Press F to respect RM's legacy

Author: PressF4Respect

Posts

Total: 47
#31
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
I cannot provide a comprehensive list, as I cannot imagine every situation that might arise where this is an issue. However, I would say that, generally, nonsensical content is content which lacks a communicative purpose or which is literally incomprehensible.
What is communicative purpose?

#32
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What is communicative purpose?
Content has communicative purpose if it is intended to communicate something.
#33
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
Content has communicative purpose if it is intended to communicate something.
How can you know someone's intention?


#34
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression. In the context of this thread, it is generally clear that those pressing F are communicating support for or offering a farewell to RM.
#35
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression. In the context of this thread, it is generally clear that those pressing F are communicating support for or offering a farewell to RM.
Instead of stating how I am wrong you then decide to engage in persuasive rhetoric. Do you have an argument for how do we know intent or am I going to get another ad hom against what I said?

#36
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You cannot have ad homs against "what is said." Ad homs are personal attacks; they are against people, not content. Objecting to content is precisely the point of debate.

Ultimately, though, I am not interested in having a debate which moves us out of the realm of commonsense. I think it is commonsense that intent can be discerned, often by content clues, explicit declarations of intent, and so forth. I think if we are asking "how can we tell if content has purpose" we are usually having one thought too many. 
#37
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
You cannot have ad homs against "what is said." Ad homs are personal attacks; they are against people, not content. Objecting to content is precisely the point of debate.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] 

Didn't attack the substance of my argument. "That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression." is basically you attaching a negative attribute to what I said.
Ultimately, though, I am not interested in having a debate which moves us out of the realm of commonsense.
Oh so another negative attribute to what I said.
I think it is commonsense that intent can be discerned, often by content clues, explicit declarations of intent, and so forth.
I think your a fucking prick for not discussing this non-banned forum in the PM's with Virtuoso instead you publicly shammed him for a "mistake" you think he supposedly made. Undermining his authority and making him look bad. 

I think your a fucking prick for not engaging in discussion instead appealing to societal norms when you can't argue your point across. 

Everything is about the foundation (The beliefs you truly hold not the ones we are speaking about in the context of some present day matter)  and when I try to engage with the foundation you use ad-hom's and I can't really do it right now to stifle conversation. You don't want to delve into that area because that isn't an argument you win because intent can't be found out ever. We can't go through someone's head and state yes this is exactly what a person is thinking. Believe me neurologists have and some have definitely jumped the gun like Sam Harris. 

Back to the topic:
I think it isn't because given how different people are. I can easily be very dismissive to things but you might think of that as a way that I am hiding something. I on the other hand just don't want to talk. You jump the gun and realize you are wrong given the context you forced out of me either by proving by going through something that has the information or me actually speaking.
#38
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Didn't attack the substance of my argument. "That leads into an absurd kind of "can we really know anything" regression." is basically you attaching a negative attribute to what I said.
I don't believe you read your own definition closely enough. You defined ad homs as arguments which avoided the topic at hand "by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument." Since I have at no point attacked the person making the argument (namely, yourself), I have not committed an ad hom. As I said earlier (and as your own definition verifies) ad homs deal with attacking people, not content.

Everything is about the foundation
I am not unwilling to discuss the issue with you up to a point. But you've gotten here to the crux of why I have reached the point where I am unwilling to continue the debate. If every debate has to drill down to some sort of intellectual "foundation," then the actual question which sparked the debate will never be discussed, because the conversation becomes bogged down in a never-ending series of prior questions. 

This has a lot to do with the stasis theory of argument. If we are constantly having to sort out questions at lower stasis levels, we shortchange the higher-level issues. I am not interested, therefore, in debating whether we can determine intent, because it strikes most people as obvious that we can. Having to debate these kinds of commonsense issues is therefore counterproductive and regressive; if we actually want to talk about spam, then let's talk about spam. Let's not talk about whether intent is determinable.

Generally, most posts have some purpose, because humans are purposive beings. Whether that purpose is communicative or not is what is really at issue, not whether there is purpose. Content has communicative purpose if the content itself (that is, the words themselves) are designed to communicate something. Someone who posts "f" once in this thread can be reasonably inferred to be doing so in order to communicate support to RM. That "f" then has a communicative purpose. Someone who posts "f" 70 times in this thread can be reasonably inferred to be doing so in order to boost their post count, disrupt the thread, etc. Clearly, 70 identical posts aren't serving a communicative purpose in and of themselves, even if they may be communicating something performatively. In such a case, it is not the content itself which is communicating, but the volume of the content which is. That content lacks communicative purpose as I explained it. Where communicative purpose is in doubt, moderation errs on the side that it is present.
#39
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
Since I have at no point attacked the person making the argument
Do I need to highlight it? "other attribute of the person making the argument"

Attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.

The feature of my argument was apparent yet you had no go at it and went out of your way to state it was absurd. 

If it wasn't clear the argument I make is an extension of myself. Since you can't know what is inside me you would have to trust what I say is what I actually hold dear or don't. By calling an argument absurd you have assigned a negative attribute to an idea someone had. If you actually told me how I was wrong by demonstrating it then it wouldn't be an ad-hom.
then the actual question which sparked the debate will never be discussed, because the conversation becomes bogged down in a never-ending series of prior questions. 
The actual conversation can never really be discussed in such an informative way if we don't understand what we hold dear.
Having to debate these kinds of commonsense issues is therefore counterproductive and regressive; if we actually want to talk about spam, then let's talk about spam. Let's not talk about whether intent is determinable.
Societal norms again and the intent is the idea you attributed in order to determine spam. Here is the mention:
Content has communicative purpose if it is intended to communicate something.
I simply asked you a question which resulted you ad-homming what I said. It wasn't me who stifled a pivotal issue to the topic about spam. It was you. Challenging the intent was vital to how you defined what is or isn't spam yet you don't want to discuss that.
Generally, most posts have some purpose, because humans are purposive beings.
Can't demonstrate how we have intent yet still going around in a discussion as if we have agreed upon it. Purpose is a sign of stating there is intent in what a person is doing. I didn't accept that. I questioned that you still accepting it as if that isn't the problem with the spam thread conversation.
Someone who posts "f" 70 times in this thread can be reasonably inferred to be doing so in order to boost their post count, disrupt the thread, etc.
Reasonably inferred by bsh1. If an idea isn't accepted by you it isn't permitted.

#40
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If it wasn't clear the argument I make is an extension of myself.
That is an absurd proposition. It would mean that any argument against any other argument was an ad hominem argument, unless you’re planning on engaging in special pleading. It also defies common sense—I can find your argument absurd without finding you absurd, so there is a clear disjunction between you and your argument.

Ad hom arguments are arguments which target persons, not ideas. If I called you a “fucking prick,” for example, I would be engaging in making an ad hom argument. If I say instead, “your argument is absurd and here is why,” I am making it about the ideas, not the person, and so am not making an ad hominem argument.

#41
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@bsh1
This isn't going anywhere.

#42
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can't demonstrate how we have intent yet still going around in a discussion as if we have agreed upon it. Purpose is a sign of stating there is intent in what a person is doing. I didn't accept that. I questioned that you still accepting it as if that isn't the problem with the spam thread conversation.
I already explained why most posts are purposive. Humans are purposive beings, ergo, sane human activity is purposive. But the point of my last post was largely that these issues you want to debate have already been settled by and large in mainstream society. So unless we’re having a debate about philosophy or neuroscience—which we’re not—I am not going to debate these issues which have already been settled in our discursive context.



#43
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
Reasonably inferred by bsh1. If an idea isn't accepted by you it isn't permitted.
Reasonably inferred by most people I would wager. And, I permit many ideas on this site which I do not approve of (e.g. Ethnonationalism, Communism). I have been permissive of numerous ideas being discussed here precisely because I value free speech, dialogue, and debate.
#44
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
Why are you two fighting? You gotta get along :P
#45
Pinkfreud08
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 578
2
7
11
Pinkfreud08's avatar
Pinkfreud08
2
7
11
F

F

F

#46
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,562
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
YES, Justice
#47
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 561
Posts: 19,888
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I do not agree more or less with the types like Ramshutu in this thread or the ones posting F. You can respect what you want and disrespect what you want. I am not here to be respected, I am here to let off steam and type logical thoughts.