Terrapin Station

What's P in this case (where I'm stating P & ~P)?

I already explained that it wasn't at all ontologically necessary for you to write your posts for me to write mine. Didn't you read the explanation? Y...

Buy the way, if you're a Laplacean determinist, why wouldn't you be claiming that the subsequent actions are physically forced?

When we're talking about electrons interacting, even, I don't buy that determinism is always involved in the phenomena. We can have a vacuum, with two...

Speech doesn't force the behavior in question. You just agreed to that. No one is arguing about whether speech alone forces the behavior in question. ...

I'm not confusing anything. I'm telling you how I'm using the word "cause." Nowhere did I say anything at all resembling "a cause has to be a single t...

Why would you figure that there are ideas no one is aware of?

Okay, but (a) that's what I'm referring to by "cause"--if we're not talking about force, we're not talking about causes in my view, and (b) that's the...

So his speech forces them to talk about what they do?

If you're focused on what they're saying, you're in a compliant mood, etc., sure. It doesn't force you to think of a blue elephant of course.

The only thing I'd count as evidence for misanthropy is someone expressing dislike, contempt, or hatred for humankind in general. Maybe you mean "just...

I don't think you need confirmation of that from Brian, either, unless you have no knowledge of physiology. ;-)

Huh? There are no such things. Brain states have electrochemical properties. Ideas are something people are aware of insofar as they occur. They're no...

Are you ever going to answer what I was asking you in the hate speech thread, by the way?

So the same as attributes of brain states. They're organic, they have electrochemical properties, etc. Which should have been obvious by noting that t...

They're subsets of brain states.

I wouldn't say that "benefit" is the same thing as "flourishing." A benefit of x is anything that S (some subject) desires that's provided by or that'...

Of course I'd counter that ideas are physical things.

So you don't believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence. That's a bit of a relief, I s...

C'mon. That couldn't be more ridiculous. I thought you were at least talking about explicit exhortations to commit violence. You can't possibly believ...

Basically, you're banking on the idea of reasoning about this stuff--so that you need to proceed as if moral utterances have truth values, and you're ...

They could just say, "I have no opinion on that; all I have an opinion on is that creating suffering people is morally neutral"

For one, they didn't say anything about "suffering as much as possible" did they? So why would you change it to that?

Okay, but you'd realize that someone could just as well think "Creating suffering people is morally neutral" right?

You're not going to say, "Hey subjectivism or emotivism is right re ethics . . . especially because ethics makes no sense under subjectivism or emotiv...

Obviously one is not going to adopt a philosophical view about something that results in that thing making no sense, right?

So obviously you're not a subjectivist or emotivist. Why pretend to be one?

You wouldn't ask this if you really thought it was subjective.

Which is not realizing that it's a category error.

Sure. I know that. But you're not really, because I don't think you really understand it. You wouldn't be arguing about moral utterances having truth ...

I don't think there's really any way to make sense of antinatalism from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint.

It depends on the individual in question and how they're thinking about them. Look, basically, you're not really a subjectivist on this stuff. Which i...

"P2" is the case for someone who feels the way described in P2 "P3" is the case for someone who feels the way described in P3

Which bears absolutely zero resemblance to "would be the case for an individual who agrees with P1"

Someone isn't reading very well.

No. That has no truth value. (That's what I told you at first by the way.)

What you're saying is how you feel about murder. The way that you feel about murder has no truth value. The other two would only be the case for an in...

You have an ask an individual to see what their moral views are. It's not as if everyone has the same moral views just because they fit under a classi...

Yeah, it is. That's what they are ontologically.

Because there's nothing to get correct or incorrect. It's simply an utterance re how an individual feels towards the behavior in question. You can't g...

Then the analogy doesn't work. Moral statements can not be true or false.

You're arguing that mathematical statements can't be true or false? That truth value is a category error for them?

You just said to forget about that. If you're not forgetting about it then we're back to trying to make sense of the initial comment. So something is ...

It doesn't make any sense to assume it's true, because that's a category error.

Premises have a truth value. Logic doesn't make much sense outside of the notion of truth value.

What would this have to do with the notion of causing people to be violent because you're saying "nigga" or teaching a dog to raise its paw when it he...

. . . What does that have to do with Shamshir's post?

Neither of which are true or false (since no moral stance is). Thus calling them "premises" doesn't even really work.

Just following shamshir's reasoning.

Sorry, I missed you saying that. Okay, so one very standard example of that is sending a child to school.