Have I been "Left Behind"?

[mswas]

@gooftroopbag

The problem with using two styles is that you’re going to lose people along the way; some of which were interested in what you had to say prior to using style #1.

That’s why we have GD and The Pit. I express derision in the Pit because that’s what it’s for. I try to debate in GD. I am sure I’ve had lapses in patience where I have gone off in GD, but it’s not in order to be dishonest it’s just exasperation and flying off the handle. I’m a lot more grounded and centered recently, and my manic outbursts are less often. In GD in the past week I’ve been saying exactly what I mean. If it’s hard to understand I am sorry, but I do share my real opinion, even when I’m joking.

I guess the major difference here is I come here to play, it’s not ‘serious’ it’s an internet message board. I try to take GD seriously to a certain degree as it has a candor that I like and do not wish to despoil, but it is still a game, we are playing the debating game, and everyone has their different ways of playing it. I don’t think my joking style is any more underhanded than dropping so many cites on someone that they can’t possibly read the 200 pages of cites you gave, and then deriding them for missing one miniscule line in those 200 pages.

I know a lot of people take this place super seriously, but it’s my version of watching television. It’s what I do for entertainment. I prefer to be engaged by my entertainment rather than be passive. But in the end this is an internet message board and you have to have some perspective.

If you ever go to a dopefest you’ll see some of these cretins grabbing women’s breasts without asking, getting smashed and waxing philisophic about something or another. I’ve seen some of the great dope minds completely failing at being social creatures, so it’s something that I keep in mind, and try to not to take this place too seriously. It’s hard to take people seriously when you see some ‘hardcore skeptic’ making one assumption after the next and not being called on it by his ‘hardcore skeptic’ peer group.

You must realize that this is a PIT thread, and I’m not going to take it seriously.

Erek

[Zoe]

mswas, I offer my apologies for assuming that you were a Christian and a fundamentalist.

However, in this particular instance, all I see is a woman moving into a new town and trying to force HER beliefs onto the whole town.

Were her beliefs taught in the school? No. That would have been just as illegal. Her rights were enforced just as they were for everyone else in the town.

[Citizen_Bob]

@kidchameleon

Naw, it’s a running joke between chemists and physicists as to who ‘owns’ QM.

You chemists… Stamp collectors! (or, rather, was that biologists) If you are an experimental chemist, I think I could share.

[Aeschines]

@Contrapuntal

I ask for an example and you tell me to read the thread. Delicious irony in light of this–

Scrumptious. A second helping, heaping, please.

Seriously, he who posits must prove. It’s a kind of rule. People in this Pit thread are saying mswas is this and that while at the same time doing a very poor job of proving it. I mean, it’s just lazy to post a whole thread and say, “Search therein for his sins.”

Get out the black and white examples! If you’re going to pit someone, go for the jugular.

I tried to follow back where I said, “Reread the thread,” but the chain of quotes was going back about 5 generations without any meat being found, so I gave up. I don’t know if your criticism of me as to that is pertinent or not.

In any case, this was a trial of mswas, and you didn’t come close to proving your case.

If his OP had been about points, lines, or planes, and if a poster had expressed confusion about those terms, and if he truly wanted that poster to understand, then yes, he should have defined those terms.

You don’t get the joke here. In geometry, “point,” “line,” and “plane” are undefined terms.

In the rush to trash mswas’s architectonic, no one has bothered to stop and think about what he’s actually saying. “God” is clearly an “undefined term” in his system, but that in no wise makes his use of the word invalid. Like point/line/plane in geometry, the concept can be conveyed through example and the intuitive powers of the student.

You may ultimately think that “God” ought to be a defined term, but it’s not so simple as guffawing and assuming that mswas is on the wrong track simply because the quick and dirty debating principles of GD suggest that you can.

