Michael

All my views are right.

They changed into different laws and governments. And these (big) changes aren't very common.

We've already succeeded. We succeeded thousands of years ago. We don't live in an anarchy. We have laws and a government. You're talking nonsense.

So we had 10 years of war over a span of 113 years, and you want to say that society is fundamentally an anarchy? Seems to me that anarchies (using th...

And at any moment we could all have heart attacks and die. But the odds are so unlikely as for it to be irrelevant. And, no, it's not brute force. Is ...

What do you mean by saying that we're fundamentally an anarchy? Do you mean that if we take away all the temporary social constructs like laws and the...

If our current temporary social construct isn't an anarchy (which it isn't) then what I'm saying is right.

So if the biological factor isn't sufficient, then what else is required, and is it arbitrary? If there's some arbitrary non-biological factor then Ha...

You said this: And then, you responded to my response by quoting this: So which is it? Should the leader be the one most suited to the job or should t...

Having the physical strength to force others to obey you is not the same thing as being a competent leader. To refer back to your earlier remark: Even...

Ah, I see. So that's what you mean by saying that there are biological reasons for social inequality. Men were/are strong enough to force women into s...

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance.

The biological facts only determined that men became fighters and women became childrearers. Why that lead to men having social dominance is a differe...

Well, according to this: A simple division of labour spiralled out of control.

Hmm, I'm going with beard, red jumper, grey waistcoat.

We don't learn how to speak by reading a dictionary. We learn by observing how others use words, by repeating them in the right situations, and by int...

Words can have more than one meaning. The word "meaning" can have more than one meaning. Wittgenstein is only talking about one of these meanings, whi...

I don't know if he did, but that's irrelevant, because he was only talking about the meaning of words. As as I said before, you're creating a straw-ma...

I addressed it by pointing out that it has no bearing on what Wittgenstein said.

I'll repeat Wittgenstein again: "the meaning of a word is its use in the language". And to give it greater context, "For a large class of cases--thoug...

We can do that with pointing, too. Let's say that if we use this particular way of pointing with one hand and then shake our other hand we are acknowl...

Let's say that the way we point to chairs is different to the way we point to everything else. What's the difference between the word "chair" and this...

Meaning-as-use doesn't entail that words don't refer to things. If I point to a chair then I am referring to a chair, but we don't explain the meaning...

And other words are just sounds we make in particular social situations, mostly to elicit certain responses from others.

That doesn't follow. All this shows is that animals don't use expressions in the same way that we do.

And to understand the meaning of the word "you" is to understand the use that the word "you" plays in the language.

That doesn't contradict what I said. It would just then mean that the meaning of "I greet you" is its use as a greeting, much like a handshake or a hu...

The meaning of the word "hello" is its use. The same can be said of other words like "yes", "no", "please", etc. So the principle of meaning-as-use is...

So what are we doing when we translate the word "hello"? What does it refer to? The meaning of the word "hello" is its use as a greeting, and we trans...

What's the difference between saying "the meaning of a word is its use" and "the meaning behind a word is its use"?

The correct formulation (if we're going by Wittgenstein) is "the meaning of a word is its use in the language". What do you mean by the use of univers...

I think Moore's paradox shows that use is an element of meaning but not exhaustive. If we consider the statement "It's raining but I believe that it i...

You're confusing. Why say "You must mean lesbian, not homosexual"?

Lesbians are homosexual.

Consider a tennis ball. Is it big or small? It's small to us, but big to a snail. Identity can be a relative matter. So by the same token, the ship mi...

http://imgur.com/hyxl5bM

He turns them off Republicans, pushing them to vote for Democrats who in turn will do better things for the country? ;)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/?utm_term=.fe560d36413e N...

Paused to take a breath?

The new Godwin's law. Edit: How relevant.

Then why did you respond to Terrapin saying "You're writing this in a world where Donald Trump is president" with "Donald Trump has been quite effecti...

If all it takes to be an effective leader is to become a leader then every leader is effective. But, of course, that's not all it takes to be an effec...

I don't understand what you were trying to say about Jordan Peterson and you asking him "about finding a mate" and your mum's blood. Seemed like a non...

Yes. Do you write it?

Huh?

So, is human-made order a higher degree or a lesser degree? But this doesn't seem to work anyway. Imagine if the rocks in my scenario were placed inte...

I watched it. Not once was there any talk about his effectiveness as a president. All he says is that Trump must be above average intelligence because...

If you're using two types of order then your analogy is a false equivalency. That the order1 in a tidy room indicates a creator is not that the order2...

Who were you playing with?

Phoenix flights cancelled because it's too hot for planes 49 degrees? Jesus. I thought the 28 degrees I'm getting here is hot. Are you melting @"Argui...