RE: Value of Poetry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 8:56:50 AM)

Now that's poetry.



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 9:34:22 AM)

I had considered more mordant verse, but any epic that I write, either in rhyme, couplet, terza rima, quadrain, cinquain, clerihew or free verse, will certainly be deplored by this oppugnant.

There is no reasonable consideration afoot by me to escalate the mordance to a level that would require a pumpkin colored protagonist to enter iugulare mortuos.



BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 10:24:54 AM)

I have noticed a trend in debate tactics that claims that informal logic has a clean taxonomy. It does not. This is an obvious fact. People are playing games. That said, it is unlikely that anyone is going to mend their ways because I said it. On the other hand there are people who dismiss reason altogether. I am not sure which is worse.



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 10:29:00 AM)

I don't believe that I have ever seen or heard such an assertion, so our experiences are clearly different.

Insofar as your never being some agent of or for change in various matters, we find ourselves in total agreement.




BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 10:44:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

First of all, philosophy would require you to put the best possible light on any argument.


This is not a precept of logic. This is nonsense. You are an intellectual whore.



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 10:49:17 AM)

I did not say it was a precept of logic, once again you are disingenously eliding the argument by strawman.  You can read, where is the word logic in there (does it hide in philosophy by rearranging letters?) 

Intellectual Whore.  Aside from being an excellent example of ad hominem, I now know who you are, and am surprised that you are posting again, when did they let you off moderation?



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/2/2011 1:25:40 PM)

The flowers appear on the earth;
the time of the singing of birds is come,
and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;

Come now, benvolio, let us sit down and reason together;
I did not mean to hurt your feelings....
Do not run from me, as a frightened titmouse from a cat.

Let us clash mightily as Titans must;
so men will not look on in derision and say,
is that all you got, honey?


Jarl Hup




BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 12:09:38 PM)

I am reasonably confident that Musicmystery, et al, have been eagerly awaiting my response.

I wish to openly acknowledge that when Musicmystery wrote

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Objectivity is all you've received.


he was in a poetic frame of mind and, thus, wrote a poem. He satisfied my request to present a poem.

I will be less generous with mnottertail, however. Consistent with what I wrote earlier

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

First of all, philosophy would require you to put the best possible light on any argument.


This is not a precept of logic. This is nonsense.


with BenevolentM above and mnottertail below (stack order) I am reasonably confident that mnottertail sees straw man arguments everywhere. To be more specific, when I wrote

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

First of all, philosophy would require you to put the best possible light on any argument.


This is not a precept of logic. This is nonsense. You are an intellectual whore.


I concluded based on evidence that mnottertail is intellectually uncivilized. Meaningful debate with such a person is pointless and I presented evidence to substantiate my position. mnottertail may naturally disagree. His defense that oh, I was talking about philosophy was a trick since it was not on point. He also indicated his lack of understanding of the relationship that logic has to philosophy. There has also been an over emphasis on the significance of ad hominem. It merely established that he is full of shit and nothing more.



Ishtarr -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 12:17:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

mnottertail is intellectually uncivilized.


[sm=biggrin.gif]



BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 1:14:50 PM)

After I wrote the above it occurred to me that some may not understand what I said fully when I said it was a trick. By saying this I did not nullify what I wrote through admission that I was tricked. He was pretending, despite his verbiage, that what he said was a principle of logic disguised as a philosophical principle. The man in my opinion is disgusting trash.



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 2:05:13 PM)

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/faculty-harrell.php

This philosophy professor from Carnagie Mellon believes that:

Reconstructing someone else's position, theory, or argument is the task of putting the other person's position, theory, or argument into your own words with as little excess verbiage as possible. In so doing, you should always abide by the principles of fairness and charity. The principle of fairness says that you should always paraphrase someone else in a way that is as close to his or her intentions as possible. This prevents the possibility of committing the Straw Man fallacy. The principle of charity says that, when you may be confused about the author's intentions, you should always interpret him or her in the best possible light. This means, for an argument for example, interpreting the premises and conclusion in such a way as to make the argument valid instead of invalid, or strong instead of weak. This kind of reconstruction is itself a kind of argument because you will need textual support to provide the evidence that your reconstruction is as fair as possible.

Heres another:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html  (note this is from a third year lecture)

both of these guys go to pretty good schools, wouldn't you say?

and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity    Uhhhhhhhh, there is such a principle (I am not one to speak without at least an inkling)


But thanks for the ad hominems and the memories, go over in the corner and lay down by your dish now.

