|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 1:10:27 GMT
Meaning is subjective for one. Either you didn't understand the meaning of what she said or you did.. Questioning it only has two outcomes: If you didn't... then, you're an honest idiot. If you did... then, you're just an idiot. If you want to say that you think that adults can have sex with children.. then just say it, stupid. Quit with all the fcking questions that don't need to be asked because you already know what she meant... or you really are just an idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:11:04 GMT
Would you get into the epistemology of how you're defining and quantifying power? The actor that has the ability to make the action happen has power over the victim who is defenseless to prevent the action from happening. In the context of child molestation, there's physical power in the sense of a greater ability to exercise physical force in order to impose their will, psychological power of persuasion. So the victim of child molestation only has ineffectual power in the face of a stronger and more intelligent adult authority. For bringing the child into existence in the first place, the power would be capability and the fact that the person who is going to be the victim doesn't exist yet and therefore cannot take any action (no matter how ineffectual) to prevent the action from taking place. Your definition of power is "ability to make an action happen"? In the context of not talking about physical force, how are we determining the quantification of power per that definition?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:15:34 GMT
I asked you a question (re "Aren't you trying . . .") that you answered "No" to. Obviously I'm referring to that . ...and I answered which is neither yes nor no butt something different which you clearly don't wish to deal with because it doesn't fit your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:17:43 GMT
Meaning is subjective for one. Either you didn't understand the meaning of what she said or you did.. Questioning it only has two outcomes: If you didn't... then, you're an honest idiot. If you did... then, you're just an idiot. If you want to say that you think that adults can have sex with children.. then just say it, stupid. Quit with all the fcking questions that don't need to be asked because you already know what she meant... or you really are just an idiot. We don't understand meanings, we assign them. We understand utterances. Utterances are different than meanings. Meanings are mental phenomena and can't be made into something different, or somehow embedded into other phenomena, etc. If we're trying to establish a coherent, consistent framework for something against a challenge whether it's possible, we need to clarify just what we're referring to by various terms. Maybe you're unfamiliar with that idea, but I don't see how that's anything aside from a lack of education on your part.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:20:38 GMT
I asked you a question (re "Aren't you trying . . .") that you answered "No" to. Obviously I'm referring to that . ...and I answered which is neither yes nor no butt something different which you clearly don't wish to deal with because it doesn't fit your agenda. Hence why I just wrote "that you answered 'No' to." You asked me what I was referring to. That pointed you to what I was referring to. "Which is neither yes nor no . . " I have no idea what that is referring to. What is neither yes nor no?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jun 9, 2018 1:24:00 GMT
Either you didn't understand the meaning of what she said or you did.. Questioning it only has two outcomes: If you didn't... then, you're an honest idiot. If you did... then, you're just an idiot. If you want to say that you think that adults can have sex with children.. then just say it, stupid. Quit with all the fcking questions that don't need to be asked because you already know what she meant... or you really are just an idiot. We don't understand meanings, we assign them. We understand utterances. Utterances are different than meanings. First off... dipshit... We are in print. In print, what we write is an utterance. So either you understand what she uttered or you don't... But, either way you really are just an annoying dumbass. The only thing being established is that you are a fucking moron.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:26:55 GMT
We don't understand meanings, we assign them. We understand utterances. Utterances are different than meanings. First off... dipshit... We are in print. In print, what we write is an utterance. So either you understand what she uttered or you don't... It's as if you somehow missed that I just wrote, and you just quoted, "We understand utterances."
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:27:08 GMT
...and I answered which is neither yes nor no butt something different which you clearly don't wish to deal with because it doesn't fit your agenda. Hence why I just wrote "that you answered 'No' to." You asked me what I was referring to. That pointed you to what I was referring to. "Which is neither yes nor no . . " I have no idea what that is referring to. What is neither yes nor no? The answer is neither yes nor no to what you asked
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:28:50 GMT
Hence why I just wrote "that you answered 'No' to." You asked me what I was referring to. That pointed you to what I was referring to. "Which is neither yes nor no . . " I have no idea what that is referring to. What is neither yes nor no? The answer is neither yes nor no to what you asked Then why did you initially just write "No"?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:32:05 GMT
The answer is neither yes nor no to what you asked Then why did you initially just write "No"? Because there was another option, as I stated.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:35:14 GMT
Then why did you initially just write "No"? Because there was another option, as I stated. You wouldn't only respond "No" to a yes or no question if you are asserting that there's a third option. No is no. Not a third option. Anyway, what would you say the third option is?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 9, 2018 1:35:15 GMT
The things is everyone understands what we are saying including you. But you have to show off?
We are not in a classroom, we are not in a proffessors meeting. We are in a chat forum, where common speech is used.
is/oughts... what's the meaning of.... what do you mean by... ect.. are just you are utter non sense in the context of this discussion because you know darn well what is meant.
So if you disagree with something just say it...
There are people out there having sex with 8 month old babies. There are people out there having sex with 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 8 year olds, ect...
Yes an abitrary line has been drawn, based on studies and insights into children psychology and physiology to indicate when children are permitted to have sex. It's not sex with adults by the way... it's sex.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:36:53 GMT
The things is everyone understands what we are saying including you. But you have to show off? We are not in a classroom, we are not in a proffessors meeting. We are in a chat forum, where common speech is used. is/oughts... what's the meaning of.... what do you mean by... ect.. are just you are utter non sense in the context of this discussion because you know darn well what is meant. So if you disagree with something just say it... There are people out there having sex with 8 month old babies. There are people out there having sex with 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 8 year olds, ect... Yes an abitrary line has been drawn, based on studies and insights into children psychology and physiology to indicate when children are permitted to have sex. It's not sex with adults by the way... it's sex. As the OP, I hope you are not referring to me?
|
|
islandmur
Sophomore
All religions have messages of peace and love yet all religions are used for wars and hatred...
@islandmur
Posts: 320
Likes: 180
|
Post by islandmur on Jun 9, 2018 1:40:05 GMT
The things is everyone understands what we are saying including you. But you have to show off? We are not in a classroom, we are not in a proffessors meeting. We are in a chat forum, where common speech is used. is/oughts... what's the meaning of.... what do you mean by... ect.. are just you are utter non sense in the context of this discussion because you know darn well what is meant. So if you disagree with something just say it... There are people out there having sex with 8 month old babies. There are people out there having sex with 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 8 year olds, ect... Yes an abitrary line has been drawn, based on studies and insights into children psychology and physiology to indicate when children are permitted to have sex. It's not sex with adults by the way... it's sex. As the OP, I hope you are not referring to me? Lol of course not. are you the one asking what's the meaning of? Are you the one asking about what people studied at the university? (by the way , before the superior man asks, for me it's nothing I never went).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:46:50 GMT
The things is everyone understands what we are saying including you. But you have to show off? We are not in a classroom, we are not in a proffessors meeting. We are in a chat forum, where common speech is used. is/oughts... what's the meaning of.... what do you mean by... ect.. are just you are utter non sense in the context of this discussion because you know darn well what is meant. So if you disagree with something just say it... There are people out there having sex with 8 month old babies. There are people out there having sex with 2 year olds, 6 year olds, 8 year olds, ect... Yes an abitrary line has been drawn, based on studies and insights into children psychology and physiology to indicate when children are permitted to have sex. It's not sex with adults by the way... it's sex. Sure. What i disagree with is your claim that you know what you "mean" in any manner that's not hopelessly vague, and I disagree that your stance on this and related issues isn't incoherent/inconsistent. You have to show otherwise to defend against that. Not just claim it by fiat, not just appeal to "common sense," not just rely on an argumentum ad populum, etc. What I'm challenging is in some ways similar to challenging whether there's really a workable demarcation criterion for a cleavage between science and pseudoscience. Only this is much more complex, because we have a whole roster of demarcation criteria to deal with. And the science/pseudoscience demarcation criterion hasn't been settled yet despite mounds of papers and books being written about it over many decades.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:47:28 GMT
As the OP, I hope you are not referring to me? Lol of course not. are you the one asking what's the meaning of? Are you the one asking about what people studied at the university? (by the way , before the superior man asks, for me it's nothing I never went). Phew! The thing about this poster, is that he prides himself on his rationality and study of logic and (maybe philosophy) at University level, butt it all comes to nothing if you misapply that knowledge IMHO. Worse, IF you apply that knowledge 'inappropriately' as I believe in this case, it makes you look like a paedo instead of someone just testing the fallibility of the arguments... It looks like ( whether that is true or not) that he has another agenda. I have agreed with much of what he has said in the past on other topics. NOT this time baby! (pun VERY MUCH intended)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 1:50:25 GMT
Because there was another option, as I stated. You wouldn't only respond "No" to a yes or no question if you are asserting that there's a third option. No is no. Not a third option. Anyway, what would you say the third option is? The third option were my statements on the original inappropriate thread. A middle ground option.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 1:56:26 GMT
Lol of course not. are you the one asking what's the meaning of? Are you the one asking about what people studied at the university? (by the way , before the superior man asks, for me it's nothing I never went). Phew! The thing about this poster, is that he prides himself on his rationality and study of logic and (maybe philosophy) at University level, butt it all comes to nothing if you misapply that knowledge IMHO. Worse, IF you apply that knowledge 'inappropriately' as I believe in this case, it makes you look like a paedo instead of someone just testing the fallibility of the arguments... It looks like ( whether that is true or not) that he has another agenda. I have agreed with much of what he has said in the past on other topics. NOT this time baby! (pun VERY MUCH intended) I wouldn't say that, and if we're talking about ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, etc., then the things we express re stances, preferences, etc. are ultimately going to have nothing to do with rationality. Additionally, in my view, rationality, logic, mathematics, etc. are subjective, and I have a rather postmodernist view on that. What I'm challenging is the claim that the norms that people are exercising to control others are rational, especially in any objective sense. At least be curious about and try to understand my views and their motivations before you criticize them.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 9, 2018 2:02:55 GMT
I've got to continue tomorrow, btw.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 9, 2018 2:08:49 GMT
Phew! The thing about this poster, is that he prides himself on his rationality and study of logic and (maybe philosophy) at University level, butt it all comes to nothing if you misapply that knowledge IMHO. Worse, IF you apply that knowledge 'inappropriately' as I believe in this case, it makes you look like a paedo instead of someone just testing the fallibility of the arguments... It looks like ( whether that is true or not) that he has another agenda. I have agreed with much of what he has said in the past on other topics. NOT this time baby! (pun VERY MUCH intended) I wouldn't say that, and if we're talking about ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy, etc., then the things we express re stances, preferences, etc. are ultimately going to have nothing to do with rationality. Additionally, in my view, rationality, logic, mathematics, etc. are subjective, and I have a rather postmodernist view on that. What I'm challenging is the claim that the norms that people are exercising to control others are rational, especially in any objective sense. At least be curious about and try to understand my views and their motivations before you criticize them. I don't mean to judge you, I don't know you, however you come across this way in what you write on these Boards. It is my opinion even from what you claimed in the prior paragraph and sentences, that you are way off the mark here, with this subject matter. Objectively ( if there is such a thing) harming children is just wrong. I can't say it any plainer.
|
|