Terrapin Station

That's just saying the same thing in a wordier way. What makes it your job or not? "No good" is not a fact. It's your opinion.

So you can't decide whether something is ridiculous/laughable (as "suffering" for example) because of game theory? (seriously?)

Can we talk about some of it? Maybe suggest a claim we could start with?

So we're not talking about something that's really the case empirically? What the heck are we talking about then? How this makes any sense to you in t...

People should probably deal with what's going on now. Folks from 100 years ago (and often much more recent) are not typically around any longer, regar...

Because?

Who is anyone to decide? The whole nut of this stuff being subjective is that there aren't right answers, and we all decide whatever we want to, or wh...

Sure. So then we make falsifiable claims and see whether they hold water. How about we start doing that?

It doesn't equal that. What I said was that there's no way to say that it isn't that in that case. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. How would we know?

Strong emotions, so strong that you can't imagine thinking otherwise, are not the same thing is reason. "Murder is wrong" isn't a result of reasoning....

Consequences such as?

Why would I necessarily defer to someone else's opinion? As I just noted above, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ...

Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with.

?? No idea how you see this as an implication.

But that's all we emotivists are referring to. I'm not sure what this is saying.

I'd say the realm of ontology, because it's talking about what ethics is/what its nature is, as an existent, so to speak. At any rate, I'm definitely ...

Why would you say that it shouldn't be permitted?

If someone were to say both "Lying is wrong" and "Lying to your friend is okay," then they're probably just not expressing their view very clearly or ...

If someone doesn't feel that x is morally right/permissible, etc., or that y is morally wrong/impermissible, etc., then I wouldn't say that "x is mora...

We can assign truth values to statements about metaethics, for example. Including that this statement is true: "Normative ethical/moral stances have n...

If you can't understand how that works, then you probably lack empathy. Note that the idea isn't that you literally feel just the way the other person...

This seems to forget that whether anything is a benefit or not is subjective. Anyone could interpret any arbitrary thing--or everything as a benefit o...

I think I understand what you're asking better. Thanks for the added explanation. The whole point of my view is that talking about the properties of t...

Someone's just skeptical, especially of non-falsifiable claims.

So then it's not a stance about conception. It would be an argument about bringing fetuses to term/giving birth.

If the claim isn't falsifiable, there's no way to say that it's not merely a matter of the narrative that folks want to create, and nothing could poss...

Most of this sort of talk--"white privilege, " "male privilege," etc. seems to rest on unfalsifiable claims . . . when it even bothers to make any cle...

What makes anything meaningful is that someone thinks about it associatively. Some x is associated with some y, so that x suggests, implies, connotes ...

Pre-conception, you're not doing anything to anyone by conceiving.

Okay, but I don't at all agree with that. You're suggesting a quantification that I don't think is plausible, but at any rate, an example is saying so...

I'd say that we're definitely talking about something "geographical" as you put it. Yes, it's a spatio-temporal location. Namely, the spatio-temporal ...

Before they're born--but do you mean after conception? A lot of things that you and khaled are saying now sound like you're fine with conception, but ...

I wouldn't actually call a hallucination a perception--I reserve perception for information acquired from external things via one's senses. But at any...

I'm not sure I understand your question. Many properties only obtain via the interactions of many parts/relations.

Huh? :brow:

Again, influence is different than causing something.

As if either there are correct ways to formulate the concepts, or as if social norms make something correct.

Good points.

Okay. Just for tomorrow, we could maybe start with these questions: * "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?" My answer is "No." (At least not on how ...

So we'd need to do something much simpler to start over. It would help to not approach the simpler start in an argumentative manner.

I can see that. However, you're thinking it's not your problem.

It's almost as if you can't comprehend what I'm writing above about nuance, etc.

Feel free to send me threats of imminent violence. I'll have a similar reaction to my reaction to your poor attempt to argue via misplaced satire abov...

Hence why there's no way that you're not an Aspie. You're approaching everything like a robot.

It was stated as a policy just like stating what notes are in the key of C major.

No, but not because of any principle. I don't do ethics by principle. I think that's a horrible approach, which is why you're spouting the inanities y...

That's what you said earlier. Okay, so if not, it doesn't put anyone in an unusual situation. That's easy, right? So who does procreating do anything ...

Is this under what you said earlier where genetic engineering is done on a fertilized egg?

The nuances are that I don't use a principle-based approach, why I don't actually employ that as a principle, etc. If I'm teaching you music, I'm goin...

Procreating risks putting WHO in an unusual situation? Antinatalism is a stance on procreating, isn't it?