I would call those examples, and ive seen exactly what your talking about between you and others, cases of reason being improperly applied. Is it so hard for you to believe that you are meeting the standards of reason and they are not? Maybe you think they are being incoherent because they are are in fact saying something incoherent? Not to get personal, but you have a particular way of interacting with people on here and that might be a factor as well. Plus, im sure you are the one making the mistake at times as well.
To the “mile” example, if someone or some persons invent the mile, then thats what it is. If someone else comes along and says “no, a mile is ten feet” then they are full of shit. As with morality, they might be able to provide alternate measurements and there my analogy fails becuase reason isnt like that but thankfully thats not what the analogy is meant to illistrate.
A note about coming to reason via reason. This is slightly different territory but I would put it “coming to reason by necessity of making sense of things” or something like that. Its a by-product of noticing that things have..well that they have reasons for the way they are and how they happen etc.
(Sorry for the clumsy use of language using “reason” there...not sure how else to put it)

The standards of reason arbitrate. Thats all you need. I tried to illustrate this with the “mile” example.
This isnt like morality, where sensical alternatives are available to any given moral view. Reason isnt like that, for what I would hope are obvious reasons ;)

Well true, it is a claim anyone can make. Like being reasonable. There is a fact of the matter of whether or not its actually true in both cases.
You asked me “what now” at the end of your case example. The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. That doesnt require an address of where the standard comes from, not in the case of reason, because reason is our most basic function of making sense of things. If you do not accept it, if logical fallicies seem fine to you for example, then no sensible or worthwhile discussion can be had. Conversation over. (“You” is intended in a general sense here, not “you” as in Terrapin).

None of this answers any of the questions I asked you. Do you need me to go into detail why it doesn't answer the questions I asked? — Terrapin Station

I do not. Your question has been answered, just not in the way you would like me to answer it. Im not going to be restricted to answering you the way you need me to in order to go through the motions of your argumentation. If you are interested in how the standards of reason are established then that is different than reference to the standard afterwards.

Sure, there is more going on in this forum, and its complicated. I wasnt addressing the OP, that certainly seems to entail some personal feuds and discussions and disagreements about approach from other threads that I was following somewhat but wasnt that interesting, philosophically speaking. What Im discussing with Terrapin (and that you have inserted yourself in), is. To me at least.

So if it's not determined by consensus what is it determined by? You say that some claim doesn't make sense and isn't reasonable. The other guy says it does make sense; it is reasonable. You say that it's a fact that it's not reasonable. He says that it's a fact that it's reasonable. Now what do we do. How do we figure out who is right? — Terrapin Station

You use the standard. What you are talking about is accepting the standard. Im not saying anyone must accept reason, only that should they choose to do so, they are accepting a particular standard, some basic rules that govern what is reasonable. If they do not follow that standard, regardless of whether or not they claim to be doing so, then they are not being reasonable.
The consensus would be in deciding whether or not to BE reasonable, it is something you agree or decide to do. The creation of that standard needs no consensus.
Someone creates a mile, a certain length of distance that they call a mile. If another person says “i just walked 10ft, a whole mile” then they are not correct according to that created standard of a mile. They claim its a mile, but there is a fact of the matter about what a mile actually is and 10 ft isnt it. No consensus required. This person can claim they are using miles, or they can use km instead, or feet instead or whatever..they could get a million people to call 10ft a mile. Doesnt matter, it doesnt change the created standard and when they claim 10ft is a mile they are wrong, they are just calling something else a mile that is not. They have not accepted the standard of the mile, but have rejected it or redefined it into something else (ergo, not a mile).

It is not determined by consensus, as the rest of what I said is intended to illustrate but you have left out for some reason. That seems strange to me, seeing as how it has more to do with your question than the part you DID quote. Whether or not a person thinks they are being reasonable, there is a fact of the matter of whether they actually are. Do you think a circle is a square? Yes? Then you have chosen not to make any sense, a refusal to abide by the standard of reason. No? Great, then make sure you apply that standard to everything else too and of course, there other parts to that standard. ( for example, other logical fallicies)

No, but that's irrelevant if we can't access that fact reliably. I'm not saying the concept is useless. Complete nonsense can be dismissed this way, but when it comes to the really interesting stuff, it is almost inevitable that the very reason it is interesting is that the competing ideas in the field have not proven to be decidable by any means of argumentation we have. — Isaac

Sure, there are varying degrees of reliability depending on the case in question. It doesnt seem like we are sugggesting mutually exclusive things here.

They are both applying reason, though. Re a standard--so some consensus? (Hence my initial question.) — Terrapin Station

Not “a” standard, a specific one, the standard of reason. For example, if a person is contradicting themselves then they have failed to properly apply the standard. Obviously, to apply a standard the basis of those standards must be accepted but in the case of reason this is the most basic way we make sense of things. Saying a circle is also a square makes no sense, is not valid reasoning. If you do not accept that then ok, but you have taken yourself out of the ballgame. If you aspire to be reasonable, you have chosen to accept certain basic standard.

And how's that going? Can you give me a single example from the whole of academic philosophy where one of two competing ideas has been rejected by the majority of epistemic peers in the field by the application of reason? — Isaac

Ya, people can disagree. Some things are more (or less) difficult to sort out. That doesnt mean there is not a fact of the matter about what is reasonable.

The basis is simply that person A says "I reasonably supported assertion P," because person A sincerely feels that to be the case, whereas person B says "No you didn't," because they sincerely feel that to be the case.

So now what do we do? — Terrapin Station

Well we would apply reason to determine which was correct. It doesnt matter what each of them feel about the reason, there is a fact of the matter about if the standard is being properly applied. It depends in how exactly you define reason, but that is one way that is useful and meaningful.

Ah, returning the favour are you? My fault, apologies. I didnt intend my question to be a (non) answer to your question as it wasnt directed at me, rather your question to the other dude prompted me to inquire as to your basis in asking the question. My question was sincere, not meant to be leading or anything other than an elaboration on your own views, which im interested in.

Lol, you crack me up. Just answer the question man, or have the decency to tell me to fuck off
;)

Who gets to decide what's a reasonable support, though? — Terrapin Station

Do you think reason is completely relative? That valid reasoning can be different for different people?

Neutral is a property isnt it? Its something that something can be. Non-existence is not something that can be, in any way, shape or form.

Not at all. You just cannot discern the difference via experience. Non-existence is the negation of experience, so you arent being sensical in how you are framing things here. Its like asking why a square isnt a circle...because thats not how we define those words. Non-existence is the absence of existence. Thats the only thing that non-existence is, there is nothing more to it, nothing to be experienced. No attributes, no traits, nothing at all.

Ok, you are using terms that cannot be experienced (death, non-existence) and framing them in the context of experience. Those words are descriptions about ideas we have about something we cant experience, its non-sensical to ask for a comparison. The words are defined as the absence of something we DO experience, life or existence. The difference between the two words simply is what we mean by them. No direct experience is necessary.

Yes, start with your second sentence. Can you clarify how you conclude that non-existence is no more or less wrong if there is no afterlife? Like, right or wrong un regards to who or what? Is going against preference wrong or right or neither? What would you say to someone who disagreed and by what authority would you do so?
I think what Banno is getting at is you wrote a bunch of things stacked in top of each other and laced with assumptions that may make sense to you but appear to others (me and Banno anyway) as a nonsensical rambling which indicates deep confusion.

I'm referring to what objective reality is, that is, its agreement by ad populum. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You think reality is defined by how people agree it is? Do you mean this to apply to things like rocks and buildings, such that they look a certain way or exist because people agree that they look a certain way or exist?

Just dropping in one more glorious refutation of Badens hilariously presumptuous guess about who wouldnt side with S.
Even if Baden were in the right, it would still be a dangerous (in the context of the battleground of ideas), authoritarian operating procedere. Its pretty obvious to me that the kind of dismissive, heavy hand is at play here. Imo, Baden IS in the wrong, it is clearly about his personal feelings. He shut downna discussion he didnt care for. The charge of bias standa as far as I can tell.

I thought it was something like that, and of course its a virtue in most cases but sometimes your just wasting your time ive observed. Anyway, just curious if you had expectation or hope. Hope I can get, expectation might make me question your sanity in this case. ;)

You constantly amaze me with your patience. What are you getting out of it? It seems to me that he is not listening, is refusing to concede blatant errors and is simply (childishly as ive said already) doing the philosophical equivalent of crossing his arms and stomping his feet.
Im not knocking ya, but are you REALLY, actually confused about why it seems like he is not understanding what you are writing? It seems perfectly obvious to me he is not trying to understand what you are writing.
What are you seeing that im not here? You think he is actually interested in counter-arguments to his position?

Oh and look at that, he would be at war if he wasnt so tired. Now I think he might be dangerous in addition to weak.

His argument is directly linked to his weakness. He is only able to make his argument by taking a position of such simpering weakness that he cannot tell the difference between suffering and work, or recognise the trade off inherent to reward or happiness and meaning. His argument is refuted by refuting his weakness and childish outlook.

You rephrased what I said into a cliche, then accused me of cliche. A complete strawman.
Im not making reference to whatever pet peeve talking points you are refering to.
Some conservative, Full Metal Jacket caricature of the hard ass telling people to shape up IS a cliche, it IS a kind of jackass who deserves your disdain. Thats one thing. Another thing is an instance where someone IS being weak, and DOES need to grow up. It can ACTUALLY be the case, as I believe is the case here that I was commenting on, that a person is expressing a childish view. It IS possible for everything I said to Andrew to be true AND for it to NOT be an example of the flimsy strawman you have offered.
He IS whining, by which I mean saying nothing of substance and merely complaining and boo hooing for no other reason but to express a tantrum he is having because he didnt consent to being born. Nobody did. Its not the kind of thing one can actually do. It is pathetic and weak, and I for one am not moved even the tiniest bit because he couches his childish, pointless discontent in bad philosophy. Sophisticated whining is still whining, and thought out contructed weakness is still weakness.

Thanks :)
I mean come on already right? Evidently i still have work to do, my response got eaten when the threads were merged, I was writing it at the time.

I feel deeply unhappy (and ethically perturbed) with the fact that I am (and others are) having horrible experiences and that any experiences including these I did not consent to initially.

I feel life is immoral for two main reasons. The first reason is because of all the clear problems in the world and the second is the lack of consent when bringing new beings here.

I don't feel there aren't any decent grounds for encouraging me to be stoical about the situation either. I don't think being alive or being dead are in my interest. I think the ethical issues are much wider than my own discontent. I feel more like protesting and rebelling. — Andrew4Handel

[the above quote was inserted by mod in order to enable merging of threads]
Try being strong instead of whiny and weak.
“Life is too hard, dying is too hard boo hoo.”
Grow up, and stop burdening everyone with yet another iteration of “I didnt ask to be born waaaa waaa”. I mean for fucksake, you know that thats a punchline to a joke right? That anybody could be such a whiny, weak person that they drop that line of reasoning is a JOKE people tell to make fun of the angsty, childish attitude you are meant to grow out of.
The fact that you or anyone else can intellectualise about it doesnt give you a pass on the weakness and self indulgent petulance that motivates it.
You wanna wallow in your diaper then you are free to do so but I invite you to shut up about it because nobody cares.
You should be ashamed of couching this in terms of philosophy rather than the actual source of you continuously bringing it up which is, to review one last time, that you a whiny and weak person. You can do better, diaper off, big boy pants on. Good luck, you sem like you’ll need it.
Also, for the mods who might want to delete that response on ad hom grounds or somesuch, I offer that it is an equally valid retort as the premiss of the thread, and there is actual merit to the criticisms I stated in the context of this thread.

Ah I see. I took him to mean staggered knowledge as the contrast, like learning to count to 10, then later learning to count to 100 and so on.
What makes that interesting to me is what life would be like with nothing left to learn. It seems like something important to human experience, the learning.

Well, just because you have knowledge doesnt mean you are accessing it all at once. Why would it be different than the limited knowledge you have now? You arent experiencing it all at once are you?
So if that knowledge increased, which it almost certainly does and will, why would it suddenly be overwhelming (what I take you to mean by causing your brain to smoke)?
If you possessed all knowledge, why wouldn't it function the same? As you do now, you would access this knowledge as needed or as prompted. For example, you know the numbers 100 to 200, but you aren’t always thinking about them. If you were counting, you would eventually access the knowledge of those numbers when the counting process prompted you to do so. So to with your knowledge of everything.

Ya, Benevolent dictatorship.

Yes I did. I was asking if we can come up with a better system. Then you said — hachit

I see that now, my mistake.

and I was trying to make a point. By saying that.
Because you didn't get it here it is. We live in the system and so we must account for that. We need a system that encourages people to do what we want us to do. This would be the "better system". When it doesn't encourage what we want, we label it as broken. — hachit

Ok, so you are asking if there is a better system than capitalism for managing or perhaps utilising human beings natural tendencies?

We human have to live in the system. If we can brake the system it's not perfect is it — hachit

Ok, now you are talking about a perfect system? You said “better”, didnt you?
I dont there is a perfect system, i dont know there is a perfect anything.

I didnt know what willy nilly meant, thought it meant recklessly or with little thought. I get it now.

And yes.

Ah. i see. I thought you were being evasive.
Ok, well there are at least some positive effects of a system of some kind. Those would be gone, what adventages does anarchy have to replace them? As well, it seems obvious that without a system of laws in place there would be more theft and murder and rape etc etc. So what do we get in return for that under anarchy?

I asked you first, answer me and Ill answer you.

Well, two aspects. One is you have to turn, hence imperative. The other is that you can choose whether to turn left or right, that's within your authority. — tim wood

I understand, its the inclusion of “making a choice willy nilly” in an imperative description thats getting me...what is the imperative that results in a willy nilly choice rather than a normal choice?

I assume like most people including Banno you're not so sanguine at terminating a pregnancy at 36 weeks as you might be at ten weeks. I'm assuming that the idea that life is sacred, that you abjure, is not the same as saying that life has value, which I assume you agree with. — tim wood

You assume correctly, life should be judged by its value/merit rather than its “sanctity”. For abortion, happy to let experts decide where the line is. I step on spiders, if the fetus is no more sentient than that then thats about how much I care if someone aborts it. That is, barely. Same with death penalty, as long as we are very careful about making sure the person actually did it I cant see why we would keep them alive because all life is somehow sacred.

You are an anarchist then I take it? Whats better about having no system at all that outweighs the obvious drawbacks?

Ive never heard those terms made distinct in that way before.
So how does it follow from that distinction that you have an imperative to make a choice willy nilly? Isnt what you just described as imperative precisely NOT making a choice?
For me, I bypass most of the argueing about abortion by removing the basis that life has a sacred value. Absent that, there isnt much to debate.
Not aborting on grounds of future potential of any kind seems flawed, Hitler was a baby and before that a fetus and on down the chain of personhood....his future potential we all know. That would have been a great abortion, perhaps even a morally required abortion should a person of the tume somehow seen into the future potential. Alas, no such ability exists, so its best not to base a conclusion on something no one can possibly know in my book.

Ah, but now you arent talking about a system flaw, you are talking about a human flaw. The system could be perfect, but as you say the beast has a certain nature which compels him to abuse the system.

I guess I must be lol
In what way do you mean?