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
27-08-2014, 02:35 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We all live on Earth, so if we don't want to kill off our entire species, we all have an obligation to do what we can to preserve an ecosystem capable of sustaining our species. We are all in this together. If you'd rather not be, you're always free to kill yourself, thus eliminating yourself from the equation.
True. But none of that positively points at any specific form of governance or human social organization, much less any specific government agency and amount of its funding.

Including, by your own logic, anarcho-capitalism.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So I would call that red herring, only I have a greater point to make. If anything, we are obliged to use science to research human behavior and come up with a whole new objectively proven form of human social organization.

When people are not held accountable, almost without fail they abuse their power. You propose a system that eliminates all accountability. You fail to understand why the rest of us have a problem with this.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Nice red herring you have there, it would be a shame if something happened to it...
No red herring, your scare tactics of human extinction is no different from priests' Doom's day. There is no evidence that a lack of a particular form of governance (republic, democracy, oligarchy) would lead to extinction of human species. You don't make this argument outright, but let's get it off the table.

It's back to the lack of accountability that you entirely fail to understand. If we're not accountable for our actions, especially as they concern our effect on the planet's ecosystem, we run the very real risk of eventually destroying our species. We propose government to enforce regulation and accountability, you propose a system with zero accountability; and you think that somehow this will make everything better. When asked to substantiate your claims, you have failed utterly to bring anything to the table that is compelling, up to and including the citation of satire in defense of your arguments.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unfortunately, if that is their consensus, then they do. Doesn't mean we have to agree with it, doesn't mean we can't do what we can to change the consensus. But if the consensus obligates that action, and enforces it with laws and punishment, then they do (however unfortunately) have that socially dictated obligation.
Consensus? What consensus is it, if it doesn't include women and children?

You'd be surprised just how many women agree that they should be covered, as they believe it is proscribed by their religion. Islam is a terribly misogynistic religion, and it makes breaking the system of patriarchy that much harder. I fail to see how anarcho-capitalism would do anything to improve this situation. Women would still be subject to their husbands according to their religiously based social norms. If your answer to the problem is to eliminate the religious influence, then it would make their society more egalitarian regardless of their form of government or lack thereof; it would not be an implicit endorsement or argument for stateless anarcho-capitalism.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What consensus is it, if we can disagree with it and even try to change it?

We're not members of their society, their government, their state, their consensus. A consensus is not immutable, the consensus can and does change as societies and the opinions within them change. We can interact with them, but we are not them. Maybe we can convince them to be part of a larger consensus making body (like the United Nations) to help facilitate negotiations.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  How can consensus be unfortunate?

Are you that stupid? It's unfortunate from a certain perspective, like how it's unfortunate that Barney is violet and green from the point of view of an art student with training in color theory.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Consensus leading to laws and punishment is just tautology, it's just circular. What are they doing? Their consensus. What is their consensus? The things they do. Why do they do what they do? Because it's the consensus.

Yes, the people come together to decide on laws governing the interactions of people. They not handed down from on high (religion), nor are they objective laws of the universe (your 'principles').


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It doesn't tell us why or how is it justified, because it isn't. What you say in this elaborate wording is basically, they use force, because they can. That's the best argument they have - that any culture has.

Welcome to the real world, things are 'justified' when enough people agree that it is. This agreement can, and does, change. The atomic bombing of Japan has generally been seen as justified, both at the time and since, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been disagreement; or that it will always remains to be viewed as justified in hindsight.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again, nuance is anathema to the True Beliver™.
You are right, because nuance, is that your argument? I say, every single nuance needs to be proven with empirical evidence. The natural sciences are based on nuances of matter and energy Wink

Which would be cute, if you actually had any evidence. You have your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh), and you have your feels, but every time you run head long into empirical reality you have to back-pedal and sidestep and do everything you can to protect your conclusion from the logic of your failed premises. You're a textbook case of cognitive bias, made only slightly more interesting because you're back flips are over political ideology instead of a god concept.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  [Image: h5D7A63D2]
That is an absolute statement, so Obi Wan calls himself a Sith lord, or he's a liar, or really bad at logic.

Congratulations, you are an idiot. That image was bait, to see if you'd be pedant and infantile enough to bring up the 'no absolutes is an absolute' attempted counter-point. Thanks for acting exactly as I thought.


“Absolute in Philosophy: The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.


Or you can try reading this...

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-ar...lute-Truth


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unfortunately, that's life. I don't have to like it or agree with it, but that is their societal norm, their social obligation. Myself, and the society that I'm obligated to, doesn't agree with that; it doesn't mean we get to dictate to them what to do. We can try to reason with them, show them a better path, or lead by example. But their social consensus is just as legitimate for them, as our social consensus is legitimate for us; and they're all equally subjective arbitrary human constructs.
Yes!!! I totally agree. That is a rare occurrence so I will try to present my argument at length. I don't see what is there to disagree with, so please point it out.

The subjective arbitrary thing you just described is called culture. I am not against culture per se. There are great many advantages to it. Religion is a culture and religion provides for a sense of community, can trigger placebo healing effects, gives longer life maybe, and so on. Similarly, the culture of nations and democracy make for more orderly environment. There are some disadvantages to it, but the great thing about human beings, we can compensate for a great deal of discomfort and we can get used to pretty much anything that doesn't get us killed instantly.

Humans are genetically shape and behaviorally as diverse as dogs and our minds are as programmable as computers, so there is really no particular human nature. What culture does is shaping human nature as a vessel shapes water. This is why culture is not just a harmless entertainment, it's a powerful instrument. Science controls natural world. But culture controls the human world, which in some ways is more effective than natural. So we really want the culture to be based on the science of human thinking and relations, which is the various disciplines of philosophy etc, not on pseudoscience of human relations, which is nationalism, religion and so on.
So what is the content of culture now? Arbitrary and subjective. And I think that's harmful.

Right, empty promises and feels so far.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  However, there is a way to get out of this subjective arbitrary vessel and start shaping ourselves towards objective, universal standards of fairness, use solid methods to minimize disadvantages and maximize advantages in society. That way to rise above the arbitrary culture is called philosophy, morality, reason, logic, scientific method and evidence.

These can all help, I am waiting for the point when you careen into Crazy Town.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But for that the culture must not be obligatory. That's really a bad thing to do, to threaten someone who doesn't conform to culture. Forcing people to pay taxes against their will is like forcing atheists to go to church and pay tithes.
Surprisingly, people can't even be forced to be rational about science and logic, because rationality isn't based on force. (only physics Tongue )

And once again, good ol' Lumi didn't disappoint.

If we're looking at 'objective' standards of living, the best standards of living ever yet achieved, have been those attained by the socialist liberal democracies of northern Europe. The closest we've ever had to your libertarian anarcho-capitalist, nobody accountable, everyone fends for themselves, would require us to go back into prehistory; literally a time when we were so primitive we had yet to invent the written word. Since coming out of the African savanna, we've organized into family groups and large extended family groups; these grew into our earliest governments. Selfish and free individuals tended to not survive on their own.

I'm not saying we can't do better. However you have utterly FAILED to convince anyone here that your ideas would be anything but a terrible step backwards.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm just a wimp, so I don't say stop obeying the culture. My proposal is, recognize that the culture is forced on you, recognize that there are objective disciplines which are better than that, talk about it and raise your children without forcing.

I agree that our social consensus is just as legitimate to us, as it is to them, i.e. not at all. There is no science or objective reasoning behind it, so it can't be morally/rationally obligatory for anyone.

Only science makes things obligatory? Is that seriously what you are going to try and argue? For fuck's sake... Facepalm


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You can oppose the consensus and still call yourself rational and moral.

Opposition to or attempting to change the consensus is not limited to the rational and moral, the irrational and immoral can do so as well; and what is considered 'moral' and 'immoral' is generally determined by the consensus as well.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And if others force you to jump on their cultural bandwagon and participate, it is they who are immoral and irrational.

There are consequences, as determined by the consensus, for violating the norms of the consensus. Crying "it's irrational" doesn't change that, nor does that make it immoral; remember that 'morality' is determined by consensus. Killing other human beings is not considered universally immoral in all circumstances, the immorality or morality of it changes with context, and different societies can consider the same context moral or immoral depending on their consensus as influenced by their own cultures.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There is no evidence or objective reasoning that your national consensus is more morally/rationally obligatory to you than the Sharia consensus in Saudi Arabia - the only difference is geography and geography has no meaning besides geography.

Right. Now try to convince them that YOU have a better, more rational, more objective way to do things. Good luck getting them to agree with you, which has always been another one of your stumbling blocks.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It is more forcefully, culturally obligatory, but that is not proven, rational or moral.
That is all the point I wish to make, what is objective and voluntary and what is subjective and forced. Too bad we can't change it, we have to suck up and pay taxes. This is why I am in favor of peaceful parenting instead of cultural indoctrination of children.

Unless those children grow up to be IRS Agents? Consider


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 07:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And no, your 'property rights' are not any less subjective, so just drop that canard before you even try to start.
I can't say there are or aren't property rights. But I can say with absolute authority, a rational proposal either is, or is not. Screw nuances, like property rights for some, or sometimes, or from certain age or income bracket, screw that.

Except that with your entirely unaccountable laissez faire free-market anarcho-capitalism, that is exactly what would happen. Nothing you've proposed would guarantee everyone has property, would guarantee everyone can interact with the market, would guarantee that everyone has the same rights. If enough people come together and can come to an agreement on law and regulations, stipulating what is property and what 'rights' they have vis a vis property; then we can start guaranteeing certain things, as enforced by the agreement of the consensus. Because rights are not objective guarantees granted by the nature of reality. Rights are granted by people, enforced by people, protected by people, and can be taken away by people.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Every nuance requires objective empirical proof. When you say nuance, you have to bring science. Reason has clear-cut yes-no principles and these are the only way how to prevent damage in the long term, to diminish the amount of unpleasant nuances, so to speak.

The problem is, you're incapable of thinking in nuance, because your adherence to yes/no absolutes doesn't allow for it.


(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So then there is a test. This argument was made to me and I had to accept it. Someone who writes there are no property rights, owns the keyboard he uses to deny them, he owns his hands, his mouth, he owns himself. So it's a self-detonating statement. His own action proves him wrong. Fuck, he owns his actions, as I just said! It's like ownership is encoded in our language. Surprise surprise, there is such a thing as ownership rights. I can't get around this argument.

You are stupid as fuck.

I only own the keyboard, because the social context and consensus that I live in grants me that ownership; the universe does not grant me ownership, nor is ownership an inherent property of the keyboard like it's physical dimensions or mass. My property rights are granted by the consensus, and they can just as easily be stripped away. Now we have laws governing property rights, but they all built from and enforced by my government. Just look at the futility of trying to enforce IP copyrights in other countries that don't recognize the 'rights' to those IP granted by other governments.

[Image: starbucks.jpg]

Yeah, good luck telling them Starbucks has an objective, universal, right to their logo that transcends the limits national borders and international agreement.

You only have ownership of something insofar as everyone else agrees you do, and if nobody else agrees you do (like if you tried to claim the White House as your own), then sad day for you.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2014, 02:42 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Leaving aside that you have not in anyway proved anything, except that I wouldn't trust you with *any* position of responsibility, if you argue *for* another system, which you have done, then you *do* have to present a *better* system than what we have currently - and you *do* have to justify why that would be the case.

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
27-08-2014, 03:16 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:42 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Leaving aside that you have not in anyway proved anything, except that I wouldn't trust you with *any* position of responsibility, if you argue *for* another system, which you have done, then you *do* have to present a *better* system than what we have currently - and you *do* have to justify why that would be the case.

Or more simply...

You can't replace something that works, for nothing that doesn't.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-08-2014, 05:52 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Here's a real simple experiment Lumi, considering how much you love 'science'.

Take your principles, and actually live by them. Disregard your 'obligations' to everyone and everything else in your society, live the to the beat of your own drum. Be a consensus of 1.

Attempt to completely fall off the grid. Explain to the tax collectors that you don't recognise their authority and the powers bestowed upon them by your fellow citizens, right before shooting them for attempting to limit your freedom; prove to us that you truly value your freedom above all else, including the lives of others.

Please don't come back until after you've either tracked down and visited one of us personally, giving us an update on your progress that doesn't require using any technology or infrastructure that would indebt you to society at large. Conversely you can just pussy out and post on the forums, thereby implicitly admitting that you're ideals aren't worth the trouble required to live by them.

Let's see how long this takes. Anyone want to make a bet here?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 06:24 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

This is utterly wrong. That is not how it works.

You are confusing formal systems with reality. A statement within a formal system that is not inconsistent with the premises of that system is true.
Formal proofs take place within that system and apply only within that system.
Mathematics and logic are formal systems, real life is not.

And those statements are not the equivalent of rational arguments. They are absolute within that system.
Rational argument can include probability, possibility, and that mystery of mysteries - nuance.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
27-08-2014, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 08:46 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Some comments here.

(26-08-2014 04:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  PS: what has ol' Stefan "self-detonating" Molyneux been up to this past week?

Stefan Molyneux used the copyright infringement law against a troll who attacked the callers on the show by obtaining their personal data and photographs and where they live. That was one time he did it. Fine by me, it's defense!
http://youtu.be/AnbR_j12JXk?t=50m55s

Another update, deFOOing was found to be perfectly consistent with best therapist practices and Christina Papadopoulos' practice was never suspended.
http://youtu.be/AnbR_j12JXk?t=1h27m16s

(27-08-2014 02:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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
I regret to see that, but "hilarious" is just another non-argument. You may laugh, you may insult me, but these are not arguments either. Still no evidence that anyone here can recognize an argument. Call me an idiot, daft, stupid, that's Not An Argument, because there is no because X.

What I want from you, is say it outright, "I support the initiation of force against you for peaceful activities".
Either you don't know what I'm talking about, and that is a perfectly good answer, it takes years to learn about this stuff, or you want me shot for peaceful activities or you are acting inconsistently with your thinking, i.e. with hypocrisy. Take your pick and say it.

(27-08-2014 02:27 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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
I regret to see that, but "hilarious" is just another non-argument. You may laugh, you may insult me, but these are not arguments either. Still no evidence that anyone here can recognize an argument. Call me an idiot, daft, stupid, that's Not an Argument, because there is no because.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 03:13 PM)Luminon Wrote:  True. But none of that positively points at any specific form of governance or human social organization, much less any specific government agency and amount of its funding.
Including, by your own logic, anarcho-capitalism.
By the Molyneux books, ancap is derived from and justified by the objective first principles. As such I have to go along with it. Ancap can only be disproven by empirically proving a higher life standard by other method than monetary system. Which is what TVP would do, I believe.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When people are not held accountable, almost without fail they abuse their power. You propose a system that eliminates all accountability. You fail to understand why the rest of us have a problem with this.

It's back to the lack of accountability that you entirely fail to understand. If we're not accountable for our actions, especially as they concern our effect on the planet's ecosystem, we run the very real risk of eventually destroying our species. We propose government to enforce regulation and accountability, you propose a system with zero accountability; and you think that somehow this will make everything better. When asked to substantiate your claims, you have failed utterly to bring anything to the table that is compelling, up to and including the citation of satire in defense of your arguments.
So your argument is, ancap is not accountable, because.... what? Please do tell.
What you fail to understand is, we are naturally accountable to reality and to other people. Reality has the law of action and reaction and other people see us and remember us. We are even more accountable on the market, every action on the market reflects itself in our accounting.
I argue that political or any kind of power is the least accountable thing in the universe, besides parental power, because people use power to shield themselves from consequences. Power is not a guarantee of anything except abuse of power.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You'd be surprised just how many women agree that they should be covered, as they believe it is proscribed by their religion. Islam is a terribly misogynistic religion, and it makes breaking the system of patriarchy that much harder. I fail to see how anarcho-capitalism would do anything to improve this situation. Women would still be subject to their husbands according to their religiously based social norms. If your answer to the problem is to eliminate the religious influence, then it would make their society more egalitarian regardless of their form of government or lack thereof; it would not be an implicit endorsement or argument for stateless anarcho-capitalism.
Consensus based on indoctrination is not an argument. It is virtuous to oppose such a consensus, although not obligatory. Certainly not to the point of getting beheaded.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We're not members of their society, their government, their state, their consensus. A consensus is not immutable, the consensus can and does change as societies and the opinions within them change. We can interact with them, but we are not them. Maybe we can convince them to be part of a larger consensus making body (like the United Nations) to help facilitate negotiations.
Membership does not matter. What matters is if they can obey a rational argument against cultural indoctrination, which they almost certainly can't.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, the people come together to decide on laws governing the interactions of people. They not handed down from on high (religion), nor are they objective laws of the universe (your 'principles').
People can do that, but only those individuals actually present or explicitly and voluntarily consenting. Imposing blanket positive obligations on whole populations is not consensus, it's dictatorship.

Do you support the initiation of the use of force against me for peaceful activities? I don't care why, it can be for any bogus reason, like enough people in some building raised hands and they weren't swatting mosquitos, or that I got born at some arbitrary a piece of geography.
If you want me ultimately shot for peaceful activities or acting upon my conscience, I don't care about reasons or justifications or geography or consensus. I just need you to say it. Tell me that you support the consensus and tell me what do I deserve for disobeying the local consensus. Don't be shy about it, everyone here are your friends!

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Welcome to the real world, things are 'justified' when enough people agree that it is. This agreement can, and does, change. The atomic bombing of Japan has generally been seen as justified, both at the time and since, but that doesn't mean that there hasn't been disagreement; or that it will always remains to be viewed as justified in hindsight.
I don't give a fuck what is generally seen as what, and neither should you, if you want to call yourself moral, rational and empirical. The small detail that someone is more powerful than us, does not change things rationally and morally.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which would be cute, if you actually had any evidence. You have your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh), and you have your feels, but every time you run head long into empirical reality you have to back-pedal and sidestep and do everything you can to protect your conclusion from the logic of your failed premises. You're a textbook case of cognitive bias, made only slightly more interesting because you're back flips are over political ideology instead of a god concept.
No argument in there again, just descriptions and claims.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Congratulations, you are an idiot. That image was bait, to see if you'd be pedant and infantile enough to bring up the 'no absolutes is an absolute' attempted counter-point. Thanks for acting exactly as I thought.
So basically, I am pedant and infantile for logically analyzing things, but you are not pedant, infantile for posting them. Riiight. Dodgy

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
“Absolute in Philosophy: The Absolute is the concept of an unconditional reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday existence. It is sometimes used as an alternate term for "God" or "the Divine. It contrasts with finite things, considered individually, and known collectively as the relative.
Yes, THE Absolute. Yeah. Wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the absolute truth as a property of a rational argument that is consistent with itself. 1 + 1 = 2 because 2 is just another way of saying 1 + 1, that is an absolute truth, within the context. The hypothetical Absolute is only called so, because the context is the entire universe. Nobody talks about it here, that naturally belongs to the area of metaphysics and Molyneux has nothing to do with metaphysics.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or you can try reading this...

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-ar...lute-Truth

Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?
A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

Bullshit of cosmic proportions. If the subjective sensory system was limited, nobody could read or write this statement, so that's a lie. Also, "limited" is not an argument, limited compared to what? In what situation, what specific purpose and how is that related to the discussion?
The principle of identity and contradiction is absolute, it is impossible to deny. And from this principle we can logically derive logic and rational method. Based on this there is the noetical proof of empirical method, which justifies science.
Without the first principles of thinking, reality is just a heap of nuances.

fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcmanaman/pages/first_principles.html

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If we're looking at 'objective' standards of living, the best standards of living ever yet achieved, have been those attained by the socialist liberal democracies of northern Europe. The closest we've ever had to your libertarian anarcho-capitalist, nobody accountable, everyone fends for themselves, would require us to go back into prehistory; literally a time when we were so primitive we had yet to invent the written word. Since coming out of the African savanna, we've organized into family groups and large extended family groups; these grew into our earliest governments. Selfish and free individuals tended to not survive on their own.

I'm not saying we can't do better. However you have utterly FAILED to convince anyone here that your ideas would be anything but a terrible step backwards.
Slavery or arranged marriage was not ended to make things safer or more comfortable, it was ended because it was violent and aggression is morally wrong.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Only science makes things obligatory? Is that seriously what you are going to try and argue? For fuck's sake... Facepalm
Not only science, rationality too, but yes. Rationally and morally obligatory, which is a better argument than violence through consensus.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Opposition to or attempting to change the consensus is not limited to the rational and moral, the irrational and immoral can do so as well; and what is considered 'moral' and 'immoral' is generally determined by the consensus as well.

