Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
I'm quite bored with it myself!I missed the whole debate!
Now, whether I can be bothered to go back, find quotes I want to reply to and copy and paste them into this thread remains to be seen ...0 -
As for what is "hard core philosophy" in a classic setting of course read Plato and Aristotle. For early modern read Hume, Berkeley, Locke and Kant, and for modern read (if you like the linguistic approach) Ayer, Austin, Wittgenstein and Russell, the latter two also being a good choice for the mathematical approach. Nothing in any of them is remotely like the reasoning you have presented. You might also want to look at a contemporary writer, Korzybski, who lived near me in Connecticut.
Finally, I am most certainly not out of my league, but I am afraid you are. I am afraid you don't have the remotest idea of what philosophy is about, particularly modern philosophy based on Mathematics and Physics and Linguistic analysis to determine what we can know and how we can know it. It is a much different approach than Thomas Aquinas, or any of the "philosophers" you seem to admire.
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc. If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that). I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds. Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought. And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years. If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes). It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority." You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points. Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding. I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end. In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."
Macpatti for the win! Bravo!:drinker:0 -
To assert that I am "out of my league" is not the same thing as proving it. Citing a series of names is not the same as demonstrating knowledge of what they wrote. If you know about all these thinkers, you might know that the kinds of arguments I was presenting actually grew out of reflection on the implications of Kant's "transcendentals," the relationship between the "objective" world and the constitutive participation of the mind in forming concepts, etc.
Kant's ontology and epistemology involved the synthetic a priori, a synthesis of mathematics (a priori) and empiricism (synthetic). This was ultimately the philosophical basis for all modern science, the very science you eschew by denouncing the value of the standard model. As for the participation of the mind in forming concepts, I mentioned Korzybski, who discussed the limitations of our knowledge based upon both language and our nervous system.
If you know about Ayer then you know that his version of Positivism was long ago discredited since it was shown to be self-defeating (to claim "the only things that are true are those that can be demonstrated through the positive method of science" is to claim something that cannot survive its own test; some surface reading on positivism will show that).
If you have read Language, Truth and Logic, then you know there is no clearer definition of why language fails us in understanding the world. And you may have noted that I also referred to Austin whose Sense and Sensibilia was in fact the work that refuted Ayer. Austin pointed out all the difficulties with sense data, but offered no substitute. If you understand the concept of sense data, then you would understand why I think your philosophy lacks meaning. You are defining words and terms that have no correlate in reality.
I'm not sure how you can claim to know much about Plato without knowing the mystical dimensions of his thought, the goal of knowledge being union with the "Good" from which all reality proceeds.
I have read just about everything of Plato's and although I love him dearly, I do not believe his philosophy rises to the level that 20th and 21st Century Philosophy is at. Are you telling me you are seriously buying his concept of forms?
Perhaps you know something about his later descendent, Plotinus, who developed these mystical dimensions of Plato's thought.
And, of course, you conveniently left out St. Augustine's whose synthesis and development of Plotinus' thought (Neoplatonism) became the context in which philosophy was carried out in the western world for nearly a 1,000 years.
Plotinus was indeed mystical and not my cup of tea. Because of him, St Augustine and other mystical writers, civilization stagnated for 1000 years. If you want your way of thinking to take credit for that, so be it. Aristotle and his empiricism was the way to go, but that was stymied by ignorance, superstition and religion. Mysticism is a dead end. Period. We wasted a thousand years of human history proving that, It's called the Dark Ages,
If you know Aristotle then you should know that it was unsolved problems of his thought that inspired people like Aquinas and the major Muslim philosophers (Avicenna and Averroes).
Aristotle was an empiricist, He observed nature and tried to understand it rationally. This is exactly the opposite approach taken by Christianity and mysticism, which was to deny meaningfulness to anything in this world, and to treat our present world as a staging area for the next world. If it had not been for Christianity and other superstitions, our world would have advanced a thousand years further than it has now.
It was reflection on people like Aquinas and Kant and other modern movements in philosophy (especially Hegel) that led to major 20th century philosophical/theological movements that fit much of what I was talking about in prior emails (see Karl Rahner for instance).
