Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


United States Third Presidential Debate

 
Rhetorical questions are still rhetoric. Claiming that you are only asking a question, while using a pointed question and brushing off the answers that you are being given is still arguing a point. Masking it behind a question and saying that you are not arguing does not enhance your point though, it just make you seem less trustworthy and less worth the time of debate as you are both not engaging in debate and obfuscating your position. If you come saying that you are curious and seeking knowledge, then do not dismiss answers out of hand as unacceptable to you and seek different answers. At least explain why those answers seem incorrect to you, in as clear a manner as you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
Claiming that you are only asking a question, while using a pointed question and brushing off the answers that you are being given is still arguing a point. Masking it behind a question and saying that you are not arguing does not enhance your point though, it just make you seem less trustworthy and less worth the time of debate as you are both not engaging in debate and obfuscating your position.
Also known as trolling...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
Being tautological, that sentence was neither an opinion, nor a position, nor a suggestion. Tautologies are devoid of meaning by their nature.
Lord Ben tried to argue against a tautological sentence, then was surprised when that gave absurd results.
But your sentence was a follow-on to another statement you made. In response to:
If I want to damage my own body, my own physical form, possibly the only thing that we can really own, who is anyone to say otherwise?
you responded with:
Someone who can be trusted with your safety more than you can.
and then followed with:
And if you can't be trusted to take care of yourself, you shouldn't be, either - just like a child.

So, if an adult, who is permitted to make decisions about their own life commits an act which is self-destructive in any way(because at no point in this was the degree of self-destruction specified, so we are looking at a generic act), then somebody else who can be trusted better with your safety should be permitted to stop you, and the person who chose to commit that act of self-destruction should be treated as a child, that is, should have the right to decide for themselves what to do with their life taken away. This is from your own statements. Not questions.
There is nothing tautological about your statement, it is easily understandable as follow-on to your previous statement. Rhetoric, yes. Tautological, no. Because you did not simply repeat your point, you went from can to should. And that is a big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
Rhetorical questions are still rhetoric.
My question was not rhetorical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
Claiming that you are only asking a question, while using a pointed question and brushing off the answers that you are being given is still arguing a point.
My question was not pointed, I was curious why someone would defend freedom even when it conflicted with their sense of self-preservation, a most basic instinct.
I did not brush the answers off. I said, "It's answered my question well enough to get off this tangent". That is not "brushing off the answers", it's the direct opposite: I was admitting the answers are, for the scope of this thread, sufficient and my curiosity has been sated to such a degree that it's not worth further derailing it.

I still consider your five answers sufficient answer to my original question and since then have mostly been trying to fend off accusations that I'm some sort of totalitarian villain bent on world-domination and the eating of puppies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canjowolf View Post
If you come saying that you are curious and seeking knowledge, then do not dismiss answers out of hand as unacceptable to you and seek different answers. At least explain why those answers seem incorrect to you, in as clear a manner as you can.
I did not dismiss the answers as unacceptable. I accepted them, then went on to suggest we get back on topic.

And I will suggest so, again, for the umpteenth time.
Get back on topic.

I think it obvious Ikul is not interested in defending the position. With nobody to defend the position, it's pretty pointless to argue - though I don't object to a further analysis on the subject of freedom and rights, it's not exactly on-topic for this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
My question was not pointed, I was curious why someone would defend freedom even when it conflicted with their sense of self-preservation, a most basic instinct.
If I may refine my answers somewhat, I think it because the desire for freedom is one that trumps even the instinct for self-preservation in certain members of society. I think it's because the self-image of being a free man is so strong that violating it is a fate less tolerable than death. Humans are, after all, not solely ruled by instinct and biology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
I still consider your five answers sufficient answer to my original question and since then have mostly been trying to fend off accusations that I'm some sort of totalitarian villain bent on world-domination and the eating of puppies.
Are you sure? Puppies are, in addition to being adorable, also delicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
If I may refine my answers somewhat, I think it because the desire for freedom is one that trumps even the instinct for self-preservation in certain members of society. I think it's because the self-image of being a free man is so strong that violating it is a fate less tolerable than death. Humans are, after all, not solely ruled by instinct and biology.
I'm curious what your position is on economic class, Solaris, because there's a whole conversation to be had about the restricted freedoms for the poor and working classes in a corporatist society, but it's not much worth having if you're of the opinion that such things don't exist.

I'll say, generally, that if your assertion above is true, then it's fascinating that we've managed to enslave ourselves as a species across multiple cultures within our ideas of work, money, and ownership.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solaris View Post
Are you sure? Puppies are, in addition to being adorable, also delicious.
Possibly because they're adorable?

I don't feel there's much doubt that a truly benevolent, meritocratic dictatorship represents the best possible form of governance.

Unfortunately, such a government has never existed, nor a perfect leader to take its reins; as with communism, human nature is too great an obstacle to their creation and continuity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
I don't feel there's much doubt that a truly benevolent, meritocratic dictatorship represents the best possible form of governance.

Unfortunately, such a government has never existed, nor a perfect leader to take its reins; as with communism, human nature is too great an obstacle to their creation and continuity.
I would be perfectly suited for such a position. I will happily take all the bribes corporate America is willing to give me and spend them on things I find useful. Such as ample supplies of tar and feathers, and stocks, so that the lobby groups that try to argue for their special interests can be adequately repaid. I will happily allow states to secede if they wish to, as long as they pay for the improvements made to the property from its original state. But wait, there's more! For a small additional payment of $9.99, ooops, sorry, wrong source file. Let's go back to the original, and ... what do you mean, file corrupt? I mean, I heard people saying that power corrupts, but this is ridiculous! Oh well, let's end how I started. Pick me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muggie2 View Post
Pick me!
If you have to resort to appeals to a higher authority, you're hardly the right person for a dictatorship job, no matter the degree of benevolence.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status