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

S

Comments

Yes, I disagree with that because it's obviously wrong. It's ludicrous for human observations to have preexisted humans, yet rocks did. They did so fo...
February 27, 2019 at 08:57
Your point is that you're being unreasonable? We agree for once! Each of us have a burden, with respect to what each of us have claimed, unless I retr...
February 26, 2019 at 18:19
That's okay, the reasoning I used there is basically the same in either context. I don't think it has to be everyone. I'm not a moral universalist. Bu...
February 26, 2019 at 18:10
Spot on, as ever. :up:
February 26, 2019 at 14:09
It's expressed in the quote. It's unreasonable for you to expect me to do anything else here. How can I show you without expressing it? You're basical...
February 26, 2019 at 14:06
In the moral sense, if we're talking about morality. And simply because it's what I judge you should do. Of course, you might judge it differently, bu...
February 26, 2019 at 14:00
Maybe this is your extreme liberalism getting in the way of good sense. You don't "have" to conform. You are at liberty not to. But by my standard you...
February 26, 2019 at 13:56
I wouldn't simply say that it's wrong, because then it seems like a generalisation, and I'm not making a generalisation. Creativesoul made that mistak...
February 26, 2019 at 13:45
As with morality, it makes more sense to say that it's wrong relative to a particular standard. Why aren't more people here going with the solution wh...
February 26, 2019 at 13:30
And that's the big, reoccurring problem whenever you engage him in a discussion. He comes with preprepared straw men that he desperately wants you to ...
February 26, 2019 at 08:39
I don't think that this is the first time in this discussion that someone has falsely claimed that of me. That is, if you mean something like logicall...
February 26, 2019 at 08:20
Why not? I've actually thought about it. I'm not the average guy on the street. We're both philosophy-types, remember? I just talk more sense. If I wa...
February 26, 2019 at 08:07
It would be funny if that solved his problem, because in asking whether there is a rock, I'm implicitly asking what you guys think.
February 26, 2019 at 07:56
@"Michael Ossipoff", yep, that's it. I don't want to be like that lawyer in the video, whilst you act like the guy being questioned about a photocopie...
February 26, 2019 at 07:41
That's better. Shall we give the next step a shot, so that you don't deliberately make me look unreasonable by taking this out of context? The followi...
February 25, 2019 at 21:39
It means that whatever it is, or whatever the science says it is, that doesn't mean that we have to start talking funny.
February 25, 2019 at 21:28
@"Michael Ossipoff", you're the one who is being questioned, by the way.
February 25, 2019 at 21:15
Ergh. Horrible formatting. You should sort that out. I can't do it for you now that I'm not a moderator. Point number two is so obviously wrong that i...
February 25, 2019 at 21:09
I also learnt that you're an idiot. :razz:
February 25, 2019 at 20:25
Whatever it is, let's not throw ordinary language philosophy out with the rubbish.
February 25, 2019 at 20:21
I just did. It's there in what you quoted. Look at how you begin: the expression of a rule, you say? No way! It's expressed in... language?! Get outta...
February 25, 2019 at 19:59
That's a perfect example of what I mean! :rofl:
February 25, 2019 at 19:50
You seem to get more enjoyment out of effectively arguing with yourself. So, by all means, don't let me get in the way of that. I hope that you and yo...
February 25, 2019 at 19:47
It's only really a problem for me for as long as I remember that it's a problem, which isn't very long at all. And other people's problems don't matte...
February 25, 2019 at 19:43
Yeah, sure. In this one, you called life "an old monster". In your other one, you probably called it something else, like "a terrible nightmare". And ...
February 25, 2019 at 19:36
Seriously? I don't even properly remember the original context in which I was making that point now, and I can't be bothered to go back and check. You...
February 25, 2019 at 19:26
Yes. A sound argument. It would be absurd to think that these aspects would occur naturally without us. But I wouldn't put it past you. With philosoph...
February 25, 2019 at 19:11
Learn a valuable lesson? But what if they just can't? What if they're immune to good sense? Keep trying to get through until we're all sick to death, ...
February 25, 2019 at 18:57
I threw you a bone already. Or rather, you snatched it out of my hand and ran off with it. (Bad dog!) Artificial: made or produced by human beings rat...
February 25, 2019 at 18:36
You're not very good at accurately representing other people's arguments in your own words. Maybe stick to quoting them, and making requests for clari...
February 25, 2019 at 18:25
Your title? Of the discussion? It's a close call between "It is life itself that we can all unite against" and "With luck, the last thread on abortion...
February 25, 2019 at 18:19
Your title is a joke, I take it? And this is just you venting? Would it not be more productive to create a discussion where you can show that you're d...
February 25, 2019 at 18:11
I see. So not only do you still misunderstand my argument, you slander me as well. Bye-bye, then.
February 25, 2019 at 18:05
Okay, it's very clear to me from your reply that we fundamentally disagree over multiple key issues. That is interesting. However, I think I need to t...
February 25, 2019 at 17:41
Do you have amnesia? I was referring to the following: Yes, that's what we're talking about: rules. And you yourself brought up existence in relation ...
February 25, 2019 at 17:27
That's just an explanation in terms of social relations. What about the language itself? What about what the words mean in the language, according to ...
February 25, 2019 at 16:58
Yes, and that's still irrelevant. I'm not talking about potential or future rules which do not presently exist. I never was. Isn't it funny that it's ...
February 25, 2019 at 16:08
This just seems like you're making up your own rules about rules. Rules about rules which have some truth to them, but which I don't agree with becaus...
February 25, 2019 at 15:54
Okay, then we'd need to break down what I was talking about, and try to account for each "thing" and their relations. That's my wording we'd have to d...
February 25, 2019 at 15:46
I mentioned miscommunication. You don't consider that impractical? When Frank says "dog", he means something completely different, which causes initia...
February 25, 2019 at 15:36
No, once again, you can't simplify it like that without misrepresenting it. I won't accept a rough simplification which could end up being weaker and ...
February 25, 2019 at 15:31
Funny. You say that I'm not making sense, then you talk of rules which could very well not exist, which is obviously not what I'm talking about at all...
February 25, 2019 at 15:22
Okay, well we simply disagree on the first point. Rules don't have to be explicit. They can, however, be made explicit. As for the second point, there...
February 25, 2019 at 15:07
There are rules everywhere you look. There are rules for establishing the rules of the language. So long as he follows the rules, there isn't a proble...
February 25, 2019 at 15:02
That whole quote, more or less. You say that I'm unable to articulate the rules, when I am. You say that that I'm unable to point towards where they'r...
February 25, 2019 at 14:52
No, I'm not saying that. It's unwise to try to explain to someone else my position when you don't even understand it yourself, or at least you word it...
February 25, 2019 at 14:44
That and more. They don't even have to be written. They just have to be evident from something or other, whether implicitly or otherwise, and I have n...
February 25, 2019 at 14:38
Well, thank you. I really appreciate you going to effort of creating a new argument which fixes the problems I never had with my argument which you cl...
February 25, 2019 at 14:33
No. It's just related to it.
February 25, 2019 at 14:30
Indeed, that's not what I said. That's just a related statement. What of it?
February 25, 2019 at 14:10