Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?
Moderators: AMod , iMod
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:55 pm
But that in no way amounts to a normative. There is no meaning attached to it, there is nothing prescribing anything to anyone, etc. in those shapes on paper in themselves. They're just marks on a particular sort of material.
This is also incoherent nonsense.
Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.
What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?
(¬ N) ⇒ ???
How would this implication be different if N was "the case"?
N ⇒ ???
Last edited by
Skepdick on Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:12 pm Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:46 pm Skepdick wrote: ↑ Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:50 pm
Why would you want to refer to a world without referrers?
I'm interested in what's the case.
You are confused as hell, mate.
How could you (a referrer) be interested in a referring to a world without referrers?
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Non-sequitur.
How could any referrer be interested in a world without referrers?
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:17 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Lets suppose that there are no such things as normatives. not-N.
What is the logical implication of their absence? What does not-N imply?
You mean if they didn't exist period?
Then there would be no normatives, no one would even think "I ought to x," etc.
Why wouldn't this be obvious?
It would be different than if there were normatives because then there are normatives, people might think, "I ought to x," etc.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:18 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:16 pm Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:15 pm
Because a world independent of referrers is the majority of what's the case.
Non-sequitur.
It wasn't an argument.
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:19 pm
That's also a non-sequitur.
Your responses fail to address your interlocutor's questions.
What would you like for dinner? 67!
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:20 pm Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:19 pm
That's also a non-sequitur.
That also wasn't an argument.
Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.
It's non-sequitur within this interaction/dialogue.
Last edited by
Skepdick on Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Non-sequiturs are not constrained to arguments.
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:22 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.
They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:22 pm Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:21 pm
Yeah, they are. Fallacies are about argumentation.
Non-sequiturs are not only fallacies.
They are also replies that don't follow the previous statement/question.
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.
Your response is mis-matched to my question. It does not follow. Non-sequitur.
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:23 pm
"Following" is a concept in argumentation.
This is not an argument. This is a dialogue.
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Skepdick
Posts: 16038 Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am
Post
by Skepdick Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:26 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548 Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pmLocation: NYC Man
Post
by Terrapin Station Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:27 pm
Skepdick wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:26 pm Terrapin Station wrote: ↑ Mon Mar 15, 2021 2:24 pm
Hence why fallacies, concepts like following, etc. do not apply.
Non-sequitur (in the non-fallacious sense/use of the phrase).
Non-sequitur doesn't make sense outside of that context. Or at least you'd have to present whatever alternate usage you're employing that you feel makes sense.
