Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

And your continued use of assertions instead of arguments, and the assumption that I don't know about ethics sounds very condescending to me, but I don't think it's important to the discussion. What I do think is important is why do you say we need philosophy to tell us what a word means. It's blindly obvious that words and meaning can exist outside of philosophy as you are admitting right there. What then makes one proposition, "healthy", special and another "has cancer" not special? There isn't any difference, it's just a question of having a definition and you don't need philosophy to come up with definitions.

Yes, I'm the one making unfounded assertions. I've asked you multiple questions. Do you care to answer one of them? Devo's question about abortion is also a good one, one which you completely sidestepped by saying "once you decide what's right and wrong about abortion, you can use science to decide whether it's a good idea." Well, obviously so, but if science can't decide what's right and wrong, then it is ipso facto not useful for moral problems. That's the purpose of philosophy -- to reconcile subjective views on abstract concepts.