Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2014, 05:06 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Ok, so you agree that violence is possible to justify objectively with reason and logic so long as someone else initiated it. So for example it is possible to objectively justify clan violence based on the premise that both sides believe that the other initiated it based on some act or acts lost to history.

Wouldn't it be simpler to have a rule is able to apply to each act of violence, rather than only to the initiation of violence? For example, wouldn't it be simpler to be able to judge the actions of police and prosecutors in the BTK case based on the clear and present threat that Dennis presented to society no matter who initiated what, or based on an agreed legal code within society? It seems to me that unless you have a way of judging acts of violence independent of how they were initiated or who by then your moral system is essentially bankrupt and irrelevant.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
05-08-2014, 05:29 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 05:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 05:06 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Ok, so you agree that violence is possible to justify objectively with reason and logic so long as someone else initiated it. So for example it is possible to objectively justify clan violence based on the premise that both sides believe that the other initiated it based on some act or acts lost to history.
Facepalm I never, ever, talk about violence only. I always talk about initiation of violence, or in short, aggression. It's the old playground question, who started it? And by violence I mean force, threats or lies.
So my argument stands, it is impossible to objectively justify *initiation of violence*.
It is impossible to justify clan violence, because clans don't exist by reason or senses. Clans are just abstractions. At most, there is some genetic similarity and to discriminate on the basis of genetics is racism. Biology doesn't buy you morality, genes are chemicals, not reasons to start violence. The same works for families or nations, they're just abstractions too, they don't exist either, they have no rights.
If a mother is virtuous and must be obeyed just because she squeezed you out, then I become virtuous because I just laid a big brown Lincoln's log in the porcelain.
You might as well say that people are justified in attacking each other because they believe in different gods. Gods are probably fathers for grownups anyway.

(05-08-2014 05:06 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Wouldn't it be simpler to have a rule is able to apply to each act of violence, rather than only to the initiation of violence? For example, wouldn't it be simpler to be able to judge the actions of police and prosecutors in the BTK case based on the clear and present threat that Dennis presented to society no matter who initiated what, or based on an agreed legal code within society? It seems to me that unless you have a way of judging acts of violence independent of how they were initiated or who by then your moral system is essentially bankrupt and irrelevant.
No, it wouldn't be simpler nor any more true. Have you ever read the penal code? I did, I had a course on it.
Firstly, it's not simpler to have rules if someone initiated violence in costumes of various colors, in various places, against various genders, nations and genetics.
Secondly, none of these things can possibly justify initiation of violence. Cloth, colors and genes aren't moral excuses.
Thirdly, it doesn't work, legal code is just words on paper, an opinion with a gun. Behind every gun is a person and the only thing that works for the all persons universally the moral argument, such as the non-aggression principle.
Society doesn't exist, it's just an abstraction, a mirage. A mirage can fool us or teach us, but it doesn't act and we can't act upon it. Society or culture can even teach us about the NAP, which would be great, but it can and does lie to us. We are always personally morally responsible, we can't hide behind offices and uniforms. Offices are just buildings and uniforms are just costumes.

Actions of police (or private non-government security) and prosecutors aren't philosophy, that's the dirty pragmatical empiricism of science (criminology). Do prisons exist? Great! Do imprisoning murderers decrease murders? Great! Could these primitive practices be improved through scientific method? Great!
Philosophy is long term generational prevention, it's like nutrition. Nutritionist won't help you when you're having gastritic attack from decades of bad eating. Then comes the ugly process of minimizing the damage that never solves anything in the long term.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 06:09 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
It's strange that in every other aspect of life it seems I can assess whether acts are good or bad based on their effects... but for violence you say only the initiation of violence has moral consequence while violent acts that occur in response to violence are justified and justifiable.

I can know whether eating an apple is better for my health that eating a chocolate bar. I can know whether jumping out of a plane is better than landing with the plane. I can know these things without needing to understand some nebulous initiation process. Let's dig a little deeper.

You say that the actions of police and prosecutors were justified in the BTK case. Dennis Rader initiated the violence and police and prosecutors were just following up. Their violence was justified by his initiation of violence, or to coin a phrase: "I didn't start the fight, but I sure will end it".

Now let's consider the hypothetical situation where Dennis Rader is not the BTK killer. It was all a mistake and although the evidence strongly pointed towards Dennis's guilt he in fact did not initiate the violence. Were the actions of police and prosecutors now immoral because they were using violence against a man who did not initiate violence? How could a moral policeman make a moral choice about the violent act of arrest, not knowing with 100% certainty whether they are responding to an act of violence by the suspect or are in fact initiating a new chain of violence?

