Does the student think the student is polite? Go with it. If he does, then the irrelevant statement made by the student is correct

Once more we hear the slogan, "One man's so and so, is another man's such and such" ("one man's rude is another's polite", and the prize of them all, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") which, like all bumper sticker sagacities have a certain initial plausibility, butwhich on any kind of examination, fall apart. Of course, like all such things, they are true about trivialities like, "One man's tastiness is another man's disgusting" since we all know that tastes differ (although not so much as we think they do) and there is, as they say, no arguing about tastes. That is, there is no correct or incorrect when it comes to taste. But when it comes to serious matters, it becomes clear that the slogan in question is simply false when it is understood as saying that there is no correct or incorrect. An example will show that. Someone swaggers into class while the instructor is lecturing, noisily sits down, starts talking loudly to his neighbors, takes out a newspaper, opens it to the sports pages, begins reading it, give a loud laugh every once in a while, all the time the instructor is trying to lecture. So, the instructor stops and says to the student, "You are very rude". The student looks up, and says pleasantly, "One man's rudeness is another man's politeness" and resumes reading the paper emitting loud horse-laughs every once in a while.

Is the student right? What the student was doing might have been rude "to the instructor", but it was "polite to the student".

When you are confronting an abstract slogan then, as Wittgenstein advises, "back to the rough ground". Give an example!

But isn't it still rape, regardless what you, I, or even the pervert think it is?

I would answer: Yes, it is.

Hi Zetherin,

I completely agree with you! but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

Best wishes Zetherin.

Mark...

When I point to something and say ball and you understand, there must be something we both share, or you won't understand.

Well then that is the point. That this is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

And I think this applies to the opening post, too.



Yes, but the subjectivist will say, "Well, it's not a ball to me! It's only a ball to you" or some such nonsense.

This is why I think sometimes violence is the answer

My initial post to you echoes kennethamy's last:

I don't understand how the student could think his actions were polite. I mean, it would seem to me that he doesn't know what the word "polite" means, as ken said. I suppose there's some wild interpretation you could conjure, but really, it doesn't seem plausible at all that the student could think he was being polite.

But I suppose your "Go with it" there meant that I should just give in to the hypothetical. Fine, fine.

So what if he doesn't know what "polite" means? What's important (I thought) was whether he was polite. I need not know what "knowledge" means in order to know something just as a polite child can be polite and not know what "polite" means.

but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

As far as that particular statement leads, Ken . I am one-sidedly FOR the complete destruction of such a vile human, commiting such a vile act. But, I am also aware of a global network of such-minded perverts that DO get a positive reaction from said example. And so are you, Ken. (aware, that is). If I were a judge on such a case, I Would burn them all alive, but I'm NOT.

Point remains "One man's pain is another man's pleasure"...Enough said.

Have a beautiful evening Ken.

Mark...

It might be used in that benign way, but, in fact it is not used that way...

Hi Zetherin,

I completely agree with you! but I don't think the Sodomites or baalists would agree.

Best wishes Zetherin.

Mark...

So what if he doesn't know what "polite" means? What's important (I thought) was whether he was polite. I need not know what "knowledge" means in order to know something just as a polite child can be polite and not know what "polite" means.

If forcing yourself on a woman when she does not want you is not forcible rape, then the term, "forcible rape" doesn't mean anything. Just as if the color of fire trucks is not red, then "red" does not mean anything. And what difference do the opinions of Sodomites or balists have to do with that fact? That the color of a fire truck is red is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. So who cares what the opinion is of someone who thinks that fire truck are purple?

Once more we hear the slogan, "One man's so and so, is another man's such and such" ("one man's rude is another's polite", and the prize of them all, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter") which, like all bumper sticker sagacities have a certain initial plausibility, butwhich on any kind of examination, fall apart. Of course, like all such things, they are true about trivialities like, "One man's tastiness is another man's disgusting" since we all know that tastes differ (although not so much as we think they do) and there is, as they say, no arguing about tastes. That is, there is no correct or incorrect when it comes to taste. But when it comes to serious matters, it becomes clear that the slogan in question is simply false when it is understood as saying that there is no correct or incorrect. An example will show that. Someone swaggers into class while the instructor is lecturing, noisily sits down, starts talking loudly to his neighbors, takes out a newspaper, opens it to the sports pages, begins reading it, give a loud laugh every once in a while, all the time the instructor is trying to lecture. So, the instructor stops and says to the student, "You are very rude". The student looks up, and says pleasantly, "One man's rudeness is another man's politeness" and resumes reading the paper emitting loud horse-laughs every once in a while.

Is the student right? What the student was doing might have been rude "to the instructor", but it was "polite to the student".

When you are confronting an abstract slogan then, as Wittgenstein advises, "back to the rough ground". Give an example!

Yes and this begs the question: what things are actually matters of opinion? And it's also interesting to point out those things which we confuse as being matters of opinion, when they are actually matters of fact.

In some cases, the folks won't even agree on that.

Yes and this begs the question: what things are actually matters of opinion? And it's also interesting to note those things which we confuse as being matters of opinion, when they are actually a matters of fact.

I have not begged any question, since that means that I have assumed something that really needs proof. I think what you mean is not "begged the question". You mean, "raised the question". Isn't that right? Those two phrases are now being confused.

One of the problems with the phrase, "matter of opinion" is that it is sometimes confused with the term, "opinion" (by itself). My opinion that the child has measles is not a "matter of opinion". Either the child has measles or he does not. To say that it is my opinion that he has measles is only to hedge my bets. It is to say that I don't have enough information (or I am unable to say, based on the information I have) whether the child has measles. To say it is just a matter of opinion whether the child has measles is to say that there is no "fact of the matter" whether the child has measles. But that, of course, is false.

Ah, yes, raise the question is what I meant. Sorry, I tend to use that phrase even though I am aware of the fallacy.



Yes, that is right. But can you give me examples of things that are not matters of fact?

But remember, that is largely irrelevant. Something is a matter of opinion or it is not, regardless if we agree on it or not.

I have. Whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate ice-cream is not a matter of fact, but a matter of opinion.

But if the student really thinks he was polite, then he clearly does not know what the word "polite" means.

I see what you are saying, and generally agree. But for the sake of friendly argument, let's imagine I did not. And I asserted that the statement above was a matter of opinion and not of fact.

To say that it is a matter of opinion whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate is not to say that whether that is true or not cannot be known because of the lack of enough information, as you seem to believe. That is not what it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion". What it means to say that something is "a matter of opinion" is that there is no fact of the matter at all. There is nothing true or false about it. That is very different from saying that the physician's opinion is that the child has measles. There, an opinion is not a matter of opinion, since there is a fact of the matter whether the child has measles. He either has measles or he does not. It would be insane to say that whether the child has measles is a matter or opinion. That would mean that there was no fact of the matter. And that would be insane.

You are confusing opinion with matter of opinion.