Are you saying that theists as a group do more bad things than atheists? — T Clark
In order for this to be true, one of two things must also be true.
1) Atheists must do bad less than religious people do. I see no evidence of this.
2) Religious people must be better people than atheists are. — T Clark
One can be confident that the loss of Socrates and his art is greater than whatever trappings had been gained by his silencing.
So it is with all acts of censorship
— NOS4A2
That doesn't follow.
What’s wrong with free speech absolutism?
Given that your reasoning appears based on a utilitarian principle, a simple argument against free speech absolutism is that there is at least once case where more is gained than lost by censorship. Perhaps the sharing of military intelligence with a foreign nation is one such example. — Michael
Maybe. But if one can operate under the pretense of civility then it must be possible to operate based upon genuine civility. I interpret this as saying, that is difficult. — Pantagruel
Doesn’t bother me. Always nice to learn what buttons set someone off. — Joshs
Really? Is that what this has come to? Quibbling about word meanings. Let's get back to the vituperation. — T Clark
Have you noticed that those most eager to jump on the
‘pummel Batricks’ bandwagon share some of his uncivil
tendencies? Maybe a bit of projection going on here? — Joshs
So he made coherent arguments that you were convinced were always incorrect? Sounds like a typical TPL interchange. — Joshs
Never underestimate what you can learn from trolls with a personality disorder. Or what you can teach them. — Joshs
‘Bad actor’. Big deal, so he was obnoxious. Personally, insults get my competitive juices flowing and seem
to bring out my best arguments. Maybe we should use a metric like ‘percentage of insults to arguments’ to decide who gets booted, to make sure our delicate sensibilities don’t blind us to whatever substantive contributions are intertwined with a nasty delivery. — Joshs
Depends what we mean by 'conclusive' I guess. I don't think it entails agreement. I can find something to conclusively be the case. But someone else might think I'm completely mistaken. — bert1
You would just fuck things up. Anyone would. I hope there's a reset button. — T Clark
How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?! — DingoJones
On the contrary, this is just to say that philosophy isn't science, and isn't supposed to be. However there can be rigor in the conceptual analysis, examination of inferences, clarifying concepts, mapping the theoretical possibilities (or interpretations of them). Philosophers can and should fix the sloppy thinking when they find it in other disciplines. — bert1
My take on this is that philosophical questions may well have been correctly answered already. But we don't have a way of settling the dispute easily. In science, the scientific method eventually compels dissenters, at least amongst scientists (not flat earthers). In philosophy, it's easier to maintain a dissenting position, as consulting the physical world rarely settles the dispute. — bert1
I don't think academic vs non-academic is the place to put the boundary. Peter Singer is an academic, for example. There is a lot of woolly thinking outside the academe and a lot of sharp thinking inside it. — Cuthbert
But I have some sympathy with your complaint. I admit I graduated in 1979 with the thought - "Now Wittgenstein has proved the vacuousness of metaphysics I suppose that's the end of it." But still we debate whether the lump of clay and the statue are one thing or two. It's partly because the confusions arise from deep problems with our thought and language which will repeatedly resurface. I'm prepared to admit that it's partly a desire to play with ideas just because they are there. You put it more derogatorily but I don't entirely reject the complaint. — Cuthbert
Can you locate a similar survey in some other discipline, and so demonstrate that there is no similar bifurcation? — Banno
Again, and as acknowledged by the editors, the choice of questions is arbitrary. it may well be set to find those that have toughly equal presentation on both sides. — Banno
If you would maintain that this is something more than a bias in question selection, you will have to do some more work. — Banno
Ways of clarifying questions to which there is going to be no indisputable answer. Ways of weighing up the costs and benefits of coming out firmly on one side or another. Ways of understanding the confusion that underlies some questions before rushing into giving answers. — Cuthbert
There are plenty of places to go for undisputed answers to difficult questions. E.g. sign up for Twitter and block everything you disagree with. Job done. — Cuthbert