I wouldn't say that. It's just that it covers situations such as the rock-throwing scenario. — Terrapin Station

I believe that you believe that. And creativesoul believes that he's onto something with his "thought/belief" stuff. But you're both going off-the-wall and trying to reinvent the wheel.

And earlier you were criticizing my consistency.

What would you give as an example of some P that I've both asserted and denied? — Terrapin Station

Performative contradiction. You're usually very consistent in what you say, and at a heavy cost.

Not sure what you mean. Pushing your luck with what? — DingoJones

That was a reference to your very last line. Pushing my luck with my use of inflammatory language.

But it explicitly was. — Terrapin Station

No, you only think that it does, but you can't distinguish reality from your own wishful thinking. You obviously see your policy proposal as faultless and as covering all grounds, instead of the crackpottery that it is. You're just like that creativesoul guy banging on about "thought/belief" as though he's just come up with something brilliant, and can't understand why others don't see it like he does. I very much doubt that you'd be taken seriously by professional legislators anywhere in the real world.

Okay, but explicitly means that I explicitly said the opposite of what you're saying. — Terrapin Station

So? Actions speak louder than words. If you cared, or at least cared enough, then that would be reflected in your policy proposals regarding the law. That's what I'm basing my judgement on, and I thought that I'd already made that clear. I don't trust what you say, especially as you have a record of coming out with unbelievable and contradictory things.

I would, but I'm pushing my luck as it is.

Sorry, I didn't catch that you were trying to represent my position with a claim that I'd explicitly disagree with. — Terrapin Station

Well it's hardly surprising that you wouldn't agree with it. There aren't many people who would readily agree with a description of their ethical stance which suggests callousness and an inability to recognise an ethical dilemma, but obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Not even what I said. — Terrapin Station

I didn't bloody say that it's what you said, did I? I was talking about you, not trying to represent your position from your own perspective.

He has just completely got the wrong end of the stick, and that's all there is to it, and it's really annoying that I should have to explain myself because of his misunderstanding. He has somehow got it into his head firstly that I was making a point which entailed objectivism, when it didn't, that was a non sequitur; and secondly, that I was suggesting that because it's relativist, it's therefore subjective, which is another non sequitur that is his own misunderstanding, not anything that I said or suggested.

The only point that I was bloody making was that my subjectivism (not objectivism, because I'm not a bloody objectivist) can easily be explained through relativism in that what one should or shouldn't care about, in accordance with my position on the matter, is relative to a subject or subjects or their subjective views, even if in this particular case that doesn't include him or his particular subjective view.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I don't see how spending my time unmuddling his damn muddle is better than just giving a facepalm and saving myself the aggravation. Thanks for nothing.

...You have to keep reading. Lol, you just skipped over the majority of it that does talk about your diagnosis. I pretty obviously moved on in the next paragraph. — DingoJones

Yeah, well that's hard to do when you piss me off with that first line.

Anyway, it's not a major problem that I'm appealing to something which he doesn't acknowledge, because whether I'm right is more important than whether he acknowledges what I'm saying. And I'm right about this. If you disagree, then explain why. And don't stray off point this time. The question is whether or not I'm right that he doesn't care, and doesn't see a problem, with things that he should care about, and things for which it is a problem not to care about. Please don't make this about something else, like my temperament, or communication between me and him, or something of that nature, because it's trying my already thin patience. An example would be the one from earlier, that he doesn't care enough about the situation where there's a person who can't walk down the street because people are throwing rocks off of a building. He doesn't see it as a problem. But he should care more, and it is a problem. Do you agree with that or disagree with it?

Is that more the kind of answer you wanted? — DingoJones

No, because I asked you which part of what I said you think isn't true, or isn't accurate, and your first five words were, "It's because you are stubborn", which is exactly not the kind of answer I wanted.

Honestly, you people do my head in.

:lol: :point:

But relativism doesn't imply subjectivism. The objective world is relative. It's not subjective. — Terrapin Station

Facepalm.

This is almost like trying to get blood out of a stone. Which part of what I said do you think isn't true, or isn't accurate?

