Options which don't suffer from the same level of artificiality, vanity and pointlessness. — gumi

What make any of these things artificial or not? Vain or not? Pointless or not? You should have some criterion for that, and some justification for the criterion, if you're going to criticize anything versus support anything on those grounds.

It takes along time to know enough about nutrition training and sticking with it over the years. — Bright7

Exactly. And it takes a lot of trial and error to learn what works for your body, both nutrition-wise and workout-wise. It's very easy to plateau if you're not paying enough attention to what you're doing all around, as a complete lifestyle, if you're not approaching it systemically and experimenting with the system to figure out what works. That's why you don't see a lot more people who are really built--because it's very difficult to get there; it takes total commitment. And that's why some people try to "cheat" and use ridiculous things like synthol instead.

You get to ask him if he did or ordered anything bad. He answers no, that he did not (this is to the judgment, not any factual matter). Question: we know that you think he did bad things. But did he do bad things? — tim wood

"Did he do bad things," then, is necessarily asking for someone's opinion about this. "Bad" is always "to whom"?

it amounts to the question of what the ground of any standards will be. — tim wood

The ground of any standards, for anything, is always persons' preferences.

You-all apparently need to personally suppose it bad, but do not acknowledge it as badness — tim wood

We do not agree with "do not acknowledge it as badness," because we say that what badness is is a personal disposition against something.

So the disagreement is over the ontological nature of badness. Just what it is ontologically.

More to the point, you-all have stated that inasmuch as (presumably) the bad actors did not think their actions were bad, then it's nonsense to say they were bad. — tim wood

Which is simply saying that from their perspective, it's not bad if they do not think it's bad.

do you suppose reason and its products to be universalizable? — tim wood

I'm a subjectivist on reason/rationality, too. You know my view on mathematics.

On my view, there's a tendency that people have to project at least aspects of their mental phenomena "into the world at large"--to project it outside of their heads, and figure that it must be present in the outside world just the way that a rock is present in the outside world . . . only they make an even worse move and figure that it must be present in the outside world in some abstract manner, where it doesn't really have a location, but it also doesn't have "no location," and so on. People tend to do this with the things they feel strongest about, that they can't imagine thinking otherwise about, as if, for some reason, their own minds could not be capable of being that firmly convinced of anything--the idea basically amounts to people thinking that the source of the content (moral judgments, principles of reason, etc.) must be something outside of themselves, so that there's basically an implication that brains can't work that way by themselves.

Aren’t those examples of knowledge though? — DingoJones

The standard definition of knowledge in (at least analytic) philosophy is "justified true belief." I agree with that definition. So I'd not say that there's any distinction between knowledge and belief in terms of belief. It's just that knowledge has the additional attributes of being justified and true.

Nihilists say why bother to try so hard to continue existing? — Chris Liu

I'm a nihilist on many things, including the meaning of life, and I don't say anything at all like "Why bother to try so hard to continue existing." You bother because of reasons that originate in you.

Someone says x, it influences person y to take action z which restricts the a person's choice. This is something you've said you dislike. — Isaac

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm talking about things that effectively control someone, because if they choose to do something, there's a good chance that they'll be arrested/imprisoned, or not able to make a living (at least in their preferred career, situation etc. that they've been able to make a living in), or not able to provide shelter, etc.

Basically, it's control of as significant as legal prohibitions, but not necessarily achieved by something being illegal. Non-legal social pressures can be applied so that someone's life can be affected just as significantly, just as badly, if not worse, than being imprisoned. The mere fact that were not talking about legal prohibitions and legal system actions doesn't make that morally okay.

But here's the difference: for you-all, it's "bad-in-my-opinion, but not only does that not make it bad, it makes it impossible for it to be bad, except in my opinion," & etc. — tim wood

See, here is an example that you do not have it. No one is saying "not only does that not make it bad." What makes something bad morally is that an individual has the disposition that it's bad morally. That's what making something bad morally is. Things are morally good or bad to someone. The only way "does not make it bad" follows from any set of facts is if no one has the disposition that it's morally bad.

Yes, I believe I've got this exactly, and have had it exactly. — tim wood

If you had it then you wouldn't say that anyone's view amounts to "if S thinks that m isn't wrong, then R says that fact implies that m isn't wrong simpliciter"

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory).

What's the tl;dr version?

Sometimes it seems like we should rename this place the logorrhea forum.

If you say, on a public forum that something is wrong with SJW's, people will inevitably feel slightly less inclined to be one, maybe less inclined to employ one (who wants to employ someone who's 'wrong'?). — Isaac

People aren't so easily influenceable, especially given that whatever we're talking about, there are people on every side, and everyone is right or wrong depending on the person speaking. If people were that easily influenceable, they'd either not be able to act or they'd act in every way possible.

Seriously, people say a lot of things here that seem to indicate almost no real world experience whatsoever, and what you say above is one of those things. Go offline sometimes and interact with a variety of people in the "real world."

Really? Do you have research evidence or is this your opinion, because I have evidence. — Anaxagoras

Yes, countless instances of people having beliefs/desires/etc. that they never act on.

Wait a minute. Are you claiming that behaviors in the social realm of politics, culture, and so on are unrelated to belief? — Bitter Crank

Lots of people have lots of beliefs, desires, etc. that they never act on at all.

So the evaluation of morality or, criticism having any merit, depends on your ethical perspective? — SethRy

It has merit if you agree with it. That doesn't have anything to do with ethics. They might be talking shit, or trolling, or expecting others to conform to their personal tastes (that you don't share), or any number of possibilities.

But you appear to either refuse to, or cannot, generalize that view even so far as to say that their actions, among the most horrendous in recorded history, are simply wrong simpliciter. — tim wood

Because I don't want to claim that the world is some way that it isn't ontologically. The idea of something being morally wrong simpliciter is false in terms of what the world is like ontologically. I see our job as philosophers as being to analyze, observe, report what the world is factually like. It's the same thing that scientists should be doing. We're just using a different methodology.

If they're not wrong, then nothing is wrong. — tim wood

They're wrong subjectively, when we make the subjective judgment in question. They're not wrong objectively.

I do not mean to disqualify your view that it's wrong. But your expressed view is a misstatement. — tim wood

Nope. I'm reporting what the world is factually like.

What, then, is the natural, or default, state? Nothing is wrong? Nothing is right? — tim wood

Things are morally wrong or right from subjective perspectives. Subjectivity is the correct realm for moral judgments. We need to talk about them in the context of the correct domain. Not a domain that makes no sense for them, because it's not what the world is like.

I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. — tim wood

I'm not saying anything like this. I'm saying that moral judgments are something that individuals do, and that's all they are--something that individuals do. That's the correct domain for them. Every individual could do some moral judgment identically (ignoring nominalism for a moment). We could all have the same criteria. Nonetheless, it's still just something that we do as individuals. We can't get correct or incorrect a "non-personal moral judgment" because there is no such thing.

Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side. — tim wood

Again, and again, and again, and again . . . we've tried to correct this misunderstanding of yours. NO ONE IS SAYING WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOVE. No one. The correct domain for moral judgments is what we think as individuals. What we think as individuals in this case, for most of us, happens to be that we condemn people who murder. We don't say this because the universe outside of people says that there's a problem with murder. We, as individual people operating in the world, thinking about it, etc. feel that there's a problem with murder. Hence we condemn it.

Isn't the person who is actually responsible for limiting the employee's choice the employer who caved in and fired him, the subsequent employers who refuse to hire him. — Isaac

Yes, definitely. Again, I don't want to in any way prohibit the speech advocating that the person be fired. I don't want those people to be controlled so that they can't choose to say those things. But I have a problem with the desire to control in that way and the fact that it can work. Hence why I'll criticize it, why I'm not on board with it, etc. Anaxagoras asked us what we thought was wrong with SJWism. This is what I think is wrong with it.

