[Spartacus]

Lesson Learnt:
If you take things seriously in the internet, you have failed.

[Assassin]

Silly, again you try to make presumptions that I have already given you the answers too.  Unfortunately, I am much older than you and have my undergraduate and on my way to finishing a masters.  When I went to school philosophy was a general education choice and you learn an important note.  Most undergraduates that major in philosophy are pre-law, because philosophy is semantics and other bullshit.

My trolling has been successful.  trololol.

PTK again I do not BE like JELLY I BE JAM.

i prefer HAM

Silly, again you try to make presumptions that I have already given you the answers too.

Evidence?

Unfortunately, I am much older than you and have my undergraduate and on my way to finishing a masters. 

First of all, you've just provided an example of the "appeal to accomplishment" fallacy (where the perceived validity of an argument is based upon the accomplishments of the proposer).

Also, I stated that I was 22 because you called me son (incidentally an example of the "judgmental language" fallacy), and I made clear that I had knowledge of logical fallacies not because I was being pretentious, but because you made out like I did not understand the straightforward logic involved in my posts.

When I went to school philosophy was a general education choice and you learn an important note.

If you chose this subject, you mustn't have been paying much attention. 

philosophy is semantics and other bullshit.

Semantics is a branch of philosophy, but does not in any way represent all philosophy. If you truly believe your statement, then I doubt you'd be aware of even 10% of what philosophy is even about.

My trolling has been successful.  trololol.

Sure, if that's what you call riddling your last two posts with misconceptions and logical errors, then making attempts to defend yourself while acting like you're not at all serious.

Lesson Learnt:
If you take things seriously in the internet, you have failed.

You've just created a paradox. Your post is on the internet, so I shouldn't take it seriously, hence I should take things on the internet seriously, etc.

But really, the internet is simply a medium for communication (yet a rather unemotional one at that). Some things should be taken seriously, some not. Often it's hard to tell which is which.

Just something related that I found funny:
http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-co ... egrees.php

Philosophy, like sociology and psychology, is one of those degrees that people do when they’re not quite sure what vocation they want to follow . It’s a fun-time four years, open to stoners, egocentrics and those that love the sound of their own voice, who will finish the course even more confused at what they want to do in life and probably end up working at a convenience store.

 

My plan to call  you "son" did receive my desired result.  To generate emotion, which is not displayed on the internet as you stated.  Too say words cannot generate emotions or without emotions is pretty ignorant itself.  Words is how many express ideas and emotions.

Its even more entertaining that you continue to speak as an expert of philosophy in a condescending manner.  You may not grasp your condescending tone, but when did my pun on jelly/jam decide to turn into a philosophical debate on logic?

I am intentionally reciprocating that tone to you in effort to get longer posts with more quotes.  Its working quite nicely.

You continue to cite philosophical definitions and quote away my posts line by line.  Breaking up your counter rebuttals focused on different parts.  Then you violate your own "laws" when you counter insult me.  You infer that I did not pay attention in a class I took over ten years ago.  Surprisingly, I did and I gave you my opinion of the study in blunt terms and observation I made. 

I was not referring semantics as to the study of language.  Just another effort to take things out of context.  I used semantics in context of meaning of words not what or why words mean things.  It was implied what definition I was using.

There is a big difference in trying to sound educated and being educated.  You are doing neither, but neither am I nor do I care to try.  You could even go a step further and critique my grammar, which I'm sure is the next step (or perhaps you evolved from that).  I guess you are living up to your name..silly.

As Spartacus brought up, Lesson Learned.  You are taking this seriously, which is plain silly.  Its good that you take interest in philosophy.  Maybe you have ambition to be a pretentious Philosopher King, but alas I humble Guardian and will always be.  It is a Brave New World....

[Spartacus]

There is a big difference in trying to sound educated and being educated.

So I think I just found my new sig.

[Assassin]

you guys went off topic, its not nice to not do what the creator of this topic wished for and that is bragging so stop going side track and stay on topic this is not a flame sectoin

you guys went off topic, its not nice to not do what the creator of this topic wished for and that is bragging so stop going side track and stay on topic this is not a flame sectoin

Original topic is bs anyway, we can care less...

Just something related that I found funny:
http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-co ... egrees.php

Philosophy, like sociology and psychology, is one of those degrees that people do when they’re not quite sure what vocation they want to follow . It’s a fun-time four years, open to stoners, egocentrics and those that love the sound of their own voice, who will finish the course even more confused at what they want to do in life and probably end up working at a convenience store.

Like I said, I don't formally study philosophy, it's more of a hobby. I'm not going to make a statement about the merit of philosophy as a university degree.  I'm actually a student of psychology and plan on becoming a counselor. I'm not doing psychology because I'm not sure what I want to do, or because I'm a stoner or ego-centric, I'm doing it because I like to help people, and because I believe that I would be good at the job. The reason I decided to start researching philosophy had nothing to do with those reasons either, I wanted to discover answers to a lot of the questions that were important to me at the time. For example, the notion of "God" and whether religions like Christianity are true, or the concept of inherent human selfishness vs altruism, or even the nature of reality.

My plan to call  you "son" did receive my desired result.  To generate emotion, which is not displayed on the internet as you stated.  Too say words cannot generate emotions or without emotions is pretty ignorant itself.  Words is how many express ideas and emotions.

Yes, there sure is emotion in lots of words, and that's one of the basic ways to communicate with people, but using emotion to persuade instead of reason is not logical. Anyone could use emotion to back up their argument, when used as an arguing tool, theoretically every argument is equal (provided that they are equally persuasive). You and
ruplayer both specifically used the word logic.

Its even more entertaining that you continue to speak as an expert of philosophy in a condescending manner.  You may not grasp your condescending tone, but when did my pun on jelly/jam decide to turn into a philosophical debate on logic?

I'm not speaking as an expert on philosophy, but as someone who has a basic knowledge in logic and logical fallacies (and I already said that). I am at times being condescending, but it's actually in response to your own manner of speaking and tone (calling me son, and saying that I'm pretending to be educated, etc.), while making so many misconceived, insulting, and illogical statements. I have said nothing about your intelligence, I have been putting forward the logical errors which were present in some of your statements.

You continue to cite philosophical definitions and quote away my posts line by line.  Breaking up your counter rebuttals focused on different parts.  Then you violate your own "laws" when you counter insult me.  You infer that I did not pay attention in a class I took over ten years ago.  Surprisingly, I did and I gave you my opinion of the study in blunt terms and observation I made.

Yes, well judging by the way you have been arguing, it didn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to make. You have not given evidence of it in your recent posts.

I was not referring semantics as to the study of language.  Just another effort to take things out of context.  I used semantics in context of meaning of words not what or why words mean things.  It was implied what definition I was using.

I do not try to take things out of context, and truthfully, I don't understand what you mean by semantics in philosophy.

There is a big difference in trying to sound educated and being educated.  You are doing neither, but neither am I nor do I care to try.  You could even go a step further and critique my grammar, which I'm sure is the next step (or perhaps you evolved from that).  I guess you are living up to your name..silly.

Like I have said, I am self-educated in some elements of philosophy, and I have been demonstrating that knowledge in my posts. The majority of my comments have been completely valid, and have demonstrated that knowledge, but you have simply not addressed them. Don't misrepresent me, I don't think that grammar is at all important in conversations like these.

As Spartacus brought up, Lesson Learned.  You are taking this seriously, which is plain silly.  Its good that you take interest in philosophy.  Maybe you have ambition to be a pretentious Philosopher King, but alas I humble Guardian and will always be.  It is a Brave New World....

Don't put words into my mouth, and you have not learned your own "lesson" which apparently makes you "silly". Mr Tea, Your post about jelly and jam might have been a joke, but hypocritically, you have made a serious attempt to defend yourself.

I already replied to Spartacus' post. Also, I don't have ambition to be pretentious, I aimed to make a point. Which was originally more of a response to ruplayer.

I've made a serious attempt to defend myself?  No, i sniped you trolling my pun and you continue to line by line breakdown respond, which is what I continued to goat you to do and you have.  I pretty sure your resourceful to find out the other meaning of semantics outside of the study of language.  *Hint I gave it to you.  Lawyers and Philosophers both nit pick at words which why a lot of pre-law get there undergrad in philosophy.

Again my annoyance is with you piping in with "he didn't say you liked jelly you said you are jelly."  Well, no shit. that is ridiculous logic. Why would I be something I do not like? When Jam is so delicious. Why would I settle for something as unfulfilled as jelly?  That is why I am still trying to understand why you started bringing in philosophy jargon.  I wish you would have noticed/quoted my two philosophical references, but I guess I can get you only to do so much to my likely.

On a serious note I hope you realize you need at least a masters in Psychology to do any clinical work.  If you want to help people I would recommend sociology.  Its just as effect, easier, and you will be doing the same job with an undergrad in Psychology.

I've made a serious attempt to defend myself?  No, i sniped you trolling my pun and you continue to line by line breakdown respond, which is what I continued to goat you to do and you have.

 

I'm saying that you made a serious attempt to defend yourself after your pun.

I pretty sure your resourceful to find out the other meaning of semantics outside of the study of language.  *Hint I gave it to you.  Lawyers and Philosophers both nit pick at words which why a lot of pre-law get there undergrad in philosophy.

Ah well, yeah in philosophy a person has to be specific with the words they use, otherwise their point may not be communicated very well. It's a technical area of study, that doesn't make it bs, that's the study of rhetoric.

Again my annoyance is with you piping in with "he didn't say you liked jelly you said you are jelly."  Well, no shit. that is ridiculous logic. Why would I be something I do not like? When Jam is so delicious. Why would I settle for something as unfulfilled as jelly?  That is why I am still trying to understand why you started bringing in philosophy jargon. 

Well, you were being a bit silly with your jelly comment, as was I with my logical breakdown of it. I mainly brang up the jargon because of ruplayer's comment, but the real conversation between you and I started from after there. And your following posts were different.

I wish you would have noticed/quoted my two philosophical references, but I guess I can get you only to do so much to my likely.

Sorry.

On a serious note I hope you realize you need at least a masters in Psychology to do any clinical work.  If you want to help people I would recommend sociology.  Its just as effect, easier, and you will be doing the same job with an undergrad in Psychology.

I know, I plan on getting a doctorate in clinical psychology. I'd prefer psychologist because I find the study of the mind and brain really interesting too.