It seems to me that all you are doing is clearing the way for long strings of violent acts based on the supposed initiation of violence at some time in the past. I don't see any single act of initiation of violence that is distinct from an act of violence. Every act of violence is the initiation of violence in response to some existing circumstance. Each must stand and be assessed on its own merits, not on some causal chain from some possible violence-initiating event in the past. The question in assessing violence is not whether or how it was "initiated" but instead whether or not it is justified given the circumstances. The justification of chains of violence in your philosophy are surely worse than the justification of individual acts of violence in other philosophies?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
05-08-2014, 06:12 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
IMO the basic thing is that Lumi cannot face the idea that he possibly maybe could be wrong - even in the face of overwhelming evidence. All this crap of initiation of violence etc is just him trying to find a post-facto justification for the crap he has already spouted, so that he doesn't have to admit that he hasn't thought the whole thing through and in fact cannot justify his previous statements.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
05-08-2014, 07:10 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 07:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 06:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  IMO the basic thing is that Lumi cannot face the idea that he possibly maybe could be wrong - even in the face of overwhelming evidence. All this crap of initiation of violence etc is just him trying to find a post-facto justification for the crap he has already spouted, so that he doesn't have to admit that he hasn't thought the whole thing through and in fact cannot justify his previous statements.
Why is it so important to imagine that I might be wrong? This isn't empiricism, this is reasoning. If I say 2 + 2 equals 4, there is absolutely no possibility I could be wrong, because 2 + 2 is just another way of saying 4. I could be wrong if I talked in French and mistaken deux for dix, that is empiricism. But I can not be wrong with two and two. Reason and logic does not play dice.

Please show me, prove me just one thing. Are you actually capable of reasoning?
- Can you take an idea and logically derive social consequences from it? Without committing any logical fallacy?

(05-08-2014 06:09 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It's strange that in every other aspect of life it seems I can assess whether acts are good or bad based on their effects... but for violence you say only the initiation of violence has moral consequence while violent acts that occur in response to violence are justified and justifiable.

I can know whether eating an apple is better for my health that eating a chocolate bar. I can know whether jumping out of a plane is better than landing with the plane. I can know these things without needing to understand some nebulous initiation process. Let's dig a little deeper.
Watch what you say. Your health. Your jump for an airplane. These are not moral questions, they do not involve other people. Morality is an inter-personal brain technology and it's primarily based on logic and reasoning, because that's what our brain does, it's a computer working with information.

(05-08-2014 06:09 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You say that the actions of police and prosecutors were justified in the BTK case. Dennis Rader initiated the violence and police and prosecutors were just following up. Their violence was justified by his initiation of violence, or to coin a phrase: "I didn't start the fight, but I sure will end it".

Now let's consider the hypothetical situation where Dennis Rader is not the BTK killer. It was all a mistake and although the evidence strongly pointed towards Dennis's guilt he in fact did not initiate the violence. Were the actions of police and prosecutors now immoral because they were using violence against a man who did not initiate violence? How could a moral policeman make a moral choice about the violent act of arrest, not knowing with 100% certainty whether they are responding to an act of violence by the suspect or are in fact initiating a new chain of violence?
That isn't a moral or philosophical question, that is empiricism. It changes nothing in principle, it means that the police has the moral duty to use the best forensic methods available and to do no logical mistakes in the due process. Otherwise it doesn't mean shit.
Murderers would like it very much if we didn't act unless we had 100 % certainty, which we almost never have. But they have no doubts that someone needs to die, right? They don't care about certainty. Don't let them turn our morality against us.

(05-08-2014 06:09 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  It seems to me that all you are doing is clearing the way for long strings of violent acts based on the supposed initiation of violence at some time in the past. I don't see any single act of initiation of violence that is distinct from an act of violence. Every act of violence is the initiation of violence in response to some existing circumstance. Each must stand and be assessed on its own merits, not on some causal chain from some possible violence-initiating event in the past. The question in assessing violence is not whether or how it was "initiated" but instead whether or not it is justified given the circumstances. The justification of chains of violence in your philosophy are surely worse than the justification of individual acts of violence in other philosophies?
This is of course a self-detonating argument, because if you disregard the causal chains (which naturally exist in all happenings, not just violent) then you disregard the main source of merits to judge the act.

There are no other philosophies. There is one philosophy derived from first principles based on observable general behavior of matter. Then there is bullshit culture.

One of bullshit culture ideas is the argument from effect. It says that we can judge an act based on consequences and it is bullshit. Consequences don't mean anything, morally.
Firstly, it is absolutely impossible to prove for the future that something aggressive will have good consequences, or something moral will have bad consequences. We don't know the future.

