(Untitled)

[daohsrinreln]

 Concepts, especially the building blocks of society, should be granted due process just as people should. Innocent until proven guilty on our morality, assuming that our morals can still function despite us, ourselves, being insecure about their justifications keeps society functioning

Comments

[satedbuffalo]

Haha, regularly = twice. Yr worse than Hume.

I think you're wrong on this. I say I think, because I'm not completely clear on what you're trying to express. I'm not sure how you're using the word concepts (I have a few different understandings of this term, none of which can really work as "the building blocks of society", except in the most general and un-helpful ways). I don't understand why you go to legal language to describe what you want to do with concepts, either: what does it mean to grant a concept due process? Is the underlying assumption here that we should not immediately question the concepts we have, but rather provide some moral/logical calculus in which they should be tested before they can be dismissed (I'm not sure this is distinct from questioning well)? Or are you saying that concepts should be accepted in the absence of falsifying data (i.e. this things I believe is so until experience proves otherwise

[daohsrinreln]

Actually we have played three times (in mathematics that is enough for a pattern) and we have already elected to increase our game days, which means we've both accepted this as regular

[satedbuffalo]

Oh. I seem to have inferred the wrong premise. Whoops.

Okay, yeah, those kids you're talking about sound awful. They should read some people who do similar things with better and more persuasive arguments, get frustrated, and grow up.