What you wrote is "in a sense that I'm making up" as if I were appealing to some unusual sense of the terms. — Terrapin Station

Yeah. It's very unusual to go by any interpretation which means that people can't get matters like we've been talking about right or wrong. You'll only get that in philosophy, not out there in the world through speaking to normal people.

The justification I'm using is that "correct/incorrect" have a normative connotation, but commonality or consensus do not make normatives obtain. Is that the same justification you're using? — Terrapin Station

The same kind of justification. The elevator example is a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion. What's the problem? Could it, perchance, be my interpretation?

No, it's not, because that wouldn't be a category error. — Terrapin Station

But I'm using the same kind of justification as you are, so what's the problem? It's a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion.

Odd. After reading the transcript you shared with us, and after that brilliant tweet you just shared with us, I'm more convinced that Trump did something dodgey and was up to no good than I was beforehand. It's had the opposite effect to what you were intending by sharing these things with us. And it was the same thing with that quote about arresting people. This is evidence which works against you, not in your favour.

Well, don't forget that I'd add that it's not incorrect, either. Correct/incorrect are a category error for this stuff. — Terrapin Station

But that's like saying that elevators don't go up or down, because up and down are a category error for that stuff. If there's no up or down in relation to elevators in a sense that I'm making up and choosing to go by in order to reach that conclusion, then there's no up or down in relation to elevators. Any objections to that? If so, then you'll understand my objection to you on this topic.

Also, it's really funny that you consider it a category error that people can be right and wrong about matters like this, yet you see nothing wrong with asking a question like, "Where is trigonometry located?".

It's not correct. — Terrapin Station

Ah, you conceded. About time!

How absurd do things have to get until we begin to think, "Hold on a minute, if this counts as philosophy, maybe I should find another hobby". Or is philosophy really all about someone saying ludicrous things, whilst others point out funny logical consequences, and have a good old laugh?

Wait, I think I know the answer. Terrapinism does count as philosophy, although it's bad philosophy and good entertainment.

It's not that I don't use that word. I do not believe that my preferences are correct just because I have them. You're so far up your own derriere that you can't comprehend how that could be the case, though, I suppose. — Terrapin Station

You do, though. I'm not reaching that conclusion from the rationalisations you're coming out with. You're like the fox in Aesop's fable who says, "I wasn't hungry anyway". We shouldn't believe what the fox says, and we shouldn't believe what you say.

Not in the slightest. — Terrapin Station

You don't think that free speech absolutism is right? Could've fooled me. Why are we arguing over it then?

As if meaning were the same as the observable aspect of word usage. — Terrapin Station

How dare you suggest that my mother is a lady of the night!? That's what that means. I demand that you retract that statement and apologise.

The world is a bad place and there's no point in living, so why have kids?

Reminds me of an old folktale, where a boy refuses to wash 'cause he'll just get dirty again, so his folks stop feeding him 'cause he'll just get hungry again. — Shamshir

That's a good one, I'd not heard it before. And it fits well here. I think that perhaps the best way to convey the glaring fault with antinatalism is with the idiom that it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm not someone who thinks that their preferences are correct just because they have them. — Terrapin Station

You don't use that word, and you're oh so humble as a result. :lol:

Why would that be in favor of my ego? Be a free speech absolutist means that I'm endorsing that people be allowed to call for my death, to commit slander/libel against me, etc. How is that in service to one's ego? — Terrapin Station

No, I mean that you stubbornly think that you're right about your free speech fundamentalism in the face of much criticism. That's kind of why it's fundamentalism. All fundamentalism is egotistical, isn't it?

As I explained during that discussion, it depends on just what you're claiming, the context, etc. But in general, yes, anyone could potentially believe anything. — Terrapin Station

No, that doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking you about what anyone could potentially believe, I was asking you about what I believe. You already have the claim and the context.

Yes, of course. — Terrapin Station

So you don't maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective, then. You just said, "Yes, of course", which means, "No, of course not".

You brought up Buddhism that supposedly says that desire is suffering, but that's not what it says, what it actually says is that attachment to desire is suffering. Buddhists decidedly do not agree with you in saying that desire is suffering.
— leo

To say it even simpler - overindulgence is harmful.
The Middle Path is no different from Goldilocks' just right. — Shamshir

Yes, I know very little about Buddhism, but even I know that. There's the story of how the Buddha went through both extremes. And it doesn't fit with the picture that anti-natalists paint.

As to the original post... free speech is necessary to progress. Stupid speech needs to be expressed to expose the stupidity of it and lessen stupid action because generally hearing stupid speech - helps it be corrected. If someone keeps their stupid ideas to themselves and just acts on them without bouncing them off others, that tends to be more problematic than saying words that offend someone. — Amore

The topic is about hate speech, not stupid speech. No one is suggesting that statements like, "I'm a free speech absolutist", should be banned. That's not hateful at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/25/pm-branded-a-disgrace-after-saying-best-way-to-honour-jo-cox-is-to-deliver-brexit — Amity

Oh my god. Shocking.

Just look at the reaction to the defence of his remarks on Newsnight:

https://mobile.twitter.com/maya_rstw/status/1176979198667309058

Kind of an immoral way of trying to prove your point. I can see you standing there, waiting for the antinatalist to slit his wrists in front of you.. Then, turn to the crowd and say, "well that proves nothing really..just a blip of a statistic". Get the hell outta here. — schopenhauer1

I agree that that would be immoral. But that's an emotionally charged mischaracterisation, so it doesn't count. You're welcome to reply to what I actually said, though.

Half complete novels exist in their entirety. — creativesoul

What's the point of even saying that, though? Given what you mean, who is disagreeing with you? Yes, a half complete novel exists in its entirety as a half complete novel, not as an entire, fully complete novel.

Anyone can come up with ambiguous statements and cause an argument over them in light of the different answers.

It plays on the meaning of "the entire novel" to give a different answer than what would usually be expected. So it's wordplay. The usual answer would be that the novel didn't exist in its entirety when it was only half complete.

The laughter is at your ego. — Terrapin Station

That in itself is laughable, because you could just as well be looking at your own reflection. Your ego prevents you from conceding anything at all. Ever. Your ego leads you to your free speech fundamentalism. Your ego is behind your biting of the bullet in many a situation on this forum when you should instead recognise absurdity and act accordingly.

Even when you become the butt of jokes as a result of some crazy bullet you've bitten, your ego prevents you from seeing sense. Do you still maintain that you don't know whether or not I believe I'm on the moon? Do you still maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective? Including these very words?

The novel existed in it's entirety at the final rest of the pen/quill. An accurate report of the novel reports on the novel's evolutionary progression. A timeline of sorts. At different times, the novel had a different elemental constitution. It existed in it's entirety at each and every point in time since it's inception.

Some novels are never written. — creativesoul

So it's just wordplay then. We're both right. How disappointingly trivial.

Must. Not. Be. Too. Different. — Terrapin Station

Anyway, good to know we've once again reached that point where you're effectively throwing in the towel and handing me the victory. You will laugh and refuse to believe it, but that's how it works in debates. You might not want to accept defeat, but if you're unwilling or unable to come up with a proper response, then that's a defeat. You've conceded whether you come out and say so or not. This is also, I've noticed, the only way you ever concede.

Your objection amounts to either an endorsement of conformism or an ego-oriented fiat, depending on where the pendulum is. — Terrapin Station

If that's what you call being sensible instead of a crackpot, then yes.

The core of them is so widely agreed upon that when discussing normative ethics we do not need to take into account variations widely outside of that core, anymore than when measuring something we do not ever say "what do you mean 'six inches'? Your inches, or my inches". The issue never arises, not because inches are an objective value, but because they are so widely agreed upon. — Isaac

"Your inches or mine?".