Secondly, however the consequences turn out, let's say a malevolent attack slipped and somehow caused something good by accident. Does that mean it is moral to attack people in order to accidentally produce good consequences? Hell no. Let's say I rob a person and then figure out how to spend the money in some nice way that really helps that person. Does it mean it is moral to go around robbing people at gunpoint? Let's say I am a politician and I set taxes and get people shot or arrested if they don't pay the taxes, but I just know what to do with these money better than them, or so I claim. Does it mean I should take their money? Nope. Even if yes, does it tell me what percentage of tax I deserve? Nope. If taxes are good, why not have 100 % taxes and give them all over to the state which apparently knows better?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 07:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 07:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 06:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  IMO the basic thing is that Lumi cannot face the idea that he possibly maybe could be wrong - even in the face of overwhelming evidence. All this crap of initiation of violence etc is just him trying to find a post-facto justification for the crap he has already spouted, so that he doesn't have to admit that he hasn't thought the whole thing through and in fact cannot justify his previous statements.
Why is it so important to imagine that I might be wrong? This isn't empiricism, this is reasoning. If I say 2 + 2 equals 4, there is absolutely no possibility I could be wrong, because 2 + 2 is just another way of saying 4. I could be wrong if I talked in French and mistaken deux for dix, that is empiricism. But I can not be wrong with two and two. Reason and logic does not play dice.

Please show me, prove me just one thing. Are you actually capable of reasoning?
- Can you take an idea and logically derive social consequences from it? Without committing any logical fallacy?

You're saying that there is no possibility at all that you are wrong, with all this crap of "taxes are violence"? You could not *possibly* be wrong that not spanking a kid will magically make him the best damn kid since time began? You're saying these things are *as logical* as the idea that 2+2 = 4?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
05-08-2014, 08:10 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 06:12 AM)morondog Wrote:  IMO the basic thing is that Lumi cannot face the idea that he possibly maybe could be wrong - even in the face of overwhelming evidence. All this crap of initiation of violence etc is just him trying to find a post-facto justification for the crap he has already spouted, so that he doesn't have to admit that he hasn't thought the whole thing through and in fact cannot justify his previous statements.

dictionary.com

de·lu·sion noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

: a belief that is not true : a false idea

: a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness

1: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded

2
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated

b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adrianime's post
05-08-2014, 08:36 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 07:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There are no other philosophies. There is one philosophy derived from first principles based on observable general behavior of matter. Then there is bullshit culture.

Are you trying to engage in some kind of persuasive argument here, regurgitating rhetoric that seemed convincing to you at the time you heard it, or just trolling now?

... because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying: I am not prepared to entertain any of the countless theories of moral philosophy out there to any degree whatsoever, so much so that I claim they don't exist at all.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
05-08-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 08:36 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 07:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There are no other philosophies. There is one philosophy derived from first principles based on observable general behavior of matter. Then there is bullshit culture.

Are you trying to engage in some kind of persuasive argument here, regurgitating rhetoric that seemed convincing to you at the time you heard it, or just trolling now?

... because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying: I am not prepared to entertain any of the countless theories of moral philosophy out there to any degree whatsoever, so much so that I claim they don't exist at all.

That is what ol' Lumi's saying.

He has an exclusive claim to perfect objectivity, because feels. He feels he is right, therefore he must be. He is fundamentally incapable of entertaining self-doubt - never, in any of our interactions, has he once admitted of a testable prediction or a single criterion of falsifiability. He can't, because that isn't the way in which he understands things.

He vacuously bleats "first principles", as if intuitive metaphysical principles were indisputable, and then goes on to derive moral absolutes from them, through a "logical" process neither I nor any other observer can follow.

Since he is self-evidently correct - because of his super-genius feels! - then the manifestly evident disagreement provided by other people cannot be valid. They have their own feels, sure, but his feels are his, and therefore the right ones! Necessarily, anyone else (everyone else) who disagrees must be wrong. Regurgitated half-baked psychobabbling abuse fixations provide the perfectly unfalsifiable self-justifying safety net for this. Ain't no bias like a confirmation bias.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 07:50 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're saying that there is no possibility at all that you are wrong, with all this crap of "taxes are violence"? You could not *possibly* be wrong that not spanking a kid will magically make him the best damn kid since time began? You're saying these things are *as logical* as the idea that 2+2 = 4?
OK, you answered. You are incapable to take an idea in one's mind and derive social consequences without making a fallacy. By adding "magic" to your words you are creating a straw man.

A healthy person wouldn't say "magic", a healthy person would say "I'm curious, it isn't clear to me how it works, can you clarify this or that?" Or, "where was that Bomb in the Brain video you linked earlier?"
By saying "magic", you get defensive and defense is the result of being traumatized, not thinking.

Empirically, there is no difference between robbery and tax collecting. In one case the guys wear a costume, in the other don't, that's about it. So you are incapable of empiricism in social world and you are incapable of logical reasoning without fallacies.
I can't be wrong, because I'm not adding anything to the equation.
"Taxation = violence". The gun is already there, I'm not adding or changing anything, so there's no room for mistake. Square peg, square hole.

(05-08-2014 08:36 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Are you trying to engage in some kind of persuasive argument here, regurgitating rhetoric that seemed convincing to you at the time you heard it, or just trolling now?

... because it sounds an awful lot like you are saying: I am not prepared to entertain any of the countless theories of moral philosophy out there to any degree whatsoever, so much so that I claim they don't exist at all.
I have methodology to judge consistency of any moral theory, argument or claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: