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, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 02:18 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 11:02 AM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  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.
All these 20 pages we've been trying to establish that taxation is violence at all. People threw bullshit at me like imaginary contracts with imaginary entities (society). I have never said that the topic is a hippy dippy nonviolence pacifistic thing. I have always talked about aggression and defense.
The topic is moral philosophy. By definition, that involves universal rules for multiple people. If the question was only what you want unilaterally, then sure, your desires are logically consistent with themselves.
But if consistency with other people is considered, or with humanity as a whole, as in objective morality, then it's a different case altogether. If something is moral for you, it must be also moral for another person and simultaneously.
If there are two guys in the room, you may tell them a logical reason for one to take the other's head off and call it morality. But then only one of them will be moral and the other will be necessarily immoral.

And if it's not universal, it can't be objective morality.
Let's say non-initiation of violence is moral. This is something all people can do simultaneously. But if we say fighting for our country or paying taxes is moral, then it's not universal. There has to be someone to fight against or someone to pay taxes to, who is an exception from the rule, thus it can not really be a moral, universal rule.
Yes, there can be exceptions from the logic of universality, but these exceptions must be empirical, scientific. Children are such an exception, there's the biological fact of age, size and brain development, so if a child hits you, you don't hit back.

Yes, we can divide humanity into masters and slaves or law-givers and taxpayers and call that moral - but how do you objectively prove who will be the master and who slave? By skin color? Skin color is just a few genes that have no moral meaning, that's a non sequitur. If you make a moral argument and this moral argument is anything less than universal and simultaneous for all people at all time, it's a crappy argument and good luck getting empirical evidence for 7 billion people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 02:35 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  All these 20 pages we've been trying to establish that taxation is violence at all. People threw bullshit at me like imaginary contracts with imaginary entities (society). I have never said that the topic is a hippy dippy nonviolence pacifistic thing. I have always talked about aggression and defense.

Your sole contingency plan for any problems in your fantasyland is Magical Thinking™.
(but no, "if everyone completely agreed with me there'd be no problems ever" is not compelling)

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The topic is moral philosophy. By definition, that involves universal rules for multiple people.

No, it doesn't.

That's your own particular definition, and it is massively presuppositional.

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If the question was only what you want unilaterally, then sure, your desires are logically consistent with themselves.
But if consistency with other people is considered, or with humanity as a whole, as in objective morality, then it's a different case altogether. If something is moral for you, it must be also moral for another person and simultaneously.

Non sequitur.

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If there are two guys in the room, you may tell them a logical reason for one to take the other's head off and call it morality. But then only one of them will be moral and the other will be necessarily immoral.

So what?

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And if it's not universal, it can't be objective morality.

Trivial, and irrelevant.

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Let's say non-initiation of violence is moral.

Define "initiation".

Define "violence".

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This is something all people can do simultaneously. But if we say fighting for our country or paying taxes is moral, then it's not universal. There has to be someone to fight against or someone to pay taxes to, who is an exception from the rule, thus it can not really be a moral, universal rule.

Straw man.

In theory, taxes are paid by a community of its own accord and necessity. They are paid to an agent representing the community in trust, to enact the will of the community. Because, shocker of shockers, organising people actually requires organisation, and as such, organs of state.

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, there can be exceptions from the logic of universality, but these exceptions must be empirical, scientific. Children are such an exception, there's the biological fact of age, size and brain development, so if a child hits you, you don't hit back.

Facetious. Does self-defense up to and including deadly force need to be applied selectively? How can that be determined? And what constitutes a "child"?

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, we can divide humanity into masters and slaves or law-givers and taxpayers and call that moral...

We could. But since no one has in this thread, that's another deranged straw man.

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  - but how do you objectively prove who will be the master and who slave? By skin color? Skin color is just a few genes that have no moral meaning, that's a non sequitur.

Might makes right was all the justification slave-takers ever needed.

What genes do have moral meaning? What does that even mean? Why are you so incapable of defining terminology? Let us consider serious developmental difficulties - is there an obligation for others to care for such an individual?

(05-08-2014 02:12 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you make a moral argument and this moral argument is anything less than universal and simultaneous for all people at all time, it's a crappy argument and good luck getting empirical evidence for 7 billion people.

You have never presented a single shred of empirical evidence for any pronouncement you have ever made.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 03:05 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 02:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have never presented a single shred of empirical evidence for any pronouncement you have ever made.

But he has explained why empirical evidence is a government plot Dodgy

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, 03:06 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2014 03:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 02:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your sole contingency plan for any problems in your fantasyland is Magical Thinking™.
(but no, "if everyone completely agreed with me there'd be no problems ever" is not compelling)
You don't know what is a principle, so by definition, you can not comprehend what is a rational argument and how can a rational argument have consequences for the empirical world. (hint: through people's brains) You call that magical thinking, but it really is... thinking.
Philosophy, especially moral is not copying, not following instructions, not mental masturbation, but thinking that leads to action. What action, that is the question.

Thinking is principle-based and it's abstract, which means that a though of the number 4 in one brain is equivalent to a thought of 4 in another brain. Which is why morality must be universal if it should to be valid like the existence of numbers. And the action - or lack of thereof - must be universal too. Morality is the Peer To Peer protocol of human behavior.

Abstract thinking is rational about rational objects, such as numbers and so it primarily requires no empirical evidence and which is why we don't need a fully equipped theater to make hypothetical examples. Empiricism serves just usually as a failsafe of implementing the thinking into action in empirical world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2014, 03:23 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
05-08-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.

You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.

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, 03:30 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.

You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.

If it were that simple we wouldn't have so many names for it such as "wingnut shit". Would we? To me it seems everyone participating in this thread is all too familiar with this kind of thinking.

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
05-08-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 02:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your sole contingency plan for any problems in your fantasyland is Magical Thinking™.
(but no, "if everyone completely agreed with me there'd be no problems ever" is not compelling)
You don't know what is a principle...

Ah! I think I see your problem. You see, when I said "no" to your earlier question, that was in fact sarcasm. I'm prone to resorting to it when faced with delusional, condescending presuppositionalists.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... so by definition, you can not comprehend what is a rational argument and how can a rational argument have consequences for the empirical world. (hint: through people's brains) You call that magical thinking, but it really is... thinking.

What the actual fuck?

If you are so self-absorbed and insecure that you must deny the validity of literally any other possible thought process other than your own, rather than engage in a little elementary introspection and exploration... Is everyone who does not blindly accept your fiat premises "incapable of comprehending rational argument"?

Sweet Noodly Appendage. What a miserable way to live.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Philosophy, especially moral is not copying, not following instructions, not mental masturbation, but thinking that leads to action. What action, that is the question.

Yes. Philosophy is a real field of human endeavour.

By contrast, what you have done here is regurgitate assertions and refuse to substantiate them, then repeatedly insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Hint: one of these things is not like the other.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Thinking is principle-based and it's abstract, which means that a though of the number 4 in one brain is equivalent to a thought of 4 in another brain.

Citation needed.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Which is why morality must be universal if it should to be valid like the existence of numbers.

No. That does not follow. That is unsubstantiated assertion. That's an unjustifiable, fallacious inference. It does not follow.

If you are even going to begin to pretend to argue it, you're going to have to do better than "my feels because I say so" by way of substantiation.

It's okay; I'll wait.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And the action - or lack of thereof - must be universal too. Morality is the P2P protocol of human behavior.

Do you understand what network peering is? Because that metaphor makes no sense.

(05-08-2014 03:06 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Abstract thinking is rational about rational objects, such as numbers and so it primarily requires no empirical evidence. Empiricism serves just usually as a failsafe of implementing the thinking into action in empirical world.

The only rational premises are those derived from empirical evidence. Coherent interaction with reality is a self-correcting feedback loop of induction and deduction. Read a book. A real book, about the philosopy of science and legitimate epistemology.

If your premises are based on feels they are inadmissibly presuppositional.
(hint: that describes you perfectly)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:30 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.

If it were that simple we wouldn't have so many names for it such as "wingnut shit". Would we? To me it seems everyone participating in this thread is all too familiar with this kind of thinking.

It tells people the world is simple and easy to understand.

It tells people they're special.

That's a very compelling worldview.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
05-08-2014, 03:33 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(05-08-2014 03:28 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-08-2014 03:23 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'm reading a lot of evangelizing here. Much like descriptions of Molyneaux that I've recently read, lots of complaining about what's wrong and no recommendations as to how to improve on what exists. I only see suggestions that we should abandon established institutions in favor of the vision of a handful.

Do I have the gyst? If so, I am disinclined to acquiesce. I see little wisdom in abandoning established institutions so hastily.

You have it right. Any criticism is met with magical thinking - he doesn't like it being called magical thinking though.

How the fuck does this Molyneux clown get a following? I woulda thought even retards would reject this kinda wingnut shit.

Cause they get to be the special few that have "True Vision" and unlike all the sheeple and abusers they "Know" what is "The Truth". Classic cult mentality.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: