

Mmmm, I love hearing this sentence... I have black friends, so I'm no racist!! AhhH!! pure joy when I hear that!! Sad thing is that, they don't realise that it proves nothing! Ditto for a degree!!! I mean, come now, it's way too easy to get a degree.. Anyway!!! back to the topic. What's the count at, Anonymouse?

LOL!!! Good grief no!! What would I be doing married!! Those are the proofs that I work on. (gevo won't like this)

dun dun dun! troll alert!! I never called anyone an idiot. I said those who generalise are idiots. I never claimed anyone was stupid. Your conclusions do not follow from the premises (that is if you have any - as I don't see you trying to make a point, but rather parroting in order to get girls' support, which, I don't know if by coincidence or what, THOTH seems to be doing - note all his nice comments and interactions with women/girls). What, wannabe-"mr. popularity" is calling someone who has had more life experience than him, an idiot? What what... shame.. I have now officially started to talk like THOTH..

Hey gevo, jumping on the bandwagon again? You seem to lack personal opinion, and instead all you do is parrot others. Have you no original thoughts of your own? Oh come now!! Even THOTH is doing better than you! You've got to give the guy credit where due!! Please come up with your own arguments or views next time, because I really don't pay attention to those who agree because it's the right thing to do. Generalisations are always wrong, whether they are in philosophy or in any other subject area. If you want to generalise, then you belong to the category of twits. Because generalisations can't possibly be accurate or true.

Mmhmmm... dear me.. I am talking about context, not semantics. My context was clear, that some women b*tched too much about it. That I repeated it more than once is a good explanation as to why I forgot to put it in. THOTH, you're very annoying, trust me. Heck, I can even prove it. Mmmm.. Stop pretending to be a wise*ss. Let's see, shall we: Keep it up, buddy! You're one step away from winning the god of wisdom award.

Good observation. I was about to say that!

Well, first off, I said, And well, some women do. In fact, most women do, but in order that I wouldn't generalise it and be too harsh on the women who were exceptions, I said "some". It is reality, not generalisation. I have not seen a woman who has not played the part of the victim when the relationship has been broken off, instead of acting maturely, they act childishly, whining and b*tching, like it's the guys' fault all the time. Most of them happen to be feminists, too. And I am beginning to be convinced that this is not a coincidence. A lot of men are dumped by women, and I have NEVER EVER seen a man b*tch about it and claim that all women are b*tches. That is what I have a problem with. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough in the previous post.

Why not the complete opposite of what was initially said? My point being, women are biased against men when they are hurt. And while in that position or situation, refrain from making generalisations, because there's nothing worse than being considered an idiot for making such statements.

LOL. Well, philosophers have the license of political incorrectness, although not completely bulletproof. I am of the opinion that there ARE racial differences (which is why there ARE races to begin with). And I am of the opinion that these differences do mean something. But, the argument goes the same as feminism, you're right, which is why I give it so little credit, if any at all. That something is one way, and that something ought to be another way are two different things. What our hearts desire is not always what is REAL or possible. There is a difference between human nature and human desires. For example, let's say I WISH I were as smart as Einstein (whatever "smart" means), there is a fine difference between that wish (or even the claim that all human beings are equally intelligent, in case I do make that claim) and the reality of the situation (that Einstein was and always will be smarter than me). And there is no way that I can change that. That's an example. I'm not saying that I believe in "genius" (or that I don't).

What.. now I'm nit picking??? there is a huge difference between SOME and MOST.

Yes, I realise that it could be used for that. What about it, though?

O.K, so you're saying that MOST men are pigs, but only SOME women are b*tchy (about men dumping them)? What if I said it was the other way around?

THOTH, I think we're all wrong, and you're right all the time, brother. Keep it up!! But then again, if we're all wrong, then I might be wrong about this too, after all!!! From thread: A Political Thought Experiment MMMM!! Moving along - my take on this is that women sometimes b*tch too much about men dumping them. O.K., there are *sshole guys, but please, what's with the trend of generalisation???! That all men are pigs means that your sons will be pigs too. So think about it.