This highlights the absurdity, the big problems, which can arise as a consequence of Terrapinism. Terrapinism should therefore be rejected. He gives us the very means to put together a reduction to the absurd. And not just on this issue, but others as well.

That's fine, as the measurement is an objective fact and you can match or fail to match an objective fact. Moral stances are not objective facts. — Terrapin Station

I've already stated my objection to that, so I won't repeat it. It's up to you whether or not you decide to address it.

I said that per that standard, it's 7" , but the standard isn't correct. Per other standards, other definitions of "inch," it's a different number. — Terrapin Station

Oh my goodness, you and your problematic interpretations! Why are you causing unnecessary problems?

If that's the standard you're going by, then in that context it's the correct answer, and other standards are completely irrelevant. What you're doing is arbitrarily changing the context to absolutism, or removing the set context, or going by a different system of measurement, in order to say that it's not correct.

Don't do that, and the problem will go away. That's the simple solution.

Agreed. Even if something is foundational for someone, that's effectively overruled if it leads to absurd consequences through reason. And as I've said a few times now, ignorance or indicating a mere difference of opinion, in itself, is no argument at all. If that's all that is within their armoury, then they'll have no chance of success in a debate on the topic.

The contrary opinion of a single person clearly doesn't mean that it wouldn't be absurd to legalise all crimes beginning with "m", or anything of that sort.

Yeah, it is. It's taking a term I was applying to one idea, one reference, and applying the same term to a different idea, a different reference instead. — Terrapin Station

I'm disputing that the interpretation of "correct" with regards to morality has to mean that there's an objective fact. The correct answer is that it's 7”, regardless, because that's the standard determining the answer in this case, and you both agreed to that. The wrong answer would be that it's 5”, because you felt that way or because that's what you reckon after having judged it by eye, because that's going by the wrong standard in this case.

In order for there to be a correct idea of an inch, there has to be an objective normative, a normative fact, but there are no normative facts, and we can't create any. — Terrapin Station

And here it is again. This is an arbitrary premise that I haven't accepted, whether we're talking about morality or the imperial system of measurement. It shouldn't be accepted because it leads to unacceptable consequences. The conclusion that there are no right or wrong answers with regard to morality or the imperial system of measurement is a much, much bigger problem than adjusting the interpretation of "correct" and "incorrect".

Per the particular standard it would be 7" , sure. — Terrapin Station

Correct.

That's equivocating the sense of "feeling" or disposition I was using, however. Because in this case we're rather trying to get an objective fact correct. When we're talking about moral stances, there is no objective fact to get correct. — Terrapin Station

It's not equivocating. You seem to be forgetting once again that we don't all speak Terrapinese by default. Just because you interpret things that way, that doesn't mean that your interpretation is grounds for your generalised comments, like that it's equivocation, or that we're talking about this or that, or that something or other can't be correct (where you're going by your own interpretation of why that is, and what it means to be correct).

This is where the problems stem from. There are a lot of other people who don't interpret things your way. To them, or rather to us, it comes naturally to say that this is right and that is wrong through ordinary language use. That's the default. But then you come along and say, no, nothing is right or wrong here (because you interpret things differently!).

How was that a different point? You were explaining how "correct" and "incorrect" apply, and how a standard can be such that particular subjective judgements are irrelevant, like with reason, which is also such that particular subjective judgements are irrelevant, as justified by my example of affirming the consequent.

So in the example, it's going to be 7". — Terrapin Station

Correct.

So I was interested in what your reasoning would be for believing that moral stances can be correct/incorrect, that reason somehow transcends individuals, and that argumentum ad populums can be non-fallacious . . . but you're not providing much info. You're just claiming that all of that is so. — Terrapin Station

That's a gross mischaracterisation. You aren't showing enough interest in what I've actually said about that, because you aren't going by that, you're going by your mischaracterisation and pressing for unnecessary details as a distraction technique. I've given you the answer, and I've repeated that answer to you multiple times in response to your questions, but you'll keep going with the line that you don't understand or that it's not enough, because you see that as advantageous. But you can't really win that way. At the end of the day, I have truth on my side.

Not the case, because you wind up telling people that their moral stances are incorrect, where you're not simply saying that they're very unusual (relative to commonly-expressed moral stances). — Terrapin Station

It is the case, because they are incorrect, not just unusual. That's why there are two different words with two different meanings, and I'm using them differently according to which one is appropriate for what I mean. They can't mean the same thing because if it was usual to think that there shouldn't be any crimes beginning with "m", it would still be wrong.

Then what crimes or misdemeanours is he being accused of? What is the probable cause? In the real world we cannot go about investigating people if we do not have a reason to do so. What is the reason to do so? — NOS4A2

You’re going to believe what you want anyways.

You misspelt "SUVREY".

Do you only speak in questions? — NOS4A2

Yes?

If he fails the party will sink into electoral oblivion and his supporters will be under attack from the socialist policies of a Corbyn government (they will have to pay fair taxes). — Punshhh

Nooooooooooo! That's evil! :scream:

No, it makes sense from a certain perspective. Its just that you two are talking about two different things. I dont think this is some sort of pathology on his part, he is just being informed by his view of things. I actually think its largely semantic. — DingoJones

But it's his perspective which is the problem. Ordinary language wins out because it causes less problems. He's having to go out of his way to make his point about "correct" and "incorrect" not applying. That's the cause of the problem here. He should just speak normally, and adapt his position accordingly.

So then why? — Artemis

All things contrary to good sense can touch a nerve for me. The topic could have been about almost anything, but if it's absurd then I'm not the type to shy away from saying so.

You tell me. — Artemis

Okay. It might have touched a nerve, but certainly not based on your presumptuous suggestion that women being sexually independent from men is so scary. I tend to keep my sexuality rather private and ambiguous, and resist labels, but I can tell you that I've slept with both men and women, and I'm going to see a band tomorrow with my best friend and her girlfriend. I'm also largely asexual and haven't had sex for ages. Does that put things more into perspective for you?

I'm not threatened at all by any of this, but I'm only open to what my good sense will allow.

A small semantic point, but you should be using the term "sexual behaviour", not "sexual orientation". — Michael

It's really not a small semantic point. It's very important. Getting that wrong is pretty offensive.

It's more than just a notion of women withholding sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes indeed, otherwise it's a huge misnomer, and should instead be called political sexual abstinence, not political lesbianism. There's a huge difference there.

Has the suggestion touched a nerve for some? Is the idea of women being sexually independent from men so scary for some?

But yes, most here are hearteningly unthreatened and rather open to curious discussion. — Artemis

And where do I fall in that? You have no idea how inappropriate those comments could be. How much do you know about me?

Look at how many people seemed to have missed the following line in the OP:

Also, my argument is not suggesting all women engage in political lesbianism, rather it is suggesting that if heterosexual women find this to be a relevant option towards achieving equality, then it is a viable course for feminism.
— Bridget Eagles — TheWillowOfDarkness

I certainly didn't miss that, and it certainly doesn't change my assessment of the opening post. It's not viable if there are much better, more sensible ways of dealing with the problems mentioned. It's not realistically viable at all for heterosexual women, purely on the basis that they're heterosexual women.

Ok, so if I measure a stick and it comes to 7”, what do I say to you when you look at it by eye and say “no, its 5” long”. Are you using the standard we agreed upon? What is the length of the stick in inches? — DingoJones

I know that this was for him, because he's the one with the problem. But I just want to jump in to say what most of us already know, which is that, in this context, the correct answer would be 7”. It's arbitrary nonsense to say that "correct" doesn't apply. That's going against the grain of ordinary language use for no sensible reason.

I think Terrapin's problem here is a more general problem he has with having a die-hard commitment to something first, and then trying to work around the problems with it. It's putting the cart before the horse.