There are consequences, as determined by the consensus, for violating the norms of the consensus. Crying "it's irrational" doesn't change that, nor does that make it immoral; remember that 'morality' is determined by consensus. Killing other human beings is not considered universally immoral in all circumstances, the immorality or morality of it changes with context, and different societies can consider the same context moral or immoral depending on their consensus as influenced by their own cultures.
I don't care, I will do my crying that initiation of the use of force against peaceful people is immoral and irrational. I ask you to do your share of proud and righteous boasting that you support a system that wants peaceful people shot if they resist it.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unless those children grow up to be IRS Agents? Consider
The argument is, if I get attacked and my home invaded, it does not morally and rationally matter what costume do these people wear. Self-defense is morally legitimate. I always spoke of self-defense. Shooting anyone in self-defense does not make me immoral. Yay self-defense!
Or are you indoctrinated to see people as absolutely virtuous when they put on a government costume?

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that with your entirely unaccountable laissez faire free-market anarcho-capitalism, that is exactly what would happen. Nothing you've proposed would guarantee everyone has property, would guarantee everyone can interact with the market, would guarantee that everyone has the same rights. If enough people come together and can come to an agreement on law and regulations, stipulating what is property and what 'rights' they have vis a vis property; then we can start guaranteeing certain things, as enforced by the agreement of the consensus. Because rights are not objective guarantees granted by the nature of reality. Rights are granted by people, enforced by people, protected by people, and can be taken away by people.
Only by the use of threats and coercion, which is Not An Argument. You can test that by asking what happens if you disobey, no matter what. What's the worst thing that they would initiate against you on their own behalf, that is the true nature of society.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The problem is, you're incapable of thinking in nuance, because your adherence to yes/no absolutes doesn't allow for it.
There is no such thing as thinking in nuances, unless you list them as empirical evidence. The "nuances" you vaguely hint at are bogus cultural claims that have no rational or empirical existence and must be recognized as such.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You are stupid as fuck.

I only own the keyboard, because the social context and consensus that I live in grants me that ownership; the universe does not grant me ownership, nor is ownership an inherent property of the keyboard like it's physical dimensions or mass. My property rights are granted by the consensus, and they can just as easily be stripped away. Now we have laws governing property rights, but they all built from and enforced by my government. Just look at the futility of trying to enforce IP copyrights in other countries that don't recognize the 'rights' to those IP granted by other governments.
Nope. Individuals have the power to create or destroy property rights through thought, language and action. That's what property rights are, something that individuals can do. Not universe or society, because only individuals physically exist. Society does not physically exist and universe is an umbrella term.

Society is a fiction that is given special advantages in front of government courts and in culture, but it does not empirically exist and can't create or destroy rights by the use of reason. It can of course do so by the use of violence, but that is not an argument. Let's make a deal, I will keep the moral and rational high ground and society can keep the aggressive superior power high ground and let's be very explicit about which is which. Then wait for a generation or so.

(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You only have ownership of something insofar as everyone else agrees you do, and if nobody else agrees you do (like if you tried to claim the White House as your own), then sad day for you.
That's not how reason works. If people claim ownership rights for themselves, they say it exists and they can't deny yours! Not with rational and moral justification.
Either ownership rights exist and it is immoral to take anyone's stuff, or ownership rights do not exist and I can take my stuff back right away - oh, wait, why would I take the stuff? Because ownership rights. There is nothing in between, not without empirical, scientific evidence or some kind of written contract between consenting parties.
"Everyone else agrees" is rationally and morally bullshit. It's bullshit in science and it's bullshit in reasonable standards of human behavior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 08:21 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 08:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 06:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is utterly wrong. That is not how it works.

You are confusing formal systems with reality. A statement within a formal system that is not inconsistent with the premises of that system is true.
Formal proofs take place within that system and apply only within that system.
Mathematics and logic are formal systems, real life is not.

And those statements are not the equivalent of rational arguments. They are absolute within that system.
Rational argument can include probability, possibility, and that mystery of mysteries - nuance.
There is a formal system that describes the properties which are common for all reality as a whole. It is called philosophy. Rational arguments of real life and reality take place within philosophy. We know reality as a whole has principles which hold true in all of it, otherwise it would be a whole different reality. Philosophy is THE discipline based on these knowable first principles and therefore it refers to the reality as a whole.

