lusciouslips19
Posts: 9792
Joined: 9/8/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 quote:
ORIGINAL: lusciouslips19 Just wanted to mention that when Psyconaut starts saying I attacked him. LEt me remind everyone that I tried to engage him in debate but instead of debating me on first defining ethics before you can philisophically discuss it, He said I was "an Idiot" for engaging in Definition Fallacy. Then he went on to further use definitions himself but said it was ok for him because his source was more reputable(wikipedia). This is the third time you've repeated this nonsense, so I just want to point out that I wasn't citing Wikipedia, I was actually citing the philosophical dictionary at philosophypages.com which collects entries from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP), Tom Stone's EpistemeLinks.com (ELC), The Encyclopædia Brittanica Online (EB), The Columbia Encyclopedia (ColE), The Perseus Digital Library (PP), Mathematical MacTutor (MMT), Peter Saint-André's The Ism Book (ISM), Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography (WSB), Chris Eliasmith's Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind (DPM), The Catholic Encyclopedia (CE), Kristin Switala's Feminist Theory Website (FTW), The Fallacy Files from Gary N. Curtis (FF), and Stephen Downes's Guide to the Logical Fallacies (GLF). Also, the definitions one finds in a philosophical dictionary are far more detailed and explanatory than the general usage meaning found in the dictionary. Dictionaries are for SPELLING words, not for understanding what they mean. The definition provided in the dictionary is to help confirm that the word you've looked up is the word you want. Philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedias are where one turns for a more thorough understanding of a term. Every time you repeat this asinine argument, my respect for you diminishes a little bit more. You couldnt understand Aswad. I was keeping it simple. I also clicked on the link. It was Wikipedia folks. Needless to say, regardless he showed himself a hypocrite. As one who enjoys learning about linguistics, its language changes that defines meaning, not philosophy that defines meaning. Its how the word evolves from its root and what it evolves to mean that defines society. Either way, Ethics are cultural and society driven, so hardly the Universaility you maintain. I think its very insecure of you to argue philosophy at all. Quite convenient to argue something thats not measurable. WHy dont you argue something scientific that can be tested? But if it gives you that "superior" feeling you need to survive in your own head, you just keep on keeping on. I think more have lost respect for you here, than have lost respect for me. You have lost your cool more than once, while I Have maintained composure. I really dont "need" your respect. .
_____________________________
Original Pimpette, Keeper of Original Home Flag and Fire of Mr. Lance Hughes Charter member of Lance's Fag Hags, Member of the Subbie Mafia Princess of typos and it's my prerogative
|