Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[FredLC]

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.

A Fred Thread? Sounds fun, and rhymes!

Anyway, I'm not trying to create some sort of aberrant scientific philosophy, Sidhe, i'm just applying two different tools (scientific method and philosophy) in order to obtain a utility (a conclusion on the topic of God).

Metalurgy, painting and architecture also don't have anything to do with each other, but we use them all in castle building.

Regards .

 

[MobBoss]

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.

Forgive me for not accepting 'because sidhe says so' as proof of commiting logical fallacy. Because that is precisely all you offer.

Again, please show us which logical fallacy is being commited by yours truly so I can specifically pick your arguement apart.

If all you choose to do is confuse the issue further then I suppose we are done. You have neither made the case for being above average in my book, nor made the case in being intellectual in the least. Confusing? Yes. Obfuscating? Certainly. Emotional? Undoubtedly. Intellectual? Hardly.

 

[brennan]

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

Non-sequitur.

So if Rene Descartes tried to convince someone he was an intelectual and they disagreed he would not be an intelectual

Refutation by example.

Yeah, if society as a whole decided that Descartes was full of crap, and NOBODY percieved him to be an intellectual, and NOBODY treated him as such...then he might as well not be. When society is going to elevate somebody to a posistion, perception is important.

Appeal to (theoretical) authority: peoples' opinions would have no bearing on whether Descarte meets the definition of a word.

Actually...he didnt commit a logical fallacy....you just did.

Not a fallacy, just... wrong.

 

[Sidhe]

Forgive me for not accepting 'because sidhe says so' as proof of commiting logical fallacy. Because that is precisely all you offer.

Again, please show us which logical fallacy is being commited by yours truly so I can specifically pick your arguement apart.

If all you choose to do is confuse the issue further then I suppose we are done. You have neither made the case for being above average in my book, nor made the case in being intellectual in the least. Confusing? Yes. Obfuscating? Certainly. Emotional? Undoubtedly. Intellectual? Hardly.

I couldn't give a damn what you think I'm just saying according to defintion I am one.

How Renes Descartes was considered by his peers one of the greatest intelectuals and philosophers of his day, so if someone said he wasn't would this mean that he wasn't?

Note I'm not saying they're wrong I'm just saying how does being able to convince anyone mean that you are wrong by default?

Jesus and his words have never been able to convince much of mankind to act anything like a Christian. Doesn't make his message false, or him not an intelectual for that matter.

And to you, this is not a resort to authority as I made quite clear

I'm bored now I've had my fun, unless anyone else wants to prove me wrong without resorting to logical fallacy I think I'll go talk on another thread, I'll come back tomorrow when someone other than Fred is making sense Oh and Brenan et al..

And your on by the way we need a Fred thread and we need to get this thing into a context but let's leave that to a better day when I'm not being derrided and mocked for pointing out definitions as being relevant.


Bye. I'll be back Anon.

 

[Atlas14]

There are no experts to determine what "intellectual" means.

So then how can you say Sidhe is wrong? Only in my more ignorant years, back in high school would I use the terms genius and intellectual interchangeably. I now view it as common knowledge that an intellectual does not have to be an expert nor a genius, but instead possessing the qualities stated in the #7 definition. You seem to think everyone uses your definition, but I don't think most people do.

 

[downtown]

Appeal to (theoretical) authority: peoples' opinions would have no bearing on whether Descarte meets the definition of a word.
.

Thank you, Was that so damn hard? It took Sidhe 2 pages what should have taken a damn sentance.

 

[brennan]

Thank you, Was that so damn hard? It took Sidhe 2 pages what should have taken a damn sentance.

Marvellous. Can we move on?

 

[Gogf]

So then how can you say Sidhe is wrong? Only in my more ignorant years, back in high school would I use the terms genius and intellectual interchangeably. I now view it as common knowledge that an intellectual does not have to be an expert nor a genius, but instead possessing the qualities stated in the #7 definition. You seem to think everyone uses your definition, but I don't think most people do.

Once again, there is no "my definition." I have not posted a definition.

I think that most people think that, in order to be an intellectual, someone must have the mental ability to express themself clearly in their native tongue.

 

[MobBoss]

And to you, this is not a resort to authority as I made quite clear

I'm bored now I've had my fun, unless anyone else wants to prove me wrong without resorting to logical fallacy I think I'll go talk on another thread, I'll come back tomorrow when someone other than Fred is making sense Oh and Brenan et al..

And your on by the way we need a Fred thread and we need to get this thing into a context but let's leave that to a better day when I'm not being derrided and mocked for pointing out definitions as being relevant.

Bye. I'll be back Anon.

Again...when asked to clarify which particular logical fallacy I had commited this is what you do. Again....you obfuscate and confuse the issue and give no answer what-so-ever.

I humbly submit that a true intellectual would not leave without specifically answering the question when simply asked to do so. Or at the very least attempt to do so in the clearest and most simple terms able. In fact earlier you said you would endeavor to answer my questions. Well, you havent in any way, shape or form. In my opinion, you precisely choose this point to leave the discussion because it will be more than evident that, once again, you were talking above your head and making utterly false and incorrect allegations based on pure emotion.

Which brings us back to your definition of intellectual. As I stated previously, you utterly fail on element 4 and 8 of your offered definition. In that aspect, your own definition works directly against you.

So that begs the question do you have to meet all the aspects of your definition to be defined as an intellectual, or is the meaning so broad as you qualify if you meet any single specification?

Again, as others have pointed out here, I guess it depends on which dictionary you use.

I couldn't give a damn what you think I'm just saying according to defintion I am one.

Oh and for what its worth I think the above makes the logical fallacy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking

 

[Atlas14]

Once again, there is no "my definition." I have not posted a definition.

So what are you waiting for?

I think that most people think that, in order to be an intellectual, someone must have the mental ability to express themself clearly in their native tongue.

But that merely means charismatic, well-oratized blabbermouths that are better with words would all be more intellectual than someone like me. I cannot give oral presentations nor clearly present myself (in most cases) worth a darn, I am shy, but would that mean I am less of an intellectual than some dumb blonde that is well-accustomed to speaking and rhetoric, but severely lacking intellectual capacity and knowledge.

 

[brennan]

I humbly submit that a true intellectual would not leave without specifically answering the question when simply asked to do so.

Another non-sequitur.

Followed by trolling and personal attacks. Again.

 

[MobBoss]

Another non-sequitur.

Merely my opinion, and nothing more. However, my point wasnt that YOU are able to point out logical fallacies, but that Sidhe utterly unable to despite the claim otherwise.

I made my point.

Followed by trolling and personal attacks. Again.

How so? Asking for him to answer my question and then pointing out the obvious when he failed to do so is now a personal attack? It was his allegation against me that I asked clarification on.

That holds about as much weight as his allegation that I called him names all throughout the thread, which I have not done at all.

 

[Sidhe]

Thank you, Was that so damn hard? It took Sidhe 2 pages what should have taken a damn sentance.

Well one more post then I'm gone I explained that are you telling me I didn't? Stop trying to make out that you don't understand because I wrote it, let's face it your not interested in my opinion, and you will continue to turn this into why Sidhe never makes sense, and yes can we move on, because posting links and putting up definitions that no one understands on wikipedia is just not good enough

Anyway my last jaunt into this thread untill people stop talking arse.

 

[brennan]

Well then your opinion is fallacious, and your point not shown.

 

[Sidhe]

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.

No I explained it in my first post are you just trying to sound ignorant for effect.

How Renes Descartes was considered by his peers one of the greatest intelectuals and philosophers of his day, so if someone said he wasn't would this mean that he wasn't?

Note I'm not saying they're wrong I'm just saying how does being able to convince anyone mean that you are wrong by default?

Jesus and his words have never been able to convince much of mankind to act anything like a Christian. Doesn't make his message false, or him not an intelectual for that matter.

Why is the post so hard to understand? Sorry I'm just not getting it?

OK two but only because I think downtown has dissapeared into his own reality?

 

[Kozmos]

I would praise most people on this forum for their great use of logic and reason. This is a safe heaven of intelligence. Everywhere else are stupid people.

 

[Mise]

MobBoss... your entire argument is solely based on Sidhe's claim that he is an intellectual. Everything after that was basically, "see?! I told you he was stupid!"

Tell me how that is proving or disproving Sidhe's original claim? Since you're such a big fan of logic, isn't it logical to conclude that Sidhe could be an intellectual? Is it not possible that Sidhe is simply acting this way to test our faith in his assertion that he is in fact an intellectual? Can you honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that Sidhe is not an intellectual?

I believe in Sidhe.

 

[WillJ]

I think high-falutin' smart-a-tude can be divided into three things:

1. Intelligence -- The ability to see connections between things. Measured (maybe with not-so-perfect accuracy) by IQ tests.

2. Knowledge/expertise -- The number of facts stored in one's brain.

3. Intellectualism -- The subject matter of this thread. The degree to which one derives joy from mental stimulation.

There's overlap between these things, but only incomplete overlap. Of all the people I know in real life, the guy who I suspect has the greatest raw intelligence is not interested at all in anything beyond sex and sports; he is extremely intelligent (I'm sure he could become a renowned mathematician if he wanted to), but is not intellectual at all. Professionals (lawyers, doctors, etc.) are always extremely knowledgeable but are not necessarily very intellectual. In real life, one of the most intellectual people I know (that is, the most likely to be seen enjoying a discussion on physics, philosophy, art, etc.---and no, not BSing his way through it) I would not describe as particularly brilliant. Of course, he's not an idiot (surely someone can't enjoy exercising his/her brain very much if the brain is weak to begin with), but I know quite a few people who I consider smarter than him.

Anyway, as for CFC, I think we have a good number of intellectuals (by my definition, which apparently most people disagree with), despite the fact that only a small handful have any actual expertise or any sort of blinding intelligence.

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: Sigh....

MobBoss - you are making this debate personal. Kindly stop it.
Sidhe - I suggest you ignore rather than biting.

@All: Cease discussing individuals.


As I said previously - it has the potential to be a decent thread, but it is rather close to being locked.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gogf]

So what are you waiting for?

I'm not really sure what qualifies someone as an intellectual . I do think that the ability to communicate well is an extremely important part, though. If I were forced to come up with a definition, I think it would probably have to do with discussion and debate with others. To this end, good communicative skills are required.