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
26-08-2014, 04:49 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2014 04:55 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:18 PM)morondog Wrote:  If I tie you up, you're fucked. Try again Sleepy

It's kinda telling that even an argument *this* fucken retarded, you find compelling.

He can't get around the argument because it's fucking circular.

Accepting its presuppositions, he can't find a way out of it from a position which implicitly accepts it.

So there's that.
It's not circular, because I did not come up with the concept of ownership or non-existence of ownership. All I do is a basic check for internal consistency. That's the first test of any proposal and also the easiest and most important.
Furthermore, every rational (language, logic, mathematics) proposal is circular in a way that mathematical equations are "circular" or self-contained, that both sides of equations equal to each other. Only empirical reality is not "circular. The inability of modern thinkers to distinguish rational reality from empirical is a source of many a failure.

(26-08-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Perhaps we might consider what a real philosopher might say on the subject:


This video is pure sophistry and ad hominems. "Does this guy really think he's better than X, Y and Z? Well well well..!! Consider Dodgy No Facepalm Drinking Beverage".

Some highlights:
False dichotomy between the concepts of property and property rights. Property rights are a property (there you go) of our language and of our action. We can only talk and point at things and name them property due to this (brace yourself) property of our mind and language.

Straw man with élan vital - the question of being alive is empirical, belongs to the science of biology. But ownership is property of mind and language and that is a philosophical area. If this is begging the question, then every talking and acting person begs the question every day since toddlerhood.

He uses phrases like "your attention" or "his opposition" which is ascribing ownership thus claiming the existence of ownership. Yes, I insist on this point. You may think it's silly, but silly is not an argument. You don't get a free pass on language.

The intellectual level of this video makes me sad Sad It is difficult to say more because many people here identify with it. I sit and think what to write so that people will not get too much insulted to actually respond to the post... Shit, this sucks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  He can't get around the argument because it's fucking circular.

Accepting its presuppositions, he can't find a way out of it from a position which implicitly accepts it.

So there's that.
It's not circular, because I did not come up with the concept of ownership or non-existence of ownership. All I do is a basic check for internal consistency. That's the first test of any proposal and also the easiest and most important.

So, what you're saying is that you must accept the premise because it's consistent with itself.

Sweet weeping spaghetti monster, ol' Lumi.

Protip: maybe try not to be the literal definition of question-begging?

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Perhaps we might consider what a real philosopher might say on the subject:


This video is pure sophistry and ad hominems. "Does this guy really think he's better than X, Y and Z? Well well well..!! Consider Dodgy No Facepalm Drinking Beverage".

Concern trolling is the last resort of the desperate.
(hint: he makes quite a few points)

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Some highlights:
False dichotomy between the concepts of property and property rights.

That is not a false dichotomy. The concepts are distinct.

"NO U" is not an argument.

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Property rights are a property (there you go) of our language and of our action.

Except no, because that's mere assertion.
(hint: asserting things does not make them so)

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We can only talk and point at things and name them property due to this (brace yourself) property of our mind and language.

Oh look, dishonest equivocation. Are you even trying?

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Straw man with élan vital - the question of being alive is empirical, belongs to the science of biology. But ownership is property of mind and language and that is a philosophical area. If this is begging the question, then every talking and acting person begs the question every day since toddlerhood.

This is still just you re-asserting the same circular premise.

Sweet fucking Christ but you're a hapless presuppositionalist, ol' Lumi.

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  He uses phrases like "your attention" or "his opposition" which is ascribing ownership thus claiming the existence of ownership.

More conflation. You can't just equivocate on "ownership" and "property" to suit your self-satisfied ends.

There's a distinction between "being recognised as having expressed the idea" and "possessing property rights over that idea".

Which, incidentally, doesn't apply, because the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) very clearly doesn't believe in intellectual property, unless he can use it to get men with guns to silence his critics.

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I insist on this point. You may think it's silly, but silly is not an argument. You don't get a free pass on language.

Assertion isn't an argument either, ol' Lumi. The example of elan vital is literally the exact same circular self-affirming line of, ahem, "thought".

(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The intellectual level of this video makes me sad Sad It is difficult to say more because many people here identify with it. I sit and think what to write so that people will not get too much insulted to actually respond to the post... Shit, this sucks.

If one is going to call one's self a literal Messiah for all of philosophy, that sets some high expectations, and overwhelming consensus is the sad, hateful little con man fails utterly at his grandiose self-aggrandising.

Why don't you just fuck off?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
26-08-2014, 05:18 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
91 pages. Jesus H Christ.
I'm glad I got out of this shit when I did.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
26-08-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Perhaps we might consider what a real philosopher might say on the subject:



Fantastic video
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 11:14 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 04:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  PS: what has ol' Stefan "self-detonating" Molyneux been up to this past week?




