This thread follows on from exchanges in the Donald Trump thread.
If you want to, you can look under tim wood 'Comments' for detail. — Amity
Of course they could, but the sun 'could' explode in the next three seconds, we 'could' all suddenly lose the ability to read... But we don't act as if that were the case. We act with a presumption of expected result based on our theories. We presume consistent patterns will continue to be so until overwhelmingly contradicted by evidence to the contrary. So why shouldn't we treat plausible beliefs in the same way? — Isaac
But the question is whether or not they're lying, and whether or not you can tell, not whether or not you're worried about it. Most of the time I'm not worried about climate change or cancer, but I'm not on the fence about whether or not they're real. — S
What? Wait, if this some sort of subtle practical joke, given the title, then hats of to you. — S
If I told you that I'm on the moon right now with Chevy Chase, would you believe me? Would you think that I was mistaken? You'd think that I was lying, wouldn't you? — S
You're not distinguishing between liar, lie, and lying. — tim wood
It would seem that all our rights really amount to is a kind of social agreement to respect certain feelings that are more or less universal in the culture. I don't want you taking what I feel is my stuff. And you don't want me taking what you feel is your stuff. So let's agree not to take each other's stuff and let's make it a rule that one's stuff is not to be taken by someone else.
That about sum it up? Would anyone disagree with that? — petrichor
A feeling, especially if it is not shared by everyone, seems a poor justification for a universal claim and a restriction of behavior that you want to impose on everyone. If you are making the claim that everyone ought to abide by this claim, you seem to necessarily be making some sort of objective claim. — petrichor
When you say they are wrong, aren't you making an objective claim about what is right or wrong for everyone? — petrichor
Suppose we find an example of a historical culture in which men feel that their wives and children belong to them, and that therefore, they have a right to kill them if they see fit. Suppose this feeling is strong. Suppose the adult women even agree with it. Clearly, in our culture, most of us disagree with them. Who is right? How do we decide? — petrichor
If we have rights in an ethical and subjective sense, then why wouldn't it be true or the case that we have rights (in accordance with the aforementioned interpretation)? Your query or objection or whatever your point is still doesn't make sense to me. — S
If you want to try to unbreak the egg though, feel free. I have no idea how to unmerge. — Baden
No, you're a loony, out there, outspoken, fringe view kind of guy. — S
I asked him about rights realism because he was framing his discussion in terms of rights. — Terrapin Station
Since rights aren't exclusive to ethical realism, that makes no sense. — S
Atheists can easily appeal to the moral sentiment common to us all. — S
What of it? I'm not a realist on rights, and I'm the one who made the claim. There's no contradiction there because obviously as an ethical anti-realist, I abide by an interpretation of rights consistent with that stance. — S
The possible deeper consequences of freedom of speech.
*Albert Einstein mentioned very clear that heart intelligence makes you intelligent. Not your brain. Before you can speak your mind there needs to be a perfect balance between your heart and mind.
It has a long history. For centuries talking out loud was a privilege . . . — Roel
extended things occupy some space and any - any - region of space is divisible. — Bartricks
And you made an irrelevant point in response. — Bartricks
Premise 1 is self-evidently true. It is not self-evidently true to those with limited powers of reflection, of course, or to cats, or the insane. But it is self-evidently true and it is appealed to by all of those who engage in serious intellectual inquiry. — Bartricks