Terrapin Station

And as I just said, I couldn't care less what you believe. I said, "If you want me to think it's not just bullshit"--well, maybe you don't care what I...

Logical refutation of what statement? You can't understand five-word sentences I type. I'm not going to type longer things that you won't understand j...

If it snows tomorrow, then Tom will do a painting of Bozo the Clown. You think that's claiming that the snow will cause Tom to do a painting of Bozo t...

In people saying what I just noted. I couldn't care less if you're familiar with that or believe it, so I'm not going to go searching for quotes onlin...

Everything is defined circularly, by the way. That's how definitions work. All the words in a dictionary are defined in the dictionary by other words ...

That's an argumentum ad populum.

You observe individuals say x or behave in y way, and you conclude that "society thinks such and such." No.

Meaning isn't the same thing as a definition, and meaning isn't captured by saying something like "A fish is an aquatic animal." Meaning is what's goi...

One would state that objectively, there is no meaning. That's not "objectively stating" something--the statement itself isn't objective. It's a subjec...

Why would that be "idiotizing" it? It's insightful that some people think we're in "idiot" territory if we're only talking about persons' feelings, em...

No, that's not about causality. Holy moly must you have problems understanding logic if you're reading conditionals as causal statements. Not that I'm...

I don't frame any moral stance simply on the notions of harm or suffering. They're way too vague, and people can feel harmed or feel that they're suff...

We've had a ton of evidence of it lately with all of the sexual assault/rape claims that have no evidence other than a claim, but where accusers are b...

First off, if S says, "It should be legal to murder others*," that doesn't imply that S doesn't understand anything. You're concluding that just in ca...

Are you being unwillfully ignorant? I said from the start "I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests contro...

You're the one making the claim. If you want me to think it's not just bullshit, you need to present the evidence for it, at which point I'll examine ...

Haha. Let's see the empirical data on that. (Notice how much power a mere claim has? You're just claiming nonsense.) Re the old lady, why would speech...

Yes. Fine and dandy. How is speech going to intimidate you? Not that intimidation should be illegal in any event. But if speech is intimidating you, y...

Correct. What there should be instead is a culture that doesn't believe things just because someone claims them. When you're officially prohibited fro...

It's sad--and more than a bit frightening--that so many people are okay with speech restrictions, that they're okay with ostracizing others, basically...

I'm a free speech absolutist. I don't agree that any speech can be harmful, at least not in a manner that suggests control of speech. I also think it'...

The first two premises are about a conception; they're a priori claims about how you're using terms. They're not about the external world. What you're...

I'm trying to say that in terms of being everything, you don't need to differentiate anything ("the stuff that's not part of everything") in order to ...

They're not differentiated in terms of being everything. They'd be differentiated in being say, a Grateful Dead CD and another copy of the same CD. Ju...

The truth-maker of any statement in logic is never going to be whether something obtains empirically. The truth-maker for a conclusion is whether the ...

You said earlier that if we weren't able to differentiate x from other things, we wouldn't be able to identify x. But in this case, no differentiation...

They can't be disputed because there are no facts about them aside from a particular individual having whatever tastes they do. That individual can't ...

It doesn't seem to me that we can choose to believe or not believe anything. At least not simply or directly. However, I think we can steer or influen...

So how would that work if differentiation is necessary?

It's not at all clear to me why that would be the case, though. And I don't know how we'd convince anyone that it's not conceivable, because we do thi...

I've never been at all convinced that the distinction of first and second (and higher) order properties even makes any sense. Part of the reason why s...

You mean, for example, "I am thinking" instead of "I think"? (Or maybe "I am thinking, therefore I am existent"?) Why would it make a difference to ph...

So you don't believe that a priori is possible then? Because how would any statement be a priori without thinking being involved?

Wait--I'm confused. Where would we put the word "is"?

Synthetic a priori in my opinion.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

Because you're forwarding that it can somehow be objective, and you're basing an argument for that on popularity. In other words, I'm criticizing it f...

"A class having members" when we're doing mathematics is a matter of whether we're thinking about things in a particular way or not. If you're conceiv...

In which case saying anything about winged horses puts us in the domain of things that we're imagining. If we change domains midstream we're equivocat...

Really, I don't remember Kant stressing that it purely depended on how individuals formulated their concepts, so that an a priori claim that holds for...

Why would you define an abstract operation, and moreover assign "true" to it (assuming we can even really make sense of that), if it can't be satisfie...

Door #2 for me, Monty. I don't think it's categorically immoral to cause pain.

So, when we're talking about this from the a priori context, the answer is "It depends on how you've formulated your concepts."

Try that one mo 'gin in Engrish.

Well, we'd need to check if you even understood my post, I suppose. How would you say what I said in your own words?

Right. I wasn't arguing that it was valid, and I explained why it's not. What I argued is that people gave examples where the conclusion did follow. T...

Right not necessarily, but the conclusion does follow in your example. Your example is actually a bit different structurally, because you're saying th...

It explains what's really going on with those statements contra Kant's misconceptions, and it explains the only sense in which we could say that they'...

All those types of statements really tell us is how an individual has formulated their concepts. It's telling us either what they require to call some...

Right, the problem is the form in that the form doesn't guarantee that the conclusion is true. That doesn't mean that the conclusion can't be true. If...