Politicians - What do we expect? (1 Viewer)

[John The Great]

I'm glad you noticed. It's there because your constant and misplaced references to Neitzsche made me laugh. Oh yeah, and I plan to keep it there for some time.

No. Fuck off. If you want to quote me, then do so.

There is one COLOSSAL problem with this. You have admitted to NOT having read any Nietzsche. So how can You know without having read him, when i have misplaced a reference to Nietzsche?! Perhaps if you ever read him, you will realise the quotes are NOT misplaced. I can have others who have read him comment on the validity of my references if that will help you feel more satisfied. Thus you must be laughing at something else, or your humour is very unconventional. Please stop saying i have misused Nietzsche on other threads as well when as I have stated, you HAVE NOT read any of Nietzsche's works.

 

[nwatts]

There is one COLOSSAL problem with this. You have admitted to NOT having read any Nietzsche. So how can You know without having read him, when i have misplaced a reference to Nietzsche?! Perhaps if you ever read him, you will realise the quotes are NOT misplaced. I can have others who have read him comment on the validity of my references if that will help you feel more satisfied. Thus you must be laughing at something else, or your humour is very unconventional. Please stop saying i have misused Nietzsche on other threads as well when as I have stated, you HAVE NOT read any of Nietzsche's works.

One uses quotes from authoratitive figures to support their argument. Therefore, prior knowledge of their works is not required, but can often be helpful. You cannot turn around and complain to someone who has not read the works of the people you quote, because it is demonstrating your extremely limited ability to argue fluently. Unless you are a shameless troll, I'd advise against the bloated "oh noes you haven't read Nietzsche" rants.

 

[John The Great]

Huh? I haven't heard politician's policy being decribed as theories before. I still don't see where the hell you are pulling the conformity thing from. Could you explain where you get it from (preferably without referring to Neitzsche).

Need I say more.

Um, no. This is what I said.

I didn't say that lack of rule doesn't result in anarchy. However, I did say that anarchy will not result in the destruction of mankind.


1. Members may not harass other members.

2. Harassment involves:

(a) repeated insults towards a particular member or members; and
(b) the insults were made during a period of less than one month; and
(c) the insults would be considered highly offensive, distressing or consistently very annoying by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; and
(d) the insults are consistently unwarranted and unprovoked.

As you can see, I have broken no rules. And I told you to shut up so you would know my position on the quality of your posts.


No, I didn't say that if by life, I mean that I am alive. That statement is a fallacy as it attacks the straw person. Not a particularly sophisticated argument.


Haha, you show me the post where I discussed ANY political theories and I will be duly humbled.

Well if you knew what the definition of disconfirm was, then you would realise where theories came from. Perhaps you can attempt to mock those who use Nietzsche's works, WHEN you have ACTUALLY read any of them.

need i say more. Interesting, would you care to elaborate, as it is evident you have no idea what your talking about. You dont even know the definition of confirmity, hence you can have no ability to try and persuade people to disregard the argument.

"This is what i said". If we analyse what you said in CONTEXT it is clear that you were attempting to disprove and mock the concept that anarchy resulted in the destruction of mankind, evident by your 'haha, the irony', at the beginning. Most likely due to the fact that you are unable to actually argue the point, you attempt to disregard it, and that is use of the straw person. As you should know context is what allows us to view events etc. more objectively, as contemporary beliefs generally prejudice people without justification. This was similar to the argument Marx used to emphasise the importance of Context in anything.

If you wanted me to know your position on my posts, why didnt you just say what you thought with logical explanations. You telling one to 'shut up' in no way enlightens the person as to your position on their posts. That is evidence of Ad Hominem.

Come on. Please do not try and copy that poor excuse of an argument from that ALLEGED Uni student. You have no idea what logic and reason is, so dont butcher it like you have everything else. If you look at the definition of LIFE, the only definition that is appropriate to your context, is that of being alive. Hence you MUST have meant that, or you are butchering the English language again. Thus not attacking the straw person, thus there is NO substantiation for such a claim as 'not a particularly sophisticated argument'.

Your statement that anarchy will not result in the destruction of mankind is poltical science, "However, I did say that anarchy will not result in the destruction of mankind." Thus you are attempting to discuss something you have no knowledge of, as that is political theory, political science.

