Originally posted by FMFfirst of all I have not described my approach as unprincipled, what I actually said is that its not without principle and in a rather obligatory fashion it comes as no surprise that you should attempt to misconstrue it.
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying ~ in answer to my question above ~ 'no' you don't give "a moment's thought" to whether your admittedly unprincipled approach undermines your credibility when criticizing the principles of others?
What I am actually saying is that if credibility does not lie with me personally as I make no appeals on the basis of personal authority, personal integrity etc but in the content of the arguments that I make.
It appears to me that persons like you and these others especially Proper Knob, Stellspalfie and divesgeester tend to attempt to reduce the matter away from empirics and focus on personality, why that should be hard to understand I cannot say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell this is what you said about 24 hours ago:
first of all I have not described my approach as unprincipled, what I actually said is that its not without principle and in a rather obligatory fashion it comes as no surprise that you should attempt to misconstrue it.
"Anyone who enters a mele thinking that they will come away clean I think is seriously deluded. I wont say that I am completely unprincipled but certainly I use what may be expedient at the time, its a much more reactionary stance rather than a calculating one."
So you are now going try to wriggle out having said this?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you don't actually claim to have any personal credibility? Is that it?
What I am actually saying is that if credibility does not lie with me personally as I make no appeals on the basis of personal authority, personal integrity etc but in the content of the arguments that I make.
Originally posted by FMFwhy should I make any argument on the basis of personal credibility, 'so you were a submarine commander in the last war', thats amazing. Sorry but I prefer to try to stick to empirics and evidence whenever available making no appeals on the basis of personal authority whenever possible.
So you don't actually claim to have any personal credibility? Is that it?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes but you've admitted that you say stuff in debate that is "expedient" rather than principled because you see it is a "melee" and you are not attempting to remain "clean". There is no credibility in this approach.
why should I make any argument on the basis of personal credibility, 'so you were a submarine commander in the last war', thats amazing. Sorry but I prefer to try to stick to empirics and evidence whenever available making no appeals on the basis of personal authority whenever possible.
-Removed-you are a rock hidden beneath the water, content to hide behind the anonymity of your church, organization, whatever its called and its practices while fully criticizing others when it can readily be demonstrated that your own practice is severely in want and thats an understatement.
Originally posted by FMFfine you are entitled to your opinion that there is no credibility in such an approach, I have not stated that I am unprincipled, you should retract the assertion.
Yes but you've admitted that you say stuff in debate that is "expedient" rather than principled because you see it is a "melee" and you are not attempting to remain "clean". There is no credibility in this approach.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you've said what you've said. People can read it. Let me get this straight.
fine you are entitled to your opinion that there is no credibility in such an approach, I have not stated that I am unprincipled, you should retract the assertion.
You admit that your arguments are often expedient and unprincipled, although not always.
You don't claim to have any personal credibility or integrity.
You make no claim that you behave in a "clean" way in a debate; you describe trying to be "clean" in the circumstances as "deluded".
You don't care if people think you're dishonest or if the people you are addressing question your integrity.
You just think ~ despite all this ~ that your opinions somehow have authority in and of themselves.
Is this what you're saying?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt appears to me that persons like you and these others especially Proper Knob, Stellspalfie and divesgeester tend to attempt to reduce the matter away from empirics and focus on personality, why that should be hard to understand I cannot say.
first of all I have not described my approach as unprincipled, what I actually said is that its not without principle and in a rather obligatory fashion it comes as no surprise that you should attempt to misconstrue it.
What I am actually saying is that if credibility does not lie with me personally as I make no appeals on the basis of personal ...[text shortened]... away from empirics and focus on personality, why that should be hard to understand I cannot say.
Says the ad hominem, insult throwing king. You couldn't make it up.
Originally posted by FMFI have said what I said why you feel the need to put a particular spin on my words is known only to you Fmf aftet all you were caught only a few posts ago doing just that magically transforming 'not without principle' into 'unprincipled' before our very eyes. Come come dear FMF there is no need to be so modest you are as Machiavellian as anyone else, probably more so.
Well you've said what you've said. People can read it. Let me get this straight.
You admit that your arguments are often expedient and unprincipled, although not always.
You don't claim to have any personal credibility or integrity.
You make no claim that you behave in a "clean" way in a debate; you describe trying to be "clean" in the circumstances ...[text shortened]... that your opinions somehow have authority in and of themselves.
Is this what you're saying?