[Vendetta21]

Originally Posted by MilfeulleSakuraba

This seems to (at least attempt to) throw philosophical discussion out the window entirely, and I hope it is not what you are trying to get at. I don't see anything inherently wrong with discussing life philosophies, at least not that would make doing so not "thinking critically". If people out there that partake in such discussions do not do so beyond "hay me 2" then they will be reprimanded accordingly by those appointed to do so while the rest of us can simply ignore them and move on at no cost to ourselves if we wish. Hopefully some will stick around and learn more about what they believe - perhaps they will even change their mind. The experience may not necessarily be beneficial to the highest thinkers of the forum but nothing in the rules says they're the only ones that should be allowed to benefit.

It does not throw philosophical discussion out the window. Nothing is thrown out the window. You've misunderstood what I'm saying. For instance, discussing "romanticism" in terms of its truth value is arbitrary, but discussing "romanticism" in terms of other values is fine, such as the impact it would have on a follower of the ideas of "romanticism." If we are to allow people to discuss arbitrary things in terms of truth value, we perpetuate a two-tiered system for this forum in which there are the morons and the teachers. I don't feel like perpetuating this place as the "A concise introduction on why your statement cannot be supported, 101" forum.

Besides, reducing allowed topics of discussion to those where truth values can be readily determined by those who partake risks drifting toward the Algebra homework help forum direction, and I don't think any of us want to see that.

I didn't say where truth values can't be "readily determined." Nothing in what I said implies that. I said where truth values CANNOT be determined under any methodology. There is a very, very big difference. If you honestly don't understand the difference I will illuminate it for you.

I think that you are unsure about the types of things that I wish to see less of, and that is an error in my communication. I am trying to get rid of the periodical "Does God Exist?" threads for one, and a lot of the other threads that have the aroma of being brought up by a 14 year old or someone who is sophomoric in their belief set who come in with an agenda to make a claim, and then stick to that claim despite their lack of evidence, rhetoric, fluency, etc. It is one of the things that I think many of us feels plagues this forum, and I'm just trying to develop a concise logical defense against this kind of thing. Critical thinking is not for rampant apologetics, and I think we all commonly agree of that. I know what I am saying is probably a basic statement taken to technical levels, but I'm saying it for the purpose of discussion. This is a thread on logical fallacies, and thus I used the logical fallacy that is akin to this kind of apologetics in general, the Petitio Principii fallacy, to try and show the lack of argumentative value in someone who posts with that sort of aroma.