Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23313233
Results 321 to 327 of 327

Thread: Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

  1. Top | #321
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    It's very odd that we are wrangling over this. I distinctly remember hypothetical scenarios (one for example about there being no one left in the universe except one psychopath on another planet, who then dies if I recall correctly) being constructed in previous discussions on other threads which involved trying to show that moral judgements were independent of thoughts and feelings (judgements, whatever) about them, effectively by eliminating all entities who could think, feel or make judgements. It appears there was common understanding about the issue then.
    That did not seem to be the case. I presented several scenarios and arguments, but you kept misrepresenting the exchange and particularly my views (as B20 said, that's "beyond exasperating", and I've taken a lot more of that from you then he did), and still failing to see the point in the analogies and several of the scenarios, speaking about something you called 'independence' or 'independent', even after I challenged your usage of the term - but you did not seem to understand the challenge, and instead kept accusing me a number of bad things.
    The situations you concocted literally did not show independence. That you concocted them to try to eliminate 'all entities capable of making a judgement' shows that at that time you essentially accepted and used the definition I am now using. And now you don't. You repeatedly move the goalposts in a variety of ways.
    I would just invite readers to read our exchanges in the following threads:



    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-Contradiction


    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...77-FORGIVENESS
    https://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-RETRIBUTIVISM

  2. Top | #322
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    400
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,332
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The AntiChris View Post
    You're missing the point.

    I don't think anyone has claimed that 'mind independent' can only mean one thing. I certainly haven't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I do not know where you get that that sense is the most common one. In my experience, none is predominant (i.e., above 50% usage), and it's not clear to me which one is the first minority so to speak.
    I can't possibly comment on what you claim is your experience, but I can tell you that on this discussion board, the only occasions, that I can find, on which mind independence (or very similar terms) has arisen in Morals and Principles , "independent of opinions or feelings" has been the intended meaning of the term every time and you have been involved in all of them.
    That has not been my experience in that context,
    Sorry, I don't understand this response.

  3. Top | #323
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    ...ruby sparks does not mean the same as you do by 'mind-independent'.
    How do you know that? And even if it were true, is it anything more than time-wasting hair-splitting? Maybe you find my meaning 'problematical'. Is that any more than time-wasting hair-splitting?

    In any case, your standards are a moving target, so I wouldn't necessarily know which ones you are using at any one time.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  4. Top | #324
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    It does not depend at all on my evaluative attitudes, or on the attitudes of any other observer in her capacity as observer.
    Of course it doesn't depend on your evaluative attitudes or those of an observer. I never said it did!

    All that it means is that it depends on someone's judgement (thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc) about it.

    I actually am finding it hard to believe you now don't understand this not unusual meaning.
    Great!
    Suppose hypothetically that Street's constructivism as described it true (her actual position is more complex, but I'll go with that one). Then morality is mind-dependent, not objective, and so on. Yet, in the usual sense of the words, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, Trump is a good person. Now, if millions of people claim that he is, and millions of people claim that he is not, then millions of people are mistaken.

  5. Top | #325
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Yet, in the usual sense of the words, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, Trump is a good person.
    But there isn't really. And I would quibble about your use of the word 'usual sense' there. In any case, it's not mine.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 03:26 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  6. Top | #326
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,846
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,434
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Yet, in the usual sense of the words, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether, say, Trump is a good person.
    But there isn't really. And I would quibble about your use of the word 'usual sense' there. In any case, it's not mine.
    Well, there is an objective fact of the matter. But what I was saying is that assuming for the sake of the argument that the constructivist view that Street describes is true, then there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Trump is a good person, again in the usual sense of 'objective fact of the matter' (and if you want to quibble, sure, make your case). The point is that going by the definition of 'mind-independent' that you now embrace, a theory that yields morality mind-dependent is still a theory in which there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Trump is a good person.

  7. Top | #327
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,515
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Well, there is an objective fact of the matter.
    You think there is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    But what I was saying is that assuming for the sake of the argument that the constructivist view that Street describes is true, then there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Trump is a good person, again in the usual sense of 'objective fact of the matter' (and if you want to quibble, sure, make your case). The point is that going by the definition of 'mind-independent' that you now embrace, a theory that yields morality mind-dependent is still a theory in which there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Trump is a good person.
    You are talking to me about what I mean, not what Street means or what moral Constructivism entails. If all you are saying is that different meanings or theories can be taken from the same brief definition (by, for example, a moral Constructivist) then sure, that's semantics, theorising and elaboration for you, but it's not necessarily relevant to what I mean, which is not the above.

    Incidentally, I consider the constructivist meaning of objective to be another very weak definition and a low bar. And furthermore, since it involves thinking, it is not even exempt from the definition I am using anyway.
    Last edited by ruby sparks; Today at 08:00 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •