FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-2003, 01:23 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW 31 52 24W4
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
It is not pretentious
This is an English forum, and the use of Latin phrases is considered pretentious to the vast majority of English speakers, precisely because English speakers who use Latin tend to think they're superior to those that don't:

Quote:
If you were educated you would have known this term
You may be unaware of this but most of the English speaking population (at least in North America) never takes a single course in Latin or Ancient Greek. This is not because we are uneducated, but because these languages are not considered to be important.

Quote:
if you were gentle you will be using it as a common term for us all
Biff was being very gentle (in my opinion). Again, this is an English language forum. I appreciate that it would be nice if we all knew Latin (or Esperanto) so that we could use it as a common language, but we don't. The closest thing we have is English (which is very convenient for those of us who are native speakers ).
Silent Acorns is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 01:41 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SW 31 52 24W4
Posts: 1,508
Default Re: Re: Re: Tertius non datur

Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
What? Something that is still and caused? Then you're talking about causes without effects
Please explain how lack of movement entails a lack of effect (and thus a lack of cause)? Are you saying that motion is the same thing as an effect? If so, please explain (and don't just say: "what is effect then?").

Quote:
(oops, I apologize for using "pseudo", which is greek and means "false")
Just to educate you a little about English: "Pseudo-" is a perfectly acceptable prefix in English, except that in English in means "apparent as opposed to actual". So in English, "pseudo-cause" means "something that looks like a cause but is not".

Quote:
Plus, you're assuming that in the Universe there are things without motion, which is false.
No I'm not. YOU are assuming that all things are in motion, without stating it explicitly. I merely pointed out an alternativethat you did not consider. Also, what do you mean by "false"? Do you mean that nothing is motionless, or do you mean that the term "motionless" is meaningless in the context of relative frames of reference?

Finally, you never addressed my point about why can't "God" cause something to be still.
Silent Acorns is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 01:41 PM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: an inaccessible island fortress
Posts: 10,638
Default

It is not pretentious, it's a technical term with an actual use.
Perhaps in Spain. To those who speak English it is nothing more than being being pompous

Then, I can't understand why I'm unpolite for using it.
Not impolite, you were just opening yourself up for ridicule.

If you were educated you would have known this term, and if you were gentle you will be using it as a common term for us all, which is neither spanish nor english, instead of accusing me of being a caricature.
I am passably well educated. I've a couple of advanced degrees and am called "Doctor," and not "Mister." I was also decreed a "Gentleman" by an act of the Congress of the United States. So I have the papers to prove that I am one. []
And I was very careful not to call you a caricature; making the assumption that you were only behaving like one through ignorance of English speaking customs. However since you now have been informed of these customs, and the reasons behind them, we can start afresh.
Biff the unclean is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:06 PM   #44
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Not impolite, you were just opening yourself up for ridicule.
I'm ridiculous because I knew this term and you don't? *Laughter* Ok, then why don't you asked me for its sense from the very beginning? What is more ridiculous, me being 'pompous' or you being silent and ignorant of it?

It's blatant that you don't have much to say when you spend plenty of time in ad hominem arguments (hope you know what "ad hominem" means: against the man).

And of course I apologize for my poor english. I'm doing my best and you should make an effort too.

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:16 PM   #45
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 108
Default

Educated people use them all the time! Ever said "et cetera" before?!
cfgauss is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:24 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,597
Default Hmmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by irichc
It's blatant that you don't have much to say when you spend plenty of time in ad hominem arguments (hope you know what "ad hominem" means: against the man).
It's nice to know what the words mean. It's better to be able to use them correctly.

Ad hominem, strictly speaking, is a fallacy of distraction. Appealing to an irrelevant personal characteristic in an attempt to prejudice others against the opinion of another. It is not simple name-calling.

For example, "Susan is ugly" is not an ad hominem argument. "Susan is ugly and therefore her argument is without merit" is an ad hominem argument (unless Susan's alleged lack of beauty was germane to the question).

Alternatively, one might refer to an ad hominem style of argumentation if one were faced with an opponent whose only response to an argument was "you're ugly."

With that said, while I see some jibes that either are or come close to simple name calling, I don't see any ad hominem or even ad hominem style arguments here. I do see several people asking forceful questions (some perhaps a little more "forcefully" than others ) in a passionate style, but I would expect as much in a forum such as this.

I suggest that if you're going to take your opponents to task for knowledge of terminology, you should be careful to ensure that you use it correctly yourself.

Regards,

Bill Snedden
_____________
"There is no god higher than truth." Mohandas Gandhi
Bill Snedden is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:27 PM   #47
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default Re: Hmmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden
"There is no god higher than truth." Mohandas Gandhi
"Whoever seeks the truth is seeking God, whether consciously or unconsciously" (Edith Stein)

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:43 PM   #48
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: an inaccessible island fortress
Posts: 10,638
Default

I'm ridiculous because I knew this term and you don't?
Sigh.
No, I knew the term. And if I didn't I have more than enough reference books here to find out.
The ridiculousness comes from writing to an audience which you know reads English in Latin. A language that, not only does your audience not speak but, no general audience has spoken for fifteen hundred years. Obviously the information you were trying to convey was not a translation of the words but rather "Daniel is smart. Smarter than you." You were kind enough to translate that message when you feared that no one was getting it.

I know full well what ad hominem arguments are. Although you apparently do not. Let's try a Greek word for a change; paranoia.
No one is saying 'you are ridiculous so don't listen to your arguments.' We are saying that your arguments are ridiculous.
I was warning you about the Latin because I thought that you didn't understand that in English it was a comic cliché. That it made you seem like a self important, pretentious person who resorted to artifice instead of intellect, and I didn't think that you were one.

I stand corrected.
Biff the unclean is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 02:54 PM   #49
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Barcelona, Spain
Posts: 425
Default Re: Hmmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Snedden
Ad hominem, strictly speaking, is a fallacy of distraction.
And this latin issue or "Daniel is smarter than you" issue is nothing but a big distraction. By the way, I DON'T write latin, it's just these technical terms are usual in Europe, if used in the right context.

Daniel.
irichc is offline  
Old 01-15-2003, 03:36 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 5,658
Default

irichc:
Quote:
Ok, you have found what "a sensu contrario" means. Now try to understand what "tertius non datur" means.
So, "to sense the opposite" is actually what you meant by "a sensu contrario"? Bizarre. As Feather and Biff both point out, using Latin does not get you any credit around here.

Now, it simply does not follow that "If not A, then not B" that "If A, then B" since there is the option of "If A, then not B." It is not readily apparent what this has to do with your argument, since it does not take this form:

Quote:
If everything which is not A is always not B, then
everything which is A is always B.
In this case, there is not only the possibility that "Everything which is A is always not B", there are also possibilities such as "Some things which are A are not B." It simply does not follow.

Quote:
The essential thing in a still object is being uncaused; therefore, the essential thing in a mobile object has to be the opposite, which is being caused.
Yes, those are your assertions, but they appear to be completely without support. Why can an object not be caused to be still? Why can a mobile object not be uncaused? There appear to be no reasons whatsoever why not, and I assume reason is something you pretend to rather than actually employ.

Quote:
If everything which has colour has light --> everything which has no colour has no light (as far as light is essential to colour).
Finding an example in which your invalid argument form gives a true conclusion would not make it any less invalid, but you have not even managed to do that. Apparently you are unaware that "colour" involves only the visible portion of the spectrum, and that much light is completely devoid of "colour" - ultraviolet light for example.
tronvillain is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.