Reply
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

KIoey wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Ali's character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominem - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herpdiderp.

 

You: So Hitler's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominem you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 


Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. While age is a good time for brainstorming, it does not decide the validity of the argument. If some kid comes up to you and tells you the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople in 1452, you do not tell him he is wrong because he is just a kid. You correct him and say that it fell in 1453. You go after the point and not the person. And it is one of the worst things to ever do in a discussion or debate. It may get a rise out of people, but it does nothing to prove a point.

 

And that is hardly how it went. I was simply trying to dig into his belief that rights are just made up by the person with the biggest stick. I was more or less trying to see if he was hypocritical in the approach. It is one thing to claim you think something, it is another to actually blieve and live by it. If I molest, torture, and murder a 10 year old girl, you have no place to say what I did was wrong if you believe everything involving rights and morals to be subjective. I was going to go more into the discussion, but I did not want to derail the thread.

 

I never like to continue an argument until I hear their view on something. I would rather not go into a debate on morality existing if they already believe they do (many secular people DO believe in good and evil acts without seeing what that implies). In the same way, I wanted to get clarification on what his statement on subjectivity actually entails.

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


Okay, let me just stop you there. I thought our arguement concluded. I don't need you trying to spin something I said when I'm not around. The reason I said "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" is because I was puzzled by how poor your reasoning was in the "In God We Trust". Then I found out that you were in High School which was very revealing to me as to why your debating techniques were poor (I'mnot trying to be mean, I'm being honest). I'm not sure which "arguement" you're claiming that I was so afraid of that I "simply could not discredit it." If you're talking about that "dictator" statement you made, it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with. That's why I told you that "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" because your immaturity was really showing and I wanted to make you aware of it.


Considering I publicly debate, I would like to compare our experience. And age is obviously not a factor in logic here. You said my poor debate technique is explained by my age. Thanks for that. 

 

First off, I did not make a claim in that post that you could not discredit my argument. And even then, I had not even made an argument yet. I was trying to figure out what you actually believed. I hear people say rights and morals are founded in nothing but our own brains, but I always find it odd when they live like it is objective. 

 

My immaturity was obvious? First off, you do not even know my age. High school encompasses age 14-18 usually. I am a senior in high school and turning 18 in a week. I am active on a debate team where everyone is between the ages of 24-28 and am educated on things outside of my high school courses.

 

I could try and make assumptions about you from your post as well. Your spelling leaves a bit to be desired. Am I to discredit your points based on how you spelled "argument" as "arguement" or when you called my points "ammiturish". Of course not. I understand that using someone's spelling to discredit their point is silly. And judging me based off supposed immaturity (uncited immaturity at that) is silly. I did not even make any big points. I was trying to get you to say what you actually believed and not just some complete naturalism worldview. I wanted to see what you thought of the other points. You thought my point using a dictator was "amateurish", but you did not go after the reasoning and stand by your beliefs. You just tried to discredit me as a person and say it was a stupid comparison. I was obviously going to extremes, but it was intentional. It was meant to get you to be upfront on your belief and flesh it out more. I was trying to answer the question "Does he actually live by this, or is he just saying it?" I was going to continue, but I felt it would derail the point.

 

I also found little reason to argue moral foundations with someone when it presupposes an argument about a deity or power where we can put these rights and values. And I thought starting a discussion about metaphysical forces would ruin the thread and would derail it. 


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 61 of 119 (75 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 10/08/2009
Offline
4918 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey wrote:

Limit Congressional terms. Two terms in House, one term in Senate. Pull is less from the voters so they can act more on behalf of national good rather than for a political victory. Provide better information online (I'm sorry, but can anyone actually find any good sites where can actually be active in any government policy such as a referandum or recall? No? It's usually a chainmail through Twitter - say that in a south London accent if you want it to really hit home) and allow for better education of actual policy because C-SPAN just airs crap from 4 weeks ago that's already off the floor and Bill O'Reilly **bleep** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE! I'LL WRITE IT DOWN AND WE'LL DO IT LIVE.

