Michael

Sorry, I don't buy this at all. I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to discuss what "X is wrong" means (meta-ethics) and to discuss what mak...

Sorry, had to edit out that link. The book is still in copyright, so I'm pretty sure it's illegal to host (and link to, I guess).

Sure, and no. But I don't understand the relevance of this. I was simply saying that clearly posters are less interested in talking about applied ethi...

This was Wittgenstein quoting Augustine. And this is him describing Augustine's view. He then spends a lot of time showing the problem with this view.

Nah, real news is BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, etc. CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all get a "Mixed" rating on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/....

I'll have to put it through the fake news test. If Trump says it's fake news, it isn't, and if he says it isn't, it is.

No, that's fake news.

Banno is old news.

Same, but with a goat.

If someone wants to watch the news then why would they want to watch Fox? Isn't it just angry people shouting?

Not any more. They only averaged a few thousand viewers a day so they pulled it this summer. Although that didn't stop Ofcom from ruling yesterday tha...

Lights at a zebra crossing? Where are you?

Me: "Do you want X or Y?" Them: "Yes" Clients are the worst.

Were you watching Fox? I bet it was Fox.

Did you read what I said in context? Thorongil said that if a ban on guns were to happen then it would lead to something of a civil war. It didn't hap...

That's because meta-ethics and normative ethics aren't applied ethics, and most people seem interested in discussing meta-ethics and normative ethics.

Yes, like "President".

I was referring to his companies' many bankruptcies.

From riches to rags to riches.

Well, yes, that's almost always in effect, regardless of subject matter.

Rightists always like being wrong? ;)

There is no line. Talk about what you like, so long as it's in the right category (and not illegal or offensive). Although I wouldn't expect many repl...

Agustino is like Trump? So much for the good Christian then.

Firearms licensing law, 2016 One of the key parts is that there must be a good reason to own a gun, which includes profession, sport, collecting, stud...

Then there's something very wrong with American society. Because when most gun ownership was banned in the UK and Australia, private citizens didn't g...

Always? I doubt that. Some certainly will, but I reckon a lot of would-be-killers wouldn't know how to get one (or afford to get one) if they weren't ...

The point is that you're suggesting that if the good guy didn't have a gun then more people would have died, whereas I'm pointing out that if the bad ...

I'm saying that if bad people with guns kill 1,000 people and if good guys with guns save 100 people then it probably isn't worth having guns.

Perhaps we should do a cost benefit analysis. Does the availability of guns in the U.S. protect more than it harms or vice versa? How many people woul...

Yeah. Soon they'll just be called The Government.

That's a funny way to spell LibDem.

He's saying "Impeach me so I can go back to my leisurely life. My ego won't let me resign."

There's very little we delete in Feedback (and other off-topic) discussions. As far as I can see, Sap's passive aggressive insults are no worse than t...

I think this is a misleading question, and highlights the "talking past each other" issue I mentioned earlier. One person is saying that all we're rea...

I'm looking at a TV, and I see people. What does the term "people" refer to? The TV? The pixels? My experience? The actors who are far away, doing oth...

Why would we do that? We talk about seeing people on TV, not seeing pixels, and that's the proper way to talk.

Such a sensational headline. It should read "CERN discovers that current scientific models are missing something (or wrong somewhere)".

Mueller Has Enough Evidence to Bring Charges in Flynn Investigation Looks like I'm right.

If I see a blue and black dress and you see a white and gold dress, are we seeing the same thing? If I see a rabbit and you see a duck, are we seeing ...

Probs Flynn.

As I said before, I think the issue of the immediate object of perception is a non-issue. You can say that you're immediately aware of the occurrence ...

And what reasoning does the realist have to support his claim that we perceive an independent world (of other people and inanimate objects)? Presumabl...

You can avoid solipsism by arguing that the most parsimonious explanation for the occurrence and regularity of experience is the existence of an indep...

Well, if I at least accept scientific realism then a particular collection of fundamental particles. If I don't then some otherwise indescribable noum...

And the difference between seeing a tree and not seeing a tree is? Presumably seeing a tree is when a tree is causally responsible for the tree-experi...

It would be different in that it was caused by some external stimulus, but it would be the same in that it emerges from (or is identical to) brain act...

I would say that both when awake and when dreaming the immediate cause of the experience is brain activity (or maybe the experience just is brain acti...

Properties that things have when we're not looking. As an example, and assuming scientific realism, the charge of an electron or the mass of an atom o...

I think you're being pedantic. You can re-read my account of indirect realism without including the word "only": "the indirect realist says that a thi...

As opposed to the direct realist's (wrongful) claim that a thing's appearance is an objective property that the object retains even when not being loo...