Re: uwot
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:18 pm
Skepdick you buffoon, you are proud of it:
How very liberating. Skepdick, you are free to believe that because you know where the CAPS LOCK is you are communicating successfully.
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Skepdick you buffoon, you are proud of it:
How very liberating. Skepdick, you are free to believe that because you know where the CAPS LOCK is you are communicating successfully.
"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pmI would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:58 amNope!Well, actual messy human morality allowed that, I don't own it, I just noticed it. My morality doesn't allow me to kill or enslave.
Yours allows you to have sex with your own dead grandma just as soon as she's dead though and then to make her dog lick your genitals clean afterwards, becasue you have no ceiling for that. So your point isn't looking impressive.
As I had stated morality is confined to the human species, but there must be moral consideration where it has a interests to human beings.
You fucking your dead grandma and allowing her dog to lick your genitals is potential deadly with diseases. Thus has a negative effect on human beings and the human species.
As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
Holy! Fucking! Shit! Are you acting dumber than you are, or am I giving you too much credit again?uwot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 6:18 pmSkepdick you buffoon, you are proud of it:How very liberating. Skepdick, you are free to believe that because you know where the CAPS LOCK is you are communicating successfully.
As I said, what you are barking about isn't new or difficult.
See, here's what I perceive to be your problem. Well, one of them. You apparently believe that unless I use the same language that you do, I don't understand.
Talking.
Listening. Yes Skepdick, I understand.
Using the same language is not the problem - you are adapting to mine. I am adapting to yours. That's all normal.
Do you? I have evidence against your self-hypothesis.
I can't be bothered going round this with you in 50 fucking stupid threads where you just make all the same mistakes over and over again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:36 am"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pmI would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 5:58 am
Nope!
As I had stated morality is confined to the human species, but there must be moral consideration where it has a interests to human beings.
You fucking your dead grandma and allowing her dog to lick your genitals is potential deadly with diseases. Thus has a negative effect on human beings and the human species.
As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
These perverted acts are wrong in the psychiatric sense and not in the moral sense.
In this case, these perverted people need to be cured within the Framework and System of Psychiatry and Psychology.
Note, schizophrenics and the mentally ills expressed all sorts of perverted behaviors which can be deem to be immoral but knowing they are mentally sick, society do not accuse them of being immoral, e.g. if they run around naked on the street, killed someone, swearing everywhere, committed other violent acts, etc.
It is essential not to associate the above perversions with morality-proper, so that morality-proper is confined to the human species only, to resolve the various issues, dilemmas, drawing of lines where there is a necessity in killing living non-humans for various positive reasons.
You are making noises again with any solid counters to my points.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:04 pmI can't be bothered going round this with you in 50 fucking stupid threads where you just make all the same mistakes over and over again.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 5:36 am"Incestuous necrophilia" and bestiality which you condoned are mentally sick as such are psychiatric problems thus are not moral [as defined] issues.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pm
I would just like to give a moment of appreciation for the fact that you gave moral equivalence to incestuous necrophilia and animal sexual abuse on the one hand, and the five second rule for dropped food on the other.
As before, you have argued yourself to absurdity, there is really no point doing any more of this stupid shit.
These perverted acts are wrong in the psychiatric sense and not in the moral sense.
In this case, these perverted people need to be cured within the Framework and System of Psychiatry and Psychology.
Note, schizophrenics and the mentally ills expressed all sorts of perverted behaviors which can be deem to be immoral but knowing they are mentally sick, society do not accuse them of being immoral, e.g. if they run around naked on the street, killed someone, swearing everywhere, committed other violent acts, etc.
It is essential not to associate the above perversions with morality-proper, so that morality-proper is confined to the human species only, to resolve the various issues, dilemmas, drawing of lines where there is a necessity in killing living non-humans for various positive reasons.
Here's a generic thread that explians why your morality-proper thing is failing now, and doomed to always fail.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29755
You scream:
And I call you a twat. We both elicit exactly the response we expect; ergo we understand each other perfectly.
Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:10 pmThis problem doesn't arise when people discuss what needs DOING. Because we get to verify OR falsify successful communication if we said one thing but ended up doing another. We can SEE that we understood OR misunderstood each other. There is no such feedback loop in language.
Personally, I'd call it behaviourist.
Yeah; how many times have I said so?
I understand you. Twat.
That sounds counter-productive, but I don't expect anything less from a Philosopher.
Well you sound pretty confused. The distinction is right in the name ACTOR and NETWORK.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:17 pm Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.
I'd call it scientific.
Not enough. Especially since I am trying to understand what you mean by "understanding".
I don't. Twat.
That sounds counter-productive, but I don't expect anything less from a Philosopher.
Well you sound pretty confused. The distinction is right in the name ACTOR and NETWORK.uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:17 pm Well, in my field, that sort of approach leads to ideas such as Bruno Latour's Actor-Network Theory. The thing is if you reduce your study to simply observing behaviour, the distinction between person and environment vanishes. It works reasonably well for computers, lab rats and populations, but it tells you nothing about any individual. It’s great for psychopaths because it is a view in which empathy isn’t a factor.
I'd call it scientific.
Not enough. Especially since I am empathically trying to understand what you mean by "understanding".
I don't. Twat.
Double standards: Check.
Snarkiness: Check.
Skepdick, you've already done snarkiness.
Hypocrisy: Check.
ironic.
Woozle effect: Check.
Confirmation bias: Check.
Psychopathy: Check.
It's not the same. You are using it differently to me.
It wasn't snark. I was stating a fact.
Why did you have to check? I keep telling you that I am a hypocrite and it still surprises you.
The irony in accusing an ironist for lacking irony is ironic.
My understanding of the word in the title is based on the concept of an ACTOR and NETWORKS. Which is grounded in computer science... which is grounded in constructive mathematics. Which is the synthesis of distributed systems... which is my area of expertise.Broadly speaking, ANT is a constructivist approach in that it avoids essentialist explanations of events or innovations (i.e. ANT explains a successful theory by understanding the combinations and interactions of elements that make it successful, rather than saying it is true and the others are false).
And why does that surprise you given that you know I am a constructivist/ironist?
Of course I am doing all of that! But I am doing more than that also!
No you fucking psychopath.uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:42 pm Confirmation bias: Check.
Having misunderstood ANT twice already, you now believe you must be right.Psychopathy: Check.
Empathy comes in understanding the feeling. You see, I can understand your petty, bloody-minded snarkiness, not because I can observe it, but because I can feel it too. If that is the only common ground you wish to establish, that's fine by me, and fuck you too.
You got the above accusation EXACTLY backwards! I am a linguist. Speak to me in whatever language - I'll synchronise my language to yours (ala Hawthorne effect!)
Then how the fuck do you know you that you understand me, anybody or anything? What signals "understanding" to you if not a feeling, or an intuition?
See!!! It's you - it's not me!
Not at all. I say x fully expecting you to respond y. Whaddya know? You get the message and respond y. Works nearly every time. Granted you surprise me sometimes; not much though.
Someone who doesn't get irony calling themselves an "ironist". Priceless
Well, the important thing is you are a twat.