S

I do not agree with this part of your post. I don't think that (1) and (2) are logically equivalent, and I find the biconditional in that formulation ...

Sure, put the burden on ordinary folks who care enough, when there are those with stupidly vast sums of money. How about we take it from them and give...

I don't think that I am making too much of it. Remember that Michael has an underlying agenda, which is to prove my wider position false. He is attemp...

He merits being brought down a peg or two, I'd say.

I thought that you'd notice the difference, too. I'm glad that I'm not the only one to object to Michael's attempt to conflate the two. I'd add that o...

Look, none of those are equivalent in meaning, no matter how determined you are in your attempt to make them so. If you can't see the admittedly subtl...

I know that your question wasn't addressed to me, but that isn't going to stop me from answering. Only the latter follows, or at least it does so if y...

No, I'm not arguing for equality; I'm arguing for greater proportionality. The super wealthy have too high a proportion, and the working class have to...

This discourse is not productive. If you say that they're the same, then I'll say that "yes" and "no" are the same. It's just as contradictory, in my ...

But they simply aren't equivalent. The former doesn't mean that a particular sentence is true, whereas the latter does.

So is yours.

Then "of course it is" is equivalent to "of course it isn't".

Not at all.

No, the problem is that you don't realise what you've implied, but how about we just agree to disagree, and leave it at that?

The former is a separate, nonequivalent claim than the one that I've been addressing, and the latter is more or less what I think you have - perhaps i...

Fine, then I retract that claim. It isn't necessary. I was suspicious when you brought up falsity, and now I realise that I was right to be suspicious...

I didn't say that there would be a T-schema in a pre-linguistic universe. You have claimed or implied that the T-schema would still apply in that circ...

No, you're overlooking the circumstances of the scenario under discussion. In a pre-linguistic universe, there is no "P" to be true or false. The conc...

The conclusion was false at the time, because it was not the case that there was a corresponding true sentence. The contrary is far too implausible to...

It was false at the time of the pre-linguistic universe, but you don't realise that, and want to have your cake and eat it.

So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are ove...

Very informative. Are you going to elaborate? Or are you waiting to be asked? Edit: Ok.

Assuming that the conclusion is true, does it follow that it has always been true? No. Which is my point. I am arguing in favour of the position that ...

Yes, that is what you must maintain, although that is not the only way that you could word it, and I don't recall having worded it that way, so if the...

Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other f...

But your T-schema wasn't that specific. It was general enough to imply the second version of 2). See? Let X be: the pre-linguistic universe exists. It...

Yes, and don't call me Hilary.

Clinton's a man, and he isn't running for president. So, yes.

I know that it doesn't say "X is happening" was truthfully said at the time iff X happened. But, unless it is limited to a certain period of time, it ...

I didn't notice you were gone. Who are you, again? :D

So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or m...

Just as there is no King of France to be or not to be bald, there were no sentences to be or not to be true. Therefore, it could not have been the cas...

@"Michael" Argh! I see that you're as annoying as I am, in that you post a comment, but then edit it without my noticing. I have missed much of what y...

How so? There is no King of France, yet there was a time before language. I am simply asking whether or not you think that, at that time, it would hav...

And I didn't say that the fact that the sentence wasn't said at the time is problematic. I said that the nonexistence of language is problematic. If l...

Are you trolling me? I'm not amused by your reply. Please explain to me in sufficient detail how you would explain the state of affairs before languag...

How can you explain the state of affairs before language? Would that not be an example of X without "X" being true, on account of there being no langu...

I don't think that that reductio is more compelling than TGW's. Being forced to conclude that nothing existed before language is worse than allowing t...

Interesting. Good food for thought. The discussion veered (or at least drifted) off topic many, many pages back. But, going back to the topic, I doubt...

Ok, well if that's the sense in which you're using it, then fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to me, given your examples, although no...

Realmist? I think that "thingist" sounds better. Anyway, I apologise for any offence I caused. I didn't mean to discriminate against things. After all...

Don't you? But if you don't, then that'll have logical consequences which might be unacceptable. But it's not the very same thought, is it? Nor is it ...

My one true desire is to marry my gay horse computer, but sadly I cannot do so. Gay horse computers deserve the same rights as anyone else.

I was flabbergasted when I read that. You did actually say any Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC...

Yes, I agree that that's a valid reductio ad absurdum, and it seems to me that @"Michael" must either revise his position or bite a bullet that makes ...

Nothing. I take it that there are certain things implicit in that syllogism, so that it can be reformulated as follows: If "P" means "man" in language...

I have concluded that you're not worth the bother. Not unless you change your attitude, at least. It's bad form to question my intent - not to mention...

Ha! Page 7: How do you know that computers, rocks and hurricanes can't be sexually aroused? Page 9: Gay horses.

The 'Martha' discussion seems to have interestingly developed into a discussion about essentialism vs. meaning is use. Maybe I'll check it out.

Ding dong indeed! Good riddance. I'm afraid I don't know who it ultimately favours, but currently it seems to favor the president and his party, since...