I know a number of people who subscribe to a particular model of human development, who often use terms peculiar to this model in premises in arguments. For example, I've heard many variations on this theme: "You and/or your worldview, and thus your view on the issue we're arguing about, are at level or stage x, and because x is not as highly developed as y and me and/or my view is at y, it's obvious that your view is less than adequate [or wrong, etc.]." One could point out that the premises require support, but I've been reluctant to do that in large part because my sense is that the very use of these premises falls in the direction of being a fallacy of relevance. (I've suggested that interjecting such premises into an argument is a conversation stopper, but the term "conversation stopper" doesn't have the same weight as terms like "fallacy of relevance.") I seek clarification, suggestions, advice.

Is all truth subjective? A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective. Do you think all truths are subjective? If not, what is wrong with the above argument?

Is the concept of backward causation coherent and is it really taken seriously by philosophers? I doubt whether any scientist would accept the idea and I would like to know what you think.

Is it dumb to ask someone, especially a philosopher, the following question. Who's your favorite philosopher? This strikes me as a rather dumb question to ask. Something akin to asking a physicist, "Who's your favorite scientist?" If it's true that the question is dumb, why is it dumb? Or why not?

Can we love someone as an end in himself or herself? Can I love A because he is A, not because A is handsome or intelligent or generous or caring or whatever it is. The question may seem absurd but so does the expectation of all such properties to last forever!

Would it be ethical for law enforcement agents to specifically target people who are on social security for violations of drug laws?

Is it possible to positively prove a negative?

Could there (is it conceivable/possible) be an alternate reality/universe (a rich complex universe) which was such that mathematics could not provide any (or say very little) description of it?

I have a fifteen year old son, bright competent, popular, who has been missing school on a regular basis for the past one and a half years. He has attended a psychologist (for this reason) and the psychologist has found nothing wrong with him - the psychologist said that my son had, for his age, a "phenomenal understanding of people" . I always felt that my son was emotionally and psychologically very advanced for his age - from a very young age. Anyway my son cannot explain why he does not attend school other than that he hates it (he was badly bullied - mainly by shaming and humiliating by a teacher when he was aged seven - having to stand in a public place in the schoolyard known as "No Man's Land" for three to four lunch times at a go - but the school would not hear a word against the teacher - my son has little recollection of this)and things went down hill from there. My son understands the long term affects of not attending school - he can see that he is falling behind more and more each time...

Generally speaking, we don't consider it unethical to harm artificial "beings" such as plush toys or robots (or if we do, we consider it property damage or vandalism, not actual violence). At what point, though, would this change? Say a robot was invented that, from the outside, looked and behaved just like a person, even though it was actually a robot with advanced systems and programming. Would it be unethical to harm the robot? Where would the line be between a lifelike robot and, say, a human clone grown in a vat? When does damage to an inanimate object become violence against something capable of suffering?