Really now? You've never heard of mothers abandoning their duty towards their own children, unless we're talking about crackheads, opiate addicts, and such? That's hard to believe, but even if true, that is no argument. I know for a fact that this can and does happen.

Pfft, nope. And I don't usually get that from it either, but it was partly the setting, I think. The rest of the night was pretty ecstatic though.

Tanks a-million.

Alright, fine, but apologising is a sign of weakness, so this will have to do. Unless you want some ecstasy. I still have some left. But you'll have to come to me. I'm not travelling all the way to Wales.

Not as paranoid as when I was on ecstasy in that pub the other night and thought the bar staff were trying to trick me. Funny 'cause true.

A donkey is a goat, so if everything can be a goat, then everything can be a donkey.

Excepting a permissible degree for sake of comedy.

Same difference, though, ultimately.

What do you mean? I don't know where you could've gotten that impression from. I'm always deadly serious...

They amuse me, which is all that ultimately matters. If I didn't amuse myself, then I would have jumped off of a bridge long ago. There's no value in wallowing. There's profound value in literally laughing to death at a goat eating figs.

By the way, did you know that Wittgenstein once said that a serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes?

I considered those since deleted additions to be examples of permissible facetiousness, which is a stated exception to the rule. They obviously weren't meant to be taken literally. Why would you treat them as literal? I do think you're being unreasonable, actually. Perhaps in an attempt to prove a point, but I don't think it's working. If the point is a show of power, then well done Mr. Administrator, I salute you.

Why must everything be black or white in your world? All or nothing? Aren't we intelligent enough to distinguish philosophical depth from facetiousness, just because the two are in close proximity?

Your comments are tolerable. That rule was about what you may say, not what you may do. It's your poor judgement, rash decisions, and control-freakishness as a moderator that I take issue with. Like you say, philosophical content belongs in the philosophical section, and this has obvious ethical content, and ethics is obviously a branch of philosophy, so do the right thing and move it back.

It's my take on ethical conduct for an ideal philosophical society. You've pinned yours to the front page, so you obviously consider it of importance. Stuff like, "Tone matters".

If you can't see the ethical content, then you must be blind. But you're disappointingly predictable, Baden.

There are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism! So of course that doesn't follow. It is designed to avoid conflicting statements! You have it completely backwards with regard to conflicting statements and moral truth! No two moral objectivists can both be correct about the same thing in an ethical disagreement, but there is no correctness under subjective moral relativism except the relativist kind, so they're never talking about exactly the same thing in any ethical disagreement, due to the relativist structure.

Why don't some people ever seem to learn from their errors in understanding, and instead continue to persist in making the same errors over and again?

You don't have to accept moral relativism, but if you reject it on dogmatic or unreasonable grounds, be explicit and honest about it! Just saying that there's a distinction between subjective morality and objective morality, and that you're certain of the latter is not a reasonable justification. It is private in part, which renders that part ineffective. What if I'm certain that there's a God and that miracles are real? Do you accept that? Is that being reasonable?

Well, are you not concerned that your peculiarly personal take on the matter is wildly off mark? What safeguards do you have? Do you think that you're some kind of genius who has figured it out all by himself? Do you know how many of those there are? They're called crackpots. A real genius is extremely rare, and besides, they usually have precursors who laid important groundwork. Einstein's confirmation of the atom, for example, stems thousands of years back to the Atomists. And his theories of general and special relativity relied heavily on the work of Newton. My criticism of Kant is influenced by Hume and by the philosophers of the linguistic turn, and of course by my readings on Kant. My meaning is almost always influenced by common language use, or specialist academic use, not idiosyncratic language use.

I take it that you accept that there are a number of intelligent and knowledgeable people on this forum. How many have adopted your peculiar views and your peculiar manner of speech? And why do you think that is?

I think you need a breakthrough moment. A moment when you realise that what you've been building and incessantly repeating isn't as intellectually valuable as you think it is and would like it to be. I think you actually need to take on board some criticism and adapt. There is so much room for improvement. But you must lower your defences and lose the ego. Stop acting like a malfunctioning robot!

You do realise that by substance, I mean actual content, like an argument, and not boasting about publications?

Making an assessment about probability in this context is warranted because...???

Cigarettes?! Who cares about cigarettes when civil war is fast approaching!?! Just because it is a product of my imagination, that's no excuse not to take it extremely seriously. Not only are we faced with the alarming prospect of an imaginary civil war, I imagine that we'll have no allies in this imaginary war! Who will save the good citizens of the United States of America from the entirely imagined horrors of an imaginary civil war?! Do you intend to stand idly by, cigarette in hand, whilst imaginary bombs fall and imaginary bullets fly by?!

And what about the children? Won't somebody think of the children?! At least share your cigarettes with them. Have you no conscience?

What you're doing speaks for itself. When I offer you a chance to be reasonable, you demonstrate only that you are all talk and no substance. You talk of mud, yet you're the only one continuing to sling it, whereas I've washed my hands.

There is much irony here given the context. In a discussion about rationality, you refuse to be rational.

Yes, but who cares about drug gangs, fascist execution squads, and deep poverty when you have an imagined civil war to fret over from your relatively large and safe estate, in a state with a relatively good median household income of somewhere in the region of $52,000 - $56,000, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, roughly somewhere within or just outside of the top ten in the world. Even though there hasn't been a civil war since the civil war of 1861 - 1865, which ended around 154 years ago.

Get a sense of perspective, man! Kick Jonny Foreigner out and arm yourself to the teeth, like a polite and concerned citizen of the USA.

So you have chosen the last option, which is the least dignified. What I said is as clear as day, and there are two acceptable spellings of "scepticism", that being one of them. Also, I am English, so my preference for that spelling is understandable. Do your research next time.

Whether you find what I said insulting or otherwise, one thing you'll pick up about me is that I speak my mind. And I like to have the last word.

Now, as often happens, what you've done there is you've said much without really saying anything at all. I have indicated my scepticism. I have said that I do not believe there to be any assessment of probability that is warranted. You have three options: attempt to provide warrant, concede, or continue to produce text which says nothing at all. So what's it to be?

Here is what I take to be a very important value: not only having the right values, but being principled enough to stand by them, even if it makes you unpopular. That is a value in its own right. Would a sage care about popularity? About uncritical obedience? About shying away from speaking the truth or doing what he judges to be right?

Socrates was principled. Diogenes was principled.

Talking of values suggests vice. One vice would be holding a grudge against someone or ignoring them or taking other actions against them because they say critical things you don't like to hear, especially in a place that is set up to encourage fearless and open criticism. This I take to be an indication of weakness. The Athenians fell pray to weakness in their judgement of Socrates. The religious authorities and like-minded folk fell pray to weakness in their judgement of Galileo. And certain members of this forum have fallen pray to weakness in judging me.

What part of "I talk about this in terms besides probability" don't you understand? Or are you acting deliberately morose in order to be combative? I do not judge the matter in terms of likelihood. I do not judge there to be any warrant for making any assessment in those terms. I make no assertions about 50/50, 60/40, 80/20, or any other likelihood.

You genuinely seem ignorant on the basics of how probability works, as others have suggested. I am no expert, but I at least know that ignorance of likelihood does not logically imply or equate to 50/50.

What academic has ever interpreted or criticised either of those two great thinkers in those terms? Can you provide a citation or a source? Or will you admit that this is merely your own crackpottery?

I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred you to, and you could have easily found my answer to your silly questions yourself. It's another false dilemma. Here is what I already told you, in reply to you, on the very first page of your one and only discussion:

Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S

So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability. Each of those assertions about probability are, as you would say, guesswork. I don't go by guesswork, I go by reason.

The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to develop around that realisation.

I like your list. Also, brevity. :grin::up:

Diogenes and Nietzsche were good on values, as was Aristotle. The first two for critiquing traditional or popular values, and the latter for laying the basic groundwork with his virtue ethics. Also, the Stoics and the Buddha. And Horace. And Aesop's fables. There's so much of value there. The anecdotes of Diogenes, the reevaluation of values, the ubermensch, herd morality, master and slave morality, the eternal recurrence, thisworldliness and otherworldliness, life affirmation, the golden mean, the middle path, the detachment of Buddhism and self-control of Stoicism, dare to know, seize the day...

Damn, I ran out of time. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's alright. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I don't expect you'd be conscious of the real reasons. Some of us are just better at introspection and at reading people than others. I think it comes naturally to me. Obviously, not everyone is going to like it when I hold a mirror up to them. That's because it often differs from the idealised construct we've built of ourselves.

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa

Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference.

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa

No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't readily give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here.

Like this:

Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does. — Frank Apisa

And this:

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa

Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse.

Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith. — Fooloso4

We do not need definitive proof one way or the other to reasonably resolve the question of whether or not to believe in God. That question is a question of whether you want to be a wise man or a fool, and was answered by Kant's predecessor, Hume. A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Pointing out that we lack definitive proof either way doesn't justify abandoning reason for fancy.

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa

Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game.

Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!". I mean, are you a teenager or something?

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it. — Frank Apisa

Okay. Understood.

[GREEN]I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things![/GREEN]

Wait, the green text isn't working. How will people know that I'm being sarcastic?

Legal or illegal? — Benkei

Does that distinction matter to her, or doesn't it? And if so, for what reason? These are important related questions.

My struggle is not with legal immigrants, it is with the illegal immigrants. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

(I bolded your "immigrants" because I want to be sure that we are still talking about illegal immigrants because I have not a single issue if someone from another country is here legally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I don't give a flying fig if someone is here legally or not, UNTIL they break the law. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Illegal or not, our community cannot handle the influx at the rate that we are looking at. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As evidenced above, she has made a number of contradictory statements. Which does she stand by, if any? She can't have her cake and eat it.

And regarding her point about crime:

I believe there are a number of studies that claim to show immigrants, including illegal immigrants, commit crimes at a lower rate than the native-born. You can Google as well as I can. I agree that if there is an underreporting issue, which is plausible, it might be difficult, but not impossible, to correct for that. — Srap Tasmaner

What's your real issue with here, Tiff? I suspect that it is veiled under rationalisations. Your rationalisations have been countered each time. Whether you like it or not, you do not have the upper hand in this debate. Instead of taking everything so personally, why not absorb what is being said and use it to work on your critical thinking skills to either improve your arguments, or, better yet, reject them?

Is it an irrational fear? An irrational protectiveness? "Won't somebody think of the children!?!?". :scream:

You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and effectively reinforce your own personal semantics.

Re only being interested in presuppositions, it doesn't seem very much in the spirit of doing philosophy that we simply accept an assumption, and especially that we're only interested in something if we do that.

"Either we accept this assumption without question, or it's irrelevant, or I'm not interested."

Ohhhhhhkay. :razz: — Terrapin Station

I think he was suggesting that ontology is redundant, as it is subsumed in some Kantian gibberish which needs translating back into normal human talk.

You’re either really super smart or just plain bad at writing. I don’t understand a third to half of what you say in any given post. — Noah Te Stroete

There's no necessary link between being super smart and the excessive use of obscure language. Otherwise Hegel would surely be in the running for smartest philosopher of all time. If anything, it suggests the opposite. It requires a higher level of intelligence to be able to translate complex rhetoric into more readily understandable text. Bad writing suggests a lack of skill or a deliberate choice.

I think the "presupposed" part is stupid, too, by the way... — Terrapin Station

Well, you haven't said why that is, not that I'm particularly interested. I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, because, for starters, as others have pointed out, much of whatever point he's trying to make is obscured behind bad writing.

I don't have much of a bone to pick with you over the rest of what you say. I won't go as far as saying that it was stupid, but it was kind of redundant.