Terrapin Station

Is there any other poster than tim doesn't figure is a liar or a troll, though?

Unlike the sun, you can never observe the way the person's beliefs match up with what they say.

I'm not on the fence about whether people can lie. Just whether we can tell that a particular person is lying . . . not that it matters much to me tha...

It's not normally something I'd worry about. I might go, "Wait--you believe what now?" And if they persist saying whatever it is that caused me to rea...

In other words, there are some beliefs that you'd say that particular individuals couldn't actually hold. I don't think that. Even if the person doesn...

You don't think that people can have some beliefs?

How would I know that you don't believe that you're on the moon right now with Chevy Chase? You could be crazy.

? No need to, really, unless you don't understand grammatical permutations. "Liar" is the person telling a lie, the lie is what they're uttering that'...

It's very difficult to tell if anyone is lying, really, because you need to know that what they believe to be the case at time Tx is different than wh...

I don't agree with it, really. Some rights are about that, obviously, and that may be rather common, but not all rights are about that (whether we're ...

Whether it's a good or poor justification is also subjective. If you are prone to believe that this stuff is or can be objective, then you're more lik...

There isn't an objective right or wrong when it comes to ethics/rights. How we decide is that we intuit how we feel about it (not just a shallow or "s...

Having rights in a subjective sense simply amounts to an individual feeling strongly enough about a moral stance that he/she feels it should be inviol...

Life has meaning, to you, if you create a meaning for it. Meaning/purpose is something that we do as individuals.

It's probably too much of a mess now. Petrichor would need to start another thread. Maybe it would help to make it more general than just the context ...

I'm guessing that's what you were referring to re the judges remarks? The judge said that Choudary's comments "encouraged" and "influenced." Are we to...

Subjectively, rights are moral stances that you feel strongly enough about that you feel they should be inviolable in principle no matter what.

And? Er, I guess to an uber-conformist that's a bad thing? Too bad everyone wasn't jumping off a bridge in your neighborhood.

He was framing it in terms of whether it's true or false, whether it's the case, that we have such and such right, where he clearly wasn't talking abo...

<----definitely not what I'd be doing, but I'm not a rah-rah conformist like you. :-p

I'm confused that the thread got merged, especially when the other thread specified that he didn't want to get into the typical antinatalist stuff. An...

It comes across to me like he's expecting you to have an intuitive reaction against the idea of some people being exposed to some speech.

What if we're not realists on rights?

Maybe this post could have been less focused and had less to do with freedom of speech, but I'm not sure how.

https://townsquare.media/site/397/files/2014/03/Eye-roll-liz-lemon.jpg?w=980&q=75

Any region of space is divisible per what? That's not the conventional wisdom in the sciences.

Maybe try cranking down the attitude a bit until you get to a point where you don't figure that everyone needs to look up simple terms of art?

I wouldn't say that a distinction that hinges on "beings" versus "beings of beings" makes sense without a lot more explanation.

What's hard is learning that arguments aren't just simple instantiations of modus ponens, or even necessarily deductive.

Or don't take the advice. It doesn't matter to me. I just thought you might have a goal of wanting to persuade people who don't already agree with you...

So , dispensing with all of the attitude nonsense, which isn't going to help you in any way, you need to realize that some people are not going to acc...

And if no one would state that, then arguing against it is arguing against a straw man of course.

"I'm skeptical that anyone would state 'If I am morally responsible, then I have free will' without actually running into that person" isn't random on...

Randroids kind of argue like that, too.

I did make an argument. I don't accept your premise. It's fallacious. You have no support of it except for the brashness of "It's self-evident if you'...

Your style is basically asshole with a lot of attitude. It's kind of pointless to pretend that I'd have a fruitful discussion about philosophy with th...

Get back to me when you hit puberty.

I don't know if it's irrelevant. I'm skeptical that anyone would state "If I am morally responsible, then I have free will" without actually running i...

If you're not religious you should be. You have their argumentation skills.

So your support is basically, "Either you accept this without question or you suck." Great argument.

Are you ever going to explain what your support of the premise is? (with respect to agreement having more weight)

It's the argumentum ad populum fallacy, and that's considered a fallacy for good reason.

Yes. That's what I said from the start. I don't accept the premise.

Okay. So what's the support for something having more weight if there's agreement?

If that's what you're saying, then what does "you can't argue for anything without presupposing its truth" have to do with it? How would that support ...

So, again, Are you saying that it has more weight if there's agreement? Yes or no.

You brought it up.

No. That something is equivalent logically doesn't at all mean that it's equivalent semantically, re the way that people think about something. That's...

. . . There's no way you're such a royal asshole in person. Anyway, so we're talking about a newspaper article? What was the link to it again?

¯\_(?)_/¯ The ideas are so vague I don't get what's being said, exactly.