dmb, I have nothing to defend. I haven't presented an argument or even an explanation concerning the Intellectual Level. In fact, it isn't something I've given any thought to since the end of 2009. And here's a wiki statement on 'argument' from a philosophical point of view.
"In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident. The general structure of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the form of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion. The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally-defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic and computer science." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument Who do you think your kidding? If you think your misrepresentations, hyperbole and folksy cliches pass as argument, good for you. If you think expanded rationality can be described by stating that it "includes things like elegance and not sloppiness, precision and not vagueness, clarity and not confusion, definable terms and not made up or arbitrary meanings, logical consistency and not incoherence or inconsistency, economy of explanation and not verbose, rambling drivel, and one of my favorites that could be discussed at great length, agreement with experience.", more power to you. Hold any opinion that makes sense to you. RMP wrote "I think the difference in value judgements has produced more unhappiness, more conflict, more wars and more evil than any other single source. The idea that something is rigidly good or rigidly true and cannot change or cannot be relative for different people leads to a kind of irretractable conflict that can't be resolved except by violence ." I can accept that you have different value judgements than mine as a result of our different histories and current patterns of values. But there is no way I buy that you've answered Ian's simple question. Marsha On Aug 26, 2013, at 1:02 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb said to Ron: > ... I was complaining that Ian responded to only one of my sentences and it > was a bland, introductory sentence in which I had said very little. It was > just one more way to complain about the lack of substance in Ian's response. > ...I reposted the entire thing and said to Ian, "here's the part you did not > mention at all, which is all of my post except for that one boring, > introductory sentence. It would be nice if you read it, thought about and > responded to it with some coherent thoughts of your own." That still has > not happened. In fact, I can't recall any legitimate responses from Ian or > Marsha. It's weird. ....Apparently, they love philosophy except for that part > where you have to think and speak and otherwise grapple with ideas. > > . > > > dmb says: > That's right. Ian announced his agreement with one innocuous statement and > that was the extent of his response. He didn't even bother to give any > reasons for this agreement. And the post was offered as an answer to his > questions! This sort of irresponsible behavior makes it impossible to have an > intelligent conversation about anything. And Lucy's trollish behavior is even > worse. That's what "Lucy" means. To raise an issue or ask a question and then > ignore the answer is a petty, sadistic and childish game. What I don't get > is the oblivious lack of embarrassment. > > And "Blindly swallow"? Maybe the weirdness of that mixed metaphor explains > the problem. Marsha is trying to eat with her eyes, apparently, or trying see > with her throat. That's gotta hurt. > > All kidding (and grammar lessons) aside, a very basic problem is on full > display here. > > Marsha's dismissive comment about "blindly swallowing" my arguments is very > typical for her and it's also very weird. It simply defies the meaning of > the term "argument"! > > argument. noun.1 an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a > heated or angry one : 2 a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of > persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong : > > > That's exactly what Marsha and Ian can't or won't do; exchange views and give > reasons. That's exactly what my complaints are about. > > Everybody else is tired of hearing it and probably didn't need to be told in > the first place. Like I said, it would be nice if they could read it, think > about it and respond to the arguments with some coherent thoughts of their > own. That still has not happened. Apparently, Marsha and Ian can't tell the > difference between baseless assertions and well-supported arguments. They > don't know how to read them or write them. They can't discern the difference > between a legitimate response and temper tantrum. Apparently, they love > philosophy, except for that part where you have to think and speak and > otherwise grapple with ideas. > > There is no shortage of evidence and reasoned arguments for them to consider. > There is no shortage of questions and criticisms the remain unanswered. They > can pretend it's tyranny but no honest observer is going to believe that. > Ironically, the dispute is about the nature of intellect. > > Here's the latest batch of arguments. No response to any of the ideas. Zip, > zero, nada. Just insults and dismissals. Ian still hasn't said a word about > my response to his questions either. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
