Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 4:17 am
You are too pedantic, that is more disgusting.
Great, you admit you are being disgusting to some degree.
We are not scientists doing any biological experiments here, rather this is a philosophical discussion.
Again, you are going against the language used in the FSK, while appealing to its authority. The language is part of the FSK. I am asking not for some absolute correct use of the words. I am pointing out that inside your model, which my criticism comes from, each FSK has a framework and one that includes langauge. Instead of respecting that framework, when appealing to a specific FSK, you use language in a way that FSK would not. If you were simply presenting this as your view and your way of using language, that would be different.
I actually took your FSK model seriously and noticed that you were not respecting it yourself.
When I do this you accuse me of requiring an absolute definition of words. No. I am actually taking your position seriously about FSKs.
It is not an issue if the contexts is explained.
It is an imperative drive & need, oughtness, critical to breathe is not an issue if the context is given, even within the scientific-biology FSRC [discussed in a philosophy forum] with a provision of the principle of charity.
Manipulative bullshit.
You list three ways of describing breathing as if I have criticized those three, when I have only criticized one. Drive OBVIOUSLY fits the human physiology FSK and I would have no problem with it.
If it is merely a drive or a need, that does not convey the criticalness and imperativeness that 'oughtness' does.
This is simply wrong. Do you think scientists when they describe breathing using the language they do, somehow are not conveying the criticalness of breathing. This is disingenuous. It is sad that you are not aware of how embarrassing your behavior is here.
Regardless of the terms, what counts is whether the model is workable or not. Of course, I believe my model will work since similar lower quality models are already put into practice.
So, you are presenting a low quality model.
Fine. If you are calling your model a low quality model, I am simply agreeing. I pointed out two areas of low quality. You keep disagreeing, but if you are calling it low quality, peachy. I agree.
If you ignorantly stop your son's breathing merely for 5 minutes, you will experience and understand why 'oughtness' is the most relevant word in that circumstances.
Seriously, you just keep getting more infantile. Obviously I know that breathing is necessary for life. This response is as if I have asserted that breathing is not necessary for life. Pathetic. And in defense of using oughtness in relation to the biological FSK, you bring up a personal situation where one does not think in the scientific FSK models and framework, while of course knowing that breathing is necessary. Really crass and cheap to use the implicit accusation that my son would be in harm's way if I disagree with your use of oughtness in relation to the biological science FSK. Perhaps the dumbest thing I've seen in PN and you think I'm being pedantic, lol.
Agree with my word use or your son is in danger!!!
You're being a moron. You're not a moron. But because of ego, you'll become one at the drop of a hat.
In a philosophical context where we are talking about the frameworks of specific sciences, obviously the language matters. The idiocy of saying that it doesn't while hanging onto a word you said, earlier, could be replaced by drive to breathe. It is you who have an absolute view of the words, and don't care about the context - in this case the particular FSK.
The pedantic accusation is also moronic. It means that whether I am correct or not doesn't matter, it's that my focus is on unimportant details.
But that detail is obviously very important to you. So, you don't really understand how to use pedantic. Your choice of 'oughtness' matters to both of us. We disagree over it's use. So, the issue of being pedantic is just a distraction.
Disgusting. I'll ignore you for a while, which I am sure will only make you happy. Enjoy your imperviousness to learning from others.