Short story: I made a snide remark. Someone took exception and shot back at me. Unfortunately, what prompted me to make the snide remark was a very painful period in my life, and the thread in question reminded me of it. I freaked out, becoming abusive, jerkish, assholish, and a very sloppy dresser. I was very quickly banned by Lynn, and deservedly so.
My posting privelges were restored after I apologised to the board in general and one poster in particular.
The happy part of this tale is that I gained some valuable insight into how unresolved my feelings were about my “issue.” I took a good, hard look at myself and did some emotional “housecleaning.” The banning was a needed “smack upside the head” for me to get my shit together regarding this issue so I could have some peace.
Please don’t think I’m portraying myself as “New and Improved!,” I do, however, think I’m a tiny bit wiser than I was regarding some of my own limits and boundaries and how to handle them. I think the word I’m looking for may be: proportion.
Sorry for the hijack.
To the OP: TVAA seemed to me to be a pretty smart guy with a very bad habit of looking down his nose at people he didn’t agree with. A jerk.
I won’t provide a definition, as epistemology is a rather broad topic.
However, at a minimum sound reasoning would involve consistency with the rules of valid inference (i.e. sound logic) and (probably) the avoidance of logical fallacies. Although what is or is not a logical fallacy is subject to debate at the margins.
(At the same time, I should repeat that I was stressing a respect for empirics as opposed to reasoning in my post. Still, good scholarship will often involve both, with prominant exceptions obtaining such as mathematics, pure scientific theory (sometimes) and much of analytic philosophy.)
Highly ironic, in light of the fact that Esprix was just suspended for something that was considered to fall under the category of acting like a jerk. So I think his confidence and arrogance were maybe just a bit misplaced, no?
Highly ironic, in light of the fact that Esprix was just suspended for something that was considered to fall under the category of acting like a jerk. So I think his confidence and arrogance were maybe just a bit misplaced, no? **
[/QUOTE]
Linkety Link? If you have the time, of course. I would like to see that thread. I must admit the sentiment of the post was admirable, even if it is now proving slightly ironic. Also, the construction and pacing of the post were quite exemplary.
Am I only the authoritarian fascist asshole who thinks there should be more bannings? There are a number of individuals that do nothing to the fighting of anyone’s ignorance, including their own.
Hm. I don’t think so. (I would prefer my fuller quote, “Rules of Valid Inference”, which is the definition of “Logic”.)
And I don’t see how the underlying point that I was making - that good argument involves both reason and information - is particularly controversial.
I am not aware of any controversy in philosophy regarding the fundamental rules of logic, although I trust that it exists.
More to the point, it is seldom that I see substantive disagreements on this board that are based upon epistemological issues (unless the topic itself is philosophical).
So I don’t see what you’re getting at. And the spirit of your question eludes me.
And (to repeat) this was a subpoint of my argument anyway: I had difficulties with TVAA’s empirics, more than his reasoning.
I don’t feel persecuted whatsoever. You just seem to go around quoting the rules like passages in the bible. It’s whiney and childish. It seems to be your way of being antagonistic while holding onto the apron strings of your friendly neighborhood mod.
Grow up.
Then you take in further by predicting what will happen to me if I don’t change my tune by equating me to someone else.
I hit on this last night, and made a reference to elf6c’s Declaration of InDopendence.