I've already acknowledged that you don't accept that your argument is an argument. That doesn't make it not an argument. And you've acknowledged that you know the content (that content being the argument) that I'm referring to.

You're the one turning a molehill into a mountain.

Hence why I'm asking. — Terrapin Station

You've been asking the wrong questions. You should have just asked me why I think that it's an argument instead of pretending that you have no idea what I was referring to.

If it's that you consider any content whatsoever to be an argument, then okay, that makes sense. Again, if someone says "I like Aaron Copland. I'd listen to him every day." Is that an argument in your view?

If so, then at least that makes sense. You consider anything anyone says (at least aside from questions, exclamations, etc. maybe) to be an argument. — Terrapin Station

I consider arguments to be arguments. You made an argument. I considered that argument to be an argument.

Your argument was basically that consequences which matter don't matter, just because they don't matter to you.

I think that that's a rubbish argument.

I know the content you're referring to. — Terrapin Station

Then stop pretending that you don't know what I'm referring to. You were pretending that you didn't know what I was referring to instead of just saying that you don't accept that what I'm referring to is an argument.

What I don't know is what you're considering to be an argument, since I didn't state an argument. Is it that you consider any stance an "argument"? — Terrapin Station

You do know what it is that I'm considering to be an argument. You literally just said that you know the content that I'm referring to.

Have you completely forgotten how logic works? Bizarre.

How would someone "justify their suggestion" that they weren't forwarding an argument and that they don't know what one is talking about re the claim that they were?

How would one even begin doing that? — Terrapin Station

You would have to explain why you supposedly don't understand what I'm referring to when I've made it incredibly obvious through multiple explicit references. What's your explanation? You haven't been reading my posts, or... what? Even then, you could just retrace the discussion.

If you're simply not going to believe me and insist that I know what you're talking about, there's not much I can do. — Terrapin Station

Given that the evidence is stacked against you, you have a burden to justify your suggestion that you have no idea what I'm referring to.

It's as if you can't comprehend that I'm saying that at least on my view, I didn't forward any sort of argument.

Yet, despite that fact, you think it's "immoral" for me to not tell you what my argument was. lol — Terrapin Station

I understand your position. I just think that it's immoral to feign ignorance and make unnecessary requests of me. You knew exactly what I was referring to without me having to tell you, so cut the crap.

Maybe I'd agree with you if you could tell me what the argument was. — Terrapin Station

Why are you pretending to be incapable? Don't you think that that's immoral? You know exactly what I'm referring to.

The problem is that I didn't state an argument. I simply stated what my policy would be. What my policy would be isn't an argument for the policy. — Terrapin Station

I understand you. You stated an argument that you refuse to admit is an argument, and likewise with regard to a position in this discussion. And you apparently lack the self-awareness to see why that's a problem.

I couldn't figure out a more sensible way to read it. Hence querying about it. — Terrapin Station

The normal way is fine, and doesn't lead to gibberish. I find it impossible to believe that you couldn't figure out that, normally, it's considered stating your position in a discussion to enter a discussion and say, "In my view, yes. I'm a free speech absolutist". I can therefore only conclude that you're consciously playing games here, and I think that you should stop.

I wouldn't call my stance on free speech a "position in the discussion"... — Terrapin Station

I think that that's you deliberately causing problems. That's like me saying that I wouldn't call those two appendages on the lower half of my body which I use to walk, "my legs".

If you're not going to state what the supposed argument is, etc., there's nothing I can do about it. — Terrapin Station

So you're telling me that you're incapable of remembering or looking up your own argument from earlier on in the discussion about throwing rocks off of a building? (Assuming that's what you're referring to, since you didn't quote me in your reply).

Re the "position comment," if he's just stating that we're going to give opinions, express views, stances, etc. okay, but that would be a weird way to state that, especially in the context of "must be based on whether you think there's a contradiction," which just reads like gibberish to me. — Terrapin Station

So why are you choosing to interpret it in a way that reads like gibberish? This is a big problem that you have in general. I'm not sure you realise how big a problem it is to choose to interpret things in the way that you do. You don't seem to take on board the feedback you get, so unsurprisingly the problem persists.

I have no idea where you think you showed that. And again, his comment was in the context of someone stating an argument. — Terrapin Station

Well you've seen and presumably read my replies. You're just deciding not to recognise the content.

