why is murder wrong?

[Logik]

'Problem', a question posed for solution.


WHY the absence of a definition is a 'problem' IS because without definition how will confusion be stopped/alleviated?

I wonder if you've even figured out that all semiotics is circular.

But it is NOT.

"you" only BELIEVE it is.

Here is a problem that has no question whatsoever.

Please define the following two words: "define" and "meaning".

[Age]

I don't know - you'll have to say it in a way that's clearly understood by everybody... like for example "Logik kicked my ass in this argument".

"logik" you really do see things that "others" do NOT. Neither of "you" have won any thing, nor "kicked" any thing either.

From my perspective, all you are doing here "logik" is proposing some thing as though you KNOW it is true but when asked to clarify what definition/s you are giving and using with a word or words you use, "you" REFUSE to provide any thing at all. "you" therefore could NOT be wrong and could NEVER be wrong about any thing you say because "you", and "you" alone, have decided and are continually DECIDING what definitions and meanings "you" are using and will use with each and every word "you" use, of which you do NOT want share.

In fact you could NOT share YOUR own definitions because then that would be in contradiction of your BELIEF that language/semiotics is circular, which then you would have to admit that what "you" say is also circular.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

But there is NO way that murder is wrong. Murder is good and necessary. I KNOW this. Does "logik"?

[Logik]

I don't know - you'll have to say it in a way that's clearly understood by everybody... like for example "Logik kicked my ass in this argument".

"logik" you really do see things that "others" do NOT. Neither of "you" have won any thing, nor "kicked" any thing either.

From my perspective, all you are doing here "logik" is proposing some thing as though you KNOW it is true but when asked to clarify what definition/s you are giving and using with a word or words you use, "you" REFUSE to provide any thing at all. "you" therefore could NOT be wrong and could NEVER be wrong about any thing you say because "you", and "you" alone, have decided and are continually DECIDING what definitions and meanings "you" are using and will use with each and every word "you" use, of which you do NOT want share.

In fact you could NOT share YOUR own definitions because then that would be in contradiction of your BELIEF that language/semiotics is circular, which then you would have to admit that what "you" say is also circular.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

For somebody who insists on definitions you really ought to define "define" and "meaning". Please. help us out and provide some clarity.

Because even Wittgenstein couldn't dig us out of that hole. Maybe you are smarter than Wittgenstein, but I doubt it.

But there is NO way that murder is wrong. Murder is good and necessary. I KNOW this. Does "logik"?

Well. I think you are lying but I could be wrong. I have an idea how WE can resolve this. Lets murder you and film it thus proving that you believe it to be true. Become a martyr for your cause.

If you give me your address I'll pay for my own flights.

[Age]

'Problem', a question posed for solution.


WHY the absence of a definition is a 'problem' IS because without definition how will confusion be stopped/alleviated?

I wonder if you've even figured out that all semiotics is circular.

But it is NOT.

"you" only BELIEVE it is.

Here is a problem that has no question whatsoever.

Please define the following two words: "define" and "meaning".

But that is NOT a 'problem' at all, from my perspective.

That is ONLY a "problem", from YOUR perspective.

Since "you" created the "problem", and it is ONLY a "problem" for and to "you", it is certainly NOT a 'problem' for nor to me, therefore, if "you" want to solve and/or fix the so called and alleged "problem", then go right ahead. Do NOT let me stop you.

As I said there is NO 'problem' for me here.

If, however, you would like me to define those two words, just for the sake of defining those words for you, then just say so and I will AFTER you explain WHY "you" BELIEVE that defining those two words is a "problem" AND "you" define the word "problem"?

[Logik]

But that is NOT a 'problem' at all, from my perspective.

That is ONLY a "problem", from YOUR perspective.

No. by all means. It's not a problem. It's only circular.

Are you OK with circular definitions? If yes - then, no problem.

If you don't see circular reasoning as problematic then so be it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

[Age]

I don't know - you'll have to say it in a way that's clearly understood by everybody... like for example "Logik kicked my ass in this argument".

"logik" you really do see things that "others" do NOT. Neither of "you" have won any thing, nor "kicked" any thing either.

