Terrapin Station

In all of this migrating comments nonsense, this didn't get transferred: Holy moley--"correct" again. There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuf...

Oy vey.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/03/15/2110272/5/920x920.jpg

Pee Wee, is that you ?

What's the appeal to the masses there? I didn't say anything like "There are no exceptions to it by popular view, so that's correct."

Topsy turvy day?

No, there aren't.

Holy moley--"correct" again. There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff. I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't ident...

Your "meaning," I'd say--sure. I can understand unusual usages of terms. Which is my point. You don't have to use the term the same way I do, or the s...

A common definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." How does "it works" connect to that definition?

You should do this because?

Not for long, because they'd not enjoy the debate they'd get into about it.

The problem is that there are no exceptions. The only time the consensus opinion is relevant and not fallacious is when we want to know what the conse...

I have no problem with however anyone wants to be, whatever consensual choices they want to make etc.--I'm very much a minarchist, laissez-faire liber...

Sure, but that doesn't impact whether I care. I might call her Lurch, even. You can't always get what you want.

He just said that what makes itcorrect is consensus usage. That's what the argumentum ad populum fallacy is. (And that's what it is in consensus usage...

Saying "Communication is impossible unless such and such is the case" is different than saying that "such and such is correct." But "communication is ...

What you said is that there are correct concepts.

I actually don't care what she prefers unless I'm given something I consider a good reason to care. ;-)

Claiming that something is correct because it's common is an argumentum ad populum.

Aside from pro-conformism sucking in my opinion :joke:, that's an argumentum ad populum fallacy then.

I would just never agree to vote "guilty" in that case. There are many situations where I'd never agree that someone is guilty due to not agreeing wit...

What do you take to be correct, just conformity to the norm?

You said "Just dynamic relations." But it can't be relations(hips) of relations(hips) because there needs to be something to have any relation(ship) i...

Haha--as if that's surprising. Obviously I don't agree with that (and not just because I think that communication often does fail--hence your surprise...

Concepts aren't correct or incorrect. Clearly, people sometimes have very different concepts in mind by the same term. And sometimes they have very di...

It has to be dynamic relationships of something. It can't be dynamic relationships of nothing.

Whether someone calls it a "horseshoe" or not depends on their individual concept. It's simply a matter of what they personally require to call someth...

Right. Which I don't at all agree with, but for some odd reason, he chose the tactic of trying to insist that I actually did agree with it.

Okay. In my opinion, "One word... evidence" doesn't ask that very clearly. It would be better to say something like, "What is evidence that there isn'...

Then you're not talking about causality. Which means that the cause isn't the speech, but something else. Something about the person in question. Ther...

Too much stuff to address. One thing at a time. So, to start off, I have no idea what this is saying. "There is no primary thing something does" is so...

I don't follow daily politics very much. What speech was this?

"Cause" isn't "sometimes." If the utterance is causal to the action, then when the utterance is made, the action is going to occur.

Which might be true (that it's a currently popular view), but it's incoherent, and stems from what's essentially platonist-oriented math worship.

Hate speech doesn't cause violence. So supporting hate speech isn't supporting violence.

We know, confirmed by empirical observation, that any utterance telling someone to murder someone else doesn't cause anyone to murder anyone else, bec...

Conflating because you're jumping from support of free speech to support of bombings, for example, as if there's no distinction between the two.

Huh? Okay, but it's what I've been saying, over and over (that something's nature includes every state in can be in, including things like "not beatin...

Evidence that I disagree includes saying, "I don't agree," and includes saying things like, "A thing's nature is any and everything it can do, any and...

Let's just look at this for a moment: "A things nature is that which it ends itself towards." I don't agree with that. Do you understand that I don't ...

It seems like you're talking about concepts as if they're not something that individuals construct.

You're seeing x being in state y due causal interaction with z as indicative of something not in x's nature. I'm fine with saying that I'm accepting t...

When we talk about what things can do, states they can be in, we're not talking about them in isolation from the rest of the world. I have no idea why...

No longer beating is something a heart can do. At which point it might start decaying, for example, which is something else it can do. Both of those t...

What I said is that the nature of eyes is any and everything that eyes can do. That includes things like being blind. Everything. Same goes for hearts...

I'm a physicalist. In my view, mental phenomena are not caused by or the result of physical phenomena. They're rather identical to mental phenomena. W...

Emotivism is a species of noncognitivism.

What the heck would that be referring to? Whatever "passes in me for a larger sense"??

No, not at all. It's simply that ethical judgments are not true or false under noncognitivism.