The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong.
So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?
So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.
You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.
If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.
The fuck? Do you not understand what you yourself have wrote?
makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes
Says the act ITSELF was done for artistic or philosophical purposes and he makes stupid comments about that act. What you’ve done is apply the ignored philosophy to his comment not to the act itself. So I’m going to ask again, this time explicitly to make it crystal clear. Which part of the ACTUAL shootings, not the aftermath of the shootings, are purposefully philosophical or artistic? And if there are any, how did he ignore those parts.
And how about you don’t ignore the suspension of disbelief part. You said that tweet was EXACTLY what you had in mind. Where’s the suspension of disbelief?
EDIT: Alternatively you can just admit that this was not what you had in mind with the original comment.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I’m not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.
because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments
Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading.
It’s not about a link it’s about:
that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes
Which in the contexts of the shooting tweet implies that the shootings were done for an artistic of philosophical purpose, which would mean philosophical or artistic intent behind the shooting. Link between the two can be whatever but I’m not asking for any link between the two. I’m asking specifically for the intent of the shootings that was missed in the tweet.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.
…
Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language.
Are you going to twist your own words? You literally said “that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment”. If it doesn’t contain both why explicitly state that the very tweet was in your mind during the original comment? How did you even come to the “suspension of disbelief” part if it’s not even related to the exact thing you had in mind?
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
I’m not trying to lock you into specific use of language. I’m pointing out that I defended a specific part of your argument that you originally brought up and then you brought up something not related to the original point to make a counter-argument. Now instead of agreeing that your counter wasn’t part of the original argument you’re trying to argue that your counter-argument IS the original argument.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
I did and I thought that was what you originally referred to, because it covers both “suspension of disbelief” and “made for artistic or philosophical purposes” parts.
Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
Okay. Keep explaining how the first comment and second comment match together. Where’s the suspension of disbelief in the tweet? Where’s the artistic or philosophical purpose of the shootings that was missed in the tweet? You solve the inherent contradictions of your statements and I’ll believe you.
I have explained myself in my previous comments, I have no interest in wasting my time with your circular reasoning further.
I don’t care if you believe me.
I have answered all of the above and doubling down on strawman, amphiboly, and now circular reasoning, blatantly re-raising points that have been asked and answered doesn’t make me care about anything you have to say further.
You can raise a valid counter argument to my criticisms of NDG at which point I’d be glad to discuss the actual matter further, or you can continue to try to selectively attack my use of language to both presume and attack my viewpoint again and again like your last 3 replies, but since I’ve answered all that, I won’t be replying further unless you raise something valid to the discussion that isn’t completely riddled with logical fallacies.
Since I believe you are incapable of that, the only thing I have left to say is goodbye.
Fair enough, for me the discussion was concluded with my second comment anyway. The rest was just to see how far you’re going to go to not admit being wrong. I would’ve been really surprised if you had actually admitted the original comment wasn’t about the tweet, but it was obvious from the moment you doubled down that being wrong is a concept you don’t understand. If you can’t admit to even a small mistake there’s no hope to discussing anything with you.
Philosophy:
The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.
So. What part of moral right and wrong and humanity doesn’t have to do with philosophy at its basest level?
So to answer your question, probably the part where he ignored the entire concept of humanity and moral right and wrong (moral values) in favour of presenting statistical data, which was pointed out as morally wrong by yourself actually. Probably the part where he ignored the entire philosophical concept that the murder of a whole bunch of people is a bad thing and making a comment belittling it was not moral.
You implied it was so morally wrong you wouldn’t even defend it, but here we are.
If you can’t understand what philosophy has to do with human death, and see the part where Neil ignored it in favor of statistics, you should probably do some reading. I’m done explaining it to you.
The fuck? Do you not understand what you yourself have wrote?
Says the act ITSELF was done for artistic or philosophical purposes and he makes stupid comments about that act. What you’ve done is apply the ignored philosophy to his comment not to the act itself. So I’m going to ask again, this time explicitly to make it crystal clear. Which part of the ACTUAL shootings, not the aftermath of the shootings, are purposefully philosophical or artistic? And if there are any, how did he ignore those parts.
And how about you don’t ignore the suspension of disbelief part. You said that tweet was EXACTLY what you had in mind. Where’s the suspension of disbelief?
EDIT: Alternatively you can just admit that this was not what you had in mind with the original comment.
Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading. I’m not going to explain it to you because there are thousands of books which could be considered relevant to that.
Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical.
Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language. The sentence is saying he does both of these things, but does not say he does both of them at the same time.
Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.
If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.
Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.
Alright. Let’s go over it again.
It’s not about a link it’s about:
Which in the contexts of the shooting tweet implies that the shootings were done for an artistic of philosophical purpose, which would mean philosophical or artistic intent behind the shooting. Link between the two can be whatever but I’m not asking for any link between the two. I’m asking specifically for the intent of the shootings that was missed in the tweet.
Are you going to twist your own words? You literally said “that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment”. If it doesn’t contain both why explicitly state that the very tweet was in your mind during the original comment? How did you even come to the “suspension of disbelief” part if it’s not even related to the exact thing you had in mind?
I’m not trying to lock you into specific use of language. I’m pointing out that I defended a specific part of your argument that you originally brought up and then you brought up something not related to the original point to make a counter-argument. Now instead of agreeing that your counter wasn’t part of the original argument you’re trying to argue that your counter-argument IS the original argument.
I did and I thought that was what you originally referred to, because it covers both “suspension of disbelief” and “made for artistic or philosophical purposes” parts.
Okay. Keep explaining how the first comment and second comment match together. Where’s the suspension of disbelief in the tweet? Where’s the artistic or philosophical purpose of the shootings that was missed in the tweet? You solve the inherent contradictions of your statements and I’ll believe you.
I have no interest in going over this again.
I have explained myself in my previous comments, I have no interest in wasting my time with your circular reasoning further.
I don’t care if you believe me.
I have answered all of the above and doubling down on strawman, amphiboly, and now circular reasoning, blatantly re-raising points that have been asked and answered doesn’t make me care about anything you have to say further.
You can raise a valid counter argument to my criticisms of NDG at which point I’d be glad to discuss the actual matter further, or you can continue to try to selectively attack my use of language to both presume and attack my viewpoint again and again like your last 3 replies, but since I’ve answered all that, I won’t be replying further unless you raise something valid to the discussion that isn’t completely riddled with logical fallacies.
Since I believe you are incapable of that, the only thing I have left to say is goodbye.
Fair enough, for me the discussion was concluded with my second comment anyway. The rest was just to see how far you’re going to go to not admit being wrong. I would’ve been really surprised if you had actually admitted the original comment wasn’t about the tweet, but it was obvious from the moment you doubled down that being wrong is a concept you don’t understand. If you can’t admit to even a small mistake there’s no hope to discussing anything with you.
deleted by creator