Too often the atheists/skeptics on this board are like junior high school kids smoking in the bathroom and laughing at the teacher. They don’t even know what they don’t know and just assume they’re “cool” and “right.” They think they can critique the teacher, and they may even sometimes be right where the teacher is wrong, but they do not have the intellectual tools to make the case.

If you think mswas is someone you can just blow off because some of his ideas seem “nutty,” think again. As someone who majored in philosophy in college and who has continued to study philosophy and religion and think about these matters deeply over the years, I instantly recognize someone who thinks about these things on a deep level with a lot of study to back his thoughts up. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he’s saying, but I do have a general and deep respect for him.

Too bad that GD, when it comes to philosophy, is usually the playground of too-cool-for-school “skeptics” who don’t understand what respect means.

And yet you are so mean to me. Is this an expression of your pantheism, or is it counter to it?

In one dimension it is counter to it. Definitely. In another dimension I am just playing the GD/Pit game on its own terms.

You will not, however, find us in our group holding up a particular poster as an object of group hatred, as our ties are based on mutual respect and intellectual harmony, not on a “sacrifice the outsider for the sake of group cohesion” dynamic.

No, it is dishonest if he reasonably expects his statements to be misunderstood, which you have already conceded he did.

Not conceded.

Once again, if you want someone to understand you, and that person is having a tough go of it, it is incumbent upon you to speak in such a way as to facilitate that, if you are able.

There was probably room to criticize mswas as to certain instances of “not making sense,” as there would with most anyone in most any debate, but the method chosen by his opponents was generalized invalidation with examples given only in a “can you believe this shit?!” fashion.

Your side has therefore failed to score any real hits against mswas. You’ve performed the function of high-fiving and fortifying your social ties by choosing an object of group hatred/derision, but if your goal is propagandizing those outside of your group, you’ve done, as usual, a very poor job.

[mswas]

@Aeschines

Too bad that GD, when it comes to philosophy, is usually the playground of too-cool-for-school “skeptics” who don’t understand what respect means.

…or skepticism.

Erek

[Aeschines]

@mswas

…or skepticism.

Erek

Hence the scare quotes.

[kidchameleon]

@Citizen Bob

You chemists… Stamp collectors! (or, rather, was that biologists)

Bah, we all know biologists are chemists who can’t do math.

If you are an experimental chemist, I think I could share.

I wish. Boring old quality control. Maybe some day…

[kidchameleon]

@Aeschines

People in this Pit thread are saying mswas is this and that while at the same time doing a very poor job of proving it. I mean, it’s just lazy to post a whole thread and say, “Search therein for his sins.”

Bull shit

[Aeschines]

@kidchameleon

Bull shit

That’s an improvement over just citing the thread, but you still aren’t pointing out what’s wrong with each of these things. Am I supposed to go post by post and make your argument for you?

If you would like to start a new thread (or continue in this thread) in which you calmly and rationally critique specific mswas posts, I will participate in a like manner. And I won’t just blanket-defend the guy, but agree and disagree, as appropriate in each case.

[Contrapuntal]

@Aeschines

Seriously, he who posits must prove. It’s a kind of rule. People in this Pit thread are saying mswas is this and that while at the same time doing a very poor job of proving it. I mean, it’s just lazy to post a whole thread and say, “Search therein for his sins.”

And you made claims that went unproved. When I asked for an example you said to read the thread. When you are told to read the thread you request examples. Do you really not see that?

@Aeschines

Get out the black and white examples! If you’re going to pit someone, go for the jugular.

Okee Dokee.

@mswas

I am not going to define God, that’s what Blasphemy is as you may know. <snip>
I would say that all of science, every scientific pursuit is an attempt at the true definition of God.

@Me

So is is fair to say that all of science is blasphemy, right? Below are your words. If you have a shred of intellectual integrity you must admit that in your belief all of science is blasphemy.

Your brilliant philosopher chose to remain silent on this point.

