> So wait, what you said CAN mean one person? What? No way! So the way I read it is completely legit? Why are you correcting me? Is it because I'm not reading what you mean?

Party CAN mean one person, or multiple people. You are wrong to fixate on it as ONLY meaning one person. Human is an adjective in my sentence. There is NO valid (English) interpretation of my statement as referring to a human as a noun, which WOULD imply singularity. The way you "read" it (took it out of context) is completely illegit. You removed the noun "party" intentionally, and pretended that (human) was the noun, not an adjective.

>It's almost like the person who reads what is written can interpret a sentence differently than the person who wrote the sentence intended.

Only sometimes. Only in legitimate English ways. If you don't say aliens, then aliens are not implied by "third party". That's not clarification. That's a complete change in meaning.

>I'm trying to show you an example of me doing to you what you are doing to me.

But you're failing. You're NOT quoting me with full context. I quoted you with full context. Your OP in no way even implies aliens. That's not me interpreting what you wrote differently. That's not me interpreting what you wrote in an illegitimate interpretation (not allowed by rules of English). You chopped off "party", which was the noun in my statement, which isn't singular, and you fixated on the POSSIBILITY of a party being singular as if it was a CERTAINTY. That's the difference.

>When I originally read your comment, my brain automatically interpreted it as a single person because it is a legitimate way to read the sentence.

Yes. It's possible for a third (human) party to be a single person. But you fixated on that possibility as if it were impossible for a third party to be any more than a single person. That's the problem. It's foolish for a single person to judge all of humanity's ethics at once. What would that even mean?

>I finally went back and reread what you wrote and realized that I made a mistake in my interpretation of what you said.

Thank you.

>I easily could rewrite everything I said previous to now in reference to a group and it would still be just the same.

No. It goes from completely impractical to quite practical, if you use groups of people as third parties instead of an individual.

>Even the idea of taking someone and separating them from humanity so that they could be uninterested could be considered unethical.

Makes no sense, and is entirely based on your errant interpretation. We both agree that this idea is unethical. But, it's not what I said, and it's not even implied by what I said.

>My point is that, to judge the entire human civilization as a whole, you must find someone 100% disinterested.

Is wrong. You don't have to find anyone 100% disinterested. Just someone mostly disinterested, enough disinterest to be useful as a mediator between the first (human) parties.

>And even if you have this person a job, for life let's say, what's to stop them from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick this person?

Also makes no sense if rewritten from individual to group. There is no person or group that needs to have this job for life. You get the cheapest, disinterested-enough people, least likely to be corrupted to serve for the appropriate ethical judgements. We already do this with jury selection. What's to stop juries from becoming corrupt? What's to stop bribes or threats from happening? Who should pick these people? The answers are already existent. We should use disinterested (obv not 100%, because that doesn't exist) people to monitor human ethics, just like we already do, more of the time, for more decisions, because it makes the decisions better, which makes the world better.

>you could have used slightly different wording or punctuation in an attempt to avoid what turned out to be my mistake.

No. I used (human) to explicitly rule out, and prevent you from mistaking my statement as allowing for third parties to be any AI or inhuman BI. It's not possible for anyone who speaks English to interpret (human) as the noun. Party is the noun (or third party). It's entirely your mistake. You misinterpreted my statement in an illegitimate (by English rules) way. Human can't be the noun there.

>You disagree with me on certain foundational concepts of ethics and the definition of disinterested.

Not sure what those are. Pretty sure we agree about disinterested, and both have explicitly stated that there's no such thing as a perfectly, 100% disinterested person for judging ethics of other people. But that doesn't matter. Because a very disinterested person is still useful for judging ethics of other people.

>I have stalwartly focused on trying to clarify

No. You tried to change, not clarify, the meaning of your statement.

>human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party

is true, and I agree with it.

>I[...] desire to have aliens come judge us as a species.

is NOT a clarification of

>human ethics should be monitored by an uninterested third party

It's a completely different statement. Quit your bullshit.

>you have shown no signs of wanting to end this peacefully.

There is no violence happening here. WTF are you talking about? Discussing things with words is peaceful. Violence is un-peaceful. Don't threaten to block me because you don't like having your failings pointed out to you. That's weak.