quote
follow
|
29-04-2014 i don’t see it as complaining in the sense as you do i.e. pointless, if i understand you correctly. it is a complaint, or rather an objection to your post for the reason that philosophy in a sense is a means to understand problems and solve them if they can be solved. i would rather see problems presented and your solutions to the problem, it would make your philosophy more interesting and complete, my opinion....It only means that every change that ever hapenned was predetermined... predetermined by what or whom? what is the cause for change in a deterministic view? if humans are not able to effect change {if im interpreting this correctly} then what is your point in posting my point is that its a fundamental problem in human society and its rarely noticed as a problem and has became a pseudo science in modern times and viable evidence in not needed for there theory’s presented to the public. you should of got a degree in sociology or something. |
[ link ] |
29-04-2014
i don’t see it as complaining in the sense as you do i.e. pointless, if i understand you correctly it is very simply coming here and saying 'i don't like what you're saying' without contesting the essense of it with any counter-arguments. please educate yourself on what determinism means http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Philosophical-Determinism my point is that its a fundamental problem in human society psychology is a fundamental problem in our society? i bet before this science emerged things were much better in the world? why singling out psychology? physics, chemistry, biology were also used to harm humans (that's with regards to your 'stalin used behaviorism' point). i don't see experimental psychology as pseudo-science. and i am not quoting someone's opinions as proofs of something. you should of got a degree in sociology or something and you should have studied grammar better before teaching others what they should do |
|
29-04-2014 my objections i.e. counter arguments.ob•jec•tion (Й™bЛ?dК’Й›k КѓЙ™n) n. 1. a reason or argument offered in opposition. it is very simply coming here and saying 'i don't like what you're saying' without contesting the essense of it with any counter-arguments. i didn’t say that. its also a straw man straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.) ...and you should have studied grammar better before teaching others what they should do... ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2012/01/24/15-famous-thinkers-who-couldnt-spell/ this also applies to grammar psychology is a fundamental problem in our society? i bet before this science emerged things were much better in the world? why singling out psychology? physics, chemistry, biology were also used to harm humans (that's with regards to your 'stalin used behaviorism' point). point taken |
[ link ] |
30-04-2014
Fallacies apply when one is trying to dismentile opponent's arguments. But you have provided no arguments and in case you didn't understand - that was my last message to you, not a discussion. All you said was my philosophy was lacking solutions (not wrong in and of itself), and that I should have studied a different science. You behave like an arrogant prick and calling a prick - a prick is no fallacy. You're not interesting, go away. |
|
29-04-2014 i bet before this science emerged things were much better in the world? are you implying that the world was worse before then that means its getting better. is that an optimistic sentiment? |
|
30-04-2014 why singling out psychology?because it oppresses people |
|
10-05-2014 so do you block everyone who disagrees or makes objections to your pseudo philosophy?and edit what i said to your needs? how pathetic |
Comments to The negatives of positivity (video)