WARNING! WARNING! PEDOPHILE ALERT! THERE’S A PEDOPHILE AT LARGE ON THIS FORUM!

[N64 Cube]

How about that Super Bowl a few weeks ago, huh? Decent game, right fellas?

 

[quasi101]

How about that Super Bowl a few weeks ago, huh? Decent game, right fellas?

first half was boring as shit.

 

[NoBacon]

quasi realism tehehehe

Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

If you can’t physically overpower me, you’re wrong. That’s all there is to say.

 

[N64 Cube]

If you can’t physically overpower me, you’re wrong. That’s all there is to say.

Did George Soros pay you to post this? /s

 

[Leonard Rhomberg]

quasi realism tehehehe

Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

I’ve got a link for ya right here

Admins are gay

Dont join this Server, the Staff are super unreasonable, inconsiderate and diccmuffins, the server is absolute dogwater with seaweed, utter garbae of FiveM. @duhhell prob lives in his mother’s basement as a highranking admin

forum.cfx.re

 

[Harry Powell]

I’ve got a link for ya right here

Admins are gay

Dont join this Server, the Staff are super unreasonable, inconsiderate and diccmuffins, the server is absolute dogwater with seaweed, utter garbae of FiveM. @duhhell prob lives in his mother’s basement as a highranking admin

forum.cfx.re

Post more chicks on ur profile pls

 

[quasi101]

I’ve got a link for ya right here

Admins are gay

Dont join this Server, the Staff are super unreasonable, inconsiderate and diccmuffins, the server is absolute dogwater with seaweed, utter garbae of FiveM. @duhhell prob lives in his mother’s basement as a highranking admin

forum.cfx.re

are you insulting our board culture

 

[Leonard Rhomberg]

Post more chicks on ur profile pls

your phone crapped out dude

 

[guest]

This entire thread is gayer than the little boys OP has sex with.

 

[DMbA]

Can you faggots at least argue from the same ethical framework instead of just talking past each other. Settle on a standard normative definition of good/bad , ought/ought not.

And if any of you equivocate on the word objective I swear to the chirst himself you'll have to deal with me rambling about the euthyphro dilemma for 20 pages. And that is certainly a pro toto evil.

When you take away a mans privilege to edit his own post you are directly insulting his family, why do you do this?

 

[Farmer Brown]

quasi realism tehehehe

Moral Cognitivism vs. Non-Cognitivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

How long do you have to study this shit so you don't have to re-read each sentence 5 times? I got a splitting headache around 2.5. (Am I really this dumb? Is it cause I'm reading on my phone?

Tappin' out (for now).

 

[quasi101]

How long do you have to study this shit so you don't have to re-read each sentence 5 times? I got a splitting headache around 2.5. (Am I really this dumb? Is it cause I'm reading on my phone?

Tappin' out (for now).

No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:

denoting an element of a set which is unchanged in value when multiplied or otherwise operated on by itself.

All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?

If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt

can you breakdown this paragraph from the SEP into bullet points in laymans terms it is from the moral cognitivism article. A list of bullet points of the terms and jargon used here so that I can independently break it down to understand as a layman

• Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
• Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
• Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
• Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
• Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
• Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
• Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
• Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
• Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
• Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
• Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.

Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.

 

[Leonard Rhomberg]

No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:


All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?

If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt

• Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
• Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
• Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
• Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
• Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
• Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
• Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
• Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
• Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
• Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
• Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.

Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.

How many times have you read that to scan for inaccuracies

 

[LockedHDD__Pot]

When you take away a mans privilege to edit his own post you are directly insulting his family, why do you do this?

mneow neoww neownoww

EDIT: (peanut butter in your keyboard baby-child)

 

[NoBacon]

No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:


All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?

If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt

• Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
• Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
• Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
• Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
• Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
• Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
• Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
• Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
• Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
• Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
• Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.

Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.

The only philosophy I’ve ever placed value in reading was Marcus Aurelius, there’s something about being the most powerful man on Earth and writing for your own benefit that is truly powerful. As far as I know he never intended it to be public or read by anybody.

The rest that I’ve seen is very “intellectual dark web” pontificating for acclaim. I dated a girl in college who studied this stuff and her art student friends said someone was a “post modern Hunter gatherer” for saying an old couch they found was art without a shred of irony. It left a bitter taste.

