It's cowardice

[TQM]

Dq,

Using your anonymity doesn't mean you're an unknown. I know way more about you than I want to know.

You use the liberating aspect of the anonymity of this forum to spout off your dim-witted views. You rarely answer a question directly. Your attempts at arguments are filled with non-sequiturs of "numbing grossness" (to use a phrase from P.F. Strawson).

Really, you abuse the freedom this forum gives you.

 

[TQM]

We agree, DQ!

You've nothing to hide! You are seriously on the record here for stupid non-sequitur posts. You're on the record here for being unable to even respond to direct questions pointed to you. You've nothing left to hide.

 

[onthebottom]

So, do you want the EU to send a military force to close down Guantanamo?

LOL

I'd pay to see that. Call it Bay of Pigs II....

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Anything less than military intervention will
be a failure. A recent report stated that
Mugabe is on the sidelines and the military
has taken control of the upcoming runoff
election.

Zimbabwe probably already is a military
dictatorship. How can the people stand
up to their military? How can the Burmese
people stand up to their military dictator?

Are you calling for a military action?

OTB

 

[Aardvark154]

pompously pontificate morality from your Ivory tower while all safe and comfy in your armchair

Gee Woody, what nasty things are you going to say about President McCain? Certainly he's walked the walk and talked the talk!

 

[dcbogey]

DQ - I used to read your posts with a grain of respect, until you said that your rationale for casting your vote in November boiled down to who was a "comrade in arms" (my quote, not yours). One of the most asinine things I've read in a long time.
Whether you like it or not, the US acts alot like the stereotypical (pick any major American city) cop - What's in for me??

 

[WoodPeckr]

Gee Woody, what nasty things are you going to say about President McCain? Certainly he's walked the walk and talked the talk!

Worry not!
OLD John McBush won't win!....

 

[WoodPeckr]

Professor T

The issue is that you've said I'm all safe in my armchair.

It's an issue for two reasons (which I've previously stated and you are apparently too thick to understand):

1) You've made an assumption about my "safety". You don't know fuck all about me, but you've made an assumption.

Worse - you've made an assumption hoping that you could use it as a fallacious ad hominem attack. It's a fallacious ad hominem attack because even if I were the greatest coward in the world, it doesn't in any way mean what I've said here in this thread isn't true. You are, with your claims, attacking the person, not the argument. And you're attacking the person, based on assumptions that you perhaps hope are true - but have no actual evidence one way or the other to assume their true. That truly shows your ignorance.

Better yet - you showed yourself to be completely unself-aware. The moment I responded to you with the very same ad hominem right back at you, you took umbrage. Not a good argument, you said. I'm not allowed to make that argument, you think, but you are. Do you see how stupid that is? Can you be that blind?


2) Your claims of service, without substantive supporting evidence - are just that - claims - maybe true maybe false - made by a person clearly more interested in rhetoric than in engaging in debate.

The debate here is Zimbabwe - you apparently think it okay to allow these atrocities to continue. I don't. You hope the issue is my service. It's not. The issue is why you think it's good to allow these atrocities to continue. It really is that simple.

I'm very willing to debate that issue. I can understand the ostrich approach you want to take. I disagree with it - but I understand it. But making assumptions as to what I've done or haven't done is entirely irrelevant.

If I had listed a long list of service to my nation, you'd still not necessarily believe it. It wouldn't impact the discussion of Zimbabwe. You were out of line - completely - in making that comment - it's really the equivalent of a racial slur - attempting to disqualify me based on an assumption you have no evidence of one way or the other. You say you served, but you clearly have no sense of honour.

LOL!!!
Now there you go again, even after being requested to .... pass on the ontological sophistry..... you fall back in the rut as if trained by Anselm of Canterbury or perhaps René Descartes!...
Such circular sophistry makes one doubt you could ever have a PHD let alone be a real professor. You disappoint....

Rather than engage is a pointless spinning match, perhaps if Zimbabwe troubles you so, the best you can do is head on over there and dazzle them with your brilliance. At least it would be more productive than remaining here safe on an anonymous escort review board where your continued presence only allows these Zimbabwe atrocities to continue. Don't be an 'enabler', because by remaing here you continue to enable this behavior and atrocities. Surely you can't be that ignorant not to see this with all them degrees and such!

Make sure you keep us posted as to your progress over there......
And remember the famous words of Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it."

Best wishes and Cheerio!

 

[TQM]

just for the record,

I'd gladly fall into Descartes' rut. I wish I had half the genius.

