[Renall]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

I think I have explained already that red statement are context related and I think it goes without saying that the concept of incompetence is always related to a specific task. I don't even think it is linguistically correct to talk about incompetence in such an abstract meaning.

It is linguistically impossible to talk about incompetence any other way, unless incompetence is defined as "does not perform a task," in which case that would be all it describes.

His incompentence in that situation and in that moment is a narrative fact unless you imagine that what was described is false.

In that particular moment he did not think the way Beatrice wanted him to think. That he did not is not itself proof that he cannot, which is what incompetence means, the inability to do something correctly.

Battler didn't do something correctly. But he provably can, he just didn't at that time.

In which world you live? You really think your logic can make an university acknowledge that there is no objectivity in grades and that therefore anyone should be admitted regarless of them? Good luck with that.

Therefore if there is no objectivity in slavery you might as well still have slaves and just redefine them as "slightly less free people".

You see your logic only works in a pure abstract philosophical context. In our real world it doesn't work. For non binary situaton there are well established tresholds when one can be considered in either side. freedom is not a binary condition, and yet there are laws that enforce freedom and abolish slavery. You should know that well.

But that isn't what I said.

What I said was "the evaluation of grade quality is subjective." This is absolutely true. And universities have subjective criteria for what level of grades they consider acceptable to admit a person to their programs. Harvard has higher standards than the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan has higher standards than Essex County Community College. Essex County Community College has higher standards than Generic Online University.

It can be objectively said that Harvard has higher grade standards numerically than Generic Online University. That does not prove anything except that one is more choosy with respect to a number that derives from various other factors, factors the universities may not even be aware of. It doesn't prove that Harvard always accepts better students.

Confinement and slavery are facts, interpretations are not. I was not making any sort of moral statement as to whether it is or is not right to confine a person. I was merely making the argument that a person who is absolutely confined (that is, his ability to do anything he wants is in some way restricted) does not necessarily believe he is confined, and does not necessarily believe that confinement is a bad thing.

As an example, say a man is born in an environment dome on the Moon. He is not aware that anything exists outside of his environment dome. The people who run the dome will not allow him to leave; however, since the man has no idea that it is even possible to leave, he has no negative emotional association of confinement as a bad thing. He does not know that he is confined, therefore he does not feel bad about it. Since he can do anything he wants inside the dome, and since the dome itself is his entire world, he believes himself to be free. And, from a certain perspective, he may indeed be free.

That doesn't make it moral or immoral to keep him confined in the environment dome. That is a wholly separate debate. But it is possible to imagine a scenario in which a physically confined person is mentally and emotionally free without deception.