Is condescention necessary?

[Boetie]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I was merely describing his style.

My post regarding the word "Bullshit" wasn't directed toward anyone or any post. It was posted to generate a debate on "Bullshit". It was a stand alone post.

[Jack]

I prefer nonsense, but I use the word in the same fashion as someone else might say bullshit. It's an opinion and judgment, but not necessarily condescending.

[dilligras]

I am the most condescending person I know, and I like smilies because they allow me to add facial expression that can change the "attitude" of a statement, taking some of the sting out with a , or putting a little more in with a or a :rolleyes:.

I come by my condescension honestly, being as arrogant as a moderate level of self-awareness will allow, and admit to it openly, with the anticipation that owning it will purchase some small amout of forbearance on the part of others.

I find that persistence in the use of humor is also conducive to the amelioration of response, especially if it includes some small acknowledgement of one's own foibles.

As for correcting the punctuation or spelling of others, I decided awhile back just to influence by example, and stick to the issue at hand........except that Osborne must learn how to spell "too" when he means also or too much.

There.......I did it again!

I share this, not to propose that any need to cease their current enterprises in order to become my deciple and wear robes and sandals while kneeling before the alter of my sage profundities.........but rather to add perhaps a small nudge of steering correction to the vessel that is your pattern of interactions.

May fair winds and following seas always be your lot, sailor.


As you were.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'm not ambivalent about anything, at this point, and I know my position on any given subject better than you do.

You may know your own point better then anybody else here, but the problem is how you explain your point.... if you can't explain your point without sounding like your contradicting yourself or just not making any sense, then you knowing your position alone is kinda pointless in a debate.

If you can't properly explain your point for anybody else to understand, then you will always sound wrong, and you will be wrong, whether or not your right.

Why, I could go off on a rant about chickens that eat pickles in the morning and shit out cabbage in the afternoon and to me it could make perfect sense and to me it sounds right..... but to everybody else, it may sound illogical, stupid, and make no sense whatsoever. Now I ask myself at this point "Should I explain my point of view a bit better, or should I just say that's good enough for me and stay in my own little world?"

Another way to put it, is everytime someone points out something you say that is either contradicting, makes no sense, or doesn't relate, etc. instead of acknowledging that their input might help you understand how you come off to the reader at times, you word yourself around the problem, claim that they didn't understand you (Obviously) and you go off on another tangent, or you twist the subject to go off on something else, slightly related, or doesn't relate at all...... not solving the problem.

Sometimes you do explain yourself exactly how you post, however it is still incorrect, and instead of taking the differences to your opinion as constructive and adapt your opinion with new information, you rely back on your library of definitions and terms and unload them on everybody and claim you hold true to these practices and therefore you have to be right.

This is why you continue to get friction with your posts from other people. It's not because your young and we like to single you out. It's not because you're supper intelligent and our pee brains can't comprehend what you are trying to explain..... well..... how else should I put this?

You are using words too big for your britches at this point in your life. You understand some of the definitions, but you don't understand some of their overall meanings...... why? Because some of what you are talking about, you have not yet had life experience relating to them to understand them completely. You feel that you understand most, so therefore you understand all, and this is where your errors occur.

Question:

Do you see other people here having as much flack from all their topics as much as you? How often do you have other members agreeing with you? How can everybody else be wrong, who've had a few more years to better understand the meanings, but you're right?

Now this is probably coming off a bit "We're older then you" attitude, but it holds a bit of salt to it as well..... when I was in my teens, like many teens do, I figured I knew it all pretty well, and me being younger then the most, I have a more evolved, up to date understanding of things around me. I had a new and more exact perspective on how things should be. Eventually I realized certain topics mean certain things, outside of the textbook understanding.

It's not that you're wrong all the time, that's not what I am saying, but you try to express your communications with additional words and terms/definitions that are not required and cloud your overall point.

What's my point? I like cheese.

[Kamehameha34]

I've yet to see any of the offenses which you claim I'm guilty of. Please post an example.


And I see you touch on the fact that my definitions often clash with others.

So what?

No amount of "experience" will make you think "ah, I get it, I should really be calling this blue!" There's no objective way to prove that one concept should be connected to a definition. That is why we have multiple languages. We need a uniform way to address a concept - so we don't have to play these semantics games. To do that for us, we have the English language. To decode the English language, we have dictionaries and references. Plain denial, based on an irrelevant amount of "experience" will not hold water.

I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure.

If you're giving me flack because of the fact that I'm using the English language as described in its references, then you're intentionally or unintentionally boching the language.

If you change the context around so specific words don't apply to you, then any result you get is irrelevant. For example:

1. "I'm not a turtle because turtles are green."
2. "But not all turtles are green, some are grey or even blue."
1. "No, I am not a turtle because turtles are always green."

Person 1 changed the meaning of "turtle" around so that it didn't apply to him, even though person 2 pointed a fact out that contradicts person 1's definition of turtle.

If you change around definitions, you're not talking about anything that anyone else is talking about. You're using the same words, but in a different way. Proving that you're not an "agnostic" in one, incorrect usage means nothing for another usage of the same word, which means that strategy is demonstrably useless.

[Jack]

I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure.

Anyone willing to read back will realize what garbage this is. You fail to acknowledge any posting but your own. Reasons have been given time and again. Links have been provided, and through it all you refuse to see anything that doesn't agree with your predetermined view.
I'm sorry, but this degree of disinformation and downright lying can't be allowed to pass unchallenged.
Quit blaming your failure to get agreement for your views on others.

[Praxius]

As a perfect example, yet again, you didn't get what I was trying to explain. I wasn't trying to tell you to re-evaluate your definitions so they no longer make sense.

You are trying to use basic examples to prove a more complex solution, which doesn't make sense, nor is it a good example.

I was saying that within time, you can better explain yourself by using better "examples" to reference what you are trying to get accross.

You are not a turtle because you are not green.... obviously.... but does it relate to the topic at hand? How does this example help your position in the conversation? How does this better explain your understanding of the specific question at hand?

I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure.

I believe I am aware of this topic..... the thing is, is you found a few things that related to a definition and therefore you feel he falls under that category. He states otherwise, because although similar, they are not exact, therefore he doesn't fall under that category.

Another example is when I explained my theory of existance and the afterlife. Many have generalized my theory as being close to Budist, although I disagree, because there are too many factors I believe in that do not relate to this religion. It is close, but it is not exact.

Hopefully this explains a bit better (An example of me trying to clarify )

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure.

I guess no end of amusement from this err... gentleman. He is so set in his rigid and ridiculous mindset that he cannot see beyond it. His epistemology is absurd and misuse of logic is bizarre. Oh well. What can one do but chuckle?

[dilligras]

Quote by: RickSp Quote by: Kamehameha34 I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure. I guess no end of amusement from this err... gentleman. He is so set in his rigid and ridiculous mindset that he cannot see beyond it. His epistemology is absurd and misuse of logic is bizarre. Oh well. What can one do but chuckle?

Wow, nearly 9,000 posts, Rick......I wonder how many ad hominem "arguments" they include.......10,000? 20K? Frankly, I grow weary of pointing them out, myself, so instead I'll just ask something about semantics.

Is that condescending?

[off topic]
Your use of the word, "epistemology" is a bit curious, as I'm fairly certain that you couldn't mean that Kame posesses a branch of philosophy and that it may somehow be deemed, "absurd", but could you mean that his, "theory of knowledge" is somehow insufficient to his task here? Please elaborate, or point to a link of the particular definition that would justify such a context for the word.

I am serious, as I am always looking to expand my file of unusual usages for esoteric verbiage.[/off topic]


Carry on.

[Jack]

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of Western philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge and belief. The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "ἐπιστήμη or episteme" (knowledge or science) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation); it was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier.[1] In Indian philosophy, the Sanskrit term for the equivalent branch of study is "pramana."[2][3] Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?". There are many different topics, stances, and arguments in the field of epistemology. Recent studies have dramatically challenged centuries-old assumptions, and the discipline therefore continues to be vibrant and dynamic.

Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think Rick may be referring to his "analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification" being flawed.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Praxius Why, I could go off on a rant about chickens that eat pickles in the morning and shit out cabbage in the afternoon and to me it could make perfect sense and to me it sounds right..... but to everybody else, it may sound illogical, stupid, and make no sense whatsoever.

Heh, heh.......I had to give ya a point fer that one.


Carry on.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Isherwood Epistemology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think Rick may be referring to his "analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification" being flawed.

Perhaps, let's see how it sounds in a sentence similar to Rick's......"His analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification is absurd and his misuse of logic is bizarre."

Maybe, except for one thing.....the quote of Kame's that he was referring to was this:

I know of a member that claims he is an atheist based on "years of contemplation". When I explain that his views also fit under another term, he claims that they.. don't. Nothing to address the links I post, no explanation of how his views aren't parallel to that specific label; just more "years of contemplation", followed by a ridiculing of the term - for good measure.

I don't see anything there about Kame's, "analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification", there, do you?

Maybe Rick can explain when he gets back here.


Carry on..

[RickSp]

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. I used the word in the general sense of "how we know what we know."

I hate to rehash this again. Feel free to ignore all or part of the following.

Kame's claim that I am an agnostic is based on a rather silly standard for determining what we do and don't know. In a nutshell, I don't believe in god because I have seen zero evidence for the existence of the vaguely defined creature. Kame claims that this is not sufficient. He claims that I must also in some manner prove that the concept does not exist. As I will not play this fool's game, I must therefore be an agnostic.

My point is that if one applies this epistemological standard, or in other words, the standard by which we decide what do and do not know, to day to day life, then virtually any decision or belief would be impossible.

Which is why I think that my difference with Kame is not one of logic but epistemolgy. By my standard of knowledge, I can only be an atheist. By his, I am an agnostic.

Oh course, he is very sure of his position in a manner that only a 14 year old can be.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dilligras Wow, nearly 9,000 posts, Rick......I wonder how many ad hominem "arguments" they include.......10,000? 20K? Frankly, I grow weary of pointing them out, myself, so instead I'll just ask something about semantics.

Pot meet kettle.

[Kamehameha34]

I think Rick may be referring to his "analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification" being flawed.

This is where that metaphor applies... I believe it involves a cooking implement, and an African American.

[Kamehameha34]

As a perfect example, yet again, you didn't get what I was trying to explain. I wasn't trying to tell you to re-evaluate your definitions so they no longer make sense.

You chastise me for thinking I didn't "yet again, get it", then respond with that?

You are not a turtle because you are not green.... obviously.... but does it relate to the topic at hand? How does this example help your position in the conversation? How does this better explain your understanding of the specific question at hand?

Ok.. Smaller sentences.. :rolleyes:

Once you start redefining words to contradict their referenced meanings, you seperate yourself from the common English language. I can define "human" as "having wings" - then I wouldn't be human, according to my definition. But someone can reference the definition of "human", and show that I'm incorrect. The fact that I blatantly deny the English definition means that my redefinition of the term means nothing.

I believe I am aware of this topic..... the thing is, is you found a few things that related to a definition and therefore you feel he falls under that category. He states otherwise, because although similar, they are not exact, therefore he doesn't fall under that category.

Weak atheism is synonomous with non-practicing agnosticism. If he claims to be an atheist, he's either a weak atheist or a strong atheist. He claims that his position does not require faith, so strong atheism is out (no proof against a god). Isherwood, therefore, = weak atheist. Weak atheist = Non-practicing agnostic, so Ishwood = Non-practicing agnostic.

[Kamehameha34]

*

Quote by: RickSp Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. I used the word in the general sense of "how we know what we know." I hate to rehash this again. Feel free to ignore all or part of the following. Kame's claim that I am an agnostic is based on a rather silly standard for determining what we do and don't know. In a nutshell, I don't believe in god because I have seen zero evidence for the existence of the vaguely defined creature. Kame claims that this is not sufficient. He claims that I must also in some manner prove that the concept does not exist. As I will not play this fool's game, I must therefore be an agnostic. My point is that if one applies this epistemological standard, or in other words, the standard by which we decide what do and do not know, to day to day life, then virtually any decision or belief would be impossible. Which is why I think that my difference with Kame is not one of logic but epistemolgy. By my standard of knowledge, I can only be an atheist. By his, I am an agnostic. Oh course, he is very sure of his position in a manner that only a 14 year old can be.**

Are we confusing evidence and proof, again?

If you have logical evidence that proves that a god-scenario is somehow extremely unlikely, then it's rational to believe no god exists.


*I chose to look at the posts in this thread, in spite of your residence on my ignore list - largely because this was your most substantiated post throughout my membership here.

**Yeah, and from now on, I'm going to highlight all ad hominem violations - just to be a smartass.

[RickSp]

Kame, so you still haven't figured it out. Oh well. I really prefered it when you had me on ignore.

Of course you still felt free to insult me regardless, but I could care less.

[Kamehameha34]

Kame, so you still haven't figured it out. Oh well. I really prefered it when you had me on ignore. Of course you still felt free to insult me regardless, but I could care less.

I accept your concession.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I accept your concession.

LOL. Consistently clueless. Whatever Kame. You do keep me chuckling