74
vjtorley
07/04/2011
1:43 pm
Hi everyone.
I’ve been rather busy, so I haven’t had time to post until now. I’ll be addressing what I see as the key objections, one by one.
For now, I’d like to make one request: can we PLEASE keep this discussion civil. Calling someone a fool, a liar or willfully ignorant tends to create a rancorous atmosphere, so I’d like it to stop. There’s just no need for it.
75
Ilion
07/04/2011
2:06 pm
There is also no “need” for truth, is there?
76
Ilion
07/04/2011
2:14 pm
The demand for “civility” is the demand by Stockholm-syndromed worshippers of “niceness” (and of getting pats on the head from those who despise them) that the worshippers of truth join them in being mental prisoners to those who despise them.
No thanks.
I have *explained* why “intellectually dishonest” is appropriate in the instance. Mr Torley demands that I treat dishonesty as though it were truth. Mr Torley will also later state that this or that materialist is not being intellectually honest – he just won’t directly use the term; he’ll dance around the explicit term, but in the end, he will have made the same accusation, but without backing it up, as I have.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Later, ilion followed up with:
86
Ilion
07/04/2011
3:51 pm
EL: “But what of those who simply, and honestly, disagree with you? ”
But, of course! Simple, honest disagreement falls under option #2 (as listed in post # 70) “lack of understanding” or “lack of prerequisite knowledge.”
EL: “Do you consider the possibility that perhaps they may know something that you don’t, or that they may have spotted a flaw in an argument that you have missed?”
But, of course! Then *my* error would fall under option #2.
But simply asserting a flaw in my argument does not establish a flaw in my argument – all it establishes is the refusal of the asserter to follow the logic and find and acknowledge the truth of the matter.
And:
89
Ilion
07/04/2011
4:05 pm
… to be more precise, his behavior tips the scale from the *presumption* of being honestly mistaken to the knowledge that he is intellectually dishonest.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, since ilion is always right about everything, any "refusal of the asserter" is therefore intellectual dishonesty and not following the logic to find and acknowledge the truth of the matter! None of us have to do any thinking anymore! All we have to do is ask ilion, and all the truth and logic about everything will be revealed! Hallelujah!
Also notice how ilion freaks out and calls torley's request a "demand" and says "No thanks". What a nice little christian he is. LOL
And this is on a site (uncommon descent) that claims to welcome honest, open, "civil" discussion/debate.
If anyone has Stockholm Syndrome, it's all the people (like ilion) who worship a god that is as monstrous, murderous, evil, vicious, malicious, destructive, narcissistic, arrogant, and abusive as the god depicted in the bible.
vjtorley
07/04/2011
1:43 pm
Hi everyone.
I’ve been rather busy, so I haven’t had time to post until now. I’ll be addressing what I see as the key objections, one by one.
For now, I’d like to make one request: can we PLEASE keep this discussion civil. Calling someone a fool, a liar or willfully ignorant tends to create a rancorous atmosphere, so I’d like it to stop. There’s just no need for it.
75
Ilion
07/04/2011
2:06 pm
There is also no “need” for truth, is there?
76
Ilion
07/04/2011
2:14 pm
The demand for “civility” is the demand by Stockholm-syndromed worshippers of “niceness” (and of getting pats on the head from those who despise them) that the worshippers of truth join them in being mental prisoners to those who despise them.
No thanks.
I have *explained* why “intellectually dishonest” is appropriate in the instance. Mr Torley demands that I treat dishonesty as though it were truth. Mr Torley will also later state that this or that materialist is not being intellectually honest – he just won’t directly use the term; he’ll dance around the explicit term, but in the end, he will have made the same accusation, but without backing it up, as I have.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Later, ilion followed up with:
86
Ilion
07/04/2011
3:51 pm
EL: “But what of those who simply, and honestly, disagree with you? ”
But, of course! Simple, honest disagreement falls under option #2 (as listed in post # 70) “lack of understanding” or “lack of prerequisite knowledge.”
EL: “Do you consider the possibility that perhaps they may know something that you don’t, or that they may have spotted a flaw in an argument that you have missed?”
But, of course! Then *my* error would fall under option #2.
But simply asserting a flaw in my argument does not establish a flaw in my argument – all it establishes is the refusal of the asserter to follow the logic and find and acknowledge the truth of the matter.
And:
89
Ilion
07/04/2011
4:05 pm
… to be more precise, his behavior tips the scale from the *presumption* of being honestly mistaken to the knowledge that he is intellectually dishonest.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Well, since ilion is always right about everything, any "refusal of the asserter" is therefore intellectual dishonesty and not following the logic to find and acknowledge the truth of the matter! None of us have to do any thinking anymore! All we have to do is ask ilion, and all the truth and logic about everything will be revealed! Hallelujah!
Also notice how ilion freaks out and calls torley's request a "demand" and says "No thanks". What a nice little christian he is. LOL
And this is on a site (uncommon descent) that claims to welcome honest, open, "civil" discussion/debate.
If anyone has Stockholm Syndrome, it's all the people (like ilion) who worship a god that is as monstrous, murderous, evil, vicious, malicious, destructive, narcissistic, arrogant, and abusive as the god depicted in the bible.