I didn't state any arguments, a fortiori because I don't even believe there are true or false ethical utterances. — Terrapin Station

I understand that that's your stated position. It's just that, like Isaac (and no doubt others), I think that it's disingenuous, because you definitely did state an argument. The only possible way to truthfully say that you didn't do so would be to define it away, so that superficially your argument doesn't count as an argument by your definition, but that would be an example of sophism.

No idea why you'd think I'd even have a "position" in a discussion... — Terrapin Station

Oh, come on. This is getting really silly now. You stated your position in this discussion in your very first reply.

And you should know as well as I do that it's sophism to make misleading statements and then try to back them up by defining things away, like, for example: "I have no idea why you'd think that I'm a 'member' of this forum. I'm not a 'member', I just signed up and regularly participate in discussions here. That doesn't make me a 'member' of the forum".

Back in 2017, Labour pledged to raise the Minimum Wage to the level of the Living Wage (expected to be at least £10 per hour by 2020) – for all workers aged 18 or over, and now they're including all workers under the age of 18, too.

The Tories, in contrast, are only now pledging to increase their National Living Wage (not the Minimum Wage!) to £10.50 per hour, but not until 2024, and even then, it will still exclude anyone under the age of 21. (It currently excludes anyone under the age of 25!).

And yet the current Tory Chancellor, Sajid Javid, has the nerve to declare at the Tory party conference, "It's clear it's the Conservatives who are the real party of labour - we are the workers' party".

No, you're not.

Your whole position here has not been "really, you think hate speech should be banned, how interesting, tell me more... ", it has from the start been "if you can't show me the exact evidence I count as acceptable, using the rule-making methodology I approve of, you're a moron". I don't mind that approach, I prefer people who have some passion behind their philosophy, but it's disingenuous to paint this 'curious curator of ideas' picture just to support your position here. You're just as passionate about telling everyone what's 'right' as the rest of us. — Isaac

I know, right. I find that funny, too. It's like when says, "You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations".

You aren't fooling anyone. You're interested in debating, just like the rest of us. And you think you're right, just like the rest of us think we're right. It's a fake distinction and virtue signalling. It's not that you're so humble and we're so egotistical. You're one of us.

He was saying that assuming widely accepted ethical normatives was useful for having an ethics discussion in a philosophy context. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and my example shows that. What I said is both true in general and in this specific context. Presumably you have no valid objection, or you would have raised one by now. All you've done is respond with red herrings.

It's useful to assume that consequences like those mentioned earlier matter, because we're talking to people, and not brick walls. Some people like to act like brick walls, but again, most people do not, and so an agreement can be reached, the person acting like a brick wall can be disregarded, and for all practical purposes, the problem is resolved.

In posts like this, you imply that the right answer hinges on a consensus. But in other posts, you make it clear that if your view isn't the same as the consensus, the consensus is wrong. — Terrapin Station

No. In anticipation of your objection, I tried to word it in such a way as to allow for both interpretations: that it's the right answer, as I would say, but which you wouldn't accept; and that it's the consensus, or resolution, which both of us would accept. (You might get funny about the word "resolution" here, but remember that this is in the context of a group trying to resolve a problem, and that couldn't happen if there had to be unanimous agreement where someone is being difficult (almost on purpose, it seems, merely for argument's sake). So, to be realistic, like I said, your disagreement would ultimately be disregarded in order to reach a resolution).

And that's why broad agreement is useful (which is pretty obvious anyway, and so shouldn't even need to be explained).

The interpretation that he was saying something as trivial as that people can have "visions" - feelings or dreams or an imagination or brain damage or drugs or whatever - strong enough that they pretty much can't help but to jump to conclusions doesn't really fit with what he was saying about fallacies, though, because that is a fallacy.

I don't need to be a master of chess to appreciate how good it is or to continue to play relatively well. Likewise with stoicism.

And I don't know about you, but I'm happier when I'm resilient.

So I reject points 3 & 4.

You did not ask me, S, but if Jesus, Yahweh, or Beelzeboob appeared in front of me and created 100 fish out of nothing instantly in a set of barrels, or turned 100 barrels of wate into wine instantly, then I'd accept it as an act of god, not as an act of magic or trickery. Call me gullible, but it would satisfy me as a proof of truth. And you know how religious I am now. — god must be atheist

No, that's not the problem, although that's still actually a problem, because there's still the problem of why God over magic or brain damage or drugs or any number of other possible explanations.

