...You have to keep reading. Lol, you just skipped over the majority of it that does talk about your diagnosis. I pretty obviously moved on in the next paragraph.

Edited: ah, I see. Perhaps I could have better separated my points. Ill go fix it.

K well this is exactly what needs to be parsed with more than a flip “facepalm” S. i get why that makes you wanna bang your head against a wall, but you two should discuss that distinction (relative and subjective), its integral to how you are both thinking about this. — DingoJones

A simple, non-controversial example is inertial frames of reference. They're relative, but not subjective.

That is one sense of “relative”, but I doubt its what S has in mind when he uses the term.
Let me posit this: you guys are using the same words but in different categories, and this is the source of the talking past each other. Could that be it?

...You have to keep reading. Lol, you just skipped over the majority of it that does talk about your diagnosis. I pretty obviously moved on in the next paragraph. — DingoJones

Yeah, well that's hard to do when you piss me off with that first line.

Anyway, it's not a major problem that I'm appealing to something which he doesn't acknowledge, because whether I'm right is more important than whether he acknowledges what I'm saying. And I'm right about this. If you disagree, then explain why. And don't stray off point this time. The question is whether or not I'm right that he doesn't care, and doesn't see a problem, with things that he should care about, and things for which it is a problem not to care about. Please don't make this about something else, like my temperament, or communication between me and him, or something of that nature, because it's trying my already thin patience. An example would be the one from earlier, that he doesn't care enough about the situation where there's a person who can't walk down the street because people are throwing rocks off of a building. He doesn't see it as a problem. But he should care more, and it is a problem. Do you agree with that or disagree with it?

That is one sense of “relative”, but I doubt its what S has in mind when he uses the term.
Let me posit this: you guys are using the same words but in different categories, and this is the source of the talking past each other. Could that be it? — DingoJones

I don't know what another sense would be, really. Relative simply refers to the idea of being dependent on particular relations (while not obtaining for other relations; well, and we could also say the "background idea" of nothing obtaining relation-free). I'm not familiar with an alternate conventional sense of the term.

An example would be the one from earlier, that he doesn't care enough about the situation where there's a person who can't walk down the street because people are throwing rocks off of a building. He doesn't see it as a problem. — S

Not even what I said.

He has just completely got the wrong end of the stick, and that's all there is to it, and it's really annoying that I should have to explain myself because of his misunderstanding. He has somehow got it into his head firstly that I was making a point which entailed objectivism, when it didn't, that was a non sequitur; and secondly, that I was suggesting that because it's relativist, it's therefore subjective, which is another non sequitur that is his own misunderstanding, not anything that I said or suggested.

The only point that I was bloody making was that my subjectivism (not objectivism, because I'm not a bloody objectivist) can easily be explained through relativism in that what one should or shouldn't care about, in accordance with my position on the matter, is relative to a subject or subjects or their subjective views, even if in this particular case that doesn't include him or his particular subjective view.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I don't see how spending my time unmuddling his damn muddle is better than just giving a facepalm and saving myself the aggravation. Thanks for nothing.

Not even what I said. — Terrapin Station

I didn't bloody say that it's what you said, did I? I was talking about you, not trying to represent your position from your own perspective.

can easily be explained through relativism in that what one should or shouldn't care about is relative to a subject or subjects or their subjective views, even if in this particular case that doesn't include him or his particular subjective view. — S

What would determine who it includes?

I was talking about you, not trying to represent your position from your own perspective. — S

Sorry, I didn't catch that you were trying to represent my position with a claim that I'd explicitly disagree with.

Sorry, I didn't catch that you were trying to represent my position with a claim that I'd explicitly disagree with. — Terrapin Station

Well it's hardly surprising that you wouldn't agree with it. There aren't many people who would readily agree with a description of their ethical stance which suggests callousness and an inability to recognise an ethical dilemma, but obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't true.

Its a major problem in actually understanding his position, and a major problem in communicating.
Tough shit if you don’t want me to talk about communicating, thats what you arent doing well and its why this is frustrating to you. We’ve been over this before, if you ignore me ill stop responding and you can carry on as you see fit. It does nothing for you to bitch about where i choose to focus and warn me about your thinning patience. Yawn.
Im not concerned with your “diagnosis”, im concerned about the discussion, and what I can learn from it. Thats why I chimed in, not because I care to add to the pages and pages of argumentation. I already said your view is consistent, but so is Terras so you have to go deeper and see where the divergence arises in each of your operating principals. Then, you will be able to move forward rather than the circles youve been running in.
My goal isnt to refute either of you, its to help you two understand the other so that you are actually engaging each other rather than talking past each other. If that doesnt interest you then tell me to fuck off and I will.