 

[John The Great]

One uses quotes from authoratitive figures to support their argument. Therefore, prior knowledge of their works is not required, but can often be helpful. You cannot turn around and complain to someone who has not read the works of the people you quote, because it is demonstrating your extremely limited ability to argue fluently. Unless you are a shameless troll, I'd advise against the bloated "oh noes you haven't read Nietzsche" rants.

actually I havent quoted Nietzsche here, but have rather cited theories of his, that constitute entire books! Thus, yes, someone has to have read the book, to understand the thoughts. They cant understand his theories and its details, if they havent read his books. This isnt like getting short quotes of the internet, and just regurgitating them as they have some relevence, without having to understand them. Hence I can make evident how inappropriate it is to try and argue the relevence of books to subjects you have never read. it in No way demonstrates in inability on my behalf to evolve my argument, and such a point is useless in relation to this. Shameless troll? care to elaborate on its relation? What shame exactly is involved in defending the authority of a distinguished man's thoughts and works. This comment only reflects upon your lack of reading and appreciation of such works.

 

[sunjet]

i feel sorry for you.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

i feel sorry for you.

lol don't say that unless you want to hear more Nietzsche quotes -- he wrote a fair bit about pity!

 

[John The Great]

John, I never said you had breached the rules. I draw your attention to the rules because you would have breached them by now had they been in existence in the history forum.

On a side note, I would mention that it is not a defence to breaching the rules that you did so because of religious beliefs. To take an extreme example, if a religion said that it was okay to be excessively racist to black people, that would not excuse you from breaching the racism rules on this forum.

As for the rest of what you said:Fallacy: appeal to authority.
Of course people take Aristotle seriously. But they do not take claims that women are inferior in their mental faculties to men seriously, no matter where they come from.
1. Fallacy: appeal to majority.

2. People may take Christianity or Islam seriously but whether they adhere to the view that women are inferior to men intelligence wise is another matter entirely.That is a vague statement. Are you trying to say there is a basis for believing in those religions? Or are you trying to say there is a basis to believing that women are inferior mentally? The latter is obviously wrong, but even the former I would answer in the negative, though that is an unrelated matter.

You dont learn do you? and thats pretty poor for an alleged Uni student arguing against a year 11 student. It is not a defence? A question was asked, and i answered with reference to the necessary church doctrine. Hence my religious beliefs had nothing to do with it, it was accepted Church doctrine that i used to answer their question, with little to no personal influence.

Fallacy, appeal to authority. I must question your knowledge of this concept. i wasnt arguing when I mentioned church doctrine, i was offering an answer. An answer that was attacked by you with no correct basis for such an attack. You claim they are unfounded, and my views which will not be taken seriously. I however stated that they are indeed the churches doctrine, thus they must be taken seriously, as history has shown. Your really terrible in regards to actual knowledge, as you really appear to have none other than a brief concept of ad hominem and a few other fallacies, and you then use it to try and reject all arguments, and then facts. Sorry, but you CANT deny no matter how you try, that those views are indeed accepted Church Doctrine and philosophy as expounded by Aristotle, and i wasnt actually trying to argue them, but merely stating them as fact for a question's answer. Do they teach you how to distinguish between what is and isnt an argument in that course?

As for not taking their claims on women seriously. You are so ignorant with such an usubstantiated claim. Of course they do. St. Augustine took Aristotle's claim seriously as well as St. Paul's and Timothy, and then so did St. Aquinas and Martin Luther etc. They all took it VERY seriously. Perhaps you dont believe religious doctrine and Canon Law to be serious, but dont confuse your own misconceptions with everybody.

Your next claim is absurd. You say people dont take such beliefs seriously, yet i then state it is part of Church doctrine which is the largest in the world, thus it must be taken very seriously. Yes, religion is generally taken seriously, and thus these views are taken seriously. It is not chance that Christianity is the world's greatest and largest religion. it is its doctrines that have made it so successful, and this includes its doctrines in relation to the women. The same can be said of Islam, which happens to be the second largest religion. It is not the size which determines the seriousness of these doctrines. It is the seriousness substantiation of these doctrines that has resulted in their size. Hence the size of these religions is a result of these doctrines, and i was not appealing to the majority.

People may adhere to religion but not take their doctrine in relation to women seriously. I highly recommend you study History and religion closer before making such an unsubstantiated claim. These views were adhered to very strictly for the entire history of these religions, evident by its theologians, until the current era. That is a vague statement? Your entire arguments are vague. You constantly make unsubstantiated claims, and never really attempt to disprove opposing theories, but to point out fallacies in their argument, which dont detract from the thesis. Of course there is a basis for believing in those religions. There is also a basis for the latter theory. The latter is obviously wrong? thats a VAGUE statement. Where is your basis? There is none. By the way, if you answer the formative in the negative it truly makes evident your amateur nature in philosophy. Despite the apparent lack of intelligence of those who view this website, you people must realise the absurdity in what he just wrote. All philosphers would argue in one way or another that there WAS a basis for religion. Whether that basis was correct etc. is of course a different matter, but they would all acknowledge that there WAS a basis.

 

[King of Helview]

This is silly!

How can that not amount to a personal insult to John but you can remind John rather sternly about the rules when he asked if someone is mentally incapable

That is unfair

 

[withoutaface]

Someone lock this thread now, please, for the sake of the children.

 

[John The Great]

lol don't say that unless you want to hear more Nietzsche quotes -- he wrote a fair bit about pity!

please! Im sure you havent read any Nietzsche. Your comments in relation to the Holocaust are evidence of that.

 

[John The Great]

i feel sorry for you.

ohhh, the slave morality.

 

[John The Great]

I read alot from here but never post but I just have to! As Damage Inc. stated you can't use a 2000 year old book, which I respect and all, to describe what women should or should not do. Our laws are ALOT different now.

This thread has gone a tad off topic though. Interesting read though.

Does that mean we should disregard the 2000+ year old law, of thou shall not kill, etc. which you people seem to rely on so much? Is that law a lot different now? What about adultery and theft etc.?

 

[John The Great]

Firstly, the new testament is all you need to worry about with regards to Christian doctrine.....

Can we really respect anything this person says after this comment?

 

[nwatts]

please! Im sure you havent read any Nietzsche. Your comments in relation to the Holocaust are evidence of that.

Buddy, stop talking.

It's been made clear that no one cares for your adoration of Nietzsche, nor to they feel compelled to research him for the sake of rebuking you. I know enough about him to realise he's not one to be taken seriously, and I'd guess the majority of those you're arguing with are in the same position.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Does that mean we should disregard the 2000+ year old law, of thou shall not kill, etc.

What? What was the point of that?

 

[King of Helview]

Yes Nwatts, no one should take Nietzcshe seriously in the field of morality because you say you know enough about him to not want to take him seriously.

Hmm, shall I prophesise some future comments by Nwatts

I know enough about Jesus to know he has no more relevance to Christianity (Oops, we already had one pretty close to that, my bad)

 

[King of Helview]

Comrade Nathan

The point is that just because the text is freakin' old it doesnt mean we completely disregard it.

Do we disregard the wonder of the pyramids because they are thousands of years old?

Do we throw a vintage bottle of wine out because it is old?

No we dont and this is the case with the writings contained in both Old and New Testament. We dont disregard the laws of the ten commandments because they are 2000+ years old, do we? We still follow many of them formally, ie. Thou shalt not kill and some are followed more informally, either by Christians, not worshipping idols or society, ie. Honour your mother and father

Do you see the point, Comrade?

 

[John The Great]

King of Helview, from my understanding Sirach is from the old testament. Thanks for pointing them out however, i should've been more clearer and stated that i havne't seen anything in the new testament which is critical of women. All things said, similar comments in the new testament may reinforce this view.

I do think that context is important when reading scriptures. If you disregard it, a few of John the Great opinions on rational thinking, capacity to rule can also be applied to males in the Bible (i refer to the bible as you've made reference to it and John has referred to Christian scholars)

Sorry for my lateness in replying to your comment sarah. Perhaps I wasnt clear enough when I wrote St. Paul, however that is the Saul, who then became Paul from the bible. he wrote in 1 Corinthians and other books of the New Teatament about women's subservient roles in christian life and society. The book of Timothy also refers to how women are responsible for sin due to Eve, and that their independence resulted in debauchery etc. that as such, they should only sereve men etc.

Yes context is important, however these stress that for basically any christian context, following Genesis, these doctrines apply. yes some of these quotes can be applied to a very small minority of males, however you are then disregarding the context, and they according to the bible apply for all women.

 

[John The Great]

Buddy, stop talking.

It's been made clear that no one cares for your adoration of Nietzsche, nor to they feel compelled to research him for the sake of rebuking you. I know enough about him to realise he's not one to be taken seriously, and I'd guess the majority of those you're arguing with are in the same position.

Question: I have referred to many other distinguished men, such as Jesus, St. Augustins, Aristotle, St. Paul, Karl Marx, Martin Luther etc. etc. do you not take them seriously as I have mentioned and quoted them? If yes, then who do you take seriously, if anyone?

 

[King of Helview]

I think Nwatts takes his opinion to seriously