|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:30 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:44 pm
 |
|
|
 |
TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox I get the feeling sometimes that I'm almost obscenely polite in situations where a worse reaction is entirely justified. >.> I don't know. I think our attitudes are about on par. Though to be fair, this isn't a unique experience for the Rehab Guild. Every now and then we get someone who is into CM who thinks they know better than everyone else.
I remember good old "Pray". He was a irredeemable d**k. And not even a smart one either.
I recall actually getting irritated with him and becoming snippy. Which is rare for me nowadays. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox I get the feeling sometimes that I'm almost obscenely polite in situations where a worse reaction is entirely justified. >.> I don't know. I think our attitudes are about on par. Though to be fair, this isn't a unique experience for the Rehab Guild. Every now and then we get someone who is into CM who thinks they know better than everyone else. I remember good old "Pray". He was a irredeemable d**k. And not even a smart one either. I recall actually getting irritated with him and becoming snippy. Which is rare for me nowadays. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:56 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox TeaDidikai Recursive Paradox I get the feeling sometimes that I'm almost obscenely polite in situations where a worse reaction is entirely justified. >.> I don't know. I think our attitudes are about on par. Though to be fair, this isn't a unique experience for the Rehab Guild. Every now and then we get someone who is into CM who thinks they know better than everyone else. I remember good old "Pray". He was a irredeemable d**k. And not even a smart one either. I recall actually getting irritated with him and becoming snippy. Which is rare for me nowadays. Pish. He's not irredeemable.
Highly difficult to redeem then? I don't want to be entirely doubting of his potential.
*grin* |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:29 am
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai PrometheanSet You have a habit of quoting me out of context. More accurately, you have a habit of making generalizations and assumptions and taking issue with people pointing out the flaws in your statements. Quote: There is no objective religion. No one has said there is. Though- there is objectivity within religion. It isn't like the matter of Catholic dogma on transubstantiation is a function of personal opinion expressed as commentary on the RCC. Quote: Even an empirical belief structure must be able to shrug on occasion, leaving that to subjective explanations about the nature of reality, or no explanation at all. Now, we can't have that, now can we? There's a difference between things such as Philosophical Empiricism acknowledging that there is no objective explanation for a given phenomenon and suggesting that such suddenly renders the summation of reality subjective. Quote: Subjective views of reality, where they don't contradict the empirical evidence, cannot be relegated a value for their truth or falsity. Basic. The point is you CANNOT determine which is right! outside of your own subjective little bubble. Which is why you suddenly decided to include the disclaimer, rather than addressing the actual point of what I am writing. confused Quote: The first paragraph - you state that it is an objective position to say that reality is subjective. False! You saying it doesn't make it so. Quote: So what if Hassan I Sabbah wasn't right? He's dead. Just like the original Nihilist. They had their own ideas, which is more than most of us can say. (Note: I'll joke on occasion that my entire belief structure is serial plagiarism!) You really believe that they had their own ideas... how long after Siddhārtha Gautama pwned this? (That's right. I said it. Buddha pwned Sabbah and Jacobi) PrometheanSet Given the context that this is a religious forum, I talk about all kinds of s**t in here. You think that the nature of the Guild has more to do with context than the actual words I am using? Quote: where we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity, and that the discussion is heavily leaning towards discounting subjectivity altogether.... Well, what's left? You connect the dots. Stop confusing "connecting the dots" with "I get to horribly misrepresent other people's arguments". Ascribing to the idea that subjective reality trumps objective reality is ******** stupid. That's what this thread is about- idiots who plug their ears and go "La la la la la! I can't hear you, thus the horrible flaws in my position that you have noted don't exist" and variations thereof wherein people argue (falsely) that subjective reality wins because they say so. Quote: You either supplement your belief system, or you walk around believing that an entire realm of human activity is irrelevant, meanwhile it nourishes many. That doesn't mean the assumptions of the "many" (can we say appeal to popularity? Shall we pull out the Latin?) are correct. Quote: But that's just it - these things are not irrelevant to our lives, or we wouldn't be on a guild about Paganism. Unless of course you were into sociology, a total sadist and playing the sum of the guild for fools as you use it as one big thought experiment. Nuri- you b***h!Quote: Okay, yes, you got me. How dare I be human and let a single case slip through. How dare I assume that, since no belief system is perfect, we need not address what to do with a flawed belief system. Prove that no belief system is perfect. Quote: If you want "objective" proof that no religion is objective, ask around various religions to make objective proofs that their faith is right. I know this guild isn't M&R, and we don't expect people to post fallacy free all the time, but come on man- unless you have no idea as to the meanings of the words you're using, you know for a fact that you're demanding that other people prove your claim for you, rather than admitting you can't support your position. Quote: Wouldn't an objectively "right" belief structure explain everything, everywhere, perfectly, without holes or fallacies? No. An objectively correct belief structure would only explain that which it can attest to. It doesn't engage in arguments from ignorance within its own proofs. Quote: So, with the attempt to make an objective claim, we're supposed to take her at her word about the nature of reality? Because the school that I came from calls that first part a premise, and the stating it as an objectivity ends up just "begging the question". Past that, its little more than the obvious. See- where I come from, internally consistent arguments that are based on quantifiable steps in a course of action is called a proof.