I would, but I'm pushing my luck as it is.

Well it's hardly surprising that you wouldn't agree with it. There aren't many people who would readily agree with a description of their ethical stance which suggests callousness or inability to recognise a problem, but obviously that doesn't mean that it isn't true. — S

Okay, but explicitly means that I explicitly said the opposite of what you're saying.

Okay, but explicitly means that I explicitly said the opposite of what you're saying. — Terrapin Station

So? Actions speak louder than words. If you cared, or at least cared enough, then that would be reflected in your policy proposals regarding the law. That's what I'm basing my judgement on, and I thought that I'd already made that clear. I don't trust what you say, especially as you have a record of coming out with unbelievable and contradictory things.

Then, you will be able to move forward rather than the circles youve been running in. — DingoJones

I'm skeptical that that's really possible. S thinks there are certain moral stances that need to be adhered to, via some combo of reason, consensus and the mere fact that it's his view, and (a) I don't agree with that, and (b) I don't hold the moral views that he believes need to be adhered to.

I don't know how we'd be able to reconcile anything.

If you cared, or at least cared enough, then that would be reflected in your policy proposals regarding the law — S

But it explicitly was.

you have a record of coming out with unbelievable and contradictory things. — S

And earlier you were criticizing my consistency.

What would you give as an example of some P that I've both asserted and denied?

But it explicitly was. — Terrapin Station

No, you only think that it does, but you can't distinguish reality from your own wishful thinking. You obviously see your policy proposal as faultless and as covering all grounds, instead of the crackpottery that it is. You're just like that creativesoul guy banging on about "thought/belief" as though he's just come up with something brilliant, and can't understand why others don't see it like he does. I very much doubt that you'd be taken seriously by professional legislators anywhere in the real world.

Well this was why I was trying to explain my “objective standard” to you. I think it might have been useful to that end. I think it is what S is operating under, even if he doesnt call it that. You didnt respond to my last point on that so I assumed you werent interested. So, im trying something else now.

I would, but I'm pushing my luck as it is. — S

Not sure what you mean. Pushing your luck with what?

Not sure what you mean. Pushing your luck with what? — DingoJones

That was a reference to your very last line. Pushing my luck with my use of inflammatory language.

And earlier you were criticizing my consistency.

What would you give as an example of some P that I've both asserted and denied? — Terrapin Station

Performative contradiction. You're usually very consistent in what you say, and at a heavy cost.

You obviously see your policy proposal as faultless and as covering all grounds, — S

I wouldn't say that. It's just that it covers situations such as the rock-throwing scenario.

I wouldn't say that. It's just that it covers situations such as the rock-throwing scenario. — Terrapin Station

I believe that you believe that. And creativesoul believes that he's onto something with his "thought/belief" stuff. But you're both going off-the-wall and trying to reinvent the wheel.

You didnt respond to my last point on that so I assumed you werent interested. — DingoJones

That wasn't the case. I was interested. I must have not seen it. Sometimes I miss posts addressed to me out of my own carelessness, especially if I'm busy at the time. But sometimes I don't get notifications, too. I don't know why. And it especially happens with some posters. Most notifications from Isaac don't show up in my mentions "feed" for some reason, for example.

That was a reference to your very last line. Pushing my luck with my use of inflammatory language. — S

Do you get warnings? Ive went off a few times and no ones said anything, just curious.

Performative contradiction. — S

What would be an example of a performative contradiction of mine, then?

This is my last post on it:

Im not talking about whether the standard itself is correct, Im talking about whats correct according to the standard.
The “inch” is not under a rock somewhere, its something we make up and agree to reference when measuring things. Right?

If you dont feel like looking back, I suggest you just summate a your take so far and we can just pick it up.

Do you get warnings? Ive went off a few times and no ones said anything, just curious. — DingoJones

Yes. Just last week. Some jerks complained about me being a jerk.

Funny, I feel like Ive been way more offensive than you and no ones said anything. Must be frequency based. Lol