The Truth: Making Honest Can’t VS Should Arguments

If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

CLARITY

Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

CONTEXT:
Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

———-
–“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
———–

Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

—” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
———–
I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
———-

Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

—If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

FULLY EXPANDED:
“If you can conduct nuclear war then
you cant conduct nuclear war and
its impossible to conduct nuclear war
but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
AND
You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
OR
You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

“Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

… But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
—Scholar—
Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

—Buffoon—
Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

–Falling back—

I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

Curt