President Romney

[Little_Miss_1565]

Scythe, you seem to be intent on proving that there is nothing worse in discussion than a philosophy major. In a few years, you'll look back and laugh. I hope.

[Eskimo]

Willard Mitt Romney not a good name.

'Cause, like, Barry Saddam Obamallama is so totally "Joe McAmerican Billy-Bob Sampson."

Why so hung up on names? FDR's middle name was "Delano", and Kennedy's "Fitzgerald". Pro or against Romney, if his first names bug you that badly, you probably shouldn't be voting.

I now dub thee "Cornelius". Or possibly "Wetherbee".

[Scythe Death]

Scythe, you seem to be intent on proving that there is nothing worse in discussion than a philosophy major. In a few years, you'll look back and laugh. I hope.

Could you show me how this proof works?

My impression is the following: philosophy majors (or philosophy graduates) have always seemed to give the best discussions. They're better equipped and trained to provide thorough arguments and refutations. When arguing with a 'philosopher' the argument is often a step by step process, where you can point out the reasoning behind a point, which the other person has then to refute. In my experience, a good philosopher is more likely to get you (or another philosopher, since laymen work differently) stumped and convinced of the opposition's point for a while until you manage to find the flaw in the argument.

In the other hand, people that just aren't good at argument (like most people here) usually are predisposed towards a side and convince themselves that whatever point they make is true even if in poor exposition or faulty reasoning. Like what I've observed from you, they try to make a snappy one-liner and pretend that that is substantial argumentation as if you made yourself think you're good at debating by watching HBO or something.

They remind me of these kids that were arguing with a creationist on campus. I'm an atheist, and these kids were trying to make the usual "atheist points", and the creationist there was just thoroughly picking them off one by one. Yet they were acting like they made such an ironclad point that the creationist was stupid for not taking it seriously and acted like the creationist somehow just didn't understand them. Then instead of refuting the creationists rebuttal, they just repeated themselves or brought up something irrelevant. When I tried making a premise by premise argument with the creationist, some doofus yelling truisms would interrupt me.

If you think you're seeing something that I'm not seeing, I beg of you to educate me.

[Tiny Vessels]

'Cause, like, Barry Saddam Obamallama is so totally "Joe McAmerican Billy-Bob Sampson."

Why so hung up on names? FDR's middle name was "Delano", and Kennedy's "Fitzgerald". Pro or against Romney, if his first names bug you that badly, you probably shouldn't be voting.

I now dub thee "Cornelius". Or possibly "Wetherbee".

You're seriously reading way too much into this. When I said it doesn't sound like a good name I ment nothing more than I don't like how it sounds. It doesn't have a good flow. Whatever I don't give a fuck what the guys name is. Names arent everything I know. I just made a stupid joke you corrected me I made a comment back and now you're pissed cause I didn't like his name? Oh god. His name has nothing to do with how I'm gonna vote.

[Eskimo]

I'm an atheist

Explains much.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Could you show me how this proof works?

...

If you think you're seeing something that I'm not seeing, I beg of you to educate me.

Philosophy majors think they're employing the rules of logic, citing Plato or Foucault or employing heuristic modes of analyzing blah blah blah, but really, in the throes of academics über alles, they forget that 99% of the population does not give a crap about any of these things. An argument is worthless if it's done in a manner in which no one wants to read it, and any insistance on such a manner of argument becomes, well, masturbatory.

[KickHimWhenHe'sDown]

"Fitzgerald"

That's a normalish name

[Godxilla]

Philosophy majors think they're employing the rules of logic, citing Plato or Foucault or employing heuristic modes of analyzing blah blah blah, but really, in the throes of academics über alles, they forget that 99% of the population does not give a crap about any of these things. An argument is worthless if it's done in a manner in which no one wants to read it, and any insistance on such a manner of argument becomes, well, masturbatory.

I thought masturbation was a good thing according to the masses. Other than that, I agree with you. "Logic" isn't always right, because nature has many odd things to it that don't flow.

That's a normalish name

Especially if you're Irish.

[Scythe Death]

Philosophy majors think they're employing the rules of logic, citing Plato or Foucault or employing heuristic modes of analyzing blah blah blah, but really, in the throes of academics über alles, they forget that 99% of the population does not give a crap about any of these things. An argument is worthless if it's done in a manner in which no one wants to read it, and any insistance on such a manner of argument becomes, well, masturbatory.

You see, logic isn't about impressing the impressionable masses. It's about being right. lol

[Little_Miss_1565]

Discussion is about communication. Your "logic" exercises are a monologue.

So, I suppose I have yet to meet a philosophy major who doesn't only wish to hear the sound of their own voice.