I thought this would be dead.
Okay, you are putting words in my mouth.
So you actually get it.
And again you change my wording to something entirely different. This is a Straw Man Fallacy.
And as I said I can't know if they did or did not make the effort. Because I don't know, I can't judge. But you seem to know somehow and judge for that. How?
So yours is just hypothetical. You judge them and blame them based on something hypothetical. This is not how it works. You can't judge things just on hypotheticals.
You are confusing me even more.
Okay, you are being philosophical. However, like your hypothetical scenario, its not a strong case. After all, there are opposing philosophies. We would end up arguing philosophy.
And you seem to have a wrong idea about what the quote means. The quote is Descartes's answer to the question: do we really exit? Thinking is one thing that could not be faked; thinking therefore means that you exist. Thus: I think therefore I am. Your existence is something you cannot doubt.
I don't understand how you get to this. So you existed . . . so what?
How about the perpetretors. Theirs doesn't matter in this?
I don't really know how you get into this direction.
More philosophizing and still I don't know how get there.
This isn't really about the perpetrators or the victims. It is not even about slavery. Its about what you think about written character not reacting slavery.
Still, you do focus on one thing I said but it was not about the perpetrators or the victims. It is not even about slavery. It was about victim blaming.
You are oversimplifying and focusing on superficial things. You didn't look at the details.
You said to many unknowns. Just because they are unknowns doesn't mean they don't matter. You can't just ignore them because you are don't know or aren't sure about them. And you surely can't replace the unknowns with hypoteticals.
Okay, you are doing the fallacy of Burden of Proof. It should be you who should prove that your statement is true, and absence of proof against it doesn't meant your statement is true. You could believe that the president is an alien and I'm sure can't prove anything against it but that doesn't mean the president is an alien just because I'm unable to provide evidence against it. And since it is you who make the statement (that the president is an alien) it is you who should provide evidence to support your statement if people question it or doubt it.
And you also do the same thing. You don't explain why exactly. Statements like "No reason they can't be explained simply" is just statements made as if their are true. Why should it only be me who should follow these standards?
Again you are doing hypotheticals. If you aren't sure, if you don't know; don't make things up.
And yes, many people can't wrap their head around it because it is you philosophizing. They can have their own philosophical thoughts too and come at entirely different conclusion from yours. In turn, you can't wrap your head around theirs.
I'm also not trying to convince you. I actually just put your statements under question because I just can't agree with them just because you say them.
As for closed-mindedness, it doesn't mean ignoring facts but not willing to consider different ideas of opinions.
We actually starting with victim blaming and now we are philosophizing about various things. We seem to be stepping thing up.
EDIT: I already basically apologized at the end but my tone here was pretty rough. I dont mean it in a bad way, but im a colorful person so if im cussing or being a bit of an ass in how i word stuff, please dont mind it. if anything, maybe think of it as funny. or charming sentence enhancers. LIke im adding character, maybe.
its obvious you misunderstood my meaning. i didnt put shit in your mouth, you just read that wrong. I never said you said that, i simply said that i could also ask that kind of question and it would be pointless. Its also obvious you DONT understand what im saying despite you having said you did earlier. Im being pretty clear, not sure how to be MORE clear.
And...you cant know? Exactly. So what the fuck are you asking, then? I TOLD YOU i was just giving my opinions for both kinds of situations. Of fucking course i can judge based on a hypothetical. What the hell do you think this is ? Everything is hypothetical. We dont have any goddamn specific scenario. I, therefore, have created a very simple scenario and you still dont seem to understand. The fuck are we even talking about, then? Nothing? You keep saying you dont know, you dont know, and yeah. Thats true. But damn bro. We cant have a discussion about shit you dont fucking know. I am only giving opinons here. "If this, then i think..." People do that all the time, judge hypotheticals. So you coming up with bullshit like "thats not how its done REEEEEEE" Is objectively wrong. i mean im not giving very DETAILED scenarios but its enough to get the gist of my opinon in its entirety.
But you? You say you cant judge because you dont know but you must have opinions and so all you had to do was present your own what if scenario
and THEN you cant judge it. Just seems like you're running away from making a choice now. I dont say that to sound like an ass or say that IS what you're doing, thats just how it kinda feels rn.
You're telling me im not looking at details when there arent any fucking details, too. You're seriously gonna hold that against me bro? Should i create very specific ten page scenario to judge, then?
That aside, dont fuckin tell me what i know dude. i know perfectly well what that quote meant. I simply took it a step further. Hm. Maybe several, actually. If you dont understand why i went into it then i dont know if we should keep talkin' cuz i thought it was pretty clear.
You: Why does only the victim's thoughts matter tho
Me: proceeding to explain a philosophical idealogy that proposes if you can only be certain of your own existence and all else is in doubt, the world may therefore exist only because "you" believe it and/ or are aware of it and so "you" are the only one who has any power to give meaning to what you experience within the world.
Fucking hell. i coulda just explained it that way? Mfker i shoulda know my true language was Meme.
As for me proving anything, i never do that. People have used that same thing against me before. I dont get why. Im like, "bro i dont give a damn, you're the one who found grievance with whatever i said so you fucking find the evidence to support yourself. If you do maybe i'll stop being a lazy cunt and find my own evidence. TIll then kindly fuck off?"
Im very laidback and dont care to prove a single word outta my mouth. I'll only take initiative to do so if someone else does first. Is that a bad habit? yes, yes it is. I dont give a DAMN son. BIte me. Heh. You dont have to hold yourself to any standard. If neither of us cares to support any of our claims, then it dont matter. We already said we aint looking to persuade anyway, eh?
As for the closed minded stuff, meh. Maybe. But like i dunno the terms themselves rub me the wrong way. Cuz its not like we're immovable objects, you know? We can change our minds. We can. We just dont want to or dont think we have to. We have the ability tho. Just gonna be harder to convince us we should change them. Cuz depending on our values, we might think we dont have to.
I mean i can "consider" all the opinons you want but that doesnt mean i have to agree with them. No one does. Is anyone really closed minded just because they dont change their opinions? i find consideration pointless in these cases then, cuz if you end up not changing opinon people can still say, "oh you're so closed minded." See what im getting at? You lose whether you consider or not so long as you dont agree in the end
I would much prefer being called "a stubborn ass" because then its undeniably true! i'm stubborn, and im an ass sometimes too! Like here. I know my tone mighta sounded mean or whatever but i dont dislike you bro. Callin' people out of shit is what i do all the time too. Would be pretty hypocritical if i got mad over it bein' done to me.
and hells i this always happens. Discuss a serious topic like rape or slavery and wind up talking about milk or how some cultures kiss the penis of babies because doing it on the head is considered a sexual act. Or something. That last one i forgot about but it was something to that effect. Random facts never lies. My memory is just shitty. Too much weed smh
You so favor hasty generalizations. So what you can be capable of action? The question is, are you capable of action to get yourself out of your situation? Is screaming for help going to help you? Is punching the cage bars going to help you? You keep making statement that sound right but don't doesn't really address the issue.
And they are slaves. They most likely be weak (like children) so they might not be physically be able to break their shackles or they don't know how to pick a lock (they might not even have seen one). And again, you are doing hypotheticals, might or might not. You are making judgments from things you aren't certain of. Armchair philosophy is easy and neat but it just doesn't hold much weight you know?
And you will be torutured till you die or just simply killed. Better than being slaves but I guess.
Though, we are talking about blame here. 100% the victims fault.
But you could blame it 100% to them right? No one else shares the fault to what happens to them but themselves.
And here is my point. How do you know if they can or can't, or if they try or didn't? If they are intelligent or strong enough? How can you be judging them for things you aren't sure or don't know? This is the issue with your statement. You are making judgement for things you aren't sure of.
You are just playing with words. You haven't taken them out of the equation but you don't consider them in your discussion?
And again, you constantly shifting things around. We are asking who is at fault not who is fucked up.
And you shifted the topic.
And shifted the topic some more.
But no one said that not is anyone debating about that. You are so fond of changing the subject.
Me too.
eh. I already said it in the post to the other guy, but so what if i am hypothetical? What do you expect me to do then? We dont have any specific scenario to judge so you cant justifiable say "you cant do that, you cant just judge shit based off assumptions"...but that bullshit, i can totally do that bro. People do all the time and here thats the only thing I CAN do.
I only gave a generalIzed opinion based on simplified situation. You cant hold me to the idea of "you dont know the details" since there aren't any presented. Obviously my opinons here can change based on specific scenarios.
I saw you other comment to, the most recent one. i really liked the "we can only judge the people who put them there" line. I never thought of it that way and it makes sense. Nice job mate. I was being a bit narrow there, eh? the actions of slavers can be judged much better. Objectively they are doing wrong, but subjectively we dont know WHY they became slavers so that opens a whole new can of worms if we go that route.