Omega you seem like a very intelligent person. However the only way to not get banned around here (in your case especially) is to take some responcibility for your actions and stop attacking everyone who disagrees with you. You weren't warned/banned because the rest of us all decided to gang up on you. You got warned/banned because you are very antagonizing toward the rest of us. You belittle everyone who disagrees with you and cannot seem to comprehend that view points other than your own are equally valid as yours. You drag on convo's for the sake of not admitting that you needn't be dominant. This is what got you in trouble. All you have to do is try to be a little nicer, calmer and more open minded and you'll do fine.
Thanks, Adami (no, that's not sarcasm). Yet there's a deep conflict here in DTF that has contributed greatly to my warnings and banning and such:
You cannot seem to comprehend that view points other than your own are equally valid as yours.
This very idea is what has caused so much confusion on this subforum. For it is patently false. All "view points" cannot fail to be unequally as valid as others. You and others seem to have succumbed to a deeply pernicious form of relativism in which all view points are equally as valid as others. But that cannot fail to be false. For example, under this supposition, were I to propose some absurdity such as that the law of gravity doesn't exist and is nothing more than an illusory tool thought up by men to empower themselves and to subordinate women, you'd have to grant that my view point is as "equally valid" as any other. Or you might say "that's true for you, perhaps," but that simply denies that there exists truth that is independent of the mind and which we can all (and indeed
do all) acknowledge exists whether one realizes such or not. Unfortunately, such is often taken for granted. For if we accept that radical supposition that other view points are all equally valid, then we cannot say to someone who believes such an absurd thing about gravity that he is wrong. All we could do is merely say that we "don't like" his viewpoint. Truth would become nothing more than a subjective opinion. It goes without saying that such philosophical sophistry has not only been defeated since the time of Socrates, but is also patently self-defeating. Analogues can be drawn, for example, in one of the many discussions I've participated on cosmology here on DTF. I would claim and defend, for example (and this is just an example; I'm not defending such a claim here nor am I interested in defending it at the present in such an intellectually noxious environment), that both scientific discoveries and philosophical arguments entail that the universe began to exist and that the universe's ultimate fate was to succumb to heat death. Yet instead of pointing flaws in the arguments I employed to arrive at such conclusion and out of a motivation to reject the conclusions I reached because they didn't sit well with their atheism, many users instead opted to say such absurdities and non-sequitors as "well, that's just your viewpoint" or "you can believe that, but I don't". But such poppycock is hardly a defense of their own views and hardly a critique of the conclusions I arrived at through scientific and philosophical means. If anything, such utterances only serve to demonstrate just how philosophically uninformed such a person really is. And the fact that such a radical supposition is held by the majority of the users on this forum -- even by some of the moderators, it appears -- (and which played a large part in my banning and still plays a large part in my antagonization) is a sure sign of the deeply rooted intellectual and philosophical decadence of the community of users of the P/R section of DTF (note that, if it's not obvious enough, I'm not calling anyone anything like "stupid" nor is it my goal to do so. If that is what you have taken away from reading this, then I'm afraid you've grossly misunderstood the observation I'm making here).
Furthermore, Adami, I'm not sure the accusation that I'm "attacking everyone who disagrees with me" is fair; to be sure, one can surely misunderstand or misconstrue my posts to be an "attack" on others, but that is not the case. The only sense in which I "attack" others is by critiquing their worldview through (hopefully) reasoned responses posts. I don't ever recall dismissing another's arguments or conclusions because of the person presenting them (ad hominem fallacy) nor do I recall ever attacking someone personally. I'll accept, though, the charge that I may have been impolite here and there (which were often in response to impoliteness towards me), but haven't we all been impolite in dealing with others on the internet at least once? Also, I don't "drag conversations on for the sake of not admitting that you needn't be dominant"; I rather defend my assertions as I would expect anyone else to do if they come to be critiqued or challenged by others.
Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2 (Read 337328 times)