From my perspective, all you are doing here "logik" is proposing some thing as though you KNOW it is true but when asked to clarify what definition/s you are giving and using with a word or words you use, "you" REFUSE to provide any thing at all. "you" therefore could NOT be wrong and could NEVER be wrong about any thing you say because "you", and "you" alone, have decided and are continually DECIDING what definitions and meanings "you" are using and will use with each and every word "you" use, of which you do NOT want share.

In fact you could NOT share YOUR own definitions because then that would be in contradiction of your BELIEF that language/semiotics is circular, which then you would have to admit that what "you" say is also circular.

I know that murder is wrong. Do you?

For somebody who insists on definitions you really ought to define "define" and "meaning". Please. help us out and provide some clarity.

Because even Wittgenstein couldn't dig us out of that hole. Maybe you are smarter than Wittgenstein, but I doubt it.

What has a human being with the label "wittgenstein" got to do with ANYTHING that I am talking about?

There is NOTHING whatsoever to dig out of. The Truth stands up all by Its Self.

But there is NO way that murder is wrong. Murder is good and necessary. I KNOW this. Does "logik"?

Well. I think you are lying but I could be wrong. I have an idea how to resolve this. Lets murder you and film it.
This way you can be a martyr for your cause.

There is NOTHING wrong with murder, is there? If I say murder is good and necessary, then lets do it. Murder "me", I certainly can NOT see anything with doing this. Can "you"?

If you give me your address I'll pay for my own flights.

If you give me your address will you pay for my flights as well?

[Logik]

There is NOTHING wrong with murder, is there? If I say murder is good and necessary, then lets do it. Murder "me", I certainly can NOT see anything with doing this. Can "you"?

I'll take your word for it.

So. Post your address.

If you give me your address will you pay for my flights as well?

No. I'll come to you.

1. I prefer to see the world.
2. If I reveal my identity I'll be in a heap of trouble with the law.

So we have to murder you somewhat under the radar of the law.

[Logik]

There is NOTHING wrong with murder, is there? If I say murder is good and necessary, then lets do it. Murder "me", I certainly can NOT see anything with doing this. Can "you"?

So my legal brain just did some maths. And I have a question.

Can I just delegate the dirty work to you? e.g live Youtube suicide. We can pretend as if I did it but without me having to (literally) get your blood on my hands.

Pragmatics etc. I can supervise if you insist.

[Age]

But that is NOT a 'problem' at all, from my perspective.

That is ONLY a "problem", from YOUR perspective.

No. by all means. It's not a problem. It's only circular.

Are you OK with circular definitions? If yes - then, no problem.

If you don't see circular reasoning as problematic then so be it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

But there is NO circular reasoning, so there is NO problem. "you" only BELIEVE that there is circular reasoning and problems. 'Reasoning', by definition, is NOT circular in nature. If "you", human beings, turn things into unnecessary and unfortunate circularity and confusion, then that is of "your" own making. Definitions, words, language, semiotics, et cetera does NOT cause circularity, ONLY human beings do. Just like the ONLY thing in Life that causes problems are human beings.

By the way, do you SEE this humorous side of USING links to DEFINITIONS to POINT OUT and make it KNOWN that 'definitions are circular'?

[Age]

There is NOTHING wrong with murder, is there? If I say murder is good and necessary, then lets do it. Murder "me", I certainly can NOT see anything with doing this. Can "you"?

I'll take your word for it.

So. Post your address.

If you give me your address will you pay for my flights as well?

No. I'll come to you.

1. I prefer to see the world.
2. If I reveal my identity I'll be in a heap of trouble with the law.

So we have to murder you somewhat under the radar of the law.

But what happens if i have cancer and want to die, how would you get into trouble for that? It is NOT against the law.

Also, why would you think you have to reveal your identity? No one asked you to.

[Logik]

By the way, do you SEE this humorous side of USING links to DEFINITIONS to POINT OUT and make it KNOWN that 'definitions are circular'?

No. IF you didn't recognize the circularity of language, but you do now then information transfer has happened.

That's the only purpose of language. To move information from one mind to another. Communication.

So why don't you USE language to move some Truth from your mind to mine.

Won't hold my breath.

