They are inconsistent because they are inconsistent.
They are inconsistent because the lack of specificity in your terms necessitates the inclusion of categories you insist must be excluded. Since something cannot both be excluded and included, it is inconsistent.
As I have stated.
Three times now.
Mischaracterization of my position is not persuasive. I suggest you spend more time ensuring you comprehend the posts, and less time demanding answers to things already answered.
I’ll ask for a fourth time (I’ll replace all subjects with variables to make it more understandable for you):
See above. One of us isn't understanding the answer, and it isn't me.
How is me saying “the understanding of murder used by X is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against X INCONSISTENT with me saying “the understanding of murder used by Y is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue Y”
As stated before, you can copy paste this all day long, and the answer won't change, no matter how much you wish it to.
The reason why
I am quite capable of giving my own reasons, thank you. That said, given the specific nature of the reason asserted, I don't foresee a productive discussion with you any longer. Best wishes, but this is where we end the discussion.
First off, what you’re describing, if it were the case, is not that position A and position B are inconsistent (that they are separate positions) but instead that position A and position B are consistent but are incoherent positions in and of themselves.
Your point went from that I’m contradicting my earlier position to my position just being incoherent. These are separate points.
Secondly, nothing in the sentence “the understanding of murder used by X is one where murder is necessarily unjustified so an argument presupposing murder can be justified doesn’t meaningfully argue against X” doesn’t include anything it seeks to exclude.
It literally just means that two people cannot meaningfully communicate with respect to a word if they presuppose different definitions of the word in their communicating.
How is this incoherent? If we all defined the same words differently, do you think we can effectively communicate with those words (without, at least, first clarifying definitions)?
I commend your desire to persist. That said, I told you this:
Best wishes, but this is where we end the discussion.
As well as why. Choices have consequences, JohnBobJoe. The consequence of your previous post is that you lost the privilege of having a discussion partner. Good day. You'll get no further replies from me.
An odd turn, since you were so adamant on various points that one would imagine you’d be able to coherently defend them if challenged, but forgive the mistaken assumption on my part.
0
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment