|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:52 pm
Usually what goes wrong in the ED involves people making one-line posts, not backing themselves up, not sticking around... etc. But there's also the opposite problem.
Clearly an attempt at appearing philosophically superior, the sheer volume of convoluted, unecessary sentences in that post appalls me. Not to mention he hides behind a thesaurus half the time, stating fallacious thoughts in the guise of a poor imitation of sentences from England in the 18th century.
The worst part is arrogance. Apparently, most people don't posess the "necessarily [sic] intelligence" to contemplate these lofty thoughts he's having.
This type of topic needs to be dealt with just as much as spammers and repeats. They're condescending, convoluted, and frankly do not stimulate Extended Discussion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:35 am
Jasmine Tea Usually what goes wrong in the ED involves people making one-line posts, not backing themselves up, not sticking around... etc. But there's also the opposite problem.
Clearly an attempt at appearing philosophically superior, the sheer volume of convoluted, unecessary sentences in that post appalls me. Not to mention he hides behind a thesaurus half the time, stating fallacious thoughts in the guise of a poor imitation of sentences from England in the 18th century.
The worst part is arrogance. Apparently, most people don't posess the "necessarily [sic] intelligence" to contemplate these lofty thoughts he's having.
This type of topic needs to be dealt with just as much as spammers and repeats. They're condescending, convoluted, and frankly do not stimulate Extended Discussion. I personally find the thread incredibly interesting. Though I will agree that he can use a bit more clarity, I think you're blowing it out of proportion. What's funny is that the OP is a huge inside joke of sorts. If you ever played a game called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, that's almost all content pulled straight out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:05 am
Stxitxchxes I personally find the thread incredibly interesting. Though I will agree that he can use a bit more clarity, I think you're blowing it out of proportion. What's funny is that the OP is a huge inside joke of sorts. If you ever played a game called Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, that's almost all content pulled straight out of it.
Doesn't matter whether or not it's a joke if it's argued seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:25 pm
Jasmine Tea Usually what goes wrong in the ED involves people making one-line posts, not backing themselves up, not sticking around... etc. But there's also the opposite problem.
Clearly an attempt at appearing philosophically superior, the sheer volume of convoluted, unecessary sentences in that post appalls me. Not to mention he hides behind a thesaurus half the time, stating fallacious thoughts in the guise of a poor imitation of sentences from England in the 18th century.
The worst part is arrogance. Apparently, most people don't posess the "necessarily [sic] intelligence" to contemplate these lofty thoughts he's having.
This type of topic needs to be dealt with just as much as spammers and repeats. They're condescending, convoluted, and frankly do not stimulate Extended Discussion. I agree, His hubris could only be compared to that of a Sophist toward the end of their days.... While I love Ontology debates, his entire argument seemed to be an attempt to pass Existentialism as Nihilism. I didn't read the entire argument because shortly afterward I noteced that you ( Jasmine) were knocking his face around with his own shitty rhetoric....... I think it should be a general Rule that any topic involving ACTTUAL Philosophy (more specficly Ontology) must be clear, concise, and short. Arguments should be made and discussed as the issues Come up, to make responding to them easy....... Post Script: it seemd his entire wordy Rhetoric tactic was mearly an attempt to ward others away from respoce and the entire thing was disgined to validate his own self worth in some regard. Mayan Grinch is most assuredly is an underhanded Sophist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 5:03 pm
Jasmine Tea Usually what goes wrong in the ED involves people making one-line posts, not backing themselves up, not sticking around... etc. But there's also the opposite problem.
Clearly an attempt at appearing philosophically superior, the sheer volume of convoluted, unnecessary sentences in that post appalls me. Not to mention he hides behind a thesaurus half the time, stating fallacious thoughts in the guise of a poor imitation of sentences from England in the 18th century.
The worst part is arrogance. Apparently, most people don't posess the "necessarily [sic] intelligence" to contemplate these lofty thoughts he's having.
