That in itself is laughable, because you could just as well be looking at your own reflection. — S

I'm not someone who thinks that their preferences are correct just because they have them.

Your ego leads you to your free speech fundamentalism. — S

Why would that be in favor of my ego? Be a free speech absolutist means that I'm endorsing that people be allowed to call for my death, to commit slander/libel against me, etc. How is that in service to one's ego?

Do you still maintain that you don't know whether or not I believe I'm on the moon? — S

As I explained during that discussion, it depends on just what you're claiming, the context, etc. But in general, yes, anyone could potentially believe anything.

Do you still maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective? — S

Yes, of course. Meaning is something that brains functioning mentally do. It's not something that's done by the world outside of brains functioning mentally.

Why would that be in favor of my ego? Be a free speech absolutist means that I'm endorsing that people be allowed to call for my death, to commit slander/libel against me, etc. How is that in service to one's ego? — Terrapin Station

Are you actually endorsing that?

I'm not saying you can't invent them. I'm saying it's hugely significant to the process of normative discussions (like the one this thread is about) that no one ever has. — Isaac

Aside from the fact that you're claiming to know everything anyone has ever proposed, which obviously you'd not know, you're aware that the measurement standards, per widespread acceptance, have not only changed over time, but there have been competing standards in effect simultaneously at various historical times, right?

it is of huge significance that there is not one single functioning alternative to the agreement about what length an inch is. — Isaac

Huge significance for what re anything at all that's relevant to my comments?

It means that for normative discussions (say, teaching a child to measure, or how long we should make some timber component) we need not at all go into the fact that the length of an 'inch' is arbitrary. It would be a foolish sideline. — Isaac

Although if anyone is thinking it's not subjectively devised, "arbitrary" in that sense, and/or "correct" simply by virtue of being common, I think we should go into that fact.

If you just wanted to have a discussion about what the common views are, as if you were doing a bit of descriptive cultural anthropology, then yeah, you'd be less likely to talk about arbitrariness, etc.--or at least that would be a big sidebar for it.

Hopefully you'd not be of a view that a cultural norm amounts to a normative, because it doesn't.

Yes of course. If I weren't, I wouldn't be able to say that I'm in favor of there being no speech prohibitions, would I?

I'm not someone who thinks that their preferences are correct just because they have them. — Terrapin Station

You don't use that word, and you're oh so humble as a result. :lol:

Why would that be in favor of my ego? Be a free speech absolutist means that I'm endorsing that people be allowed to call for my death, to commit slander/libel against me, etc. How is that in service to one's ego? — Terrapin Station

No, I mean that you stubbornly think that you're right about your free speech fundamentalism in the face of much criticism. That's kind of why it's fundamentalism. All fundamentalism is egotistical, isn't it?

As I explained during that discussion, it depends on just what you're claiming, the context, etc. But in general, yes, anyone could potentially believe anything. — Terrapin Station

No, that doesn't answer the question. I wasn't asking you about what anyone could potentially believe, I was asking you about what I believe. You already have the claim and the context.

Yes, of course. — Terrapin Station

So you don't maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective, then. You just said, "Yes, of course", which means, "No, of course not".

And you don't see the harm in that?

You don't use that word, and you're oh so humble as a result — S

It's not that I don't use that word. I do not believe that my preferences are correct just because I have them. You're so far up your own derriere that you can't comprehend how that could be the case, though, I suppose.

No, I mean that you stubbornly think that you're right about your free speech fundamentalism in the face of much criticism. — S

Not in the slightest. It's not something that one can be correct or incorrect about. It's simply my disposition, my preferences about it. That should underscore why criticism is of little use. Criticism of someone's preferences isn't likely to make them change their preferences. If you love the taste of grapefruit, no amount of criticism that people can lob at you about that is going to result in you not loving the taste of grapefruit. Hopefully, you wouldn't think that your love of grapefruit is "correct," so that people who don't like the taste of grapefruit are "incorrect," but who knows.

So you don't maintain that the meaning of words is entirely subjective, then. You just said, "Yes, of course", which means, "No, of course not". — S

As if meaning were the same as the observable aspect of word usage.

And you don't see the harm in that? — Shamshir

I don't consider it to be anything that is morally wrong or that should be legislated against. "Harm" is too vague to make generalizations about. Certainly some people are psychologically harmed by words--certainly some people are psychologically harmed by all sorts of things. I don't base any moral or legislative stances merely on the concept of "harm."

Again, as I've made clear numerous times in this thread, I'd require that we can demonstrate that words force any particular action for me to have the opinion that words are harmful in a way that I'd consider morally problematic or necessary to prohibit.

" is too vague to make generalizations about. — Terrapin Station

What's vague about death threats and slander?