Jarl Hup



BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 3:04:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.hss.cmu.edu/philosophy/faculty-harrell.php

This philosophy professor from Carnagie Mellon believes that:

Reconstructing someone else's position, theory, or argument is the task of putting the other person's position, theory, or argument into your own words with as little excess verbiage as possible. In so doing, you should always abide by the principles of fairness and charity. The principle of fairness says that you should always paraphrase someone else in a way that is as close to his or her intentions as possible. This prevents the possibility of committing the Straw Man fallacy. The principle of charity says that, when you may be confused about the author's intentions, you should always interpret him or her in the best possible light. This means, for an argument for example, interpreting the premises and conclusion in such a way as to make the argument valid instead of invalid, or strong instead of weak. This kind of reconstruction is itself a kind of argument because you will need textual support to provide the evidence that your reconstruction is as fair as possible.

Heres another:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html  (note this is from a third year lecture)

both of these guys go to pretty good schools, wouldn't you say?

and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity    Uhhhhhhhh, there is such a principle (I am not one to speak without at least an inkling)


But thanks for the ad hominems and the memories, go over in the corner and lay down by your dish now.

Jarl Hup


When you enter into philosophy you often are dealing with hypothetical explorations. This philosophy professor is exploring a what if, that is a hypothesis. There are two major subdivisions of logical argument, deductive and inductive. Inductive argument is a wilderness where just about any point can be argued. What you have presented me is a dodge. Logic eschews this sort of subjectivity because it has the capacity to dissolve logic like a solvent or acid. There is a lot of work such as this in the interest of covering new territory.



mnottertail -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 3:30:49 PM)

You are now full of shit as a christmas goose, and not even an artful dodger.

I do not give you leave to revise and extend your remarks into outright prevarication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

you are not only philosophically untutored, you are committing the logical fallacies of illegitimate appeal to authority (yours, you hardly possess her cv, that is plain to any living thing that can autonomically draw a breath)  agumentum ad ignoratum,  invincible ignorance, non-sequiturs, and absolute strawman.

you run up a numerous lines of drivel, telling why you are such a fuckin swell thinker, without any actual credible evidence, on the contrary; all evidence points to you haven't the ability to pour piss out of a boot, and you have the gall to say I am intellectually dishonest?

You sir, have no more logic or worthy thought in you than god gave a fucking ice cube. 



BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 3:31:07 PM)

What many do not realize is that logic has bounds and meters. There is still much unexplored territory. If mnottertail is trying to get out of having committed ad hominems, his defense is ridiculous. It may, however, be recast as a segue. He is doing it at the expense of the truth, however, which is unacceptable. Though he has brought up an interesting point, he remains full of shit. Because the work he has cited is a hypothetical exploration, it is thin. In the interest of intellectual honesty I wish he would admit that he has indulged in fallacy and is a weekend barbarian.



Ishtarr -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 3:36:21 PM)

You realize I hope, that nobody on this board is going to take serious the advice, of somebody who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even understand simple first order logical arguments and their constructs, on what is the correct interpretation of the literal and unambiguous statements of actual professors in philosophy, right?









Brian762 -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 4:35:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You sir, have no more logic or worthy thought in you than god gave a fucking ice cube. 



LMAO

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

You realize I hope, that nobody on this board is going to take serious the advice, of somebody who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even understand simple first order logical arguments and their constructs, on what is the correct interpretation of the literal and unambiguous statements of actual professors in philosophy, right?



On the first page of this thread BenevolentM Tried claiming that masturbation was an act of nonconsensual self rape through a crime committed by a female companion.

I quite taking him serious long before it got this far.




Ishtarr -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 4:43:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brian762


On the first page of this thread BenevolentM Tried claiming that masturbation was an act of nonconsensual self rape through a crime committed by a female companion.




Not just by "a female companion" but in effect, by any female he ever interacts with.

His "argument" is so ridiculous it's not even worth refuting.




BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 5:09:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

You realize I hope, that nobody on this board is going to take serious the advice, of somebody who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn't even understand simple first order logical arguments and their constructs, on what is the correct interpretation of the literal and unambiguous statements of actual professors in philosophy, right?


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

logical fallacies of illegitimate appeal to authority


Ishtarr do you realize that titles are not relevant to logic? mnottertail is guilty of the very thing he accuses me of, logical fallacies of illegitimate appeal to authority. Logic is not like any other subject. You would know this if you actually studied it.



Elisabella -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 5:12:05 PM)

So long as hookers exist, your celibacy is consensual.



BenevolentM -> RE: Value of Poetry (2/4/2011 5:15:48 PM)

It is pathetic if mnottertail is attempting to fall back on titles of authority. It means he is desperate.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875