IP rights only count when they're his IP rights.

State violence is unlawful, unless he's using it.

Universality is a precept for everyone else to follow, except him.

LOL, the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) is now the King of the Hypocrites. Weeping

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not circular, because I did not come up with the concept of ownership or non-existence of ownership. All I do is a basic check for internal consistency. That's the first test of any proposal and also the easiest and most important.

You said that by arguing that property rights do not intrinsically exist in society a person is implicitly accepting that they exist because he has control over his actions.

I said: If I tie you up, then where are your property rights?

We are not required to respect others property or body by any physical law, it's only a mutual agreement. People break that agreement all the time, and we have a criminal justice system to deal with that. The criminal justice system is the thing that *guarantees* that the large majority of society will follow the agreement.

It further is designed to have the desirable properties that as far as possible in cases where the agreement is broken people get a fair, public trial and do not get cruel and unusual punishments. This is that social contract that you didn't sign... you know, the one you hate because it infringes on your freedom so much. The one that gives you a reasonable chance to live your live in peace and security, under that tin-foil hat of yours.

How will you guarantee a similar justice system in an anarchist society? How will you make people respect each others' rights? There *will* be those who won't respect them - how will you deal with that?

Cue:
-- hours long video of Molyneux, because Lumi can't summarize. Pro tip: no one fucken watches them.
-- more shit about not spanking kids. Pro tip: it's a dream.
-- more self-aggrandizing crap about philosophy and how intelligent Lumi is.

Bonus:
-- no answer to the actual questions in this post.

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
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
26-08-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Perhaps we might consider what a real philosopher might say on the subject:



Hey, I remember SisyphusRedeemed! Been a while since I've watched his stuff.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2014, 11:29 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not circular, because I did not come up with the concept of ownership or non-existence of ownership. All I do is a basic check for internal consistency. That's the first test of any proposal and also the easiest and most important.

You said that by arguing that property rights do not intrinsically exist in society a person is implicitly accepting that they exist because he has control over his actions.

I said: If I tie you up, then where are your property rights?

We are not required to respect others property or body by any physical law, it's only a mutual agreement. People break that agreement all the time, and we have a criminal justice system to deal with that. The criminal justice system is the thing that *guarantees* that the large majority of society will follow the agreement.

It further is designed to have the desirable properties that as far as possible in cases where the agreement is broken people get a fair, public trial and do not get cruel and unusual punishments. This is that social contract that you didn't sign... you know, the one you hate because it infringes on your freedom so much. The one that gives you a reasonable chance to live your live in peace and security, under that tin-foil hat of yours.

How will you guarantee a similar justice system in an anarchist society? How will you make people respect each others' rights? There *will* be those who won't respect them - how will you deal with that?

Cue:
-- hours long video of Molyneux, because Lumi can't summarize. Pro tip: no one fucken watches them.
-- more shit about not spanking kids. Pro tip: it's a dream.
-- more self-aggrandizing crap about philosophy and how intelligent Lumi is.

Bonus:
-- no answer to the actual questions in this post.


Of course, he's never answered that. Or at least, given an answer that didn't rely on magical thinking.

People are assholes, how so you handle that?

Near as I can tell, he wants us all to turn into doomsday preppers, hiding in our own bunkers, using guns to shoot anyone that has the nerve to even think about infringing on our 'freedom' or 'property rights'.

[Image: doomsday-preppers.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  So, what you're saying is that you must accept the premise because it's consistent with itself.

Sweet weeping spaghetti monster, ol' Lumi.

Protip: maybe try not to be the literal definition of question-begging?
Hell, no!!! I say that I must reject a proposition outright if it's not consistent with itself. Rejecting propositions is important because there is no such thing as unchosen positive moral obligations, so rejecting them is the basis of objective morality. Just like in science, we mostly reject stuff.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Concern trolling is the last resort of the desperate.
(hint: he makes quite a few points)
He doesn't make any points! Not that you would know what a point is. His "points" are all wasted on nitpicking and quote mining for the purpose of sophistry.
He's the stupidest fucktard I have seen in a long time and he doesn't even deserve concern trolling.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Some highlights:
False dichotomy between the concepts of property and property rights.
That is not a false dichotomy. The concepts are distinct.

"NO U" is not an argument.
You didn't say "distinct how", so you lose an argument. Even if you made the argument, you could only win if the concepts were contradictory or unrelated, but they're not. One derived from the other.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 04:49 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Property rights are a property (there you go) of our language and of our action.
Except no, because that's mere assertion.
(hint: asserting things does not make them so)
It might surprise you, but that's how local dominant life forms called humans communicate Consider It may surprise you even more, that making a self-consistent, self-contained assertions makes them true, it's the basis of mathematics, logic and rational argument, which is something like "verbal mathematics". And even more surprisingly, rational arguments are the only objective and possibly moral way how to make decisions in human society.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  This is still just you re-asserting the same circular premise.

