3 ms·

> The difference here is that this is a category argument Yes, that is the nature of legality, and not actually a problem in any way. Let's try to simplify th

> The difference here is that this is a category argument Yes, that is the nature of legality, and not actually a problem in any way. Let's try to simplify this without hiding behind any half-correctly used thesaurus words, shall we? 1) It's illegal for a reason 2) Things don't stop being illegal just because someone wants them . > the harvesting of meat is currently legal is a terrible counter argument to an argument that it should be illegal You seem to spend a lot of time presuming that someone needs a counterargument. You haven't made a successful argument yet, and even if you did, it doesn't hold any kind of weight. When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal. If you want to talk about category arguments, start here: why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight, and at what point does your failure to garner interest take precedence over whatever your position may be? . > You find the argument, personally, unconvincing. Literally all of society does. This gets discovered every day by someone who really, really wants to explain why the law shouldn't apply to them. Tassles on the admiralty flag, and all of that. . > But, it doesn't make current conditions relevant to a conversations about how they ought to be. I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal.

JoshCole 4y ago
> I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal. Do you not live in the US? I'm not sure why you would be confused about this. It seems like a silly thing to be confused by. > Literally all of society does. This is false. > why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight, and at what point does your failure to garner interest take precedence over whatever your position may be? It was made by humans who have inherent worth which I take to be self-evident? And it did garner the interest I was hoping for - I got answers from kinder people than you who explained things to me in easily understood sentences that I found no flaw with. Ctrl+F "thank". Actually even the idea of garnering interest as the important thing seems kind of suspect to me. That small interaction got the least interest out of all that I've said - yet is the one I'm most glad to have made. I would not be greatly saddened if the only interaction I had was with that single post.
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  You seem to be mass replying to everything I've said I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion Please stop canvassing me now
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - JoshCole 4y ago
    It isn't canvassing for me to engage with you in the sub-thread. Do not forget - originally you were talking to me. Now you might be thinking, well, that doesn't mean you should talk to me in another thread, but recall: You were so rude to me in other replies that your post was killed - I didn't do that, others felt you were that rude. I can't talk to you in the original context. In other contexts - much like those who found you to be rude, I also found you to be rude to others and not just to me. I commented about it, but I commented about it knowing that if someone just tried to tell you that they were being rude you would find it to be a personal attack rather than a cause for reflection, because you took it that way when someone told you as much in the subthread where you had been talking to me. So instead of stating it generally, I was highly specific. I explained exactly why I found you to be rude rather than leaving you with a mystery as to why your posts keep dying. If no one tells you why then you'll just end up getting banned eventually. I liked your points, when I moved past the surface of them to what I saw you trying to talk about. I engage with you, because you have a perspective that I find valuable. I am trying to set you up to not be banned by prompting awareness of how you come across. If you still find me vexing - you've literally been talking with other people about my posts; that you think it inappropriate that I talk with others about your posts is hypocritical.
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      You seem to be mass replying to everything I've said I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion Please stop canvassing me now
Kamq 4y ago
> You seem to spend a lot of time presuming that someone needs a counterargument. Nope. I even said explicitly that just finding an argument unconvincing was enough. > When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal. Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think I want betting on political events to be legal. I don't particularly care that much about that issue. Though I do tend to lean towards legal by default (pretty sure this is standard liberal policy), you can have this one if you feel particularly strong about it. I want weird internet nerds (decent percentage on this site) to have higher quality arguments. > why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight I don't. Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time. > I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal. I haven't made any arguments about what should or should not be legal yet. Also the is/ought divide isn't a thing I'm inventing here, it's an old problem defined by Hume (convenience link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem )
- JohnHaugeland 4y ago
  > Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think No. . > Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time. Not for me.
  - Kamq 4y ago
    > Not for me. Then why do it? Do you feel that commentary on social media has some sort of weight?
    - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
      > Then why do it? As you should have realized from the previous reply, that was me declining to interact with you further (politely) once I realized you were just having fun arguing, rather than having a good faith discussion.

JoshCole 4y ago

> I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal. Do you not live in the US? I'm not sure why you would be confused about this. It seems like a silly thing to be confused by. > Literally all of society does. This is false. > why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight, and at what point does your failure to garner interest take precedence over whatever your position may be? It was made by humans who have inherent worth which I take to be self-evident? And it did garner the interest I was hoping for - I got answers from kinder people than you who explained things to me in easily understood sentences that I found no flaw with. Ctrl+F "thank". Actually even the idea of garnering interest as the important thing seems kind of suspect to me. That small interaction got the least interest out of all that I've said - yet is the one I'm most glad to have made. I would not be greatly saddened if the only interaction I had was with that single post.

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
You seem to be mass replying to everything I've said I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion Please stop canvassing me now
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JoshCole 4y ago
  It isn't canvassing for me to engage with you in the sub-thread. Do not forget - originally you were talking to me. Now you might be thinking, well, that doesn't mean you should talk to me in another thread, but recall: You were so rude to me in other replies that your post was killed - I didn't do that, others felt you were that rude. I can't talk to you in the original context. In other contexts - much like those who found you to be rude, I also found you to be rude to others and not just to me. I commented about it, but I commented about it knowing that if someone just tried to tell you that they were being rude you would find it to be a personal attack rather than a cause for reflection, because you took it that way when someone told you as much in the subthread where you had been talking to me. So instead of stating it generally, I was highly specific. I explained exactly why I found you to be rude rather than leaving you with a mystery as to why your posts keep dying. If no one tells you why then you'll just end up getting banned eventually. I liked your points, when I moved past the surface of them to what I saw you trying to talk about. I engage with you, because you have a perspective that I find valuable. I am trying to set you up to not be banned by prompting awareness of how you come across. If you still find me vexing - you've literally been talking with other people about my posts; that you think it inappropriate that I talk with others about your posts is hypocritical.
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    You seem to be mass replying to everything I've said I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion Please stop canvassing me now

Kamq 4y ago

> You seem to spend a lot of time presuming that someone needs a counterargument. Nope. I even said explicitly that just finding an argument unconvincing was enough. > When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal. Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think I want betting on political events to be legal. I don't particularly care that much about that issue. Though I do tend to lean towards legal by default (pretty sure this is standard liberal policy), you can have this one if you feel particularly strong about it. I want weird internet nerds (decent percentage on this site) to have higher quality arguments. > why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight I don't. Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time. > I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal. I haven't made any arguments about what should or should not be legal yet. Also the is/ought divide isn't a thing I'm inventing here, it's an old problem defined by Hume (convenience link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem )

JohnHaugeland 4y ago
> Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think No. . > Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time. Not for me.
- Kamq 4y ago
  > Not for me. Then why do it? Do you feel that commentary on social media has some sort of weight?
  - JohnHaugeland 4y ago
    > Then why do it? As you should have realized from the previous reply, that was me declining to interact with you further (politely) once I realized you were just having fun arguing, rather than having a good faith discussion.