[JadeNB]

> > No it doesn't: it depends on whether it's dysfunctional or not. Even if the people involved don't see the dysfunction.

> “It’s dysfunctional because it’s dysfunctional.”

> I hope I don’t have to explain why this is, again, begging the question.

I think your response also begs the question, assuming an empiricism that should at least be argued. That is, it seems to me that you conflate a non-definition ("there is an absolute notion of dysfunction, although I don't know how to define it") with a circular definition ("dysfunction is the state of being dysfunctional"). These may be equally useful in the present, but the first, which seems to me to be what WalterSear is saying, can be imagined as a spur to useful future discussion (either arguing that there is no such absolute notion, or seeking out the correct absolute notion); whereas the latter is clearly useless and is, I think, an incorrect summary of WalterSear's position.

(Can you really pin down any concept—like morality or human rights, which you mention later—to the degree of specificity that you are requiring of the definition of 'dysfunction'? I know I can't.)

[WalterSear]

> "there is an absolute notion of dysfunction, although I don't know how to define it"

Don't put words in my mouth and expect me to debate you.

[WalterSear]

Mea culpa, I mistook your complex discussion for another round of reactive meandering.