Its a major problem in actually understanding his position, and a major problem in communicating.
Tough shit if you don’t want me to talk about communicating, thats what you arent doing well and its why this is frustrating to you. We’ve been over this before, if you ignore me ill stop responding and you can carry on as you see fit. It does nothing for you to bitch about where i choose to focus and warn me about your thinning patience. Yawn.
Im not concerned with your “diagnosis”, im concerned about the discussion, and what I can learn from it. Thats why I chimed in, not because I care to add to the pages and pages of argumentation. I already said your view is consistent, but so is Terras so you have to go deeper and see where the divergence arises in each of your operating principals. Then, you will be able to move forward rather than the circles youve been running in.
My goal isnt to refute either of you, its to help you two understand the other so that you are actually engaging each other rather than talking past each other. If that doesnt interest you then tell me to fuck off and I will.

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?

...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.

Edited: ah, I see. Perhaps I could have better separated my points. Ill go fix it.

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

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.

Its because you are stubborn about framing and im not much for being told how I have to frame things.

Anyway, when you are saying that Terra should care about this or shouldnt care about that, you are making an appeal to something Terra doesnt even acknowledge, and so your diagnosis doesnt actually address what Terra is saying or why.
How do you expect your diagnosis to be accurate when it doesnt do that? Its a sure way to unintentionally strawman someone.
You think that he is just an idiosyncratic contrarian, and maybe thats true but that doesnt mean he is wrong. From the basis he is operating from he is being consistent, as are you. So that is where the discussion needs to focus in order to move forward. Hence, Im trying to find a path where you guys arent talking past each other.
Is that more the kind of answer you wanted?

Edited: There...

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

Some of it is true, some of it isnt. If you want flat out one or the other, I guess not true as some of it doesnt seem accurate or charitable. I dont think a dichotomy will be useful here though. The issue is in framing and communication, as I think both of you are being consistent to your views.
Also, Im not making comments on the player because I find the players personality abrasive or problematic the way other folks do on this forum. I mention the player because of the way the player is handling the ball, as part of addressing the...er, ball? (The diagnosis, whatever, the point is im not mentioning you rather than your argument because I cant see past your diagnosis do to a problem i have with you).

Did I say that? (I seriously don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.) — Terrapin Station

Maybe you didnt, thats the impression I get though. Have I made a mistake? If you realise you are frustrating people, do you just not care if people get frustrated then? Im not trying to be disparaging, just trying to parse the waters here.

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

Well I confess Im having trouble articulating to myself what exactly is going on. Part of it is semantics, some of it has to do with you two being stubborn about framing...my analogy of the train tracks hopefully help illustrate what I think might be happening.

Its a bit awkward for me to be interjecting (just a little disclaimer) but I can see how each of you is being frustrated. I find it hard to believe you dont understand how the way you choose to engage could be frustrating to people...based on your track record with people in this forum alone you have a pretty obvious clue.

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).

Well I would say its correct/incorrect according to that axiom at least.
I don’t think principal based ethics make much sense either, for similar reasons, but I think that certain axioms can inform ethics. Ive been trying to articulate to myself where exactly you and S (and others) are diverging and its something about where each of you are at structure wise, in a linear sense. (By way of analogy, I think you two are getting off at different stops along the track, and S might be transferring from other tracks you don’t acknowledge as existing)
I won’t hold referencing common sense against you, sometimes to zero in on something you have to start with a less than ideal ambiguity like that. I know what you mean by common sense, generally, so its enough to make your point. Anyway...

How do you view operating from axioms? You see axioms as being neither correct or incorrect, but what about operating from axioms? You don’t think that something can be correct or incorrect according to operating principals/axioms?

You do not understand the burden of proof sir.
I know what you are saying seems a reasonable standard but its not, it is burdened by a myriad of absurd and ridiculous claims/beliefs that get smuggled in with any good ones that pass the standard.
You DO need to have evidence for your own opinions/beliefs in order to be justified in them, even if its just evidence only you have access too. You should NOT hold opinions/beliefs without evidence, whether you can present it to others or not.

Those are good points.

I couldn't disagree more with this though...
“In fact, being skeptical about others is a very bad thing. ”

I believe the exact opposite, that one should always be skeptical about what others say. People are not to be trusted.

People would be less susceptible to lies, more skeptical of what people say. If anyone and everyone was lying it would be necessary to think critically and to research in order to get by. I think Terras idea is about self reliance and having a better, less gullible population.

I dont know. I thought I was being clear about what specifically Im addressing and its not that. Its fine, your onto this other stuff with them now so have at it.

Like I said, thats a different issue. I dont find appeals to whats commonly held to be true very compelling either.
Im on the objective standard stuff from pages back still, but I understand that the discussion has moved on from that. (I went to sleep and woke up way behind in the discussion.)
Ah well.

Well, there are more disagreements going on than Im attempting to address. I think one stumbling point is how some words are being used and understood so im focusing on that. Im not really sure how the consensus bit makes their points tbh.
Anyway, there are two uses of language here. You are focused on the creation of the standard and agreement to the standard and the subjectivity of it. The other folks arent referencing that when they use the language subjectivity/objectivity, they are referencing something else. This is causing confusion I believe.
What they are really referencing is what I call an objective standard, so thats why im trying to explain that concept. It is a helpful distinction for this subject, though I realise “objective” is a problematic term. We could call it whatever, its the concept that is important.
So when we measure the stick, we reference the standard, not our feelings. Not when we make the standard, or agree to use it (we are referencing our feelings about the standard in those cases) but when we are measuring the stick. (Thats when we are referencing the standard, the tape measure).
Right?

Well the conversation has moved on, but yes you have the basic idea of what Im getting at. Its a distinction which will make the conversation less fruitless, it will help the talking past each other. Thats my goal in presenting it.
Anyway, woke up 3 pages behind so evidently my window has passed.

Im not talking about whether the standard itself is correct, Im talking about whats correct according to the standard.
The “inch” is not under a rock somewhere, its something we make up and agree to reference when measuring things. Right?

Yes, thats how the standard is created/adopted, subjectively. Im not talking about that.
Once that is done, it isnt our feelings that we reference, its the standard. If we feel like its 5”, that feeling is incorrect. The measuring tape is what tells us the length of the stick in inches, not our feelings. We are not making a reference to how we feel (subjective).

Ok, so we get 7” not from a reference to anything subjectively (*edited from “subjective”) but rather from referencing the agreed upon standard. Right?

Edit (again): changing the word doesnt help now that I look again. 7” inches of length doesnt change because someone feels differently about the length. Hopefully you can see past my poor wording at what I actually mean.

Also, Im not ignoring your comments, but I have a point im trying to make so Ill get to them after.

Especially if we've agreed on using the same definition of "inch," you're simply going to think that my estimate is off. — Terrapin Station

Right, because we are referencing a standard of what an inch is, that we’ve agreed upon.
So 7” inches is what the length is in inches, and 5” is not what the length in inches. Right?
So if a person agrees to the standard of measurement of an “inch”, their feeling about 5” can be shown not to be the case as it doesnt match the standard being used. (The measuring tape will show that 7” is the length in inches).
The subjective feeling, in other words, of 5” inches is not correct according to the standard being used.

Well ill let you two settle that point. Im making a different point.

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.

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?

I didn't say it did. Im just saying that here is a standard (inches), and if we both agree to use that standard then we can use it to measure things in inches and you agree, right?

Ok, so as an example, the unit of measurement of an “inch”.
Lets agree to use that standard of measurement.
So we have a tape measure, and its marked in inches. We can take that and measure the size, in inches, of all manner of objects, right? And those things will have a certain length, in inches? Right?

Well, call it a standard then. Do you believe in those?

I think part of the problem is the terms being used, some baggage on a few that seems to be causing confusion.
You are essentially talking about referencing a standard, right? You accept the initial subjectivity of whether or not someone values morality or reason, but once they do there are certain standards they are agreeing to operate from that do not change based on l subjective whims?
Is that right?

I think you are talking about two different things, and thats why it seems confused fiction to you.

There's nothing else to talk about, though. — Terrapin Station

There is though, and thats what other people are talking about when you think (or pretending to think) they are talking about the subjective premiss.

You are just referencing back to the subjective premiss. Sure, if you dont want to be consistent, or be rational, or operate within reason then there is nothing that forces you to do so. These are things that are subjective, choices based on how you feel about something if that's the way you want to put it.
Im not talking about that, and I dont S is either.

I don’t think either of them are referencing an objective world with desires/subjective feeling, but rather an objective standard that makes sense from a premise or axiom.
So you are focused on how one values or feels about, say, not dying. They are talking about what makes sense (regardless of feeling) with the subjective value as the premise or axiom. Once you (subjectively) determine the value of not dying, certain things either make sense to that end or do not, and can be correct or incorrect on whether it leads to dying.
In moral terms, replace “not dying” with something like “flourishing well being of mankind” or “maximum happiness”. Even if you think those terms are nebulous, what is meant by each can be refined case by case and what it means to achieve or service that premise either makes sense or it doesnt.

Because anti-Clinton people are not called bigots, and anti Islamic people are called bigots. People would get banned for the latter, not the former. Since we were talking about banning, naturally I would be focusing on the islam bit.
Why? I don’t understand what you are trying to imply.

The former, but I didn't the see the error. S pointed it out already lol

So what about that bartricks guy? Why hasnt he been banned yet?

:lol:
Fuck you lol

Seemed like all he did was spam, made worse by his anti-discussion attitude. Like that guy who started the moral subjectivity thread. He banned yet?
I find people prosthetising to be much more intolerable than speaking out against islam as part of some conspiracy theory.

THAT got him banned? Not his ceaseless topic spamming and discussion killing soapboxing?
Islam is the magic word I guess?