Reply With Quote
Really? I'd like to see the data points behind that conclusion. My bad. You bad you don't have any.
lol vacuum conclusions.
Ask your family of educators what "moving the goalposts" means.
.....or you can google it.
Right, that's why you're not explaining it.The video has information within that will present to you the scientific case for the existence of God. If I were to explain it, it might very well be beyond your capability to even understand.
Lol.
Really? I'd like to see the data points behind that conclusion. My bad. You bad you don't have any.
lol vacuum conclusions.
It's not deceitful; it just at a trollish edge to it when you didn't do what you were supposed to. Your was wrong. I told you to look it up, expecting to you see the sub definition earlier. Finding that didn't make you right, since you were using 'categorical' in a context to which the sub definition doesn't apply. If your point was, "I can use 'categorical' because it can mean "of categories"," that would be one thing. However, your point was "'categorical imperative' means what I think it does because 'categorical' means "of categories". That's wrong and was easily refuted by looking the term up. I could have said, "Sure, 'categorical' CAN mean "of categories" in a limited number of cases, but it almost always means "absolute"." But what would that have done for the conversation? Your take was still wrong, for multiple reasons. Telling you about the sub definition (which you would have found out easily by looking it up when I said to) would have only made you think your understanding of the CI was correct.
I have my degrees for better or worse. But I don't think you've done anything but try to spin your way out of the fact that you had no arguments and relied on your misunderstanding of other people to build your attack. Not particularly convinced you even know what you meant anymore.claiming to have 3 degrees when you're getting your ass handed to you
Last edited by Chinook; 11-01-2014 at 08:41 PM.
Pretty much the exact critique atheists give for theists.
But I haven't done any gymnastics, since the last half of the thread has been Fuzzy going off like a top about stupid things and demanding I address them.
post, man. You tried to pop into a thread a while ago asking me the same questions I had answered from other posters and going off about the universe. I gave my response and you completely ignored it and repeated your argument. After a couple of rounds of that, I left you alone and didn't hear from you until this thread, where you rehashed those points. I told you the answers were in that previous thread, and you spent a few pages insisting that I give you them here. Eventually I did, but you apparently didn't see them and went about attaching arguments to me and telling me to defend them. I tried to explain that those arguments had nothing to do with what I was saying, but you kept demanding that I address them.
Yes. I looked it up when you first used 'categorical imperative' wrongly. I wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaken before I called you out. That was a courtesy to you by not wanting to waste your time on a misunderstanding on my part. I don't tell people they're wrong unless I firmly believe they are. So I saw the sub definition and knew it didn't apply in this case, but I still checked multiple sources to make sure. I told you to look it up, which would have led to you all that sooner. Then you would have tried to tout the sub definition and we could have taken care of that right there. But you refused to, which was hilarious because I knew what you'd find.Same thing with the defintion of category. Chinook at the end here claims he knew what the definition was the entire time and at the same time knew that I knew but for two days he was calling me an idiot and how I should look up categorical in the dictionary.
, you seem to have looked it up anyway, but only so far as typing it into Google and seeing the main definition. So you started arguing with me on the basis of etymology. Again, that was a wrong-headed attack, because it didn't validate your original point at all. You argued on a lot of bases, and they were all incorrect. It was hilarious to see that knowing that the sub definition was there, even though it didn't apply to this case.
I gave you the definition of the second entry and told you a dictionary shouldn't be required to understand wtf a suffix means. I would then point out that the two definitions were not mutually exclusive considering it had been past down since Ari and the Greeks.
You repeatedly stated that category wasn't the adjective form of category and then produced categorized as the real definition and kept on telling me to look at a dictionary. That went on for two days until a few people chimed in that because I had not produced an alternate definition that I was wrong.
I put up the definition and now you are saying that you really meant my original argument that it was from the greek's and that it was the adjective.
So you go from
not adjective ----------------> I knew it was the adjective,
not the same as the greek form ----------------------> It's been the same word since ancient greek.
it doesn't say that it is the adjective of category in the dictionary look it up --------------------------> I know it said that in the dictionary.
It will also have to be for worse. As I stated before if you indeed do have a philosophy degree then your demonstrable knowledge of philosophy shows you didn't deserve it.
You have only a google search level knowledge of aquinas, kant, aristotle, descartes, and sartre; and it's obvious.
What do not mutually exclusive mean, dissembling prick?
While not all trolling is deceitful, it certainly does not preclude it. This is the same semantic gymnastics you were doing in the "it doesn't mean 'of categories' it means 'absolute' of whatever it was you googled up."
Your doing the same ing thing again, sophist dissembling piece of .
It meant the same thing back then as well. But that wasn't the point. 'Categorical Imperative' doesn't mean "an imperative to put things into categories". It never meant that.
It's not really the adjectival form of 'category'. It's a possible form, but it's rarely used in that sense now, which is why that sub definition for 'categorical' is the sub definition and not even in some entries. Anyway, 'categorized'/'categorizing' made more sense for what you were talking about anyway, since you were talking about an imperative to put things into categories and not an imperative that was divided into categories (which is how that sub definition is used if you didn't look it up).You repeatedly stated that category wasn't the adjective form of category and then produced categorized as the real definition and kept on telling me to look at a dictionary. That went on for two days until a few people chimed in that because I had not produced an alternate definition that I was wrong.
Um, that's not what I said... I said that your initial point was wrong and the sub definition was nothing more than a weak loophole. You were arguing about a specific use of 'categorical'; therefore, you can't claim victory because the term can mean something else in another context.I put up the definition and now you are saying that you really meant my original argument that it was from the greek's and that it was the adjective.
It was always an adjective meaning "absolute, unchanging".not adjective ----------------> I knew it was the adjective,
Never said it wasn't the same. I said that I didn't know/think Kant was borrowing from Aristotle. But yes, the term is that old, just like the 'testicle'/'testimony' split is older than their English uses.not the same as the greek form ----------------------> It's been the same word since ancient greek.
Pretty much the gray area of the whole thing. It means "of categories" in a limited range, but not in the range you were using. At best you were technically right but mainly wrong. You did misuse the term, though you could have used it correctly in a different context.it doesn't say that it is the adjective of category in the dictionary look it up --------------------------> I know it said that in the dictionary.
t will also have to be for worse. As I stated before if you indeed do have a philosophy degree then your demonstrable knowledge of philosophy shows you didn't deserve it.
Yeah, because you not getting the point of Kant's moral philosophy really demonstrates how well you've grasped his work.You have only a google search level knowledge of aquinas, kant, aristotle, descartes, and sartre; and it's obvious.
Why the do you keep saying "do" when you should be saying "does"? It's getting annoying. I already said that it means two things don't overlap. Why do you keep bringing that up?
Yeah, because that sub definition really validated your interpretation of Kant's work. That wasn't gymnastics. You were wrong and would have found that out easily had you just looked it up. Telling you to look something up is hardly deceitful, since you actually needed to do that.While not all trolling is deceitful, it certainly does not preclude it. This is the same semantic gymnastics you were doing in the "it doesn't mean 'of categories' it means 'absolute' of whatever it was you googled up."
Not really. I'm already accepting that I was a little disingenuous. I could have told you what you wanted to hear, but that would not have made a difference to the point of the thread. You actually looking up the CI instead of thinking you knew/know what it means would have.Your doing the same ing thing again, sophist dissembling piece of .
It meant the same thing back then as well. But that wasn't the point. 'Categorical Imperative' doesn't mean "an imperative to put things into categories". It never meant that.
It's not really the adjectival form of 'category'. It's a possible form, but it's rarely used in that sense now, which is why that sub definition for 'categorical' is the sub definition and not even in some entries. Anyway, 'categorized'/'categorizing' made more sense for what you were talking about anyway, since you were talking about an imperative to put things into categories and not an imperative that was divided into categories (which is how that sub definition is used if you didn't look it up).
Um, that's not what I said... I said that your initial point was wrong and the sub definition was nothing more than a weak loophole. You were arguing about a specific use of 'categorical'; therefore, you can't claim victory because the term can mean something else in another context.
It was always an adjective meaning "absolute, unchanging".
Never said it wasn't the same. I said that I didn't know/think Kant was borrowing from Aristotle. But yes, the term is that old, just like the 'testicle'/'testimony' split is older than their English uses.
Pretty much the gray area of the whole thing. It means "of categories" in a limited range, but not in the range you were using. At best you were technically right but mainly wrong. You did misuse the term, though you could have used it correctly in a different context.
Yeah, because you not getting the point of Kant's moral philosophy really demonstrates how well you've grasped his work.
Goddamn, rogues just annihilating lib s left and right
Never learned; never cared.
At this point, you've played both sides of this, so I have no idea what you're even laughing at here.
Oh, so you're back to being skeptical. It's always been a "take it or leave it" sort of thing. I was just pointing out that I wasn't whipping that out for this thread.
Yeah, you've yet to say anything on this. I guess you mean that your term was right because the CI can mean something more than what Kant said?
dp
What was my original interpretation?
Indeed it did.
No. That was always wrong. Kant didn't use 'categorical' in that sense. He meant it contrast to 'hypothetical', hence why he also spoke about 'hypothetical imperatives'. The word his used was 'kategorischer', which means "flat(est)."
You also misunderstood Kantian dualism. It was a division between the real and perceived, not between extremes. You used the argument as an excuse to continue thinking that atheism and theism were on a continuum.
What do not mutually exclusive mean?
I didn't say it was on a continuum. What I said was that you have it as this binary bull and not even not on a continuum. You cannot even dumb it down anymore.
You want to discuss topology some more?
Kant used virtues like humility; Aristotle used virtues like love and good. You are out of your depth Dr. Philosophy.
You gonna let me in on the joke, here? Kant didn't mean the term that way, nor did he base his philosophy on that. You have no room to claim CI means what you think. In fact:
http://translate.google.com/translat...ch&prev=search
German wiki on what 'kategorischer' means. No "of categories" there.
It is binary, because that's what the words mean. It doesn't make sense to put it on a continuum, just like it doesn't make sense to put 'aerobic' and 'anaerobic' on one. You've never once demonstrated why those two ideas are not complimentary.I didn't say it was on a continuum. What I said was that you have it as this binary bull and not even not on a continuum. You cannot even dumb it down anymore.
Why would I want to do that? That was a stupid diversion which added nothing to the conversation.You want to discuss topology some more?
What does that have to do with anything? They both used 'virtues', so now they have to use all the same words? That's just stupid reasoning.
We can define oxygen in terms of atomic mass and the like. Conflating an atom with your construct of a decision is fun I guess.
We are back where we started and I am not going to argue with an intellectually dishonest ass like yourself in good faith.
Here's another translation:
http://translate.google.com/translat...ch&prev=search
You're pretty dumb. I overestimated your intelligence. You not understanding something does not make it stupid.
Go go with google doctorate of philosophy!
Just admit you're wrong. Kant clearly didn't mean 'categorical' the way you did. There's no evidence for it. I've searched about ten German dictionary sites to find an example of it meaning "of categories", but I don't see one. If anything, it was the English translators that allowed this confusion, although only a few people like you misunderstood it.
Now all you can say do is lob an ad homenim because you lack evidence. Fun.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
