Terrapin Station

As it should be. Especially given your insight. :wink:

And lucky us that it just so happened that he was one of the few (or the only one?) who had "special insight" about this. :roll: Sounds like the typic...

Well and/or a philosopher's way to get relatives and friends to stop moaning about them not having kids.

This is definitely something I agree with you on. There should be far more common sense in the criminal justice system. The objective should be to mak...

Okay, but I'm telling you something about the way I use the terms. You'd have to explain to me better how you're using the terms for your distinction ...

I asked you a yes or no question. You don't need to respond with more than three letters.

So at time T10 S is identical to S's parents' DNA?

Not that I'm agreeing with the rest, but "Exists forever outside of time" should seem obviously incoherent.

So tell me S's status at time T10

Oops! No, his head isn't in his mind.

Humor--How does it work?

But then you didn't answer what I asked you. I asked what S's status at time T10 was.

"I want everyone to believe in god, so . . . it's anything at all that you can say about the world."

DNA in the mother and father is identical to S at T10? Is food that the mother and father eat identical to S?

No, and it's not meant to be an argument. It's just a comment about what it conventionally refers to for something to be universally held or not.

Okay, so at time T100, let's say, conception occurs--S is conceived via intercourse. At time T200, birth occurs--S is born. At time T10, what is S's s...

Well, the identity thesis for someone who accepts determinism, yes. ;-)

Okay, thanks.

Because . . . of an assmption that those things are not part of the physical world? Otherwise, the connection there would need to be explained better....

I participated in that thread, and I'll give a second, closer look at posts there, but I'm not sure what to look for. Many posts contain comments like...

I don't know if I've ever seen you paste something that I'd consider part of an argument for how it's possible for something to be good despite not be...

Given that there are flat-Earthers, saying that "The Earth is universally considered to be spheroid" is wrong, isn't it? It doesn't matter how invalid...

It must be possible to say how something can be good even if it's not good to anyone in a length shorter than a couple hundred pages. Heck the vast ma...

"Matter" = "chunks of stuff" basically. Like a piece of wood, leather, a pebble, etc.

You don't like the outcome.

As long as you can frame them as binary choices, it would be difficult for more than 50% of your decisions to be wrong, unless you can't learn. If mor...

This makes no sense to me (and by the way I'm ignoring issues with "claims possessing objective properties" and the idea of objective meaning). Two im...

That one isn't ringing any bells, unfortunately, and a quick search doesnt suggest that it's a well-known saying.

Yeah, I don't think that they're "bad stuff" just because someone has a habit with it. Much more is necessary for me to think that a situation is bad ...

I pretty much agree with everything in your above post except that I see anything other than being an atheist as being way too generous to ridiculous,...

What in the world? If it appears to you that I said that O is predicated on m and n, then it appears to you that I'm saying that O is predicated on so...

Yes of course. I'm very pro-subversion. The kind of person I don't want is someone who'll follow a law they don't agree with simply because it's a law...

I can see some merit in thinking that, but among the things I have in mind here are making decisions that simply make life easier for me--keeping a jo...

Actual people might need to create offspring, might need to create adversity, etc. It just depends on their wants.

I follow laws if: (a) I agree with the law, or (b) the risks of getting caught breaking it are too great.

Non sequitur is an argumentative fallacy. I made a comment. I didn't forward an argument.

You can't take a judgmental high ground when you didn't even understand the idiom.

Great understanding of the rhetoric of persuasion. You have it all figured out. I like how you gamble on the idea that I've never persuaded anyone mor...

No, but what's the relevance of that (aside from not understanding a common idiom, which seems to be symptomatic around here.)

No, it isn't. There's a whole art to persuasive rhetoric. You're going to tailor it to the person (or the people) you're trying to persuade, a la the ...

No way in Hell I'm going to think we should follow laws just because they're laws. That's pretty much the complete opposite of my disposition. I'm ver...

I wouldn't say they're valid to me, either. Validity is about truth. Moral stances are not the sorts of things that are true or false. "Moral debate" ...

Let's do one thing at a time. Need always hinge on wants. X is only needed when S (some subject) desires x, or desires something else, y, that can not...

While I agree with that, I would say that it is as simple as not legally prohibiting persons' decisions. That is highly immoral.

But you're not. The whole point of the analogy is that you're comparing it to an actual person. You don't need to keep denying that you're saying that...

Just for example: First, I don't know why it would appear to you that I'd be saying that objective morality would be predicated on anything about ment...

I haven't the faintest friggin idea what you're saying in just about any sentence there. It would take some work to convince me that you have any idea...

If the category is "consensual activities" it does, Alex

Moral stances are personal dispositions/"feelings" about the acceptability of interpersonal behavior that one considers more significant than etiquett...