Terrapin Station

No problem. I just think it's worth responding for the benefit of other people who might read the thread in the future.

Yes, especially if we're allowing "anything that someone is psychologically upset by" as "harm." So, for example, I think it's completely justifiable ...

Again, how would that be evidence of that? You're not explaining this idea. You're just stating it, but it seems completely arbitrary to me. I don't w...

I'm going to flip the order of your post around a bit: How would it show that, though? Why wouldn't it just show that (almost) everyone thinks in the ...

The idea is that aesthetic (e)valuations are a matter of opinion; it's not that all other things are a matter of opinion. "Aesthetic (e)valuations are...

Even for normatives, many people believe they should clean their house, declutter, etc., but they do not. Many people believe they should lose weight ...

I wasn't asking you to tell me what you think is artificial, vain, etc. about bodybuilding. I was asking you to basically give your definition of arti...

I honestly think that the "hard problem" stems from a combo of (a) a poor analysis of explanations--just what they are, just what the relationship is-...

My experience is different, but I don't suppose that I'm interacting with most of the people in the world. :wink: Just curious if on your experience a...

When there are mistaken beliefs about what morality is ontologically, sure.

What make any of these things artificial or not? Vain or not? Pointless or not? You should have some criterion for that, and some justification for th...

Exactly. And it takes a lot of trial and error to learn what works for your body, both nutrition-wise and workout-wise. It's very easy to plateau if y...

"Did he do bad things," then, is necessarily asking for someone's opinion about this. "Bad" is always "to whom"? The ground of any standards, for anyt...

We do not agree with "do not acknowledge it as badness," because we say that what badness is is a personal disposition against something. So the disag...

The standard definition of knowledge in (at least analytic) philosophy is "justified true belief." I agree with that definition. So I'd not say that t...

I'm a nihilist on many things, including the meaning of life, and I don't say anything at all like "Why bother to try so hard to continue existing." Y...

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm talking about things that effectively control someone, because if they choose to do something, there's a good c...

See, here is an example that you do not have it. No one is saying "not only does that not make it bad." What makes something bad morally is that an in...

If you had it then you wouldn't say that anyone's view amounts to "if S thinks that m isn't wrong, then R says that fact implies that m isn't wrong si...

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ...

What's the tl;dr version? Sometimes it seems like we should rename this place the logorrhea forum.

People aren't so easily influenceable, especially given that whatever we're talking about, there are people on every side, and everyone is right or wr...

Yes, countless instances of people having beliefs/desires/etc. that they never act on.

Lots of people have lots of beliefs, desires, etc. that they never act on at all.

It has merit if you agree with it. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. They might be talking shit, or trolling, or expecting others to confo...

Because I don't want to claim that the world is some way that it isn't ontologically. The idea of something being morally wrong simpliciter is false i...

Yes, definitely. Again, I don't want to in any way prohibit the speech advocating that the person be fired. I don't want those people to be controlled...

As I said, because they want to control what people can choose to do. I have no interest in controlling what they can choose to do. They're welcome to...

"nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves." "those persons thought their actions were acceptable..." Both of those are about what those individuals thin...

That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection.

Which is solely due to the social pressure that people would put on the hospital, which is what I have a problem with. The CEO wouldn't care less if i...

Yeah, I think that stuff is just as stupid as the stuff that they're railing against.

"What's wrong with it" = "What I don't like about it" I have no interest in, and I'd be against, anyone wanting any SJW to be in legal trouble, to be ...

This is actually not true, unless it was a very light punch--in which case it shouldn't be a legal issue anyway, because there's not going to be much ...

In my view it's not possible for speech to be violent. I'm a free speech absolutist, by the way, and I don't see freedom of speech as solely a legal i...

Also, SJWs have a tendency to interpret ridiculous things as racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. in my opinion. A lot of that hinges on what I consider to ...

Why wouldn't there be physical evidence re my face and your fist? The bruise on my face, the abrasions or bruise on your fist, etc. aren't only someon...

The attempt to get Nicholas Christakis canned as a professor at Yale is a good example, too.

Yeah, when it's only people making accusations. The grounds are that there's no way to bootstrap testimony-only. Say what? No idea what you have in mi...

Thanks for clearing that up.

For example, pressuring employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.

I had no way of knowing you scope for saying "'Truth' can't be relative," and especially given that most folks on this board use "truth" to refer to o...

First, you can't automatically assume that criticism of others has any merit. You have to evaluate it for yourself. That's the case regardless of how ...

"Who you really are" is dynamic. Every way that someone is, at every moment of time, in every circumstance, is part of "who they really are." People a...

I'm not clear on the distinction you're making there, and in particular, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the idea of a preferred reference frame.

Aspects of talking about something are objective; other aspects are subjective. Sounds we make, text we write, gestures we make are objective. Meaning...

Ah, okay. I don't at all agree that everything is subjective, though. Not everything in the world is mental phenomena.

What's wrong with it is that SJWs typically want to control what other people can choose to do.

If you were to think that everything is subjective why would you be talking about objective merit, for example?

Maybe we should have done definitions already. Basically, "subjective" = mental phenomena, "objective" = anything " outside" of mental phenomena.