I didn't say that was vague. I said that "harm" is. "Harm" is as bad as "suffering." If you go to the current antinatalist thread, you can find someone who has a moral problem with "suffering" even when the person who is "suffering" has absolutely no issues with the states in question. For example, normal hunger is classified as suffering, even when someone has no negative assessment of being hungry so that they get off the couch and open the refrigerator to get something to eat.

And where's the vague harm in those? They're clearly malicious.

They're clearly malicious. — Shamshir

You mean re intent? Someone could say any utterance with any conceivable intent.

Go ahead and threaten me with loving intent.

It's not that I don't use that word. I do not believe that my preferences are correct just because I have them. You're so far up your own derriere that you can't comprehend how that could be the case, though, I suppose. — Terrapin Station

You do, though. I'm not reaching that conclusion from the rationalisations you're coming out with. You're like the fox in Aesop's fable who says, "I wasn't hungry anyway". We shouldn't believe what the fox says, and we shouldn't believe what you say.

Not in the slightest. — Terrapin Station

You don't think that free speech absolutism is right? Could've fooled me. Why are we arguing over it then?

As if meaning were the same as the observable aspect of word usage. — Terrapin Station

How dare you suggest that my mother is a lady of the night!? That's what that means. I demand that you retract that statement and apologise.

Go ahead and threaten me with loving intent. — Shamshir

Any random threat could be an example.

You do, though. I'm not reaching that conclusion from the rationalisations you're coming out with. — S

I have no problem accepting that you don't believe me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That should have been clear from the post you're responding to. I don't expect you to believe it, because it's too far beyond the scope of what you can imagine.

You don't think that free speech absolutism is right? Could've fooled me. Why are we arguing over it then? — S

It's my preference. It's not correct. Why are we arguing over it? People like to argue. At first, Wittgenstein thought maybe I wasn't considering "difficult cases." So he presented one. I clarified my view in the context of such difficult cases. He brought up "cause and effect." I stated my view about causality in this context, and then people wanted to argue about causality. I made it clear that what I care about in this regard is force, but folks wanted to keep arguing.

Presumably someone like you wants to argue about it because you're not comfortable with people being too different from yourself and what you consider to be the norm.

I don't feel very loved when I'm threatened, so no - it couldn't.

But go ahead, if you have an example, present it.

How absurd do things have to get until we begin to think, "Hold on a minute, if this counts as philosophy, maybe I should find another hobby". Or is philosophy really all about someone saying ludicrous things, whilst others point out funny logical consequences, and have a good old laugh?

Wait, I think I know the answer. Terrapinism does count as philosophy, although it's bad philosophy and good entertainment.

I don't feel very loved when I'm threatened, so no - it couldn't. — Shamshir

You don't see the difference between someone's intent, someone's action, and your reaction?

How absurd do things have to get until we begin to think, "Hold on a minute, if this counts as philosophy, maybe I should find another hobby". Or is philosophy really all about someone saying ludicrous things, whilst others point out funny logical consequences, and have a good old laugh? — S

Bertrand Russell once said, "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to not seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.”

It's not correct. — Terrapin Station

Ah, you conceded. About time!

Ah, you conceded. About time! — S

Well, don't forget that I'd add that it's not incorrect, either. Correct/incorrect are a category error for this stuff.

I don't see how loving intent produces a threat, because it'll poke your eyes out, but threats are produced by threatening intent.

Well, don't forget that I'd add that it's not incorrect, either. Correct/incorrect are a category error for this stuff. — Terrapin Station

But that's like saying that elevators don't go up or down, because up and down are a category error for that stuff. If there's no up or down in relation to elevators in a sense that I'm making up and choosing to go by in order to reach that conclusion, then there's no up or down in relation to elevators. Any objections to that? If so, then you'll understand my objection to you on this topic.

Also, it's really funny that you consider it a category error that people can be right and wrong about matters like this, yet you see nothing wrong with asking a question like, "Where is trigonometry located?".

I don't see how loving intent produces a threat, — Shamshir

It would simply be a case of someone thinking something different than what they're saying. There are a number of different ways to do that, including saying something facetiously, but you can just simply do it to do it, too.

But that's like saying that elevators don't go up or down, — S

No, it's not, because that wouldn't be a category error.

Why ever say 'I love you' when 'Kill yourself' with loving intent works the same, is that it?

No, it's not, because that wouldn't be a category error. — Terrapin Station

But I'm using the same kind of justification as you are, so what's the problem? It's a category error, and it's a category error because the way that I'm interpreting it leads to that conclusion.

Why ever say 'I love you' when 'Kill yourself' with loving intent works the same, is that it? — Shamshir

Again, intent, what's expressed, and how it's taken are not the same things.

But I'm using the same kind of justification as you are, — S

The justification I'm using is that "correct/incorrect" have a normative connotation, but commonality or consensus do not make normatives obtain. Is that the same justification you're using?