Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Sidhe]

I dont recall Descartes having to run around to his peers to make the case that he was an intellectual. Perhaps thats the difference between you and he?

No that is also a logical fallacy, if you knew me you would know why I make the claim but since this is an anonymous forum where you can only go by what I say here, then you cannot with conviction make that argument. And kindly answer my questions, this is your biggest problem until you adress my questions I'm not going to respond to you again. Please do me the courtesy of answering my points. And I will do likewise.

Again, it doesn't really matter what a dictionary defines the word as; it matters what most people mean when they say it.

Most people so far have clearly failed to use the term as it is most commonly understood, that much is clear.

 

[Gogf]

So when I hear easily 50 people per week at my school misuse the term genetic engineering as some fanciful, fantasy-like tool scientists can use to create all sorts of crazy things, that makes it right? You wouldn't believe how many times I've seen it in off-topic as well, with that thread about what you would change about yourself. Perhaps all those definitions for one term, just because they are commonly used and are what people mean to say, are inherently acceptable definitions?

I don't think high-school students determine what terms mean.

Genetic engineering means the modification of DNA. I don't think anybody would really dispute this. The fact that people don't understand how it works doesn't mean that the term means something else.

However, it probably makes sense to limit those who matter in terms of definition to those who are experts in a particular field. Most words aren't associated with a particularly academic field, though. There are no experts to determine what "intellectual" means.

 

[downtown]

No that is also a logical fallacy, if you knew me you would know why I make the claim but since this is an anonymous forum where you can only go by what I say here, then you cannot with conviction make that argument. And kindly answer my questions, this is your biggest problem until you adress my questions I'm not going to respond to you again. Please do me the courtesy of answering my points. And I will do likewise.

\.

He isnt talking about you, he's talking about Decart. Can you demonistrate, in say, standard form, why this is a "logical falacy"? Also, which falacy is it?

 

[Sidhe]

I don't think high-school students determine what terms mean.

Genetic engineering means the modification of DNA. I don't think anybody would really dispute this. The fact that people don't understand how it works doesn't mean that the term means something else.

I don't think CFCers do either judging by what I'm seeing here. I always understood it to mean a, and so does everyone I know as far as I'm aware as many of the people who know me are either intellectuals themselves or they dabble. And they consider themselves as such.

 

[MobBoss]

No that is also a logical fallacy

Errr...how exactly?

if you knew me you would know why I make the claim but since this is an anonymous forum where you can only go by what I say here, then you cannot with conviction make that argument.

Of course I can. This very thread is an example as to the lengths of which you will go to convince your peers of how 'intellectual' you are. Do you suggest that Rene Descartes did the same with his peers?

And kindly answer my questions, this is your biggest problem until you adress my questions I'm not going to respond to you again. Please do me the courtesy of answering my points. And I will do likewise.

I have answered them one and all. If your premise is to depend upon a definition of 'intellectual' that is broad enough to include virtually anyone who has picked up a book, then by all means, adhere to it. However, do so in the full realization that in embracing such a broad definition, you doom yourself to mediocrity and thus fully assume the mantle of 'average'.

 

[Gogf]

I don't think CFCers do either judging by what I'm seeing here. I always understood it to mean a, and so does everyone I know as far as I'm aware as many of the people who know me are either intellectuals themselves or they dabble. And they consider themselves as such.

What do you mean "to mean a"?

 

[FredLC]

OK so if Freds points were so coherent? Tell me why? Or explain why it's pertainent to put scientific method into philosophical issues?

I'll not enter the rest of this debate, which i consider have became somwhat bitter and impertinent. this bit, however, i'll address, for it should be addressed for me in the first place.

Sidhe, human disciplines are all incomplete, and are all meritorious. There is nothing wrong in using the strong points of some to complete the weak points of others. Philosophy has lead me to part of my conclusion. Scientific method, to another. If I knew that our issue lide exclusively in a disagree of wether multidisciplinary conclusions have validity or not, I'd have said this a long ago, for it's a very, very different talk than the one we've been having.

Regards .

 

[Sidhe]

I'll not enter the rest of this debate, which i consider have became somwhat bitter and impertinent. this bit, however, i'll address, for it should be addressed for me in the first place.

Sidhe, human disciplines are all incomplete, and are all meritorious. There is nothing wrong in using the strong points of some to complete the weak points of others. Philosophy has lead me to part of my conclusion. Scientific method, to another. If I knew that our issue lide exclusively in a disagree of wether multidisciplinary conclusions have validity or not, I'd have said this a long ago, for it's a very, very different talk than the one we've been having.

Regards .

