You assume far too much. That I'm an atheist doesn't entail half of what you said. It simply means that I don't believe that God exists. There isn't any "ultimate aim" in that, nor is it about "the human predicament", and nor is it about "stoicism". Those are separate things which you're muddling up.

Oh my god. Whatevs.

The distinction can be as blurry or as narrow as you like between "good despite the bad" or "good in the bad". It still holds. — schopenhauer1

What still holds? The distinction between good and bad? I never denied that distinction, nor did I intend to "blur" or "narrow" it. Your reply seems entirely irrelevant to my point.

Basically, it's quite trivial and ineffective to point out that this or that aspect of life isn't all that great, because clearly that doesn't matter enough in the bigger picture for the majority of people, myself included. We're not even saying that these aspects of life are acceptable or good because they're inescapable. That would make no sense. They're only acceptable in light of the bigger picture.

What I'm particularly concerned about is why both goodness and knowledge are necessary. Doesn't this mean that knowledge, even omniscience, can't find reasons to be good. — TheMadFool

It seems fairly obvious to me that knowing things, even everything, and even how to be good, doesn't guarantee actually being good.

I'm watching you.

Your line of reasoning is based on a straw man. The argument isn't that it's inescapable and therefore acceptable or good. The argument is that it's good overall, in spite of inescapable downsides.

I hope it is clear from my last that I think this is the wrong answer. — Banno

You shouldn't think that, because we're both right. I certainly didn't mean to rule out your answer, which I took for granted. I was thinking about the power of truth beyond it's most basic function.

I can't imagine who would believe the pledges of the Tory party now, they have no credibility left. It will go down as the worst Tory conference in history I think, they really have lost the plot. — Punshhh

Worse than Theresa's? :snicker:

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." — frank

Not true.

But shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own? We can only reside in fiction for so long, right? — frank

Right.

Or not? Maybe we're always in a fictional world even when the shit hits the fan. — frank

I don't think so.

To what extent does truth have power? — frank

To the extent that it's convincing or otherwise compelling. There's that old saying that knowledge is power.

Next thing they'll want to change the name of the site. — Bitter Crank

The Worthless Pseudo-Intellectual Nerousis Waste Of Time Trivial Folly Inconclusive Incoherent Play Dumb Charade Pathetic Morons I Hate You All Die Mother Fuckers Forum. — S

I'm loving the purple, by the way. :up:

Is this my punishment for telling jamalrob to fuck off? :lol:

Son of a... :lol:

The People's Philosophy Forum. Needs a hammer and sickle.

I can't be the first person you've run into where that doesn't work. It would probably be a good idea to learn how to let that go if it's causing you frustration. — Terrapin Station

Yeah well, I'm human, aren't I? All too human.

I suppose it's some sort of psychological thing where you figure you can always get folks to come around to your thinking if you just try hard enough? — Terrapin Station

Yes, exactly.

When that's one's assessment, why wouldn't one simply move on and not bother with the person in question? Wouldn't that be a simple solution that wouldn't cause one so much apparent strife? — Terrapin Station

Well, for me, I almost can't help but want to reason with people in situations like that. I find it hard to move on. That's partly why banning me from the forum would be a good thing, for my own sake.

How annoying. They deleted my explanation for why exchanges like the following end in failure:

You don't see an ethical issue with removing any protection children would have against psychological abuse from their parents?
— Benkei

Correct. — Terrapin Station

They end in failure because they start with the charitable assumption that the other person can be reasoned with, but fail because the other person can't be.

So we're not allowed to give our analysis on things like that? Or only when it's someone like me? Or what?

Anyway, are you going to ban me or not? It's been good, but I think I spend too much time here anyway, and I don't really like how people like @jamalrob judge me with regard to his intervention just now.

The green is better. :up:

Can we change the color every day? I think that would be fun. — StreetlightX

I vote for this.

Psychological abuse is a real problem and it's not just limited to child abuse but that's an example where the State can (and will) step in by separating the children from abusive parents. — Benkei

Yes. And in the context of an ethical discussion about what's right or wrong, or what is or isn't a problem, the resolution to the issue of someone speaking up to say that it's okay, or that it isn't a problem, is simply to disregard what they say. Or, especially if there's a risk that they might cause harm by influencing others with their views, then the best thing to do would be to get them to see sense, if possible. But we certainly shouldn't treat what they say as in any way credible, acceptable, reasonable, or justified.

I don't like it. It's too dull. Change it back.

Here's an escrow company I've used:

http://smprtitle.com/services/escrow-services/

Is that okay with you? — Terrapin Station

Do I just go here and follow the instructions?

Yesterday Trump tweeted the following:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the....

....People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America! — Fooloso4

Well I'll be damned. Next they'll be wantin' to take away our slaves! I'll go to war before that happens!

A minute ago you didn't have $10k — Terrapin Station

I didn't. I had a million dollars.

Sure. How much are we wagering? — Terrapin Station

A million dollars, my cat, and my favourite pair of socks.

Oh, okay then. No problem. Send me the link and I'll put everything I have in my bank account into a crow over this stupid argument on a philosophy forum. Where do I sign? On its beak?

If you put up enough--say at least 10k US, I'll come to Australia or wherever you are (for some reason I was thinking it's Australia) and we can do the study there, so you're present every step of the way. — Terrapin Station

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, okay then. Go ahead and make all the arrangements. I'll send you the 10k US I don't even have, and we'll fly out to Australia! I've always wanted to go there. Put another shrimp on the barbie!

Yes, that you're a bullshitter. — Terrapin Station

You're being very childish, you know.

You put the money in escrow. You draw up a contract specifying the terms. There's zero risk unless you're talking shit. — Terrapin Station

Very funny. Anyway, I told you that I don't bet my real money against people online. Do you understand what that statement means?

Which means that you're talking shit. — Terrapin Station

That's absolutely hilarious. There are lots and lots of people who outright refuse to bet their real money in response to people who goad them to do so online, and that's perfectly understandable. Draw whatever foolish conclusions you like from that.

I'm not talking metaphorically. If you're sure you'd win, I wouldn't be getting any money from you, right? You'd only be getting money from me. — Terrapin Station

Lol, I don't bet my real money with people online. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.

Okay, so the wager? — Terrapin Station

Yeah, metaphorically, I'd wager against you, so long as you didn't skew the set up. But no, if you actually want real money from me, on ya bike.

What? You don't believe that you'd win the wager? (I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying.) — Terrapin Station

:brow:

Har har. No, I meant that I don't believe your account. I don't believe that a good argument would convince you. That's kind of what I meant by immunity in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't really be immune, and I wouldn't have said that.

I don't know why the other posts were deleted. Anyway, again, yeah, obviously I have unusual views, including unusual ethical views. I've stated this many times. As I said, with my political views, I've yet to run into a single other person who agrees with them overall. — Terrapin Station

I guess, quite ridiculously, because I used the term, "fucked up". Either that or it was the automatic filter. I guess I shouldn't have called your fucked up morality "fucked up", I should have called it something more politically correct instead.

No, I don't believe that. I think that you're just immune. And part of your immunity is not recognising good arguments. You just see it as that none have been given. And you also insist on being in control of the discussion in order to keep the focus off of you. You're the kind of person who avoids acknowledging things and instead redirects with a question. If someone were to ask you whether you're a human being, the appropriate answer would be "Yes", not "What's a human being?". The latter is a really annoying thing that only philosophical types do.

Would you like to make a wager on whether a large majority (say >85%) of people assign a normative connotation to the word "correct" in various contexts? I'll put up any amount of money you'd like. We'll put it in escrow. Then we'll set up a research project to check whether people assign a normative connotation to that term.

You use the term normatively all the time. The only time you try to not do that is when it's pointed out that you do. I don't know why you don't want to admit that you use the term that way. — Terrapin Station

Just because people who think that the correct answer to the question of what one plus one equals is two, also most likely have related normative beliefs, like that you should answer "two" to that question if you want to give the correct answer, that doesn't mean that the former is normative, or "has normative connotations". The former is still descriptive. Descriptive and normative are two different categories, and mean two different things. The one is not the other. And the one doesn't logically imply the other. The "ought" can't be derived from the "is". You should know that as someone who includes Hume in his list of favourite philosophers.

If I say that "two" is the correct answer, there's no "should" in the meaning of that. There's just an "is". It's entirely descriptive. So no, I don't need to keep pointing out something that isn't there in the first place. If you read something into it, then that's entirely on you. It would be your misinterpretation that leads you to think that.

The "should" is in saying that it's correct to say that it's 7" and that it's correct to use a particular standard. — Terrapin Station

No. There's literally no "ought" in that. The "ought" is in your imagination. And your logic is flawed. I can say that, and I can also say that you should act accordingly. I can hold both the descriptive belief and the normative belief. But it's illogical to conclude from that that I mean the latter by saying the former.

"Correct" is the term that has a normative connotation to the vast majority of people. — Terrapin Station

No, it's descriptive to the vast majority of people. Pointing to different statements which are normative won't make that statement normative. That statement is clearly descriptive. Your logic is flawed here.

I can provide a million-and-one examples where I'm right and you're wrong on this point:

What day is it today?

Wednesday.

(I'm not saying that it should be Wednesday, or that you should think that it's Wednesday, or anything of that sort. I'm not saying anything normative at all. It's entirety descriptive. I'm simply giving the correct answer).

A measurement can be in accordance with some standard, but it would be difficult to argue for a usage of "correct" that doesn't have a normative connotation. You'd have to keep pointing out that you're using a non-normative "correct," because it would be read with a normative connotation in the vast majority of cases. — Terrapin Station

Have you noticed that you're the only one who has this problem? It's a problem that you've invented.

The problem is that there's no should to being in accordance with some standard, aside from one personally feeling that way. — Terrapin Station

It's not a problem now, and it never was a problem to begin with. There's no "should" in saying that something is 7". You're arguing against no one other than yourself on this point, it seems.

However, while figures show that illegal border crossings into the US have seen an overall decline since 2000, they have been rising again since Mr Trump took office.

The current financial year has so far seen more than 800,000 people detained on the southern US border - already twice the total for 2018. — BBC News

Source

What would determine who it includes? — Terrapin Station

Use your imagination. You say that I don't give straightforward answers, but the reason I do that is because I think that you ask questions without thinking things through properly, even though you're capable of doing so.

We've spoke about this before. Weren't you a teacher?

What would be an example of a performative contradiction of mine, then? — Terrapin Station

Saying things that there's no way in hell that you actually believe, like that you don't know whether or not I believe that I'm on the moon, and that the meaning of words like these is entirely subjective, and that you have no position in this discussion. Those are purely philosophical positions, and I don't mean that in a good way. And those are just the ones I can remember.

Do you get warnings? Ive went off a few times and no ones said anything, just curious. — DingoJones

Yes. Just last week. Some jerks complained about me being a jerk.