morality is answers to questions about how to live. it is not a “function of sentience”.
the theory “morality not is objective” means that for any non-ambiguous question, there are multiple equally good answers.
an example of a non-ambiguous question is, “which computer should i buy today, if any, given my situation and background knowledge, and indeed given the entire state of the universe if it’s relevant”.
morality being objective means if a different person got into an identical situation (it only has to actually be the same in the relevant ways which are limited), the answer would be the same for him, not magically change.
so far this doesn’t have a lot of substance. yet it is what objectivity means. subjectivity is a dumb theory which advocates magic and whim.
the reason objectivity is important (besides for rejecting subjective denials that moral arguments can apply to anyone who doesn’t feel like letting them) is that when you consider lots of objective moral answers (in full detail the way i was saying) you find: there are common themes across multiple answers and many things are irrelevant (so, common themes across all questions in categories specified by only a small number of details). some explanations hold, and govern the answers, across many different moral questions. those are important and objective moral truths. when we learn them, they don’t just help us once but can be re-used to help with other choices later.
It is a convention here to use capital letters at the start of sentences. Either as a mere stuffy traditional baggage inherited from English grammar or because it makes it easier to parse the flow of a paragraph at a glance.
The problem is solved by software, in the form of the “Vote down” and “Reply” buttons, which allow to eventually correct things like that.
(More seriously, having the site automatically add proper capitalization to what people write would be awful, even if it was worth adding a feature for the tiny minority of people who can’t find their “shift” key)
The problem is solved by software, in the form of the “Vote down” and “Reply” buttons, which allow to eventually correct things like that.
I like it. (Because I had written the exact same thing myself and only refrained from posting it because curi had tipped my fairly sensitive ‘troll’ meter which invokes my personal injunction against feeding with replies.)
This website has such high standards that I would have felt totally out of line if I’d offered a frank opinion on the credibility/crankiness of our visitor.
But I guess what’s awesome about the karma system is that it removes any need to ‘descend to the personal level’. No need to drive people away with mockery or insults.
Following the rules of English is solely the writer’s responsibility. Some text input methods, such as onscreen keyboards for cell phones, will do capitalization for you. They will sometimes get it wrong, though, so you have to override them, and this is inconvenient enough that people who’re used to using the shift key don’t want autocapitalization. For example, variable names stay in lower-case if they’re at the start of a sentence, and some periods represent abbreviations rather than the ends of sentences.
More to the point, though, proper capitalization, punctuation, spelling and grammar are signals that reveal how fluent a writer is in English, and whether they’ve proofread. Comments that don’t follow the basic rules of English can be dismissed more readily, because writers still struggling with language are usually struggling with concepts too, and a comment that hasn’t been proofread probably hasn’t been checked for logical errors either.
Following the rules of English is solely the writer’s responsibility.
It seems to me you have a moral theory that people should have to work hard, and be punished for failing to conform to convention, even though, if you want to read it a particular way you could solve that in software without bothering me. If it’s a convention here in particular, as I was told, then software support could be added to the website instead of used by individual readers. You’re irrationally objecting to dissident or “lazy” behavior on principle, and you don’t want to solve the problem in a way which is nicer people you think should be forced to change. This is an intolerant and illiberal view.
Your plan of inferring whether I proofread, or whether I am fluent with English, from my use or not of capitalization, is rather flawed. I often proofread and don’t edit capitalization. But you don’t care about that. The important thing to you is the moral issue, not that your semi-factual arguments are false.
morality is answers to questions about how to live. it is not a “function of sentience”.
the theory “morality not is objective” means that for any non-ambiguous question, there are multiple equally good answers.
an example of a non-ambiguous question is, “which computer should i buy today, if any, given my situation and background knowledge, and indeed given the entire state of the universe if it’s relevant”.
morality being objective means if a different person got into an identical situation (it only has to actually be the same in the relevant ways which are limited), the answer would be the same for him, not magically change.
so far this doesn’t have a lot of substance. yet it is what objectivity means. subjectivity is a dumb theory which advocates magic and whim.
the reason objectivity is important (besides for rejecting subjective denials that moral arguments can apply to anyone who doesn’t feel like letting them) is that when you consider lots of objective moral answers (in full detail the way i was saying) you find: there are common themes across multiple answers and many things are irrelevant (so, common themes across all questions in categories specified by only a small number of details). some explanations hold, and govern the answers, across many different moral questions. those are important and objective moral truths. when we learn them, they don’t just help us once but can be re-used to help with other choices later.
It is a convention here to use capital letters at the start of sentences. Either as a mere stuffy traditional baggage inherited from English grammar or because it makes it easier to parse the flow of a paragraph at a glance.
Why don’t you just solve the problem in software instead of whining about it? It’s not hard.
The problem is solved by software, in the form of the “Vote down” and “Reply” buttons, which allow to eventually correct things like that.
(More seriously, having the site automatically add proper capitalization to what people write would be awful, even if it was worth adding a feature for the tiny minority of people who can’t find their “shift” key)
I like it. (Because I had written the exact same thing myself and only refrained from posting it because curi had tipped my fairly sensitive ‘troll’ meter which invokes my personal injunction against feeding with replies.)
Agreed.
This website has such high standards that I would have felt totally out of line if I’d offered a frank opinion on the credibility/crankiness of our visitor.
But I guess what’s awesome about the karma system is that it removes any need to ‘descend to the personal level’. No need to drive people away with mockery or insults.
why would it be awful to have (optional) software support for “a convention here”?
Following the rules of English is solely the writer’s responsibility. Some text input methods, such as onscreen keyboards for cell phones, will do capitalization for you. They will sometimes get it wrong, though, so you have to override them, and this is inconvenient enough that people who’re used to using the shift key don’t want autocapitalization. For example, variable names stay in lower-case if they’re at the start of a sentence, and some periods represent abbreviations rather than the ends of sentences.
More to the point, though, proper capitalization, punctuation, spelling and grammar are signals that reveal how fluent a writer is in English, and whether they’ve proofread. Comments that don’t follow the basic rules of English can be dismissed more readily, because writers still struggling with language are usually struggling with concepts too, and a comment that hasn’t been proofread probably hasn’t been checked for logical errors either.
It seems to me you have a moral theory that people should have to work hard, and be punished for failing to conform to convention, even though, if you want to read it a particular way you could solve that in software without bothering me. If it’s a convention here in particular, as I was told, then software support could be added to the website instead of used by individual readers. You’re irrationally objecting to dissident or “lazy” behavior on principle, and you don’t want to solve the problem in a way which is nicer people you think should be forced to change. This is an intolerant and illiberal view.
Your plan of inferring whether I proofread, or whether I am fluent with English, from my use or not of capitalization, is rather flawed. I often proofread and don’t edit capitalization. But you don’t care about that. The important thing to you is the moral issue, not that your semi-factual arguments are false.
I have been trolled. I have lost. I will have a nice day anyways.
I like your attitude, son!