I think you're nitpicking. What does the expert have that you don't? (Evidence is not had independent of argument and reasoning.) Your earlier posts s...
- That was the most interesting post-length piece I've read in years. This variety of introspective honesty has become especially rare in the United S...
So if you can only rationally accede to an expert if you presume that they possess sound arguments, then you cannot accede to an expert regarding the ...
Is your definition of "terrorist" just "enemy combatant"? Do you disagree with the proposition that all insurgents are terrorists? I think political s...
But you are relying on slogans yourself. This is your argument: 1. Free enterprise does not necessarily involve exploitation 2. Capitalism necessarily...
In your case the question would be: Okay, so then you don't think, "Do not kill the innocent," is the conclusion of a sound argument? If you believe X...
Okay, good. Sure. Agreed. Okay, but is a material position sufficient to deem them irrational? Okay, good points. Maybe that's part of it, but another...
Sure, but I think we want to talk about philosophers, scientists, sociologists, etc., rather than journalists. Journalists are constrained by the Over...
I'm fairly confident you're misreading Anscombe, as a side-effect is not intended. But Bob Ross and I beat this to death a year ago, and the topic wil...
:up: Simpson has a somewhat different angle. Here is a part of Simpson's early sketch: Politically, Simpson sees Liberalism as bound up with the State...
It doesn't say "enterprise," it says "free enterprise" (i.e. a form or aspect of capitalism). Your own definition disagrees with you, and you fudged i...
That sort of disambiguation is helpful, given how nebulous the term "liberalism" can be. Some people associate everything they love with liberalism, a...
- If you think that every insurgent is a terrorist, then I think you must have an idiosyncratic definition of 'terrorist,' no? I am starting to wonder...
Nothing that one does by accident is wrong per se, and this of course includes accidentally dropping bombs on the wrong people. Whether or not we call...
- I think I agree with most of that except the idea that traditional metaphysics departs from empirical knowledge and logic. But to the earlier point:...
Sure. It could be relevant but I don't see it as philosophically central. I don't think you understand what Aquinas is saying, because what Aquinas sa...
Why do you ask questions or post on TPF at all if the only answers you will get are rationalizations? If you didn't think your interlocutor would answ...
Not really. "Terrorist organization sues Finland over free speech rights," isn't exactly a common headline. For example, the law distinguishes manslau...
The age-old answer to this claim is that rationality can be used or misused, much like a gun. "Rationality can be used for rationalization, therefore ...
Well we were discussing procedural vs. cruel and unusual by separating the two, so that we can see each in its own light. When you combine them all to...
Okay. Incidentally, how do you see the issue of speech impinging on the question of terrorism? Are you thinking of cases where we inhibit a terrorist'...
Okay, and I am wondering if we can simplify this a bit. I would want to say that if someone asserts a proposition then their assertion can be either t...
I am not a divine command theorist. I think murder is wrong because it involves killing the (legally) innocent. On this view the prohibition against m...
Sure. Among the many things that occasioned this OP, one thing was an old dustup between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein in which Klein is critiquing Harris...
There is something right about this critique, and it gets at what I have called, "The 30,000 foot view." This goes back to my first thread on TPF, whe...
(This post functions as a kind of addendum to the OP) 's example of dismissing the flat Earther is very helpful in getting at the sense of the OP. Now...
Right, but it seems to me that moral indignation is by its very nature not instrumental, and the force of my question comes from this premise. I don't...
When I originally read your I thought you were joining the many moral non-cognitivists in this thread, claiming that we do not have rational justifica...
- :100: :up: I have been reading this. With the subtitle included it reads, "Political Illiberalism: A Defense of Freedom." Liberalism is failing, and...
Okay, good. I would even go so far as to say that they are irrational. Is that the same as what you are saying? Or are you making a more conservative ...
Okay, but "cruel and unusual" is a non-procedural constraint. I mean, if there is a cruel and unusual rule that is applied equally to all, would you h...
Okay, thanks for answering. The idea here is apparently that we should ban, imprison, or deport someone whose ideas and views will cause a sufficient ...
On my view racism (thinking that one race is generally superior or inferior to another) is false, and therefore irrational. The OP was taking this for...
So you think that there is no rational basis to any rule regarding dismissal/exclusion, and yet you also hope that the rules of an internet forum will...
Okay, that's fair enough as far as it goes. At the risk of derailing my own thread, are you comfortable with the inference that anger or moral indigna...
Okay, good. You've answered the OP: 1. I don't engage those who are not fun to talk to 2. Flat Earthers are not fun to talk to 3. Therefore I do not e...
If the innocents aren't innocent then (1) would of course not apply to them. As far as I understand, someone working in an arms factory is not conside...
When I said: ...I was saying, "Yes, obviously we oppose terrorists." Again, the question of the OP is, "Why?" Then give a definitive answer. Answer th...
Okay, but how far does this extend? Are you comfortable with the inference that no course of action is more or less rational than any other course of ...
It sounds like you guys don't believe that opposing murder or terrorism is a rational act. That in opposing murder or excluding a murderer we are acti...
Well let's keep these two distinct: 1. You should not (deliberately) harm the innocent 2. Those who (deliberately) harm the innocent should be dismiss...
Okay, but why? The OP is asking, "Why?" Okay, but why should wicked people be tuned out and ignored? Is it supposed to be self-evident, such that no r...
"It's illegal, therefore you can't do it. Don't ask any more questions." I don't find that to be a reasonable stance. We know of all sorts of things t...
Yes - I don't think proponents of cultural Christianity ("Christianists," on one rendering), claim to be expounding Christian doctrine per se. There h...
Questions about the breadth of the moral sphere aside, it seems clear to me that when someone wishes to dismiss or exclude someone with a charge like,...
Okay, so you think we should dismiss (or act negatively towards) a site or person that gathers funds to Al Qaeda and Isis? And you think we should do ...
Comments