Almost 80% of philosophy majors favor socialism, poll finds (US)

[Syne]

But an engineer, a philosophy major? Oh, hell no. You’re giving him way too much credit. He’s a just big Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson fan. I’m not quite sure why he’s ripping on the liberal arts, though, because he used to tinker with computer animation.

LOL! SS fell for his straw man about criticizing the liberal arts.
Intellectual dishonesty par excellence.

[Seattle]

Oh no Secure Sanity! You fell for a straw man and maybe a red herring too and intellectual dishonesty!
I'll bet your face is red right about now.

[Syne]

Ah, the cheerleaders for the intellectually dishonest have arrived. The mutual consolation committee.

---

But where, pray tell, did you see "name calling"? O_o
Are you going to be like most here and continually make that accusation without ever backing it up too?

If I couldn't take it, MR would be on my ignore list. Only posters who can't manage to argue the merits of their opinions/claims, at least occasionally, land on my ignore list. So you've got a fair shot, if you bother. So far, I see no reason to care if you do or not. Flip a coin, mate.  


See how well red herrings work when so many people are helping you out?

---

If see that you have a problem with everyone. That's not a good sign. Why are you so misunderstood? That's just not fair.

Name calling? That's everywhere. You referred to me as "talking out of my ass". Unless you were born in a barn (possibility noted) that qualifies along with calling your friends "intellectually dishonest". Wake up and smell the roses, they are everywhere.

We don't really need to know (or care) who is on your "ignore" list. I'd be careful with that, mate, or you'll have no one to name call. 

Just between you and me, you don't have a degree of any kind do you? That's what I thought. That's OK, I still like you but I'm not sure about some of these others (wink, wink).

"Red Herring", everything is one when you don't have an answer, eh mate? Our President is never wrong but everyone else is. I'll invite him in and it will be just you two and your ignore list. G'day Sunshine.

People with unsupported opinions often do have a problem with those with facts. No skin off my nose. Unlike leftists, conservatives can't live in a bubble, for the simple fact that they are constantly inundated with dissenting views in just about any media they imbibe.

Observable facts are not name calling.

"Talking out of your ass" is a common idiom for talking nonsense, which you demonstrated by not being able, or willing, to support your opinions. If you profess to want an intelligent conversation and refuse to give reasons for your opinions (hypocritical*), one can only assume they are only how you "feel" without any further depth worth exploring in discussion.
"Intellectual dishonesty" can be intentional or unintentional, depending on one's self-awareness. But assuming you're capable of simply rereading this relatively short thread, a modicum of self-honesty would inform you that no one has criticized the liberal arts in general. Between that and other straw men, *hypocrisy, poisoning the well, and red herrings, it is an objective fact that you have been intellectually dishonest.

I tell people who can't take disagreement or criticism to put me on ignore all the time. If my posts unsettle you, please, do so post haste. Unlike most people, I'm not looking for validation by being responded to. I can air my views just fine without any response at all. All this circling the wagons about the poster instead of posts gets tedious anyway.

But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, with more poisoning the well and straw men. What question did I not have an answer to? Oh right, that's just another intellectually dishonest tactic.

[Leigha]

Lol Not “cheerleading,” Syne. I just commented that he met you. I’m surprised that you would attack a newbie to the forum so quickly, though.

[Secular Sanity]

Oh no Secure Secular Sanity! You fell for a straw man and maybe a red herring too and intellectual dishonesty!
I'll bet your face is red right about now.

No, not really because it doesn't make sense to me.

LOL! SS fell for his straw man about criticizing the liberal arts.    
Intellectual dishonesty par excellence.

Intellectual dishonesty is deliberate, is it not?

Do you enjoy philosophy, Seattle?

[Syne]

Lol Not “cheerleading,” Syne. I just commented that he met you. I’m surprised that you would attack a newbie to the forum so quickly, though.

You see attack, huh?

---

LOL! SS fell for his straw man about criticizing the liberal arts.    
Intellectual dishonesty par excellence.

Intellectual dishonesty is deliberate, is it not?

No, it can just as readily be unintentional. Just a matter of self-awareness.
Ignorance is no excuse though.

[Seattle]

[quote pid='30253' dateline='1563734157']

People with unsupported opinions often do have a problem with those with facts. No skin off my nose. Unlike leftists, conservatives can't live in a bubble, for the simple fact that they are constantly inundated with dissenting views in just about any media they imbibe.

Observable facts are not name calling.

"Talking out of your ass" is a common idiom for talking nonsense, which you demonstrated by not being able, or willing, to support your opinions. If you profess to want an intelligent conversation and refuse to give reasons for your opinions (hypocritical*), one can only assume they are only how you "feel" without any further depth worth exploring in discussion.
"Intellectual dishonesty" can be intentional or unintentional, depending on one's self-awareness. But assuming you're capable of simply rereading this relatively short thread, a modicum of self-honesty would inform you that no one has criticized the liberal arts in general. Between that and other straw men, *hypocrisy, poisoning the well, and red herrings, it is an objective fact that you have been intellectually dishonest.

I tell people who can't take disagreement or criticism to put me on ignore all the time. If my posts unsettle you, please, do so post haste. Unlike most people, I'm not looking for validation by being responded to. I can air my views just fine without any response at all. All this circling the wagons about the poster instead of posts gets tedious anyway.

But thanks for continuing to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty, with more poisoning the well and straw men. What question did I not have an answer to? Oh right, that's just another intellectually dishonest tactic.  

"Unsupported" opinion is your term for any opinion other than your own. So is "intellectual dishonesty".

I don't put anyone on "ignore". Why be in a discussion forum if you can't even read something that you don't like or disagree with. How insecure is that?

Condescension and arrogance is not the same as intellect and understanding.

Putting people off because you fear that they won't accept you is easily seen though as well. I'm taking my ball and going home is the juvenile version of this tactic.

[Secular Sanity]

Intellectual dishonesty is deliberate, is it not?

No, it can just as readily be unintentional. Just a matter of self-awareness.
Ignorance is no excuse though.

Oh, I see. Often it’s deliberate, but it’s possible to be intellectually dishonest without realizing it, e.g. when you’re lying to yourself.

Well, pot meet kettle.

[Seattle]

Oh no Secure Secular Sanity! You fell for a straw man and maybe a red herring too and intellectual dishonesty!
I'll bet your face is red right about now.

No, not really because it doesn't make sense to me.



Do you enjoy philosophy, Seattle?

Sorry about the typo of your name Secular Sanity. :

I don't really think about philosophy as a dedicated subject, personally, but I have studied the various political philosophies long ago in school (Hume, Burke, Rosseau, Locke, etc).

In terms of the way it is often looked at today, no, I don't enjoy trying to replace science with philosophy as I think those days are pretty much long gone. Of course there is a place for philosophy for those who want to consider the moral implications of technological decisions but that's not something I'm especially interested in.

How about you? Are there aspects of philosophy that you enjoy or find interesting?

[Secular Sanity]

Sorry about the typo of your name Secular Sanity. :

No worries.

I don't really think about philosophy as a dedicated subject, personally, but I have studied the various political philosophies long ago in school (Hume, Burke, Rosseau, Locke, etc).

In terms of the way it is often looked at today, no, I don't enjoy trying to replace science with philosophy as I think those days are pretty much long gone. Of course there is a place for philosophy for those who want to consider the moral implications of technological decisions but that's not something I'm especially interested in.

How about you? Are there aspects of philosophy that you enjoy or find interesting?

Well, I enjoy physics, too. I wouldn't consider myself an intellectual, though. More like a [I'm nobody! Who are you!] type thingy.

And, yes, I like philosophy probably because I enjoy riddles. So, I’m a big Nietzsche fan, of course, but I haven’t been able to find too many people that agree with my interpretation of him, not even some of the feminist philosophers, which is very surprising. I did find one comment on a forum that was very similar to mine, but it was made years ago, and I wasn’t able to track him down.

I’ll give you an example. At the end of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” he says…

“Oh, you higher men, it was to your distress that this old soothsayer foretold yesterday morning—

—to your distress he wanted to seduce and tempt me. Oh, Zarathustra, he said to me, I come to seduce you to your last sin.

“To my last sin?” cried Zarathustra, and laughed scornfully at his own words. “What has been left me now as my last sin?”

—And once more Zarathustra became immersed in himself and sat down on the great stone, and he reflected. Suddenly he jumped to his feet.

“Pity! Pity for the higher men!” he cried, and his face transformed to bronze. “Well then! That —has its time!

His pity for the higher men was his last sin, why?

Anyone know?