 

Really though misinformed voters and vote-collection incentive is what's primarily happened to Capitol gone-down-Hill. It's like a **bleep** American Idol contest instead of a legislature.

 


 

I love the idea of term limits on the Congress. It always annoyed me that people like Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond could spend their entire lives in the Congress. Between these two you have a guy who once filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and a guy who drowned a girl and then wrote his own police report and they still continued to get re-elect right up until they die.

 

I must also agree with Jim though. Having at least one more strong party would, in my opinion, help our political system by breaking up the two party stalemate. Yes, it could potentially lead to nothing more than a three-way deadlock, but would that really be so different from a two-way deadlock? In either case, nothing is getting done. Personally, I am more of the opinion that a strong third party would actually pave a way to more political compromise than we have now, as the parties would be able to ally with one another to oppose a third.

 

I also feel that a strong third party would have a positive effect on the public as a whole. It is much harder to create an "Us verses Them" mentality with three parties than with two. Sure, it is possible that it could wind up deepening the public divide by creating  "Us verse Them and Them" but I think that that is far too complicated for your average American to understand. So instead of people believing in all the pointing across the aisle, they might actually try and get to the heart of the matter.

 

Of course, I'm just speculating. It would be impossible to say exactly how the emergence of a third party would effect the country. 

 

 

Oh, and kudos for the O'Reilly reference. I love that clip.

Message 62 of 119 (75 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 06/12/2013
Offline
5477 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

semajmarc87 wrote:

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

semajmarc87 wrote:

Okay, let me just stop you there. 

...it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with.


Well, if we're making claims based on inferred credibility based on context, allow me to point out your glaring spelling error.

 

A professional debater can probably spell (or at least used the spell check feature).  So, you're an amateur, too.  In fact, so am I.  

 

I've known plenty of people Bob's age that can reason circles around people twice their age, so, that alone doesn't give you the ground to undermine his logic, no matter how much you toss the word "maturity" into whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Sorry.  For me, that doesn't hold water at all.


Oops. I forgot to use spell check. We all know that the legitimacy of a viewpoint is determined by the person's ability to use spell check. You didn't even try to understand why I brought up his age so I'm not gonna explain it again simply because your reading comprehension is poor. My post is still there in case you wanna try again.


I read your post, and I even reread it.  Your entire reasoning seems to circle around viewing his logic as immature, due partially to his life experience. I saw absolutely no attempt to refute his logic beyond poking at his age and what you felt was a display of emotional immaturity.

 

That's not a debate.  That's the refuge of someone who can't reason their way through a thought-out rebuttal.

 

Now, you're claiming my reading comprehension is poor because I called you out on your spelling. Nice

 

Good to know that I got your attention.  Ta.

Grindhead_Jim

Message 63 of 119 (72 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. 

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


That would be where the problem lies. I assumed that you meant his statement about your quotes not being impressive. In which case, it's just simply not an ad hominem - because the highschooler remark wasn't meant to attack you but the purported notion that you seem to have an idea of what you were talking about.

 

The racist remarks too weren't even racist. People took the internet meme "I sell white power and white power accessories" and ran with it. The other offensive term wasn't even "offensive" unless you count the narrow margin of people who find offense at things that don't even correspond to their personal aptitude. 

 

Also do these moderators have friends or have they all just jumped off the deep end? Where might I contact said moderators so I may inform them that doing a little research goes a long way.


Smiley Indifferent That is the ad hominem. He went after ME saying someone in high school knows nothing. If we want to use credentials, let me see your doctorate in ethics or philosophy. I would love to hear how correct a statement is from another voice.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 64 of 119 (71 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

KIoey_2 wrote:

Grindhead_Jim wrote:

Well, if we're making claims based on inferred credibility based on context, allow me to point out your glaring spelling error.

 

A professional debater can probably spell (or at least used the spell check feature).  So, you're an amateur, too.  In fact, so am I.  

 

I've known plenty of people Bob's age that can reason circles around people twice their age, so, that alone doesn't give you the ground to undermine his logic, no matter how much you toss the word "maturity" into whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Sorry.  For me, that doesn't hold water at all.


I can see where you're coming from, but I'll have to disagree. My reasoning stands on the principle that people who have held a job working with the general public for X amount of time usually have a better idea of how life works than someone who simply uses logic. The world's not a logical place and someone who views it as something that can be deconstructed into basic principles is either stupid or delusional.


How life works? The world is not a logical place? The unfairness in the world is not related at all to the discussion. And putting something into basic principles? You realize that our universe follows a set of rules, right? And thse are perfectly logical as well. Please tell me how my age relates to what the universe follows?


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 65 of 119 (69 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 10, 2013

taker-77 wrote:
Having at least one more strong party would, in my opinion, help our political system by breaking up the two party stalemate

Except we already have a party designated for breaking deadlocks.

 

The real problem is voters are misinformed. A third party doesn't help. It's like the gun debate laws that happened last year - nothing will come of it if they don't make change to what is already there. As a good friend of mine told me, "You don't fix **bleep** by putting more **bleep** on it."

Message 66 of 119 (66 Views)
0 Likes
Welcoming Committee
Registered: 10/02/2008
Offline
14647 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

taker-77 wrote:

KIoey wrote:

Limit Congressional terms. Two terms in House, one term in Senate. Pull is less from the voters so they can act more on behalf of national good rather than for a political victory. Provide better information online (I'm sorry, but can anyone actually find any good sites where can actually be active in any government policy such as a referandum or recall? No? It's usually a chainmail through Twitter - say that in a south London accent if you want it to really hit home) and allow for better education of actual policy because C-SPAN just airs crap from 4 weeks ago that's already off the floor and Bill O'Reilly **bleep** IT! WE'LL DO IT LIVE! I'LL WRITE IT DOWN AND WE'LL DO IT LIVE.

 

Really though misinformed voters and vote-collection incentive is what's primarily happened to Capitol gone-down-Hill. It's like a **bleep** American Idol contest instead of a legislature.

 


 

I love the idea of term limits on the Congress. It always annoyed me that people like Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond could spend their entire lives in the Congress. Between these two you have a guy who once filibustered against the Civil Rights Act and a guy who drowned a girl and then wrote his own police report and they still continued to get re-elect right up until they die.

 

I must also agree with Jim though. Having at least one more strong party would, in my opinion, help our political system by breaking up the two party stalemate. Yes, it could potentially lead to nothing more than a three-way deadlock, but would that really be so different from a two-way deadlock? In either case, nothing is getting done. Personally, I am more of the opinion that a strong third party would actually pave a way to more political compromise than we have now, as the parties would be able to ally with one another to oppose a third.

 

I also feel that a strong third party would have a positive effect on the public as a whole. It is much harder to create an "Us verses Them" mentality with three parties than with two. Sure, it is possible that it could wind up deepening the public divide by creating  "Us verse Them and Them" but I think that that is far too complicated for your average American to understand. So instead of people believing in all the pointing across the aisle, they might actually try and get to the heart of the matter.

 

Of course, I'm just speculating. It would be impossible to say exactly how the emergence of a third party would effect the country. 

 

 

Oh, and kudos for the O'Reilly reference. I love that clip.


Term limits are an interesting idea. I think making the representatives sit in office one more year per term may help. 1 year of their term is not screwing up their reputation. The other year is used to get re-elected. Throw a safe year in there for them to do work.


Welcoming Committee- "The business of gaming is business"
Message 67 of 119 (65 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

bob-maul wrote:
He went after ME saying someone in high school knows nothing. If we want to use credentials, let me see your doctorate in ethics or philosophy. I would love to hear how correct a statement is from another voice.

