|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 11:14:21 GMT
Okay, slum conditions are good. It doesn't sound right, but have it your way. 'Slum' is a relative word. It makes more sense than theorising that large numbers of people flooded into an area to endure something bad. They could have flooded into an area to experience something less bad than they had been experiencing. That doesn't mean the new experience was good. Danny's chocolate box village doesn't represent the UK of old, only a very small part of it. It is absurd to suggest that Britain looked like that before immigration. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 11:17:58 GMT
'Slum' is a relative word. It makes more sense than theorising that large numbers of people flooded into an area to endure something bad. They could have flooded into an area to experience something less bad than they had been experiencing. That doesn't mean the new experience was good. Or you could say they flooded into an area to experience something more good. I think 'chocolate box illustration' is a bit of unrealistic standard - from my experience of chocolate anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 11:21:23 GMT
They could have flooded into an area to experience something less bad than they had been experiencing. That doesn't mean the new experience was good. Or you could say they flooded into an area to experience something more good. I think 'chocolate box illustration' is a bit of unrealistic standard - from my experience of chocolate anyway. Yes, it is totally unrealistic. Just because something is better, doesn't mean it's good. Diabetes is better than cancer, but neither is good. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 6, 2023 11:26:11 GMT
It won't all be just miserable scenes of abject urban squalor. Here we see future climate refugees tending the paddy-fields in bucolic Parliament Square.  |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 11:28:14 GMT
Or you could say they flooded into an area to experience something more good. I think 'chocolate box illustration' is a bit of unrealistic standard - from my experience of chocolate anyway. Yes, it is totally unrealistic. Just because something is better, doesn't mean it's good. It does mean it is good - or, to be precise, it is more good. As far as i know there is no standard of good beyond which it is impossible to get better |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 11:41:30 GMT
Yes, it is totally unrealistic. Just because something is better, doesn't mean it's good. It does mean it is good - or, to be precise, it is more good. As far as i know there is no standard of good beyond which it is impossible to get better Okay. Cancer is good, but diabetes is better (in your world). |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 11:57:30 GMT
It does mean it is good - or, to be precise, it is more good. As far as i know there is no standard of good beyond which it is impossible to get better Okay. Cancer is good, but diabetes is better (in your world). Cancer isn't good when compared only with its absence. How can you have a complete absence of a bad living situation? Every living situation is on a sliding scale of good / better, bad / worse. Having established a pretend absolute standard, all you need to do is compare the things you don't like to that standard and lump them in with the label 'bad' The point i'm making here isn't complex - you are just choosing a target. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 12:02:04 GMT
Okay. Cancer is good, but diabetes is better (in your world). Cancer isn't good when compared only with its absence. How can you have a complete absence of a bad living situation? Every living situation is on a sliding scale of good / better, bad / worse. Having established a pretend absolute standard, all you need to do is compare the things you don't like to that standard and lump them in with the label 'bad' The point i'm making here isn't complex - you are just choosing a target. Sorry, but most people don't see cancer as a good. The same with diabetes. It's true that diabetes is 'better' than cancer, but that doesn't mean either is good. The fact that someone has left one country to live in another is not proof that his living conditions in the second country are good. All it signifies is that the conditions in the second country are better. But, as we have seen, better does not necessarily equate with good. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 12:09:55 GMT
Cancer isn't good when compared only with its absence. How can you have a complete absence of a bad living situation? Every living situation is on a sliding scale of good / better, bad / worse. Having established a pretend absolute standard, all you need to do is compare the things you don't like to that standard and lump them in with the label 'bad' The point i'm making here isn't complex - you are just choosing a target. The fact that someone has left one country to live in another is not proof that his living conditions in the second country are good. All it signifies is that the conditions in the second country are better. But, as we have seen, better does not necessarily equate with good. There is no standard of good - ie a standard below which everyone agrees something is bad and not to be chosen. Your cancer comparison doesn't work because it can only sensibly be compared to its absence - an absence of living standard would be being dead. If people choose something, then there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'good' |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 12:11:27 GMT
The fact that someone has left one country to live in another is not proof that his living conditions in the second country are good. All it signifies is that the conditions in the second country are better. But, as we have seen, better does not necessarily equate with good. There is no standard of good - ie a standard below which everyone agrees something is bad and not to be chosen. Your cancer comparison doesn't work because it can only sensibly be compared to its absence - an absence of living standard would be being dead. If people choose something, then there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'good' Wrong. If people prefer one thing over another, there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'better'. And, as we have seen several times, better is not synonymous with good. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 12:24:46 GMT
There is no standard of good - ie a standard below which everyone agrees something is bad and not to be chosen. Your cancer comparison doesn't work because it can only sensibly be compared to its absence - an absence of living standard would be being dead. If people choose something, then there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'good' Wrong. If people prefer one thing over another, there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'better'. And, as we have seen several times, better is not synonymous with good. Good is just another word for 'better' because there is no absolute standard of good and so good is always a judgment made out of some comparison with worse. Low frames in Call Of Duty is bad, but Alexander Graham bell would have been overwhelmed to get a single frame in his lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 12:26:19 GMT
Wrong. If people prefer one thing over another, there is clearly some frame of reference that labels it 'better'. And, as we have seen several times, better is not synonymous with good. Good is just another word for 'better' because there is no absolute standard of good and so good is always a judgment made out of some comparison with worse. Low frames in Call Of Duty is bad, but Alexander Graham bell would have been overwhelmed to get a single frame in his lifetime. LOL! Your position requires the conclusion that diabetes is good because it's better than cancer. Good luck with that! |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 12:32:22 GMT
Good is just another word for 'better' because there is no absolute standard of good and so good is always a judgment made out of some comparison with worse. Low frames in Call Of Duty is bad, but Alexander Graham bell would have been overwhelmed to get a single frame in his lifetime. LOL! Your position requires the conclusion that diabetes is good because it's better than cancer. Good luck with that! I explained that this comparison doesn't work because such a condition can only sensibly be compared to its absence. On the diabetes dimension, there are two points. If you were treating all living standards in the same way, then all living standards would be 'good' because they would be compared to not having a living standard at all (ie being dead) |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 6, 2023 12:34:54 GMT
LOL! Your position requires the conclusion that diabetes is good because it's better than cancer. Good luck with that! I explained that this comparison doesn't work because such a condition can only sensibly be compared to its absence. On the diabetes dimension, there are two points. If you were treating all living standards in the same way, then all living standards would be 'good' because they would be compared to not having a living standard at all (ie being dead) That's absurd! Now, you would have us believe that cancer is good because it's better than death. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 6, 2023 12:41:06 GMT
I explained that this comparison doesn't work because such a condition can only sensibly be compared to its absence. On the diabetes dimension, there are two points. If you were treating all living standards in the same way, then all living standards would be 'good' because they would be compared to not having a living standard at all (ie being dead) That's absurd! Now, you would have us believe that cancer is good because it's better than death. Strawman. I claimed that analogising a living standard with something binary was a weak comparison. Try something that is always present and exists on a continuous scale - perhaps energy or power or fps in call of duty |
|
