Unrestigered
Banned
- Joined
- February 16, 2009
- Messages
- 352
You do realize that that's an ideological position, and a rather extreme one at that? Known as "post-modernism." "There is no objective reality; there is only discourse, and all discourse is equally valid;" that sort of thing.
No. And having an ideology and being an ideologue are still very different things. My narrative is live and let live and if our ability to live freely cross paths we should collaborate to solve the issues. I call it being reasonable. The ideologues narrative is live as I live, believe as I believe, and win at all costs.
I agree. Discussions with committed ideologues never go anywhere, because the premises are inflexible and fundamentally incompatible. For example, a postmodernist and an empirical rationalist will never be able to agree about anything, since their epistemological bases are irreconcilably different.
The fact you can consider yourself an empirical rationalist is insane. That would mean the two terms void each other out and mean ideologue.
em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal
ɛmˈpɪr ɪ kəlShow Spelled Pronunciation [em-pir-i-kuh l] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
I have a degree in Finance, I work in finance, and I have a lot of experience in finance. You do not, as your crazy jibber jabber has proven. And to prove it, what’s the most general rule of thumb mortgage lenders go by to qualify a loan? I have firsthand experience that what I said was the truth. You do not. I lived it, I saw it, I worked with it.
Empiricism
1. The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
2.
a. Employment of empirical methods, as in science.
b. An empirical conclusion.
3. The practice of medicine that disregards scientific theory and relies solely on practical experience.
ra⋅tion⋅al⋅ism
4. ræʃ ə nlˌɪz əmShow Spelled Pronunciation [rash-uh-nl-iz-uh m] Show IPA Pronunciation
5. –noun
1. the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.
2. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.
b. (in the philosophies of Descartes, Spinoza, etc.) the doctrine that all knowledge is expressible in self-evident propositions or their consequences.
3. Theology. the doctrine that human reason, unaided by divine revelation, is an adequate or the sole guide to all attainable religious truth.
4. Architecture. (often initial capital letter )
a. a design movement principally of the mid-19th century that emphasized the development of modern ornament integrated with structure and the decorative use of materials and textures rather than as added adornment.
b. the doctrines and practices of this movement. Compare FUNCTIONALISM (def. 1).
You do not accept reason. You accept propaganda. You do not recognize eveidence that disagrees with your opinion as valid or existing. It only comes from wingnuts and other dirogatory termed idots, right?
Rationalism
1. Reliance on reason as the best guide for belief and action.
2. Philosophy. The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.
i⋅de⋅o⋅logue
3. aɪ di əˌlɔg,-ˌlɒg,ˈɪd i-,aɪˈdi-Show Spelled Pronunciation [ahy-dee-uh-lawg, -log, id-ee-, ahy-dee-] Show IPA Pronunciation
4. –noun
a person who zealously advocates an ideology.
Here we go. Now this sounds more like a person who filters all evidence and reason through a narrow-minded perspective, a person who has found The Truth. A person who knows the exact right answer for everything. Whose side is never wrong, even if proven so. A person who would never hold his side accountable because the very thought is blasphemy and sacrilege.
Wow, that was impressive: "I have huge credentials and experience and just wrote eight paragraphs that would impress the shit out of you if only I hadn't deleted them. Take that, you ideologue."
Obviosly I should have changed the transition paragraph when I deleted my original post. I messed up. It was harder and took longer than I thought to explane what I wanted, as I had to explain the fundamentals to get to the concepts I wanted to. And finance uses terms differently than most people commonly accept them as, such as the word value, so I have to redefine everything. I really don’t feel like writing a 14 page paper on how banking and finance work. How Clinton’s Administration is directly and unoquivicolly responsible for the mortgage crisis and how that crisis had a ripple effect on the economy, as I don’t think it would have any change anything. You made up your mind to be blind to reason and the truth.
What about you? In this conversation at least, you don't strike me as particularly happy. I'm picking up a strong affect from you, and it's one that's strongly passive-aggressive, filled with anxiety and hostility, decided that everyone out there is a determined "ideologue" who wants to silence your voice, and so on.
I’m not angry at all. Well, I’m a little angry I have no idea when Drakensang will be delivered. This conversation has not made me angry. It’s helping to kill the time. And it is a little annoying when you talk to someone that will not even have the curtsey to consider if you have a valid point, but only wants to focus on the parts of your writing that will not get anyone anywhere. But I knew that was going to be how it would go when I decided to get into a “discussion” with an ideology so I can’t really complain about it. And passive-aggressiveness is the hallmark of ideologues.
What would I have to be anxious about? My goal isn’t to win. And who is trying to silence my voice? You are ignoring the important stuff, not trying to silence me. You have replied to every post I made, how could I possibly believe I am trying to be silenced?
Where, in this thread, have I become hostile? Where are you getting this nonsense from?
Are you familiar with the psychological phenomenon of transference, by any chance?
Yes I am. I hope you become familiar with the psychological phenomenon of post-cult trauma.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2009
- Messages
- 352