Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[GenMarshall]

People on CFC simply lack empathy, or the ability to apply the principle of charity.

Why do you think people on CFC or any online forum lack empathy or apply principles of charity?! Its because we are all safely behind our computer screens and in an annonomous world. People dont see the need for empathy or using the principles of charity because were not interacting face to face as well as there is no risk of getting punched in the face.

Why do you think trollers troll? Why do you think flamers flame? Its because they are safely behind a computer screen miles away from you? Would the same troller/flamer talk to you the same way in real life as he would on an online forum? No because if he did, well, lets just say that the troller/flamer will be on the ground picking up his teeth.

 

[Bill3000]

Really?Does it take an idiot to know an idiot person?Or is it the case that you can know and differentiate who is an idiot and who is not by placing one's self in the shoe of idiocy and not idiocy?

I'm sort of offering different definitions. My definition of "idiot" has nothing to do with the intelligence of a person, but rather the ability to be, well, not a partisan hack. Someone who is a fanboy about his positions and makes fun of others who hold differing positions, as well as an inability to have basic debating skills, is what I generally define to be an idiot.

Naturally, as a result, most CFCOTers are idiots.

 

[Gogf]

I disagree.In order to have reason instill as the backbone in any civil discussion then nonsense will not arise in debates;which in fact causes people to bicker at one another.Conversations that uses the language that are traditionally known to be deeply intellectual must be handle with care or confusion will be the consequences(whether the person indeed intended to befuddle another
or just plain ignorant of the meanings some of the words that are applied).

Um, I don't think his point was that nothing was wrong with logical fallacies. I think his point was that people here have no idea how to engage in a civil debate, regardless of logical fallacies.

 

[Gogf]

Why do you think people on CFC or any online forum lack empathy or apply principles of charity?! Its because we are all safely behind our computer screens and in an annonomous world. People dont see the need for empathy or using the principles of charity because were not interacting face to face as well as there is no risk of getting punched in the face.

Why do you think trollers troll? Why do you think flamers flame? Its because they are safely behind a computer screen miles away from you? Would the same troller/flamer talk to you the same way in real life as he would on an online forum? No because if he did, well, lets just say that the troller/flamer will be on the ground picking up his teeth.

I think there's some truth in here. It's much harder to realize the person that you're arguing with is a human being when all you ever see of them is a 70x70 image and, what you believe to be "idiotic" arguments or opinions.

 

[GenMarshall]

I think there's some truth in here. It's much harder to realize the person that you're arguing with is a human being when all you ever see of them is a 70x70 image and, what you believe to be "idiotic" arguments or opinions.

Now you wonder why many posters with women and anime girls/women as their avatars are oftenly mistaken as female posters .

Anyway, jokes aside, I have had my share of being a target for trollers and flamers years ago. I will admit that because of thoes experiances, that its hard for me to be empthetic to some user name, avatar, and the context of their post. More oftenly, I tend to associate the tone of the person's post with the person's behavior, attitude, and/or mood.

All we ever see is just text (and a couple of emoticons which does help add in the emotional humanistic feeling to the post) and we oftenly tend to go by our instincts based on past experiances.

 

[MOTH]

No, but we might be if we did something useful instead of being on-line to a silly gaming forum all the time.

 

[aneeshm]

I have too much common sense to be an intellectual.

Come on, MobBoss, that's totally unfair. You're just showing that you don't know what being an intellectual really means.

 

[MobBoss]

Come on, MobBoss, that's totally unfair. You're just showing that you don't know what being an intellectual really means.

Its not unfair at all. Some of the most intellectual (and snobbish) people I know couldnt change their engine oil if their life depended on it.

 

[CartesianFart]

I'm sort of offering different definitions. My definition of "idiot" has nothing to do with the intelligence of a person, but rather the ability to be, well, not a partisan hack. Someone who is a fanboy about his positions and makes fun of others who hold differing positions, as well as an inability to have basic debating skills, is what I generally define to be an idiot.

Wow!Now i know what you mean by the word "idiot" by asking what idiot means and you of course state it.

To me,when a fellow poster uses cliche propositions that seems likely akin on what we recieve from television personalities(pundits,spin-doctors,Bill O'Reily and his guests etc.etc.) that are full of tiresome partisan debates and enfeebling arguments,i just tend to ignore it since i've already heard it.

Most people parrot off these hacks!How would i know?It is because of what they say is what i've already seen and heard over and over and over again.

Naturally, as a result, most CFCOTers are idiots.

I wouldn't use that word "idiot" but substitute with "unoriginal with a certain degree of not knowing that what they copy is the worst of all the other archetype to copy after."

