1 edit
Yes, Dr. S, you won't understand the reasons until you understand the role that fishing generally plays in leading a flourishing human life for those humans interested in fishing, and the importance to fisherpeople in having ample time to fish during the formative years of their cast, and the importance to society of having people that aren't, for economic reasons, alienated from pursuing those basic human desires like fishing, and the importance to society of having people who are relaxed and happy because their fishing time was secure and available.
Originally posted by bbarrSo you're presuming that people with such an understanding constitute the majority of the unbiased hypothetical panel?
You won't understand the reasons until you understand the role that being a parent generally plays in leading a flourishing human life, and the importance to children in having a parent around during formative years, and the importance to society of having people that aren't, for economic reasons, alienated from pursuing those basic human desires like being a ...[text shortened]... portance to society of having people who were raised by parents who were secure and available.
Originally posted by royalchickenHmmm.
Yes, Dr. S, you won't understand the reasons until you understand the role that fishing generally plays in leading a flourishing human life for those humans interested in fishing, and the importance to fisherpeople in having ample time to fish during the formative years of their cast, and the importance to society of having people that aren't, for econo ...[text shortened]... f having people who are relaxed and happy because their fishing time was secure and available.
So you're presuming that people with such an understanding constitute the majority of the unbiased hypothetical panel?
Just what is the makeup of this unbiased panel?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYour analogy is false. The term 'right' as used in your original example, isn't merely stipulative. There is a long tradition of using the term in precisely that way.
That's one of my points. When the intelligent endorse inacurate claims because they can figure out their real meaning, what effect does that have on the ignorant with respect to their belief in the same claim?
If bbarr really believed what he told me regarding feminist language, then he would endorse my claim that niggers ought to be imprisoned f ...[text shortened]... rsuaded to think that those who they denote by the term niggers actually should be imprisoned.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWell, if we take the whole human race as our panel, we can assume that the probability that they all fish is nonzero, especially if we find one who doesn't fish!
Hmmm.
So you're presuming that people with such an understanding constitute the majority of the unbiased hypothetical panel?
Just what is the makeup of this unbiased panel?
Originally posted by bbarrVery good post. The 'false analogy' business on FW is a very true analogy to the language gymnastics going on in this thread.
Your analogy is [b]false. The term 'right' as used in your original example, isn't merely stipulative. There is a long tradition of using the term in precisely that way.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrOK, would you agree with my claim that "Fairies, homos and faggots have the same rights as normal people," since there is a long standing tradition of distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals in precisely this manner, and since I'm not stipulating any denotation?
Your analogy is [b]false. The term 'right' as used in your original example, isn't merely stipulative. There is a long tradition of using the term in precisely that way.[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have a hard enough time convincing people on these forums that people have any innate rights at all. Most seem to think that rights are merely something that the majority allow you to do if they feel like it. So yes this type of imprecision in language is a problem.
That's one of my points. When the intelligent endorse inacurate claims because they can figure out their real meaning, what effect does that have on the ignorant with respect to their belief in the same claim?
If bbarr really believed what he told me regarding feminist language, then he would endorse my claim that niggers ought to be imprisoned f ...[text shortened]... rsuaded to think that those who they denote by the term niggers actually should be imprisoned.
Originally posted by royalchickenThe basic difference between parenthood, chess and fishing is that we are constructed by nature to be very strongly inclined towards the former (such that the vast majority of us take it to be partly constitutive of a flourishing human life), and constructed by nature such that having available parents conduces to our well-being.
Yes, Dr. S, you won't understand the reasons until you understand the role that fishing generally plays in leading a flourishing human life for those humans interested in fishing, and the importance to fisherpeople in having ample time to fish during the formative years of their cast, and the importance to society of having people that aren't, for econo ...[text shortened]... f having people who are relaxed and happy because their fishing time was secure and available.
Now, let the irrelevant objections concerning necessary conditions commence...
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou know I'd agree with that assertion, though I'd take issue with the manner in which it is expressed. That is, I'd endorse the propositional content of the expression.
OK, would you agree with my claim that "Fairies, homos and faggots have the same rights as normal people," since there is a long standing tradition of distinguishing homosexuals from heterosexuals in precisely this manner, and since I'm not stipulating any denotation?
Originally posted by bbarrBiologically speaking, fishing and similar activities (ie, providing food) are almost as ingrained as having children and probably more ingrained than most aspects of good parenting (which are not, or were not until relatively recently, widespread). Fishing is no more a surrogate activity (in the Ted Kaczynski sense) than raising children is.
The basic difference between parenthood, chess and fishing is that we are constructed by nature to be very strongly inclined towards the former (such that the vast majority of us take it to be partly constitutive of a flourishing human life), and constructed by nature such that having available parents conduces to our well-being.
Now, let the irrelevant objections concerning necessary conditions commence...
Raising children, at least in societies sufficiently economically developed to have maternity leave, is about as practically necessary for an individual as pointlessly gathering food is. I think your only argument must come from the benefits to society of individuals raising children, not from any benefit to the individuals.
Originally posted by royalchickenSomehow I doubt that in primitive societies, women who had just had children were deprived of the economic benefits of society if they needed to take care of them. The idea that they should be is unnatural in the extreme.
Biologically speaking, fishing and similar activities (ie, providing food) are almost as ingrained as having children and probably more ingrained than most aspects of good parenting (which are not, or were not until relatively recently, widespread). Fishing is no more a surrogate activity (in the Ted Kaczynski sense) than raising children is.
Raisin ...[text shortened]... he benefits to society of individuals raising children, not from any benefit to the individuals.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenSo, what's the best way to ensure that people are able to provide food for themselves? Maybe we ought to devise a system whereby in exchange for labor access to representations of purchasing power is accorded. Then, if we provide 'outlets' where these representations could be cashed in for food....
Biologically speaking, fishing and similar activities (ie, providing food) are almost as ingrained as having children and probably more ingrained than most aspects of good parenting (which are not, or were not until relatively recently, widespread). Fishing is no more a surrogate activity (in the Ted Kaczynski sense) than raising children is.
Raisin ...[text shortened]... he benefits to society of individuals raising children, not from any benefit to the individuals.
Oh, wait.
Anyway, having children may not be practically necessary, if what that means is that it is possible for one to lead a flourishing human life without having children. But this is irrelevant to my point. The vast majority of people have psychologies such that having children is taken by them to be practically necessary for flourishing. And this is not merely a fact contingent upon their cultural habituation. These drives come from our nature as human organisms.