Sanctimonious Keyboard warriors Watch

IFondledAGibbon
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#61
Report 7 years ago
#61
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Yes, you not giving to charity doesn't mean that the argument of giving to charity becomes invalid. It just means that you therefore aren't the right person to go around lecturing others about doing it. If you say murder is wrong than kill someone, it doesn't mean people should go out and kill. But it does mean that you therefore can't take the moral high ground, as you yourself are now immoral.

An ad hominem would be if I was a political figure saying taxes need to be raised, and someone went well he didn't pay his taxes a couple of years back. The fact it is, it would have been a mistake from my past that has now been rectified and is therefore irrelevant to the argument now. However, if I was a political leader protesting the ill treatment of ethnic minorities, than it was discovered I was actually the member of a racist organisation, it would be relevant because it would mean me arguing in favour of it would be invalid and hypocritical, the argument itself however would remain valid, but would have to be voiced by someone who has a much more savory character.
So what's your point? [As you said] their arguments aren't weakened, and almost all the people you mentioned are doing more for their cause than you are. Just because you don't preach about something doesn't make you a “better” person. At least raising awareness about certain issues is something, better than crying on an internet forum about people even if you accept that their arguments are often right.
0
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#62
(Original post by IFondledAGibbon)
So what's your point? [As you said] their arguments aren't weakened, and almost all the people you mentioned are doing more for their cause than you are. Just because you don't preach about something doesn't make you a “better” person. At least raising awareness about certain issues is something, better than crying on an internet forum about people even if you accept that their arguments are often right.
Whose crying mate? Your arguments ****, and you know it makes no sense. I've explained to you countless times how its an awful argument and can't be asked to do so again.
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#63
Report 7 years ago
#63
(Original post by sammynorton90)
Don't talk to me about relevance of arguments. Both your examples to try and prove your point have been irrelevant and illogical.
You have been soundly defeated logically and morally. Someone who has to resort to digging up someone's post history and ad hominem attacks has already lost any credibility they may or may not have had at the start of any given debate.
0
reply
StephenP91
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#64
Report 7 years ago
#64
(Original post by Cicerao)
And then I just chundered EVERYWHARR.
I love that video in your signature.
0
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#65
Report 7 years ago
#65
(Original post by hunagdi)
It's hypocritical, but it doesn't mean she isn't right or does not have the right to criticise. Who is superior: the Hypocrite who sees the truth, or the immoral person who doesn't but dislikes being told what he is doing is wrong?
There's no such thing as a truth.
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#66
Report 7 years ago
#66
(Original post by Stratos)
There's no such thing as a truth.
That's philosophically disputable. But what about empirical truths? Do they exist then?
0
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#67
Report 7 years ago
#67
(Original post by hunagdi)
That's philosophically disputable. But what about empirical truths? Do they exist then?
that's also philosophically disputable
0
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#68
Report 7 years ago
#68
(Original post by Stratos)
that's also philosophically disputable
Haha, everything is disputable in philosophy, but I want your opinions.
0
reply
sammynorton90
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#69
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#69
(Original post by hunagdi)
You have been soundly defeated logically and morally. Someone who has to resort to digging up someone's post history and ad hominem attacks has already lost any credibility they may or may not have had at the start of any given debate.
Not really. I've defeated you and found flaws in every single one of your arguments and don't wish to continue an argument with you as you are quite clearly a moron. That fact that you're a philosophy student is worrying, as it suggests to me the entry level requirements must be really low at the moment to allow a cretin like you onto the course. Don't bother responding to me. You're arguments are repetitive and illogical.
0
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#70
Report 7 years ago
#70
(Original post by hunagdi)
Haha, everything is disputable in philosophy, but I want your opinions.
Well I often have two states of truths 1;the acceptance of the world being real hence accepting empirical truths, rational truths as just being true instead of disputing their validity and the imperfection of human senses

2; arguing as a solipsist perception where we can only validate through the 3 maxims of logic, tautology and nihilism, hence being my more darker perception of truths.

On empirical truths such as 'grass is green because I perceive it being green I would say that it's according to my own perception and no more true universally and only valid subjectively hence I can only argue for myself that something is green and not for someone else, e.g. with truths the same goes that it's only according to the individual and not universally.
1
reply
hunagdi
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#71
Report 7 years ago
#71
(Original post by sammynorton90)
You're arguments are repetitive and illogical.
Says the person that resorts to ad hominem attacks and digging up post history.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (129)
38.62%
No - but I will (19)
5.69%
No - I don't want to (25)
7.49%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (161)
48.2%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise