LogFAQs > #956416761

ReturnOfFa posted...

how not to argue philosophically 101

The post you're quoting had nothing to do with philosophy or the main topic of the thread. Some guy "called me out" because he said I misunderstood part of his post and I proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was wrong (post #192) but he refused to admit it. Kinda like your post here where you've undeniably erroneously claimed I was arguing philosophy when I wasn't.

You don't have to be like that guy though, you can admit to your mistake, or at the very least drop this subject instead of trying to feebly wiggle your way out of the situation you put yourself in.

Mead posted...

I dont think either of these statements are true at all

Reigning_King posted...

either I got very unlucky and the delusional 1% are over represented on this board or people are just disagreeing with me out of anger and spite.

But go on and tell me why you believe that. Tell me in what way you think human suffering can be separated from human existence. I have given many, many reasons backing up my position, please give me even one in return. Also for clarification (I already mentioned this before) when I say 99% of the population could agree with me I don't mean they would agree with the the conclusion that idea has lead me to. Most people can comfortably say "life isn't fair" because it isn't, bad luck and good luck are things, but virtually all of those same people would also say something like "It isn't good that life isn't fair but that's just the way things are, since nothing can be done about it it isn't worth getting too upset over or trying to change and life is full of good things that make it worth living all the same despite the unfairness." The key here is I agree with the first statement that life isn't fair, but I disagree about the defeatist attitude of the second statement.