Banno

@"T Clark" will be along soon to tell us that this is a trivial thread.

I like the meme. I'm all for the counterculture version - I'm sure Wittgenstein would be, too: the stuff that is really important cannot be put into w...

Noice. But I don't think you are taking this seriously enough. If you want to save the world and stuff, you gotta sing loud.

And the ethics espoused in Option Three is far from Singer's utilitarianism. It's not enlightened self-interest. Caring for the commons is a worthwhil...

@"Baden" is going to lose interest if the only one talking is @"Hanover". The third option seems to me to be the one spoken of by First Nations folk. ...

Pointing out that you were the dictator over and over again is not that helpful.

So I'm not buying you a round, Mr @"Hanover".

If you put two cows on the commons, we should all move away from you when you go to the Pub for a beer after work.

We need to make more use of Shunning. Shun folk who put two cows on the Commons.

In this analysis, you were the dictator. You charged a fee so that those with no money could not go fishing, and said that was fair. Then you shot tho...

:blush: Happy to entertain. I hope this thread can do better than just attract Hangover and his Good Ol' Boy economics.

Ah - so you want to be the Big Fat Dictator. Doesn't help.

So that's both the Big Fat Dictator solution and the Privatisation solution all mixed up. Not new. You tell me.

Now I guess there may be a fourth, fifth or sixth option that I hadn't even considered upon. SO you folk might be able to help me out here. Shooting f...

It will not be that surprising to hear that I am in favour of the last option; and that despite it being despised of economists. It won't work, that s...

:lol:

the argument was there, but subtle. It’s to do with how repetition is not truth, literary quality, and the difference between philosophy and nonsense.

Just the place for a Snark. "What I say three times is true!"

And in so doing we are following a well trod path. On both counts.

The point we agree on is that the role of justice in ethics is prior to, or higher than, or of more import than, the role of piety or divine will or.....

"This"? I was replying to @"Fooloso4", not you. Your comments have not been interesting enough to warrant a reply.

That's the point. The dialogue is remembered for it's attack on god when it should be remembered for its support for equity.

I think it's a poor analysis.

The capabilities approach strikes me as suitable for sorting such issues. Nussbaum has shown how it's application brings together intersectionalities;...

Would you add "I might have wanted to lie with other men; but that's just not how it's done"? No. In the face of a child who is distressed at being fo...

it's not unusual to include induction as well as mere deduction. Probabilities, too. Abduction, for some. Empirical observation is not unreasonable.

That's a pretty limited interpretation.

I find it odd that you of all those here are happy to have the contents of one's underpants determine one's social role.

So forcing a child of eight to wear boy's uniform at school to the point where she is suicidal is just correcting a bit of delusional defiance.

There are theories of reason? So we need to decide which is right. How? By reason... Doubtless that's not a problem, either. It's a bit manic in here,...

Apparently we ask @"Bartricks".

...and the conclusion from the NCBI... not that kids change their mind.

this figure is obtained by assuming that every one who was untraceable changed their mind. Biased source.

Why the fuck am I back here. Insidious, philosophy is. Sneaks up on you, and you find yourself reading stuff indoors when you ought be out in the suns...

Can one wear it out? Safe sleepies.

Like that?

Source?

SO the utter misery induced by forcing a child to wear gendered clothing doesn't count?

The name of the Old Testament God and original cause This shite is on a par with numerology and ought be removed.

You don't see a contradiction here?

https://scontent.fcbr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/71262128_10158858664836632_5372286896477044736_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_oc=AQlQzJWTzMUPOypCkWEJX58x4ill2v...

OK, I'll grant that.

Being post hoc does not make one's reasons wrong.

Hrmph. I've often thought that if you find yourself in agreement with Hegel, you're doing it wrong.

Sure, things are repetitive events. Hence, there are repetitive events. Hence, there exist repetitive events. But what makes 'em relative?

Must be. So what is it?