Sure. How much are we wagering? And we need to figure out the terms. For one we could use the scenario I set up earlier re measurements and the true/false/not enough info question. If you want to suggest modifications that's fine; we can hash that out. We should probably devise three-five questions for this, although not more, as people won't have patience for that. And then we could ask, say, 500 people chosen at random? I could do it on the streets of NYC, or in a mall over the course of a couple weeks, say, and I could video it so you see that the responses are what I say they are.

I don't recall where you are. Just wager whatever you can afford. You don't send it to me. Again, we put it into escrow and draw up a contract. (No wonder you can't afford $10k though if you don't know the difference between sending it to me and putting it in escrow.)

Do you understand what that statement means? — S

Yes, that you're a bullshitter.

There are lots and lots of people who outright refuse to bet their real money from people who goad them to do so online, — S

You put the money in escrow. You draw up a contract specifying the terms. There's zero risk unless you're talking shit.

If you put up enough--say at least 10k US, I'll come to Australia or wherever you are (for some reason I was thinking it's Australia) and we can do the study there, so you're present every step of the way.

Which means that you're talking shit.

I'm not. I'll seriously wager any amount on this.

Here's when I won't take a wager: when I'm not more or less 100% certain that I'll win.

I'm not talking metaphorically. If you're sure you'd win, I wouldn't be getting any money from you, right? You'd only be getting money from me.

Okay, so the wager?

No, I don't believe that. — S

What? You don't believe that you'd win the wager? (I'm trying to confirm that that's what you're saying.)

Okay, so you're sure that you'll win the bet re "correct" having a normative connotation. So how much are we wagering?

No, was just referring to the gender-identification itself. — Pantagruel

Sure. We do allow all sorts of personal identity influence from parents/other family members. I don't know how we'd avoid that.

I dont understand why its suddenly important to you how other people use words. — DingoJones

S (and maybe Isaac; I know it was someone else) complained about my criticism of calling something correct/incorrect, just because it's common/according to some consensus, etc. by claiming that I'm using those terms (correct/incorrect) unusually in suggesting that there's a normative connotation. And they also claimed to not be using the terms with a normative connotation.

Again, aside from that, if we're saying that we're really not going to use the word with a normative connotation, then pointing out that I'm departing from moral views that are widely-accepted, assuming that's the case, is pointless, because there's zero normative weight to it. It's like pointing out that someone is eating a cookie they made themselves rather than eating a Chips Ahoy. Well so what?

The paper I cited is a really good overview. — Isaac

And are you open to a critical examination of the paper and its claims?

I'm pretty sure parents aren't allowed to decide whether their kids even have hormone therapy related to that. It hinges on what the kid says in sessions with psychiatrists, etc. (And I have some personal experience with this as I have a transgender niece.)

Oh, NOW you want to make an appeal to what everyone else thinks. Lol — DingoJones

What I've said over and over is that the word "correct" conventionally has a normative connotation. You can use it however you want to use it, of course, but the vast majority of people are going to read it with a normative connotation. S and others kept denying that.

Someone can be correct or incorrect according to a particular standard, but not correct or incorrect about adopting that standard, right? — DingoJones

Someone can be correct or incorrect according to a particular standard if you're saying that "correct" has no normative connotation, and you're just using the word to refer to whether the measurement is according to the standard. (However, the vast majority of people are going to assign a normative connotation to "correct," and S typically uses it with a normative connotation, too, but sure, we can ignore that and choose to use the word in a different way. (We could use the word "correct" to refer to a broken car door--"Pull on the bungee cord to secure the correct before we start driving", or any arbitrary thing we like, of course.))

If we're using the word that way, then being correct or incorrect about adopting a standard could be the case according to some other standard (a standard, Y, of "This is the standard, X, we're going to use" for example). Unless you're using the words "correct/incorrect" in a different, normative, sense in the second instance?

The measurement can not be correct in a normative sense, of course. So if we're saying that the measurement is in line with some standard, that's fine as something descriptive, but as I said many times earlier, what of it? There's no normative weight to it. It's just a way of saying that "This is per this idea of measurement units." Well, okay, and something else can be per a different idea of measurement units.

I'm claiming that the psychological evidence we have indicates that people behave this way. — Isaac

Can you give an example of the psychological evidence you're referring to? At least that would take the conversation somewhere different.

If you wanted to try to forward an empirical claim that all moral stances of a certain type MUST be based on earlier or intuitive moral stances of another type, whether those other/earlier stances are conscious or not, that would be a near-impossible task . . . and not the least difficulty would arise in trying to plausibly define the types of moral stances to even begin.

I disagree with those statements — Isaac

That's fine, but as I noted, I do this all the time myself. So I'm left with (a) it apparently being the case that you do not do this--which is fine, and (b) you apparently insisting that people can't be that different than you are--which I wouldn't say is fine when we're doing philosophy (or anything like science, etc.)

Maybe you're claiming something like unconscious moral stances? I don't buy that there are unconscious mental phenomena period.

I'd not allow anyone to make this decision for someone else, unless the person in question is considered (a) at a development stage where they'd normally be capable of consenting to this decision, and (b) they've designated someone else to make the decision for them should they be incapacitated at the time.

Which means that parents would not be allowed to make this decision for children.

That shouldn't be controversial. While parents make many decisions for their children, we do not allow them to decide to give their child body modifications such as putting horns in their head or tattooing something over their entire skull/face/neck. So there are already some things that people are allowed to decide for themselves, as consenting adults, that we do not allow parents to decide for their children. This would be another one of those things. It has to be the party in question consenting to suicide for themselves, where they're at a development stage where we consider them capable of consenting, or someone that the person in question has designated to decide for them as above.

If you do a google search for "should you do what's correct," in quotation marks, you get exactly ZERO hits.

Why? If "correct" doesn't have a normative connotation to the vast majority of people, this should be a common question.

The only way it's not a common question is if it seems redundant, so that "correct" has a connotation of being what one should do.

Someone can be correct or incorrect according to a standard, — DingoJones

We have a standard.

A particular measurement of x, measurement A, is in accordance with the standard.

Another measurement of x, measurement B, is not in accordance with the standard.

We're going to call measurement A "correct," and measurement B "incorrect."

===========================================================

We present the information above to a large group of random people (who of course haven't been prepped in any way).

Now, we ask those people,

"We ask you to measure x. Remember that measurement A is correct, and measurement B is incorrect. True, false, or not applicable/there's not enough information to answer: you should measure A when asked to measure x."

What percentage of people do you think will answer "false" or "NA/not enough info"?

I don't know why the other posts were deleted. Anyway, again, yeah, obviously I have unusual views, including unusual ethical views. I've stated this many times. As I said, with my political views, I've yet to run into a single other person who agrees with them overall.

The way I'd not be "immune" to negative feedback is this:

You make an argument--an actual argument (it doesn't have to be formal, but at least a rhetorical argument with some logical flow to it), not just a lot of posturing and attitude--that

(a) I've not heard a bunch of times before (in various guises)
(b) I consider at least tentatively plausible and sound
(c) can stand up to sustained tough questioning, objections, etc., so that the idea that the argument is plausible and sound is cemented after that.

Again, that would have to be done in good faith, without a lot of ego-oriented defensiveness, ego-oriented attacks, etc. (in other words--posturing and attitude). And the sustained phase of examining the argument would have to stay on-track, without veering all over the map re bringing up additional issues, questions would have to be answered in a straightforward way, in the detail asked for, etc.

Have you noticed that you're the only one who has this problem? — S

Would you like to make a wager on whether a large majority (say >85%) of people assign a normative connotation to the word "correct" in various contexts? I'll put up any amount of money you'd like. We'll put it in escrow. Then we'll set up a research project to check whether people assign a normative connotation to that term.

You use the term normatively all the time. The only time you try to not do that is when it's pointed out that you do. I don't know why you don't want to admit that you use the term that way.

It's not a problem now, and it never was a problem to begin with. There's no "should" in saying that something is 7". — S

The "should" is in saying that it's correct to say that it's 7" and that it's correct to use a particular standard. "Correct" is the term that has a normative connotation to the vast majority of people.

Saying things that there's no way in hell that you actually believe, like that you don't know whether or not I believe that I'm on the moon, and that the meaning of words like these is entirely subjective, and that you have no position in this discussion. — S

Without bothering to clear up just what I said, all you're doing there is saying that you're incapable of even buying that someone can have a view that's that different than your own. To some extent it's because folks aren't interested enough to learn the details of what the view actually is (such as my view of what meaning is, how it works, etc.).

We've spoke about this before. Weren't you a teacher? — S

Yeah, I taught a bit when I was a grad student and briefly beyond that. If I were to ask a student to give details or further explain something they were saying and they refused and basically said, "You should know already/I don't believe that you don't know" they wouldn't have received a very good grade.

Yes, I'm from the U.S. by the way.

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were racist and made no effort to hide it. — ZhouBoTong

How are we establishing that, exactly?

(I just quoted that because it was the first thing there's an issue with.)

Again. You're not king remember? — Benkei

I'm telling you what I'd do. What do you want instead--tell you what someone else would do?

I'm okay with "child abuse" when it's only psychological, sure.

With you not being okay with it and wanting to prohibit it, can you answer the question I asked: how would you enforce any laws against psychological abuse? How would you establish that there has even been psychological abuse against kids?

You're bringing up too many issues to address at the same time.

You do not merely find these consequences acceptable/desirable as a matter of foundational feeling, they are too specific for you to have a gut feeling about, you would be thinking about consequences still. — Isaac

I think this is the most important thing to address first.

When ethical stance M is foundational for S on occasion O, all that means is that for S, on occasion O, there is no sentential (utterable-in-a-sentence) ethical stance "beneath" or "behind" M.

M can be any conceivable ethical stance.

How can that be the case?

Let's say that S is considering a situation where (this is a real-world occurrence I just heard about this morning) S was shot in the face at close range with a t-shirt gun at a sporting event, causing S to fall backwards, hit S's head on concrete, get a concussion, and have subsequent medical problems. S is contemplating whether S feels it would be morally acceptable to sue the team in question. This is a very specific thing to consider.

Well, in that situation, S can simply feel that either yes, it would be morally acceptable to sue the team in question, or no, it wouldn't be morally acceptable, where S's decision is simply S's intuitive or "gut" feeling, without S's decision resting on some other moral stance that S holds.

You apparently want to argue that this isn't possible (without actually providing an argument that it's not possible).

Meanwhile, I do that sort of thing often myself. I consider some specific dilemma and simply intuit how I feel about it. That stems in part from me coming to believe that principle-based approaches are not a good idea. This doesn't imply that no thought can go into it, but (a) the thought that goes into it might not be any sort of ethical stance, and (b) the thought that goes into it might not be foundational--and really it can't be if it's not an ethical stance, as no non-ethical stance can imply any particular ethical stance.

Yeah, I lost that subthread a bit--I forgot exactly what the context was overall. But basically I'd say the same thing I said above. A measurement can be in accordance with some standard, but it would be difficult to argue for a usage of "correct" that doesn't have a normative connotation. You'd have to keep pointing out that you're using a non-normative "correct," because it would be read with a normative connotation in the vast majority of cases.

The problem is that there's no should to being in accordance with some standard, aside from one personally feeling that way.

The public voted for Trump.

Not a good track record. — Banno

So you're going to tell them their preferences, wants, desires?

Performative contradiction. — S

What would be an example of a performative contradiction of mine, then?

You didnt respond to my last point on that so I assumed you werent interested. — DingoJones

That wasn't the case. I was interested. I must have not seen it. Sometimes I miss posts addressed to me out of my own carelessness, especially if I'm busy at the time. But sometimes I don't get notifications, too. I don't know why. And it especially happens with some posters. Most notifications from Isaac don't show up in my mentions "feed" for some reason, for example.

You obviously see your policy proposal as faultless and as covering all grounds, — S

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

If you cared, or at least cared enough, then that would be reflected in your policy proposals regarding the law — S

But it explicitly was.

you have a record of coming out with unbelievable and contradictory things. — S

And earlier you were criticizing my consistency.

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

Then, you will be able to move forward rather than the circles youve been running in. — DingoJones

I'm skeptical that that's really possible. S thinks there are certain moral stances that need to be adhered to, via some combo of reason, consensus and the mere fact that it's his view, and (a) I don't agree with that, and (b) I don't hold the moral views that he believes need to be adhered to.

I don't know how we'd be able to reconcile anything.

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 or inability to recognise a problem, but obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't true. — S

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

I was talking about you, not trying to represent your position from your own perspective. — S

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

can easily be explained through relativism in that what one should or shouldn't care about 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. — S

What would determine who it includes?

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. — S

Not even what I said.

That is one sense of “relative”, but I doubt its what S has in mind when he uses the term.
Let me posit this: you guys are using the same words but in different categories, and this is the source of the talking past each other. Could that be it? — DingoJones

I don't know what another sense would be, really. Relative simply refers to the idea of being dependent on particular relations (while not obtaining for other relations; well, and we could also say the "background idea" of nothing obtaining relation-free). I'm not familiar with an alternate conventional sense of the term.

K well this is exactly what needs to be parsed with more than a flip “facepalm” S. i get why that makes you wanna bang your head against a wall, but you two should discuss that distinction (relative and subjective), its integral to how you are both thinking about this. — DingoJones

A simple, non-controversial example is inertial frames of reference. They're relative, but not subjective.