3 ms·

> I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse. Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individ

> I do not now the meaning of something where badness != misuse. Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement. > A lot of disagreements boil down to a different usage of a word Here you are making the same case yourself. > Would you agree to "Killing others is natural"? Happens all the time in nature, including the last time you ate a hamburger or some beans or bread. Happens also in self-defense and territorial disputes. We also observe predators and prey co-existing peacefully in nature at times. I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. Further, it's one which can only be argued by someone who's connection to their food ends at the grocery store. Wild that some folks have forgotten what they are giving thanks for at mealtime. You may not consider animals or plants to be "others", but then you've only given me additional reason to discount your moral judgement as incomplete, narcissistic, and even further disconnected from the nature you invoke as justification. P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_animals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima...

1718627440 1y ago
> Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement. The claim I stated that that started this thread was, that different definitions of badness are accompanied by different but respective definitions of misuse. > Here you are making the same case yourself. Yes? I used a word having some meaning in mind, you interpreted it with a different meaning, which obviously doesn't work. You pointed that out, so I pointed out, that that was not the meaning of the word I was using it for. > I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. > P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima... That's what I was answering to, with "Killing others is natural". This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Because animals (including humans) can do and do something, does not mean we want to cater to that as a society. In fact restricting things, that might not even be bad in isolation, is what separates civilization from the undomesticated.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a morally defensible argument in court. > I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. Seeing as your argument was anticipated, and a suitable set of counterexamples was provided preemptively, I think not.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    > Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a moral argument in court. "I (accidentally) killed him, while trying to protect me." is very different from "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." When you need to have a serious threat to make you do something, then that thing is in fact not your nature. > I think not. I pointed out another example of that meaning of the word "nature" and you answered as if I made claims about morality of killing or slaughtering people/animals? Sorry to me that felt very much like scope creep.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. > "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." Physician, heal thyself.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        And immibis complained, that my answers are indecipherable... . What do you want to say me with these words?

1718627440 1y ago

> Seems to me that you've demonstrated clearly through the course of the discussion that individual definitions of "badness" differ substantially enough for there to be significant disagreement. The claim I stated that that started this thread was, that different definitions of badness are accompanied by different but respective definitions of misuse. > Here you are making the same case yourself. Yes? I used a word having some meaning in mind, you interpreted it with a different meaning, which obviously doesn't work. You pointed that out, so I pointed out, that that was not the meaning of the word I was using it for. > I can see the rhetorical corner you're attempting to back the discussion into, and it's a weak position devoid of nuance or understanding. I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. > P.S. drug use is also observed in nature: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use_in_anima... That's what I was answering to, with "Killing others is natural". This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Because animals (including humans) can do and do something, does not mean we want to cater to that as a society. In fact restricting things, that might not even be bad in isolation, is what separates civilization from the undomesticated.

timschmidt 1y ago
> This is a factual true statement, but you wouldn't accept this as a moral argument in a court. Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a morally defensible argument in court. > I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. Seeing as your argument was anticipated, and a suitable set of counterexamples was provided preemptively, I think not.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  > Self defense, as I pointed out, is a perfectly normal reason to kill someone which is widely accepted as a moral argument in court. "I (accidentally) killed him, while trying to protect me." is very different from "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." When you need to have a serious threat to make you do something, then that thing is in fact not your nature. > I think not. I pointed out another example of that meaning of the word "nature" and you answered as if I made claims about morality of killing or slaughtering people/animals? Sorry to me that felt very much like scope creep.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > I think you are over-interpreting me, answering to something I haven't said. > "Oh, killing is just (second) nature to me, I need the daily kick." Physician, heal thyself.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      And immibis complained, that my answers are indecipherable... . What do you want to say me with these words?