Are there .5% or 35 million Active Killers at Present?

[Skepdick]

Sure, you could be entirely competent and just a bullshitter pretending not to know something for effect. Same diff at this point really. Either way, I am describing how this stuff does work and I think I'm doing that accurately.

You are describing it, alright. But how have you determined your description is "accurate"?

Which standards body of "accuracy" are you calibrated/aligned with?

I haven't been given any actual reason to not appeal to the normal way in which our language works to describe colours. If the objective is to answer a question about what colour something is, it seems acceptable to default to the words we use for that task and to use them in the normal way.

Ohhhhhhh. So you don't do the exact same thing when we talk about "murder" and "wrongness" why?

You magically forget how people normally use those words and you go in Philosophical retard mode of "Well what makes is it wrong?" and you pretend that you are asking a fundamentally different question to "Well what makes it red?"

In what way does the answer "The spectrometer reads a wavelength of 577 nanometers" address the question "Why is this red?"
In what way would the answer "The evil-meter reads a sin-level of 577" address the question "What makes murder wrong?"

I also don't see what's so contrarian about just using words in the way that they do work for the normal purposes of articualting things and stuff. Try walking up to some stranger in a blue coat and telling him it's read and demanding that he refute you without using some right/wrong dichotomy or normative semantics, when he tells you to fuck off you can accuse him of being the uncooperative contrarian.

Imagine that!

Try walking up to some stranger and insist that murder is right and demand that he refute you.

[tillingborn]

Physical constants is an oxymoron. You'll have to show me where one finds anything like a "physical numbers" outside of the man-made formal language of Mathematics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _constants

Ohhhh, so now you are pointing me to things measured in meters/second.

That may be so. The point I am making is that outside your computer scientist bubble, almost every other scientist is comfortable with the term 'physical constant'. You think 'physical constant' is an oxymoron; real scientists don't give a fuck what you think.

[Skepdick]

That may be so. The point I am making is that outside your computer scientist bubble, almost every other scientist is comfortable with the term 'physical constant'. You think 'physical constant' is an oxymoron; real scientists don't give a fuck what you think.

Don't be that retard, reaching for the no true scotsman fallacy.

I don't give a fuck either. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that objective knowledge is constructed, not discovered and it's 100% mind-dependent. Fundamentally because minds are computers and all mathematics/physics is computational in nature.

Physical constant is an oxymoron in the traditional sense that non-scientists understand what the word "physical" and "constants" mean - the general population interprets that those constants exist "out there" independent of our minds. They are supposed to be derived (discovered) not defined (postulated/invented) with arbitrarily made-up units.

That the units are arbitrary in no way detracts from it being objective in the way that scientists (not Philosophers) use the term "objective".

Any conception of objectivity which prescribes mind-independence is incoherent. That level of stupid should be forbidden for philosophers. We define everything, how can "objectivity" be independent of that which defined it?!?

[FlashDangerpants]

Sure, you could be entirely competent and just a bullshitter pretending not to know something for effect. Same diff at this point really. Either way, I am describing how this stuff does work and I think I'm doing that accurately.

You are describing it, alright. But how have you determined your description is "accurate"?

Which standards body of "accuracy" are you calibrated/aligned with?

You're talking like a robot not a man again.

I haven't been given any actual reason to not appeal to the normal way in which our language works to describe colours. If the objective is to answer a question about what colour something is, it seems acceptable to default to the words we use for that task and to use them in the normal way.

Ohhhhhhh. So you don't do the exact same thing when we talk about "murder" and "wrongness" why?

You magically forget how people normally use those words and you go in Philosophical retard mode of "Well what makes is it wrong?" and you pretend that you are asking a fundamentally different question to "Well what makes it red?"

Am I (me, not some generic "philosopher" that you don't like) actually using the words wrongness and murder in some exotic way? I told you it's a waste of time trying to prove murder is wrong because that is a tautology wrongful killing is wrong doesn't need experimental proof.

