What does it mean to agree (edit: or dissagree) with somebody?

[attofishpi]

I'll respond to others. You're getting what you need. So, it's working for you, great.

No it's not, I just screwed Skeppy's entire argument to the point that he had to change the thread title - I still fucked his mainframe.

[Age]

dogmatically immovable from their positions (as all philosophers are).

As typical on this forum, philosophical hobbyists have the exact-opposite view of Philosophers.

How do 'you', "wizard22", DIFFERENTIATE between these so-called "philosophical hobbyists" AND these so-called "Philosophers"? (with a capital 'p')

And, which ONE do 'you' PUT "your" OWN 'self' IN, EXACTLY?

Philosophers can be moved by Reason, which means their premises are not "dogmatically immovable".

Can so-called "philosophical hobbyists" be MOVED by 'reason'?

If no, then WHY NOT?

If that's what your values are, then you're not a Philosopher, and you shouldn't even be on this forum.

LOL
LOL
LOL

The VERY LAST 'thing' "skepdick" WANTS TO BE would be A "philosopher", (capital 'p' or NOT).

And, WHY, EXACTLY, to 'you', should ONLY so-called "Philosophers" be on this forum?

It's too bad that the majority of active Users here, are hobbyists, rather than philosophers.

WHY?

[Skepdick]

Suppose a Doctor's philosophical stance is that abortion is morally wrong, yet he has no qualms performing the procedure. Does the doctor agree or disagree with himself?

And now you are bringing in attitude. You first scenario said nothing about how this person feels.

And now you are avoiding the question. Is it because you don't know the answer?

Anybody who insists that the doctor is performatively contradicting themselves necessarily does NOT believe in the existence of an is-ought gap.

Fact: The doctor holds the belief/mental attitude that abortion is morally wrong.
Value: The doctor shouldn't perform abortions.

Though not in its usual conception.

It's a paradigm case for the usual conception. Your failure to understand that is just an attempt to move the goal posts.

Here you are saying that morals should lead to certain behaviors and behaviors should be aligned with one's morals.

I am not saying it. Pay attention.

"I believe that murder is wrong" is a factual statement about my moral stance on murder.

The is-ought gap (if taken seriously) forbids me from making the following inference: I believe that murder is wrong THEREFORE I shouldn't murder.

Because a factual statement (about my beliefs) cannot entail a moral conclusion (about what I should and shouldn't do).

Oops?!?!?

That's not an argument against the is-ought issues as it is usually conceived. It is generating the oughts that everyone should follow from is, rather then pointing out hypocricies or contradictions between individuals who have values and their behavior in the world.

Which is precisely what I am demonstrating.

IF you commit yourself to strictly enforcing the is-ought gap AND you believe that murder is wrong THEN you are not allowed to infer that you shouldn't commit murder based on your belief that murder is wrong.

That is the logical implication. Sound and valid reasoning - if you accept the premises you can't reject the conclusion. Blah blah blah.
Naturally - this implication upsets my sensibilities.

Why doesn't it upset yours?

[attofishpi]

I don't agree that you disagree with me.

[Skepdick]

I don't agree that you disagree with me.

Do you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself?

[attofishpi]

I don't agree that you disagree with me.

Do you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself?

No, but are you disagreeing with my statement?

[Skepdick]

I don't agree that you disagree with me.

Do you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself?

No, but are you disagreeing with my statement?

No?

So you disagree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

[attofishpi]

Do you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself?

No, but are you disagreeing with my statement?

No?

So you disagree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

Yes.

Why did you have a question ...No? R U not sure?

[Skepdick]

No, but are you disagreeing with my statement?

No?

So you disagree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

Yes.

So you are affirming your disagreement which you initially rejected.

[attofishpi]

No?

So you disagree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

Yes.

So you are affirming your disagreement which you initially rejected.

I never showed a disagreement to ANYTHING that was initially rejected.

[Skepdick]

Yes.

So you are affirming your disagreement which you initially rejected.

I never showed a disagreement to ANYTHING that was initially rejected.

So you agreed with EVERYTHING that you initially rejected?

Which is agreement that you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

[attofishpi]

So you are affirming your disagreement which you initially rejected.

I never showed a disagreement to ANYTHING that was initially rejected.

So you agreed with EVERYTHING that you initially rejected?

Which is agreement that you agree that you are disagreeing with yourself.

I never rejected anything I stated.

Are you standing by your statement that I am talking bullshit, that you found some 'paradox'?

No it's not - MONEY is a big driver of fucking 'principles' to shite.

It seems you've been triggered by the irresolvable paradox and you are now just spewing bullshit.

[attofishpi]

So for you a doctor that believes abortion is immoral, but terminates a pregnancy is acting out from his disbelief in his belief in a moral principle?

That he disagrees with himself!

Whereas I am stating, that this doctor remains in belief that he is acting immorally, driven by money or any other factor, he remains in his belief that he is acting immorally – driven by other factors.

Where is the paradox?

[Skepdick]

So for you a doctor that believes abortion is immoral, but terminates a pregnancy is acting out from his disbelief in his belief in a moral principle?

For any strong believer in the is-ought gap there's no connection between what a person believes (a fact about the person's state of mind) and how that person should behave (moral obligations) in response to their belief.

"I believe that murder is wrong" is a different statement to "I ought not murder people"

If you accept the is-ought gap then the former doesn't imply the latter.

[Skepdick]

Whereas I am stating, that this doctor remains in belief that he is acting immorally, driven by money or any other factor, he remains in his belief that he is acting immorally – driven by other factors.

So you are taking the doctor's words at face value, and then you are interpreting his actions contrary to his beliefs.

Whereas you could've also taken his actions at face value, and then interpreted his words contrary to his beliefs.

Why did you choose the interpretation that you chose?