I won't be stepping out in front of a moving bus anytime soon.

Why you may ask?

Because doing so has real effects/affects - simulation or not!

It is amazing and sad how good 'ole Ronnie Raygun's words still have obvious perlocutionary affects/affects on the society at large.

"Government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem!"

He then went on to convince enough folk of the need for Reaganomics(trickle down), subsequently giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest folk in the country while offsetting the costs of this by cutting spending on social programs and/or dissolving some of them altogether. The records clearly show that, on average, the wealth has not trickled down. In fact, the wealthiest folk have had their overall worth multiply at an exponentially faster rate than those who are not.

This is a bit of support for what has been said thus far.

That much being said, it is not at all a stretch to say that some of the direct consequences of our taking these actions have been disasterous. One very curious example would be the nationwide closing of all of the mental health institutions that housed folk who were a danger to themselves and/or to our society. We used to house mentally disturbed folk in the 'looney bins'. You know folk like most if not all of the different perpetrators of the numerous mass killings? Those folk who may have never had the opportunity to do such a thing had the powers at be not decided that it would be better to put that money into the pockets of the wealthiest folk in the country.

The real irony, the thing that really gets to me now lies in the fact that so many talking heads, especially those who identify with the conservatives, and/or the conservatives themselves who are parroting each others' talking points are currently shifting the focus away from the need for better gun safety(which they like to call 'gun control') onto the idea that we need to have a better mental health system in place. That that is the real problem!

Fancy that!

Now, here's the most bothersome part. How do you think that the conservative politician's will propose funding that idea? I strongly suspect that they will not suggest going back to the way it was previously funded, for that would amount to an increase in revenue through taxation. Rather, true to their current dogma of austerity, they will propose to do so by cutting even more spending from yet more social programs. That is taking more things away from the folk who already have the least in order to fix a problem - that they've brought into the light - that was, by and in large, originally caused by giving the ones with the most even more!

Wake up America!

Yup.

Violent folk, modern day guns, and irrational minds is a scary combination.

Just like our founding fathers, I'm all for the right to bear muzzle loaders.

Not a fault to appear arrogant, being so may be another matter altogether. Appearances are in the eye of the beholder. So, one may appear like this or that without being so.

pyrrhonian?

Indeed the word "truth" is already a part of language. However so is "brain" "thought" and "reality". So, as we can see, just because we have a name for a thing it does not mean that that which is being named requires language for it's existence. Correspondence to fact/reality is one such thing.

Not sure what you're asking about in the end. Can you rephrase you questions, or perhaps put them into some context?

The appreciation is shared.

Looks a bit passive aggressive.

How are ya funches?

funches is still hard at work I see.

Indeed, sadly enough, there are certainly cases like this. It does not follow that all cases of southern hospitality have this two-facedness at heart though. So we must realize that just because some folk are like this, it doesn't mean that all folk are.




Indeed, we can envision many such cases. As before though, we can also envision cases where folk decide to be honest in these cases too.




Well, in general, lying is unacceptable. Society requires honesty and trust. Everyday conversation requires the listener trusting and/or believing that the speaker is being honest. There are not very many laws of human behavior that I can think of but all this indicates one.

A listener cannot take a speaker at their word unless trust in the truthfulness of the testimony is present.





It is all too often the case that someone we depend upon for our livelihood forbids our being truthful in certain circumstances.





Indeed. Rudeness is not necessary for honesty.

Hmmmmm... could be interesting!

By the way, the constant state of flux poses no problem when using spatiotemporal indexicals.

1=1 could be, and is often, called a necessary truth, a tautology, an apriori truth, etc. In that sense "truth" is subsumed into language. All of these are language constructs. 1=1 is an artifact of language. If 1=1 is equivalent to truth then truth is an artifact of language. Thus, you've subsumed truth into langauge.

Here's why it is a mistake...

Thought/belief formation happens prior to language acquisition. As a result, true/false belief exists prior to language. Whenever true belief exists so too does truth. If true belief exists prior to language acquisition, then so too does truth. "Truth" in this sense is correspondence to fact/reality.

Hm. Seems to me that I saw words, inferred meaning, and recorded my thought/belief about that. If my thought/belief is of the sort that can correspond with/to fact/reality, then it would be true.




Seems to me that how this is worded blurs a number of different things.

Hello. Thanks. Dragoness in cognito?

One could write an essay on how to spot dubious presuppositions 'in the wild' based solely upon the content of the OP. That may be an interesting avenue.

I think that once one understands how folk interact and the subsequent effects/affects it can have upon ourselves and/or our loved ones, especially in the continental US, it becomes clear that always being honest can be a vice rather than a virtue.

Keep in mind that I do not believe in any form of cosmic retribution.

I suppose that threre is a certain amount of irony in play here as well.

I mean, if the OP is designed to see if 'liberals' can argue against conservatives without resorting to ad hom, and must accomplish this feat by arguing against what has been written by this fellow, then it seems that what he's arguing ought be void of it. That is not the case. There are at least four cases of ad hom contained within his remarks.

I'm not seeing how any of that has anything to do with truth. That looks to be about the law of identity. A=A The problem with starting there is that it is utterly meaningless without not A. Truth always has something to do with a sort of alignment between what is claimed about the world and the way the world is.

Furthermore, you've subsumed truth into language which is a mistake.

I am in agreement with Pan here. Not so much with how he's arguing the point, but rather with the point itself. Lying is not human nature. It cannot be. One cannot lie on an accident. To lie is to deliberately misrepresent one's own thought/belief. Lying works upon a background of honesty.

I would further argue that in order to learn language, one must trust that the teacher's testimony is truthful. One must think/believe that that is called "a tree".