Oh, I do read. But what you are typing is a repetition/regurgitation of what you think. I do know what you are trying to say. I am not that dumb. What's with the attack? Relax. LOL, trying to impress you? No, I only try to impress my supervisors, because then and only then do I get the rewards. It's all about psychological egoism. Why would I try to impress someone who is either on the same level as I am or perhaps lower (not that I am saying that you are)? I have far better things to do than spend 20 minutes typing something just so that I could impress you. With all due respect to your imagination, you are not a king (unless your assumptions tell you otherwise, in which case, it would be the truth - note the irony), so I would not attempt to impress you. No, that is my observation. My argument is that God cannot be used as a premise to get to a universal philosophy. I don't care if you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or a self-identified believer in spirituality, that is not the point. The point is, you are trying to bring your beliefs into the equation, the beliefs not even being axioms. That is what YOU think. Just because you think so does not mean it's the truth. So as an example, my supervisors think otherwise! And they might be wrong too, but at least they don't use that to arrive to the conclusion that I am arrogant or humble. You are being a hypocrite by getting all angry about me "claiming" that you're confused, while you're CLAIMING that I'm arrogant. No offense, as I said! I do not take joy in personal attacks. And indeed, I did not make a claim about your moral character. Simply about the reality of the situation (which had nothing to do with your character - I never claimed you were a confused individual in general). And I've been confused all too many times. And I've admitted that I didn't understand your points if I really did not, and asked for clarification. Where's the arrogance in that? Now if you'll excuse me, I want to go back to Spinoza and whatever we were discussing, and if you don't want to continue with the discussion, then I apologise for causing such distress.

:lol: Oh not at all, I seem to be pretty good at ignoring people when I see fit.

Superstitions are against logic. Hence, I do not believe in them. On that note, I had a grand day, and it's friday the 13th. I was expecting the whole world to go down on my head.....

THOTH, I think you could be cited as a fine example of the Prejudicial Language fallacy. e.g: A reasonable person would agree with me that [insert argument here]. Maybe you should be included as an example in fallacy books. At least then you'd have some of the fame and awe that you seem to be seeking on this board. Philosophy students in undergrad school seem to be as awestruck by people as some of the members on here.

Such as? It is my understanding that in order for something to be universally observable, it should be observable by everyone. It should be self-evident. That is what axioms are all about. God's existence is not universally self-evident. Therefore, it is not an axiom, by definition.

Again, you are assuming. I did not overlook any of your replies, or at least not intentionally. Instead, I tried to bring proofs and make my point through arguments instead of point-by-point refutations. If you want, I could do that, but that would prove to be a waste of time and indeed develop into personal attacks eventually, which is what happened with axel. The divine command argument is relevant because we were talking about using the existence of God as a premise.

And nothing can exist independently of God? How do you know? Back to the "point 0 argument" - something doesn't exist until it exists. Something cannot be observed until it is observable. It's simple, really. He's not? How do you know? So now not only do you know that God exists, you also know what/who he is and what he does and does not? No it is not an axiom. ax·i·om n. 1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth 2. An established rule, principle, or law. 3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument Now, God may be an axiom himself, but that nothing can exist without God is not an axiom, it is an assumption that does not even follow from the axiom of God's existence. Moreover, God's existence is not self-evident, nor is it universally recognized, or a rule, or law, or principle that everyone must follow. You just contradicted yourself. And using your word and the "assumption" that God created us in his image, here we go: 1. If God exists and he is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, then the world would not contain evil (us being in his image). 2. The world contains evil. Therefore: 3. It is not the case that God exists. And who defines that? God? How do you know he exists? How do you know the commandments comes from him? Surely you don't take the assumptions that the Bible was inspired by God for facts and base an entire universal philosophy on it? Whoa, you're getting wayyy ahead of yourself there.. you are making huge assumptions. How do you know all these? I've been asking this all along, but you haven't answered it YET. You are defining the fallacy in terms of the argument. That's begging the question. Point out the fallacies of the argument, instead of telling me that referring to God as arbitrary is fallacious just like the whole argument is. Moreover, you are misreading what was written - never was God referred to as arbitrary. The commands were referred to as arbitrary. It's not the same thing. Moreover, it does not base the argument on what Socrates said. It simply replaces "gods" with "God" and argues about it in the same way. Now change that to, People are skeptical and ask: Is conduct right because God commands it, or does God command it because it is right? The above is not a statement. It is a question. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "Socrates' argument is using 'gods' and is valid in conclusion ( b ) while this argument foolishly replaces 'gods' with 'God'." Where in the conclusion did he say that Socrates was right? I think you're confused. That's not meant to be offensive, and I hope you don't take it as such. But I am afraid that is a pretty good proof.

