Dave

Hi Bud!

Currently trending on X.

It’s sad that this is the reality.

The U.S. Senate must be clear: no war with Iran.

I adore that he also played a Klingon at one point.

So a paedophile fascist teams up with a genocidal fascist to bomb theocratic fascists.

So much for human fucking progress.

"Now it's dark." - Frank Booth

YouTube video by classictbone Friends of Kids In The Hall # 372: Charlene

💔

youtu.be/TUBCnZwRh4Y?...

The only thing I've deleted is a post that was too snarky towards you.

The only thing I've granted you is that:

"this administration [is] within the scope of our moral code... has only spotlighted the shittiest parts of our culture and norms. So, I grant that for sure."

Reading hurts, eh Mitchel?

I guess Mitchell found someone else to Peterson.

Trans youth deserve to live free of fear and bullying, especially from the President.

Smiles in Claude Lemieux.

P1. Rob Ford was Canadian.
P2. All Canadians are Canadian.
P3. Rob Ford had a problem with crack.
C: All Canadians have problems with crack.

Moral codes can also be seen as perspectival.
My individual perspective of a moral code had me drop that piece of shit from any further consideration the moment he bragged to Niel Bush on tape about being a sexual predator. For me, the uninvited grabbing people by the 'pussy,' is a full stop.

But... you also are correct that this administration has behaved within the scope of our moral code and views of integrity.
We've always been awful in many respects and this maladaptive grifter has only spotlighted the shittiest parts of our culture and norms. So, I grant that for sure.

For your future reference -as you do seem to be interested in these topics.
This is one of many philosophical resources available online.
Check out the lectures available on YouTube from varied professors and the like.

plato.stanford.edu

Like you mentioned, "echo chamber."
Your echo chamber will not let you view the very upfront shitting on our moral code and integrity without discrediting any source or information that is contrary to that approved narrative.

My echo chamber will actively attack any info that tries to excuse it.

Definition of INTEGRITY firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility; an unimpaired condition : soundness; the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness… See the ful...

3/x -
I suspect you want a non-philosophical definition of 'integrity?'
I bet that my def. bears family resemblance to your definition of integrity. To that, let's go with the first entry for it under MW's def, so you can get to your point.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/i...

2/x -
So, if you want to surmise my philosophical understanding, I tell you know it's wanting.
Every scratch I make on the surface of philosophical topics shows me that I don't understand shit.

But I do know enough to take classes, get a degree, and point others to the Stanford Encyclopedia Phil

Fine.
Let's do this.
First we must parse out the particulars of 'meaning.' Are we talking the 'sense' of 'meaning?' Does that 'sense' have a 'reference?' Are 'definitions' embedded with an indexical reference, or do you take them as a kind of 'a priori' understanding in and of themselves?
1/X

You have a search engine of choice to learn about all this stuff.
It's not on me to catch you up.
You might consider starting with Stanford's online encyclopedia of philosophy.
Or just keep on throwing out 'Socratic Method,' whenever you think you've got a live one on the hook.

Wow, I didn't realize you needed so much hand-holding.
Again, that's you trying to set up some sort of Peterson 'trap' over definitions. So, I ask you, about the meaning of 'integrity,' do you want an interpretation of 'meaning' via Frege, Russell, Quine, Wittgenstein, Searle, Austin, who?

I'm sure exploring the world of Wittgenstein will prove far more fruitful to you than arguing outside of you normal echo chamber.

I wish you well.

I see your Socratic method, Bot, and raise you Wittgensteinian language games.

I'll play.

You're a bot because you have a small handful of followers and a small handful you're following.
The only thing that shows is a statement on abortion designed to foster argumentation. Screams: 'likely bot.'

Plus, you're not debating. You're trying to set up a Peterson.

I'm sorry.
I didn't realize you were a recently created bot.

Not surprised you'd need to ask for help on that one.

Nah, lately they beat us on every metric that matters - Integrity.

But don't let that stop you from wanking to Old Glory.