ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

Yep. That's what the guy thinks.

You are funny.

So let me get this straight. You think that the only place, in the whole wide universe for you to obtain the information that you seek is in MY head?
Even though I am telling you that the "no harm" principle predates me by 2500 years, can be observed across different civilisations, and is adhered to by just about every ethics-practitioner alive, and serves as an arbiter in policy-making at all of our social institutions?

Is that really what you think?

Maybe you aren't acting, in which case I should really pity your disability.

In so far as your intent here is truly informing yourself, Google really is your best choice. In so far as you want to play dumb Philosophical language games surely in all this time doing Philosophy you've figured out language/meaning can't be grounded? It's such a well-known problem it even has a name .

Since you and I both know this, what exactly is the purpose of your Sophistry?

[Immanuel Can]

Yep. That's what the guy thinks.

You are funny.

So let me get this straight. You think that the only place, in the whole wide universe for you to obtain the information that you seek is in MY head?

Not at all.

But it's the only place I can get your definition of "harm."

[Skepdick]

But it's the only place I can get your definition of "harm."

And your head is the only place I can get your definition of "definition".

So when you define "define", I'll define "harm".

Do you really, really not understand that language is broken like that? Like, is this new to you?

Language is used between humans to reach consensus on a course of action. It's a communication tool, not a definition tool. At what point do you recognise this and stop trying to shove a round peg in a square hole? Another 5000 years of philosophy? 50000?

[Immanuel Can]

But it's the only place I can get your definition of "harm."

And your head is the only place I can get your definition of "definition".

So when you define "define", I'll define "harm".

And yet...you were the one who said "Do no harm" was your principle. And I said nothing about what my principle was. Nothing I said depended on a definition, of "definition" or any other word.

But what you said most decidedly did.

[Skepdick]

And yet...you were the one who said "Do no harm" was your principle.

Indeed.

And I said nothing about what my principle was.

You are holding me accountable to your principles as we speak.

Nothing I said depended on a definition, of "definition" or any other word.

Special pleading. Why do the words I say require definition, but the words you say don't?

Absent a clear definition of "harm," the injunction, "Do no harm" doesn't convey very much.

Absent a "clear definition" of "clear definition" any request for a "clear definition" is vague and ambiguous.

What is the answer to life, the universe and everything? 42!

[Immanuel Can]

Why do the words I say require definition, but the words you say don't?

Because you claimed that "Do no harm" had meaning. I didn't claim to advance any principle at all.

[Skepdick]

Because you claimed that "Do no harm" had meaning.

Of course it has meaning. Do you think my words are meaningless to me?

I didn't claim to advance any principle at all.

I didn't claim you claimed that.

I am merely pointing out that you are holding me accountable to a higher standard that you hold yourself.

So when you give me a clear definition of "clear definition" we can move forward.

[Immanuel Can]

Because you claimed that "Do no harm" had meaning.

Of course it has meaning. Do you think my words are meaningless to me?

I'm beginning to think that's quite possible.

I am merely pointing out that you are holding me accountable to a higher standard that you hold yourself.

Had I advanced a claim of a principle, I would defend it. Consequently, if you are a rational person, I would expect you to defend your claim.

[Skepdick]

I'm beginning to think that's quite possible.

So my words are meaningless to me, but your words aren't meaningless to you?

How many double-standards do you have in your back pocket?

Had I advanced a claim of a principle, I would defend it.

I don't need to defend my principle. It defends itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

Consequently, if you are a rational person, I would expect you to defend your claim.

Is that your definition of rationality? Do you have any other tricks up your sleeve other than guilt to get me to do your bidding?

Same applies. Show me that you aren't wasting my time/setting me up for failure.

Demonstrate that you can give a clear definition of "clear definition" - show me that you can live up to your own principle.

Then we can talk.

[Immanuel Can]

Had I advanced a claim of a principle, I would defend it.

I don't need to defend my principle. It defends itself.

Apparently not.

What's evident is that people can question it, as I do, and you are unable to defend it.

[Skepdick]

What's evident is that people can question it, as I do, and you are unable to defend it.

Why can you question my principle, but I can't question the reasonableness of your request?

Why do I have to defend my "vague" principle, but you don't have to defend your "vague" question?

I repeat myself:

Demonstrate that you can give a clear definition of "clear definition" - show me that your haven't set me up for failure (intentionally or otherwise).

[Immanuel Can]

What's evident is that people can question it, as I do, and you are unable to defend it.

Why can you question my principle, but I can't question the reasonableness of your request?

Hey, it was your proposed "principle." I didn't float it. If you think it's indefensible, don't defend it. And we then agree...it was indefensible.

[Skepdick]

Hey, it was your proposed "principle." I didn't float it. If you think it's indefensible, don't defend it. And we then agree...it was indefensible.

WE who ?

My principle may be defensible, or it may not be defensible (2500+ years of evidence is statistically significant to some, if not to you), but you seem to be working double overtime in avoiding laying down some goal posts.

So one more time: Until you can give a clear definition of "clear definition" - until you can set a target for which I can aim at, it should be pretty clear to anybody watching that you are trying to waste my time.

[henry quirk]

Until you can give a clear definition of "clear definition" - until you can set a target for which I can aim at, it should be pretty clear to anybody watching that you are trying to waste my time.

No, what's clear is you're wrigglin' like a worm. The language is slippery/meaningless/whatever I say it is trick is what you pull every time you run out of rope.

And: why are you lyin' to Gary? Is lyin' a kind of harm?

[Skepdick]

No, what's clear is you're wrigglin' like a worm. The language is slippery/meaningless/whatever I say it is trick is what you pull every time you run out of rope

Harry (if misgendering is OK, I guess mis-naming works too) , you are a fool! Are you in the habit of playing games you know you can't win? Do you like gambling against the house?

Unless IC puts forward criteria, unless he sets the bar for what a "clear definition" is, every word I utter in "defining" harm is the very rope you are going to hang me with. That's how Philosophy works - it is ALWAYS about semantics.

And the reason you can hang me with my own words is BECAUSE LANGUAGE IS BROKEN.

That you haven't figured this out yet is truly, truly shameful for somebody your age.