It's an important point that disagreeing with something, having a problem with it, doesn't have to amount to wanting to control the ability of the person to say the thing in question. That's a point that the SJWs need to learn.

I could just as well say what I think is wrong with racism, but I wouldn't wind up saying that I want to make it illegal to say racist things, or that I want people fired because they're racists, or not able to rent an apartment because they're racists, etc. That doesn't mean that I like racism, that I'm on board with it, etc. I can disagree with it and have a problem with it without wanting to control that person's ability to choose to say those things.

This carries over, by the way, to a discussion in another thread about legal prosecution. There are things that I think aren't cool to do that I nevertheless don't want to be legally prosecutable. Sometimes it seems like it's common to think the false dichotomy of "Either we want to effectively prohibit something (either legally or via social pressure) or we're endorsing it." It's important to have a society in which people are allowed to do things that you're either neutral on or that you don't like but don't want to control a la effectively prohibiting them, because there's no way to have a large society where people only do things that you like/that you approve of.

So s it a political thing, the reason why you don't like the things the SJW's are saying? — Isaac

As I said, because they want to control what people can choose to do.

I have no interest in controlling what they can choose to do. They're welcome to say whatever they want to say, and I'm not going to try to CONTROL whether they can whatever. I'm not going to try to make it that their freedom is taken away, or their ability to make a living is taken away, etc., just because they said whatever they said.

Simply speaking against something isn't controlling what people can choose to do. Getting people arrested, fired, making it so they can't obtain a place to live--anything like that, effectively controls what people can choose to do.

If a company were going to fire an employee because they've advocated firing someone for being a racist, say, I'd have a problem with that. For example, if Yale were going to expel students for advocating that Christakis be fired, or if people were advocating Yale to expel those students because of that, I'd have just as much problem with it as I have with the students advocating that Christakis be fired.

Please explain this. — tim wood

"nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves."

"those persons thought their actions were acceptable..."

Both of those are about what those individuals think. What they think implies nothing outside of the context of what they think.

Actually, I should clarify that. The second is about what they think, and the first is a statement that actions aren't right/wrong outside of what people think.

Because a person that hates someone for their skin pigmentation is a liability and cannot be trusted to give equal treatment to others in a hospital setting. Also, they are more likely to act out their hatred. — Anaxagoras

That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection.

Well if I am a CEO of a hospital and my fellow employee is outted as a racist, I wouldn't want that person working at my hospital especially since I service the public at large. — Anaxagoras

Which is solely due to the social pressure that people would put on the hospital, which is what I have a problem with.

The CEO wouldn't care less if it wouldn't affect business. And if it would positively affect business, they'd push all of their employees to say racist things.

The social pressure is the cause of the employee getting canned. And that's effectively wanting to control what people can choose to do, what they can choose to say.

According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous. — DingoJones

Yeah, I think that stuff is just as stupid as the stuff that they're railing against.

You said that SJW's were wrong to "pressur[e] employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.". I don't know the facts of the case, but wouldn't they be applying this pressure by speech acts? And wouldn't that therefore make it absolutely fine, from the perspective of a free speech absolutist? — Isaac

"What's wrong with it" = "What I don't like about it"

I have no interest in, and I'd be against, anyone wanting any SJW to be in legal trouble, to be canned from a job, to be "deplatformed," etc. for advocating that someone be arrested, lose their job, etc. because of something they say.

That doesn't mean that I have to like what they're saying, what they're advocating, or that I have to refrain from speaking out against it, or refrain from trying to persuade people not to do it. Just like they don't have to like what someone like Roseanne Barr was saying, they don't have to refrain from speaking out against it, they don't have to refrain from trying to influence, etc.

It's very unlikely you can detect any damage on my fist from one punch, — Echarmion

This is actually not true, unless it was a very light punch--in which case it shouldn't be a legal issue anyway, because there's not going to be much of an effect on the other person, either.

If it was days later, and the punch was light enough to not be able to detect anything days later, then sure. Don't wait days to report something like that unless it's serious enough that evidence would still be detectable.

