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

[Iwannaplato]

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.

You seem to be getting what you need (or want). So success blooms!

[Skepdick]

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.

Did anybody ever explain to you how memory protection works in an operating system?

A single process crashing and spewing garbage (you) doesn't result in total system failure.

Here you go...

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/memory-pr ... g-systems/

[Skepdick]

You're getting what you need.

Given that I still haven't obtained a satisfactory answer to my question from anyone - are we agreeing or disagreeing on that?

[Iwannaplato]

A few underlying assumptions, it seems to me, in the OP and at times in the thread, is that people here are doing what philosophers do and people here are philosophers, plus that philosophy should function as other kinds of activities. The legislation focus of the original OP is gone, but that was one good example. It is as if we were in a town meeting discussing a moral issue with our neighbors and really all the 'philosophers' at the meeting think public drinking should be outlawed but some say 'there are not objective morals' and others argue over whether chocolates with rum in them counts' while a group of antirealists say that as long as no one see the drunks, they don't exist. To be fair, I think some 'philosophers' might very well do these things in that context, but most philosophers probably would not. In addition, some people here might actually be trying to do things that one does in a town meeting. So, it's not that the thread is completely based on wrong assumptions.

In any case: the point of philosophy should be, it seems, something like finding common ground. Any other focus is wrongheaded AND if you are doing philosophy stuff here, that's what you do in other contexts, where you have other goals and interests. And philosophers real purpose is to legislate or do some other kind of activity.

It's like judging bike riding for not being a good conversationalist. OK, bit of a categorical exaggeration.

[iambiguous]

Agree or disagree with somebody about what?

And doesn't the most crucial distinction always revolve around one's capacity to actually demonstrate that what they do believe about it is in fact that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it in turn?

Again, I note this only because that seems to be the most important consideration to me.

For example, what does it mean to agree that Donald Trump faces 4 indictments for criminal behavior? How might that be demonstrated to in fact be true?

Then...

What does it mean to disagree that the indictments are rooted in politics rather than in criminal law?

The same with any other issue in which disagreements are common.

In order to bring the arguments here down to Earth.

There is a doctor who ALWAYS says that abortion is morally wrong yet ALWAYS performs abortions.

Is this doctor agreeing or disagreeing with himself?

Well, first we would need to ask him or her why he or she does what he or she says is wrong.

Right?

[Skepdick]

A few underlying assumptions, it seems to me, in the OP and at times in the thread, is that people here are doing what philosophers do and people here are philosophers, plus that philosophy should function as other kinds of activities. The legislation focus of the original OP is gone, but that was one good example. It is as if we were in a town meeting discussing a moral issue with our neighbors and really all the 'philosophers' at the meeting think public drinking should be outlawed but some say 'there are not objective morals' and others argue over whether chocolates with rum in them counts' while a group of antirealists say that as long as no one see the drunks, they don't exist. To be fair, I think some 'philosophers' might very well do these things in that context, but most philosophers probably would not. In addition, some people here might actually be trying to do things that one does in a town meeting. So, it's not that the thread is completely based on wrong assumptions.

In any case: the point of philosophy should be, it seems, something like finding common ground. Any other focus is wrongheaded AND if you are doing philosophy stuff here, that's what you do in other contexts, where you have other goals and interests. And philosophers real purpose is to legislate or do some other kind of activity.

It's like judging bike riding for not being a good conversationalist. OK, bit of a categorical exaggeration.

What an amazing justification for missing the point.

[Skepdick]

Agree or disagree with somebody about what?

What was unclear about the scenario provided? Perhaps I can add even more context?

Given the scenario would you consider the doctor's actions as evidence that they disagree with the moral wrongness of abortion?

And doesn't the most crucial distinction always revolve around one's capacity to actually demonstrate that what they do believe about it is in fact that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it in turn?

That's a lot of verbiage. No idea what it means. So I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

For example, what does it mean to agree that Donald Trump faces 4 indictments for criminal behavior? How might that be demonstrated to in fact be true?

What does it mean to disagree that the indictments are rooted in politics rather than in criminal law?

The same with any other issue in which disagreements are common.

In order to bring the arguments here down to Earth.

It's with great irony that I pointout that in pragmatics context contributes to meaning.

So whatever it meant to agree/disagree in context of my scenario.
It may mean something entirely different in the context of your scenario.

So re-contextualizing my post rather than understanding what it is that I am asking is moving us further, not closer to anything resembling a conversation; or understanding.

[iambiguous]

Agree or disagree with somebody about what?

About anything.

Well, when you make it about anything, then the discussion is likely to stay up in the philosophical clouds. Actual facts and/or personal opinions do not have to be broached in regard to a particular context. Why? Because there is no particular context.

And doesn't the most crucial distinction always revolve around one's capacity to actually demonstrate that what they do believe about it is in fact that which all rational men and women are obligated to believe about it in turn?

That's a lot of verbiage. No idea what it means. So I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

How clearer can it be? You agree with someone that, say, objective morality does exist. But you avoid discussing that further in regard to a context in whch there actually are fierce moral conflicts regarding this? It all becomes just "theoretical" instead?

For example, what does it mean to agree that Donald Trump faces 4 indictments for criminal behavior? How might that be demonstrated to in fact be true?

What does it mean to disagree that the indictments are rooted in politics rather than in criminal law?

The same with any other issue in which disagreements are common.

In order to bring the arguments here down to Earth.

It's with great irony that I pointout that in pragmatics context contributes to meaning.

So whatever it meant to agree/disagree in context of my scenario.
It may mean something entirely different in the context of your scenario.

So re-contextualizing my post rather than understanding what it is that I am asking is moving us further, not closer to anything resembling a conversation; or understanding.

That's a lot of verbiage. No idea what it means. So I can neither agree nor disagree with it.

But the fact remains that in regard to things like the Trump indictments and all other moral and political conflicts, there is what we can all agree regarding because it is in fact objectively true for all of us, and there is what we disagree regarding because we have come to embrace conflicting moral and political prejudices.

All I'm ever attempting to do in discussions like this is to take the exchanges down out of the intellectual clouds.

Though, sure, if that is not your aim at all, by all means forget about it.

Maybe someone else then.

[Lacewing]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

[iambiguous]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

Sounds like a personal problem.

But we'll still need a context.

In other words, something concrete that you and I can explore. Something we agree or disagree about.

Otherwise, foe me and get me out of your head too.

[Skepdick]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

You have neither a conclusive nor an inconclusive response to the question.

Thanks for your input...

[Skepdick]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

Sounds like a personal problem.

But we'll still need a context.

In other words, something concrete that you and I can explore. Something we agree or disagree about.

Otherwise, foe me and get me out of your head too.

You mean like the concrete example in the OP that didn't help you get out of your head?

You can't seem to agree with yourself on what you want...

[Lacewing]

I agree with others here who suggest that you are a disagreeable asshole with an attitude who dismisses responses to your stupid inconclusive thread which you are insisting should be conclusive.

Sounds like a personal problem.

But we'll still need a context.

In other words, something concrete that you and I can explore. Something we agree or disagree about.

Otherwise, foe me and get me out of your head too.

I interjected the word 'asshole', but the rest of what I said summarizes what other people have pointed out. That may be different than what you've said, but I was referring to those who did suggest such things. So don't put yourself in the middle of what doesn't apply to you... and don't imagine that you're in my head.

[Lacewing]

You have neither a conclusive nor an inconclusive response to the question.

I said agreement is inconclusive.

Agreement is inconclusive. The reasons behind it can be varied and changeable for anyone involved. Perhaps what it 'means' is that it enables people to 'share some form of reality' (to whatever degree, or through whatever form) for as long as it lasts.

How can your argumentative and dismissive nature ever be satisfied?

[Skepdick]

You have neither a conclusive nor an inconclusive response to the question.

I said agreement is inconclusive.

And you also concluded that I am a disagreeable asshole.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with yourself that (dis)agreement is inconclusive?

How can your argumentative and dismissive nature ever be satisfied?

Answering the question above would be a good start.