Um, I don't think his point was that nothing was wrong with logical fallacies. I think his point was that people here have no idea how to engage in a civil debate, regardless of logical fallacies.

Or it is just that the fact lies in the very nature of not knowing what logical fallacies really is.

 

[Masquerouge]

I suspect you mean Tim Curry?

Yeah, Tim Curry... Don't know why Robert popped in my head.

Glad you got the reference though

 

[Gogf]

Or it is just that the fact lies in the very nature of not knowing what logical fallacies really is.

Yes, I would think that's the cause of the vast majority of the logical fallacies here.

 

[Bill3000]

Most people parrot off these hacks!How would i know?It is because of what they say is what i've already seen and heard over and over and over again.

While a Bill O'Reily copier is the most stereotypical example, it's much more than that, and has nothing to do with what particular political opinion that they have.

Heck, let me just outright say a good example that has nothing to do with logical fallacies per se. If there is a thread about the religion, the wrong thing to do, if you are an atheist, is assume that you are inherintly superior to the theist because you feel your opinion is more rational, or whatever. It's not something that is going to make you appear civil while debating, even if your points are right. Regardless of how logically fallicious a theist's reason for believing in god might actually be, the atheist presupposing that the person is dumb to think such a thing and acting superior isn't going to win you any points in the debate club. It's entirely possible to debate the points without being acting so superior about it. If you want to debate, the proper thing is to at the least pretend like the opponent has a reasonable position.

You may be entirely in your right to call the other side stupid, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do if you want to civilly debate. It'll only get into a mess.

(And before someone flames me, I'm not actually saying that theism is irrational or the like - just giving an example that certain people may understand)

 

[Sidhe]

Its not unfair at all. Some of the most intellectual (and snobbish) people I know couldnt change their engine oil if their life depended on it.

He's right I could but it'd probably take a while as I've never driven a car in my life and wouldn't know the first thing about them! Yippee I'm an intelectual!!!!

 

[GenMarshall]

if you are an atheist, is assume that you are inherintly superior to the theist because you feel your opinion is more rational,

Why does that statement counjure up a list of notable atheists who believe that they are superior to the theists like CurtSibling?

 

[CartesianFart]

Heck, let me just outright say a good example that has nothing to do with logical fallacies per se. If there is a thread about the religion, the wrong thing to do, if you are an atheist, is assume that you are inherintly superior to the theist because you feel your opinion is more rational, or whatever. It's not something that is going to make you appear civil while debating, even if your points are right. Regardless of how logically fallicious a theist's reason for believing in god might actually be, the atheist presupposing that the person is dumb to think such a thing and acting superior isn't going to win you any points in the debate club. It's entirely possible to debate the points without being acting so superior about it. If you want to debate, the proper thing is to at the least pretend like the opponent has a reasonable position.

I think i know what you mean but i do doubt on what do you mean by "acting superior?"

You may be entirely in your right to call the other side stupid, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do if you want to civilly debate. It'll only get into a mess.

That sounds hypocritical because earlier you have said something similar-"Most people are idiots"

To me,'stupid and 'idiot' can be the same in the accusative and contemptous manner.

 

[Murky]

Since most CFC forum members go by aliases it would difficult calculate what percentage can be considered "intellectuals."

What qualifies a person as being an intellectual anyway?

 

[MobBoss]

He's right I could but it'd probably take a while as I've never driven a car in my life and wouldn't know the first thing about them! Yippee I'm an intelectual!!!!

If you think you are an intellectual then more power to you. Its not a label I desire for the reasons I stated previously.

 

[RedWolf]

Its not unfair at all. Some of the most intellectual (and snobbish) people I know couldnt change their engine oil if their life depended on it.

I agree with you on that one.

I always find it amusing when I see cars on the side of the road broke down. If the driver is a woman she's sitting in the car waiting for assistance to arrive.

If it's a man then they have the hood open and they're looking at the innards as if they might be able to fix something. The truth is that 95%(or more) of men have 0% probability of actually diagnosing and fixing a modern automobile mechanical problem on the side of the road. So why bother? Call a tow.. move on with your life.

 

[Mise]

I think that the definition of "intellectual" used by the OP would fall fairly exclusively on those actively engaged in academic research on their field of speciality. IIRC Plotinus (sp?) wrote a book, and some people here are doing PhD's (which would eventually blossom into a life in academia), but the vast vast majority of us are not anywhere near intellectuals.

It may surprise many of you to find, when you go out into the "real world", that your intellect doesn't surpass as many people's as you thought.

 

[CartesianFart]

The more i inquire about what or who is an intellectual is one to be bother with another question on how to know what is a good one and a bad one?