Chiki Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) In this case I think it's a moniker for people who believe their entire purpose in the discussion is to show everyone else how wrong they are. Even the wisest and most knowledgeable people have no business behaving that way. In fact, they have less reason to behave that way than others. A shitty poster is someone who makes shitty posts with shitty intent behind them. Chiki definitely qualifies. Makaze, I'll be honest here. It's okay if you think I'm a shit poster, but I know why you do. You don't know jack shit about debating or philosophy, and you're butthurt that I point that out to you. Here's proof: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&p=3030843 It's okay to be philosophically ignorant, but please don't make philosophically ignorant posts and act as if you know the material, when you don't know shit. At least admit I educated you even if I'm a shit poster, and I will respect you greatly. Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 There seems to be the opinion that a lot of people in sd are only trying to show everyone how wrong they are etc. and I post in sd so I have this small feeling that this opinion applies to me. oh gosh I hope it doesn't A lot of times when I post in sd I'm just trying to give me two cents but people question what you say to DEATH. If you disgree witht hem, they'll keep badgering you constantly and I feel like they don't even read half of what you say. I swear I repeat my self 10x in those threads. If you have that feeling that you might be the problem. . .you probably aren't the problem. I don't remember much about what you posted, which is probably a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Makaze, I'll be honest here. It's okay if you think I'm a shit poster, but I know why you do. You don't know jack shit about debating or philosophy, and you're butthurt that I point that out to you. Here's proof: http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&p=3030843 It's okay to be philosophically ignorant, but please don't make philosophically ignorant posts and act as if you know the material, when you don't know shit. At least admit I educated you even if I'm a shit poster, and I will respect you greatly. Pffft. You are reading me completely wrong. That's all I have to say on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Pffft. You are reading me completely wrong. That's all I have to say on that. I'm not reading you wrong. You thought: An extension of this is that hard determinism and soft determinism are incompatible. But: Soft Determinism (also called Compatibilism) How are compatibilism and hard determinism incompatible? That's so stupid, lol. Compatibilism thinks hard determinism is true. Just admit that I educated you, and I promise I'll leave you alone whenever you make points that need to be corrected. Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Threats? On a forum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I'm not reading you wrong. You thought: But: How are compatibilism and hard determinism incompatible? That's so stupid, lol. Just admit that I educated you, and I promise I'll leave you alone whenever you make points that need to be corrected. Hahahaha. You still don't get it. You did not educate me (as I believe the definition you offered does not solve the problem but equates the concepts anyway; equivocation), but I don't want to indulge that point because it's a tangent of my real problem with you. I left that debate because it was straying way too far from the discussion I wanted to have and I could tell you were set on getting that admission of defeat and that's it, no matter how far we strayed from the topic. It is why you post that makes your posts shit. I've addressed it with you directly before. You seem to have forgotten. Your posts will be shit for as long as you post to make others feel inferior. Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Page 17: I've been saying that elitism itself shames others. Simply speaking from the mindset of elitism causes your wording to be derisive and dismissive. The elitist automatically assumes that the other side is wrong and looks for flaws alone. Good points are ignored in the search for reasons to call people out. The more mistakes someone makes, the more derisive the elitist becomes. It can get bad enough that they directly shame others who have valid points amidst mistakes. In the end, the elitists's only goal is to point out mistakes in others' arguments. They do not read things to gain information, only to counter it. Page 18: I'm not reading you wrong. You thought:But:How are compatibilism and hard determinism incompatible? That's so stupid, lol. Compatibilism thinks hard determinism is true.Just admit that I educated you, and I promise I'll leave you alone whenever you make points that need to be corrected. 10/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Page 17: Page 18: 10/10 I am an elitist. Thank you for pointing that out. Nothing wrong with being much more knowledgeable than other people! Hahahaha. You still don't get it. You did not educate me (as I believe the definition you offered does not solve the problem but equates the concepts anyway; equivocation), but I don't want to indulge that point because it's a tangent of my real problem with you. I left that debate because it was straying way too far from the discussion I wanted to have and I could tell you were set on getting that admission of defeat and that's it, no matter how far we strayed from the topic. It is why you post that makes your posts shit. I've addressed it with you directly before. You seem to have forgotten. Your posts will be shit for as long as you post to make others feel inferior. This is literally nonsense. It's too bad you can't admit it. :< Man, do I have to convince my professors to join this forum and tell you you're clueless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) dondon, are you seeing this? I can see you are because you are in the users viewing this thread. This is what elitism looks like. Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 is it not proper etiquette to correct other parties in a discussion? it is ridiculous that one should let another carry on with an entirely incorrect premise, lest he be called elitist! i'm sorry, but that is a threat designed solely to shame those who care about being truthful. if that is the case, then please, call me an elitist any day of the week. i welcome the epithet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 If you're saying things without considering the other person, then you're not doing it for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) dondon, are you seeing this? I can see you are because you are in the users viewing this thread. This is what elitism looks like. It's not that you're ignorant that bothers me. It's that you're so arrogant and just throw claims around as if you know they're true, when they're just crap. And when I correct you, you just casually ignore it and make the same claims again, like in the free will debate. Do you see me going around correcting most other people's mistakes? People on this forum have a problem with that, though. It bothers them that there are others more knowledgeable than they are. People just don't like to feel as if they're not clever. (But that's not the point of my corrections. I genuinely do it just to be nice.) I challenge you to email any professor of philosophy and ask them if you're right. I guarantee you they will tell you that you're confused on many points. I'll even give you some names and emails if you wish. I know many who specialize on free will. Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrhesia Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 It's not that you're ignorant that bothers me. It's that you're so arrogant Sure. But that doesn't stop him being right in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) If you're saying things without considering the other person, then you're not doing it for them. this is such a dangerous sentiment. if i were to take another person into consideration, i would try to avoid incurring hurt feelings at all. in the spirit of disagreement, that is almost impossible. Sure. But that doesn't stop him being right in this case. but he is wrong, for the exact reason that i pointed out in my previous post. i cannot confidently confront another party's mistake without risking the epithet of elitist. i am so used to being called elitist (especially with respect to all things related to fire emblem) that i take it as a compliment rather than an insult. the word has no meaning anymore, but feel free to hang onto it. Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 but he is wrong, for the exact reason that i pointed out in my previous post. i cannot confidently confront another party's mistake without risking the epithet of elitist. i am so used to being called elitist (especially with respect to all things related to fire emblem) that i take it as a compliment rather than an insult. Alright, I suspect this is two things: 1. People throwing things under a label for no good reason 2. How you come across You can't control the first part. You CAN do something about the second part. The question is whether or not you want to. For the second part, I'm going to take a brief gander into, uh, fashion. Let's say you see a woman who is wearing a halter top and jeans. You see that part of her midsection spills out over the waistband of her jeans. Which of these is more likely to piss her off? 1. "Nice muffin top, fatty. Stop pigging out." 2. Say nothing, because you don't know how she views criticism about something as personal as her weight. this is such a dangerous sentiment. if i were to take another person into consideration, i would try to avoid incurring hurt feelings at all. in the spirit of disagreement, that is almost impossible. Don't knock it until you've seriously tried it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) is it not proper etiquette to correct other parties in a discussion? it is ridiculous that one should let another carry on with an entirely incorrect premise, lest he be called elitist! i'm sorry, but that is a threat designed solely to shame those who care about being truthful. if that is the case, then please, call me an elitist any day of the week. i welcome the epithet. I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. Chiki was the one who tunneled that thread by focusing on what he perceived as mistakes. When it got into semantics about something as petty as the meaning of soft determinism it was clearly only going to spiral further. I could tell I was the only one who actually cared about resolving the main issue. That is all the more clear now that he is bringing it up in other threads. Simply put, I disagree with his definition. Even if his definition can make sense, he is not able to explain it well enough, and trying to understand will be a waste of time. His only goal in the whole thing was to take me down a peg. It's a fruitless line of discussion. It was your thread. Do you not remember how much it derailed? The topic was "Hatred is also a choice, and I will leave it at that." I'm really confused by the threat comment. That makes me think you are talking about Chiki. He threatened me? I didn't believe it was possible anyone could not get my point after this display. You have shown me that Chiki is not one of a kind. Wow. Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) this is such a dangerous sentiment. if i were to take another person into consideration, i would try to avoid incurring hurt feelings at all. in the spirit of disagreement, that is almost impossible. but he is wrong, for the exact reason that i pointed out in my previous post. i cannot confidently confront another party's mistake without risking the epithet of elitist. i am so used to being called elitist (especially with respect to all things related to fire emblem) that i take it as a compliment rather than an insult. the word has no meaning anymore, but feel free to hang onto it. The bold is incorrect. The problem is not general. Not everyone who confidently confronts others is risking the moniker. I don't know how many times I've said this; I'm not sure why you still don't get it. It is the intent behind the confrontation that makes it elitist. You cannot equate two confident confrontations if they have different intents. They will come across in different ways no matter how objective you think you are. Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Simply put, I disagree with his definition. Lol what? It's not my definition. It's the definition everyone is familiar with and accepts. These are just terminological things; there's nothing to disagree with. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/96class4.html http://introductiontophilosophy.com/Four2.html You are so arrogant and deluded that you even think you can correct professors of philosophy who have been doing this for their lifetimes. The biggest elitist here is you. It's ridiculous here that me and dondon get called elitists when there's someone here who thinks he's better than people with PhDs! Edited May 28, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Don't knock it until you've seriously tried it here. what makes you think i haven't seriously tried it? i had a discussion with a muslim friend not too long ago about brandeis university withdrawing their offer to ayaan hirsi ali to deliver a commencement speech. quite obviously, i disagreed with the decision and he agreed with it. for the sake of intellectual integrity, i needed not handle the issue with kid gloves. the fact that my friend was muslim did not change my opinion on the matter nor how i approached it, nor should it have, and it does not mean that i failed to consider the other person. as for your fashion example, you gave me a false dichotomy and the premise that it's appropriate to engage someone in a forum that's not adequate for a serious discussion. if the woman asked me for my opinion, i still have the option point out that she has a bit too much fat for her clothing without putting her down. I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or not. i am vehemently disagreeing with you. The bold is incorrect. The problem is not general. Not everyone who confidently confronts others is risking the moniker. I don't know many times I've said this, but you still don't get it. It is the intent behind the confrontation that makes it elitist. i have clarified my intentions more than once! you still presume that i (and others) participate in discussion because i like being correct. truly the most infuriating aspect of this exchange, and actually every exchange that i've ever had with you, is your consistent dabbling in pop psychology - you presume things about others that have zero basis except for what makes sense to you. Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) what makes you think i haven't seriously tried it? i had a discussion with a muslim friend not too long ago about brandeis university withdrawing their offer to ayaan hirsi ali to deliver a commencement speech. quite obviously, i disagreed with the decision and he agreed with it. for the sake of intellectual integrity, i needed not handle the issue with kid gloves. the fact that my friend was muslim did not change my opinion on the matter nor how i approached it, nor should it have, and it does not mean that i failed to consider the other person. i am vehemently disagreeing with you. i have clarified my intentions more than once! you still presume that i (and others) participate in discussion because i like being correct. truly the most infuriating aspect of this exchange, and actually every exchange that i've ever had with you, is your consistent dabbling in pop psychology - you presume things about others that have zero basis except for what makes sense to you. You haven't explained your intent...? I've been watching pretty carefully for it and all I have seen is that you feel you have a right to speak the truth. You didn't say what you hoped you accomplish by speaking the truth. Summarily, you said that I didn't have proof of your intent, but didn't directly counter it. Also, I'm talking about Chiki in particular here. Their intent is clear to see. Are you the same person? Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) i think it's perfectly acceptable to start a discussion for this purpose, because not only are you informing others about a contrary opinion and challenging their beliefs, but you also might learn more about what you're arguing against.(i'm glad to know that at least i am consistent in this position: i stated this viewpoint previously in http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&page=4#entry3030399) EDIT: seeing as this is a serious discussion, i entreat you to continue this thread in the SD topic. thanks. Edited May 28, 2014 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) i think it's perfectly acceptable to start a discussion for this purpose, because not only are you informing others about a contrary opinion and challenging their beliefs, but you also might learn more about what you're arguing against. (i'm glad to know that at least i am consistent in this position: i stated this viewpoint previously in http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=47156&page=4#entry3030399) Ah, I see. I'm sorry I overlooked that. Can you explain why you believe Chiki's actions in this thread are not elitist? Do you believe yourself to be an elitist or not? The following are rhetorical, to give you food for thought about your behavior in practice. When was the last time you came at a topic unsure of your position? When was the last time you came at a topic sure of your position and came out less sure? What was your intention in this discussion with me? Why do you believe that the 'lowest common denomitator' is not worth your respect or change in approach? Why are you so concerned with turning peoples' accusations back on them? It's getting late. Can someone else take over? Edited May 28, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughx Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) You are too serious up there. Edited May 28, 2014 by Naughx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I am an elitist. Thank you for pointing that out. Nothing wrong with being much more knowledgeable than other people! are you seriously autistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike-Mike Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I remember reading Serious Discussions threads on FESS a lot, because they were interesting and varied. But some of the oldest veterans say that FESS1 has the most varied and interesting discussions. German message forums have some interesting discussions too without people going to extremes and trying to tear each others' hair off. I was thinking about joining some of them, but I probably won't. Edited May 28, 2014 by Ike-Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.