It works as per what we said at the start. A language rule was established. They all agreed on the meaning. A new person can't just waltz right in and...
No, these are all just rules. There's a rule that this new variation is to be called an "apple", there's a rule that "apple" in this instance isn't to...
He can't change the language on his own, because it is not his language. It already has established rules. If he wants to create his own language, bas...
Only for that usage, yes. If you take a meaning, as per usage or dictionary definition, then it is only correct per that usage or dictionary definitio...
Really? :brow: Anyway, it would be good if the poll showed who voted for what. That's a shame. And it doesn't break down the number of votes, which I ...
He learns the rule, which he could do through witnessing how the word is used in conversation, or by looking up the definition in a dictionary of the ...
I don't see the alleged faults in my understanding. Can you show me them? As in, give an example. Go by whatever you think my understanding is, and tr...
This isn't the Happy Lounge. That's next door. This is more like a dungeon for depraved dark humour. You have two options: Option 1: Play by the rules...
I went on to give a few examples. But here, have some more. It has helped me to analyse all sorts of things, like stuff related to logic, meaning, and...
What's everyone even calling "philosophy"? And don't we already more or less know the answers? Don't get me wrong, I've got the gist of what it is, bu...
It's not some sort of pure intellectual thing, though. You don't just consider, you feel a certain way about it, and that's very relevant, perhaps mor...
It was already clear enough. It's your fault if you missed it in spite of that. I didn't even mention trees or rocks. You plucked that out of thin air...
Except that the way in which we judge whether the statement about rain is true differs in important respects from the way in which we judge Joe murder...
:roll: Predictable and childish. Your opinion as a layperson doesn't have the slightest impact, and you can't even stay on point, just like in your ex...
No, you're the one committing a fallacy. There's no evidence that humans drank alcohol prior to 10,000 years ago. There's evidence that humans were in...
Note that I never even denied that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime in comparison with the US. Although that doesn't mean that I accept it ei...
I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly l...
What has any of that got to do with firearms in peacetime? Now I definitely think you're a troll. Wait. Are you Tom, Inis, sock puppets, etc? You are,...
Yeah I do. But there's an ongoing debate about whether it's a art or an science. Anyways... I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what?...
I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? Or are you just yanking my chain because my sente...
This looks like trolling, but perhaps you're just not being clear. With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our ...
Doesn't follow, unless perhaps you're using "valuable" to mean something else. Humans are individuals. Physiological needs aren't necessarily valuable...
These are just the same bad arguments, only made by different people, or put in a different way. So now I'm expected to believe that your "wrong" is l...
That's a misunderstanding. I wasn't talking about things, at least not things as in trees and rocks and whatnot. These are obviously things, and obvio...
That's fair and makes sense. The most suitable -ism for me in terms of the ontology would be scepticism. I reckon I could probably agree with a physic...
I might be able to go into some more detail in some respects, although that might require some prodding from you, but you threw me off by seemingly co...
For me, some of the highlights of this discussion have been: a) Missing the point about missing the point. b) "You understand the meaning of what I'm ...
The scenario here in this thread is one where we've all died... of laughter... at the bad logic on display. The scenario I was referring to in last my...
Yes, but one of your remarks sounded like something that Rod Serling would say, so that's immaterial. You can't possibly know that it would be tragic....
Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic, and your point was trivial, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was sayin...
Yes. It certainly seems so to me. Why couldn't it? First, can you give an example and demonstrate how it counts? If not, then I rightly dismiss your q...
Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating an...
Them be a damn fine two cents, madam. There's wisdom very relevant to what we were discussing in that Buddhist quote. And yeah, I knew Postmodern Beat...
Bless you, my dear. You are very sweet, and I'm sure you mean well, but deep down we both know that that's impossible. :razz: (And before some smart a...
Consult Wittgenstein. That will reveal an insightful method for answering your own question, which I take as a question which can be generalised to a ...
It depends what exactly you mean. Do you even know yourself? There's physical stuff involved. That's for sure. But I am sceptical that that provides a...
Good. So hopefully you'll also understand me when I say that I'm a sceptic beyond the kind of answers that I've already given you. And, with that in m...
Fine, whatever. What was the point of this digression? Was it really worth it? I don't think that either an archeologist or a physicist would find wha...
How did you reply again? Ah yes, I remember now: "that's entirely your opinion". I have. I explored it further, and the results were as predicted. The...
Comments