Yeah, no.Originally Posted by Aimless
Um ok then.No, this is your personal madness you're projecting onto the situation. Note also that throughout the lecture series students remain eager to challenge and defend both the views of the philosophers he discusses, his own views, and their fellow students'.
Still doesn't take away the fact that he worded the story to his bias and all the other stuff I've already mentioned for the millionth time.My point is that it's retarded to get mad at a teacher for teaching basic material relevant to understanding and appreciating our present knowledge.
Yeah I get it. Btw I did understand the label, but as for him 'actively distancing himself, I don't know where you got that from. Since the wikipedia link only mentioned that he's uncomfortable with the label, and that he ascribes to a 'certain version.' I don't care what version of it he happens to agree with, fact remains that I disagree with the philosophy, no matter what version.Wait, you can't see how it's at all relevant to bring that up after you've objected to/dismissed Sandel and his account of various schools of thought in moral philosophy on the grounds that he adheres to Communitarianism, a label you didn't even understand at the time and one from which he actively distances himself?
Ok, my mistake, I mis-read it.You've completely misunderstood what I said. I didn't say it was a bad thing because you (or I, in case you missed the reference to my own behaviour) might end up "looking stupid". I said it was a bad idea because it makes you stupid.
From my experiences involving debates in real life (the type that don't descend to condescending behaviour), I've always walked away having picked up on something new, whether a new fact, a weakness of mine, of the other person, strengths, and so on.It's an approach that encourages polarization into extreme dogmatic positions and makes the participants vulnerable to the sort of cognitive biases I mentioned earlier. You become less capable of developing your knowledge and your analysis. You ignore relevant information and you interpret whatever you don't ignore in extremely limited and flawed ways. In the end, the parties don't go away having learned something. They go away merely having strengthened their preconceptions, such as their mistaken belief that their opponent is an idiot and a miscreant, and that everything that person believes is totally wrong. Sure, I suppose you can call that "learning"
No, actually a lot of them were cool people.I have no idea about the Unreal 2 forums, from what I remember many of them were jerks.
lol 'douchebag' back to the taunts for you hey? I don't know if it's because you like to show off how well you can talk in a condescending manner, in English, or whether you just enjoy doing it, or a combination of both. I wonder whether you take this approach in your real life?But there's been a lot of discussion on why people are more inclined to act like jerks when in groups and when on anonymous online forums. I hope you can appreciate the difference between asking "what's the holocaust?" and coming into this thread acting like a total douchebag after having seen 4% of a course and failing to properly assess even that 4%.
Oh, I'm sorry if my manner of speaking 'offends' you. But whilst you're talking about me and how I come on here acting like an angry bigoted jerk, take a good look at your two-faced self and your condescending nature.If you came here and asked what the holocaust was then we might link you to wikipedia. If you instead came here and acted like an angry bigoted jerk based on your ignorance of the holocaust you'd probably get a far more hostile response. The lesson there is to not be a jerk and possibly to be wary of people who play U2.
Are you serious? Please tell me that you're not. You didn't like that I challenged you for your condescending behaviour, and now you're trying to justify it. Seriously...at least I admit some of my shortcomings, I would have expected the likes of you to do the same. And here you are giving me a talk...Look, I posted a link to a very good lecture series because I value it and wanted to share this resource with this forum. You came in here acting like a total asshole, and spat on that. That's like spitting on me,
Keep on telling yourself that.and congratulations on having become a full member of the U2 forums btw. When I tried to make you appreciate how much it sucks to have some condescending assface spit on your views, you said you didn't understand what I was doing because I'm not in any way close to Sandel. I am of course closer to Sandel than you are to that student you mentioned earlier. What baffles me is your continued lack of understanding even after I actually told you why you got the response you got
It was my initial response based on my initial assessment of the man, like I already explained in a previous post. And if you didn't like the manner in which I responded, don't you think the smart thing to have done was to directly tell me? "Listen buddy, could you cool down a bit coz I don't appreciate the manner in which you're attacking Sandel, someone whom I value very much" Instead of taking the "well I'll just give him a taste of his own medicine, HMPH!" approach?You claimed that it wasn't warranted. Was your initial aggression and condescension warranted? Keep in mind that I've read your every single post in this thread and most of your posts on this forum, whereas you'd sampled 4% of an entire course and approached those 4% with a far more closed mind. So if we're talking about what's warranted or not, your aggression and condescension was far less warranted than mine. That's not to say I think it's good to be condescending and aggressive. I don't. But being condescending and aggressive is an effective way to make someone understand why they shouldn't be aggressive and condescending. There's a small chance that you'll understand why punching someone in the face is a shitty thing to do if someone punches you in the face.
No seriously, why didn't you do that? Do you really value this guy, or is that just some excuse to justify your condescending demeanor? You're obviously an adult, why not tell me directly?
I'm not attacking anyone on the forum here. I didn't call you an idiot. I directed it at someone who's an academic, a lecturer at a prestigious university (not that it matters), who puts himself out there for the attack. Just like a politician does, or anyone else who holds a position of some influence. When you're held in a high regard by an institute, group of people, and so on, you're making yourself open to such criticism. But I'm so sorry if my manner of criticism offends you so deeplyI say this even as I realise that your response to assholish behaviour from the U2-forum members was to become like them, your response to whatever failings you imagine your friends and peers have was to become even worse than they are, etc. So maybe this is an approach that doesn't work on you, and the lesson you'll take home from being punched in the face is, "I should punch people in the face." That's the wrong lesson to take home mate. Stop punching people in the face ffs.I'd like to see what you'll conjour up next about me though.
Yeah I realise that. What I said was that quantum mechanics comes into play to describe the atomic/microscopic/particle nature of our world. You're just having a go at me, for the sake of having a go at me. Stop twisting what I'm saying ffs.
I'm sure it applies to scientific matters where multiple theories are concerned that aim to describe the same thing, but not for classical mechanics. If it wasn't set in stone, then travelling to the other side of the world, or driving a car, wouldn't have been possible. The point I was making was that there's isn't some other theory challenging classical mechanics on the same level as describing our physical world, the stuff we interact with as macroscopic objects. And like you said, there's also general/special relativity that comes into play too.Additionally, you stated that absolutely and that's a very wrong thing to do when it comes to scientific matters. There's nothing "set in stone".
If it isn't set in stone, then please direct me to some sort of evidence that indicates this is so, where I can see that if someone throws a ball against the wall, then it won't rebound, or if enough thrust is generated in one direction, then a body will travel in the opposite, etc.
Reply With Quote
