|
(Nick)I haven’t been spouting opinions. My statement above contains well documented facts and conclusions based on them. It’s your unsupported opinion that they don’t matter. That you can’t recognize this is further confirmation of the truth of the conclusion that you are not some great analytic philosopher. The more you talk, the more this conclusion is confirmed.
(keapponlaffin))I never claimed to be a great analytic philosopher. I only have a modestly small number of publications.
As I stated earlier, I am not interested in reading about your opinions (or facts) about me. As noted previously, I also won't continue wasting my time reading them. This will be my last post. I've asked you several times to stay focused on the real issue (I would hope that the real issue isn't me, I'm really not that important).
(Nick)I hope you keep your word about this being your last post. I’m not interested in reading your evasions and misrepresentations. Although I answered all of your questions and responded to all of your challenges, you don't even want to define "validity" for me. You are the one who can’t stay focused. Keep deceiving yourself that its me. Be happy as a brain in a vat.
(Nick)Right. You don’t use logic much either. Do you even remember what your position is in this debate? Do you remember how long ago you dropped any attempts to argue for it?
(keapponlaffin)I've spent most of this time just trying to get clear about your position. Since I couldn't manage to do that, it wasn't worth arguing with you.
(Nick)My position was presented in my first post in this thread. Your initial attack was an appeal to a dictionary definitions and opinions of ordinary people. I rebutted that and also explained value, intrinsic value, flourishing survival, and prima facie. You did little more than mock this, and claim that all I did was claim. You didn’t even try to understand. I have more respect for religious fanatics than I have for you, keapponlaffin.
(Nick)If I win this debate"
(keapponlaffin)I granted that to you long ago. I hope that was your goal here, because if so you succeeded.
(Nick)You claimed your goal was to find truth. Well, truth goes to the winner of this debate. If a proposition is supported prima facie and not adequately refuted, it can be considered true. Therefore, it can now be considered true that rational egoism can be a basis for morality.
Bis bald,
Nick
|