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

[Skepdick]

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.

Don't worry about me. When I want to be understood, I start with what I want and how/why my expectations or needs aren't being met.

It works way much better than "logic and arguments".

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.

It is a different question. It's a much much harder question for from an artistic/holistic perspective than it is from a scientific/reductionist perspective.

Seeming as I am a charitable guy, I'll let you off the hook with the much much lower standard. Go for the scientific/reductionist answer.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Don't worry about me. When I want to be understood, I start with what I want and how/why my expectations or needs aren't being met.

It works way much better than "logic and arguments".

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.

It is a different question. It's a much much harder question for from an artistic/holistic perspective than it is from a scientific/reductionist perspective.

Seeming as I am a charitable guy, I'll let you off the hook with the much much lower standard. Go for the scientific/reductionist answer.

No. I cba with a silly diversion just because you can't do anything about the actual issue. Your description of knowledge bears little relation to what the concept means and how it is used. Your expectation or need to have that barrier whipped away for you by forcing everyone else to abandon their language and speak only in some distilled alternative dialect of science instead will get you nowhere.

And of course, none of this shit will entertain me, so it's a lose-lose proposition.

[Skepdick]

No. I cba with a silly diversion just because you can't do anything about the actual issue.

Ooookay. Now we start with the obscurantism and diversions

The actual issue is that there's no causal connection between the scientific (model-theoretic) world-view and the nominal world-view.

Your description of knowledge bears little relation to what the concept means and how it is used.

Don't worry about how I use my knowledge and how I conceptualise meaning; or what I find a meaningful conception of knowledge.

I promise you that you don't have to concern yourself with the contents of my mind here.

Your expectation or need to have that barrier whipped away for you by forcing everyone else to abandon their language and speak only in some distilled alternative dialect of science instead will get you nowhere.

Nobody is asking you to do anything like that. Use your language. Your concepts.

That's the whole damn idea of contextualising it as "You convince yourself"

And of course, none of this shit will entertain me, so it's a lose-lose proposition.

Oh well. You should've just told us that Philosophy is just a circus act.

[FlashDangerpants]

No. I cba with a silly diversion just because you can't do anything about the actual issue.

Ooookay. Now we start with the obscurantism and diversions

Well, it's hardly the beginnig of that is it? Why only a little while ago you skipped out on everything I wrote with "Blah blah blah. The language games are interactive."

[Skepdick]

Well, it's hardly the beginnig of that is it? Why only a little while ago you skipped out on everything I wrote with "Blah blah blah. The language games are interactive."

The language games are interactive.

Persuasion is demonstrative. Seems you are struggling with leading by example...

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, it's hardly the beginnig of that is it? Why only a little while ago you skipped out on everything I wrote with "Blah blah blah. The language games are interactive."

The language games are interactive.

Persuasion is demonstrative. Seems you are struggling with leading by example...

You gave a pointless non-answer to what I wrote and then you diverted. And now you think that a repeat offence is going to help.

[Skepdick]

You gave a pointless non-answer to what I wrote and then you diverted. And now you think that a repeat offence is going to help.

How is anything I am doing (or not doing); or the heinous moral acts that I am committing (or not committing) standing in your way of demonstrating a valid&sound argument which concludes that THIS COLOR IS RED; or that THIS COLOR IS NOT RED?

I am out of your way. Really. Don't let me distract you.

[Terrapin Station]

Why are we diverting to "language games" anyway? That's not the issue. The issue is what exists and where it's located. Whether there are extramental moral assessments or extramental colors or whatever has nothing to do with language.

[FlashDangerpants]

You gave a pointless non-answer to what I wrote and then you diverted. And now you think that a repeat offence is going to help.

How is anything I am doing (or not doing); or the heinous moral acts that I am committing (or not committing) standing in your way of demonstrating a valid&sound argument which concludes that THIS COLOR IS RED; or that THIS COLOR IS NOT RED?

I am out of your way. Really. Don't let me distract you.

You can't have a valid and sound argument to a conclusion that is merely a convention. All you end up with is something sad and trivial like...
general consensus is used to create truths by convention
the general consensus is that this colour is red
therefore it is true by convention that this color is red
That's as good an answer as you can possibly hope for from that demand, and it's banal shite.

The problem is you can't resolve controversies with truths by convention, or customary truths, not unless you want to join some very murky moral company, along with those who regret the end of the slave trade and the loss wife-raping rights. If you could extrapolate directly from truth by convention to the sort of truth doesn't change according to time and place and prevailing mood, and which therefore can't be dismissed as arbitrary and ungrounded... you'd be stuck with ancestral moral truths that we don't agree with any more because they couldn't be changed. You would be an immensely powerful new version of Immanuel Can, a terrible thing to imagine.

When we talk about colours, it just isn't the case that the guy who goes against society's norms to call what he experiences as red blue is right in some way that everyone else is wrong. But it sure makes sense to say that the first guy to say slavery was wrong, even though he was at odds with everyone around him, was right and everyone else was wrong. So you gotta work out if you want to claim it is morally true that the anti-slavery guy was a despicable reprobate at the time, and that he is one of history's greatest men today?

And whichever way you choose to go with any of that, you are still going to fall foul of what it means to use the phrase "I know" in any of this. Or of course because I've left the door ajar there, I guess you'll be giving me one of your speeches about time that I will merely dismiss as something about which I don't care. Because this is all a silly diversion.

[FlashDangerpants]

Why are we diverting to "language games" anyway? That's not the issue. The issue is what exists and where it's located. Whether there are extramental moral assessments or extramental colors or whatever has nothing to do with language.

But I imagine you do agree that there is a fundamental difference between the linguistic expression "I know that those trousers are a disgusting shade of green" and "I think those trousers are a disgusting shade of green" which can be analysed seperately from arguing about the extramental status of the trouser object?

If I am to be dragged into this shit thread then my participation is going to be directed at the different things those two sentences do, namely the bit where the participants understand explicitly that they can each have their own belief about whether the greenness is nice or not, compared to the other where the person making the statement (and assuming an absurdly literal intent) should find it inconceivable that there is disagreement on the matter.

And frankly I've served my time trying to explain basics to Skepdick and Vaginal, by now I have earned the right to go about it any way I please because they are a pair of patience destroying fucknuts and neither of them cares about writing the same damn thing over and over and over and over and over again every bloody day.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..neither of them cares about writing the same damn thing over and over and over and over and over again every bloody day.

You are very ignorant and bias on this.

Actually Peter is the culprit who keep repeating his claim over and over again.
Most of the time I am responding and countering posts from Peter re pet thread, "Is Morality objective or Subjective".

Without any reference to any thread, Peter will regularly spew his usual claims 'No objectivists has provided any claims" while riveted on the Platonic or theistic morality or he will just post some misrepresentation of my arguments and views. I believe such misrepresentation warrant a response.

I would not response and post [despite the condemnations, antagonism, put-downs from immature people like you] if I think such activities do not contribute to my selfish interests and they really have positive benefits for me personally as a refresher or as leads to new areas of philosophy.

I had never paid serious attention to 'hermeneutics' in the past but I now have to read it up seriously because Rorty mentioned hermeneutics in a rather serious tone.
I had also never paid serious attention to Rorty in the past, but now I have a better grasp of what is 'pragmatism' and its positives along with its limitations.
And wow! I have learned so much re Morality and Ethics [M&E] in the past one+half years to the extent I believe there is nothing left for me to cover on the topic re M&E.

Meanwhile I see you and your gang of the likes are stuck in a windowless silo and dogmatically gripping to the archaic bastardized philosophies you have acquired eons ago.
When you and et.al. condemned my views your counters are all shitty.

[Skepdick]

Why are we diverting to "language games" anyway? That's not the issue.

Oh reeealllyyy!

The issue is what exists and where it's located. Whether there are extramental moral assessments or extramental colors or whatever has nothing to do with language.

Colors are merely the decomposition (reduction) of the visual spectrum of light. Where is the visual spectrum located?

[FlashDangerpants]

I would not response and post [despite the condemnations, antagonism, put-downs from immature people like you] if I think such activities do not contribute to my selfish interests and they really have positive benefits for me personally as a refresher or as leads to new areas of philosophy.

I had never paid serious attention to 'hermeneutics' in the past but I now have to read it up seriously because Rorty mentioned hermeneutics in a rather serious tone.
I had also never paid serious attention to Rorty in the past, but now I have a better grasp of what is 'pragmatism' and its positives along with its limitations.
And wow! I have learned so much re Morality and Ethics [M&E] in the past one+half years to the extent I believe there is nothing left for me to cover on the topic re M&E.

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I would not response and post [despite the condemnations, antagonism, put-downs from immature people like you] if I think such activities do not contribute to my selfish interests and they really have positive benefits for me personally as a refresher or as leads to new areas of philosophy.

I had never paid serious attention to 'hermeneutics' in the past but I now have to read it up seriously because Rorty mentioned hermeneutics in a rather serious tone.
I had also never paid serious attention to Rorty in the past, but now I have a better grasp of what is 'pragmatism' and its positives along with its limitations.
And wow! I have learned so much re Morality and Ethics [M&E] in the past one+half years to the extent I believe there is nothing left for me to cover on the topic re M&E.

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

[Peter Holmes]

I would not response and post [despite the condemnations, antagonism, put-downs from immature people like you] if I think such activities do not contribute to my selfish interests and they really have positive benefits for me personally as a refresher or as leads to new areas of philosophy.

I had never paid serious attention to 'hermeneutics' in the past but I now have to read it up seriously because Rorty mentioned hermeneutics in a rather serious tone.
I had also never paid serious attention to Rorty in the past, but now I have a better grasp of what is 'pragmatism' and its positives along with its limitations.
And wow! I have learned so much re Morality and Ethics [M&E] in the past one+half years to the extent I believe there is nothing left for me to cover on the topic re M&E.

That's nice. So I can now spend the rest of my life bragging about my small role in your rise to greatness.
Quick question: Does this make you the greatest living moral philosopher or are you going to accept the all time number one spot?

We need to know because this forum has so many of the world's greatest philosopher, I need to work out how to assess your rank up against all the greatest living and ever minds that we somehow collect here. You have mighty peers such as the formidable Age, the all conquering Advocate and that legendary grandmaster of the mind Hedgehog7.

What I asserted is I have covered [familiarized with] almost the full range within morality and ethics but did not claim I am an expert or very well versed in all of them.

What matters more than knowing what others have argued is knowing how to assess claims and arguments critically - including our own.