Obviously you can hurt people in ways that don't leave lasting marks. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I'd not have any hurt that doesn't have a longer-term physical effect as something that's legally prosecutable anyway.

one could imagine the words/photo being anywhere between very mildly “politically incorrect” to virulent and violent. — 0 thru 9

In my view it's not possible for speech to be violent.

I'm a free speech absolutist, by the way, and I don't see freedom of speech as solely a legal issue. I see it as a social issue, with the legal aspect being a subset of it.

Also, SJWs have a tendency to interpret ridiculous things as racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. in my opinion.

A lot of that hinges on what I consider to be seriously errant views of what meaning is/how it works. My views on this are controversial--we've had plenty of discussions about meaning here, but nevertheless, they're my views.

So you're fine with me walking up to you in the middle of the street, punching you in the face and walking away free? You only have your testimony, and perhaps the testimony of others to convict me. — Echarmion

Why wouldn't there be physical evidence re my face and your fist? The bruise on my face, the abrasions or bruise on your fist, etc. aren't only someone making an accusation.

The attempt to get Nicholas Christakis canned as a professor at Yale is a good example, too.

You're saying we should ignore evidence — Echarmion

Yeah, when it's only people making accusations.

even if there are no grounds to distrust the specific evidence in question, on the grounds that such evidence could potentially be forged. — Echarmion

The grounds are that there's no way to bootstrap testimony-only.

For the quoted bit, no such physical evidence exists. — Echarmion

Say what? No idea what you have in mind there.

I'll answer the rest later, but I don't want to get into increasingly longer posts back and forth. I hate doing that. I'll let you answer this first, and then I'll get back to the rest afterwards . . . unless you respond to this with another couple thousand words. Hopefully not, though.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hmmm... even if one were sympathetic to a statement like that, it is a bit too large to chew all at once. Care to perhaps elaborate or break it down (thus preventing mental indigestion)? — 0 thru 9

For example, pressuring employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.

We’re even then. I wasn’t clear on why you brought up physical phenomena when what you were responding to was mental preference. So I just ran with it, trying to connect them somehow. — Mww

I had no way of knowing you scope for saying "'Truth' can't be relative," and especially given that most folks on this board use "truth" to refer to objective facts in some manner, I figured your scope was one of maximum generality.

First, you can't automatically assume that criticism of others has any merit. You have to evaluate it for yourself. That's the case regardless of how much agreement the criticism has. And it's the case regardless of your past evaluations of the same source.

If you feel the criticism has merit, you can take it into consideration, and you can try to adjust to it. If it involves making changes in yourself, it's extremely important that you've evaluated the criticism first, in relation to your dispositions, preferences, etc., so that you don't wind up making moves away from existential authenticity.

If you feel that the criticism doesn't have merit, then you need to balance the benefits versus liabilities of bucking it/just ignoring it versus appearing to acquiesce, appearing to adjust to it. In some situations, you'll feel it's to your benefit on balance to appear to make adjustments in response to criticism.

"Who you really are" is dynamic. Every way that someone is, at every moment of time, in every circumstance, is part of "who they really are."

People aren't just one way, they're not unchanging.

It’s an isotopic universe which means there is no preferred reference frame for the occurrence of phenomena. But I understand what you were driving at, so yes, per SR, the observations of phenomena show reference frame relativity. — Mww

I'm not clear on the distinction you're making there, and in particular, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the idea of a preferred reference frame.

It is if we’re talking about it, though. — Brett

Aspects of talking about something are objective; other aspects are subjective.

Sounds we make, text we write, gestures we make are objective. Meaning, understanding are subjective.

Ah, okay. I don't at all agree that everything is subjective, though. Not everything in the world is mental phenomena.

What's wrong with it is that SJWs typically want to control what other people can choose to do.

That’s what meant by everything is subjective. I was agreeing. — Brett

If you were to think that everything is subjective why would you be talking about objective merit, for example?

Maybe we should have done definitions already. Basically, "subjective" = mental phenomena, "objective" = anything " outside" of mental phenomena.