If we are in a forum debating things we can link sources, provide arguments , offer definitions — neomac
I try to identify the logic structure of the argument, so e.g. in case of a deduction premise and conclusion , to check if it's logically valid. — neomac
I don't even know what opinions you are talking about how can I possibly believe they all are indefensible and irrational?! — neomac
the point is not to assess people or opinions, but to assess actual arguments, so e.g. what are the actual arguments — neomac
I'm not sure how you understand it or intend to apply it. In what sense do the fact that I listed underdetermine the theory (?) that Russia is a security concern for the West? — neomac
OK, so take me through the process with "Russia is a security threat to Western countries". We should have a list of premises which logically entail that conclusion. So what is that list? — Isaac
when poster X goes through the trouble of rephrasing what another poster Y has already phrased, there is a risk for a straw man. — Olivier5
If poster X does so very often, and his victims very often do not agree to the rephrasing, and berate him publicly for it, that is an indication that X might be addicted to straw men. — Olivier5
I guess the response I'll get to this is a list what the US has done to Third World countries. Because that I guess makes all above totally OK behavior. — ssu
extensive — ssu
well reported — ssu
assume — ssu
as a show-of-force — ssu
very often — ssu
Likewise, we'll find no dissent attached to any of your rephrasings? Everyone agreed that your rephrasings were accurate representations of the original proposition?
Is that your claim? Or are we all guilty of misrepresentation, and thus none of us posting in 'good will'? — Isaac
My claim is that some are more guilty than others — Olivier5
It is sufficient for people posting in good will. — Olivier5
So how much more guilty constitutes a lack of 'good will'? — Isaac
I've edited my answer. — Olivier5
What if I agree with you on principle, but disagree that I do it 'a lot', that in fact, the number of times I do it is only 'a few'?
Are you suggesting there's some empirical fact about how many times constitutes 'a lot'? — Isaac
It wasn't an international border. Once states break away and get their independence, it's different. — ssu
One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation. — Manuel
Why don't you call a specialist in the scientific study of human behavior? — Olivier5
One can peacefully co-exist with one's enemy if both should so choose. — creativesoul
Peaceful co-existence need only require that one sovereign nation respect another.
One can see another as the enemy of self-governance.
The hallmarks(actual results) of good self-governance are shown in the actual lives and livelihoods of the overwhelming majority. Good government produces quality lives.
The same is true of individual people. One can consider another an enemy on certain terms and in certain non violent, non harmful ways. These terms and ways do not cause harm. Nor do they seek any unnecessary unprovoked offensive violence towards this enemy. Seeing another as an enemy is in itself insufficient ground for the enemy to cause retaliatory harm. So, no it is not the least absurd to be able to expect to see another as an enemy(in nice and harmless ways), and completely expect the enemy to be and remain nice and harmless.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.