See, stating your conclusion as the prompt is not an argument.
As for your objectively correct belief structure - that sounds a bit more like what I've been trying to argue from the language of subjectivism. You know, where I can't know what I haven't seen, but can only share my perspective? If that's not what you're talking about, let me know. This sounds like a horrible miscommunication here between us:p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:49 am
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox PrometheanSet Given the context that this is a religious forum, where we're discussing objectivity and subjectivity, and that the discussion is heavily leaning towards discounting subjectivity altogether.... Well, what's left? You connect the dots. The dots are only two. Subjectivity and objectivity as they relate to reality. Religion is not reality. It can be a way of understanding reality as a whole, certainly, although more often just a gauge of only certain elements of reality. But there is enough wiggle room with religious belief that discussing an objective reality itself doesn't imply that only one religion is true. After all there are quite a few religions that don't contradict each other at all. Quote: Thank you for restating my point more clearly. I figured that was what you meant so I made sure to point that out for the sake of clarity. No sense in allowing misunderstanding to flourish. I also wasn't claiming that these things should stay irrelevant. Just that science does not make the claim that there is no objective reality due to the things it can't touch. Quote: Okay, yes, you got me. How dare I be human and let a single case slip through. How dare I assume that, since no belief system is perfect, we need not address what to do with a flawed belief system. You probably don't need to be nearly as bitter and dramatic as you're being. I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing whatsoever. I said that entirely for clarification purposes. I believe you are confused as to what is being discussed in this thread. That was what Tea was talking about in her OP and what we were discussing before you got here. People who claim "subjective reality" as a buzz word to protect a fallacious, contradictory or poorly thought out belief system. You definitely agree with this, so I'm wondering what the problem is. Quote: If you want "objective" proof that no religion is objective, ask around various religions to make objective proofs that their faith is right. Wouldn't an objectively "right" belief structure explain everything, everywhere, perfectly, without holes or fallacies? You said so yourself that atheism just labels such things as "irrelevant". Not necessarily. An objectively right belief structure only needs to be objectively right about the things it actually deals with in order to be objectively... well, you get the idea. I think I may have misunderstood you honestly, because I didn't think you were talking about finding fully objective proof that no religion is objective. Consider your comment justified on account of misunderstanding on my part that kept me from realizing it was a comment I agree with. I will point out that you can find objective proof of a belief system failing to be objectively correct about certain things or all of it's elements due to the things we discussed above (contradiction and etcetera) Quote: And removing the comments about beliefs for this "right" rant leads me to believe you might accidentally forget that context. If I forget the context, just remind me. To be clear if I have a hard time remembering exactly what was said, I'm not going to respond to it directly and instead will ask you for clarification. I try to always look before I leap. Quote: Recursive Paradox An individual who asserts that "reality is subjective" is applying a claim to reality for which it is assumed that this claim is always true, no matter what other subjective views state. This is a textbook attempt to make an objective claim. No one here is stating that someone who makes the claim "reality is subjective" is truly objective themselves. That would be stupid. Only that they are attempting to, unwittingly, make a claim from an objective position about the universe being subjective. Obviously their position is not truly objective, not just because of the self contradiction but also because they have no way to individually prove their statement logically or empirically. But it is still an attempt to make an objective claim. Failing does not change what the attempted goal was. Nor does being unaware of that goal change it either. So, with the attempt to make an objective claim, we're supposed to take her at her word about the nature of reality? Because the school that I came from calls that first part a premise, and the stating it as an objectivity ends up just "begging the question". I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about Tea. She's actually making an objective claim based on the objective definitions of "reality", "objective" and "subjective" about people who attempt to make an objective claim about reality being subjective and fail (as I described above). You see? That's what we were discussing before you came in and got so upset. And I believe that you have misunderstood this discussion and your anger is due to this.
and you got me pegged on the bits where you obviously agree with me, just using different terms. Dangit, I'm pegged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 9:44 am
|
|
|
|
PrometheanSet Moreover, I have a problem with folks pointing out flaws that don't exist in my line of thinking, and simply read what they want me to say.
Quote: See, stating your conclusion as the prompt is not an argument.
Quote: As for your objectively correct belief structure - that sounds a bit more like what I've been trying to argue from the language of subjectivism. You know, where I can't know what I haven't seen, but can only share my perspective? If that's not what you're talking about, let me know. This sounds like a horrible miscommunication here between us:p |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:24 am
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai PrometheanSet Moreover, I have a problem with folks pointing out flaws that don't exist in my line of thinking, and simply read what they want me to say. Which is a nice way of actually dodging the flaws in your arguments- for example, the assumptions that this is about objectively proving a given religion as universally correct etc. Quote: See, stating your conclusion as the prompt is not an argument. Neither is posting fallacy after fallacy- such as proof by assertion. Quote: As for your objectively correct belief structure - that sounds a bit more like what I've been trying to argue from the language of subjectivism. You know, where I can't know what I haven't seen, but can only share my perspective? If that's not what you're talking about, let me know. This sounds like a horrible miscommunication here between us:p Poe already covered this- why are you asking me to do it again?
Since when is everything posted here always directed at you? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:26 am
|
|
|
|
PrometheanSet TeaDidikai PrometheanSet Moreover, I have a problem with folks pointing out flaws that don't exist in my line of thinking, and simply read what they want me to say. Which is a nice way of actually dodging the flaws in your arguments- for example, the assumptions that this is about objectively proving a given religion as universally correct etc. Quote: See, stating your conclusion as the prompt is not an argument. Neither is posting fallacy after fallacy- such as proof by assertion. Quote: As for your objectively correct belief structure - that sounds a bit more like what I've been trying to argue from the language of subjectivism. You know, where I can't know what I haven't seen, but can only share my perspective? If that's not what you're talking about, let me know. This sounds like a horrible miscommunication here between us:p Poe already covered this- why are you asking me to do it again? Since when is everything posted here always directed at you?
I believe it'd be since when this was an open guild where one is able to adress any of the posts of another?
Especially when everything she quoted was posted after you quoted her. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:37 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:34 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai Cyrus the Elder I believe it'd be since when this was an open guild where one is able to adress any of the posts of another? Especially when everything she quoted was posted after you quoted her. YUS! This! whee
Well, given that this format allows for basically a conversation among a group of people, it came off as though you were still pressing the issue, after (from what I can tell) someone else already addressed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:26 pm
|
|
|
|
PrometheanSet TeaDidikai Cyrus the Elder I believe it'd be since when this was an open guild where one is able to adress any of the posts of another? Especially when everything she quoted was posted after you quoted her. YUS! This! whee Well, given that this format allows for basically a conversation among a group of people, it came off as though you were still pressing the issue, after (from what I can tell) someone else already addressed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Promethean, Tea has been a lot nicer to you than I'm going to be and I'm only letting loose the constraints of social niceties because everyone else has tried the nice way.
It's time for you to shut up and listen. The only post I will accept in response to this is "Yes, Cú. I'm sorry, Tea I've been a d**k". Savvy?
Ok, let's start at the beginning. None of the following points are open to debate.
If someone corrects you, accept the correction or make a solid argument to support your case. Do not continue arguing using your initial premise as proof.
If someone asks you not to call them something, for example "child", do not repeat the offense. Doing so will only get you labelled "troll" as it is trolling.
If you want to discuss the benefits of a specific magical system, start a new thread on it. Do NOT assume that your magical system is going to work for everyone. Do NOT presume to correct people when they tell you that your tradition is incompatible with their tradition and do NOT ignore corrections to your posts.
I'm not the hardest person in the world to piss off. However, normally, on these forums I reign in my temper and play nice. The fact of the matter is, I'm still pissed off at the last Ceremonial Magickian who came in and told us all that if we weren't using CM then we weren't working to our fullest. It's patronising, it's offensive and it's ******** ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
