The fault is yours if you proclaim that you are an "F-ist" without accepting everything that goes along with "F-ism" as it is commonly understood. No doubt a tendency to misrepresent oneself goes hand in hand with a tendency to misrepresent others. — Janus

If someone can't understand something as simple as saying, "I don't agree with e," then how is that the first guy's fault? It seems like a severe intelligence deficit for someone to not be able to understand the other guy explicitly saying "I don't agree with e."

you can't justifiably blame others if you misrepresent yourself. — Janus

I think you can blame others when you say "I don't agree with e" and they can't parse it just because you called yourself an F-ist. (I think you can blame them for not being able to learn something that simple, that is.)

I do indeed, — praxis

Cool. I think that most people are in favor of them, too. I just don't know how I'd provide evidence of that to someone who doesn't believe that most people are in favor of them.

Re "Milo," I don't know anything about him. He certainly doesn't have anything to do with me.

I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not in favor of slander and libel laws, or any speech prohibitions whatsoever.

So you don't buy that most people are in favor of slander and libel laws?

Can you support this claim with evidence? — praxis

Would you need evidence of them being in favor of slander and libel prohibitions, for example?

Aside from that, many are in favor of some hate speech and hate crime prohibitions, for example.

I read it. That would be the third different thing with the exact same definition/criterion. Morality. Moral. Immoral.

Three very different things. — creativesoul

Do you understand that I was answering "What is the nature of morality" rather than only "What is morally permissible (contra impermissible)"?

The problem is often that people will apply an inappropriate template to someone because of a label, and it can be difficult to get them to think outside of the template.

In a nutshell, let's say that F-ism is often associated with characteristics a, b, c, d, e

You might consider yourself an F-ist because of b and d, which you consider to be two of the most essential aspects of F-ism.

When you announce that you're an F-ist, though, others might assume--"Ah, you believe a, b, c, d, e"

Meanwhile, you might not agree with e, but now the other person has made the assumption that you believe that e, and it can be almost impossible to get them to think otherwise.

What I mean by materialism/physicalism is that the world is comprised of material in the "stuff" or (the modern scientific) "substance" sense, as well as relations and processes (dynamic relations) of stuff/substance.

What would have been be the utility of a large ship on the Amazon?

A fine line between that and an American liberal? — praxis

I don't think so. Liberals want to control all sorts of stuff that I'm not at all in favor of controlling. For example, most liberals are in favor of there being some speech prohibitions.

Because have public police forces and court systems is not enough for society and civilization to function. — Frank Apisa

I wasn't saying that libertarians only have police forces and court systems. I was asking you how we wind up with anarchy when we have public police forces and court systems.

So for example, if rape is against the law and enforced as such, then we don't have an anarchy, right? So how do we go from rape being illegal and enforced as such to rape no longer being illegal under libertarianism?

I would not say that I don't know if there is a refrigerator in my kitchen, because I do know this — Maureen

So apparently you think that some evidence is enough evidence to make an empirical claim. How much evidence and/or what manner of evidence is enough?

It doesn't matter to me. It's simply an issue of whether Janus really cares about "actually being wise." If he does, he'll have to meet objections better than the old "that's sophistry" blowoff, for the sake of his own intellectual integrity. Maybe he doesn't care about "actually being wise" and it's just an ego thing for him, though.

That's strange that you interpreted my post in that way, when I never implied that — Harry Hindu

What's strange is that I'd have to explain to you how to read: S writes x. R responds to S with y. Not every sentence in y is necessarily going to be an interpretation of x by R. R can do many other things in y besides present an interpretation of x.

Let's look again, shall we? — creativesoul

Re "you're not reading what I'm writing, what happened to reading this:

"Did you read 'The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative permissibility. . . ' For example. When I answered what 'moral in kind' is, I was saying what morality is."

You misunderstood my response to "moral in kind" as only being about moral permissibility per se, because it turned out that that's what you had in mind. It's curious that you read my response that way, though, because among other things, it implies that you didn't understand the phrase "relative permissibility." Relative permissibility includes "x is morally permissible* as well as "x is morally impermissible" (as it would include other points on the permissibility continuum, too). "Moral in kind" I read as "the nature of what we call morality," not just limited to moral permissibility contra moral impermissibility, etc. ("etc." for the similar metrics, which I also wasn't attempting to produce an exhaustive list of; it was just a quick list of examples of the relevant sorts of metrics).

I've identified and corrected this misunderstanding at least a handful of times now, but you don't seem to be reading, or at least you don't seem to be comprehending any of this. Maybe you are, maybe you don't really have so much difficulty with reading comprehension, and you're just having some "fun" instead, but I don't know about that. If the idea is to make this place seem that over the top learning-disabled it might be working.

"That's sophistry" isn't an adequate response to the objection.

Seriously, though, if this is that difficult for you, we need to concentrate on tackling stuff like the Cat in the Hat first.

You don't seem to be reading what I'm writing.

Did you read "The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative permissibility. . ." For example. When I answered what "moral in kind" is, I was saying what morality is.

Maybe you don't understand the phrase "relative permissibility"? Relative permissibility includes "permissible" and " impermissible" for example, right?

It's ridiculous that I'm having to explain any of this to you, by the way, because it would indicate a near-imbecilic level of reading comprehension, understanding and reasoning abilities.

None of those "in extremis" examples are factual, true, correct. They're simply opinions that one can have.

If it is <an opinion> about the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question feels is more significant than etiquette, it is a statement reflecting a stance that is moral in kind — creativesoul

Sure. So do you believe that "No moral stance is true or false" is that?

So, being moral is being about the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question feels is more significant than etiquette, and being immoral is not? — creativesoul

The nature of morality is that it's opinions of the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question feels is more significant than etiquette,

S has an opinion that x is permissible. X is thus moral to S.

S has an opinion that x is not permissible. X is thus immoral to S

Why in the world do we have to keep posting the same thing over and over?

You've used the exact same definition for what counts as being moral in kind and what morality is. — creativesoul

Yes. What does "in kind" refer to if not what something is/what its nature is?

In your opinion. — creativesoul

You don't believe that "No moral stance is true or false" is a moral stance, do you?

Yes, obviously. No moral stance is true or false.

I don't understand what you're asking. Morality is opinion-based. There's no reason to repeat the word "moral" (a la "Morality is moral opinion"). You can't be asking me if I think it's opinion-based. How many times do we each need to repeat me saying that the nature of morality is "opinion(s) about the relative permissibility . . . " before you'd know that I'm saying it's opinion-based?

?

(In other words, maybe you could explain the "moving the goalposts" comment?)

Is there anything - on this view - that counts as immoral? — creativesoul

So morality is opinion about the relative permissibility or recommendability or obligatoriness of interpersonal behavior that the person in question feels is more significant than etiquette.

S has an opinion that x is permissible. X is thus moral to S.

S has an opinion that x is not permissible. X is thus immoral to S.

Yes, that's right.

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa

So, for example, libertarians would have governments with public police forces, court systems, etc. How would that lead to an anarchy?

That sounds like an oxymoron. Could you maybe outline that a bit? — praxis

Basically I'm a socialist on economic and social welfare issues, I'm a libertarian otherwise.

Wait, so which sea was that?

In early navigation in the old world ships very often hugged (without being too close) the coasts due to its easier to navigate that way and there is less weather closer to shore. In ancient times traveling by sea or boat was almost always faster than traveling by land. I think you are wrong on this post. — christian2017

Right. So what seas were North American natives going to traverse, and to where/for what purpose?

Isn't this why science has something called experimentation and peer review - to eliminate the subjective skewing of what just one individual claims to be the truth. — Harry Hindu

If so, it's a completely futile effort. It's impossible to eliminate the need for someone to make a judgment about the relationship between propositions and other things.

You could have lots of someones making judgments, but that doesn't give any more weight to anything. Believing that it does is called the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Exactly. Truth, as a property of propositions, is a property of coherence and consistency — Harry Hindu

Which requires that someone assign meanings, assess those meanings, assess the relationships of those meanings to other things, etc.

Again, no one is saying anything about how universal or common anything is when they talk about objective/subjective. Those terms don't refer to commonality/universality versus their opposites.

If you're not talking about anything named God then what the hell are we even talking about?

"Let's start a thread using this word, but then say that we're not talking about anything using this word." How stupid is that?

I am not talking about anyone named God. — Frank Apisa

I said "it." Are you not talking about anything named God?

Which is just another state-of-affairs that we can talk about and would either be true or false based on the relationship of accuracy between the claim and the actual state-of-affairs. — Harry Hindu

"the relationship of accuracy"-- which can only obtain as a judgment that an individual makes about it.

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa

Libertarians set up systems that can't lead to anarchy. At least not without some sort of revolution that would result in an anarchy, but then any political approach could just as well lead to that. Not that an anarchy can be sustained, anyway, but imagining that it could be.

I used to be a "straight U.S.-party-styled Libertarian," and I was for a number of years. I no longer consider myself that. I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. But I understand Libertarianism well. I was very involved with the party formally for a while, to a point where I actually carted Harry Browne around to some media appearances during one of his presidential runs.

C'mon, man. When you look at your desk...there is no evidence that there is life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. What makes you suppose that is evidence that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets? — Frank Apisa

Life on other planets isn't supposed to be omnipresent, is it?

God is supposed to be.

If we're talking about a non-omnipresent God, I'll point out the lack of evidence of it in the locations where we're supposed to find it.

People could try to interpret all of the truth theories as other truth theories instead. I don't think that matters for anything. We can just go with how the person in question thinks about it.

Depends on the truth theory an individual uses. For me, it's some state of affairs, since I use correspondence theory. If someone uses coherence theory, it's going to be the body of other propositions that they assign "T" to. If someone uses consensus theory, it's going to be the body of other propositions that there's a consensus to assign "T" to, etc.