Im not sure in what way identity underpins logic, but I cannot see where I said anything extreme. What implications do you imagine are extreme, from what Ive said here?

In a certain sense I would say so ya. Obviously, when making references informally “identical” is perfectly coherent though.
Ah, you added to it. Ok, maybe incoherent isnt the right word. I got caught up in the terms of others there.

So when we say that 2 is identical to 2, it doesn't matter if one two was written on a blackboard in 1972 and another on a whiteboard in 2019.

Is that because 2 is not an object? — Marchesk

Im not sure what 2 identical to 2 would mean. In the strict, technical way we are talking about here nothing can truly identical to anything else.

They're similar. It's not that "they're not actually red." It's that "actual red" isn't just a single thing. You're basically assuming platonism a la there being singular forms that are nevertheless somehow multiply instantiated in different things. On the standard nominalistic view, that idea is incoherent, and we don't buy any real — Terrapin Station

I don’t think so, I just do not know the proper/formal terminology. I was hoping you would be able to understand what I meant. “Not actually red” in the sense that there is some difference between the two instances of red that in certain contexts (such as a discussion like this one) makes it important to recognise the distinctions that nominalism makes.
Anyway, I understand.

Why does it have to be the exact same time to be the same photons? Do the photons turn into other photons over time? — Marchesk

Yes, it would have to be at the same time in order to be identical. If the time was different, that would not be identical. To be identical there can be no differences.

Typically nominalism does not allow identical properties in numerically distinct things. — Terrapin Station

So two things that are red are not actually red but rather two different colors that we just refer to as red as an approximation?
Does a distinction between a property and something like a category or some other trait matter at all, or is that just another approximation we use for ease of language/reference?

I don't see how that works. How can nominalism have the same instances of color if everything is particular? — Marchesk

I just finished saying it wouldnt have the same instance of color. Instance of color and color are not the same thing. The former has a temporal quality, the latter does not. Im sure Terra will have the formal terms for us.

So all it would take to disprove nominalism is to find a numerically distinct thing that was identical for some property or function? — Marchesk

It would have to be identical in all ways to be “identical”. Thats an important distinction here isnt it? Things can have identical properties, such as color, under nominalism, just not the same instances of that color?

Does it matter that it obtains mentally, if thats what you are getting at? Its based on something non-mental is the point, not that the connecting tissue (or lack of I guess) or process. I think this AJJ would concede thats all mental.

What words do you want him to use? Could you just skip to that part for a sec so I can stop following the micro point/counterpoint thing you guys have going on? I promise I won’t follow it up with anything, im just curious.

I don’t think the GR is as fundamental as what Im talking about. Someone might be able to have a sensible moral theory without the GR in it but it cannot be sensible if it, for example, contradicts itself.

That could be but what is this overlapping common ground between various moral theories? I thought the main philosophical moral theories are mutually exclusive. — TheMadFool

I gave a few examples of what I meant, things like internal consistency, meaning it is based on non-contradiction. The very basic things common to all moral systems..well the valid ones anyway, if someone doesn't care if the system makes sense then the conversation is pretty over at that point.
A particular moral theory (to use your language) might be mutually exclusive to another, but the important bit is whats common to both. Seems to me the answer to your question lies there.

Its not a moral system that is consistent, its the commonalities that run through most moral
systems that are common. The traits you are looking for are not specific to any one (or few) moral systems, they are the traits they all possess (or almost all) such as internal consistency, conviction to whatever principals the moral system has, application to society or even just interpersonal relationships etc etc.
To me, this is what real morality is, the moral behaviours or traits common to all (most).

Edited to add: in terms of your analogy, the ship may not have a compass but there still strong winds and stars in the sky.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

Did you not see my invitation to you to educate me? — tim wood

You have already had it explained, the problem is you aren’t getting it. Do you admit you might be confused here? am I wasting my time trying to tell you how?

