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
16-08-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You did not choose an example, you made up an example.

You asked for an example. I gave you one.

I say again, what would me being forced to track down pointless anecdata accomplish?

(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So I ask again, self-aware compared to what or whom?

Compared to someone who will not examine and adjust their premises.

You know; like I literally just said.

(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You don't know my premises, how could you ever tell if I examined them or not?

Your conduct and extended ranting have made it quite clear both what you believe and the degree to which you will deflect and evade rather than question your own beliefs.

But just for shits and giggles, why not clear up the matter? Please state, as concisely and unambiguously, what you believe to the foundational premises on which you base your reasoning.

(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 03:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A government is participatory. What it takes is subject to community approval, and what it uses that appropriation for is subject to community approval. Neither holds for a mafia.

You really aren't trying, are you?
Trying what? Mafia ransom is participatory too! They make you an offer you can't refuse and you will participate.

Yes, if you wish to be tediously disingenuous about it.

(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But what the hell is a community?

A group of people.

You do realize that any more specific answer is highly contingent, right?

(but no, I'm well aware that whenever I ask you a rhetorical question along the lines of "do you know" that the answer is, alas, no)

(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Who gets to define who's a part of the community, map makers?

What do you think?

DLJ sketched you a very thorough outline of the topic earlier in the thread.

It's hardly my fault you ignored 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
16-08-2014, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 16-08-2014 05:29 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You asked for an example. I gave you one.

I say again, what would me being forced to track down pointless anecdata accomplish?
I asked you for a specific example, not a made-up one. It would prove that you can get empirical in human relations, which is not easy at all. Empirical would be great. Rational even better. But please no cultural buzzwords like "community".

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Compared to someone who will not examine and adjust their premises.

You know; like I literally just said.
Tautology is tautology. I ask again, compared to what or whom? If you can't justify an accusation, the general procedure is to take it back, make a recollection of it and apologize for it. That would actually make a great impression on me, if it wasn't sarcastic.

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your conduct and extended ranting have made it quite clear both what you believe and the degree to which you will deflect and evade rather than question your own beliefs.

But just for shits and giggles, why not clear up the matter? Please state, as concisely and unambiguously, what you believe to the foundational premises on which you base your reasoning.

There are causal relationships between brain, natural language and physical matter/energy. How so? There are properties of matter and energy which are shared by all their instances. That includes our brain, and thus we are potentially capable to know and interact causally with all that is real. We can express these universal properties through natural language stripped down to the most trivial but inevitably true statements about reality, which we call principles.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

All matter behaves logically and rationally, because it has no capacity or variability not to behave so. However, the brain has a great variability and thus a potential not to reflect logic and rationality. The only way to have both brain capacity and logic is to learn to think in first principles in natural language. Consequently, it is necessary to share these principles in natural language socially and culturally, or their existence can't be proven. Any culture or form of society that is not derived from the first principles, limits and destroys brain capacity (besides factual errors in science). We can derive socially meaningful conclusions through language from the first principles, in fact such conclusions have the highest certainty (and seem pretty trivial too) and can only be overruled by empirical evidence. Consequently, the way to control human brains is to confuse and re-define the trivial but absolutely consistent foundations of thinking, natural language and society through cultural buzzwords.

Shortly said, brain is a piece of physical matter, just like any other physical matter. By default, brain content is not random, just like physical reality is not random (unless it's very very small). Therefore, natural language (brain output) has a capacity to be a legitimate expression of reality. There are some very basic properties shared by physical things we know and physical things we don't know yet, expressible in natural language. Humans are reality processing machines. If our natural language and culture does not reflect physical reality, we get physically hurt, sooner or later.

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, if you wish to be tediously disingenuous about it.
Examining the basics. Trivial may seem shameful, but I know the most trivial is the most important to get right. So you didn't find an empirical difference between tax collection and mafia ransom collection.

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A group of people.

You do realize that any more specific answer is highly contingent, right?

(but no, I'm well aware that whenever I ask you a rhetorical question along the lines of "do you know" that the answer is, alas, no)
Again, I will not be shamed from examining the most basic premises.
Define me empirically a group of people, since they are empirical payments that I am supposed to pay as a tax. If we were empirically bound together like conjoined twins, then you might have a point.

You could also provide an objective rational definition of a tax-worthy or ransom-worthy group of people. Give me a number when there is a community that is taxed. I think you can't, so you don't have a point here either.

"Group of people" is a vague cultural buzzword and I am supposed to pay real money for it. "Contingent" is not good enough for me, if I'm supposed to pay some completely non-contingent money to some non-contingent party. Extraordinary claims, such as "you owe us money" require extraordinary evidence.

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 03:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Who gets to define who's a part of the community, map makers?

What do you think?
My sociology studies tell me, that the community is defined by whoever has monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. A mafia, a government, a king or a robber baron's wandering band of looters, which was the way of taxation/looting after the fall of Roman Empire.
My definition is factual, but it also points out immorality and subjectivity of such custom.

(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  DLJ sketched you a very thorough outline of the topic earlier in the thread.

It's hardly my fault you ignored it.
I didn't ignore it, I think I answered both, but maybe later.
DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. Not nobody, which is my position. Not everyone, which is Hobbesian natural state. Only some of them.
He does not justify who has the right and why, but he determines this group completely arbitrarily, by social or cultural reference, just like you do. Then he sets up an impossible standard of "guarantees" that things get done - roads get built and poor people get fed. He shows no way to fulfill these "guarantees" by his chosen method - arbitrary violence - but he demands me to fulfill it non-violently. In fact, his chosen method of arbitrary violence is only a guarantee of arbitrary violence, nothing else.
By arbitrary I mean choosing people as a group through a method that is non-rational, non-empirical, but cultural and social and by violence I mean initiation of the use of force to threaten, tax, kill or recite a pledge of allegiance.

His mention of Lawrence Kohlberg's model of moral development is merely an abstraction, nothing rational or empirical. In fact this can be simply explained away by the degree of emotional and mental development (or early childhood deprivation and trauma) of an individual, not society. In this case an individual with non-violent parenting can achieve in the first 5 years greater moral development than human culture had in 10,000 years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 05:52 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You asked for an example. I gave you one.

I say again, what would me being forced to track down pointless anecdata accomplish?
I asked you for a specific example, not a made-up one. It would prove that you can get empirical in human relations, which is not easy at all. Empirical would be great. Rational even better. But please no cultural buzzwords like "community".

I gave an example.

Do you have a point?

I'm skeptical.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Compared to someone who will not examine and adjust their premises.

You know; like I literally just said.
Tautology is tautology. I ask again, compared to what or whom? If you can't justify an accusation, the general procedure is to take it back, make a recollection of it and apologize for it.

Self-aware is not a relative term. Either one is willing to consider one's own premises, or one is not.

You are not.

This endless cavalcade of fail does nothing to change that.

Since you manifestly cannot question or even articulate your own premises, the claim stands.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your conduct and extended ranting have made it quite clear both what you believe and the degree to which you will deflect and evade rather than question your own beliefs.

But just for shits and giggles, why not clear up the matter? Please state, as concisely and unambiguously, what you believe to the foundational premises on which you base your reasoning.

There are properties of matter and energy which are shared by all their instances. That includes our brain, and thus we are potentially capable to know and interact causally with all that is real. We can express these universal properties through natural language stripped down to the most trivial but inevitably true statements about reality, which we call principles.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

No, no, and no.

Naive intuition is inadmissible.

You are incredibly ignorant of physics, and I am perpetually surprised by how blithely you persist in speaking regardless.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  All matter behaves logically and rationally, because it has no capacity or variability not to behave so. However, the brain has a great variability and thus a potential not to reflect logic and rationality. The only way to have both brain capacity and logic is to learn to think in first principles in natural language. Consequently, it is necessary to share these principles in natural language socially and culturally, or their existence can't be proven.

That's tragically circular.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Any culture or form of society that is not derived from the first principles, limits and destroys brain capacity (besides factual errors in science).

And that's pure assertion.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We can derive socially meaningful conclusions through language from the first principles...

And that's invalid induction.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... in fact such conclusions have the highest certainty (and seem pretty trivial too) and can only be overruled by empirical evidence.

Nor do you understand what empirical means.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Consequently, the way to control human brains is to confuse and re-define the trivial but absolutely consistent foundations of thinking, natural language and society through cultural buzzwords.

LOL CONSPIRACY.

Nice try, but no.

"Everyone by definition agrees with me completely" is presuppositionalism at its finest.

It is a miserable failure. Thus, so are you.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Shortly said, brain is a piece of physical matter, just like any other physical matter. By default, brain content is not random, just like physical reality is not random (unless it's very very small).

Please read a book.

Preferably one relating to chaos theory this time around. Then follow it up with one on emergent properties.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Therefore, natural language (brain output) has a capacity to be a legitimate expression of reality. There are some very basic properties shared by physical things we know and physical things we don't know yet, expressible in natural language. Humans are reality processing machines. If our natural language and culture does not reflect physical reality, we get physically hurt, sooner or later.
It makes sense on the most basic, trivial level, but that is enough. I find that a refreshingly rational and reductionistic position.

Well; there you go.

You say that is refreshing. That's acknowledging your appeal to your own intuition. You're glad it's reductive; that's pathetic.

This entire screed has been shambolically circular. I despair of your ever understanding why.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, if you wish to be tediously disingenuous about it.
Examining the basics. Trivial may seem shameful, but I know the most trivial is the most important to get right. So you didn't find an empirical difference between tax collection and mafia ransom collection.

I did. You ignored it, because you can't actually engage in dialogue.

You masturbate, nothing more. Other people might well be bored enough to respond, but you do not process their words. You do not comprehend their words. You spurt out some non sequitur response under the tragic delusion that you're engaging.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A group of people.

You do realize that any more specific answer is highly contingent, right?

(but no, I'm well aware that whenever I ask you a rhetorical question along the lines of "do you know" that the answer is, alas, no)
Again, I will not be shamed from examining the most basic premises.
Define me empirically a group of people, since they are empirical payments that I am supposed to pay as a tax. If we were empirically bound together like conjoined twins, then you might have a point.

Empirically? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One person is one person.
(how's that for a tautology?)

More than one person is a group of people.
(this empirical fact proceeds inevitably from the definition of "group" and "person"; if you need me to hold your hand and define "group" for you, you're far more hopeless than even this thread would so far indicate)

A society necessarily requires involvement of more one person. An orderly society requires some agreement on rules and behaviours among them.

If you have an actual point besides self-absorbed bloviating, please get there faster.

The universe need not be confined by the diminutive boxes you place it in. Your complete and congenital failure to recognise does not change that.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You could also provide an objective rational definition of a tax-worthy or ransom-worthy group of people. Give me a number when there is a community that is taxed. I think you can't, so you don't have a point here either.

Two. Two is the number of people at which a group requires input from more than a single person in an equitable decision making process.

Do you have any points to bring to bear?

So far I have been unable to find even the barest hint of any.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "Group of people" is a vague cultural buzzword and I am supposed to pay real money for it. "Contingent" is not good enough for me, if I'm supposed to pay some completely non-contingent money to some non-contingent party. Extraordinary claims, such as "you owe us money" require extraordinary evidence.

I never said you owe me anything. Who's "you"? Who's "us"?

Would it kill you to desist from straw men?

Perhaps it genuinely would. I can see no other compelling reason for you to do so so tirelessly and relentlessly.

But I absolutely do find it adorable that now - now of all times - you find it within yourself to parrot a skeptical slogan you don't understand.

For all the many, interminable times you've spouted deranged, incoherent, and highly extraordinary claims of your own, you have never once managed to put across even the beginnings of substantiation. Ever.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What do you think?
My sociology studies tell me, that the community is defined by whoever has monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. A mafia, a government, a king or a robber baron's wandering band of looters, which was the way of taxation/looting after the fall of Roman Empire.
My definition is factual, but it also points out immorality and subjectivity of such custom.

Your definition is self-serving fatuity.

What you call your "education" consists of re-affirming your presuppositions by whatever dishonest means necessary.

(and here we once again fondly recall you attempting to cite satire to attest a point)

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 04:02 PM)cjlr Wrote:  DLJ sketched you a very thorough outline of the topic earlier in the thread.

It's hardly my fault you ignored it.
I didn't ignore it, I think I answered both, but maybe later.

You comprehensively failed to address it.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. Not nobody, which is my position. Not everyone, which is Hobbesian natural state. Only some of them.

That is not even remotely what DLJ said.

But no, please continue on with the straw men; reaching the conclusion I did above, I now fear for your health if you desist.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  He does not justify who has the right and why, but he determines this group completely arbitrarily, by social or cultural reference, just like you do.

In fact no. He states that it is a highly variable topic.

I have not made any specific claims either; the only one who has repeatedly declared - by reason of feels - to have universal context-insensitive answers is you.
(that's what "arbitrary" actually means, ol' Lumi)

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Then he sets up an impossible standard of "guarantees" that things get done - roads get built and poor people get fed. He shows no way to fulfill these "guarantees" by his chosen method - arbitrary violence - but he demands me to fulfill it non-violently. In fact, his chosen method of arbitrary violence is only a guarantee of arbitrary violence, nothing else.
By arbitrary I mean choosing people as a group through a method that is non-rational, non-empirical, but cultural and social and by violence I mean initiation of the use of force to threaten, tax, kill or recite a pledge of allegiance.

Right, I'm out of patience for your pathological need. Shut the fuck up about your pathetic straw men.

Remember how your definitions were facile and inadequate? Because they still are.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  His mention of Lawrence Kohlberg's model of moral development is merely an abstraction, nothing rational or empirical. In fact this can be simply explained away by the degree of emotional and mental development (or early childhood deprivation and trauma) of an individual, not society. In this case an individual with non-violent parenting can achieve in the first 5 years greater moral development than human culture had in 10,000 years.

"In fact". More proof that you don't know what words mean.

...

I stated a very clear, very simple request:
State and elaborate upon your premises.

You did not. You cannot. You do not even understand the question.

At no point in your bizarre, rambling cavalcade of straw men and misunderstandings did you even come close.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
16-08-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Anyone else fancy a spin at this?

The blind optimist in me still feels as though if we bang our heads against the brick wall long enough one of us will break through.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2014, 06:27 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 06:03 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Anyone else fancy a spin at this?

The blind optimist in me still feels as though if we bang our heads against the brick wall long enough one of us will break through.

I just respond for the people reading the thread, and as we have seen Lumy does not read anyone else's responses.

(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
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
16-08-2014, 07:10 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I think this really is one of those cases where someone can't reason themselves out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into. I think Lumi has found a place for himself in this organisation he has joined. He feels like he is among friends there I guess in a way he hasn't found here. To me this doesn't look like a reasoned rational debate. I see lines being parroted to defend ideas uncritically held. To me this looks like an emotional conversion experience where a person who never felt like anyone would listen to them now feels they are among friends for the first time. I think alcohol, food, and mateship are ingredients likely to be needed to form a common emotional ground before any persuasion can occur.

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
[+] 6 users Like Hafnof's post
17-08-2014, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2014 01:04 AM by PKJoe.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 10:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Ah, I see what you mean now. The state does not exist as a moral entity. Nothing about the state makes it inherently moral. Family is not inherently moral either. Just pushing out a baby does not make a saint out of a woman, nor a competent parent worthy of obedience. And elections don't make anyone a paragon of virtue.
It could be said that the state is an extension, a reflection of abusive family, because it uses force and claims inherent morality.
Yes, you might be correct that family does not exist either - only the relationships in family are (or should be) much stronger than in the state.

This is where weaseling comes in. If we obey the state because the state is good, then why the police has guns? If it's because people are bad, then the government has people in it too, how comes government is not bad, apparently? How can bad people elect good people into the government to make them good through applying a force? Blink

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of composition? If I go to a street with six houses and the first house is blue, can I deduce that all the houses on the street must be blue? What if half of the houses are blue, or even five of the houses are blue; can I than assert that all the houses are blue? No, I can not. Most people are conform to the moral standards of modern society. However, not all people act in a moral way. We hire police forces to take care of the elements of society that we find immoral.

We are not perfect however and sometimes those police forces also act immorally. That is why we have systems in place that are designed to watch over the police forces to make sure that they don't abuse their granted power. The people that watch over those watchers are our elected officials. The people watch over the elected officials to make sure that they are behaving in a way that society deems moral. Ultimately, everyone watches everyone else. That is how are system works. This last part This paragraph would normally be totally unnecessary; but I'm willing to bet that you were going to go on a rant about who watches the watchers, so I figured I'd preemptively reply to that argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PKJoe's post
17-08-2014, 12:42 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 05:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I asked you for a specific example, not a made-up one. It would prove that you can get empirical in human relations, which is not easy at all. Empirical would be great. Rational even better. But please no cultural buzzwords like "community".

I gave an example.

Do you have a point?

I'm skeptical.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Tautology is tautology. I ask again, compared to what or whom? If you can't justify an accusation, the general procedure is to take it back, make a recollection of it and apologize for it.

Self-aware is not a relative term. Either one is willing to consider one's own premises, or one is not.

You are not.

This endless cavalcade of fail does nothing to change that.

Since you manifestly cannot question or even articulate your own premises, the claim stands.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are properties of matter and energy which are shared by all their instances. That includes our brain, and thus we are potentially capable to know and interact causally with all that is real. We can express these universal properties through natural language stripped down to the most trivial but inevitably true statements about reality, which we call principles.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

No, no, and no.

Naive intuition is inadmissible.

You are incredibly ignorant of physics, and I am perpetually surprised by how blithely you persist in speaking regardless.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  All matter behaves logically and rationally, because it has no capacity or variability not to behave so. However, the brain has a great variability and thus a potential not to reflect logic and rationality. The only way to have both brain capacity and logic is to learn to think in first principles in natural language. Consequently, it is necessary to share these principles in natural language socially and culturally, or their existence can't be proven.

That's tragically circular.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Any culture or form of society that is not derived from the first principles, limits and destroys brain capacity (besides factual errors in science).

And that's pure assertion.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We can derive socially meaningful conclusions through language from the first principles...

And that's invalid induction.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... in fact such conclusions have the highest certainty (and seem pretty trivial too) and can only be overruled by empirical evidence.

Nor do you understand what empirical means.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Consequently, the way to control human brains is to confuse and re-define the trivial but absolutely consistent foundations of thinking, natural language and society through cultural buzzwords.

LOL CONSPIRACY.

Nice try, but no.

"Everyone by definition agrees with me completely" is presuppositionalism at its finest.

It is a miserable failure. Thus, so are you.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Shortly said, brain is a piece of physical matter, just like any other physical matter. By default, brain content is not random, just like physical reality is not random (unless it's very very small).

Please read a book.

Preferably one relating to chaos theory this time around. Then follow it up with one on emergent properties.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Therefore, natural language (brain output) has a capacity to be a legitimate expression of reality. There are some very basic properties shared by physical things we know and physical things we don't know yet, expressible in natural language. Humans are reality processing machines. If our natural language and culture does not reflect physical reality, we get physically hurt, sooner or later.
It makes sense on the most basic, trivial level, but that is enough. I find that a refreshingly rational and reductionistic position.

Well; there you go.

You say that is refreshing. That's acknowledging your appeal to your own intuition. You're glad it's reductive; that's pathetic.

This entire screed has been shambolically circular. I despair of your ever understanding why.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Examining the basics. Trivial may seem shameful, but I know the most trivial is the most important to get right. So you didn't find an empirical difference between tax collection and mafia ransom collection.

I did. You ignored it, because you can't actually engage in dialogue.

You masturbate, nothing more. Other people might well be bored enough to respond, but you do not process their words. You do not comprehend their words. You spurt out some non sequitur response under the tragic delusion that you're engaging.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Again, I will not be shamed from examining the most basic premises.
Define me empirically a group of people, since they are empirical payments that I am supposed to pay as a tax. If we were empirically bound together like conjoined twins, then you might have a point.

Empirically? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

One person is one person.
(how's that for a tautology?)

