Terrapin Station

My answers: * Realist (alternatives seem ignorant and often quite childish to me) * QM interp - other (I basically interpret it instrumentally, from w...

I think that entertainment is better than ever, so I'd say no.

Thus he shouldn't have a job teaching philosophy?

That's only warranted if: (a) It's not impossible or incoherent that the thing in question might exist, (b) It's plausible that the thing in question ...

We don't. Meanings are different than definitions. Definitions are sound or text strings or pointings to things. The sounds, text strings, pointings, ...

The relativist saying "right" at that point would be very confused given what comes before that. They should say, "No. Remember that I just explained ...

Wouldn't that only be the case if you're trying to assert some connection between objectivity and universality?

Why do you think that you're so attracted to going with the crowd? That's a disposition I run into frequently--it seems to be the whole nut of getting...

I'm not sure what difference it would make to classify it as a mental illness. How would that practically result in dealing with it differently than w...

Just curious what an example would be of a historical era where you'd say that the above wasn't the case.

And what would be objective about that? How do we objectively map a relation between a claim and a state of affairs?

What the heck would "antisemitic" refer to if either of those are sufficient to be antisemitic? (Not that he even used the phrase "Jewish intelligents...

Alright, so who was arguing with me re people wanting to control speech, wanting to control others' lives in reaction to speech?

Well, if they're just spying something they feel, if that's all they're referring to, then it's easy to believe that people are feeling however they a...

The question is what anyone is "spying" that they're calling "spirit"?

The only way I'd say it exists would be if someone offered some clear definition, where I thought that what the definition picked out exists. In lieu ...

Correct. Aren't we no longer talking about truth there? In other words, it seems like you're suddenly changing the topic to "Is there anything that's ...

I didn't notice that claim until now, but I have no idea why he'd think the above. I certainly don't agree with it. First, when I use the term "truth,...

The real "error" is why you'd think that “the father of Charles II was executed” would amount to anything like “It is not always false of x that x beg...

:wink:

We should strive for a culture where people don't believe things, especially proportional to the practical impact they would have, just because they h...

As if you've displayed nothing here. :confused:

In general, by the way, I don't like that people are so lawsuit/press-charges/prosecute-others-for-every-little-thing happy. I think we ridiculously o...

Well, as a libertarian socialist my views certainly aren't typical libertarian views, either. But yeah they're not even typical of other folks who hav...

I asked you a couple times just what codification you're talking about, but you've yet to answer.

Right, so I'd have to figure out why you're incapable of understanding that I was answering, "What is the nature of morality," even though I keep maki...

So you or others might consider R intelligent where (1) S says, "I'm an F-ist," (2) R associates the belief that e with F-ism (because it's a common e...

If the tenets are pretty explicitly set out without variation, sure. Usually they're not.

Correct. I'm not at all claiming to represent anyone else. I was just telling you that my views don't at all equate to typical liberal views.

Here's what I was complaining about: "Meanwhile, you might not agree with e, but now the other person has made the assumption that you believe that e,...

If someone can't understand something as simple as saying, "I don't agree with e," then how is that the first guy's fault? It seems like a severe inte...

I think you can blame others when you say "I don't agree with e" and they can't parse it just because you called yourself an F-ist. (I think you can b...

Cool. I think that most people are in favor of them, too. I just don't know how I'd provide evidence of that to someone who doesn't believe that most ...

So you don't buy that most people are in favor of slander and libel laws?

Would you need evidence of them being in favor of slander and libel prohibitions, for example? Aside from that, many are in favor of some hate speech ...

Do you understand that I was answering "What is the nature of morality" rather than only "What is morally permissible (contra impermissible)"?

The problem is often that people will apply an inappropriate template to someone because of a label, and it can be difficult to get them to think outs...

What I mean by materialism/physicalism is that the world is comprised of material in the "stuff" or (the modern scientific) "substance" sense, as well...

What would have been be the utility of a large ship on the Amazon?

I don't think so. Liberals want to control all sorts of stuff that I'm not at all in favor of controlling. For example, most liberals are in favor of ...

I wasn't saying that libertarians only have police forces and court systems. I was asking you how we wind up with anarchy when we have public police f...

So apparently you think that some evidence is enough evidence to make an empirical claim. How much evidence and/or what manner of evidence is enough?

It doesn't matter to me. It's simply an issue of whether Janus really cares about "actually being wise." If he does, he'll have to meet objections bet...

What's strange is that I'd have to explain to you how to read: S writes x. R responds to S with y. Not every sentence in y is necessarily going to be ...

Re "you're not reading what I'm writing, what happened to reading this: "Did you read 'The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative pe...

"That's sophistry" isn't an adequate response to the objection.

Seriously, though, if this is that difficult for you, we need to concentrate on tackling stuff like the Cat in the Hat first.

You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing. Did you read "The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative permissibility. . ." For exa...

None of those "in extremis" examples are factual, true, correct. They're simply opinions that one can have.

Sure. So do you believe that "No moral stance is true or false" is that?