Define "real life" (surely you don't mean in the biological sense?) and prove why is it not subject to the formal system of philosophy and first principles of thinking. I say it is, philosophy is all about recognizing the formal system of real life, it is a natural part of the discipline. Shit, without philosophy you can't even define what do you mean by "real life", because philosophy rules concepts and definitions!
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

I was taught to take the principle of identity and contradiction, derive logic from it, then reason from logic and then empirical method from reason. Without that epistemological proof, even science would not be a valid, predictably useful method of knowledge. Science is only trustworthy because it can be justified from the first principles, not because it makes iPads. You can not objectively prove that science is universally valid using the methods of science. You need philosophy to do that. The scientific method is a philosophical formulation and it is derived from the first principles by the epistemological proof. Everything else is just field-specific positivistic methods which can never prove the objectivity of science as a whole.

(27-08-2014 05:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Here's a real simple experiment Lumi, considering how much you love 'science'.

Take your principles, and actually live by them. Disregard your 'obligations' to everyone and everything else in your society, live the to the beat of your own drum. Be a consensus of 1.

Attempt to completely fall off the grid. Explain to the tax collectors that you don't recognise their authority and the powers bestowed upon them by your fellow citizens, right before shooting them for attempting to limit your freedom; prove to us that you truly value your freedom above all else, including the lives of others.

Please don't come back until after you've either tracked down and visited one of us personally, giving us an update on your progress that doesn't require using any technology or infrastructure that would indebt you to society at large. Conversely you can just pussy out and post on the forums, thereby implicitly admitting that you're ideals aren't worth the trouble required to live by them.

Let's see how long this takes. Anyone want to make a bet here?
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Tax collectors have guns, I recognize that and submit to violence. I am not obligated to get shot to prove a point. I just say, there is a gun in the room, do you support using the gun against me even if I stay peaceful and only defend myself? I don't, do you? Let's take moral sides.

The other bullshit you say is, that if I use some infrastructure, then I approve of how it was financed. Nope. I have no choice, and there is no morality without choice. if a slave can't escape, does it mean he agrees with slavery? If Nelson Mandela in prison accepted food and housing and bedsheets from the jailers, does that mean he agreed with apartheid?
And stop equating a formalized habitual violent mob rule with benefits of technology and society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 08:51 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 06:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is utterly wrong. That is not how it works.

You are confusing formal systems with reality. A statement within a formal system that is not inconsistent with the premises of that system is true.
Formal proofs take place within that system and apply only within that system.
Mathematics and logic are formal systems, real life is not.

And those statements are not the equivalent of rational arguments. They are absolute within that system.
Rational argument can include probability, possibility, and that mystery of mysteries - nuance.
There is a formal system that describes the properties which are common for all reality as a whole. It is called philosophy. Rational arguments of real life and reality take place within philosophy. Philosophy is THE discipline that refers to the reality as a whole. We know reality as a whole has principles which hold true in all of it, otherwise it would be a whole different reality.

Nope. Principles are derived from experience.
(that you think the universe obeys binary absolutes is hilarious, but ultimately enlightening - your totalitarianism makes so much more sense in light of it)

If you're incapable of examining your presuppositionalism, just say so. It'll save everyone a lot of time.

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Define "real life" (surely you don't mean in the biological sense?) and prove why is it not subject to the formal system of philosophy and first principles of thinking.

Sorry, champ. You have to demonstrate that it is.

That's called "burden of proof", ol' Lumi. If you make ridiculous claims, you must justify them.

Feels are not justification. Circular reasoning is not justification.

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I say it is, philosophy is all about recognizing the formal system of real life, it is a natural part of the discipline.
http://fmmh.ycdsb.ca/teachers/fmmh_mcman...iples.html

That's not even good copypasta, that's regurgitating the same old shit that's been explained as inadequate time and time again.

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I was taught to take the principle of identity and contradiction, derive logic from it, then reason from logic and then empirical method from reason.
Without that epistemological proof, even science would not be a valid, predictably useful method of knowledge. Science is only trustworthy because it can be justified from the first principles, not because it makes iPads.

That's literally ass-backwards.

Empiricism is the exact opposite of "first principles". Reasoning from principles is called induction. Reasoning from examples is called deduction.