What should you do now? — Purple Pond

Well, you either adapt or succumb.

If you think that I'm not being forthright re whether I know what you're claiming (for example, re thinking I stated an argument earlier), then you probably are. — Terrapin Station

There are times when it's much harder - or even impossible - to believe that you don't get something, than to believe that there's some other explanation for why you respond in the way you do.

Like - and I'll keep going back to this example, because it's one of the best - how you say that you don't know whether or not I believe that I'm on the moon. I can't help but believe that there's some other explanation for why you say that. You do know that I don't actually believe that. So it must be something else, like that you don't really mean what you say. That's much more plausible an explanation. After all, earlier on you actually said that you don't have a position in this discussion. That's something you actually said.

But that's still just an aside which doesn't clearly tell me anything at all about what you think is wrong with my diagnosis. You don't seem to be understanding what I'm seeking from you. You said something along the lines that you don't think much of my diagnosis. I'm simply asking you what you think is wrong with it, but you're just coming out with things like, "You're stubborn", and "I think you two are talking past each other".

Forget about me for a second. Focus on the ball, not the player. Do you think what I said in my diagnosis is true or not?

How would that work? — Terrapin Station

Easily, through relativism. Relativism doesn't have to be exclusively relative to the views of a single subject. Surely you get that. So just because I might be disregarding your personal view, that doesn't mean that I'm therefore adopting an objectivist stance. That's a complete non sequitur.

Thinking that there are things one should or shouldn't care about, independent of whether one does care about them, is the opposite of subjectivism.

I'm a subjectivist on this stuff. — Terrapin Station

Oh god, not this again. That stuff can still be subjective, even of it's independent of one particular subject. And that's the only kind of independence which you can tie me to in that regard. So stop suggesting objectivism, which is the opposite of what we're both saying, at all times throughout this discussion. Subjectivism is broader than any one particular subject or subjective view. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand subjectivism.

Obviously I don't think that's a problem. What I wrote is why I don't think it's a problem. — Terrapin Station

Wow. So you won't even acknowledge that if the shoe was on the other foot, and you didn't get why free speech was so important, that that would be a problem.

Again, maybe I'm thinking too highly of you, but I find that too hard to believe. I just think that you're trying to maintain consistency here.

With S it's frustrating because he doesn't want to straightforwardly articulate stuff. He often resorts to saying that you should simply know what he has in mind. He often thinks that you do know, but you're just being disingenuous by saying you don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Terrapin Station

Maybe I think too highly of you.

Honestly, I don’t think you have diagnosed much at all. You don’t seem concerned with understanding his view, only dismissing it and condemning it. I think you are just as big a problem to you two talking past each other as he is, assuming both of you are not being disingenuous (if either of you are, its moot anyway). — DingoJones

Well then why don't you actually tell me what you think is wrong with my diagnosis? Maybe that would actually help.

It's not a fact that it matters or should matter.

It's not a fact that it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter.

We're talking about ways that people feel, dispositions they have.

If you feel that everyone should feel the same way, okay, but I don't feel that everyone should feel the same way. — Terrapin Station

That's a blatant red herring. Please answer what you quoted.

I think I've succinctly diagnosed the problem here. He just doesn't care, and doesn't see a problem, with things that he should care about, and things for which it is a problem not to care about, and he rationalises this by coming out with things like, "There's no correct or incorrect", and, "What people should care about is a matter of individual opinion".

That's actually a massive problem, and it's a massive problem if it's not recognised as a massive problem. I mean, that could be used to "justify" practically anything, right? Decapitating children, burning people alive, genocide, finding Adam Sandler funny... you name it.

No. — Terrapin Station

So, the real you, now, with your free speech absolutism: you see no problem if free speech didn't in fact matter to you, and other people were trying to explain the merits of free speech absolutism, and why free speech matters, and why it should matter, and you were just not getting it at all, and were in fact boasting about how consistent you are in not getting it? You hadn't got it for decades, in fact.

Do I see any problem with something mattering to other people but not to me? No. — Terrapin Station

Imagine if free speech mattered to other people, but not to you. Now do you see a problem?

That's one of your worst qualities: consistency over good sense.

Cue the line: "What's good sense is a matter of individual opinion". :roll:

How much anything should matter to anyone is a matter of individual opinion. There is no correct answer. — Terrapin Station

You are extremely predictable. And a dead end, apparently.

Do I see any problem with something mattering to other people but not to me? No. — Terrapin Station

That's the whole problem, here and in many other discussions.

Do other people have a problem with things that matter to me but not to them? Why? — Terrapin Station

Yes, because this is ethics, and you have the wrong ethics, meaning that some things, like free speech, matter to you too much than they should, and other things, like the welfare of others, don't matter to you enough as they should.

Ideally, we'd get to a point where you'd realise this.

Well, things mattering are to an individual, and it's because the individual cares about it/is concerned with it/feels it should be taken into consideration. That's what "mattering" is.

In this case, sure, the consequences matter to me. I wouldn't have preferences for things like this where I'm not thinking about practical upshots of them. — Terrapin Station

I'm talking about the consequences which matter, generally (yes, to people, obviously), but which don't matter to you. Do you see any problem at all with that? Are you capable of understanding why this is a problem?

Let's cut right to the chase. Are you a human being or a brick wall? Because I'm talking to you as though you are the former, when perhaps you are in fact the latter. The test would be that a human being would be capable of understanding why the consequences matter, but a brick wall would not. Do you at least understand why the consequences matter?

I suppose not. I sure can't figure out what you're saying the "because" would be. Can't you just straightforwardly tell me rather than having to play a game about it? — Terrapin Station

You're the one playing games, and this one seems to be your favourite: the game of playing dumb. So you followed my link, read what I said, including the part after the word "because", yet you somehow can't figure out what I'm saying the "because" would be?

So you'd say that the argument is "My policy would be such and such because I'd prefer this to be implemented"? — Terrapin Station

So you can't read?

Please try not to lose track of our discussion and make me repeat myself. See here.

Giving up is itself contrary to the principles of Stoicism, as I understand it. If you're a quitter, then Stoicism isn't going to be for you. You actually have to practice the teachings of Stoicism against your own negative emotions, not just give in to your own negative emotions. Basically, you're doing it wrong.

Also, Stoics don't wallow.

Some people just like being difficult, I think. I don't believe that he doesn't have any moral principles or foundations. And I don't believe that he doesn't generally accept the things you put to him about harm and consequences and the welfare of others and so on, irrespective of whether he can rather pointlessly come up with an exception to every single thing that you say to him.

I think that his priority is not giving any ground in this discussion, and coming up with ways around any perceived challenge to his position, over and above intellectual honesty. If intellectual honesty was really important to him, you'd think that we would've been able to agree on a lot more things. Right? But it's more like when we say "up", he says "down"; when we say that the sky is blue, he says that it's red.

The answers to your questions in your first and second paragraphs were apparent from my previous reply: no, minimally, an argument is of the form "X because Y", and yours was of that form.

Your question in your third paragraph about usefulness isn't significantly different from your previous questions about usefulness which I've answered multiple times now, so I'm not answering it yet again just because you've slightly changed the wording. Find the answer I've already given, and then ask a question about it. Don't just ignore the answer and repeat what's basically the same question.

Sure. Firstly, it can't even be your policy if you don't think that it should be implemented in any context whatsoever, even if that context is your ideal society. That's a necessary implication, otherwise you're literally talking nonsense. So in expressing your policy, you implicitly have an argument, and that implicit argument can be inferred.

Like I said, you basically think that consequences which do matter, don't matter, just because they don't matter to you. And on that basis, you think that, ideally, the law should reflect your own feelings on the matter, in total disregard of everything else.

You will of course now predictably deny that this is your argument, even though it's obvious to everyone else here that it is.

Over to you.

Can you answer if you're calling any statement anyone makes "an argument"? — Terrapin Station

No, I'm only calling arguments "arguments".

Is the example about liking Aaron Copland an argument in your view? — Terrapin Station

No.