[Age]

There is NOTHING wrong with murder, is there? If I say murder is good and necessary, then lets do it. Murder "me", I certainly can NOT see anything with doing this. Can "you"?

So my legal brain just did some maths. And I have a question.

Can I just delegate the dirty work to you? e.g live Youtube suicide. We can pretend as if I did it but without me having to (literally) get your blood on my hands.

Are you incapable of killing someone without producing any blood?

Pragmatics etc. I can supervise if you insist.

Also, if i recall correctly, you made a bet that i was a child. "you" have also insisted that i must be a child. Now here you are inciting ME to commit suicide live on youtube, and YOU will SUPERVISE.

Are you SURE that "legal" brain is working correctly?

Do you NOT see any thing illegal here?

[Logik]

Are you incapable of killing someone without producing any blood?

Well, we could poison you too. But for the skeptics out there who would then insist there is some trickery involved and call you a liar, I think it is best that we decapitate you. There is little room for trickery then.

Also, if i recall correctly, you made a bet that i was a child. "you" have also insisted that i must be a child. Now here you are inciting ME to commit suicide live on youtube, and YOU will SUPERVISE.

Incitement? Now there is a word YOU brought into the equation.

Are you SURE that "legal" brain is working correctly?

Do you NOT see any thing illegal here?

Assisting you is illegal.
Inciting you is illegal.

Observing you go through with it... grey area. I don't think there is a law which mandates me from preventing you.


BUT - such trivial and legal matters should not stand in the way of Truth! Shall they? Words have meaning! And you meant to say that murder is NOT wrong. So why are you so concerned with the law now?

[Age]

By the way, do you SEE this humorous side of USING links to DEFINITIONS to POINT OUT and make it KNOWN that 'definitions are circular'?

No. IF you didn't recognize the circularity of language, but you do now then information transfer has happened.

But there is NO circularity of language if you use language properly and correctly.

You only BELIEVE that there is "circularity of language" and therefore are totally incapable of SEEING any thing else.

Your BELIEF will NOT even allow you to LOOK AT any thing else, let alone some thing completely new, so you are totally prevented from learning more and anew.

That's the only purpose of language. To move information from one mind to another. Communication.

But there is NOT more than one Mind. Therefore, there must be ANOTHER purpose for language other than the one that you BELIEVE is true.

So why don't you USE language to move some Truth from your mind to mine.

Because as I have explained Truthfully before there is NO "your" nor NO "mine" "mind".

If "you" already KNEW this Truth, then you would be well on the way to discovering and/or learning that IF language is used properly and correctly, then there is NO "circularity of language" at all, which I KNOW goes against that strongly held BELIEF within that body, so the learning and/or discovering of this will not be soon.

Won't hold my breath.

Please do NOT. "your" words are precious when evidence is needed for proof, or to falsify some thing.

[Age]

Are you incapable of killing someone without producing any blood?

Well, we could poison you too. But for the skeptics out there who would then insist there is some trickery involved and call you a liar, I think it is best that we decapitate you. There is little room for trickery then.

Also, if i recall correctly, you made a bet that i was a child. "you" have also insisted that i must be a child. Now here you are inciting ME to commit suicide live on youtube, and YOU will SUPERVISE.

Incitement? Now there is a word YOU brought into the equation.

Are you SURE that "legal" brain is working correctly?

Do you NOT see any thing illegal here?

Assisting you is illegal.
Inciting you is illegal.

Observing you go through with it... grey area. I don't think there is a law which mandates me from preventing you.


BUT - such trivial and legal matters should not stand in the way of Truth! Shall they? Words have meaning! And you meant to say that murder is NOT wrong. So why are you so concerned with the law now?

I am NOT concerned with law now. I just mentioned that you talked about "legal brain", then I just asked you if "you" saw any thing illegal here? It is a yes or no question.

Also what do you mean by i "meant" to say ... Who are "you" to tell me what I was "meant" to say?

I have said what I said and you have said what you said. "you" allege some ridiculous thing like "murder" is wrong. I am still waiting for you to tell me if "you" KNOW that murder is good and necessary and therefore NOT wrong.

Obviously "you" are WRONG. I am just waiting for you to SEE and UNDERSTAND this.