Can we make sense of claims to the effect that language X is "harder" than language Y?

Hi. Take the following syllogism : John believes that green people should be killed. Mushmush is a green person, a neighbour of John. ====================== Thus, John believes that Mushmush should be killed. Formally, the argument seems valid. However, in reality it doesn't work. A persona can believe that all people with quality X should be killed, but not think it about a specific person he knows. So is there a logical contradiction here? What happens? Thank you, Sam

Are certain statements offensive simply because people are often offended by them? Or are they inherently offensive no matter what the target thinks of them?

What are the possible responses when people say that concepts like "being" and "nothingness" are essentially meaningless?

Why are some things so difficult to express verbally? In the words of Lao Zi, "The Tao that can be can be expressed is not the eternal Tao". Do we lack the ability to define these sort of things, like art and such, or are the they simply impossible to define? Or do we just lack the appropriate understanding and 'vocabulary' to really say definitively and indisputably what these verbally ambiguous terms are? Is it a question of linguistics, or human limitations?

Something occurs to me: Different people understand the same words differently. So, for example, to my parents, "therapy" might be a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. To me, therapy might be a meaningful activity designed to strengthen myself. Now, if my parents ask me: "are you in therapy", and I knew their understanding of the word, it occurs to me that I would not be lying by saying "no". No - I am not engaged in a self-indulgent activity that only weak people engage in. Now, if what I've said is true, it would seem to have implications for logic. The "if p then q" universe seems threatened or at least loosened if neither "p" nor "q" meant the same thing to everyone. 1) To what extent would my presuppositions entail a weakening of the importance of logic? 2) To what extent are my ideas correct? 3) Is there any reading I can do on this topic?

I'd like to hear what you - dedicated to answering questions - have to say to the following: 1) Philosophers and scientists seem to believe that a) problems are shared (by people), i. e. are the same (identical?) for every man b) each attempt to solve a problem produces its own solution. Here's my first question: If we think there are as many solutions to a problem as there are written papers, what makes us believe it's different with the problems? What are the criteria for the interpersonal identity of a problem? 2) Relating to the first: If two people refer or at least pretend to refer to the same problem (in solving or just discussing it), and given the thesis that in some way we must understand the problem or at least its verbal expression: What is it, that we know, when we understand a problem? Or, a bit less heavy-weighted:What kind of semantics of questions would enable us to understand how it comes that the problems questions articulate are real and shared by people, while the answers...

Is it true that all language is meaningless without context?

Could there be more than a countably infinite number of propositions?

When, if ever, is profane language justified? I saw some people yesterday carrying signs with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. As a Jew and an American, I was deeply offended and became so angry that I launched into a profanity-laced tirade. Afterwards, I definitely felt bad about losing my cool, but I also wondered more generally when and if the use of profane language can be justified.