You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

S

Comments

7
July 01, 2017 at 22:29
Some people are overly sensitive, easily offended, and idiotic. It's not an equivalence, it's a comparison. They both have limitations in terms of abi...
July 01, 2017 at 21:42
Why are the possibilities, assuming that that's what they are, (1) that people have souls, and (2) that souls exist prior to birth, and (3) that souls...
July 01, 2017 at 20:57
And, just to be clear, your stance is that that isn't far fetched?
June 30, 2017 at 22:19
Sorry, I should be spending more time on your posts and less time bickering with a certain someone. I need to take in what you've said and contemplate...
June 30, 2017 at 22:02
In itself, yes. But how do you think you can resolve the dilemma of either implying something controversial which makes no sense or saying something t...
June 30, 2017 at 21:51
No. You should know by now that I am adept at identifying informal fallacies, like appealing to the masses. Something like that. Of course there's a r...
June 30, 2017 at 21:42
No. You might want to go back and check what was compared to what. I compared a big "if" with another big "if". In common parlance, we refer to what's...
June 30, 2017 at 21:16
No, I'm not saying that it's impossible. Why would you think that, given the analogy that I made? I'm saying that your "if" isn't worthy of serious co...
June 30, 2017 at 20:59
You don't think so, even though what I said in the quote above can be demonstrated by example when it comes to pets and children? And by your own appe...
June 30, 2017 at 20:42
We can't even agree on that. Quitting isn't a bad thing if something isn't worth the bother. If you give me something worth my time, I'll try again. T...
June 30, 2017 at 14:18
Or you could go further afield and talk in a similar way about apples, dogs, or lampposts, as I have done. I think my examples better emphasise the ab...
June 30, 2017 at 14:07
Here's the key point you seem to miss: consent isn't always explicit, nor need it be. I don't need to ask because my continued consent is implicit, no...
June 30, 2017 at 13:41
What about the apples? Think of the apples! If apples have souls... :-O
June 30, 2017 at 13:21
Yes, but I won't touch one if it doesn't consent, because I'm responsible like that. I'm an anti-appleist. We ought to bring attention to this massive...
June 30, 2017 at 13:13
And non-people can never consent. Only people can. That dogs can't vote is not a massive ethical issue. It's not an ethical issue at all. When people ...
June 30, 2017 at 12:44
They may well be. Who am I to say? I am merely the goddess of wisdom.
June 30, 2017 at 11:26
That's missing the point. You're right that it wasn't a proper 'if-then', since it was incomplete. That was the point: I didn't even need to complete ...
June 30, 2017 at 11:11
This is where you go wrong. It isn't morally reprehensible to keep pets in the right way, despite the fact that they do not, and cannot, consent. It's...
June 30, 2017 at 11:03
Well argued! Impossibility does matter, in a certain sense, in some situations. But what Andrew's trying to do with it doesn't work. They can't win th...
June 30, 2017 at 10:38
Nice of you to chip in with some more loaded language. But calling it a burden doesn't quite do the trick. What if we call it a torment? Or compare it...
June 30, 2017 at 10:25
It is sensible to think of consent comparatively. There are situations in which people can consent to sex, and we use that as a comparison, but there ...
June 30, 2017 at 10:10
Yes, of course I have. What about them? You need to bring this back to consent and go into more detail. Predicting the future based on the past is not...
June 30, 2017 at 09:38
No, owls have a penchant for regurgitating pellets, but it's easy to confuse the two.
June 29, 2017 at 22:30
I kind of agree with Terrapin, but for a different reason. Technically, you can do both, but you can't do either without seeming to partake in talk th...
June 29, 2017 at 21:41
That's simply not true. When I'm working on a reply, such as this, for example, there are never any repetitive elements. Repetitive elements just don'...
June 29, 2017 at 21:16
Yes it could, because it's possible, which in turn suggests that it could. Therefore it's possible.
June 29, 2017 at 21:00
It's just no big deal. Obviously it's no big deal to me, and no big deal to others as well. As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too. M...
June 29, 2017 at 20:54
Yes.
June 29, 2017 at 20:35
Well, in the example that you gave of the feeling that people are staring at you, and in the example that I gave of the feeling of anger, there's a di...
June 29, 2017 at 20:28
You tell me. I wouldn't be able to answer that question. Yes. It doesn't strike me as being quite like anger, for example, which is more instantaneous...
June 29, 2017 at 15:14
Well, you're welcome to go back and give it another shot. You might be able to improve upon your last failed attempt. But I don't think you will - tha...
June 29, 2017 at 14:48
What you've quoted me as saying there was not directed at the quote above it, as you've made it appear. I addressed that quote with a different commen...
June 29, 2017 at 14:38
You seem to have misunderstood again. That wasn't what I was talking about. I've moved on from that. I specifically referred to the if-then in your or...
June 29, 2017 at 09:57
That's also fair enough. I think that that's as much a comment on your own original comment, to which I replied, as it is to my reply. It was kind of ...
June 29, 2017 at 03:48
Okay. Yes. At least we can readily understand that feeling and understand what it would mean for it be true that people are staring at you. That is no...
June 29, 2017 at 03:23
In what you quoted? Yes. In the rest of that comment? No. You addressed the flippant remark, but decided not to address the serious points. (And I was...
June 29, 2017 at 03:04
But we weren't discussing a child in the future, or a conscious person, both of which can of course consent. We were discussing consent in relation to...
June 29, 2017 at 02:47
I'm surprised that you didn't realise that I did in fact realise that. Although perhaps you did, and the above was an attempt to fight fire with fire ...
June 29, 2017 at 01:48
Were you not? I wish it didn't have to be like that with you, but when you respond like that, what do you expect? There seems to be a recurring proble...
June 29, 2017 at 01:28
Anecdotal evidence is evidence, and not proof, so it is not absolutely reliable. There's more reliable, less reliable, and unreliable. It makes sense ...
June 29, 2017 at 01:14
It was an analogy. The one and the other do not have to be exact in every way. The distinction you make doesn't seem to address my criticism. Perhaps ...
June 29, 2017 at 00:24
Glad we agree. If pigs can fly, and one just flew past my window, then... Yes, trivially, it's worded such that it's problematic. To reword it: there ...
June 29, 2017 at 00:08
How predictable. You're making my point. I know you, and other anti-natalists, want to focus on and exaggerate the negative aspects. You want to make ...
June 28, 2017 at 23:55
That contrast is an effective way of showing the one-sided, cherry-picking nature of typical anti-natalist arguments like Andrew's above. They're alwa...
June 28, 2017 at 23:26
No I'm not. That analogy was directed at your argument. Look at the first few lines. "People can't consent to being born. It creates a massive problem...
June 28, 2017 at 22:32
Because it's no big deal, and yes, me, just as you decide otherwise. I'm a liberal and you're a prude. I don't doubt that you go around judging what y...
June 28, 2017 at 22:10
>:O "Excuse me, Mister. Why do you want to appeal sexually and attract attention?" But it shouldn't concern you. I'm trying to ascertain whether this ...
June 28, 2017 at 21:59
I don't know. That's his concern, not yours. Why don't you ask him? That'd be funny to watch, actually. When can you be sure if he's just some guy on ...
June 28, 2017 at 21:45