Lol, amazing.
I more meant bored in the context of this forum. There is nothing much that interests me currently, and this Tim Wood guy is perfectly representative of the vastly sub par interactions common here so Im here, trying in vain to get something past the wall of hubris and dim understanding. I feel like if I can get through that thick skull, something like peace in the middle east or convincing the worlds corporate masters to chill the fuck out will be childs play.

Boredom.

That seems like it might be true of some people and some religion. Why try and pigeonhole something so diverse?

All you’ve done is once again ignore whats been said. Stop for a fucking second and think about the consequences of points made and the implications of the distinctions. They negate your responses. Its fucking painful dude, but only half as painful as me knowing better and still responding to you.
Im not interested in this topic anymore, I want to discuss your stupidity and outrageous ignorance, I want you to defend yourself from the accusations of dishonesty and deliberate thick headedness.
Why are you such massive fucking douchebag? You got nothing better to do but irritate people trying to have real discussion with your dim witted, mindless repetition? Everything you've said can be summed up in 2-3 sentences, and the other 34 pages is just people trying to get through your thick fucking skull. Pathetic.
Shut the fuck up and LISTEN. You are being idiotic, dont you want to learn how?

My money is on “mostly retarded”, or trolling. If it IS trolling its pretty elaborate. Its much more shameful than some of the threads ive seen shut down by mods.
You are certainly wasting your time. So am I lol

Good god, the TREE is objective, the idea, image or memory of the tree is subjective.
You are an imbecile, belligerently ignorant, aggressively arrogant...you aren’t really reading what anyone is telling you and are clueless as to how foolish and stupid you sound when you run around in these pedantic, semantic and wholly dishonest circles. You have not argued in good faith here in the slightest and you should be embarrassed. You constantly side-track, ignore and accuse your opponents of doing the things that you yourself are doing. What an absolute disgrace to a forum like this, I find you to be just as offensive as some of the trolling or bigoted/racist shit that the mods delete or ban.
It is foolish to engage with Tim Wood everyone. Just say no to the troll. (That rhymes if you say it right).

By the way, look up "conflate." — tim wood

This actually tells me a great deal about what Im dealing with here. Stunning.
How can you possibly know the meaning of the word “conflate” AND not understand how it applies here rather pointedly?! You sir, should look it up. Then, stop and think about what other egregious errors you might be making.
In the meantime Ill be here, contemplating what little hope humanity has. Little. Hope. Hopeless, one might say. I will think on the hopelessness of ALL mankind Tim Wood, because of you and what you’ve done here today.

How about both. By the way, are you on with Terrapin that there is nothing wrong with taking illegal drugs? — tim wood

No, not both. Two. Different. Things.
You continue to conflate morality and the law.
There is nothing morally wrong with taking an illegal drug unless there is a moral/immoral reason not to take the drug. It doesnt matter if its legal or not, because it is a moral question not a legal one. Get it? Moral and legal are two different categories, if you are asking a question about what is lawful or unlawful then it is a legal question...if you are asking about what is moral then it is a moral question. They are two different things with different priorities to different people and different goals.
As has been pointed our before, your framing of the question is tainted by your moral objections to taking drugs. Thats whats driving you here, obvious to anyone reading. If you want to ask an honest question then you would be asking whether or not it is moral to break any law....but of course your whole premiss goes up in smoke once you do that because its so so easy to show that in fact breaking the law can be the most moral thing to do.

Still struggling huh?
Using illegal drugs is unlawful, not immoral. Two. Different. Things.

Could you give an example? Some debates have been decided already by reason and logic but one side or the other simply doesnt acknowledge they have come up short.

It doesn’t seem like your paying any attention to what Im saying, so lets at least drop the layer and talk about what you actually want to talk about. The immorality of having kids. Go ahead, make your case but please do it one step at a time. Im just letting you know now im not interested in watching you barf out an argument, keep it simple and start at the beginning, one step at a time. In return I promise I will be earnest and open minded to this position, which I think makes no sense. Convince me. Fair enough?

You are comparing the state of slavery (forced challenges/suffering) with being born and living life. Living life is not forced challenges/suffering except to the very very weak. In order to compare the two you must skew life into some sort of unethical oppression. Its not, except from the weakest, most pathetic viewpoint. I understand you might just be pontificating rather than feeling this deeply so that isnt directed at you personally but to consider life in that way you must take a very weak view of the ups and downs of life.

Oh, you are THAT guy, that keeps trying to backdoor this topic. Even worse that I thought.
Master/slave relationship compared to parent/offspring relationship is superficially analogous at best.

I hereby anoint thee Sir Obvious of PoF’oria.
What are you doing here? Just letting everyone know your virtue? A round of applause everyone...

...slavery isnt wrong because of the conditions of the slaves. You’ve never heard the expression about a gilded cage?
Slavery is wrong because people are not property, and on the basis of people being awarded equal rights within society. What you have stated is not interesting philosophy, or at the very least utterly uncontroversial.
Did you expect someone to disagree?

Thats not true, I think its a valid point he is making. The problem is that the people who bothered to disagree with him didnt have anything interesting to say and Frank got aggressive and developed a quick victim complex so the topic died and Frank is confused about it being about the topic rather than what I just mentioned.

Aside from the adult language thread, what were the other two threads that were shut down? Were you given a reason for either like you were for the adult language thread?

No, not ok. I do know what Im talking about, and I am right. You just aren’t interested in the actual answer to your question about “whats going in here?”
The reality is that no one worthwhile was interested in your topic, so you ended up arguing with people on a treadmill, it was going nowhere. Maybe thats unfortunate, but it doesnt mean the topic itself is the reason for the closing of the thread.
Let me walk you through it...
You started a thread on a legit topic, you expressed your view in it and no one chose to engage in any meaningful way and it degenerated into a “shout-box” (initiated by you and your poor understanding of how your framing was being received) that resulted in catching the attention of a mod, who confirmed his intended action with another mod, and then shut down the thread. When you asked why, he answered you in a straightforward manner that you didnt pay attention to.
Thats it. Simple. Par for the course on a forum like this, better luck next time. So stop being a bitch about it and move on.

Why on Earth would a forum dedicated to philosophical discussions possibly consider it proper to be dismissive of lots and lots of discussion of these questions? — Frank Apisa

You aren’t paying attention. That is not the reason your thread was closed. It wasnt the questions, or even the vulgarity. It was the lack of substance in the thread, resulting from the shallow responses you received and your “shout box” responses in turn. The topic started with merit, as Baden mentioned and you seem to have ignored but which didnt get very far. It happens, stop being such a bitch about it.

Good, its important to laugh and it was intended to be a smirking, cheeky response...but also true. I could have laid it out without the comical condescension but where's the fun in that?

You’ve already been informed why it was closed but have chosen not to accept that explanation bit rather strawman yourself into victimhood. Nobody missed the reason you were swearing and being vulgar, I dont think anyone really cared about that except a few people who were responding to your depthless and obvious point. There was nothing of substance going on, not entirely your fault but the thread died and was buried. This was explained to you but your resistant to it because you feel victimised by the mods but I am not a mod and have no particular dog in the fight so thought perhaps the 100% legit shutdown and explanation would be easier to accept coming from me, though obviously im not holding my breath.
And thats whats going on here, everything clear?

Depends on what “cannibalism” is meant to entail. Nothing wrong with eating human meat per say, but if you are murdering humans in order to eat them I think you are going to have to explain how the murder is morally permitted.

Can you give an example of a parallel to your A,B,B,A example from this forums recent dubious claims?
Lets just speak plainly about your issue.

You are assuming eating meat is immoral, I do not see how that is the case. You even assume thats its somehow immoral for a pet animal to eat meat. I just cannot agree with that.

No wrong idea here. I follow a few of the discussion you’ve been in..these free speech ones are important. Some serious dogma to overcome.

You continue to bring sense to these discussions.
Lets not forget the bad actors using social media to foment the chaos you speak of above. Russia, China and various opportunists use the far reaching power of the internet to create division. That fact is oft overlooked in all this, and I think it should be at the top of the list as far as the awareness of the public.