True I misinterpreted your meaning and I'll be the first to admit my ignorance, but I don't think science marries well with philosophy, just my personal opinion. Well to be honest it doesn't but, that's meat for another Fred/thread when I'm not being barraged with criticism for applying commonly held definitions

Oh mr Wilde we are quite the wit today, and so on and so on.



I know it wasn't funny and I'll probably receive criticism for that too.

What do you mean "to mean a"?

The dictionary definition, as commonly held by the west and I assume that covers your country.

 

[downtown]

My 203 post or Mobboss's 205 please.

 

[Sidhe]

Errr...how exactly?



Of course I can. This very thread is an example as to the lengths of which you will go to convince your peers of how 'intellectual' you are. Do you suggest that Rene Descartes did the same with his peers?



I have answered them one and all. If your premise is to depend upon a definition of 'intellectual' that is broad enough to include virtually anyone who has picked up a book, then by all means, adhere to it. However, do so in the full realization that in embracing such a broad definition, you doom yourself to mediocrity and thus fully assume the mantle of 'average'.

No it assumes those who read up on general ideas you like your logical fallacies don't you, study complex sciences or studies, particularly philosophy, like to read cultural literature and listen to all types of musical culture, express a deep interest in philosophy and debate on it, and hold learning to be a paramount consideration in their lives, which of these do I not fit? please explain I'm not getting apparently because I can't spell I'm not an intelectual? You've lost me here?

And part 3? Which part of that?

What I will do to convince anyone is beside the point I couldn't give a rats arse if you or anyone else is convinced, I explained that earlier as being a logical fallacy, do you want to keep making it, if so we have all night? I'm talking about the definition here, not some wierd logic and misinterpritation, now answer the part 3 bit?

My 203 post or Mobboss's 205 please.

I already explained it but since you want it spelled out how does your ability to convince someone mean that you are not what you claim to be? Can you explain this? You made the assertion let's see you justify it, if Jesus claimed that he was the son of God, and everyone said he wasn't how does this mean he is wrong, if he is the son of God?

It would be a resort to authority but since it's just a few people it isn't even that, it's a resort to opinion.

 

[brennan]

I have answered them one and all. If your premise is to depend upon a definition of 'intellectual' that is broad enough to include virtually anyone who has picked up a book, then by all means, adhere to it. However, do so in the full realization that in embracing such a broad definition, you doom yourself to mediocrity and thus fully assume the mantle of 'average'.

I think it's a bit more than 'anyone who has picked up a book'. But aside from that this is kind of our point MB. Being 'intellectual' does not give you a rarified air of superiority, it just means you're a bit on the cerebral side.

 

[downtown]

No it assumes those who read up on general ideas you like your logical fallacies don't you, study complex sciences or studies, particularly philosophy, like to read cultural literature and listen to all types of musical culture, express a deep interest in philosophy and debate on it, and hold learning to be a paramount consideration in their lives, which of these do I not fit? please explain I'm not getting apparently because I can't spell I'm not an intelectual? You've lost me here?

And part 3? Which part of that?

What I will do to convince anyone is beside the point I couldn't give a rats arse if you or anyone else is convinced, I explained that earlier as being a logical fallacy, do you want to keep making it, if so we have all night? I'm talking about the definition here, not some wierd logic and misinterpritation, now answer the part 3 bit?

Ok, you wrote all this blahblah, but you still did not answer the question, which you need to do if keep throwing out the stupid "LOGICAL FACALACY!1!" term. The other stuff is not important.

I'll write it out again.

Please show, in standard form, WHY my example and the example Mobboss posted is a falacy. Also, if you can, show us which Falacy. Let us see those logic skilllllz.

If you already answered, please tell us which post. I dont care about you convincing us what you are or not anymore...I just want to see where the logical flaw is.

 

[brennan]

If you have to convince people you're an intellectual...you're not an intellectual.

Just a non-sequitor really. No definition of intellectual requires that you do not attempt to demonstrate the fact you are an intellectual.

 

[Sidhe]

Ok, you wrote all this blahblah, but you still did not answer the question, which you need to do if keep throwing out the stupid "LOGICAL FACALACY!1!" term. The other stuff is not important.

I'll write it out again.

Please show, in standard form, WHY my example and the example Mobboss posted is a falacy. Also, if you can, show us which Falacy. Let us see those logic skilllllz.

If you already answered, please tell us which post. I dont care about you convincing us what you are or not anymore...I just want to see where the logical flaw is.

Read the posts I made they spell it out, if you don't get it you never will, and Mob Boss is just reiterating another logical fallacy one after another, if you want to know look up logical fallacy on google, if not then I will not respond to you any more. Repeating myself is not really condusive to this thread, although it is to my post count.

Just a non-sequitor really. No definition of intellectual requires that you do not attempt to demonstrate the fact you are an intellectual.

Non sequitor might be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic)

It's a bit lower on the ladder than logical fallacy but it is one

 

[downtown]

Read the posts I made they spell it out, if you don't get it you never will, and Mob Boss is just reiterating another logical fallacy one after another, if you want to know look up logical fallacy on google, if not then I will not respond to you any more. Repeating myself is not really condusive to this thread, although it is to my post count.



Non sequitor might be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic)

It's a bit lower on the ladder than logical fallacy but it is one

Yes, we can't be pumping our post counts now. Look. You already made a post. You couldn't have told me the post number where you would have pwn'd me?

I know what a Falacy is. I've taken logic.

 

[MobBoss]

This is a direct reason I dont think you an intellectual. When asked simply how was a statement a logical fallacy you give the following as an answer:

No it assumes those who read up on general ideas you like your logical fallacies don't you, study complex sciences or studies, particularly philosophy, like to read cultural literature and listen to all types of musical culture, express a deep interest in philosophy and debate on it, and hold learning to be a paramount consideration in their lives, which of these do I not fit? please explain I'm not getting apparently because I can't spell I'm not an intelectual? You've lost me here?

That is not an explanation of how something is a logical fallacy at all. In fact, all you do is answer a question with a question and avoid the whole issue completely.

Perhaps you dont know what a logical fallacy is. Please use this as a reference tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy it might help.

What I will do to convince anyone is beside the point I couldn't give a rats arse if you or anyone else is convinced, I explained that earlier as being a logical fallacy,

No you didnt. You merely confused the issue. Again, this is why I think you merely average. You claim logical fallacy over and over, but when asked for clarification utterly fail to be specific. You do this routinely.

It would be a resort to authority but since it's just a few people it isn't even that, it's a resort to opinion.

Nope. It is neither an appeal to authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority and there is no such logical fallacy as 'resort' or appeal to opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

 

[Sidhe]

Yes, we can't be pumping our post counts now. Look. You already made a post. You couldn't have told me the post number where you would have pwn'd me?

I know what a Falacy is. I've taken logic.

In that case why are you asking the question? you should know already? Or are you just trying to pump your post count, look if your worried about post count I'll contact a mod and ask them to take 2000 off mine, say the word and 2000 posts are gone, actually say zero and I'll do that too, seriously. I really couldn't give a damn about a number that means you like to talk or debate, or spam or whatever, which has no other merit than that.

This is a direct reason I dont think you an intellectual. When asked simply how was a statement a logical fallacy you give the following as an answer:



That is not an explanation of how something is a logical fallacy at all. In fact, all you do is answer a question with a question and avoid the whole issue completely.

Perhaps you dont know what a logical fallacy is. Please use this as a reference tool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy it might help.



No you didnt. You merely confused the issue. Again, this is why I think you merely average. You claim logical fallacy over and over, but when asked for clarification utterly fail to be specific. You do this routinely.



Nope. It is neither an appeal to authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority and there is no such logical fallacy as 'resort' or appeal to opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

:sigh: as I already explained it's not the resort to authority that is the logical fallacy it is claiming that reading books means a or that not proving your point means you are wrong where remaining silent means what exactly? Or that saying that because 3 people are not convinced your assertion must be false, now can we move on? It's not rocket science.

MobBoss you are possibly the most guilty poster in history of resorting to logical fallacy, you do it so consistently as to make the term almost a epynomous title for Mob Boss, look in the dictionary under fallacy, there you will find Mob Boss.

really j/k

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Having skimmed the posts since my last, I have decided that I don't know what "intellectual" is but I don't want to get any on me.

 

[downtown]

In that case why are you asking the question? you should know already? Or are you just trying to pump your post count, look if your worried about post count I'll contact a mod and ask them to take 2000 off mine, say the word and 2000 posts are gone, actually say zero and I'll do that too, seriously. I really couldn't give a damn about a number that means you like to talk or debate, or spam or whatever, which has no other merit than that.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ. Can you, or can you not, answer a single stupid question? We've been tapdancing around this point for two pages now, and you are totally unwilling (or more likely, unable), to answer.

I don't care about the flipping post count. You apparetly do. I also know the answer to the question...I'm trying to determine if you do. If you do, post the post where you answered it, or post it here. If you do not, thats fine. I'm done.

I'm done anyways. I feel like I'm talking to a 4 year old. Or a congressman. Neither of whom are intellectuals.

 

[brennan]

Having skimmed the posts since my last, I have decided that I don't know what "intellectual" is but I don't want to get any on me.

Aye, it's a bugger to wash out.