@Aeschines

In the rush to trash mswas’s architectonic, no one has bothered to stop and think about what he’s actually saying. “God” is clearly an “undefined term” in his system, but that in no wise makes his use of the word invalid. Like point/line/plane in geometry, the concept can be conveyed through example and the intuitive powers of the student.

It was his OP. As tomndebb noted, mswas has a habit of introducing commonly understood terms and then attaching exotic meanings to them. Surely it would not be to strenuous for such a deep thinker to have said something like “this is what I meaqn when I talk about God,” rather than the clearly baiting tactic that he did use.

@Aeschines

You may ultimately think that “God” ought to be a defined term, but it’s not so simple as guffawing and assuming that mswas is on the wrong track simply because the quick and dirty debating principles of GD suggest that you can.

Cite for the quick and dirt debating principles.

@Aeschines

Too often the atheists/skeptics on this board are like junior high school kids smoking in the bathroom and laughing at the teacher. They don’t even know what they don’t know and just assume they’re “cool” and “right.” They think they can critique the teacher, and they may even sometimes be right where the teacher is wrong, but they do not have the intellectual tools to make the case.

Gosh, hope springs eternal and all, so I’ll ask for an example of the above.

@Aeschines

If you think mswas is someone you can just blow off because some of his ideas seem “nutty,” think again. As someone who majored in philosophy in college and who has continued to study philosophy and religion and think about these matters deeply over the years, I instantly recognize someone who thinks about these things on a deep level with a lot of study to back his thoughts up.

I know it seems to you that just on your say-so as a pholosophy major and deep thinker and all I should just take your word for it. But again, you have made an assertion. “I know it when I see it” is about as lame an attempt at evidence as there is.

@Aeschines

Too bad that GD, when it comes to philosophy, is usually the playground of too-cool-for-school “skeptics” who don’t understand what respect means.

Blah fucking blah. You keep saying the same shit over and over. Show me. If it is indeed a usual occurrence, it should not be too difficult.

@Aeschines

You will not, however, find us in our group holding up a particular poster as an object of group hatred, as our ties are based on mutual respect and intellectual harmony, not on a “sacrifice the outsider for the sake of group cohesion” dynamic.

Ibid.

@Aeschines

Not conceded.

@Me

What could be his motivation for posting in GD in such a manner as to be purposefully misunderstood, I wonder?

@You

To edify you. And you need it.

I’d say that concedes it rather well. You admit that he did it, that it was deliberate, and that he had a purpose. How odd that you would call GD “quick and dirty” and yet sanction such obvious baiting.

[kidchameleon]

@Aeschines

That’s an improvement over just citing the thread, but you still aren’t pointing out what’s wrong with each of these things. Am I supposed to go post by post and make your argument for you?

No, your supposed to read and be fucking enlightened. :rolleyes:

If you would like to start a new thread (or continue in this thread) in which you calmly and rationally critique specific mswas posts, I will participate in a like manner. And I won’t just blanket-defend the guy, but agree and disagree, as appropriate in each case.

I’m not going to spoon-feed you. If you can’t follow the fact that in the racism thread he kept making ludicrous comments about pheromones that he backed up with no real knowledge other than a cite that refuted what he said, you’d be pretty slow. He wouldn’t even define what the biological divisions of ‘race’ are, nor would he tell me what race the examples I asked were.

[Aeschines]

@Contrapuntal

And you made claims that went unproved. When I asked for an example you said to read the thread. When you are told to read the thread you request examples. Do you really not see that?

I do. And I tried to follow the trail back to what I had claimed to get that response from you, and I gave up because the thread was so tenuous. I’m not saying you’re wrong, though. My point about your own claims stands, however; the tu quoque is irrelevent.

As tomndebb noted, mswas has a habit of introducing commonly understood terms and then attaching exotic meanings to them. Surely it would not be to strenuous for such a deep thinker to have said something like “this is what I meaqn when I talk about God,” rather than the clearly baiting tactic that he did use.

