can someone please give me a source, i can’t form an opinion without a stanford article on it.
Sorry, the onus lies on you to do that. Source for your question? Which philsophical tradition are you speaking from btw
I suppose I could, but since it’s your statement, the burden of proof lies on you.
your statement about farmers you need to prove as well then 
Source for Youngstorm’s claim:
Zaphius (2020) World of Warcraft forums (Malding in Stormwind - #453 by Zaphius-argent-dawn)
Your turn
3 Likes
It might happen, so embrace for the worse.
a) it gets attention to a streamer from an anonymous donation that direct it too this topic: reading everything live, makes a respond too it. - while those that call them self its ‘’ fans ‘’ that watch the stream will go full cancel culture / ‘‘rightous defendá’’ against role players that they assuming attacked there ‘’ stream dad / mom ‘’- causing some living hell too our server in few weeks or more even if the streamer does not condone such actions.
b) some people reads it, laughs and does not gives a damn bout it and moves along.
c) Mischievous forum trolls finds it, claps there hands together like a cartoon villain and prepares too bait people too respond them here, tries to get out of the subject / derailing and other nonsense so the topic gets locked. ( wait, that might already have happen. )
1 Like
http s://gyazo.com/02bcfda9f72420f6a2a3288373721151
2 Likes
Dude if you think that Stanford represents all views and is the end-all, be-all of philosophical discussion (on some video game forum) then you really are a midwit (it doesn’t even refute that she is one). A philosophy module I did last semester at a high-ranking university in the UK had Ayn Rand as required reading; and yes, the political affiliation is relevant when it directly informs her philosophy.
I’m afraid my intellectual friend that rn you are basically using a fallacy known as ‘le argumento from authoritao’. See link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
6 Likes
Source? Wikipedia doesn’t count
2 Likes
There’s no such thing as a professional philosopher out of you’re getting paid for it or not
You either philosophize or you don’t
Don’t you understand that the whole ‘well according to professional philosophers’ is just people trying to convince you by sounding smarter then you that you should not listen to X?
It’s literal subversion 101
6 Likes
It’s already happening aye. I’m surprised this thread is still going.
I already told you to take down the image Uruk
Hmmm an interesting claim but I will need at least one source for it, thanks
A wise man knows when a battle is lost.
A fool fights a hopeless cause for honour.
A religious man battles on in hope of a miracle.
An idiot believes he is winning the fight.
4 Likes
Sure, buy me the brutosaur mount and I’ll do it. o/
The internet is ripe with news articles with sourceless claims of experts say
Going deeper in it then that is tinfoil territory so I’m treading carefully on that ground
Edit because non tinfoil description;
Basically it is the call to authority falacy
I have already explained this point to Vashava. Namely, it doesn’t matter if she is a philosopher, that wasn’t the point of the debate - what matters is that my position isn’t solipsist, as is shared by other people that know about the field in question. The position I sustained also happens to be the mainstream position in academia.
We can debate -if- and -why- it’s true (or false), but nevertheless a large portion of philosophers doesn’t classify Rand as a philosopher out of philosophical reasons.
If there was a thing like a professional philosopher, then I believe that Koramar from the Iron Docks could clearly apply for the position.
It’s his job. To think good.
2 Likes
Do you know what that even means?
When thesaurus acts up