Are you not capable of even learning simple things that people say? (That is, learning and remembering that they said them?)Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:51 amPoint is you are imposing your off tangent views on the OP where you are merely relying on the secondary interpretation of Gewirth's from Stilley's thesis.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:10 pmI'm trying to get us to discuss Gewirth's argument in some detail, but can't even begin to get that task off the ground.
Skepdick is trying to entertain himself via trolling.
You should read Gewirth's paper to understand [not necessary agree] his point thoroughly so you don't have to wonder whether Gewirth stated X and P are the same or not.
I have repeatedly explained what is Gewirth's position on that matter, but it seem you are blind to it and dogmatically stuck to your off tangent position.
Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Sure, present the argument where the extension of X and P would be the same.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:05 amIt would work like any other modality/contextually.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:16 pm It's not clear to me how the argument would work if X and P can't have the same extension.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Are you still raping kids?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:53 pm Are you not capable of even learning simple things that people say? (That is, learning and remembering that they said them?)
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
It's the same argument. With modality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:03 pm Sure, present the argument where the extension of X and P would be the same.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Yeah, but present it in full.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:38 pmIt's the same argument. With modality.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:03 pm Sure, present the argument where the extension of X and P would be the same.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Are you incapable?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Looks like you are wrong.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:55 pm Yes. I'm incapable. That's why I had written that it's not clear to me how it would work in that case.
So now you'll present it in full I'm sure.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Gee I never would have guessed that you'd not actually present the argument in full.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:56 pmLooks like you are wrong.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:55 pm Yes. I'm incapable. That's why I had written that it's not clear to me how it would work in that case.
So now you'll present it in full I'm sure.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Indeed. You are a shit scientist. Even worse at sarcasm.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:57 pm Gee I never would have guessed that you'd not actually present the argument in full.
Such revelation: the guy who doesn't make claims/rejects argumentation as valid mode of communication didn't present an argument.
Oh no!
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Yeah, it couldn't be more clear that you reject argumentation.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:59 pmIndeed. You are a shit scientist. Even worse at sarcasm.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:57 pm Gee I never would have guessed that you'd not actually present the argument in full.
Such revelation: the guy who doesn't make claims/rejects argumentation as valid mode of communication didn't present an argument.
Oh no!