My invitation stands to start a new thread in which you make specific claims about mswas and I respond to them. In this thread he got a fairly blanket trashing and I came in to offer general support. Do I agree with mswas on everything? No. Do I think he’s a smart, thoughtful poster? Yes.

Cite for the quick and dirt debating principles.

Gosh, hope springs eternal and all, so I’ll ask for an example of the above.

Those are my observations. I’m not in the mood to argue in depth everything I write in the Pit. I generally do such in-depth arguing when I’ve written the OP or go into a thread to challenge a specific post. I’m not going to take “Cite?!” seriously in a mad slush such as this thread has been from the get-go.

I know it seems to you that just on your say-so as a pholosophy major and deep thinker and all I should just take your word for it. But again, you have made an assertion. “I know it when I see it” is about as lame an attempt at evidence as there is.

Ibid, as you would say.

I’d say that concedes it rather well. You admit that he did it, that it was deliberate, and that he had a purpose. How odd that you would call GD “quick and dirty” and yet sanction such obvious baiting.

Again, let’s reboot this thread in rational mode and we’ll go through what your claims nice ‘n’ easy.

[Aeschines]

@kidchameleon

No, your supposed to read and be fucking enlightened.

Yes, I was enlightened by what mswas had to say.

If you can’t follow the fact that in the racism thread he kept making ludicrous comments about pheromones that he backed up with no real knowledge other than a cite that refuted what he said, you’d be pretty slow. He wouldn’t even define what the biological divisions of ‘race’ are, nor would he tell me what race the examples I asked were.

It seems we are now talking about quite a few threads, several of which I have never read.

If you have good material about mswas, present it so that it’s clear and I’ll respond.

[Contrapuntal]

@Aeschines

My invitation stands to start a new thread in which you make specific claims about mswas and I respond to them.

I’ve given you two specific examples in this thread. Why would opening up a new thread change anything?

@Aeschines

Yes.Those are my observations. I’m not in the mood to argue in depth everything I write in the Pit.

Well get in the mood. Or get out. it’s called standing behind your words.

@Aeschines

Again, let’s reboot this thread in rational mode and we’ll go through what your claims nice ‘n’ easy.

In other words, you got nothing. You conceded that he posted so as to deliberately mislead, when called on it denied the concession, and when it was spelled out for you you ask for a *new *thread to be opened up? Quit stalling. There is no prohibition against rationality in the Pit. Put up or shut up.

[Citizen_Bob]

@Contrapuntal

I’ve given you two specific examples in this thread. Why would opening up a new thread change anything?

Well get in the mood. Or get out. it’s called standing behind your words.

In other words, you got nothing. You conceded that he posted so as to deliberately mislead, when called on it denied the concession, and when it was spelled out for you you ask for a *new *thread to be opened up? Quit stalling. There is no prohibition against rationality in the Pit. Put up or shut up.

I hate to bring this up again… but the AESCH-WAS brain-duo are arguing that Sophistry is the way to go. Simple logic and Black&White concepts need not apply. Strict definitions of terms are not allowed.

[Slight hijack… ]
AESCH-WAS - I believe that the kind of thought and discourse you guys advocate IS what is wrong with the worst of society: leading religion away from reason instead of toward it, pushing many away and turning them into apostates, the darkness when enlightenment is present, choosing to ignore the obvious rather than evaluate it first, the reason intelligent design is even considered by anyone, and people go on UFO crusades, etc…

[ok, back from the hijack…]
MSWAS - some of your ideas might contain merit, but without an admitted conceptual basis and logic applied (AKA, Philosophy), they mean [literally] nothing to anyone else. When definitions are required, all you have to do is define away… Most of us will not ask “why?” forever, and accept a position as a vague possiblity the very least.

PS. I take everything I write seriously - not knock-down drag-out seriously, but serious enough that I will attempt (though not always successfully) to back up what I say, and when I don’t win the horse-race, I back off.

[kidchameleon]

@Aeschines

Yes, I was enlightened by what mswas had to say.It seems we are now talking about quite a few threads, several of which I have never read.

No, it’s one thread, the second one I linked and gave post numbers to. Either you are lying about not having read it or you’re lying about having been ‘enlightened’ by mswas’s posts therein. Which is it?

If you have good material about mswas, present it so that it’s clear and I’ll respond.

I’m not going to repost an entire thread when you can go back and read the relevant posts which I’ve laid out for you. Why don’t you actually do something for yourself for a change? You were the lazy ass who asked for justification for criticism and it’s been given, but you seem rather content to put blinders on rather than have to face up to reality.

[Aeschines]

Sorry, I tried, guys, but you’re retards. Gotta run.

[kidchameleon]

@Aeschines

Sorry, I tried, guys

No, you didn’t. Not even an ounce.

[mswas]

@Citizen Bob

I hate to bring this up again… but the AESCH-WAS brain-duo are arguing that Sophistry is the way to go. Simple logic and Black&White concepts need not apply. Strict definitions of terms are not allowed.

And I think that one size fits all attitudes are the refuge of small minds. You make so many assumptions about what I have to say that there isn’t really much to respond to. If you want to discuss things with me enter into either the “Is this guy delusional” or the “Supernatural” thread where I am addressing these issues.

I dismiss the idea that I have defined a word creatively. I think I have been fighting against creatively defined words that have made it amongst the Straight Dope crew who think that they are smarter, and fellate each other on a regular basis carrying on common misconceptions and finding these as ways to relate to each other, and therefore get social gratification as well as have their own ego stroked.

I have presented ideas that people haven’t even given serious thought, they just say “You are making up definitions.”, and I am saying “No the definitions you are using are self-serving and don’t leave much room for people who disagree with your side.”, basically people are turning words like “Religion” into perjoratives that support their own bias, and I think that’s bullshit. I have tried to explain why I think atheism and secularism both are religions, in that they are BELIEF SYSTEMS that people hold onto and construct SOCIAL HIERARCHIES around. I have used Buddhism as my example of why Religion doesn’t require a deity in order to be a RELIGION. Thus far, no one has even addressed that concept with anything resembling a cogent argument, they usually go with YOUR tactic and try to guilt me into operating using the rules that you want to lay out for me so that your argument is easier to make. I think that’s bullshit. You wanna call it intellectual integrity, you go right ahead. I think you’re full of shit.

One day, when I am feeling up to it, I will explain why I think that America is a religion, and why I think that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a government to be devoid of a state religion. There are lots of things that I want to do that are illegal because some bureaucrat decided that they wanted to legislate my morality. That is what RELIGIONS do.

Until then you are welcome to label me a sophist if it really pleases you. However, I don’t choose to label myself by what I call TACTICS. I like to keep an open toolset so that I have a versatile way of approaching problems. That sort of intellectual flexibility makes me feel SMART. If approaching things with a rigid set of tools that helps you maintain your bias suits you, then by all means go ahead and keep doing it that way. I wasn’t even aware of your existance until you started calling me a sophist anyway.

Oh yeah, I think the “MsWas invents words” thing is a holdover from when I was using the word “rational” incorrectly. Someone I think it was the atheist sniper scott_plaid who pointed out that maybe the word “reasonable” was a better choice, so I moved over to using the word “reasonable”, and I realized it wasn’t the atheist lack of rationality that bothered me it was their holding me to a higher level of skepticism than they were willing to meet themselves. So many of you have said that I define words creatively, so other than the word ‘rational’ which I admit I was using incorrectly for a while, please show me an example. I will freely admit if it was a dumb thing to say, or I will defend my point of view on it, but until then, accuse me of sophistry, and 'll accuse you of emotional appeals.

You’re not going to guilt me over to your side, I am pretty much immune to guilt in intellectual debates.

Erek

[mswas]

One last thing, this is the Pit, if you expect me to take this seriously, then you’re a fool.

Erek