And colours are rather a matter of convention too. Are there really 7 colours in the rainbow?

The question I was mainly asking was, if you think that killing kittens is morally wrong, but Vegetable Ambulance says it is not morally wrong, then if that is a factual question, what is the fact that shows which of you is mistaken?

In what way does the answer "The spectrometer reads a wavelength of 577 nanometers" address the question "Why is this red?"
In what way would the answer "The evil-meter reads a sin-level of 577" address the question "What makes murder wrong?"

One exists because there is actually soething to measure. The other cannot exist because there is not.
There is a well understood causal relationship between human experiences of redness and wavelengths of light.

I also don't see what's so contrarian about just using words in the way that they do work for the normal purposes of articualting things and stuff. Try walking up to some stranger in a blue coat and telling him it's read and demanding that he refute you without using some right/wrong dichotomy or normative semantics, when he tells you to fuck off you can accuse him of being the uncooperative contrarian.

Imagine that!

Try walking up to some stranger and insist that murder is right and demand that he refute you.

I've never once argued that murder isn't wrong. I don't think that Pete, Terrapin or Sculptor has either.

I could mention to the guy that in some places there are killings that we would class as murder here but they would consider quite allowable under local circumstances. And then we would likely agree that those other people would be morally improved by agreeing with us, but that's sort of the most reliable moral constant isn't it, that everybody else would be better people if they shared my views? That's a normal way to think about belief, but an unusual way to be thinking about undemonstable knowledge.

[Skepdick]

You're talking like a robot not a man again.

I am talking like somebody who understands what is necessary for objective measurement.

There's no point to further discussion if you are measuring "accuracy" differently to me.

Am I (me, not some generic "philosopher" that you don't like) actually using the words wrongness and murder in some exotic way? I told you it's a waste of time trying to prove murder is wrong because that is a tautology wrongful killing is wrong doesn't need experimental proof.

A tautology IS a proof in the disciplines of Mathematics and Logic.

If you are demanding "experimental proof" (which is a rather idiosyncratic phrasing from the perspective of somebody who understands the difference between the empirical and the logical realms) then you have to tell us what that means.

What experiment/measurement would satisfy your request?

And colours are rather a matter of convention too. Are there really 7 colours in the rainbow?

Yes, they are made of convention! And conventionally speaking this is objectively red.

That's how the consensus theory of truth works.

The question I was mainly asking was, if you think that killing kittens is morally wrong, but Vegetable Ambulance says it is not morally wrong, then if that is a factual question, what is the fact that shows which of you is mistaken?

And that's precisely the reason I asked you the question...

What "fact" would show that I am mistaken about THIS COLOR BEING BLUE..

And yet any non-idiot in conventional society would agree that I am wrong. Because...?

One exists because there is actually soething to measure.

There is nothing to measure until you define the units.

The other cannot exist because there is not.

This claim carries the strongest burden of proof in human intellectual affairs. A proof of impossibility.

I expect you'll get "bored" right about now.

There is a well understood causal relationship between human experiences of redness and wavelengths of light.

There is? You must be overlooking some of the details here, champ. I just decided that the wavelength that triggers "redness" in you triggers "blueness" in me.

You want to show me your evidence that proves that I am wrong?

I've never once argued that murder isn't wrong. I don't think that Pete, Terrapin or Sculptor has either.

Well, yes. Captain Semantics. You've argued that murder is not OBJECTIVELY wrong.

Which is precisely equivalent to arguing that that this it not OBJECTIVELY red.

You want to bite the bullet now and pick a side?

I could mention to the guy that in some places there are killings that we would class as murder here but they would consider quite allowable under local circumstances.

I could mention that guy which calls this color blue but that's not a social norm in most countries.

And then we would likely agree that those other people would be morally improved by agreeing with us, but that's sort of the most reliable moral constant isn't it, that everybody else would be better people if they shared my views?

Well, obviously! That's how objective morality works.

That's a normal way to think about belief, but an unusual way to be thinking about undemonstable knowledge.

All knowledge is "undemonstrable" if you cling onto Quine's Hold true come what may.

No demonstration, historical evidence or social institutions punishing murderers for thousands of years will be a sufficient demonstration that murder is wrong.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're talking like a robot not a man again.

I am talking like somebody who understands what is necessary for objective measurement.

There's no point to further discussion if you are measuring "accuracy" differently to me.

I am using the word accurate in a way that everybody uses it within the context I spoke, where calibrated mechanisms aren't required. You are attempting to inflict a different context.

Am I (me, not some generic "philosopher" that you don't like) actually using the words wrongness and murder in some exotic way? I told you it's a waste of time trying to prove murder is wrong because that is a tautology wrongful killing is wrong doesn't need experimental proof.

A tautology IS a proof in the disciplines of Mathematics and Logic.

Not a maths question so it doesn't matter. A tautology is something that does not require a proof.

If you are demanding "experimental proof" (which is a rather idiosyncratic phrasing from the perspective of somebody who understands the difference between the empirical and the logical realms) then you have to tell us what that means.

So I am not demanding a proof, because it is a tautology.

What experiment/measurement would satisfy your request?

No further evidence is required, what with it being a tautology.

And colours are rather a matter of convention too. Are there really 7 colours in the rainbow?

Yes, they are made of convention! And conventionally speaking this is objectively red.

That's how the consensus theory of truth works.

The question I was mainly asking was, if you think that killing kittens is morally wrong, but Vegetable Ambulance says it is not morally wrong, then if that is a factual question, what is the fact that shows which of you is mistaken?

And that's precisely the reason I asked you the question...

What "fact" would show that I am mistaken about THIS COLOR BEING BLUE..

And yet any non-idiot in conventional society would agree that I am wrong. Because...?

That depends on the shade of blue. Pick one halfway between green and blue and people start to say "I can see how that would be green to you", while others take some sort of offence and ask "how can you call that green".

We don't need an FSK of colours-proper to fix that (it would fail to mention mention orange anyway because colour-proper contains only black, white, green andnotblackwhiteorgreen"), what is happening here is that we are treating the things that are extremely easy to agree on as objective fact and then getting into trouble when the green/blue areas come into focus.

And that's before raising the issue of cultures with no word for Blue or some other obvious colour. Or considering history, given that the colour orange is named after the fruit, meaning our ancestors did away with what we consider quite a large chunk of the visible spectrum until somebody wanted to have a name for a red that has some yellow in it.

One exists because there is actually soething to measure.

There is nothing to measure until you define the units.

Meh, you can't have units of speculative nothingness, there must be something measurable before you can start arguing about whether to measure it in inches or centimeres or whatnot.

The other cannot exist because there is not.

This claim carries the strongest burden of proof in human intellectual affairs. A proof of impossibility.

I expect you'll get "bored" right about now.

I'm pretty bored it's true. But I will power through it because I have such deep respect for you and I truly value these important conversations.
I am quite happy for somebody to discover a physical correlate of goodness to measure. But there are no candidates and there is no scope so it's inconceivable. It would be a shame if somebody tried to fix that by just finding some other thing they can measure (opinion surverys for instance) and said that this must be the source of measured truth.

There is a well understood causal relationship between human experiences of redness and wavelengths of light.

There is? You must be overlooking some of the details here, champ. I just decided that the wavelength that triggers "redness" in you triggers "blueness" in me.

You want to show me your evidence that proves that I am wrong?

No. I can live with you not knowing what blue is. Or I can live with you having a "personal truth" about red that doesn't correspond with everyone else's.

If you were telling the truth and had aa reliable experience of "blueness" whenever you saw the colour that we call red, you would call it red anyway and use the language of redness correctly. It might even be true already, and neither of us would ever know.

I've never once argued that murder isn't wrong. I don't think that Pete, Terrapin or Sculptor has either.

Well, yes. Captain Semantics. You've argued that murder is not OBJECTIVELY wrong.

Which is precisely equivalent to arguing that that this it not OBJECTIVELY red.

You want to bite the bullet now and pick a side?

Murder is wrong by definition. To say it is not objective is to say that batchelors aren't objectively unmarried men. It seems like a pointless quible to me, I see only distinction without difference in it.

You can say red and blue are objective qualities, and conversationally that is ok, but there's not a lot of scope to extrapolate from it. The truth is that when we look at shades of colours it is quite normal for it to break down into subjectivity, so that apparent objectivity was just a case of there not being anyone in the room to disagree.

Whether a particular act of killing counts as murder only seems objective when there is similarly nobody present to say not so. It's extremely common to have legal cases arguing over whether a particular killing is justified, and that is how its murderness gets decided.

I could mention to the guy that in some places there are killings that we would class as murder here but they would consider quite allowable under local circumstances.

I could mention that guy which calls this color blue but that's not a social norm in most countries.

And then we would likely agree that those other people would be morally improved by agreeing with us, but that's sort of the most reliable moral constant isn't it, that everybody else would be better people if they shared my views?

Well, obviously! That's how objective morality works.

So objective morality just means that it is objectively true that people mostly think their inherited set of cultural norms, mixed with a handful of personal opinions, and subject to little internal consistency, is the best?

That's a normal way to think about belief, but an unusual way to be thinking about undemonstable knowledge.

All knowledge "undemonstrable" if you cling onto Quine's Hold true come what may

No need to sweat the small stuff. It is a normal way to think about belief and an unusual way to think about knowledge.

[Skepdick]

I am using the word accurate in a way that everybody uses it within the context I spoke, where calibrated mechanisms aren't required. You are attempting to inflict a different context.

How the fuck do you think everybody magically ends up using words "in the same way" without calibration?
How did you end up calling without calibrating your use to your society?!?

Not a maths question so it doesn't matter. A tautology is something that does not require a proof.

That's a misconception. A whole bunch of tautologies come with million dollar pricetags.

If you can prove them.

So I am not demanding a proof, because it is a tautology.
No further evidence is required, what with it being a tautology.

You did demand "empirical proof". I am asking what that means. Not in this particular context - in general.

What empirical proof would you accept for this being red?

That depends on the shade of blue. Pick one halfway between green and blue and people start to say "I can see how that would be green to you", while others take some sort of offence and ask "how can you call that green".

what is happening here is that we are treating the things that are extremely easy to agree on as objective fact and then getting into trouble when the green/blue areas come into focus.

Conceptually that's bollocks, if you claim to be a moral skeptic. It's a light spectrum: I can see how every color is a shade of every other color.

On the moral spectrum I can see how good is a shade of evil and and right is a shade of wrong.

So what does your "moral skepticism" amount to? Given that morality shares the same properties as light wre you skeptical about light also?

And that's before raising the issue of cultures with no word for Blue or some other obvious colour. Or considering history, given that the colour orange is named after the fruit, meaning our ancestors did away with what we consider quite a large chunk of the visible spectrum until somebody wanted to have a name for a red that has some yellow in it.

Sure. So what's your argument? The color (which apparently corresponds to a physical thing) didn't exist until we named it?

Meh, you can't have units of speculative nothingness, there must be something measurable before you can start arguing about whether to measure it in inches or centimeres or whatnot.

What is the "something measurable" when you area measuring distance and time?!?

I'm pretty bored it's true. But I will power through it because I have such deep respect for you and I truly value these important conversations.
I am quite happy for somebody to discover a physical correlate of goodness to measure.

But there are no physical correlated of "red" to anything until you define the measurement units for "distance" and "time"!!! Any wavelength is a tautology of our measurement units. And you said tautologies don't require any proof.

So what the hell are you even asking?!?

You are appealing to authority and you can't even tell. You are appealing to the authority physics and wavelengths to define "redness", when the definition happens in the exact reverse order!

We have been agreeing on what "red" is for thousands of years before we had physics or a theory of color.

No. I can live with you not knowing what blue is. Or I can live with you having a "personal truth" about red that doesn't correspond with everyone else's.

Oh, well! That was easy. So why can't you live with people having a personal truth about "rightness" and "wrongness" of murder?

If you were telling the truth and had aa reliable experience of "blueness" whenever you saw the colour that we call red, you would call it red anyway and use the language of redness correctly.

You are using the language of "correctness". Still haven't told me how you measured that.

Murder is wrong by definition.

This is red by definition too.
We could have totally defined this to be red
1 meter is 1 meter by definition.
1 second is 1 second by definition.

Why does this even need saying?

To say it is not objective is to say that batchelors aren't objectively unmarried men. It seems like a pointless quible to me, I see only distinction without difference in it.

You can say red and blue are objective qualities, and conversationally that is ok, but there's not a lot of scope to extrapolate from it. The truth is that when we look at shades of colours it is quite normal for it to break down into subjectivity, so that apparent objectivity was just a case of there not being anyone in the room to disagree.

ALL tautologies from trivialities to infinite complexity are distinctions without a difference up to isomorphism.

That is how "truth" works. That is how all scientific/symmetrical reasoning works. A mirror of nature is the only outcome possible with physics.

1:1 relationship between physical and mental phenomena. Maybe you want to re-think your truth-theory?

What we are disagreeing about is not the continuum - it's how and why to chop it up in to discrete categories.

Whether a particular act of killing counts as murder only seems objective when there is similarly nobody present to say not so. It's extremely common to have legal cases arguing over whether a particular killing is justified, and that is how its murderness gets decided.

No different to redness or blueness then.

but that's not a social norm in most countries.

Even better!

What makes it wrong calling this color blue even if doesn't adhere to linguistic social norms?

So objective morality just means that it is objectively true that people mostly think their inherited set of cultural norms, mixed with a handful of personal opinions, and subject to little internal consistency, is the best?

I don't know. What standard of "bestness" are you evaluating against?

[tillingborn]

...real scientists don't give a fuck what you think.

Don't be that retard, reaching for the no true scotsman fallacy.

Anyone who can call this red can call themselves a scientist, I suppose.

I don't give a fuck either. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that objective knowledge is constructed, not discovered and it's 100% mind-dependent.

It doesn't take a genius to appreciate that knowledge implies at least one knower, a mind in common parlance. Objective knowledge is different to objective facts. You can have hours of fun arguing about the correct use of language, slagging off certain philosophers for doing so, lumping all philosophers into the same basket and being a complete dick, all before lunchtime. But as I have mentioned, we choose our beliefs for aesthetic reasons and tailor our definitions to fit.

Fundamentally because minds are computers and all mathematics/physics is computational in nature.

Shut up and calculate, eh? That's your belief, and for all I know you are right, but whatever the mathsiness of the production, conscious experience is not mathematical. At least not according to any meaning I choose to recognise.

Physical constant is an oxymoron in the traditional sense that non-scientists understand what the word "physical" and "constants" mean - the general population interprets that those constants exist "out there" independent of our minds. They are supposed to be derived (discovered) not defined (postulated/invented) with arbitrarily made-up units.

Light travels through space. It doesn't do so instantaneously and while it is getting from one place to another, different stuff happens. We divide the distance up, count some of the things that happen, call it c=d/t and Bob's your uncle. In the meantime, light carries on travelling through space indifferent to our maths. Or maybe not, who knows? Not you.

That the units are arbitrary in no way detracts from it being objective in the way that scientists (not Philosophers) use the term "objective".

You keep using the word Philosophers in a way that suggests we should accept as objectively true. You are objectively a dick.

Any conception of objectivity which prescribes mind-independence is incoherent. That level of stupid should be forbidden for philosophers. We define everything, how can "objectivity" be independent of that which defined it?!?