This type of topic needs to be dealt with just as much as spammers and repeats. They're condescending, convoluted, and frankly do not stimulate Extended Discussion. This is exactly WHY many see EDers as "Elitists", So often I have encountered this very problem with EDers who think they are intellectually superior the every one els, I know of at least three maybe four others like that. These are the types of people that hold ED standards on a much higher intellectual level then is necessary. They are the ones who are Chastising new comers for a simple spelling mistake, missing punctuation mark, a simple difference of opinions. I have found these people to be unnecessarily harsh with others and new comers, This is where the Ideas of ED being an "elitist" forum is coming from. I also believe that 1/3 of the spamers, trolls, one liners, hit&runners, and idiots are retaliating against what they believe to be an elitist ED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 6:15 pm
In that case this is a good example of a vicious cycle. I can't think of a way to break said cycle at the moment, but I think this does show a widening gap between the respective parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:35 am
Katsuhagi In that case this is a good example of a vicious cycle. I can't think of a way to break said cycle at the moment, but I think this does show a widening gap between the respective parties. The way to break this cycle, is to show these snobs the rest of EDers will not tolerate this behaviour. We need to set an example for the rest of ED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:51 pm
Rookherst[KOS] I agree, His hubris could only be compared to that of a Sophist toward the end of their days.... While I love Ontology debates, his entire argument seemed to be an attempt to pass Existentialism as Nihilism. I didn't read the entire argument because shortly afterward I noteced that you ( Jasmine) were knocking his face around with his own shitty rhetoric....... I think it should be a general Rule that any topic involving ACTTUAL Philosophy (more specficly Ontology) must be clear, concise, and short. Arguments should be made and discussed as the issues Come up, to make responding to them easy....... Post Script: it seemd his entire wordy Rhetoric tactic was mearly an attempt to ward others away from respoce and the entire thing was disgined to validate his own self worth in some regard. Mayan Grinch is most assuredly is an underhanded Sophist.
Not to mention his writing apparently needs to be constantly supplemented by rolleyes s at my posts. Using emoticons constantly isn't the hallmark of the writer he purports himself to be (and he does make one or two posts about his "command" of the english language). Oh, and did anyone see the part where he flips out at me because I said "thesuarus"?
Temba-- Precisely. The author has no concept of audience and is hostile to those who would potentially ask questions to learn.
Katsuhagi-- It's sort of like the widening income gap. = /
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 12:53 pm
Temba Katsuhagi In that case this is a good example of a vicious cycle. I can't think of a way to break said cycle at the moment, but I think this does show a widening gap between the respective parties. The way to break this cycle, is to show these snobs the rest of EDers will not tolerate this behaviour. We need to set an example for the rest of ED.
Perhaps if we had a seperate discussion on how to make what could potentially be difficult topics readable (within reason-- there is no reason to simplify Locke or Homer down to the point where we're simply dumbing it down).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:01 am
Ya, His Hubris only moreso points to his status as a Sophist. The rotten kind that belived that underhanded tactices of bribeing the judge and appealing to emotion were perfectly valid routs to achived their postulate/axiom as Truth. Even if it wasn't truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:51 pm
OH MY GOD I've seen this guy before! Do any of you frequent fictionpress.com? He sounds like a certain pompous, arrogant a*****e I've met there! Now if only I could remember which pompous, arrogant a*****e he is...
Is he Max Krugman? MrFlames? SilentBlueRose? ImpingingStatement? Raptor? Hm...
Or maybe the world is just filled with these people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:37 pm
Yeah, he does have the unfortunate tendency to brutalize with his believed intelligence.
(Is there something wrong with acknowledging superior intelligence if one does not beat others about the head and spleen with it?)
And yes, I frequent FP.com. Or I used to. I forget to these days. No point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:36 am
You could likely just report the topic because that first sentence is pretty darn inflammatory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:44 am
Reverend Smooth You could likely just report the topic because that first sentence is pretty darn inflammatory. Sadly, I don't think the mods would find it worth their time because on first glance it looks like a well-written argument and discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:25 pm
I read all six pages. It was actually very interesting, but it does violate at least one rule of the ED--you're not allowed to kick people out of your post/stop them from expressing their opinions, and by telling all the 'stupid people' to leave he was definitely doing that. No, it's not what I would like to see in the ED. The thread didn't encourage discussion (he was practically flaming everyone who disagreed with him); also, it was rude.
Actually though, if he had been polite and had agreed to keep an open mind about the things other people were saying, it would have been a great thread. I wish he would have listened to reason instead of refusing to acknowledge anything but his own cherished beliefs. I think that if he had kept an open mind, he would have been forced to change his opinion, as his arguments were riddled with logical fallacies. I commend you and Dharmony for sticking around and trying to show him the specific holes in his argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![Rookherst[KOS]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1c/32/2b1f6af436321c_flip.png?t=1193918574_6.00_11)