If a majority rules, it no longer is a democracy. Why? Because there is a minority that cannot be heard. If there were a distribution proportional to parties, now THAT would be somewhat closer to a democracy.

The tactics that Germany used does not make Germany or Germans evil, or the masterminds of such dirty tactics, if you can call it that. Everyone used such tactics at one point or another. That the Turks learned it from Germany is a stupid argument to make, since Germany in turn learned it from another event in history, and all that in turn goes further back into history, until it reaches a point where we can't go back, so it all goes back to the nature of human beings. Germans could've used barbaric tactics, but those tactics were not German in nature per se. Neither are they Turkish. Neither are they Nazist or Fascist. Anyone can use such tactics, and indeed they have been used and are being used to this day. Arguably by non-Germans, who you consider to have been so evil.

I am not arguing with you. You jumped into this thread halfway through. I was already having a discussion about it with Sasun. So don't take everything personally. I'd say relax, but it seems like you're now beyond that. It's not an obsession with proofs. It's objectivism.

Humble? I am not being arrogant. I am simply debating. Having confidence in one's point of view or assertion does not imply that one is arrogant. You are, again, using an argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Relax. It was a parody. Faith? with a capital F? It's as bad as Holocaust with a capital H. Excuse me? You clearly have no idea who I am and what my career is all about. So to save yourself the embarassment of making another set of assumptions, I suggest that you gracefully bow out of this thread, especially that you are converting this, slowly yet surely, into yet another thread of irrelevant phrases that attack the person rather than the argument. You were O.K. without attacking me. But it seems like you are getting angrier and angrier with each post that I make in reply to your "assumptions." You are not here to convince me, are you? Because I am not here to convince YOU. I am simply having a discussion. Why do people think that the point of a discussion is to convince people of your view? I have my views and you have yours. We are simply exchanging views and debating what the fallacies in each view are. Go ahead and point out the fallacies in mine, and I will try to reply as to why I don't think they are fallacies or even admit that I did use a fallacious statement. Anything but personal attacks, please. I am not a believer in that sort of thing.

I think he was more or less comparing, rather than saying that it implies anything. That's why I'd say it's a False Analogy fallacy. In fact, we could argue that it's a little bit of both, but I'd say on face value it's a false analogy. gevo, I was asking why women and men should be equal in social status. feminism claims that just because men and women are physically different (or that there is a superiority/inferiority binary working on that level) does not mean that they should not be equal socially, politically, and economically. I ask, why shouldn't they be? is there a process they follow to get to this conclusion, or is it simply that they BELIEVE in it because it's their heart's desire? Biological differences have played a huge role in the subjugation of women historically and cross-culturally. That there are exceptions to this (Levi-Strauss' anthropological demonstrations of matriarchal societies), however, does not prove the point feminists are trying to make. Exceptions are nothing but exceptions (i.e. something that goes out of its way, rather than the thing that it is an exception to, which is what makes IT an exception, rather than the thing that it is an exception to). So unless feminists can prove that biological differences are not related to social differences, their position is null and void. And by making use of the example of matriarchal societies, they are using the fallacy of exclusion, because they are excluding a whole host of societies that were patriarchal. This is also a case of hasty generalisation.