Terrapin Station

It is when controlling social pressures are placed on someone for speech/expression. An example would be someone stabbing you out of the blue. I'd say...

. . . and he won't even answer a simple question. What is wrong with people who frequent message boards like this?

I'm not in favor of any speech/expression taboos. It's difficult for me to understand people getting upset at this.

Are you interested in really learning about alternate views?

Unfortunately, there's no way you're going to understand Fine's paper if you can't understand why I posted the link, haha. Fine's paper explains the v...

Why did I post the link otherwise?

Wasn't that my answer?

Are you familiar with the Fine paper already? There's no way you could have read and digested it in the time since I posted the link. It's a difficult...

First, I don't think that governments can avoid "promoting morals," even if that's not prima facie or overtly/directly what they're doing; that's beca...

I'd point out that possibility is a complementary modality to necessity, and then I'd have him read Kit Fine's paper: http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/do...

That seems to assume that people are "ideal adjudicators," where they'll judge people on merit without bias. I don't think it's the case that everyone...

That would only be the case if you define "total isolation" as "views 'and the claims they make'" (what's the difference between the two, by the way?)...

Haha. Someone not agreeing with you or accepting you as a relative authority etc. is "not interested in serious discussion at all." Nice one.

Haha--but that would be wrong. "Intersubjective" doesn't amount to anything other than the fact that people can agree with each other and act in conce...

You're quite wrong that it's quite wrong. The first problem there is that you believe there are facts whether something is logically entailed by somet...

I didn't actually say anything like "they all believe different things." At any rate, what you should be doing when you refer to naive realism is desc...

I explained it in detail above in my back and forth with Michael. Views aren't governed or delimited by what some set of individuals who don't hold th...

Haha. Okay. But it just seems like you don't want to deal very much with views that are "too different" from your own.

Yes. Logic is nothing more than how individuals think about the world at the most abstract, generalized "level" of relations.

It doesn't exist aside from how individuals think about something. So there's not a FACT that something is entailed by something else.

Entailment is always belief.

What x-ism is has zilch to do with what someone who isn't an x-ist believes is entailed by what they understand of x-ism. What x-ism is is given by wh...

Again, it's irrelevant if you believe it entails a particular approach to truth, which is why I'm spending no time arguing about that. What's relevant...

Sorry--a couple big typos in that last post I just fixed by the way.

Well, the Wikipedia author might just be one person, too, plus we don't know what the heck the background is of anyone who contributed to it. Further,...

Sure, so then we're going with that as an argument from authority. Why aren't you going by my contrary view as an argument from authority?

For example, Heaven's Gatists believed that they'd reach an extraterrestrial spacecraft following comet Hale-Bopp by committing suicide. That their vi...

That's the case even if you believe that their views are absurd or involve contradictions or whatever, by the way.

You're telling me what you think. What you think has nothing to do with what "naive realism" is. What has to do with what naive realism is is what nai...

Which of course has nothing to do with truth theory--which is where the description you gave earlier and that you were supporting was incorrect.

For the record, by the way, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea that a view can be something other than what the people who hold the view ...

I'm not referring to using a term unusually. I'm referring to how a large number of people, if not most, use the term, especially those who self-ident...

So would you say that it's impossible to have two different views that start at the same place but end up with different conclusions? For example, one...

So yes or no, you'd say that naive realism can be something other than what the people who call themselves naive realists believe?

Aren't we talking about a stance that individuals have? Or in your view are we talking about something that somehow exists aside from that? In other w...

I'm asking you what makes it correct and to support that it's correct factually. What makes it correct wouldn't simply be that that's how you (and onl...

Do you understand that I'm not asking you to explain what you think the relationship is between naive realism and truth (theory)?

Our last exchange had absolutely nothing to do with whether your characterization of naive realism specifically as pertains to its relationship to tru...

What's at issue isn't whether you've already given your characterization of naive realism, or that that's your view of what it is or anything like tha...

And moral realism is indeed not a theory of moral truth. It's a theory of moral ontology. What would make it true, in your view, that naive realism is...

That explanation already has a problem in that second statement. Naive realism isn't a type of truth theory. One could be a naive realist and go with ...

I bring this up all the time--that it's often not clear what someone is asking for in requesting an explanation, or why what they're asking for should...

But it would be making a possible (but not the only possible) map the territory.

I would simply stress that it's a matter of the people in question feeling that some beliefs or expressions are morally wrong. It's not that they can ...

What is it about that's more than that?

Sure. Again, trying to tackle anything more complex would be a waste of time anyway if we can't tackle something this simple.

Haha--you're still doing it. I answered whether it was possible, which is what you asked at that point. And I said just ask me that ("Is it possible?"...

Then don't respond by arguing that what you asked re "is it possible" is the same as asking "what it means," okay?

I don't like arguing about every single thing endlessly, so one thing at a time. "What does it mean to have an inaccurate perception" is different tha...

Then just ask that if it's what you want to ask. Yes, it's certainly possible to see a thing as red but for it to not be red. That could be due to som...