I'm excited that the Sceptical Jaydon Podcast, launched in 2019, is being recognised as the first atheist podcast in Nigeria. Hoping to resuscitate what I've done there and bring new life to the show. 🙏🏾
(Via @MinorityAfrica)
https://t.co/nAOKG6GRdY
Everything in this season just worked in Chelsea's favour. It's like the universe just wanted us to win the trophy that year. Two penalties to the greatest teams of the time, taken by the best players of the time, and both were missed! 😄😄
The conditions had already been violated by your people ab initio, actually. So even if I were to accept this charge, it wouldn't apply here.
However, I don't accept it because that comment is not remotely equivalent to calling an individual brainless!
“well he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” simple means, in the context of the discussion, that if you expect one person to act with respect, you should at least demonstrate a willingness to help create the conditions in which respectful engagement is possible.
So yes, by all means, reject insults. But if the objective is a respectful conversation, it’s equally important to avoid needlessly provocative remarks that predictably undermine the very atmosphere of respect one later demands from others.
Otherwise, all is fair in war I guess.
Neither @dStoolofWisdom nor I was insulting anybody in that post. The reference to "suck him epon" is an innuendo describing people praising somebody for their actions or comments, regardless of whether the comments are valid or not. It was not a personal attack on anybody, definitely not on the level of telling people you are discussing with that they have no brain or they have the intellect of a child!
As for your friend, he is welcome to whatever belief he wishes to nurse about me. I have decided to place him in the position of persona non grata. He is welcome to do the same. What I will no longer tolerate from him or anyone in his circle is any insult to my person.
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom They are the same thing, just that my choice of words were not exactly formal. They're both expressions of a self-referential refutation.
In all sincerity, I don't really think you respect me. But you've been courteous enough, so props! 👍🏾
We can leave it there for tonight.
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom By the way, I'm not telling anybody what they ought to believe. I'm saying that nobody has the intellectual authority over another on this space, so anybody tacitly imposing it is merely displaying hubris. No "oughts" in that. Anyone can believe whatever they want.
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom "The self-undermining element here is that the accusation of hubris is itself an act of hubris."
Isn't that the same thing I said above, just in different words?
You're just disagreeing for disagreeing's sake. Lol.
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom I'm fine with demonstrating ideas as nonsensical and irrational. What I find off-putting is insults to the PERSON, not the idea—which is a major tactic of you-know-who.
Perhaps I thought too highly of him. Expectation, it has been said, is the mother of disappointment. 🤷🏾♂️
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom And yes, it is hubris, so I don't think the "hubristic" charge fails. Nobody here is an expert—not you, me, or any of the other guys. So anybody's vainglorious overconfidence is just that—hubris.
@Tega_Gabriel@dStoolofWisdom I don't dispute this. I'm saying that dynamic is what produces the impulse to insult the other person. The idea of "This person is, unlike me, so stupid and ignorant and obstinate and block-headed; they deserve to be ridiculed at this point."
"The question is whether the correction is accurate" well, not entirely.
First, philosophy is notorious for not having "right" answers to any question. Even the most widely held position among philosophers—which, I believe, is external-world realism—has rational dissenters. To assert with so much confidence and insolence that your philosophical view is "accurate" is hubristic.
Second, I think it is clear that virtually no one would take this stance if they didn't assume a tutor-learner dynamic at that specific point. The reason you've been correcting my position on science and assumptions for the last few days is, among other things, that you believe I fail to know something that you do know and you want to tutor me on that item of knowledge I lack. It is an emergent but present informal dynamic.
And yeah, I agree that respect and deference aren't the same thing. I don't expect deference or concession. I expect respect for my person.
"What often gets called disrespect in these contexts is simply the refusal to pretend that a weak argument is a strong one."
Except that's not what happens with this guy! He's calling PERSONS names, not their arguments. "Anencephalic" isn't a description of an argument. It's basically saying your interlocutor has no brain! That's not a mere refusal to countenance a bad argument. It's a direct insult to the intelligence of the interlocutor, and a slurrish one at that.