No, he went after the thoughts that you know what you're talking about. How do you logically debate that 2+2=1? Oh, it doesn't? Prove it. You can't break everything down. Also, credentials mean nothing - I've got a Bachelor's in Business Administration and I've made better calls on Philosophy than many of the people who "study" it for a living. Real life experience just trumps scholarly appreciation, I'm sorry if this has to be the wake up call for that fact of life - but it's just true. Even someone who simply holds a job at UPS for 15 years has a better idea of how the world works than someone who simply reads about it.

 

The notion that it's a direct attack against you and not the repertoire of what high school has bred is just wrong, sorry to be the harbinger for this information.

Message 68 of 119 (62 Views)
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 10/10/2013
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

[ Edited ]
Oct 10, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

How life works? The world is not a logical place? The unfairness in the world is not related at all to the discussion. And putting something into basic principles? You realize that our universe follows a set of rules, right? And thse are perfectly logical as well. Please tell me how my age relates to what the universe follows?


Now I have to question if you know anything about advanced physics. I know someone on another forum who might be a great help here, but advanced physics does not operate so logically. There's no reason to assume it works logically. I quote him in particular:

 

"Classical Physics is all false, it's an approximation at certain energy scales, but it's all wrong. In other words, it has nothing to do with reality. By the same token, there's a lot of really neat string theory style stuff that just isn't going to turn out true, not even kind of, that doesn't mean it isn't physics."

 

Sure, GR isn't light cone deformation geometries - but that doesn't mean it operates on some logical and consistent scale. That's a false assumption that identities objects of various elementary particles (electrons, for example) as being indistinguishable. While the conclusion may be correct, the premise is assumptive becaus we have absolutely no idea.

 

But this is not the point of the discussion.

Message 69 of 119 (56 Views)
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 04/29/2010
Online
5177 posts
 

Re: Political Correctness - Do We Have A Right to be Offended?

Oct 10, 2013

bob-maul wrote:

semajmarc87 wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

KIoey wrote:

bob-maul wrote:

You seem not to understand what an ad hominem is. Ad hominems attack the PEOPLE presenting an argument and not the argument itself. 


Well yeah, but isn't it kind of attacking a person simply because the subject matter of the argument is about what rights a person is/isn't entitled to? It's like having a discussion about Muhammad Ali's character qualities and someone bringing up his draft dodging. It might be an attack on his person - but it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Same applies to individual rights. Attacking the proposal of individual rights inevitably attacks the individual. It's a relevant and consistent argument and not an ad hominem - unless I am just confused by your initial stance, so let me summarize what I see and maybe you can clear it up for me:

 

Him: Rights are just subjective. Herpdiderp.

 

You: So Hitler's views on rights were just as valuable as mine.

 

Him: Melodramatic. Yes, that's what I mean. We invented rights, the only value is what we make of them.

 

You: Tear, tear. I'm going to call out the one ad hominem you made because I don't want to acknowledge your other points until I've established that I've got a bigger **bleep**.

 

Correct me if that's not how it went.

 


Except it is not how it went. And that is not what I meant by calling out the ad hominem. He essentially tried to discredit my argument by saying I am just a high schooler who thinks he has the world figured out. While age is a good time for brainstorming, it does not decide the validity of the argument. If some kid comes up to you and tells you the Ottoman Empire took over Constantinople in 1452, you do not tell him he is wrong because he is just a kid. You correct him and say that it fell in 1453. You go after the point and not the person. And it is one of the worst things to ever do in a discussion or debate. It may get a rise out of people, but it does nothing to prove a point.

 

And that is hardly how it went. I was simply trying to dig into his belief that rights are just made up by the person with the biggest stick. I was more or less trying to see if he was hypocritical in the approach. It is one thing to claim you think something, it is another to actually blieve and live by it. If I molest, torture, and murder a 10 year old girl, you have no place to say what I did was wrong if you believe everything involving rights and morals to be subjective. I was going to go more into the discussion, but I did not want to derail the thread.

 

I never like to continue an argument until I hear their view on something. I would rather not go into a debate on morality existing if they already believe they do (many secular people DO believe in good and evil acts without seeing what that implies). In the same way, I wanted to get clarification on what his statement on subjectivity actually entails.

 

Proud to hear an argument for subjectivity from someone who appears to have made racial remarks in another thread.


Okay, let me just stop you there. I thought our arguement concluded. I don't need you trying to spin something I said when I'm not around. The reason I said "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" is because I was puzzled by how poor your reasoning was in the "In God We Trust". Then I found out that you were in High School which was very revealing to me as to why your debating techniques were poor (I'mnot trying to be mean, I'm being honest). I'm not sure which "arguement" you're claiming that I was so afraid of that I "simply could not discredit it." If you're talking about that "dictator" statement you made, it was (honestly) so ammiturish that I don't think it had any credibility to begin with. That's why I told you that "I know you're in High School and you think you have the whole world figured out" because your immaturity was really showing and I wanted to make you aware of it.


Considering I publicly debate, I would like to compare our experience. And age is obviously not a factor in logic here. You said my poor debate technique is explained by my age. Thanks for that. 

 

First off, I did not make a claim in that post that you could not discredit my argument. And even then, I had not even made an argument yet. I was trying to figure out what you actually believed. I hear people say rights and morals are founded in nothing but our own brains, but I always find it odd when they live like it is objective. 

 

My immaturity was obvious? First off, you do not even know my age. High school encompasses age 14-18 usually. I am a senior in high school and turning 18 in a week. I am active on a debate team where everyone is between the ages of 24-28 and am educated on things outside of my high school courses.

 

I could try and make assumptions about you from your post as well. Your spelling leaves a bit to be desired. Am I to discredit your points based on how you spelled "argument" as "arguement" or when you called my points "ammiturish". Of course not. I understand that using someone's spelling to discredit their point is silly. And judging me based off supposed immaturity (uncited immaturity at that) is silly. I did not even make any big points. I was trying to get you to say what you actually believed and not just some complete naturalism worldview. I wanted to see what you thought of the other points. You thought my point using a dictator was "amateurish", but you did not go after the reasoning and stand by your beliefs. You just tried to discredit me as a person and say it was a stupid comparison. I was obviously going to extremes, but it was intentional. It was meant to get you to be upfront on your belief and flesh it out more. I was trying to answer the question "Does he actually live by this, or is he just saying it?" I was going to continue, but I felt it would derail the point.

 

I also found little reason to argue moral foundations with someone when it presupposes an argument about a deity or power where we can put these rights and values. And I thought starting a discussion about metaphysical forces would ruin the thread and would derail it. 


Are you asking me if you have the "right" to make assumptions about me? Go ahead. You don't need my permission. If you want to "make assumptions" about me not using spell check on one post then go ahead. I'm probably not as good at spelling as I used to be because I use spell check all the time now and it's made it so I don't have to try to remember how to spell every word. It's gotten me into bad habits. There, you exposed me. That's not the same as me saying that it is very obvious to me that you are a High Schooler when I read your posts. It was a statement that wasn't intended to be an insult or a compliment. You have the power to take that in whatever way you want. Your age seems to be a very touchy subject for you and you make the assumtion that I'm trying to "discredit you."

 

I didn't go after the "reasoning?" The sole purpose of you saying that silly "dictator" comment was to bring up a sensitive issue to hide behind so that it would appear that if I continued to disagree with you that I support dictators. It's kinda like when Obama tried to make it seem like anyone who didn't support his gun ban wanted more little kids to be killed. And what's this nonsense about me not "standing by my beliefs?" What are you even talking about?

semajmarc87
My YouTube | My Twitter
225+ Subscribers | 1,500+ Followers
Message 70 of 119 (55 Views)
0 Likes