I apologise to Bbarr.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Yes, I understand what they are trying to get done... I just see that weather or not they want to debate, they are going to keep on debating.

You couldn't cut the irony with a Sawzall!

P-

if we examine the actual posts, we find the following:

ivanhoe post#1: the excellent apology
bbarr post#2: the acceptance, the counterapology and the outlining of the groundrules
ivanhoe post#3: acceptance of the counterapology and a concern regarding the groundrules
bbarr post#2: rationale for and insistence that the groundrules be followed

it hardly seems to me that what has transpired within these four posts really constitutes a debate (in fact, i would say that you and i have already, in our 4 posts, far exceeded the debatory content that their 4 posts have been implied to produce).

rather, the two parties are merely setting suitable and sensible parameters by which to conduct their future discussions, since both are keen that these be continued in an appropriate and equitable fashion. adherence to mutually agreed parameters can only result in higher quality debates which will be of benefit to all of us.

in friendship,
prad

ps as far as cutting irony with a sawzall, you just need the blade - but i do like that line of yours very much and plan to plagarize it with your permission, of course 😀

Originally posted by Phlabibit
I don't think we should hi-jack this thread.

Yes, you can use my quote if you like, but if anyone ever asks you know my name!

P-

you are right. we should not hijack this thread.

i know your name, but i have been sworn to secrecy on it by you. therefore the credit will have to go to phlabibit.

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by garyminford
it would be a shame to lose to of our master debators 😉

this is very true. both contribute much.

this is why it is so important that blatant misrepresentation and mockery not enter debates of this nature in which both parties have a considerable investment of time, energy and indeed their personal selves. the idea of debate on the forums should not be to see who can slander or ridicule the other into submission, but who can through the force of appropriate arguments provide enlightment.

i hope all of the above has not made you angry 😀😀😀😀
but you and i can present argument and counter-argument regarding whether it has or not provided you are willing to take debait 😀😀😀😀😀

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe,

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to continue any of our discussions if you can't abide by the groundrules I've proposed. I'm tired of being misrepresented, and I'm tired of being slandered by having my views lumped together with those held by Nazis, Utilitarians, Dutch Bio-ethicists, the Bio-Industrial Complex, etc. If you find these groundru ...[text shortened]... employing ad hominem attacks, then I see no reason to respond to anything you write.

Bennett

Good Grief! And was I thinking we were all just playing Chess here?!

Originally posted by bbarr
Ivanhoe,

I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to continue any of our discussions if you can't abide by the groundrules I've proposed. I'm tired of being misrepresented, and I'm tired of being slandered by having my views lumped together w ...[text shortened]... then I see no reason to respond to anything you write.

Bennett

Bennett,

The issues that I want to discuss deal with developments in the past, present and in the future that entail the possibilities of killing human beings and the reasons behind it. In other words why these possibilities were, are and will be introduced in society. For instance if we will be discussing the ideas of the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer we probably have to discuss the reasons why his work is banned in Germany. Of course this has to do with the connection of his ideas and the Nazi ideas in the past. There are many people who seriously worry about certain developments in philosophy in general and bioethics in particular that are known under the name of the Culture of Death. These developments should be investigated in the light of what is going on in the Bio-Industrial Complex. I do not want to ignore these developments and their connection with what is going on in bio-ethics.
I can imagine that you do not want your name associated with the name of Peter Singer. I know his ideas differ from yours. You are a Kantian philosopher, he is a Utilitarian. However it will be difficult to discuss his ideas and other necessary (unpleasant ?) issues if you feel that these discussions would be an ad hominem attack on you. The mentioning of the term Culture of Death will sometimes be necessary in order to refer to the developments we are talking about. I don't see any reasonable reason to refrain from any terms that are also being used in other debates elsewhere.
I also want to be able to refer to the very important and in my view alarming developments in the Netherlands or elsewhere without you again interpreting this as an ad hominem attack on you. Of course it isn't. The fact that the vanguard of the Dutch advocates of the Culture of Death ( NVVE, Humanistisch Verbond) call themselves "Vrijdenkers" (= Freethinkers) is hardly something you can blame me for.

Of course I want to avoid any fallacies in my reasoning. Just like you I also want to avoid any ad hominem attacks. It will only confuse and obscure the discussion. Therefore I agree with your proposal of conducting our debates in a reasonable manner, and that entails not employing ad hominem attacks.

Joe