Re: Why the Nosferatu LOVE?

On Dec 26, 3:25 pm, zoramu...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 dec, 18:39, jwjbwhe...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I don't need to prove you wrong. Because I am not trying to/interested
in 'winning' any argument here.

I might prefer it if you were.  But my point stands.  I don't agree
with the idea that I have any obligation to promise opponents that I
may change my mind.

Ah. There we have a fundamental difference between me and you.
I like to have discussions in which all participants try to broaden
the other's perspective as much as possible, where all are totally
willing to (perhaps) change their minds. I.e. no one starts out
thinking they're "right", just that they have a current view of what's
right, which may be wrong.

I already told you that I do not consider myself infallible, and
reserve for myself the right, but do not acknowledge the obligation,
to change my mind. I'm not sure why this is insufficient for you.

You on the other hand see a discussion as a contest, something that
needs to be 'won'.

Hmm. To some extent, yes -- But more fundamentally, I regard a
discussion as a process for obtaining the truth. It is for this
reason that I to some extent regard discussions as contests worth
winning, and, sometimes, as contests worth losing.

I don't agree that it is a sin to say that I am right, and that others
are wrong.  Nor do I agree that expressing real opinions (that you
actually believe are correct) has the effect of leaving no room for
discussion.  In fact I believe that the reverse is true.  If all
opinions are equally correct (the OP actually said this) then
discussion is pointless.

I fully disagree with that. If there is no actual fact, i.e. no
possible scientific proof of one 'truth' or the other, than I believe
all opinions are, inherently, equally correct.

All fact, including scientific fact, is inherently unprovable, until
and unless certain starting assumptions are taken on faith. Even a
scientist must assume that there is some validity to human
observation, before the scientific method may be applied. Similarly,
starting moral assumptions are required for all moral beliefs and
moral reasoning. This does not mean that meaningful belief is
impossible. It is not impossible to take certain starting assumptions
on faith.

And because no-one can
ever be proven as holding the 'truth', it's easily possible to change
one's mind from one opinion to another. Thinking in terms of right/
correct and wrong/incorrect kills that kind of thinking.

Not at all. A person who believes he is right today, can easily
believe he was wrong yesterday ... or two minutes ago. On the other
hand, a person who disbelieves in the possibility of truth is truly in
chains. He is incapable of believing anything at all -- until or
unless he throws aside his nihilistic philosophy.

There is nothing about belief in the possiblity of Truth that prevents
humility.

I read between the lines.  In any event, I think it is wrong to have
contempt for child-accessible art.  It implies contempt for
children.

You read between the lines an awful lot, dude. And I really think you
systematically see hidden meanings that aren't there.

I did not see contempt for children as a "hidden meaning". I was
explaining why contempt for child-accessible art is wrong. In the
long run, one cannot love children and hate child-accessible art,
merely because it is child accessible.

I don't REALLY think the OP hates children. In his defense, I am more
inclined to suspect he was just trying to insult me.

He did say your art preferences suck, though.

Yes.  That suggested an intent to be insulting.  I interpreted his
kindergarten references accordingly.

Even though there was no real reason to do so.

I thought there was real reason to do so.

He was, like me, fed up with trying to have a normal discussion with
you. And so he posted his thoughts in a blunt manner, not trying
anymore to add any nuances or be polite. And when he did, you even
replied with "this is a big improvement".

I meant it.  It was a big improvement.  Insults and all.

You like being insulted? I don't get it.

As I explained, I prefer honest insults to postmodern sophistry. I
really dislike postmodern sophistry. I'd much rather be insulted.

  But it does not follow that every real
disagreement makes further discussion mandatory.  (Blooded Sand
certainly does not seem to think so -- he keeps hinting we should shut
up).

Did he? I didn't see that.

I may be confusing him with someone else who posted earlier.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tejas Xtians Hate Gulf War Navy Vets
    ... insult - although depending on how one takes the truth they may ... truth as an absolute defense. ... In the real world, there are true facts. ... Opinions about social ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Tejas Xtians Hate Gulf War Navy Vets
    ... insult - although depending on how one takes the truth they may ... truth as an absolute defense. ... Opinions about social ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Electromagnetic Field
    ... _The Philosophical Review_! ... communication (uses, that is, of the word "mean" in one or another of what I ... Or insult me to my face? ... Progress toward the truth? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why muslims try to supress other religion ?
    ... the existence of a god who said to kill unbelievers, ... They also define the opinions, the laws, the customs and what each man ... So, until proved otherwise, it does not exist any Metaphysical Truth ... democratic societies. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • The secret of the free societies
    ... opinions, the laws, the customs and what each man has to do in any ... the democracies lack of such a principle. ... So, until proved otherwise, it does not exist any Metaphysical Truth ... democratic societies. ...
    (alt.religion.islam)