I'll leave that alone.

I am willing to discuss one or two of the numerous statements made. I'm not willing to engage the entire post, however, because I found it to be chock full of wrongful presupposition.

You pick.

Take more responsibility.

You feel that I ought take more responsibility when another feels offended by my words? What would that look like?

Ought I take responsibility for that which I am not responsible?

Its just a suggestion.

But it would depend on what your pay off is.

Maybe you like what you do. Maybe you accomplish what you want.

Your suggestion is unclear Jb. What would my taking responsibility look like to you?

What it looks like to me is irrelevant.

I don't care what you do.

If it is unclear, try rereading my longer post. I speak the same language as you speak.

If you need me to be blunt just say so.

By all means, be as blunt as you need to be in order to answer the question I asked. Are you taking this personally, because it sure seems that way to me? If so, perhaps it be best to rest for a bit.

I am not taking it personally at all. (Although I don't know why you don't understand what I am saying, and that is annoying because I was very clear. It seems like you are pretending ignorance.)

1. If you are happy with these threads, and getting out of them what you want, (the pay off)--- then continue as you always have.

But it seems like what is happening REPEATEDLY is that you continue to alienate people and they continue to complain that you are ridiculing them, or being rude or insulting.

And you don't take any responsibility for that. You blame them.

IE: They don't understand you, they don't understand the rules of philosophy, etc. etc......

If you WANT people to understand you, and if you want people to follow certain rules, and that is not happening, then you could be to blame.

Or you should state said rules you think they should adhere to.

But I can't tell you what I think you should do if I don't know what pay off you are after.

Stop blaming everyone else for taking you the wrong way. Take some responsibility for how you present your case.

But if you delight in being misunderstood,(or in causing people to feel insulted)... then carry on.

A break is nicer...

















































































































































Interested?

Not interested in what?

I guess then, you are happy with your results so far then.

*********************

You edited your post. Now I don't know what you are saying.

I hope you understand what I am saying because I don't know how I can say it better.

Good night Jb. Hopefully tomorrow your post will look better. It needs work.

Okay, read it again. (It ain't gonna change.)

Would that be an example of all belief is temporary?

No, its an example of me thinking I can't get much clearer than that and if you don't understand that.... the fault is YOURS.

I brought a shovel, to help you dig that pit...


OK, let's start with "digging deeper".

It's a common metaphor that is widely used.

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-of/digging-a-hole
"dig a hole"
verb
•to continue to make a situation go from bad to worse.
ex. Boy, you should just shut your mouth; you're diggin' a hole!

Above, you make the false assertion that my use of the term equates to putting you "lower". The negative connotation remark however, is correct when you understand the metaphor. Making a situation worse is hardly ever considered positive.


Yet, here you are again, digging deeper...

How do I arrive at such conclusions? Logic.

Let's see... I made a claim which you asked for justification of (ridicule). The problem is that you had already justified my statements for me in your earlier post, yet you refused to "accept" the evidence or when it was accepted, denied responsibility for your actions.

You say that your logic has no faults?
You say that ridicule is NOT a logical fallacy?

Well, perhaps you should check out the site you referenced and relearn what you claim to already know (philosophy).
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_ridicule.htm

You may also want to examine how your Ad Absurdum is also a form of Ad Hominem
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/attack_person.htm

You posted more than once that I was using ad-hominems and also hypocritical. I have not addressed anything other than what you posted, so you are holding a false belief in that case.

So you say that your use of those words that could be used to ridicule does not equate to your intention of ridiculing others?
Then why would you claim that my use of the same words, which were clearly labeled as examples, constitutes my attempting to ridicule you? I find that highly ironic and hypocritical.


creative said:


and then contradicted himself with: (bolded to show the contradiction)



No mention of your assertive fallacies? That claim is also justified.


Do you care to justify your claims of me being hypocritical, using ad-homs and attempting to ridicule you?


When I said "let it go", it had nothing to do with the past. In fact, it has to do with me not wanting to offend you.

As you stated earlier, "Actively questioning another's belief tends to cause offense to those who are easily offended".



Just let it go........






























If not, I'll bring a backhoe next time.

It doesn’t seem to matter what forum a discussion takes place in or what the topic in that forum is, the main issues always boil down to communication. My participation has dwindled as it always does when school is in session but I hope this intrusive interruption might put something about communication into perspective.

Every language, whether considered ‘common’ or not, has developed in conjunction with cultural and societal aspects of a community. The changes to a ‘common’ language which have been influenced by the mutually accepted culture of a community are called dialects.

Subcultures of a country like the USA or Canada speak a dialect of a broader common language, mathematics is associated with the sciences. The Deaf culture is a far-reaching community, yet they subsist is cultural pockets throughout the world. Philosophy also has rules of engagement which are an accepted form of communication within philosophical circles. Additionally, because the rules used in philosophy tend to inspire thorough and exacting communication, the language of philosophy and the outcomes of philosophical thought are strewn throughout most aspects of higher education and, SADLY, not so much in K-12.

In the last several pages of communication I can see very clearly the dependence that people have on their own ‘DIALECT’. It seems to the ‘belief’ of many (review posts) that a common language means that everyone has a responsibility to understand the cultural and societal aspects that drive every ‘single’ individual’s form of communication. That brings me to RESPONSIBILITY.

Responsibility in communication is the recent issue here. First of all, it seems to have been established (quite in conjunction with the thread’s topic) that people have ‘belief’ that “that a common language means that everyone has a responsibility to understand the cultural and societal aspects that drive every ‘single’ individual’s form of communication. “ Since we cannot possibly know such things, then we must define responsibility in communication from an ethical view.

Ethical communication is part of the philosophical ‘language’ and it includes presenting thorough and straight forward (sorry not PC) presentations and justification – among other things. Many posts and posters have attempted to demonstrate the language of philosophy. Unfortunately (and commonly) due to the ‘belief’ of individuals that their language is ‘common’ and therefore it is the responsibility of everyone else to accept the communication exactly as that person means it, creates an inability to communicate through justification processes.

OK – this is already too long – the point is, the responsibility for solid communication is mutual and it is based on ethical standard that depend on explanation, justification , and of course sincere attentiveness and attempts to understand and question when understanding is evasive.
Creative (as many seem to think) ‘does droll on’ because he is responsibly accepting his role in this communication process. He presents, explains, justifies. The proper response would be either question more, or to present another side, or dismantle his justifications. He then does the same. It’s a banter and in the philosophical world it’s been going on as long as recorded history.

Just wanted to say one more think.

If the justification that holds up an individuals idea, thought, opinion, is offered - there is NO offence on either side.

In philosophy, like science, the whole point is PROVE that one idea is more valid than another.

The ethical nature of communication is NOT attack a communication unjustly and never to attack an individual (though as someone already said) we are emotional beings and that can happen.

So if you have a point MAKE IT and justifiy. If it is not understood by another it SHOULD BE questioned further.

forthright and honest