I’d like to study it properly if I had the time, not for any reason other than to broaden my horizons and hopefully be less retarded in general.

 

[NoBacon]

And yes I know you aren’t talking about philosophy in the way I just did but I’m schizophrenic and it’s all the same thing to me.

 

[Farmer Brown]

No its written in an esoteric jargon filled way. Jargon is extremly useful as shorthand to convey a set of complicated ideas quickly, but you both need to have a shared vocabulary. If I ask a developer, "is this api idempotent?". I don't need to explain all the entailments of what that means. If you google idempotent you get this nonsense sentence:


All that means is that , can I run the same command twice on the same data and the result will always be the same?

If you are actually interested, this is exactly what LLMs (large language models) were created to do. You can take that paragraph and have chatGPT for example break it down into bullet points in layman terms. Here's an example, with the prompt

• Non-cognitivism and irrealism about ethics: Non-cognitivism is a theory that suggests moral statements do not express truths that can be known or discovered. "Irrealism" about ethics means that this theory believes moral values aren't objective facts about the world.
• Overlap with ethical irrealism and error theories: Non-cognitivism shares some beliefs with other theories that also doubt moral truths exist ("ethical irrealism") and theories that believe all moral statements are false ("error theories").
• Metaphysical and epistemic commitments: Early non-cognitivists were concerned with big philosophical questions about what exists (metaphysics) and how we can know things (epistemology) that don't align with the idea that moral claims are true in a realist sense.
• Empirical under-determination: This fancy term means moral judgments don't seem to be supported or contradicted by observable, empirical evidence, making them difficult to prove or disprove through scientific methods.
• Logical positivists' view on meaningful discourse: Logical positivists believed that for language to be meaningful, it must be verifiable through empirical evidence. Since moral statements can't be verified this way, they were seen as problematic unless explained differently.
• Quasi-realism: A term coined by philosopher Simon Blackburn for a version of non-cognitivism that tries to explain how moral language can seem to express true or false statements even though, under non-cognitivism, it doesn't.
• Expressivism: Blackburn's theory, a kind of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements express the speaker's attitudes or emotions rather than factual claims about the world.
• Justifying moral practice and argument: Modern non-cognitivists, including quasi-realists, try to justify why we can still treat moral discussions as meaningful and important even if moral statements aren't objectively true or false.
• Truth-apt: The quality of being capable of being true or false. Quasi-realists focus on explaining why we can treat moral judgments as if they were capable of being true or false, even though they argue such judgments aren't really truth-apt in the same way factual statements are.
• Normative judgments: Judgments about how things should be, including moral judgments. Quasi-realism seeks to justify our treatment of these judgments as though they were true or false, despite their unique nature.
• Special problems for non-cognitivism: The paragraph hints at ongoing challenges for non-cognitivism, particularly in how it explains the role and interpretation of moral language, which will be addressed later in the context of these challenges.

Then you can breakdown the terms even further, until you have an understanding. How long that takes idnk... you'd need a foundation of the dumb way philosotards speak and write. But you can have a grasp of the general non technical subject quickly i think.

Thanks. I'll check out chatGPT.

I did find it interesting that it came up with this: "Empirical under-determination: This fancy term..."

"This fancy term?" WTF is that about? Under what parameters does chatGPT find a term, "fancy?" And even if it does, why does it think it's appropriate to include in this instance? Makes me curious about it's nature...

Anyway, thanks for the break down.

 

[Juschippinyababe]

Eric ((Hildeman)) confessed to me that he is indeed a child lusting pedophile. Why would I make this up?

 

[Farmer Brown]

I dated a girl in college who studied this stuff and her art student friends said someone was a “post modern Hunter gatherer” for saying an old couch they found was art without a shred of irony. It left a bitter taste.

That's both cute and astute.

 

[NoBacon]

Eric ((Hildeman)) confessed to me that he is indeed a child lusting pedophile. Why would I make this up?

It wouldn’t benefit you one bit to make this up. Thank you for sharing the truth.