Because that's what some of us define it as being.

[FlashDangerpants]

The number I assigned is not a verified and justified fact per se like a scientific fact.

How many out of the current 7.9 billion people had been caught pissing into a baptismal bowl?
It is my very strong personal belief with personal objectivity based on my extensive research and readings, the number of such perverts are very very low, perhaps at most hundred or so.

If you compare the number of such perverts [100, 1000 or even 10,000] to 7.9 billion people, or number of people who had committed various evil acts or potential numbers, the % would be very insignificant perhaps at 0.001%, thus my 1/100 would have provided loads of room for error if necessary.

The above is the approach to estimate the %s as with other types of evil.

But note, I do not regard 'pissing in a baptismal bowl' as an act of evil.

Lol, "personal objectivity"
Shall we call that objectivity-proper?

Note Skepdick's response, i.e. 'idiot' is most appropriate in this case.

This is why you should never hide behind Skepdick in these things....

No. I can live with you not knowing what blue is. Or I can live with you having a "personal truth" about red that doesn't correspond with everyone else's.

Oh, well! That was easy. So why can't you live with people having a personal truth about "rightness" and "wrongness" of murder?

Because he isn't arguing towards the same thing you are. He is arguing for something that makes your entire FSK a personal fantasy and everybody has their own.

Every time you let him answer the question for you, you are fucking yourself.

[Terrapin Station]

"people having a personal truth about 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of murder?"

Aside from not calling it a "truth," this is exactly what we're saying. Whether anything is morally right or wrong to someone is a matter of how they feel about it. It's a personal thing. We're not complaining about that or saying that we can't live with it. We're descriptively saying that's a big part of what morality is/how it works.

[Skepdick]

"people having a personal truth about 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of murder?"

Aside from not calling it a "truth," this is exactly what we're saying.

I know that's what you are saying.

I am pointing out that you NOT saying it about the color red

YOU CALL TRUTH WHEN I DESCRIBE THIS AS RED

Whether anything is morally right or wrong to someone is a matter of how they feel about it.

EXACTLY

It's a personal thing. We're not complaining about that or saying that we can't live with it. We're descriptively saying that's a big part of what morality is/how it works.

Oh OK.

So the moral debate ends when we recognise that it's just different descriptions of the same thing then?

THIS IS RED!
THIS IS RED!

Ah, it's just a different interpretation/argument over nomenclature.

[Skepdick]

Because he isn't arguing towards the same thing you are. He is arguing for something that makes your entire FSK a personal fantasy and everybody has their own.

Yes, retard.

One "fantasy" says: THIS IS RED AND THIS IS BLUE.
Another "fantasy" says: THIS IS RED AND THIS IS BLUE.
One fantasy says: Murder is wrong.
Another fantasy says: Murder is right.

Consensus is about synchronising fantasies.

[FlashDangerpants]

Because he isn't arguing towards the same thing you are. He is arguing for something that makes your entire FSK a personal fantasy and everybody has their own.

Yes, retard.

ONE FANTASY SAYS THAT THIS IS RED AND THIS IS BLUE

ANOTHER FANTASY SAYS THAT THIS IS RED AND THIS IS BLUE

Consensus is about synchronising fantasies.

The language games of facts and knowledge have this thing where incompatible claims require resolution to establish which, if either, is true. That of belief on the other hand allows for huge inconsistencies even within a particular individual's worldview.

It is nonsensical to suggest that I know that you shouldn't beat your wife so much, and that you simultaneously know that you should beat her because otherwise she won't learn how to stay quiet. If there is knowledge in these matters, then one of us must be mistaken.

His FSK thing is supposed to provide that bit of the puzzle, to justify the use of knowledge language games with relation to moral claims.

While your positivist approach is apparently intended to fix the problems of language itself, or replace it with computer stuff in gerneral. It attempts to do away with the problem by removing the distinction between the language games of knowledge and those of belief entirely.

Those are two disimilar strategies, even if they are similarly destined to get rejected on grounds of incomprehensibility. But Vestigial Armpit is a fool to rely on you to carry him half the way, you are headed in a different direction from his entirely.

[Skepdick]

The language games of facts and knowledge have this thing where incompatible claims require resolution to establish which, if either, is true. That of belief on the other hand allows for huge inconsistencies even within a particular individual's worldview.

It is nonsensical to suggest that I know that you shouldn't beat your wife so much, and that you simultaneously know that you should beat her because otherwise she won't learn how to stay quiet. If there is knowledge in these matters, then one of us must be mistaken.

His FSK thing is supposed to provide that bit of the puzzle, to justify the use of knowledge language games with relation to moral claims.

While your positivist approach is apparently intended to fix the problems of language itself, or replace it with computer stuff in gerneral. It attempts to do away with the problem by removing the distinction between the language games of knowledge and those of belief entirely.

Those are two disimilar strategies, even if they are similarly destined to get rejected on grounds of incomprehensibility. But Vestigial Armpit is a fool to rely on you to carry him half the way, you are headed in a different direction from his entirely.

Blah blah blah. The language games are interactive.

A convinces B, or B convinces A. Or A and B convince each other. I am not contextualising it like that.

I am contextualising it like a single player game. You go on and convince yourself from first principles. Put on your best argument to convince your inner skeptic.

Put on your Philosopher hat and pretend that scientific facts and Philosophical arguments somehow arrive at the conclusion I KNOW THAT THIS COLOR IS RED. Or do the thing where scientific facts and Philosophical arguments somehow contradict I KNOW THAT THIS COLOR IS RED

Start with some premises and arrive at the correct conclusions; or contradict the incorrect one.

Either you know that there is no such causal chain and so your very reasons for upholding the language games/practices are brought into doubt.
Or you don't know that there is no such causal chain and you are doing it out of habit/social norm.

[FlashDangerpants]

The language games of facts and knowledge have this thing where incompatible claims require resolution to establish which, if either, is true. That of belief on the other hand allows for huge inconsistencies even within a particular individual's worldview.

It is nonsensical to suggest that I know that you shouldn't beat your wife so much, and that you simultaneously know that you should beat her because otherwise she won't learn how to stay quiet. If there is knowledge in these matters, then one of us must be mistaken.

His FSK thing is supposed to provide that bit of the puzzle, to justify the use of knowledge language games with relation to moral claims.

While your positivist approach is apparently intended to fix the problems of language itself, or replace it with computer stuff in gerneral. It attempts to do away with the problem by removing the distinction between the language games of knowledge and those of belief entirely.

Those are two disimilar strategies, even if they are similarly destined to get rejected on grounds of incomprehensibility. But Vestigial Armpit is a fool to rely on you to carry him half the way, you are headed in a different direction from his entirely.

Blah blah blah. The language games are interactive.

A convinces B, or B convinces A. Or A and B convince each other. I am not contextualising it like that.

I am contextualising it like a single player game. You go on and convince yourself from first principles. Put on your best argument to convince your inner skeptic.

Sure, you can contextualise language as a single player game if you like. It will cause you problems for the whole of your life whenever you want to be understood by anyone, but I don't know for sure that you don't prefer it that way.

Put on your Philosopher hat and pretend that scientific facts and Philosophical arguments somehow arrive at the conclusion I KNOW THAT THIS COLOR IS RED. Or do the thing where scientific facts and Philosophical arguments somehow contradict I KNOW THAT THIS COLOR IS RED

Start with some premises and arrive at the correct conclusions; or contradict the incorrect one.

Either you know that there is no such causal chain and so you are just playing the language games because you are hoping that the other mind folds.
Or you don't know that there is no such causal chain and you are doing it out of habit/social norm.

You don't like my philosophy hat. You certainly wouldn't enjoy my fun lecture on why is this red is a different question to science than it is to art. But you would just say "exactly" at the end anyway so we can skip the formalities.