It's cute that you pretend to have an education, but since you've apparently never read so much as the first page of a philosophy or reasoning text...

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You can not objectively prove that science is universally valid using the methods of science. You need philosophy to do that.

No one has ever pretended scientific methods are objective, and what's more, no one outside your cult circles has ever claimed they should be.

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The scientific method is a philosophical formulation and it is derived from the first principles by the epistemological proof.

Nope.

Are you even trying?

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Everything else is just field-specific positivistic methods which can never prove the objectivity of science as a whole.

So what?

(27-08-2014 08:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Tax collectors have guns, I recognize that and submit to violence. I am not obligated to get shot to prove a point. I just say, there is a gun in the room, do you support using the gun against me even if I stay peaceful and only defend myself? I don't, do you? Let's take moral sides.

Well, your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) sure as heck does, when it suits him.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 08:57 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 09:09 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Cjlr, shut up, you're so off the mark that it's embarrassing. The philosophy and rational arguments use the rational method. It's like as if you would argue for using statistics within mathematics. How many times out of 100 does 1 plus 1 equal 2? That's what philosophy is when reasoning from the first principles. There is no ambiguity or deriving from experience, all the needed properties of reality are at hand, we call them principles.
You could claim that we can derive 1 + 1 inductively from our inner mental experience, that would be at least an entertaining claim.

We can not derive anything objectively from experience, because every experience is unique. We can only justify our senses objectively through the first principles, such as that things have identity. It may seem self-evident (which is kind of the point!!!), but then we are forced to believe that it is immoral to take property by force, but for people in blue costumes it is moral to take property by force. That is a violation of the principle of identity. Everyone says they can think and know things until tax collectors come along.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:05 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

So what?

That's not a response to anything.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Still waiting for a point...

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

If you, dear ol' Lumi, Apostle to the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh), are so self-evidently superior to us poors and normals here, why do you waste your time so?

Why not simply fuck off?

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

The fact that your dismissal is entirely couched in sophistry and ad hominem of precisely the same sort you spuriously claim would be the height of irony, if only you possessed the capacity to recognise it...

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

No, your assertions are not an argument, and telling you that (protip: what I'm wasting my time trying to do) is not an argument either.

If you are making claims - and you make no end of insane claims - you must justify them.

This entire thread has been an endless carnival of you failing to do just that.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-08-2014 05:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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

That people communicate means that people communicate.

If you wish to infer anything from that observation, you must be able to justify it with something more than feels.

Any time now; we're all waiting.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Self-consistent does not mean valid.

Weeping Jesus, ol' Lumi. We've been over this.

Self-consistent does not mean valid.

You should get a refund on that "degree" of yours. You have clearly learned nothing.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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!

So what?

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Arguments can be true even without an empirical element!

Arguments are irrelevant without empirical elements.

If A, then B.
A;
Therefore, B.

See that? It's a valid syllogism. Does it mean anything? Fuck no.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's not asserting a circular premise, it is making a valid self-contained equation with words, which is an argument!

By "self-contained", you mean "question-beggingly self-consistent".

"If it's true then it's true so it's true". So what?

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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!

I do so love your nacissism.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

That doesn't follow.

Your assertions are not true by virtue of your feels.

"I can talk, therefore property rights" is a hilarious non sequitur.

Are you even trying?

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

He literally does say that, ol' Lumi. He explicitly says that any ethicist who does not act in perfect accordance with their principles is worthless.

As an ethicist, he does not act in perfect accordance with his principles.

(I leave deriving the valid conclusion from these two premises to you, dear ol' Lumi, as an exercise in elementary logic)

There's no way to spin this one, ol' Lumi. I know you True Believing Apostles brook no slight against the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh), but the man is full of shit and this confirms it.

Deal with it.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Allow me to prove that false. I shall construct an assertion which contains "because" and a justification.

"A because A".

Gee.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Behavioural psychology and political theory need empirical evidence too, ol' Lumi.

Any time you'd like to get around to providing even the smallest shred, we're all curious.

(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Ah, now there's the Messianic narcissist we've come to love so dearly.

Preen for me, ol' Lumi. Take your raw, turgid intellect firmly in hand and spray out the juicy wisdom you so love the taste of.

...

And another thing:
(27-08-2014 02:22 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

So you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for admitting that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: