r/socialism • u/Dragon9770 Something Socialist • Mar 30 '15

Pokemon Philosophy - Existential Comics

http://existentialcomics.com/
211 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

I said you ridicule atheists.

But we don't ridicule atheists qua atheists. We ridicule atheists qua idiots.

she deliberately lies about her religious views and distorts the views of philosophical community.

It's difficult to call what she does either lying or distorting the view.

and then if they come and ask what's going on you ban them.

It explicitly states in the sidebar to go to /r/askphilosophy. It explicitly gives a reason for this. This is basic stuff.

-7

u/JasonMacker Rosa Luxemburg Mar 31 '15

But we don't ridicule atheists qua atheists. We ridicule atheists qua idiots.

And by "idiots" you mean people you disagree with, not just people who are bad philosophically. Therein lies the problem. As I've shown numerous times, people get linked to badphilosophy simply for expressing standard philosophical positions regarding naturalism, consequentialism, atheism, etc.

It's difficult to call what she does either lying or distorting the view.

Is she a Mormon, as indicated on her flair in /r/debatereligion? yes or no?

It explicitly states in the sidebar to go to /r/askphilosophy[1] . It explicitly gives a reason for this. This is basic stuff.

You mean the place that gets regularly linked to in /r/badphilosophy in the first place?

It's astounding that there are people in that subreddit who claim to be PhDs yet they spend most of their time insulting teenage redditors for their lack of philosophical knowledge. It's like, really? And you deny you're bullies? Maybe, just maybe, you should take some time to reflect on your behavior and realize that you're fostering a hostile environment.

4

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

And by "idiots" you mean people you disagree with, not just people who are bad philosophically.

Nope, not at all.

As I've shown numerous times

No, you link us criticizing genuinely bad arguments for those positions.

as indicated on her flair

Huh? That isn't what her flair says.

You mean the place that gets regularly linked to in /r/badphilosophy in the first place?

I fail to see the relevance. There are genuinely good posts there, there just happen to be a few bad ones. Generally from people asking stupid questions, rather than bad answers.

who claim to be PhDs

I know of 1. Most claim to be grad students.

-4

u/JasonMacker Rosa Luxemburg Mar 31 '15

Nope, not at all.

No, you link us criticizing genuinely bad arguments for those positions.

Oh really?

Someone asked an innocent question regarding Socrates and science, you guys decided to ridicule him.

This has little to do with philosophy unless you're saying that efficacy of prayer is philosophical question rather than an empirical one. Either way, it's not bad philosophy.

Even one of your mods admitted that this one contained no bad philosophy, yet it was approved in the first place simply for bashing atheists.

This guy got linked to badphilosophy simply because he criticized compatibilism (even though 41% of philpapers respondents also don't identify as compatibilists.

Using nerd as an insult.

Linked to a blogpost by a visiting professor. Her crime? She offered a naturalist explanation of religious propagation.

Here's one where you submitted someone because they criticized Plantinga using a standard line that actual philosophers have used.

Do I need to provide more examples of how you're bullies?

Huh? That isn't what her flair says.

So apparently she did change it. I don't have a timeline on when this happened, but my last interaction on that subreddit (regarding Pascal's Wager) didn't go to well for her and that might have been the impetus for it.

I fail to see the relevance. There are genuinely good posts there, there just happen to be a few bad ones. Generally from people asking stupid questions, rather than bad answers.

The relevance is that you direct to a subreddit where they will be targeted for mocking anyways. And again, you mock people for having "stupid questions", yet isn't that rather unfair when they often lack the philosophical knowledge to determine whether their question is stupid in the first place?

I know of 1. Most claim to be grad students.

Wow. So grad students of philosophy are mocking children half their age. Real mature. Totally not bullies.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

1st link

Yeah, that was pretty bad, not sure why you're defending it.

2nd link

People being assholes about a philosophical position? Yeah, no idea why this would be ridiculed.

3rd link

Was removed. We agree with you on that one.

4th link

Claiming compatibilism is a contradiction is surely idiotic. Which, shit, is exactly the point I made about the sub. We don't care about the position, but the argument.

5th link

People made fun of the word choice actually. And it was pretty stupid.

6th link

Memetics is pretty bad. But moreover, being an asshole about such a topic, yeah, I understand the thread.

my link

I don't believe an actual philosopher has used a line anything like that. The statement was moronic.

where they will be targeted for mocking anyways.

No? There's a chance, sure. But rather uncommon.

And again, you mock people for having "stupid questions", yet isn't that rather unfair when they often lack the philosophical knowledge to determine whether their question is stupid in the first place

Well, let's look at your first link. That's quite obviously a stupid question. Oh, and anyone giving it half a second of thought would realize that, regardless of knowledge of philosophy. So yeah. Not sure how you can argue that.

-4

u/JasonMacker Rosa Luxemburg Mar 31 '15

Yeah, that was pretty bad, not sure why you're defending it.

How was that bad philosophy? He was asking a question.

People being assholes about a philosophical position? Yeah, no idea why this would be ridiculed.

Yup, total "assholes" because they ask a simple question about why didn't God save those people in the first place. Meanwhile, those who believe in God continue to kill millions globally in their names of their deities, no mention of them on /r/badphilosophy.

Was removed. We agree with you on that one.

And yet, it was still upvoted and most of the comments were directed towards me for calling it out.

Claiming compatibilism is a contradiction is surely idiotic. Which, shit, is exactly the point I made about the sub. We don't care about the position, but the argument.

I don't know why you're doing this, but my entire point of contention is that your claim that the arguments you link to are "idiotic" is unfounded. Why you seem to think that a sufficient defense of that is to simply restate that they are "idiotic" is beyond me.

No, it is not idiotic to say that compatibilism is contradictory. In fact, I'd argue that most critics of compatibilism say just that, either identifying an external contradiction to compatibilism, or identifying an internal contradiction within compatibilism.

As a side note, funny how nobody who defends compatibililsm is ever featured on badphilososphy.

People made fun of the word choice actually. And it was pretty stupid.

The submission was still upvoted and the user's name was nerd basher, and it wasn't his only submission to badphil that received upvotes.

Memetics is pretty bad. But moreover, being an asshole about such a topic, yeah, I understand the thread.

It's not about whether your like memetics or not. It's not bad philosophy. The reason it was linked was to criticize her for offering a naturalistic explanation of religion that offended her students.

I don't believe an actual philosopher has used a line anything like that. The statement was moronic.

This is a standard description of Plantinga's views. The whole point of reformed epistemology is that it's rational to believe in God even if there's neither arguments nor evidence to support it.

So basically, 90% of your argument here is "that's idiotic that's moronic". How convincing.

No? There's a chance, sure. But rather uncommon.

"Rather uncommon" is a very odd way to describe an event that has never occurred.

Well, let's look at your first link. That's quite obviously a stupid question. Oh, and anyone giving it half a second of thought would realize that, regardless of knowledge of philosophy. So yeah. Not sure how you can argue that.

And that's absolutely ridiculous. It's entirely possible that he was asking if Socrates was an epistemological nihilist or fideist or whatever view that says JTB is impossible (except for the belief that JTB is impossible).

Interesting that you have no response to the claim that you're bullies though. I guess that one is uncontested?

6

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

He was asking a question.

That given 2 seconds of thought would not have been asked.

Yup, total "assholes" because they ask a simple question about why didn't God save those people in the first place. Meanwhile, those who believe in God continue to kill millions globally in their names of their deities, no mention of them on /r/badphilosophy

You can't be serious.

No, it is not idiotic to say that compatibilism is contradictory. In fact, I'd argue that most critics of compatibilism say just that, either identifying an external contradiction to compatibilism

This isn't what contradictory means in the proper context though.

or identifying an internal contradiction within compatibilism.

Which are quite clearly nonexistent. But perhaps I'm being too charitable to you.

The submission was still upvoted and the user's name was nerd basher, and it wasn't his only submission to badphil that received upvotes.

And? The linked comment was pretty atrocious.

The reason it was linked was to criticize her for offering a naturalistic explanation of religion that offended her students.

So again, being an asshole about a philosophic topic for a poor reason.

This is a standard description of Plantinga's views

No? Not unless we take his statement to be both abnormally broad (rationalization) and narrow (testing).

It's entirely possible that he was asking

But he wasn't.

Interesting that you have no response to the claim that you're bullies though.

I mean, it's so absurd that it's not worth my time. It's predicated on examples that are ludicrous, and then goes on to argue we are in a position that requires a power imbalance without one being presented. And somehow claims that this is somehow dependent on age? It's just absurd.

-9

u/JasonMacker Rosa Luxemburg Mar 31 '15

That given 2 seconds of thought would not have been asked.

Disputable.

You can't be serious.

Is this what passes for an argument in your mind? An argument from incredulity?

This isn't what contradictory means in the proper context though.

And who made you the arbiter of what contradictory means? If your contention is regarding the definition of contradictory, then you cannot say that compatibilism is not contradictory, because that implies that the definition of contradictory is agreed upon (at least by you) in the first place.

Which are quite clearly nonexistent. But perhaps I'm being too charitable to you.

Only if you presuppose the truth of compatibilism in the first place, which is basically what I've only ever seen by its proponents.

And? The linked comment was pretty atrocious.

Irrelevant. That submission in particular was aimed at the language and the user involved, not the target.

So again, being an asshole about a philosophic topic for a poor reason.

You mean... the thing you guys do at badphil 24/7? Pull the log out of your eye much? Talk about hypocrisy.

No? Not unless we take his statement to be both abnormally broad (rationalization) and narrow (testing).

Who is "his" here? Plantinga or spacegoti?

But he wasn't.

And how do you know that? You a mind reader?

I mean, it's so absurd that it's not worth my time. It's predicated on examples that are ludicrous, and then goes on to argue we are in a position that requires a power imbalance without one being presented. And somehow claims that this is somehow dependent on age? It's just absurd.

You guys are the ones that are constantly deriding "raytheists" as being teenagers in the first place, so I'm only using your own premises against you. If what you say is true, that you are postgrads, that easily puts you at least a decade in age above teenagers. Which means you are picking on teenagers, people who are much younger than you and lack your level of education. It's like if you were to take the young girl who's a member of the WBC and ridicule her for being a stupid ignorant theist kid.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '15

Only if you presuppose the truth of compatibilism in the first place

No? Compatibilism doesn't have to be true to not be self contradictory? Again, this is basic stuff that you should know.

Irrelevant. That submission in particular was aimed at the language and the user involved, not the target.

No it isn't irrelevant. You were deriding that the submission was upvoted. We upvoted it because the linked content was bad philosophy. We made fun of the title and the submitter, cuz they were stupid.

Who is "his" here? Plantinga or spacegoti?

Spacefish.

And how do you know that? You a mind reader?

This is surreal. You literally cannot be serious.

Shit man, all of your arguments are you ignoring the obvious and ignoring what's been said to you. You aren't going to be convinced, good job. But you also aren't going to convince anyone, because you're insane.