Sweet fucking Christ but you're a hapless presuppositionalist, ol' Lumi.
Salty spaghetti monster! Humans say things! Language has meaning! Arguments can be true even without an empirical element!
It's not asserting a circular premise, it is making a valid self-contained equation with words, which is an argument! Such an "equation" (argument) can make moral obligations to people, so getting them right and testing and rejecting them is really important! It's called thinking!

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  More conflation. You can't just equivocate on "ownership" and "property" to suit your self-satisfied ends.

There's a distinction between "being recognised as having expressed the idea" and "possessing property rights over that idea".
No, there is not! Philosophy is the discipline of thinking and all rational arguments start as thoughts, they start equal until proven otherwise. First we check for internal consistency, if they hold, we check them externally with the world and if they still hold, we may look for a contrary empirical evidence.
But with the example we had, all thought, all language is equal and using possessive pronouns means you agree with the idea of possession, property and property rights.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Which, incidentally, doesn't apply, because the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) very clearly doesn't believe in intellectual property, unless he can use it to get men with guns to silence his critics.
Our arguments belong to us, of course. If someone criticizes them with such a sophistry and assholery as we have seen here, and uses means of mass communication to do it, and the men with guns already took money, then this is a defense of one's property. Defense of self and property is allowed under the Non-Aggression Principle. And even if Molyneux was wrong about this, so there's one area in which he is not morally superior to us, mere mortals, boohah. He doesn't say he needs to be morally superior in everything.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Assertion isn't an argument either, ol' Lumi. The example of elan vital is literally the exact same circular self-affirming line of, ahem, "thought".
Nope. An assertion which contains "because" and a justification is called an argument. Elan vital is a straw man because it is falsely used as a philosophical argument, while it really is an argument (hypothesis) in the science of biology, which by definition requires empirical evidence.

(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If one is going to call one's self a literal Messiah for all of philosophy, that sets some high expectations, and overwhelming consensus is the sad, hateful little con man fails utterly at his grandiose self-aggrandising.

Why don't you just fuck off?
I don't fuck off, because I know what is thinking, language and a rational argument.
Without me, people here would spend their lives without an example of what is or isn't an argument and they would forever follow non-arguments and false arguments.

(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  You said that by arguing that property rights do not intrinsically exist in society a person is implicitly accepting that they exist because he has control over his actions.
Yes, that is a way we go about testing a rational proposal.

(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  I said: If I tie you up, then where are your property rights?
Is tying someone up a valid rational argument, or is it an argument from force?

(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  We are not required to respect others property or body by any physical law, it's only a mutual agreement. People break that agreement all the time, and we have a criminal justice system to deal with that. The criminal justice system is the thing that *guarantees* that the large majority of society will follow the agreement.
There are natural laws of logic and using them in our thought, speech and action is the discipline of philosophy and it is also a basis of rationality and virtue.
In the realm of reason, which is the super-important world of humand mind, language, action and morality, the requirement for existence is not physics, it is consistency. Physics is already naturally consistent and uses its own set of methods.
If someone acts irrationally and aggressively, it does not mean that the principles of reason are invalid, it simply means that person is irrational or possibly immoral. It may be a weak consolation to the victims, but philosophy is not surgery, it is like nutrition, a long term prevention of evil in society. Philosophy can't do anything at the moment.

(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  It further is designed to have the desirable properties that as far as possible in cases where the agreement is broken people get a fair, public trial and do not get cruel and unusual punishments. This is that social contract that you didn't sign... you know, the one you hate because it infringes on your freedom so much. The one that gives you a reasonable chance to live your live in peace and security, under that tin-foil hat of yours.
It's not that bad actually, but it is financed by taking money from people against their will while it punishes people who take money from others against their will. That is inconsistent and therefore it can't be moral or rational.

(26-08-2014 11:21 PM)morondog Wrote:  How will you guarantee a similar justice system in an anarchist society? How will you make people respect each others' rights? There *will* be those who won't respect them - how will you deal with that?
Is your argument that a proposal can not be disproven unless I can offer a better alternative? I hope not, because that would be begging the question and shifting the burden of proof.

Both me and Molyneux (as he said recently on Joe Rogan's show) say, I don't know and I don't have to, it's not up to me. I can only prove that the present system is irrational and immoral - and there is some empirical evidence against it too. I do not have to present a complete better replacement system in order to rationally disprove the present one. People can make up a dozen of better systems when they stop believing in the present one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 02:27 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Without me, people here would spend their lives without an example of what is or isn't an argument and they would forever follow non-arguments and false arguments.

This thread is getting more hilarious by the day. Laugh out load

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: