S

Yes, I have failed to get through to you. You've proven unbreachable. And you explain away your own failure in understanding by rationalising that I'm...

Son of a... So you want me to go back and get it, I suppose? Would you like me to construct a half-decent argument for your position whilst I'm at it?...

I'm getting back an answer to your misunderstanding of what I'm asking. That's the problem, and that's why I've asked you more than once. I'm not aski...

Okay, so in your language game, you call them something different. Those are your rules.

Okay, then I'll go back and explain. You said: "If we imagine a scenario where there is a rock that a definition conforms to, we are already in realis...

Sure, languages are tools. Tools designed for communication. And they consist in rules. That's what makes communication through language possible. You...

Very weird. What's a language without rules? I don't even think that that's possible. There are rules everywhere you look. Rules that this word means ...

So, how do you explain what seems like an illusion? When for example, evidence suggests that I see red as blue? That I see visible light with a domina...

:rofl: A bare assertion is not an argument, and it can rightly be dismissed. Make your argument, and then I will consider addressing it. Can there be ...

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point.

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to ...

Except it isn't, because to do so demonstrably makes sense to other people, which shows that you're just interpreting it in a way that doesn't make se...

That's a great argument you've got there. How long did it take you to come up with? Hours, I'm guessing. Without an argument from you, I am clearly in...

Actually, I did know that. It would depend on what exactly is meant by "proof" there. And there you have an example of the importance of language use ...

I realise that you're under no obligation to reply to every post here. But you shouldn't not reply to my posts for the wrong reason, and you gave the ...

But you're ignoring what I've said about morality, moral rules, correctness, and your own stuff about private rules. Thanks for ignoring all of that a...

@"Terrapin Station", hold up a minute, isn't this very much like my reasoning in Part 2 here in my discussion on idealist logic? :brow: Languages that...

We know what wisdom is, in a sense, or at least the gist of it, because we know what the word means, or we can look it up. What it consists in is tric...

Unfortunately for Kant, he wasn't around for the linguistic turn. Common sense relates to common language usage. Kant didn't realise the importance of...

I can deal with this with a copy-and-paste: you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a ...

Ah, too bad. You failed my challenge! That was just part of a thought experiment. You brought up an irrelevancy implicitly relating to absolute certai...

You grant it, but perhaps you don't realise how much of a problem it is not to conform with it. Philosophy-types can be exceptionally oblivious on a l...

Why the heck would I accept something so unreasonable as the claim that we'd have to go and look? :rofl: No, you're just setting yourself up for failu...

Wait, why the heck are you specifying empirical knowledge?! That's doing it wrong. I'm not asking about empirical knowledge of the rock! I thought I m...

Key point right here, guys. Please try not to overlook it.

Sigh. Why are you so excited? You are still stuck, it seems. Here is a challenge for you related to logical relevancy. Can you feedback to me what I'v...

You forgot to say "mic drop" or some other brilliantly witty remark related to mics. Wait, I think I get the idea of it. That's what you're supposed t...

I already have, you're just reading that into it. That's not the same as me failing to provide one without that. That's a very important difference. N...

Correction: pre-duped. Don't have a cow, man. I'm not gullible enough to fall for Lisa's faux-problem. Bart is struck by the faux-significance of a fa...

How can you seriously believe that you're competent enough to argue against me when you're not even competent enough to hold a mic without constantly ...

What I meant is that I logically demonstrated (ages ago) that your claim about the meaning of words leads to absurdity. Do you remember me bringing up...

I'm glad that you agree with me on some important points. You agree with me that, in my sense, the word "rock" would still mean what it means. Yes? Th...

Well, yeah, much of what you just said is really obvious and beside the point. You're indicating that you're talking about the word "rock" with your u...

Weird. Wow. That's a lot of words, and a really creative way of saying something I never disagreed with, namely that the rock would at the time be unk...

Why on earth do you think that you need to remark that it wouldn't mean anything to anyone, as though I disagree? Of course! There wouldn't be anyone ...

How absurd! :rofl: So, when I ask how many hours would pass in a year after we've all died, you think I'm asking how many human being telling times wo...

This is a terrible argument because it's composed of points I already accept, and therefore don't need to be made, and bare assertions. First, the poi...

Guys, seriously, what is the point of begging the question by implying your conclusion in your premise? Can you please consider what you're doing and ...

Jesus. You guys are asking the wrong questions. How can you not see this?

You must surely realise that that question is a loaded question. Do you acknowledge that?

Irrelevant: that's what it is. Why would I reject subjectivity? I don't outright reject it. That would be absurd. And you know that I'm a moral subjec...

Thank you. I needed a good laugh.

Look, it really isn't helpful to keep comparing me to an idealist. Yes, we have empiricism in common, but that's not what the realism-idealism debate ...

Wait. Is this a joke? It's the former, obviously. The rest of what you said about Slav ancestry and an observer is irrelevant. Isn't this just like: s...

Because Banno says so. I think that that's his argument. Perfectly reasonable, no?

False. They could be correct or incorrect by his own standard. You seem to be merely begging the question by assuming the necessity of a different sta...

Okay, it's not private if you interpret that in your weird behaviourist way which has the obvious massive failing of not being able to rightly disting...

Don't worry, it's not just you: we're all mad. Some of us are mad-mad, and the rest of us are mad for trying to get through to them. :lol: Yeah, tell ...

Yes, indeed, we have been through this already. You play around with semantics and disregard my meaning. So you don't even begin to engage the argumen...

It might not seem like it on the surface, but given this context, I think that that line might be an indication of his extreme empiricism. I am an emp...