I didn’t say I like censorship. Again, that’s called a strawman. It’s where you, instead of understanding what I wrote, choose to characterize it in such a way that’s both incorrect, and flattering to your view. Being that you’re an expert in what you consider philosophy, you have to be able to see that…right?
You realize that the reason why your daddy satyr hates me the most isn’t because the mischaracterizations of me that he puts out there are true, it’s because I’m more intelligent that he is, better at this shit than he is, and I wont humor a moron in the way that he wants to be humored. Right? Go ahead and accept that you’ve got nothing to teach, everything to learn, and that name calling is a sign of your state of mind more so than of my state of being, then give your dumb shit a rest.
You poor degenerate idiot. All I asked, to put it plainly for one so dim as you, is who is qualified to decide what is to be censored, on what grounds and how? This showed you I didn’t understand? What? You a trying a little too hard my friend. The mask is slipping…again. You might need to remind us all what a bad muhfuggah you are and how you get chixxx by the boatload.
Or you could engage with the topic. The questions were not difficult to understand.
And can I just say, even here on ILP, literally noone finds you intelligent or impressive or cool. You are the same dork dude, just online.
I didn’t pose that it would take an omnipotent being to make that determination.
Does engineering require omnipotence? No. Neither does determining what arguments are spurious and which ones advance the discourse toward the best possible explanation of a given subject of inquiry.
Dim? Degenerate? Idiot?
Very clever stuff you’ve got there. Does that sort of thing get you anywhere in the real world?
How about this…just to start with the basics. The people who determine which arguments should be part of the discourse on a given subject and which ones shouldn’t, in philosophy, should at the very least be people who have studied epistemology, metaphysics, and logic, (and I don’t mean the simple syllogism kind of stuff you’re probably thinking of, but maybe something more advanced like modal logic) Personally, I think there’s more to it than that. But if someone isn’t well versed in at least those 3, then they certainly aren’t qualified to make those distinctions.
So smooth brah. You gotta bottle what you got and sell it. You didn’t have to say you like censorship (although you have admitted you find it necessary in Philosophy) in order for it be obvious that you do.
Satyr described you very accurately and I think it ruined some of the fun you were having over here. A shallow, arrogant, braggart who lies about his life.
I didn’t say it was necessary. I said it tends to be the case. Another reading comprehension failure. Obvious huh? You seem to see a lot of obvious things that aren’t really there. Is that how you cope with the truth about things like censorship when those truths make you uncomfortable and make you feel weak?
So you’ve got me pegged huh? You don’t think I’m having fun?
Has it occurred to you that maybe a man with a failed marriage, a head full of dissonance, and an inability to adapt to how the world actually is, and a completely unfounded sense of self worth might find comfort in calling someone a liar who is well adjusted and getting to live in the way he wished he could?
You said censorship has a place in Philosophy implying it’s necessity. As I go back I see, in your super casual style, you have added large chunks of writing to posts I already answered. Hella smooth brah.
If Philosophy is about engaging the real world in objective terms and with rational thinking, why should some part of the real world need to be censored from being debated? Better yet, does someone ‘qualified’ not have to bother with debate so long as they can flash their credentials? Philosophy should be about debate and exchange of ideas, not the reverence of static positions and ‘established schools’ which dismiss their competition without adequate response, or worse, with slander and maliciousness. If I can prove that Mexicans are on average significantly smarter than Brazilians, or that the French on average are stronger than the Danish what is wrong with using logic to dissect my position? Is this not the only way to prove that what I am saying is not objective and is driven by an agenda, rather than just assuming lazily that it is?
Super dominant man. You can tell this is how you are in real life. Can I borrow one of your women? Lend me the ugliest one you got brah, please. You get so many anyway right?
I can’t tell you how entertaining it is for me to see that you’ve gotten so emotional about this. There’s just no way to convey it in text.
At the same time, it’s a little disappointing to see that you came back here after I accused you of moving to the pic thread in order to get the exchange deleted, and that instead of addressing your own topic in your own thread, you just posted that instead. Pretty sad young lady. Pretty sad.
Eh I think the intention of censorship is to protect the flow of information to protect the flow of power to protect the flow of money to protect the flow of sex
I don’t like you at all but on a logical level, not and emotional one. I don’t even know what you are accusing me of doing, but I left this thread because you have a habit of making two three four posts in a row, each saying fuck all.
You think censorship has a place in Philosophy and credentials justify censoring. Great, it shows. Move along now. Don’t make it look like you care.
On a logical level huh? You’re like these freshmen kids who just use the term, “logical” to attempt to give validity to your utterances. I have my suspicions that you know very, very little about logic beyond the basic syllogism.
You’re like, “if you look at it logically, I’m right and you’re wrong”. That’s not how logic works young lady. Again, keep studying, and try and learn to hold back on your emotional outbursts. One day you may become qualified to have a serious discussion about something interesting with people who aren’t morons.
You might also google, “necessity and possibility”. There’s a lot of good philosophy stuff that comes up there. You could read it and then if you understand it, (it’ll be really hard stuff), you’ll probably make less mistakes in your efforts to comprehend what people are saying when you go about making your inferences about necessity.
Again, you are saying absolutely nothing here, but you accuse me of spamming. Projection or Exaggeration. Literally the only tools you have.
I asked for peoples personal take regarding censorship. Your response was that censorship has a place in Philosophy. Not sometimes, not possibly. Is HAS a place. The inference is valid.
Again, you’ve inferred things that aren’t a part of anything that I’ve said. It’s not that some parts of the world don’t need to be analyzed, it’s that some people fail to understand what it means to properly analyze some part of the world. If you don’t know shit about epistemology, metaphysics, or logic, then you probably don’t know how to properly analyze things. That’s just the way it is.