More than one person is a group of people.
(this empirical fact proceeds inevitably from the definition of "group" and "person"; if you need me to hold your hand and define "group" for you, you're far more hopeless than even this thread would so far indicate)

A society necessarily requires involvement of more one person. An orderly society requires some agreement on rules and behaviours among them.

If you have an actual point besides self-absorbed bloviating, please get there faster.

The universe need not be confined by the diminutive boxes you place it in. Your complete and congenital failure to recognise does not change that.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You could also provide an objective rational definition of a tax-worthy or ransom-worthy group of people. Give me a number when there is a community that is taxed. I think you can't, so you don't have a point here either.

Two. Two is the number of people at which a group requires input from more than a single person in an equitable decision making process.

Do you have any points to bring to bear?

So far I have been unable to find even the barest hint of any.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "Group of people" is a vague cultural buzzword and I am supposed to pay real money for it. "Contingent" is not good enough for me, if I'm supposed to pay some completely non-contingent money to some non-contingent party. Extraordinary claims, such as "you owe us money" require extraordinary evidence.

I never said you owe me anything. Who's "you"? Who's "us"?

Would it kill you to desist from straw men?

Perhaps it genuinely would. I can see no other compelling reason for you to do so so tirelessly and relentlessly.

But I absolutely do find it adorable that now - now of all times - you find it within yourself to parrot a skeptical slogan you don't understand.

For all the many, interminable times you've spouted deranged, incoherent, and highly extraordinary claims of your own, you have never once managed to put across even the beginnings of substantiation. Ever.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  My sociology studies tell me, that the community is defined by whoever has monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. A mafia, a government, a king or a robber baron's wandering band of looters, which was the way of taxation/looting after the fall of Roman Empire.
My definition is factual, but it also points out immorality and subjectivity of such custom.

Your definition is self-serving fatuity.

What you call your "education" consists of re-affirming your presuppositions by whatever dishonest means necessary.

(and here we once again fondly recall you attempting to cite satire to attest a point)

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I didn't ignore it, I think I answered both, but maybe later.

You comprehensively failed to address it.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. Not nobody, which is my position. Not everyone, which is Hobbesian natural state. Only some of them.

That is not even remotely what DLJ said.

But no, please continue on with the straw men; reaching the conclusion I did above, I now fear for your health if you desist.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  He does not justify who has the right and why, but he determines this group completely arbitrarily, by social or cultural reference, just like you do.

In fact no. He states that it is a highly variable topic.

I have not made any specific claims either; the only one who has repeatedly declared - by reason of feels - to have universal context-insensitive answers is you.
(that's what "arbitrary" actually means, ol' Lumi)

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Then he sets up an impossible standard of "guarantees" that things get done - roads get built and poor people get fed. He shows no way to fulfill these "guarantees" by his chosen method - arbitrary violence - but he demands me to fulfill it non-violently. In fact, his chosen method of arbitrary violence is only a guarantee of arbitrary violence, nothing else.
By arbitrary I mean choosing people as a group through a method that is non-rational, non-empirical, but cultural and social and by violence I mean initiation of the use of force to threaten, tax, kill or recite a pledge of allegiance.

Right, I'm out of patience for your pathological need. Shut the fuck up about your pathetic straw men.

Remember how your definitions were facile and inadequate? Because they still are.

(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  His mention of Lawrence Kohlberg's model of moral development is merely an abstraction, nothing rational or empirical. In fact this can be simply explained away by the degree of emotional and mental development (or early childhood deprivation and trauma) of an individual, not society. In this case an individual with non-violent parenting can achieve in the first 5 years greater moral development than human culture had in 10,000 years.

"In fact". More proof that you don't know what words mean.

...

I stated a very clear, very simple request:
State and elaborate upon your premises.

You did not. You cannot. You do not even understand the question.

At no point in your bizarre, rambling cavalcade of straw men and misunderstandings did you even come close.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Image: slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 12:54 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Anyone care to give me a brief update please?
Patch notes plz.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2014, 03:32 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(16-08-2014 05:09 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
DLJ's premises are completely faulty. He presumes that some groups or individuals have the right to initiate violence. ...

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote.

Honestly. No idea!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: