Challenging the limits of my intelligence and responsibility - Philosophical Warrior

Hello fellow college bounders! This is my essay for the common application. Please try to assess it on all relevant levels. The prompt reads as follows: "Please provide a statement (250 words minimum) that addresses your reasons for transferring and the objectives you hope to achieve."

Let me know if it is to melodramatic, has problems with grammar or flow, or even if it sounds too militaristic because I am not trying to pursue a career in the military. Thanks alot. (Please be brutal!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The career path I have chosen for my life will challenge the limits of my intelligence and responsibility. Such challenges will be tests of my knowledge and experience for which I will need to be prepared through extensive education. With the degree I will earn through transferring I will become more powerful and efficient in my ability to make quick and informed decisions on which the safety of our nation may depend. By continuing my education I hope to fight not necessarily our enemies, but rather to make myself a more effective agent of peace, diplomacy, and enlightenment in the United States' dealings with foreign powers.

My journey began as I shuffled through a group of students down an old and uneven cobble stone street. As I walked I could hear the passer-bys speaking softly, much softer than my American companions, in languages that I did not understand. I was in the streets of Cesky Krumlov in the Czech Republic on tour with my high school choir group. These sounds and images sparked a profound feeling of the great history that this place must have seen. A history that was never taught to us in school but that still had the power to captivate. I gazed up at the tall buildings that leaned and loomed over us to the balcony of an old restaurant where a man sat surveying the view. I wondered what he was taught in school and what his own life had taught him about this part of the world. I knew that one day when this was all over I would have to return to this place. What I did not know was that when I did it would not be as a tourist, but as someone who could understand the whispers that I heard on the streets and what those people saw in the cities that they lived in. I would have to dedicate my life to understanding this and many other cultures and the roles those cultures play in the modern world. I would have to major in International Relations.

While Europe gave me the hunger and passion for knowledge of different worlds, it was only my life's study of philosophy that gave me the direction in which to steer that passion. One day my philosophy professor was lecturing on Plato's Republic, comparing the different tiers of society to those of a farmland with ordinary citizens as the sheep, the government as the shepherd, and the wolves as the usurpers of the farm. The sheepdogs were those who used their knowledge of the wolves to defend the sheep and protect the fruits of the farm. It was then that I knew that I wanted to be a sheepdog. I wanted to learn the ways of the different cultures of the world and how they interact with one another to work towards conflict resolution without war. The conflicts of today's nations are fundamentally conflicts of different philosophies and my training with these philosophies would allow me to see both sides to any conflict and to apply that talent to resolve our conflicts with the wolves. This is the way of the modern warrior. Given that there are many different kinds of warriors in today's world (some wear uniforms and carry weapons and some go unnoticed while fighting with information and influence) they all share the mindset of the sheepdog. In his book entitled On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote, "After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference."

Mistakes that cost lives are made in ignorance and brashness. Every bit of education I gain lowers the risk of such mistakes being made. I hope that I never stop being educated because there are too many perspectives that the world has to offer for me to ever consider myself finished. However, there is only so far I can go in my current situation. By transferring I hope to open the door for newer and more powerful ideas to change and improve my own personal philosophy and my capacity to understand the nuances in culture of those nations the United States must deal with.

Hi,

this essay is great, it completely expressed your opinion. Your essay is fine and doesn't sound militaristic. Just suggesting, it's a little bit to long, but maybe this is what it should look like.

angela

For this, above, I think it is more manageable it it's slightly changed:

I would have dedicated my life to understanding this and many other cultures and the roles those cultures play in the modern world.

Hey now, IR is not the only option for that... maybe you want to major in cultural anthropology.

Oh... now I see that this last part of the first paragraph is confusing. You make it sound like you would have, but you will not do it after all. Change like this:

I would have to dedicate my life to understanding this and many other cultures and what role they play in the modern world. I would have to major in International Relations.

Okay, and the other thing, now, Tyler, is to make succinct, powerful paragraphs. You start that second paragraph as if it is going to be about traveling in Europe, but the bulk of the para is about that sheep dog concept. In order to make that section manageable, can you condense this whole part One particular course I took [...] knew that I wanted to be a sheepdog. ...can you condense all of that into one or two good sentences?

By condensing that, you will be well on your way to focusing it on the prompt. This is great stuff, and by your choice of EssayForum user-name I can tell you are very thoughtful, but I want to make sure you present this stuff in a way that specifically answers their question.

The stuff about 911, too... you need to say this stuff in fewer words. That way the essay's main idea can be WHY you want to transfer and WHAT you hope to achieve (say some more about their school, your situation, and your specific career plan). This can be great if you keep all these ideas but find ways to express them in way fewer words. That way, this essay will be jam-packed with meaningfulness and also manageable enough to focus on the prompt question. Use goot topic sentences for each paragraph to show that you are responding to the prompt:

My reason for transferring to XXX involves your school's excellent __________

By the way, thanks for all the help you have been giving other members!

Hello again and thank you for your help. Here is a revised version. I have a couple questions. (well I guess more like 3 paragraphs worth of questions.) Do you think I should leave out most of the first sentence in paragraph 2? I put that there as a transition between what I learned in europe and what I learned in my other life experiences. I know that that paragraph seems to start out sort of vague and then finally about 2/3 of the way down the reader discovers the point. Is that really such a bad format? If I started talking about sheep at the begining of the paragraph it would seem a little awkward to me.

Ha, ha. I also realized that the author and the book title take up like 2 lines. (Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book entitled On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace wrote.) For the sake of wordiness avoidance should I shorten this introduction? I just wanted people to know the exact context of the quote.

One last thing. This is part of the common application that I will be sending out to about 5 different schools. I am hesitant to put specific things about certain schools and the programs that I know they have because it would of course not apply to all of them. I could say, for example, that American University and George Washington University offer a great location in terms of internships and job opportunities for my field of study but that would not apply to Occidental College. All of these schools have good political science/IR programs but I feel like I can't be to specific as it would exclude or not make sense to other schools. Thank you guys.

Yes, do you know what non sequator means? It's like, "does not follow." You should not go from talking about what your trip in Europe gave you to talking about tribal drum sessions from your past and then about learning German. In good writing, each paragraph is one thought, beautifully expounded. Can you revise to make it so that each paragraph starts with a thoughtful sentences, and then the following sentences explain that point, and then the paragraph's last sentence reflects on the thought again?

Fix that awkward line like this:

In his book entitled On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote, "...

It is great that you are thinking in erms of economy of words. That is how to be an excellent writer!

After this sentence, transition by talking about an unforgettable lesson in the class, and then start a new paragraph: I have taken German courses and loved the language and culture. It was in this class that I learned a life lesson that... (end of paragraph)

Then start a new paragraph about sheep dogs: One day in a philosophy class I was taking our philosophy professor was lecturing on Plato's Republic, comparing...

By the way, have you read the Herman Hess book???? :)

Hello, once again. Common App essay version 3 follows. I changed some wording, shortened the quote, added some sentences to paragraph 3, and removed the bit about tribal drum sessions, German, and Hindu art. The bit I removed does have importance to me but I don't know where I can fit it in unless I make a new paragraph. Such a paragraph may seem like a list of miscellaneus things which might be to unfocused. Any suggestions?

----This is the bit I removed (which I could easily elaborate on.)----

Since I was a little boy I was exposed to tribal drum sessions, Hindu art and culture, and Asian philosophy from my parents and the western schools of thought from classes in high school and college. I have taken German courses and loved the language and culture. My family comes from German descent and the discovery of this part of my personal history has meant a great deal to me.

Put a comma here:

...of different worlds, it was only my...

Yes, I recommend it! Where did you get your user name, Gautama? Yes, that story is important for anyone going forth into the world after finishing the teenage years. The prince tried everything looking for the meaning of life, looking for what this is all about.

In answer to your questions:

Come back to focus on "reasons for transferring and the objectives you hope to achieve." Can you add a brilliant intro paragraph that directly answers that question. It's important. I like how you start with the story, but you really need to target that question and not be abstract about how you answer. In your specific answer to that question, mention these few experiences covered in the essay. The stuff you cut out should be kept out; use it in some other piece of writing, in the future. Keep tightening this up.

In your intro para, you can answer that question in a way that makes the quote at the end of para #2 work just fine... as long as you say that your reason for transferring has something to do with wanting to live a powerful life.

You are a good writer, and I like your warrior theme. Please, for the love of God, read Chogyam Trungpa's Shamballa: The Sacred Path of the Warrior.

!!!

:)

Ok, here we go again. I added an intro paragraph and changed the first sentence of the second paragraph. I'll have to check out those 2 books and yes my name is in reference to Siddhartha Gautama.

You shouldn't end with a preposition, and also,"...those nations the United States must deal with. " doesn't sound nice! However, the essay is great.

Good luck in school.

To quote Winston Churchill, "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."

That is an AWESOME example of how the rules can become tiresome when we are sticklers for them. Ha ha, Nevertheless, ending a sentence with a preposition is generally not good, and ending a whole essay with one is like... it stands out like a ... well, I can't think of any good example, but, it stands out.

It stands out like a shirt tucked into the pants and out the fly zipper thing.

Who was it that said that they hated teachers who were sticklers about not using the first person in a serious essay. Or something like that...

I've always thought that the best way to view the general advice people normally give for writing as constituting guidelines that it is normally best to follow, rather than iron-clad rules that we should never violate. The first person can be very useful in a serious essay, though many students use it to keep adding unnecessary or inappropriate material. Likewise, starting a sentence with "and" or "but can sound perfectly natural in places.

btw: the preposition rule comes from a mistake made by grammarians. In Old English, word order didn't matter, because all of the words, verbs, nouns, adjectives, etc, had a case that told you what function they were serving in a sentence. So, you could put prepositions anywhere. However, by the time people got around to trying to writing down grammatical rules to standardize them, Latin words had begun creeping in to the language. One of these words was "preposition." When the grammarians looked at this word, they said to themselves: "preposition comes from the Latin 'pre' meaning 'before' and 'position.' This must mean they should always go in front of the phrase they modify." This was of course perfectly true of Latin, but had nothing at all to do with English, Old English, or any other Germanic language. So, the idea that prepositions should never end a sentence arose when people applied the literal meaning of a word borrowed from Latin to English, which is not a Romance language, and which has never really worked the way Latin and its descendant languages do.

Cool! That makes sense. In English, we can order sentences however we like, generally. Even the way Yoda talks is alright, really. Into any spot of the sentence prepositions you can insert. Ha.

Really, I never thought of it that way. I enjoy the fact that word order is my prerogative as the writer. It's a shame to impose that kid of constraint! Nevertheless, admissions officers read these essays and look for signs that you a promising student -- it is better to show that you are able to do the necessary gymnastics to observe that rule.

Becaue it IS a rule! Even though Sean is right, he is the only person who knows that fact he just shared withus! Ha ha, well, now we know it, too. But with regard to the admissions essays passing through this site, I think it is best to point it out. Especially when the prepositin comes at the end of the last sentence of the whole essay, Tyler!! Ha ha.

BTW it was probably me that said I hate it when prof's are sticklers for no first person perspective. How unnatural, to talk about yourself in the third person.. Ha ha. How Gollum! We hates him, don't we my precious!

See I figure that if you can write a serious essay that makes use of the first person correctly and effectively you should get credit for it. If there is nothing wrong with the thing itself but only that many times it is misused then using it correctly should give you extra credit if anything, ha ha!

Very interesting Sean! There are so many games that we humans have to play in our lives that seem to have no practical purpose for really making anything more effective at all. Writing certainly has its share of games. (The use of first person in serious essays, ending sentences with a preposition, and we all talked about the many strange forms of proper citation) Although I will say that it is games like these that give languages their own sound and style that change through culture and time. So like any other game I suppose it can be fun!

I think a lot of it has to do with the learning process, too. Students generally shouldn't use "I" in their formal academic writing, because they have to learn how to be objective, how to step back from the material and consider it without letting their own opinions and preconceptions get in the way. They also need to learn that an awful lot of the first person is just unnecessary in writing. "In my opinion," "I believe," etc. aren't necessary because in any short essay, the reader assumes that what he is reading is the author's opinion, unless it is cited from another source. However, in longer essay, it can be really useful to just write things like "Of course, this overlooks the moral dimensions of the issue, which I will discuss at length in the next section," which is far more natural than the passive voice construction that would allow you to avoid this. Likewise, if you are pulling together a lot of information from many different sources, it can be helpful to highlight your opinion with a "Personally, I believe," as Richard Dawkins does at points in The Blind Watchmaker.

Man, I still haven't heard Dawkins make an argument that I did not make in my 7th grade religious education class. He is just a bully targeting an easy target (fundamentalist religions) and he groups all religion together... even grouping ideas of the continuity of exprience and an afterlife together with god-concepts -- as if the notion of continuity of experience is somehow dependent on a fairytale-like god-concept. Grr... don''t get me going about Dawkins -- I have seen interviews with that smug bully. He is irresponsible to influence people to turn away from "religion" as if all religion is as insane as fundamentalist religious belief systems. In Chapter 2 of his God delusion book, he casually groups together the afterlife concept with the god concept that he rejects.

My God, is it any harder to believe in a creative force than it is to believe that all this somehow came from nothing? I am part of the intelligence that animates this matter. Dawkins, Bill Maher... those guys are right to give a reality check to fundamentalists, but they should take a minute to acknowledge that sacred something that inspires reverence that I can feel in my spine... they make people miss the point.

Sorry for the digression!

His atheism is disturbing to me to. Not so much because he believes all religion is insane (it is -- statements such as "god exists" or "there is an afterlife" are quite literally meaningless, if grammatically correct, as would be the sentence "invisible blue aliens are using us as puppets") but because, as an evolutionist who believes that anything that evolves repeatedly from separate starting points must have great adaptive value, he seems unable to see any adaptive value in religious belief, even though ever single culture on Earth has evolved it independently. He seems to be one of these fundamentalist scientist types who believes that, just because a story never happened, it isn't true, or that just because something couldn't possibly be true, we shouldn't believe in it. I find that horribly narrow-minded of him.

The only people I have a problem with are those who say they know that they are right. I don't believe in god but I think that atheists are just as deluded as the next guy.

Its healthy to believe in something as long as you don't take yourself to seriously because its really impossible to know about this stuff for sure. When you gain the courage to allow your beliefs to constantly be challenged (and even be scrapped for new ones all together when need be) you cease to be religious and instead become philosophical.

"religion is insane (it is"

"He seems to be one of these fundamentalist scientist types who believes that, just because a story never happened, it isn't true, or that just because something couldn't possibly be true, we shouldn't believe in it."

That's awfully diabolical of you to say. Challenging Dawkins not because he believes "religion is insane", but because he is unwilling to see the worth of something that is "not possible."

What IS possible?

Answer that question.

We don't know 0.01% of what IS possible, so how can you say with a straight face, what is not possible?

It's impossible to know that something unproven to be impossible is impossible. How do you prove that something is impossible? You can't.

If it was as easy as observing something with your eyes and reporting to it, do you think it would be called belief? Where is the test of faith in that?

Belief is in knowing that something which you can't see exists. It's not hard for most people to see a rock and say that there is a rock. It's when you challenge people to believe that there's a rock without seeing it that they get all scared.

I don't want to get started here.
Just wanted to point out the logical error in your reasoning.

Don't alienate people with BS.

You're welcome to tell us your opinion, but don't state it as fact. That's appealing to your authority as a writer, ok?

You're not in your right capacity to speak authoritatively about something that no one can claim with any dignity to be an authority on.

If you must belittle people's beliefs, do it on your own time, not while you have that Essayforum.com tag and people might make the mistake of believing that your nonsensical blabber is any more credible than the next idiot Sam, Sean, or Shaw.

Well, it IS possible that consciousness came before form.

Believe that our consciousness depends on the physical body, and no one can tell you that you are in denial of your own mortality, but you are still forced to assume that this world of form came from nothing, somehow. Same as I, believing that consciousness came before form, am forced to assume that consciousness came from nothing, somehow.

This debate has nothing to do with you and I specifically, just a matter of reasoning.

You have to assume either that 1.) form spontaneously existed and makes consciousness possible, or that 2.) consciousness spontaneously existed and makes possible a dream about form. Believing that form came before consciousness is not any easier to believe than my way.

Most people seem to think that form came first and made consciousness possible. I think that idea seems far-fetched, because form doesn't just go around infusing itself with consciousness. Dreams, on the other hand DO routinely involve a body and an environment, and questions that are impossible to answer and yet, during the dream, we often just use willing suspension of disbelief -- like we do in life.

Most people seem to think that form came first and made consciousness possible. But my intuition tells me otherwise. Why do people reject the idea that consciousness could have come first? I think you MUST concede that there is no reason to assume form came first.

For the sake of argument, assume form somehow began to exist and became conscious.
For the sake of argument, assume consciousness somehow began to exist and had a dream.

Which is more far-fetched? They are both far-fetched, and yet here we are!

You cannot say that it is somehow less likely that consciousness existed first! Unless you can come up with a serious argument to support the idea that form probably came first, and became conscious, you HAVE to at least concede that it is AS likely for consciousness to be having a dream as it is for form to have become conscious.

Really, to me it seems way more realistic that consciousness is having a dream, especially given the trippy and fantastic nature of this world of form. Isn't it obvious that this is a dream? We don't remember its beginning, and it is inexplicable. Just like microcosms and macrocosms are observable everywhere in nature, the dream you had last night is a microcosm of a larger dream.

So, row your boat. If consciousness is having a dream about form, death ends nothing.

Is it just me or is Mustafa being really disrespectful and unnecessarily mean?

Seriously, you are a smart guy with interesting things to say but you have no right to personally attack the moderators of these forums.

Everything you said up until the last five lines was really interesting and of value. Then you go on a rant to attack Sean that is completely unnecessary.

"Don't alienate people with BS."
"You're welcome to tell us your opinion, but don't state it as fact. That's appealing to your authority as a writer, ok?"

----Do you want him to write "In my opinion in front of every sentence or something? This is a debate. We are all arguing our own opinions. You seem perfectly comfortable with presenting your own ideas as "facts" so don't police everybody else about it.----

"You're not in your right capacity to speak authoritatively about something that no one can claim with any dignity to be an authority on."

----This is another example of hipocrisy. If he has no right to speak authoritatively about this stuff then you don't either. (And believe me, you keep trying to speak in the most authoritative manner you can muster.) This is a DEBATE, we aren't stating our opinions as if they are facts. Otherwise there would be nothing to debate.----

"If you must belittle people's beliefs, do it on your own time, not while you have that Essayforum.com tag and people might make the mistake of believing that your nonsensical blabber is any more credible than the next idiot Sam, Sean, or Shaw."

----This is the most hypocritical comment of them all. You say not to belittle others then you go right ahead and belittle Sean's moderator status on this site, call his well written and thought out arguments "nonsensical blabber", and then indirectly call him an idiot.----

So I leave you with one question: What is your problem? If we are having a debate why can't you respect other people and respond to their arguments with logic (which I know you are capable of doing) instead of personal attacks? I think you are way out of line, my friend.

Tyler, there is no vitriol in my words. If anything, I'm a little insensitive, and sometimes I don't say things diplomatically because I was never encultured to do so, nor is it in my nature. Maturity with age will be to my obvious benefit.

But at least part of it is that, at some level I feel like other people are being insensitive in their own right.

When you read what I say, make sure to read it twice, because more often than not it's easy to overlook the point that I'm trying to get across and instead focus on the manner in which I get it across. So, save yourself some unnecessary affront and make sure you understand what I'm saying for what I'm trying to say.

Now then, I'm going to try to make this as clear as I possibly can.

What did Sean really say when he said religion is insane? To you, a person who self-admittedly does not believe in God, it might not be readily apparent.

Religion for many people, me included, is a major guiding factor in life.

When Sean comes out and says religion is insane, he is also saying something else.

Primarily that anyone who is religious believes in something insane. This is a corollary, I'm not making this stuff up and it's not farfetched. It is a direct, unambiguous inference.

So I belive in something insane? That's just the beginning..

Why would I believe in something insane?

It's surely not for a good reason.

Am I stupid? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Am I gullible? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Am I brainwashed? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Or maybe I'm insane? Maybe -- is that why I believe in something insane?

That's just the character attack.

He is more importantly, calling my most personal, cherished beliefs, deranged.

You have to understand -- imagine the most important thing to you, and how you would feel if someone else called it senseless.
I'm realistic though. I realize that you cannot imagine that, especially when I read what you say, when you say that people should not take their beliefs so seriously. I don't think we can have a discussion on this issue at all, without imparting into it the immense disparity in our positions, or being fundamentally unable to recognize where each other are coming from.

Feelings get crushed, people get angry, and the result is not good when you have a volatile discussion on this topic among people who hold vastly different beliefs.

*There is a reason why you cannot state your opinions as fact on this issue particularly. Because by doing so, you precipitate a lot of unpleasant ramifications.*

Nothing else approaches the personal heart and investment that is a part of this for the people who it is a part of this for.

Why do we have to be so upfront? I know at some deep level even without him saying what he did, (that I believe in something insane) that he harbored that thought. But does it make it better or worse to say that to me?

Why can't we just respect that we each have different beliefs and get along?

Yeah, I state my ideas as fact. Not on this issue. Why is that?

"In order to state your opinion as fact on this issue, it is very likely that you must implicitly denigrate and disparage."

On pretty much all other topics, you are able to avoid that toll, or not have it be so heavy.

I never called him out on something before, where it would be justifiable to present your case as fact; you're right, I do it all the time myself, just not on this issue.

Listen, if there's one thing in the world that NO ONE can take away from you, that NO ONE can say they know more about than you, it's your beliefs.

I don't care if you are Nietzsche or Einstein or Aristotle. To me, they got it dead wrong, and that was THEIR disaster.

So look back at what I said.

Why do I object to these things?

"You're not in your right capacity to speak authoritatively about something that no one can claim with any dignity to be an authority on."

What do I mean there?

People need to form their own personal beliefs. They don't need a moderator on a website for help on this issue. It's irresponsible as a moderator to speak about this topic so boldly. It's way out of line for him, just on this topic, because nothing about it suggests that you adopt other people's beliefs; you form your own.

That is the nature -- it is absolutely personal -- and you need to be especially mindful of that as a moderator who people look to for writing advice. To not be mindful of it is wreckless and an abuse and disregard of your position.

In all fairness, towards the very end I probably said some things I shouldn't have, but I think I showed more restraint than Sean did.

Wow, I figured my post would provoke some sort of response, but nothing like this. Mustafa, you need to develop a sense of irony. Think about the entirety of my last post, and ask yourself if you thought I really meant every line of it, or if possibly, just possibly, I was being a tad facetious.

As to the whole religion being insane thing, that was Dawkin's wording, as paraphrased by Kevin. What I was really saying was that religious statements are meaningless. This is not, I repeat NOT a value judgment, but a statement of fact. According to Karl Popper, a statement is meaningful only so long as it can be verified or falsified (which really amounts to the same thing). "God exists" is therefore a meaningless statement, since there is absolutely no way anyone can actually ever prove or disprove it. "Water freezes at zero degrees Celsisus" is a meaningful sentence because it can be proven or disproven. (It is in fact false. Water does not always freeze at zero degrees Celsius. Pure water, at a certain pressure, will freeze at that temperature, but the unqualified sentence is actually demonstrably false.) In this sense, then, the phrase "God exists," or "there is an afterlife" are exactly as meaningful as "invisible blue aliens are using us as puppets." That is to say not at all. If someone told you they believed in the latter, you would have no trouble agreeing that they were insane. There is no logical reason not to make the same judgment about people who profess belief in the former.

Also, you seem to miss the part where I said that religion has great social value, which would seem to imply that I am not entirely opposed to religion after all.

And Tyler's right, you have a nasty habit of engaging in personal attacks. You may have found my comments personally offensive, since you seem to have strong religious beliefs, but they were not directed at you personally. I did not write for instance, that "Mustafa is clearly a troll who enjoys provoking others unnecessarily, and should be ignored." Even Tyler, in criticizing you, balanced out his comments by saying, quite correctly, in my opinion, that you were a smart guy who has a lot of value to add to the debate. I don't much mind if you want to throw in ad hominem attacks against me in your replies to my posts -- it is very, very difficult to offend me, and such attacks only weaken your own case while making mine seem stronger, so why should I object? But I would appreciate it if you could tone it down when making comments about other people's work. Some of the people who post here might be a bit more sensitive to such things, and really, you should be able to criticize a position you disagree with without passing judgment on the author personally.

Who are you kidding here?

"it is"

it < you're referring to as religion being insane.

Don't try to retract your statement now, and turn it into something that is debatable along the lines of a philosophical argument.

I'm making an ad hominem attack against you, in as much as you are calling me an
extremely foolish something believer.

If my end is in being a troll, yours is selectivity at the expense of being at best, disingenuous, and at worst untruthful.

Ok now I see your side, Mustafa. What Sean did (though I don't think he was really trying to challenge anyone) was irresponsible. He used a sneaky tactic by quoting someone else then agreeing with what they said. He basically did say that religion is insane which is irresponsible as a moderator.

And believe me, I do have things in my life that I would take great personal offense to where they to be called "insane" so I understand your response, I really do.

I do still stick with what I said earlier about the coarsness of your language. You say this:

"When you read what I say, make sure to read it twice, because more often than not it's easy to overlook the point that I'm trying to get across and instead focus on the manner in which I get it across. So, save yourself some unnecessary affront and make sure you understand what I'm saying for what I'm trying to say."

Mustafa, you cannot say things however you wish to say them and then just make it everyone else's problem if they find you offensive. That is a problem that you have in interpersonal communication, not everyone else. You have to take responsibility for how you talk to people(and it's not always about just flat out attacking someone. It's also about the little covert assides that are vitriolic and are meant to be combative and belittling)

You cannot say things in a hurtful or coarse way and then say: listen, just read it again and disregard all the rudeness. When I read the past debates between you and Sean I detected no hostility in Sean's comments at all as he was trying to counter your arguments. Your responses seemed to be full of comments that were designed to try to get a rise out of people. Those would be much better examples of intelligent debate if we could go back and cut out all of the unnecessary assides and hostile language.

And hey, maybe you really don't mean to be coarse. So what? You still are and need to go back and "make sure to read [your comments] twice" to be respectful to the other people who show you the same courtesy.

You really shouldn't deny being things you haven't been accused of being.

I never said you were an extremely foolish believer -- when I made my original post, I didn't even know you were a believer. As it is, I still don't know what you believe, exactly, what faith you believe in, or even if you believe in any given faith. For all I know, you could believe in a personal God rather than in any organized religion per se. I assume you aren't a atheist, because you have indicated as much, but that's about it.

I also never said you were a troll. In fact, my whole point was that I hadn't written anything like that, and that you should also avoid making ad hominem attacks.

In fact, the only thing I have said about you personally in this thread is "you were a smart guy who has a lot of value to add to the debate." You are too quick to take offense. I don't know whether this is because you just enjoy being confrontational, or what, but stop. In fact, try to avoid saying anything negative in your posts about anyone.

Also, you need to learn to separate your beliefs from your emotions, to enjoy ideas and debates for their own sake. Would it surprise you to learn, for instance, that I personally believe in God? How I reconcile that belief with what I said in my previous post would be too long of a explanation to post here, but suffice it to say that I have nothing personal against Popper for arguing that my belief is meaningless, even though I disagree with him.

Consider my first post on this thread: https://essayforum.com/writing-3/right-abortion-argumentative-paper-6112/ compared to your own. We both outline the pro-life position in our posts, but you do so because you clearly believe the author is wrong and should change her position. I do so because I recognize that she needs to rebut these points if she wants her essay to be effective. If she had written from a pro-life perspective in the same way I would have outlined the pro-choice case in the same way, too. There are places online where the issues people write about here can be fiercely debated, but that's not the point of these forums, which is meant to help people explore their own beliefs.

Hey, now, what's all this about holding moderators to some special standard? I thought this thread was called philosophical warrior. If Sean wants to state opinion as fact... well... that is what I do, too. I state my opinion as fact, because it's factual as my observation. Factual relative to me.

I don't know what "vitriolic" means, but I hope it is an energy drink.

This is by far my favorite thread so far.

The fact that this sort of discussion can emerge from an essay is evidence that education is effective after all.

For whatever it might be worth... I had a personal experience of ... a sort of revelation... while participating in this thread... the sort of thing that I cannot capture in words...

Hey, incidentally, I have long enjoyed saying that "I don't believe in atheists." That is a great conversation starter right there... tell them they are refusing to admit they believe... hah ha. But then, back off, because people don't like to be told what they believe and what they don't. Heh, heh.

Mustafa, I neglected to mention: The argument that God's elusiveness... or the pain in the world.. is a "test of faith" is probably not a good argument to use. It's based on flawed reasoning that I'll leave you to sort out. I am extremely impressed by your intellect, intellectually, but I am extremely impressed by your introspective observation about Maturity with age will be to my obvious benefit...in a deeper way. That is some real wisdom. People do not ordinarily acknowledge that sort of thing... you seem to be some kind of genius, despite your large vocabulary.

Anyway, Tyler, this is a great contribution you made here! Thanks for starting this one and contributing so much of yourself! For the record, I don't think Sean or anyone else is being irresponsible, per se, even in light of your analysis. My favorite philosophical warrior, James Masayoshi Mitose, wrote: "Words are a difficult means of communication!"

Despite the fact that some of these posts have gotten a little more personal than I would have liked (even if they were mostly written respectfully and constructively), I have to admit that this is one of my favorite threads so far, too. These sorts of threads give the forums a sense of being a learning community, rather that just a glorified grammar checker. As in any community, there are disagreements on just where the boundaries of appropriate behavior lie, but everyone here has contributed intelligently to a meaningful discussion of that matter, while also contributing some interesting thoughts on a slew of other topics, too. That has to be grounds for optimism, really.