Terrapin Station

It's like asking "Does the moon prefer to listen to Michael Jackson or Mozart?" And then noting that the moon doesn't prefer either, and concluding th...

I'm not dismissing quantum entanglement per se. What I'm dismissing is that we can empirically observe something like "x can be anything until it is o...

The reason that that argument wouldn't be valid would be that Bs and Cs can both be properties (or in other words, things "predicated of A") where it ...

That's not a fallacious sentiment--sentiments can't be fallacious, arguments are; but it's also not true or false, correct or incorrect, or objective ...

There's a huge problem with scientists saying stuff like this. That sort of nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with any experiment we can do.

A conclusion is true or false because of the structure of the argument. You don't determine if the conclusion is true or false by doing an empirical e...

You can't show via an experiment that either something doesn't have a spatiotemporal location or that it doesn't exist prior to being seen.

Which isn't itself logic. Hence the wording.

Unlimited tolerance would presumably include tolerance of hate speech, Pro-Nazi views, pedophilia advocates--etc. Views considered more outrageous.

You also don't seem to be using the term "metaphysical" in the standard (at least modern) philosophical sense there.

Ermpirical claims are not provable (in any stricter sense of that term) and we're not doing science if ANY claim isn't revisable. And apparently no on...

An alternate-to-the-material-world world doesn't make sense just because we are "missing information"--whatever that amounts to, exactly. And whatever...

Re the theory worship problem, in a nutshell, if you get to a point where theory suggests something that is absurd or that contradicts empirical evide...

The initial post says nothing about physical violence, initiating physical attacks, committing murders, etc. Conventional talk of tolerance has nothin...

Either you're ignoring what I just explained re what it is for there to be any As at all in a domain, or you didn't understand what I wrote . . . whic...

First, you're ignoring that the idea of a nonmaterial anything doesn't even make any sense. Secondly, you're doing what I talked about earlier re assu...

That's just the issue though. You have to deal with what people actually have in mind, not something they don't have in mind but that you think the wo...

But you could just make the same moves re the material world without having to posit something incoherent.

Believability can't be bootstrapped by testimony alone, it requires something additional.

It's not an argument against something if you don't even know what people are talking about. You have to address what someone is saying. Not what they...

Then testimony alone isn't sufficient for you.

Testimony isn't sufficient no matter how many people testify. You don't believe every major religion, do you? There's no shortage of people testifying...

Tolerance is never about letting people initiate physical attacks, murdering others, etc. I don't know if you're an Aspie or not, but you can't approa...

Here's a conventional definition of "tolerant": "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agre...

Are you saying that you're using mere testimony as sufficient evidence that a crime occurred? The whole point of my comments (in this regard) is that ...

It's not even possible to "force a belief" (and I just said that). The whole idea of that is nonsensical.

No, of course not. I just said that defending something doesn't at all amount to forcing anything on anyone. Think of a defense lawyer. They defend th...

Defending tolerance doesn't at all amount to forcing anything on anyone.

That sounds like apathy, not tolerance. Tolerance doesn't conventionally amount to not having and expressing your own opinion.

I don't agree with that. Maybe if you tell me the definition of tolerance that you're using.

How about this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KZi9EtZHZM

I was just thinking of the old polka standard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzC_koWckdY

So it's like you're stuck in church forever. Pass.

I expected your post to simply say, "No beer."

There might be some merit to that, but there's a threat of being ridiculous with it, too. There's no way to interpret what's going on other than sperm...

And we know the stats of rapes that are occurring where perps are walking free via? In other words, you're somehow establishing that a rape occurred (...

You are because you used the word "objective." What was that word supposed to suggest otherwise? What difference did that word make to the sentence yo...

You'd defend tolerance if you're pro tolerance. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to say that you're pro tolerance. If you don't defend tolerance you'r...

Valuing free speech is foundational for me. It doesn't rest on something else.

Logic is about the relationships of the statements qua statements. It can't tell you what's true of the actual world. It can suggest what's true of th...

Either we're imagining As with property B in a domain, or there possibly are As in a domain, independent of our imagining. If we're imagining As, we'r...

The problem with "yes" is that logic has nothing to do with claims about what actually exists.

What makes the claim the case that if x is A then x is B?

When you say that you know that no animal is magical, you're talking about real animals, real properties, etc., right?

Thinking that we should be able to convict others on testimony alone is what amounts to having no compassion for others.

We know that no animal is magical in what context?

For all x, if x is A then x is B by virtue of?

If you just docilely comply in that situation and you have no other means of providing evidence of force (like cameras in your home, for example) then...

It's outrageous that anyone would ever be convicted of rape merely on testimony.

Re "All As are B" that is your universe of discourse by virtue of the stipulation that all As are B. What you linked to is wrong on multiple fronts. I...