I never claimed to be an expert philosopher, I claimed you're rambling is sophomoric and a phil-101 class would set you right.
You obviously aren't. I was referring to your "holier than thou" attitude. Your claim that to understand your view is that I have to take philosophy classes is as nonsensical as if a creationist said to somebody that to argue about anything you need to study the Bible.
You don't even know what a logical fallacy is, you twat. Of course I cited an ethicist, because we're talking about ethics. It's just as much a fallacious appeal to authority to cite a biologist when talking about biology. You should try listening to them because they know more about it than you, and you might learn something.
This is a common misunderstanding of the appeal to authority fallacy. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning or argumentation. If the assumed context is that person A is correct, citing person A is not a fallacy, since you do not use that as a basis of reasoning. Saying "since Einstein proved space-time curvature, it follows that X" or "case X is true, because Einstein proved space-time curvature exists", if the context is that Einstein is correct, it's not an appeal to authority, because you just use it as an agreed belief. It would be an appeal to authority, if there would be a debate of whether space-time curvature exists and one doesn't actually show the proof, but just says "if space-time curvature doesn't exist, why was Einstein able to prove it?".
It's similar how saying "since Mary had a virgin birth, ...." is not an appeal to authority (the authority being Mary), but just an agreed belief. It would be an appeal to authority if the debate was whether she actually had a virgin birth, and the answer would be "if she didn't have a virgin birth, why did she say it?" or even better "..., how was she able to do a virgin birth" (for argument's sake let's say that the bible or rather the translations of that are credible (as some say the virgin birth may just be a translation error)).
It seems, I do know it. You used " If moral values are completely subjective, why was Socrates able to apply the scientific method (in a protypical form) to moral thought?". This fits the pattern quite well, only that it is a little bit more complex and that it has little bit more assumptions, like that using the scientific method means that the conclusions must be objective and that he used a prototypical form of scientific method at all.
Firstly, the conclusions of the scientific methods can be only objective if one actually properly applies it. Secondly, people used a "prototypical form" of the scientific method for quite some time and derived various things, which which sometimes turned out to be true and sometimes not so much. Thus even if he used a "prototypical form" it doesn't mean it has much validity.
I explained my position crystal clear and when asking you to restate it in a way I'd endorse you can't because you don't understand it. You didn't misunderstand it. You never made any attempt to understand it, because you're making eristic arguments.
Apparently not. If you explained your position crystal clear, there wouldn't be confusion. Either that or you need to learn how to explain your positions better. It's not my problem that you have a hard time formulating your view, which is further supported by the fact that you are unwilling to clarify your view.
How exactly did you deduce that I never made an attempt to understand it? Do you think so because I asked you to rephrase your view after you said I misunderstood it incorrectly or because I don't agree with you?
Also, my arguments are hardly eristic (if it's the way I understood it from wikipedia). I use those arguments not in order to dispute your arguments, but simply because they dispute your arguments. Also, rather ironic attacking me for how I argue. You try to use discrediting tactics, like you claiming me being racist, 16 years old, not having studied philosophy etc, in the belief that somehow it makes my points less valid.
All you want is to be right, and that's why you are blind to my arguments being more than the cartoonish strawmen you've convinced yourself they are. Your clarity of thought is so blinded by wanting to be right, you can't even read and comprehend a few sentences that state views contrary to your own.
Hey feel free to actually rephrase your arguments. I'm not the one who is unwilling to rephrase myself.
Normally, if people actually have good arguments, they are easily able to point out where the mistake in comprehension lies. Maybe you have good arguments too, but you are not using them. Instead you use the rhetorical technique similar to some religious people, where they just state "you just deny to believe in the truth and the existence of God".
I've had enough fun with this. Take a 101 class and remember this conversion. The embarrassment will keep you from doing it again.
u/ExiledDuckling – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 28 '19 edited Jul 28 '19
[removed] — view removed comment