So, your latest reply is nothing but a woefully inadequate and unimpressive argument "from authority."
I claimed not authority. I responded to your claim that I was out of my depth. Again, I think it is very clear who is out of their depth and who isn't.
You are asserting your authority without offering a substantial reply to any of my points.
Excuse me. You are the one who backed out of this after I gave you an EXTENSIVE reply. Your comment, "Oh, I didn't even read it." You read it all right, and you have no response. You are not going to play this game any longer. When I reply to your points you do not read them or you ignore them. Then you blame me for not responding. Go back and read my response if you are so interested in debate. If you are only interested in polemics, well then, you are behaving as I would expect.
Again, it is one thing to argue against your opponent in dialog by arrogantly asserting you have more knowledge but it is an entirely different thing to demonstrate your superior understanding.
Respond to the points I made that you previously failed to read, by your own admission.
I am quite confident that anyone reading our correspondence will conclude that my arguments stand unanswered from your end.
Bull. Because you chose not to read what I wrote does not mean I failed anything. You're playing a game, but I am not going to play any more. Respond to what I wrote. Answer the issues I brought up.
In fact, I suspect that what you are doing is exactly what the worst of the Inquisitors did. They likely simply asserted their position and declared that those they persecuted weren't "in their league."
You sure ought to know.0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra0 -
My only point of contention was someone claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian and suggesting the bible says we should not eat meat. My debate here was to refute that point. It was never my intention to personally insult anyone. I've even said numerous times that I respect people's choice not to eat meat and to raise their children doing the same.
On to the next debate!0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra
Although I like a spicy debate, and I am not at all bothered by ad hominem attacks, I also appreciate honesty. I have answered each and every one of her points. She has come back stating that she hasn't bothered to read them because they are the "same old stuff." (If she hasn't read them, how would she know that?) And then she declares herself the "winner."
Perhaps you see my concern, perhaps you don't, but this is not the kind of debate I am used to.0 -
My only point of contention was someone claiming that Jesus was a vegetarian and suggesting the bible says we should not eat meat. My debate here was to refute that point. It was never my intention to personally insult anyone. I've even said numerous times that I respect people's choice not to eat meat and to raise their children doing the same.
On to the next debate!
See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.0 -
Not sure what debate you've been reading, but I easily refuted these claims. You wanted to take me rabbit hole after rabbit hole while you attacked the Catholic church, and made a personal jab at my Jesuit background, called my remarks dumb, and suggested I knew less about "hard core" philosophy than you. I think I proved that false as well. I believe you when you say you're not used to this type of debate. You're probably used to bullying your way in a debate and having your opponent back down because of your claim of authority. I did not do that.See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:
I had heard of them from some ladies I know from Babycenter.... very hippy type of people.... but yeah... unless I am not making enough money anymore to afford sanitary products... I am not using one... though it might be something one could donate to a homeless shelter or a women's outreach group... a poli sci prof told us during a service project of ours that impoverished women will take toilet paper and old panty hose and make a make-shift tampon... doing that they usually end up with toxic shock syndrome though... simply because they don't have the resources...0 -
I'm rather confused by these ad hominem attacks. Provoking curiosity and thought is one thing, but needing to win is just. . .sad. Maybe I'm too much under the influence of Monday or the new moon, but this thread is worn out for me. What was the original question again?
-Debra
I think we finally agree on something. :drinker: I am actually quite surprised this thread is still going honestly... must be the last-word-itis (as it is called in my family) that is perpetuating this one...0 -
I was all ready to hear the debate on the diva cup!I think we finally agree on something. :drinker: I am actually quite surprised this thread is still going honestly... must be the last-word-itis (as it is called in my family) that is perpetuating this one...0 -
Not sure what debate you've been reading, but I easily refuted these claims. You wanted to take me rabbit hole after rabbit hole while you attacked the Catholic church, and made a personal jab at my Jesuit background, called my remarks dumb, and suggested I knew less about "hard core" philosophy than you. I think I proved that false as well. I believe you when you say you're not used to this type of debate. You're probably used to bullying your way in a debate and having your opponent back down because of your claim of authority. I did not do that.See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.
