Skepick's and tillingborn's mental mastication thread.

[tillingborn]

And now you're whining that I'm not being charitable.

Correct. That I can does not mean that I want to; or that I will.

You can whine, you clearly want to and you do. And your 'Why Daddy why?' schtick should have stopped entertaining you before puberty.

[Skepdick]

you clearly want to and you do

That is an uncharitable interpretation.

[Skepdick]

And now you're whining that I'm not being charitable.

Correct. That I can does not mean that I want to; or that I will.

You can whine, you clearly want to and you do. And your 'Why Daddy why?' schtick should have stopped entertaining you before puberty.

I guess uncharitable people will never believe that I am charitable

[tillingborn]

It's entirely on you to detect and signal when we've crossed over your boundary. Because I am not a mind-reader.

Do you have to be to understand "Fuck off then"?

[Skepdick]

Do you have to be to understand "Fuck off then"?

Performatively, it doesn't seem like you meant it.

Since you are still engaging me, when you have the choice not to.

[FlashDangerpants]

Lol, has the troll of infinite vendettas gone and got himself yet another dance partner?

That boy is such a robo-slut

Whether I am a "troll" or not is entirely determined by your behaviour, not mine.

If you react to me with emotion - then I am a troll (from your PoV). Presumably because my questions have exhausted your vocabulary.
If you react to me with reason - then i am not a troll (from your PoV). Presumably because you have more to say.

Whether you are a thief or not is entirely determined by my behaviour not yours...

it's good job you aren't a policeman. You'd just tell the guy whose house got robbed that it's his own fault for objecting to the absence of his TV, and he needs to adopt a more charitable attitude.

[Skepdick]

Whether you are a thief or not is entirely determined by my behaviour not yours...

it's good job you aren't a policeman. You'd just tell the guy whose house got robbed that it's his own fault for objecting to the absence of his TV, and he needs to adopt a more charitable attitude.

Starwman.

It's not the polices' job to assert blame/fault or determine whether we are dealing with robbery or insurance fraud.

It's the police's job to take reports and gather evidence and to remain entirely unbiased on the matter.

Good thing that I am a policeman, so I know these things better than an idiot-Philosopher.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whether you are a thief or not is entirely determined by my behaviour not yours...

it's good job you aren't a policeman. You'd just tell the guy whose house got robbed that it's his own fault for objecting to the absence of his TV, and he needs to adopt a more charitable attitude.

Starwman.

It's not the polices' job to assert blame/fault or determine whether we are dealing with robbery or insurance fraud.

It's the police's job to take reports and gather evidence and to remain entirely unbiased on the matter.

Good thing that I am a policeman, so I know these things better than an idiot-Philosopher.

Whether you are police or not must be determined by my behaviour not yours.

[Skepdick]

Whether you are police or not must be determined by my behaviour not yours.

It is.

If you break any laws in my presence then I am police.

If you don't - then I am not. I am just some average guy who does policing occasionally.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whether you are police or not must be determined by my behaviour not yours.

It is.

If you break any laws in my presence then I am police.

If you don't - then I am not. I am just some average guy who does policing occasionally.

The averageness is determined by your behaviour.
Oh, wait, no, it's determined by everyone else's behaviour.
Actually you have no causal role or input into what you are at all if you choose not to have one.
Nope, wait, that would be a choice as a cause.
Well, we've ended up with quite a strange version of behaviourism here.

[Skepdick]

The averageness is determined by your behaviour.
Oh, wait, no, it's determined by everyone else's behaviour.
Actually you have no causal role or input into what you are at all if you choose not to have one.
Nope, wait, that would be a choice as a cause.
Well, we've ended up with quite a strange version of behaviourism here.

And you can totally present your argument re: morality being only fashion to the magistrate.
I am sure they understand how to play the language games with you.

My job (as a policeman) is only to arrange the debate.

P.S Poor Philosophicus Retardicus. Doesn't seem to understand the linguistic trade-off between completeness and consistency.

[FlashDangerpants]

The averageness is determined by your behaviour.
Oh, wait, no, it's determined by everyone else's behaviour.
Actually you have no causal role or input into what you are at all if you choose not to have one.
Nope, wait, that would be a choice as a cause.
Well, we've ended up with quite a strange version of behaviourism here.

And you can totally present your argument re: morality being only fashion to the magistrate.

That one comes to us from the guy who is always begging for charity and whining about strawmen.

[Skepdick]

The averageness is determined by your behaviour.
Oh, wait, no, it's determined by everyone else's behaviour.
Actually you have no causal role or input into what you are at all if you choose not to have one.
Nope, wait, that would be a choice as a cause.
Well, we've ended up with quite a strange version of behaviourism here.

And you can totally present your argument re: morality being only fashion to the magistrate.

That one comes to us from the guy who is always begging for charity and whining about strawmen.

And this objection comes from a guy who calls himself a moral anti-realist and compared morality to choosing pant colors.

I am being charitable. Apparently you believe everything you say, and your words aren't just a performance.

[FlashDangerpants]

And you can totally present your argument re: morality being only fashion to the magistrate.

That one comes to us from the guy who is always begging for charity and whining about strawmen.

And this objection comes from a guy who calls himself a moral anti-realist and compared morality to choosing pant colors.

I am being charitable. Apparently you believe everything you say, and your words aren't just a performance.

I simply noted that a claim to have derived moral ought from is, on the basis of some unquantified claim that oughts just exist in some way should apply to non moral oughts on the exact same basis, and thus should have similar consequence for knowledge derived thereby.

It seems I don't need any lectures on charitable interpretation, or honesty for that matter, from you.

This has become boring, I'm handing you back to tillingborn.

[Skepdick]

I simply noted that a claim to have derived moral ought from is, on the basis of some unquantified claim that oughts just exist in some way should apply to non moral oughts on the exact same basis, and thus should have similar consequence for knowledge derived thereby.

It's derived the same way as all knowledge - measurement. Seeming as you insist that beliefs are non-performative, then knowledge (a form of belief) cannot have any consequences either.

Morality isn't about measurements. Anybody can and does measure however they please.

It's about arriving at standards of measurement. Scientists do it by charitable consensus. How do you do it?

It seems I don't need any lectures on charitable interpretation, or honesty for that matter, from you.

I can't convince an uncharitable person of my charity...

Free will's a bitch!