That it's fun to do and informative to others. It might be fun for them too.
The reason I was asking morality yesterday was because that was the main question of the post. America bad and Russia bad are moral questions, so I was asking them as such.
But is your fun the morally justifiable kind? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in a truely high-level idea discussion with the morality understander
It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.
I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?
They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.
What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc
So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?
That it's fun to do and informative to others. It might be fun for them too.
The reason I was asking morality yesterday was because that was the main question of the post. America bad and Russia bad are moral questions, so I was asking them as such.
I will admit that I am having fun posting.
But is your fun the morally justifiable kind? I'm trying to get to the bottom of this in a truely high-level idea discussion with the morality understander
As a Hexbear poster, I have abandoned my morality and kneel at the altar of the Russo-Sino Satanist.
Is fun moral?
Not always but in this case
What makes it morally justifiable in this case but not others?
That it is benefiting those involved instead of being to their determent.
Is benefiting others morally justifiable?
Yes
What is the moral justification for your answer?
It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.
This is an appeal to the one true scotsman fallacy
Look up axioms. You'll see they are the staring points of logical arguments.
Why do you get to define axioms to exclude my definition?
I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?
Words have the meaning we give them, not always just the original meaning
Exactly. And the general meaning is the one I just gave.
But general definition is not stable it changes. You're just saying this in a way to negate my definition. Why do you get to define it?
The majority/community defines it has hasn't changed it yet.
So you're trying to say words have actual meanings?
They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.
So words have settled meanings when you say they do?
What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc
I mean you feel confindent saying that a word has a meaning that is agreed upon
Yes? Sometimes multiple in the case of homophones.
So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?