No you have simply run away or changed the subject.0 -
Not sure what debate you've been reading, but I easily refuted these claims. You wanted to take me rabbit hole after rabbit hole while you attacked the Catholic church, and made a personal jab at my Jesuit background, called my remarks dumb, and suggested I knew less about "hard core" philosophy than you. I think I proved that false as well. I believe you when you say you're not used to this type of debate. You're probably used to bullying your way in a debate and having your opponent back down because of your claim of authority. I did not do that.See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.
No you have simply run away or changed the subject.
Pretty sure someone else changed the subject... can we call it a draw and y'all agree to disagree.... because you are seriously beating a dead horse already... and have been for pages.0 -
I was all ready to hear the debate on the diva cup!I think we finally agree on something. :drinker: I am actually quite surprised this thread is still going honestly... must be the last-word-itis (as it is called in my family) that is perpetuating this one...
Personally, I don't think I could do it... though it does sound quite interesting... I am always trying to do things that are less wasteful... though this doesn't seem to be one of those things that appeal to me.0 -
I had never even heard of it until one of my crazy friends made a comment in a thread on it the other day. I don't think I ever would have even tried it!Personally, I don't think I could do it... though it does sound quite interesting... I am always trying to do things that are less wasteful... though this doesn't seem to be one of those things that appeal to me.0 -
Not sure what debate you've been reading, but I easily refuted these claims. You wanted to take me rabbit hole after rabbit hole while you attacked the Catholic church, and made a personal jab at my Jesuit background, called my remarks dumb, and suggested I knew less about "hard core" philosophy than you. I think I proved that false as well. I believe you when you say you're not used to this type of debate. You're probably used to bullying your way in a debate and having your opponent back down because of your claim of authority. I did not do that.See what I mean. She runs from the issues which SHE HERSELF RAISED. She is very skilled at evading debate, which is, bytheway, a standard technique of Religionists. Don't answer the question, drag the other person into your territory and claim that your answers are no good, without giving any reason.
No you have simply run away or changed the subject.
Pretty sure someone else changed the subject... can we call it a draw and y'all agree to disagree.... because you are seriously beating a dead horse already... and have been for pages.
I was willing to quit when she said she wanted to. I just object to claim to have "won" the argument and to have"refuted" me. I have no intention to insult anyone nor do I want to force anyone to debate a subject they are not willing to debate. However, when I debate, I do expect both sides to take no prisoners and to be honest. I have, by the way received emails from some who have followed this debate and enjoyed it, and not to mention have agreed with me. This is a topic I love to debate but want to do so honestly and seriously. If anyone else wants to pick this up and debate me, I am willing.0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:
I had heard of them from some ladies I know from Babycenter.... very hippy type of people.... but yeah... unless I am not making enough money anymore to afford sanitary products... I am not using one... though it might be something one could donate to a homeless shelter or a women's outreach group... a poli sci prof told us during a service project of ours that impoverished women will take toilet paper and old panty hose and make a make-shift tampon... doing that they usually end up with toxic shock syndrome though... simply because they don't have the resources...
For sure. It's not the product ITSELF that makes me queasy....tampons, invasive sex toys, etc. all make me queasy. It's almost like a phobia. Even seeing a vibrator makes me feel physically ill.
I'm sure your lives are complete now, knowing that. :laugh:0 -
I knew I didn't want to know what diva cup is. :sick:
I had heard of them from some ladies I know from Babycenter.... very hippy type of people.... but yeah... unless I am not making enough money anymore to afford sanitary products... I am not using one... though it might be something one could donate to a homeless shelter or a women's outreach group... a poli sci prof told us during a service project of ours that impoverished women will take toilet paper and old panty hose and make a make-shift tampon... doing that they usually end up with toxic shock syndrome though... simply because they don't have the resources...
For sure. It's not the product ITSELF that makes me queasy....tampons, invasive sex toys, etc. all make me queasy. It's almost like a phobia. Even seeing a vibrator makes me feel physically ill.
I'm sure your lives are complete now, knowing that. :laugh:
:laugh: I think I can die a happy woman now that I know that... :drinker:0 -
I have a Mooncup
0 -
Great. Now I want to vomit up my dinner.
I'm out of this discussion.0 -
Bye for now 0