Descartes would make any intelligent person's top 20 geniuses of all time. Most would put him in the top 5. Not just for his work in philosophy - but also geometry and of course, physics.

woody - that really was a stupid response. You don't know what the words 'ontological sophistry' mean. Let me be clear - you literally don't know what they mean. (Don't try to pretend otherwise, little one.) And then you call it "circular sophistry"! Nice.

 

[LancsLad]

I am humbled by the masterful verbal obfuscation in this thread.


Wake me when the topic switches back to shaved Thai soapie massage girls. Ahhhhh....




.

 

[danmand]

Reminds me of my early college experiences.

Enjoyable mental gymnastics but pragmatism
won me over.

You were too boozed and lazy to finish your classes.

 

[onthebottom]

You've got to be kidding!!!!!!

Well if your view is that anything less than a military intervention will fail and you're not suggested a military intervention it sounds like you're comfortable with failure....

OTB

 

[WoodPeckr]

Professor T ???

I'd gladly fall into Descartes' rut. I wish I had half the genius.

Aaahhh but he was so old world. I prefer the genius of Søren Kierkegaard or Jean-Paul Sartre.

woody - that really was a stupid response. You don't know what the words 'ontological sophistry' mean. Let me be clear - you literally don't know what they mean. (Don't try to pretend otherwise, little one.) And then you call it "circular sophistry"! Nice.

You really lose credibility here by such a sophomoric retort. Something a real prof would know to avoid. Sounds more like something a green grad student beginning work on his Master's would utter. To simplify for you, little grasshopper, read 'circular sophistry' as being synonymous with 'circular BS'. No need for pretension, as you seem to have pretentious bluster cornered rather nicely in all its glory, with a flair....

Now be off from your cloistered ivy covered tower and see what the real world is like on your Quixotic mission to Zimbabwe.
You have much to learn young little grasshopper!....

 

[TQM]

Wrong on all counts.

Woody, you are outdoing yourself with your primary school education.

You apparently don't know shit about Descartes. (Old school? Really? Idiot.)

You don't know what 'ontology' means, let alone 'onotological sophistry'.

You don't know what 'sophistry' means. And you apparently only have the dimmest notion of what 'circular' means.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Professor T ????

Woody, you are outdoing yourself with your primary school education.

You apparently don't know shit about Descartes. (Old school? Really? Idiot.)

You don't know what 'ontology' means, let alone 'onotological sophistry'.

You don't know what 'sophistry' means. And you apparently only have the dimmest notion of what 'circular' means.

LOL!!!
Not really, little grasshopper!
Your whole post above demonstrated a prime example thereof! ....

Hit the stacks and check it out!

 

[TQM]

prove me wrong, fuckwad.

I mean, saying "not really" isn't even a coherent response to what I said.

I say you don't understand X. You respond "not really"???????

God, you're dim.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Skippy

I mean, saying "not really" isn't even a coherent response to what I said.

I say you don't understand X. You respond "not really"???????

God, you're dim.

Calm down there little grasshopper.
I'll try and rescue your ignorance on this matter:
Here you go, read and learn....
http://www-ksl.stanford.edu/kst/what-is-an-ontology.html

Geeesh, did you at least pass undergrad status???

 

[TQM]

So you've now provided a link.

You still don't know what it means though. Tell me what it means. I dare you.

Tell me what "ontological sophistry" means. You can't - because you don't know.

So I'll be clear, I'm saying you don't know what these terms mean because you've completely misused them. You couldn't even begin an explanation of how I've engaged in "ontological sophistry". The fact is, I could put forward an argument displaying ontological sophistry and you wouldn't even know it because you don't know what it means.

You picked the wrong person to try some throw away terms on. Do you know why Heidegger is accused of ontological sophistry? Do you know who first accused him of it? Of course you don't. You don't even know what the terms mean. I'm challenging you - prove me wrong. I'm calling you out. Let's see you man up here. Last post here to you without a full response from you.

 

[WoodPeckr]

Debate is open on Martin

Heidegger's philosophy is grounded in phenomenology. A far cry from specious metaphysics and the word playing circular logic of ontology.
Heideggerians regard Kierkegaard as by far the greatest philosophical contributor to Heidegger's own existentialist concepts. And although Heidegger was careful to point out the highly technical differences between his own philosophy and the traditional definition of existentialism, he is nonetheless regarded by existentialists as one of the most important existential philosophers, on a par with Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Jaspers.

 

[TQM]

Stop copying

from other sites and start answering questions.

Heidegger - who was a card-carrying Nazi, by the way - was accused of ontological sophistry. I don't need to be told about Soren Kierkegaard Freidrich Neitszche or Karl Jaspers. Tell me why he was accused of ontological sophistry and by who?

By the way, existentialism is an ontological view. Just wanted to point that out for others.