Philosophy 115
WA Delegate: 
The State of Telgan (elected )
Last WA Update:
Embassies: Forest, Haiku, The Skeleton Army, Futaba Aoi, Scandinavia, The Commonwealth Of Furry Peoples, Nudist Dreamland, 10000 Islands, Free Thought, Gay, Argentina, Israel, Hippy Haven, The Maritimes, United States of America, Deutschland, and 47 others.The SOP, Gay Equality, Groland, The Atheist Empire, The Sea Of Love, Eladen, Hell, Underworld, Nelborne Union, Texas, The Northern Lights, Konfoederation deutschsprachiger Staaten, Federation of Planets Headquarters, Equilism, The Alliance of Queens, The Rose Garden, The Socialist States of the Philippines, Kittens Sanctuary, Krillin, Hippiedom, Portugal, Right to Life, A Liberal Haven, Union of Free Nations, Future Earth, Association of the Countries of the Free, The Peaceful Coffee Shop In Chicago, Philosophy 101, Bus Stop, Heaven, Regionless, The Dank Meme Alliance, The Iceberg Lounge, Donald Trump Land, Democritus, Buddhism, Realm of Unrestricted Science, LGBT University, Anarchy, The Local Supermarket, Union of Allied States, Vermont, Union of Liberal Nations, The House at Pooh Corner, Krasnaya, Philippines, and Salatia.
Tags: Feminist, Founderless, Independent, LGBT, Large, Liberal, Offsite Forums, Password, Serious, Social, and World Assembly.
Regional Power: Moderate
Philosophy 115 contains 56 nations, the 355th most in the world.
Today's World Census Report
The Largest Insurance Industry in Philosophy 115
The World Census posed as door-to-door salespeople in order to establish which nations have the most extensive Insurance industries.
As a region, Philosophy 115 is ranked 6,600th in the world for Largest Insurance Industry.
 | Nation | WA Category | Motto | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. |  The Corporate Dictatorship of Postapocalyptic Terror | Corporate Police State | “Arisen from ruins - Into an era of Glory!” | |
| 2. |  The Snow Crash Dystopia of Anarchocapitalistan | Capitalizt | “No State, No God, No Leader, No Law” | |
| 3. |  The Technocrati Thing of Techno-Titania | Anarchy | “Building Tomorrow Begins Today” | |
| 4. |  The Discoverian Enclave of Veritaria | Capitalist Paradise | “The Truth Is In Here...” | |
| 5. |  The Ruins of Lat Duhran | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy | “Enjoy the spoils of the world!” | |
| 6. |  The Republic of Cape Frew | New York Times Democracy | “Strength through Peace.” | |
| 7. |  The Constitutional Monarchy of Sybillates | Democratic Socialists | “Per aspera ad astra” | |
| 8. |  The Pale Blue Dot of Terra Amore | Anarchy | “It's a fiendish thingy!” | |
| 9. |  The Matriarchy of Sevateam | Mother Knows Best State | “Doctor!!!” | |
| 10. |  The Republic of Philosophical Musings | Inoffensive Centrist Democracy | “From Many, One” |
123456»
Recent polls: “Your least favourite red herring fallacy” • “Should Donald Trump have been convicted by the Senate?”
Regional Happenings
- : Khelb ceased to exist.
- : Embassy established between Philosophy 115 and Salatia.
- :
The Republic of Colonial Defense of the region LIFE PUPPETS proposed constructing embassies.
- :
The Aesthetic Bohemian of Starving Artist of the region Art proposed constructing embassies.
- : Sometimes curious thinker ceased to exist.
- :
The Commonwealth of Central Kadigan agreed to construct embassies with Salatia.
- : The Commonwealth of Central Kadigan rejected Free land's request for regional embassies.
- :
The Empire of Bollesveis of the region Salatia proposed constructing embassies.
- :
The Name of The Rose created a new regional poll: "Your least favourite red herring fallacy".
- :
The Kingdom of Photrisia of the region Create an embassy with us withdrew an invitation to construct embassies.
Philosophy 115 Regional Message Board
Loading...
That's wonderful news!
This is a very prudent move. I will move my WA membership here as soon as possible, but I am currently assisting against a raider invasion in another region. Stay prepared.
Post self-deleted by Rizles Tri.
Congratulations, CK. A great personal achievement and the hard work paying off. Wishing you the best of luck for the future. I would love to go back to be a student again. Lots of learning, reflecting and changing yourn previously held positions. Challenges us to be more open.
Excellent. Wishing you a happy and successful career!
When you write job applications, remember there's a potential fallacy embedded in the process: We tend to stop taking samples as soon as an acceptable job offer appears. So usually, we get n rejections and just a few interviews, and 1 acceptable job. Unless we employ a headhunter to look for even better jobs for us while we're busy working, we usually don't have time to continue taking enough samples to find out what other jobs would also have been offered to us. :)
Reprise of the red herring poll:
page=poll/p=170195
I think I've enountered all of these red herring fallacies, much more in writing than in spoken conversation. (I don't tend to hang out with people who 'reason' like this.)
The Name of The Rose, the story, at its heart has a combination of 1. Appeal to authority and 5. Appeal to tradition. The motive for murder in the book goes something like this: We have been using authority figure X to corroborate certain traditions for a long time. If new evidence shows up, which suggests authority figure X undermining a cherished assertion - let's hide that evidence!
There are so many fallacious arguments to choose from. I suppose by looking at what we cannot stand, I wonder what type of arguments or relationaloties or logic really brings us into a conversation more than others? What is the most persuasive? Could be a new poll for after, Rose. ;).
I persoanlly detest appeals to tradition. Really if truth be told all are pet hates. But i suppose, if we are turly honest with ourselves, we have all made these mistakes in every day conversation or in a work setting. Most of the times, we try and either justify it or reason to ourselves in some other fashion to try and smooth over the otherwise congitive dissonance we experience. I am going to use a fallacy here from the list: we are only human and it is human nature. :).
Haha, I can try! Or perhaps you or someone else?
I'd also be interested, on the formal side, what people's preferences for purely conversational polls here are:
1. How many days is a good poll duration?
2. How many days minimum between 2 polls by the same person? (So as not to accidentally monopolise.)
3. Limited to nations in Philosophy 115, open to all nations, no preference?
It's a good additional question: Which ones have we found ourselves most susceptible to?
Observing myself, I tend to be most susceptible to various combinations of 8. Bulverism and 10. Straw man. I question people's motivations a lot, so far that sometimes the (supposed) hidden motivation outshines the actual claim. However, a person can claim something that is, for example, to their own financial gain, or that feeds their own vanity, and the claim can still be realistic. Each claim needs to be looked at separately, and can't be dismissed right away because there's, for example, a financial or self-serving interest associated with it.
For example, it's quite possible that a person who is trying to sell something tells the truth about their product or service.
On the other hand, especially when confronted with perplexing or disturbing assertions, it can be quite useful to look for motivations behind them, instead of bothering only with surface claims.
This tendency we have to smooth over dissonance doesn't need to be static. We like being comfortable, but we also have a capacity to endure cognitive discomfort, and to increase that endurance. Sometimes, not smoothing over dissonance can even save us from acute danger: Listen to warning bells, rather than reassure ourselves that everything's fine, because we want everything to be fine. We can live with not knowing many things. We can abstain from reassuring ourselves when questions remain open. In other words, we can train our ambiguity tolerance. But how?
Post self-deleted by Rizles Tri.
A kind of Bulverism can be a good thing. Since we've already had an example from The Name of the Rose, consider that the papal delegation comes to the debate to be held at the abbey to argue that Christ had possessions not for scriptural or theological reasons but because it seeks a rebuttal to criticisms of the increasing wealth of the church. The abbot is obsessed with glorifying God by filling the abbey with treasure. Crucifixes are being carved in which Christ is nailed by one hand with the other patting a pouch of gold on his belt. The Franciscan order is repulsed by such displays of earthly wealth and argues that the church should follow the example of the humility of Christ and the apostles, from which it's only a short jump to the violent apocalyptic sects that target wealth with violence. None of this has any direct bearing on the merit of the arguments that are brought to the debate, but if you ignore the context you fundamentally misunderstand the whole process.
You can set fire to a bishop's house because he is rich, William tells Adso, or because you do not believe in the hell that he preaches. It is always done because here on Earth there is a hell, where dwell the people of God whose shepherds we no longer are.
C.S. Lewis named Bulverism for an imaginary person whose destiny was set as a child when he heard his mother tell his father "You only say that because you're a man." Yet perhaps an appropriate response to patriarchy is not to engage rationally with every argument for the status quo but to fight back because some people do indeed say things because they are men, and more importantly because others tend to listen. I feel this may link back to my last post on the US Supreme Court, where political appointees construct legal arguments after the fact to support the outcome they wanted from the beginning.
Advertisement
