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, 09:00 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 08:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Consistency does not imply validity.

I have corrected you on this fundamental point of logic several times now. It staggers me that you can pretend to have studied such things and yet obsess over a ridiculous misconception.

Consistency does not imply validity.

Consistency does not imply validity.

Consistency does not imply validity.

Invalid premises admit of entirely consistent conclusions. You are pathologically incapable of examining your premises.

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, 09:03 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
... Christ Rolleyes

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
05-08-2014, 09:06 AM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 09:12 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 09:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Consistency does not imply validity.
I have corrected you on this fundamental point of logic several times now. It staggers me that you can pretend to have studied such things and yet obsess over a ridiculous misconception.
Consistency does not imply validity.
Consistency does not imply validity.
Consistency does not imply validity.
Invalid premises admit of entirely consistent conclusions. You are pathologically incapable of examining your premises.
Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!
Consistency does not imply validity, but we always begin with consistency check. If something isn't consistent, it can never be valid.

I don't have to examine my premises, because it's not me who comes up with them, other people do, burden of proof is on them. Some presuppositionalists made a rule that it is moral for them to punish me if I don't pay them money. I say, prove that.
They say: "give us money, because abstractions! God, state, family, social contract!"
I say, abstractions don't exist and have no rights and can not make rules. Abstractions don't hold guns, only human beings do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 09:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Consistency does not imply validity, but we always begin with consistency check. If something isn't consistent, it can never be valid.

I don't have to examine my premises, because it's not me who comes up with them, other people do, burden of proof is on them. Some presuppositionalists made a rule that it is moral for them to punish me if I don't pay them money. I say, prove that.

That's an incoherent non-answer. You have premises. They came from somewhere. You are saying others must prove their premises to you. Therefore someone had to prove your premises to you before you adopted them. If so, you can surely elaborate on how and why this convinced you.

That, or you're just being terribly intellectually dishonest.

Way to follow the presup script, though:
1) refuse to examine premises
2) shift burden of proof
3) when all else fails, "NO U"
4) fail

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
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 09:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's an incoherent non-answer. You have premises. They came from somewhere. You are saying others must prove their premises to you. Therefore someone had to prove your premises to you before you adopted them. If so, you can surely elaborate on how and why this convinced you.

That, or you're just being terribly intellectually dishonest.

Way to follow the presup script, though:
1) refuse to examine premises
2) shift burden of proof
3) when all else fails, "NO U"
4) fail

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!
Do you understand what a principle is?
For example, the principle of identity. The same thing or action can not be itself and its opposite at the same time. Do you agree with that? For example, a given action, whatever it is, can not be simultaneously moral and immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 09:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 09:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 09:10 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's an incoherent non-answer. You have premises. They came from somewhere. You are saying others must prove their premises to you. Therefore someone had to prove your premises to you before you adopted them. If so, you can surely elaborate on how and why this convinced you.

That, or you're just being terribly intellectually dishonest.

Way to follow the presup script, though:
1) refuse to examine premises
2) shift burden of proof
3) when all else fails, "NO U"
4) fail

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!
Do you understand what a principle is?

No.
Hobo

(05-08-2014 09:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  For example, the principle of identity. The same thing or action can not be itself and its opposite at the same time. Do you agree with that? For example, a given action, whatever it is, can not be simultaneously moral and immoral.

That does not follow.
(plus, that's the principle of non-contradiction, which is different from the principle of identity - and both are asserted via unsubstantiated intuition)

Here, I fixed that for you:
From a given set of moral premises, a given action, whatever it is, can not be simultaneously moral and immoral in a given specific context.

I'm being generous and not insisting you define your terms. But also: you need to define your terms.

Anyway, that is an invalid induction. Do you understand why?

It would be wholly perverse to deny that different moral stances exist. I remind that these premises are informed by statistical neurological diversity in human beings. You are declaring that given disagreement, only one set of subjectively varying premises is valid.

It's going to take a hell of a lot more than "cuz muh feels" to convince anyone of that, bud.

The presupposition here, incidentally, is that objectivity exists and you are in possession of it.

... 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, 11:02 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Something that irritates me. You keep saying that there is "no objective reason to [initiate] violence", or that violence is inherently illogical, or the half dozen other ways you put it.

It demonstrates your very flawed understanding of what objectivity and logic are. Logic is not objective in the sense that you are trying to use it. Logic is objective in that the rules don't change. Logic is not objective in the sense that it applies universally everywhere all the time.

There are objectively logical reasons why someone might initiate violence. You have something I want. If I take your head off I am free to have it. I can formulate an objectively logical argument for why taking your head off would ultimately lead to me goal of getting your stuff.

1) You have stuff I want
2) I can take your head off
3) if I take your head off, I can have your stuff

1 is true by observation. 2 is true by demonstration. 3 follows from 1 and 2. Objectively logical.

What you are trying to say, and failing to demonstrate, is that for the good of humanity in general violence is always a bad idea. After twenty pages of people berating you, you recently added an "initiation" clause, so people can hurt others who hurt them first.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
05-08-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 11:02 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  What you are trying to say, and failing to demonstrate, is that for the good of humanity in general violence is always a bad idea. After twenty pages of people berating you, you recently added an "initiation" clause, so people can hurt others who hurt them first.

Which also fails, inevitably, because "initiation" and "violence" are both subjective.

Ol' Lumi is advocating absolutist market-based feudalism, but he seems to think he's advocating anarcho-capitalism. Inherent to that ideology is the notion of "property". There are schools of communist and anarcho-syndicalist thought which reject all ideas of property as unilateral violent seizure.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 12:06 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
This is like watching someone attempt to explain why vaccinations are important to someone who doesn't understand the consequences of not getting vaccinated. Painful.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
05-08-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 12:06 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  This is like watching someone attempt to explain why vaccinations are important to someone who doesn't understand the consequences of not getting vaccinated. Painful.

Yabut, the armed government agents of the Surgeon General will initiate violence to jab you with needles. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: