LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWell you play the devil's advocate role very convincingly then. Although resorting to "you don't know enough to be allowed to make a viewpoint" doesn't really strengthen your "fake" position.Originally Posted by Ben_
Well you play the devil's advocate role very convincingly then. Although resorting to "you don't know enough to be allowed to make a viewpoint" doesn't really strengthen your "fake" position.
however i still think you are employing a fairly empty kind of analysis in investigating these political ideas, and that is a weakness you should seek to adress, because you seem very willing to except an idea on the basis of some gut feeling and the desire to accept something, without thinking it through and adressing all possible outcomes, and that is dangerous in politics
however maybe you have thought it through, i might be wrong about you i cant read your mind. i'll go and read about libertarianism and then you can adress some more direct criticisms and that should be the true test!
also ur right about the devils advocate thing i would argue against pretty much anything just to flex my mind muscles a bit but i wasnt saying "you dont know enough to make a viewpoint" without qualifying my point without qualifying what i was saying, so please dont misquote me. if u go back and read what i wrote its quite different to that
AND another assumption. Just because I'm not good at debating just mean I haven't thought about it. "Addressing all possible outcomes" would be ridiculous in a truly mathematically chaotic system. I have the views I have because they make the most sense to me logically. And I'll change them when I hear something better instead of "go learn more". As if our difference of opinions is purely based on amount of knowledge. You've already shown your lack of knowledge of certain subjects but assumed it was me that was wrong.
also there is such a thing as a rational process of reasoning towards the answer that you seem to be rejecting entirely. i dont agree that people could have the same experiences and hear the same views and arrive at different places. unless one was more intelligent than the other, in which case their conclusion would be more valid.
'because they make the most sense to me logically' ... that process is not a logical one. your not talking about logic your talking about gut feeling with a bit of thought. you said yourself that the logical approach would be impossible, literally every possible outcome cant be considered
do you not think that it would be better to question all of your opinions, and see if any of them really stand up to proper scrutiny ?
well said... i agree that i am too forceful in my dialogue and that face to face discussion would be preferable. i suppose it is tempting in this arena to go all out and pay no real mind to what your saying as if you trip up and look an idiot theres no real embarassment (i wouldnt feel any on an internet forum anyway). but your right it is better to debate things calmly in the right environment and i would approach a real life discussion very differently.
i might add that i wasnt saying i despise you, just i despise the position of dogmatic, forceful "this is what i believe and i will never stop believing it"... only however if it is backed up only with nothing other than the original sentiment. you say you have your reasons and i dont think you are taking that position (although it is quite a typical position amongst hard-line muslims which i thought you were at first) so i take back that despisement (dunno if thats a word)
Also intonation and meaning can sometimes get lost on forums posts so it is easy to misinterpret a statement.
Ignoring that genetics makes an impact on neurological makeup. If there were two absolute identical situations, your belief is that the outcome would always be the same (a deterministic view of the universe). That is quite an old idea and not one held much any more by scientists but don't worry even Einstein agreed with you. The modern view is that two identical situations can give different outcomes. As Einstein's view and many others have been proved wrong experimentally. Although I'm relating to fundamental physics, if it is true then it has an impact on the macro world as well in addition to technically infeasible huge numbers of variables (chaos) and the differences between us all to start with (physiology, genetics).
Last edited by superscaper; 20-11-2006 at 07:36 PM.
Yes. I already do. That's how my ideas have thus evolved. Like I said before, I doubt they'll stay the same but they're based on more thought than my previous ideas and so on.
No, logic does not require absolutes, you're confusing fact/truth and logic. Logic can lead you to incorrect conclusions very easily. That's not a flaw in the logic. Logic can be based on estimates and tenuous data but that doesn't demean the logic itself. I never said logic would require all possible outcomes, I was referring to making mathematically accurate predictions which isn't the same, your paraphrasing has changed my meaning. Where did you get your views on logic from?
from philosophy books
you seem to be making this up as you go along?
what do you think I'm making up? Apart from opinions which can't be disproven as they're just opinions, what statements have I made up? Specifics!
Obviously not very good ones.
i find it irritating that you feel qualified to comment on subjects about which you clearly know nothing or very little. your comments on determinism and logic show a very basic understanding (and even some major misunderstanding with regards to logic) and it seems you have heard or read a little and built up the rest on the basis on personal assumption or what you would like these areas to represent.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote