Bartricks

Prospective parents. And yes, it is a thought experiment at the moment simply because it is by thinking that we gain insight into these matters.

Assume they could as a thought experiment. Now, wouldn't it be better if they didn't procreate? Any child they have will be an idiot. Idiocy isn't goo...

How do you know I didn't? You admit you have not read the whole thread, but then you talk as if you have. Confusing. This thread is about what truth i...

No, but it would be hard to be a good parent if you're starving and have no resources, and those with IQs below a certain level are pretty much fated ...

By preventing those ones from breeding, yes? So you're in favour of eugenics, you're just arbitrarily opposed to some kinds and not others. Prospectiv...

I do not follow you. To be justified in holding a belief there needs to be a reason for you to hold it. But there can be a reason for you to hold a be...

That's just silly. So a parent who, for instance, refuses to educate their child in any way (because it is soo facile to think intelligence matters!) ...

No, I assumed you meant 'severe abuse' (which would include sexual abuse, but not be limited to it). You're not addressing the point though. The point...

I don't see that. To be justified in a belief is for there to be reason for you to hold it. 'A reason' here denotes a bidding or approval of Reason (w...

You've expressed scepticism about the value of definitions, and then you've offered a load? Why aren't you taking your own medicine? We can't solve ph...

You haven't argued anything or addressed the arguments being made here. You've just expressed your "love and peace' opinion, an opinion that has no me...

Obviously that would depend. Do you think it is true? If you think it is true, does that entail that it is true? If not, why not?

I see absolutely no justification for this claim. What's this: "if an argument is valid and has true premises, then the conclusion is true"? Well, it ...

Where? I didn't define truth. Others did, and I took issue with their definitions. Also it is not I, but Plato, who offered the 'justified true belief...

A distinction is sometimes drawn between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that'. I am talking about 'knowing that'. You don't, I think, and I haven't said t...

Explain please - they seem relevantly identical. Would you think that justified in adoption cases - that is, anyone can adopt a child (just turn up an...

What do you mean by eugenics? Is that eugenics? Surely it is. It is just that it seems entirely justified. So, what you are opposed to is 'unjustified...

I take it you mean by that, "yes, I see that to construct an argument that has the negation of one of your premises as a conclusion I need to incorpor...

No, I'm sure you listen to Reason when it is convenient for you to do so - that is, you listen to Reason on your terms (if you didn't listen to Reason...

No, not unusual - for time immemorial 'the mind' has been used to refer to the thing, whatever it may be, that is the seat of our consciousness. Menta...

But that point - the point in question - shows that that answer is no answer to the question. And again, nobody disputes the correspondence theory of ...

How are you addressing the argument of the OP? This - This statement is true if and only if it is true - is not a theory about what truth is. It is a ...

The arrogance of thinking I need your help. I don't need your help matey. You need mine - you need to understand that you can't reason without attempt...

er no, you'll be leaving me for your delusions. Remember, I think we find out about the nature of things by listening to Reason, whereas you listen to...

That's the only one that matters. Everything else is ego and posturing.

Evidence? er, evidence? Evidence? Oh, they've been served by you, don't you worry, but not for the reasons you think.

An abstraction is an abstraction. Minds think. Abstractions don't think. So I don't know why you're confidently asserting such things, given they're n...

Can you also explain to me what you mean by 'evidence'. For example, how can any sensation constitute evidence without an appeal being made to Reason?...

And can you then point out where I have done this? I mean, for starters, locate for me the putative counterexample - that is, provide me with the exam...

Can you provide an example of this, for at the moment what you have just said seems conceptually confused. How on earth can one reason without appeali...

It is not a different argument, you're just not a native English speaker (yes?). Only persons can assert things does not mean that only pluralities of...

No, persons refers to individual persons, not groups - so you're just being tedious. But to remove any ambiguity, here: 1. Reason makes assertions 2. ...

We are not getting anywhere. You are not challenging my argument, you are just failing to understand what the premises mean and failing to provide val...

No, Reason would have to be a person - a mind - because Reason asserts things (and values things, and prescribes things) and minds and only minds can ...

Where is your refutation of premise 1? Lay it out. A valid argument with the negation of premise 1 as its conclusion please.

No, relevant. It means the premise is true. Or do you think something other than a person can assert something? If so what?

The argument is valid, the problem is that English is not your first language and so you have not realized that "persons and only persons" refers not ...

No, premise 2 is true, you just don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that groups of persons can assert things, only that persons - minds - ...

If you think groups of persons can assert things, that's because you've committed the fallacy of composition. A group of persons is not itself a perso...

No, premise 2 refers to individual persons, not groups of persons. Groups of persons - not being persons themselves - cannot assert anything. It is pe...

Well that's really no clearer. Here is the relevant argument: premise 1: Reason makes assertions premise 2. Persons and only persons make assertions C...

Eh? What are you on about?

What is the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' and how have I committed it. Remember, I'm a dumbo so I not be understanding this stuff. Explain. No, that's fa...

Yes. It. Does. See earlier example. Irrelevant, but glad English course well going Hmm. I spoke too soon. Ah, well, you got me bang to rights there. R...

Whiz

Zip. Whiz. Cakes are made with ovens. Cakes are not ovens, though. I use language to make assertions. But language asserts nothing. I make the asserti...

You're not even addressing it. Have I committed a fallacy? No. But by all means correct me on that and point one out. Have I made a false assumption? ...

I have taken no stand on what propositions are, apart from the (uncontroversial) view that they are the bearers of truth. But I'm not even committed t...

I am mocking you. Let me explain how that works. Clearly one cannot win a game of chess by whizzing on the board. That's not a legitimate move. It's n...

Address the argument I gave. You're not humble if, when confronted with overwhelming evidence that a proposition is true, you continue to take serious...