He was talking about "records", which he thought were genuine. The problem is why he thinks that these "records" are genuine, unless he only means by that that he accepts that they really did have a "vision" (where a "vision" is just be a funny feeling or something like that, and not anything supernatural, which would be unwarranted). That in itself isn't that big of an issue. (People do have funny feelings, and they do tell us about them, and they can be genuine in telling us about them). Nor would it be that big of an issue to suggest that that "vision", in combination with an overactive imagination and lack of critical thinking skills, can compel someone to believe that it was something more than is reasonably warranted. But the problem would be if he was suggesting that this would be anything other than fallacious, or if he was suggesting that anyone with the required critical thinking skills and self-restraint would likewise jump to the same conclusion in that situation.

Why--because that's what I asked for an example of (because that's what Isaac was talking about). What argument did I give? — Terrapin Station

Look, I've given you an example of what you asked for, and I've explained why it counts as an example. If I am capable of either recalling your earlier argument or looking it up with the advanced search function, then so are you. If you've forgotten it, then look it up and get back to me in order to give a proper response.

The usefulness consists in reaching the right answer, or in solving the problem. For that, a group of people must have the right things in common, and if someone like you ends up being the odd one out, reaching the wrong conclusion, then you end up being disregarded because there are things which are more important than someone's contrary opinion. The right answer, and a resolution, are more important than an outspoken individual with misplaced self-importance.

What this chatter usually assumes however is that all of the accounts in religious texts are likewise projections, illusions or wishful thinking. And surely in a mechanised modern culture such as ours it must seem like that. But I don’t believe so - I think there are records of genuine epiphanies, actual ‘revelations’, such that if anyone were exposed to such visions then they likewise would be compelled to accept their veracity. Not everything in sacred texts is true, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all fallacious, either. Otherwise it would make it the mother of all conspiracies. — Wayfarer

If the part in bold isn't fallacious, then set out your reasoning. Surprise me.

Come on you two, you're embarrassing yourselves. — jamalrob

Don't patronise me.

First, did I even give an "argument" for the stance of mine you're taking to be an example? — Terrapin Station

Yes. Why? What problem are you going to invent this time? You're always saying things and then finding ways to avoid giving away any ground. It's kind of predictable.

Hate is, it seems, either silly or foolish. — TheMadFool

I don't agree with that, although it can be.

Hate grows on inequality. There's an imbalance in the relationship between individuals or groups. Why should the stronger hate the weaker if it's the existence of the weaker that makes them stronger? Why should the weaker hate the stronger if the stronger exist only because they're weaker? — TheMadFool

This is interesting, though. Thinking outside of the box. Good as a way of getting someone to think about personal responsibility in the case of the weak who hate the strong, and good as a way of getting the strong to realise the importance of those weaker than them in a way that they'd have to acknowledge.

Because I'm skeptical about what's being claimed. — Terrapin Station

It's way beyond that. More like wilful blindness.

Showing a concrete example of how it would be useful would help convince me. — Terrapin Station

I've given you one. It actually happened in this discussion earlier on. How much more concrete can you get? I don't believe that anything would help convince you enough; not anything to do with what we're saying, but rather because you just won't find anything convincing enough, or that it won't bring you to come out and say, "Oh yeah, actually you're right. I see what you mean".

Looking for a concrete example. A fictional one is fine. — Terrapin Station

What? Anyway, I knew this would be pointless with you.

Reported. Explain why you think it's a false analogy, if you're capable of doing so.

That's not actually what I said in that part, but I don't want to focus on that. You're not understanding what I'm asking for. I'm asking for an example of an argument someone could give where it's useful (and then explain how it's useful) to assume the likelihood of broad conformity,

Presumably I wouldn't be a good example, because how would it be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity in the context of my comments about ethics/morals? — Terrapin Station

Okay, I'll be more explicit. It would be useful to assume that there's broad agreement that consequences like those I referred to in my previous reply matter, in an ethical discussion like this, because otherwise talking about more specific things in that context wouldn't really make any sense if we aren't even in broad agreement over the basics. People make points with that assumption in mind. We tend to assume that people aren't completely whacko, and that they'll be able to relate on at least a basic level. It's useful if you're a normal human being trying to have a discussion with other normal human beings.

If you go Zen on it then some might even be able to use hate to accomplish the good. How could slaves have achieved emancipation if they hadn't hated oppression and if their oppressors hadn't hated treating their fellow human being like animals?

On the other hand we have things like hate crime that are senseless and have far-reaching effects on the collective. — TheMadFool

Yes, very good point. Indeed, how could slaves have achieved emancipation if they hadn't hated oppression? I think that that was glossed over by the kind of things that Swan was saying.

Do you have a brain? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, that's how I was able to highlight the problem with the kind of questions you're asking with that analogy.

Do you?

What would be a moral argument where it would be useful to assume the likelihood of broad conformity, and then give an example of how the discussion would proceed so that the assumption was useful. If you can give a good example, maybe you'll persuade me. — Terrapin Station

I very much doubt you'd be persuaded, or act as though you are, even if he provides a really good example. An example that's highly relevant here would be that consequences like the ones you dismissed earlier matter. I recall you earlier on dismissing a situation where someone couldn't even walk down a street because some thugs were throwing rocks off of a building. That would be a consequence of your stance regarding the law, and your response was basically that that wouldn't matter. It shouldn't be illegal. You shouldn't be able to call the police to intervene, or if you do, they should just say, "Sorry, this isn't a police matter. No laws are being broken".

In reality, all that really means is that you're abnormal, and that we shouldn't take your wild ideas seriously.

Beware of people who urge you to beware of accusations of dog whistling. Especially if they're big supporters of Trump and Brexit.

Is the Loch Ness Monster really aquatic? Is the monster a scary monster?

The alternative is that discussions like this get dominated by teasing out the whole web from one oddball, or we don't really have anything to discuss. — Isaac

Yep, the former is pretty much any discussion that Terrapin gets involved in. "Hey guys, I have a web of oddball beliefs, so you're all wrong in light of my oddball beliefs". That's not how it works, I'm afraid.

Stoicism is great. It's the best example of a practical philosophy I can think of. So many others are useless.

It focusses on controlling the passions. But our passions are a gift from God... And God doesn't make mistakes. Nature is perfection, so why would God make a fatal flaw in his magnum opus? He did not. — PhilCF

Very funny, but do you have a serious objection?

Because to me, it's what you seem to be doing. — Terrapin Station

You already said that. That wasn't what I was questioning, as I think you know. The thing is, that's not what I'm doing, and I don't know why it would seem that way to you.

It's partially because you can't articulate what your actual views are very well, at least in any detail. — Terrapin Station

Again, others here understand what I've said, so that's evidence against you. If what I've said is sufficient to be understood, as others would confirm, then why are you asking for more detail? One possible explanation could be, as I've said, that it's tactical. I don't actually need to articulate anything more than what I've already articulated, because the world doesn't revolve around you.

If this mattered as much as you seem to think it does, then it would be easy to win any debate. All you'd have to do is keep saying that it isn't clear and ask for more details.

Example: what you said about Earth being the planet that we live on isn't clear. You must now provide more details.

And one could just keep using that whatever the other person says.

u wot m8?

I'm not going to be able to get why they're so drawn to consensuses, to a point where they think they're correct/incorrect and have normative weight (at least when it suits them (in S's case)), and why they can't see that the latter part of that is fallacious, and they're not going to get why I'm "perversely" denying the normative importance of consensuses. — Terrapin Station

If you don't even understand what's wrong with allowing a proposition like, "All crimes beginning with 'm' should be legalised", to pass through your moral system, then it would make sense that you don't understand other related things. And I'm not doing anything fallacious. You haven't demonstrated that.

You've made it abundantly clear that you just want to get high on 'freedom' with no regard as to the consequences. — Shamshir

Yep. Terrible judgement.

What you seem to be doing is trying to figure out how to interpret normal folks so that per the exact language they happen to use, they don't have any either bollocksed or unanalyzed beliefs. (Although for some reason you don't really seem to do that when it comes to religion.) — Terrapin Station

I have no Idea why you'd think that. I reckon that that's basically just a straw man that you thought you could get away with by beginning with, "What you seem to be doing is...".

What would that “something dodgey” be? — NOS4A2

You're just pretending not to know what any of us are talking about.