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, 09:07 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:57 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Arithmetic is axiomatically defined. The rules are constructs.

The limitations of this approach were settled 80 freaking years ago by the likes of Russel and Godel.

Read a book.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
While we're the subject (again):
Logic is axiomatic but not universal; different axioms are possible and indeed necessary.

So there's that.

... 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, 09:18 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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...
Empiricism is on the far end of first principles, but nevertheless it is derived from them by the epistemological proof. This is what people used to do before science was proven by the existence of iPads.

As for the induction:
A statistical syllogism is an example of inductive reasoning:
All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
An example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So you got that wrong. That is, because I actually learned this stuff at my Master's program, where we learn inductive and deductive methods for sociological research.

Whereas you have read Sherlock Holmes, who claims he uses deduction to solve the murder cases. But really, he gathers keen observations and derives a conclusion, which is inductive reasoning. My textbook was kind enough to point that out. Some say that Holmes used a combination of induction and deduction, called abduction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Arithmetic is axiomatically defined. The rules are constructs.

The limitations of this approach were settled 80 freaking years ago by the likes of Russel and Godel.

Read a book.
Reality has axioms too, called first principles. Mathematics and all other higher order knowledge and axioms are just more abstractions built on top of it.

And you read a book too, but not Sherlock Holmes Wink

(27-08-2014 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  While we're the subject (again):
Logic is axiomatic but not universal; different axioms are possible and indeed necessary.

So there's that.
Universal logic of language, such as identity and sequentiality was used in writing these sentences. All of these logics are just built on top of first principles and in no way they disprove their validity. They don't disprove the principle of identity or the identity of words in language. So that's a complete non-argument. You can't argue with top floor against the foundations.
You lost sight of the foundations, because you were never taught to derive your disciplines from them. It only happens so that the foundations are socially relevant and this is where the philosophers are. It's a sad example of bad education Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:27 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 08:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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...
Empiricism is on the far end of first principles, but nevertheless it is derived from them by the epistemological proof. This is what people used to do before science was proven by the existence of iPads.

As for the induction:
A statistical syllogism is an example of inductive reasoning:
All of the swans we have seen are white.
Therefore, all swans are white.

Deductive reasoning, also deductive logic or logical deduction or, informally, "top-down" logic,[1] is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion.[2]
Deductive reasoning links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true.
An example of a deductive argument:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So you got that wrong. That is, because I actually learned this stuff at my Master's program, where we learn inductive and deductive methods for sociological research.

Whereas you have read Sherlock Holmes, who claims he uses deduction to solve the murder cases. But really, he gathers keen observations and derives a conclusion, which is inductive reasoning. My textbook was kind enough to point that out. Some say that Holmes used a combination of induction and deduction, called abduction.

I invite you to consider how those premises are themselves generated.

The premise in the second - "all men are mortal" is generated through an inductive process exactly akin to the example of induction you yourself just provided.

One deduces specific examples from experience, and induces generalisations. That is how scientific methods proceed.

All practical examples do in fact use a combination.

Where the True Believers err, of course, is neglecting that feedback. The premises are never checked, and only the principles are considered.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 09:45 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to consider how those premises are themselves generated.

The premise in the second - "all men are mortal" is generated through an inductive process exactly akin to the example of induction you yourself just provided.

One deduces specific examples from experience, and induces generalisations. That is how scientific methods proceed.

All practical examples do in fact use a combination.

Where the True Believers err, of course, is neglecting that feedback. The premises are never checked, and only the principles are considered.
Do you really imply that this has has something to do with inductive facts of men and gender, biological mortality or historical Socrates? Blink I mean, are you for real?
I do not talk about experience in the realm of biology and long-dead philosophers, nor swans and ornitology, but about the realm of reason which is instance-independent, because it is rational like mathematics, it is that from which the basic mathematics is derived together with language and everything else. You know that language is instance-independent, one word shit is like another word shit in its identity. Language is an embodiment of intangible instance-independent rational principles into concepts which are physically voiced.

When I passed my exams to Informatics about 8 years ago, there was a test with such an example in a made-up language. You are not supposed to look at the words, you are supposed to look at logical relationships between them! These logical relationships are real properties of reality, which hold true regardless of instances of matter and energy. This is why the exam used made-up words with which nobody can have experience.
Induction:
All mruks pulferize gutar.
Snarfwidget is a mruk.
Therefore, snarfwidget pulferizes gutar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 09:41 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 09:51 AM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:07 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Arithmetic is axiomatically defined. The rules are constructs.

The limitations of this approach were settled 80 freaking years ago by the likes of Russel and Godel.

Read a book.
Reality has axioms too, called first principles.

That's an assertion.

Do you understand that?
(the answer, of course, is "no", but sometimes I enjoy asking rhetorical questions to brick walls)

Your feels are not privileged. Sorry.

(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Mathematics and all other higher order knowledge and axioms are just more abstractions built on top of it.

(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:16 AM)cjlr Wrote:  While we're the subject (again):
Logic is axiomatic but not universal; different axioms are possible and indeed necessary.

So there's that.
Universal logic of language, such as identity and sequentiality was used in writing these sentences.

So what?

How does an absolutist conception of "identity" apply to language? Language is meaningful insofar as common usage agrees; there is no intrinsic meaning or identity to any vocabulary or grammar.

(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All of these logics are just built on top of first principles and in no way they disprove their validity. They don't disprove the principle of identity or the identity of words in language. So that's a complete non-argument. You can't argue with top floor against the foundations.

Same ol' Lumi, same ol' vacuous circlejerk.

Words do not have identities. They have meanings imparted by common usage, as do all languages and linguistic elements.

In what sense is absolutist objective "identity" meaningful in an uncertain probabilistic universe? "Identity" can no longer mean "it is what it is"; it must mean only "it is what we think it seems to be". Which is valid, so far as it goes, but also meaninglessly tautological. No inferences may be drawn from it. It leads nowhere. It is pointless.

(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You lost sight of the foundations, because you were never taught to derive your disciplines from them. It only happens so that the foundations are socially relevant and this is where the philosophers are. It's a sad example of bad education Sad

Please stay away from any and all reflective pools of water.

I wouldn't want you to drown.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:27 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to consider how those premises are themselves generated.

The premise in the second - "all men are mortal" is generated through an inductive process exactly akin to the example of induction you yourself just provided.

One deduces specific examples from experience, and induces generalisations. That is how scientific methods proceed.

All practical examples do in fact use a combination.

Where the True Believers err, of course, is neglecting that feedback. The premises are never checked, and only the principles are considered.
Do you really imply that this has has something to do with inductive facts of men and gender, biological mortality or historical Socrates? Blink I mean, are you for real?

Past experience shows that what you think other people are saying is invariably a deranged straw man.

What I said - which I would have thought very simple - was that from the general principle "all men are mortal", we may deduce that a given man is mortal.

How do we know that all men are mortal? Because (having defined "man" a certain way) we do not know of any who are not, and thus inductively generalise.

Therefore we have the difference between specific to general and general to specific methods.

True Believers like you only ever deal in (absolutist) generalities.

(27-08-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I do not talk about experience in the realm of biology and long-dead philosophers, nor swans and ornitology, but about the realm of reason which is instance-independent, because it is rational like mathematics, it is that from which the basic mathematics is derived together with language and everything else. You know that language is instance-independent, one word shit is like another word shit in its identity.

Mechanistic application of a given ruleset, sure.

So what?

(27-08-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  When I passed my exams to Informatics about 8 years ago, there was a test with such an example in a made-up language. You are not supposed to look at the words, you are supposed to look at logical relationships between them! These logical relationships are real properties of reality, which hold true regardless of instances of matter and energy. This is why the exam used made-up words with which nobody can have experience.
Induction:
All mruks pulferize gutar.
Snarfwidget is a mruk.
Therefore, snarfwidget pulferizes gutar.

Which neatly shows that accepting a set of rules one may mindlessly apply them.

In what we might call the real world - brief though your sojourns here may be - meaning is imparted only by connecting premises to experience.

... 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, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 27-08-2014 10:22 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 09:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 09:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Universal logic of language, such as identity and sequentiality was used in writing these sentences.

So what?

How does an absolutist conception of "identity" apply to language? Language is meaningful insofar as common usage agrees; there is no intrinsic meaning or identity to any vocabulary or grammar.
What do you mean by intrinsic meaning?
I know of no such thing, except first principles which are rather trivial. BUT there is a CAPACITY FOR MEANING IN LANGUAGE, and this capacity is accessible if you learn the language. And you can (in principle) learn the language because there are some very trivial but important properties of reality which are expressed in all languages. You can learn and decipher any language as long as you have the pieces of reality it refers to. And you can be reasonably sure that words in principle do not change meaning for no reason at all, otherwise the language will not even be recognized as a language but as bird droppings painting. That's what language is, a reference to reality that has a capacity for meaning. Not that this capacity is always fulfilled, you need philosophy for that.

(27-08-2014 09:41 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Same ol' Lumi, same ol' vacuous circlejerk.

Words do not have identities. They have meanings imparted by common usage, as do all languages and linguistic elements.

In what sense is absolutist objective "identity" meaningful in an uncertain probabilistic universe? "Identity" can no longer mean "it is what it is"; it must mean only "it is what we think it seems to be". Which is valid, so far as it goes, but also meaningless tautological. No inferences may be drawn from it. It leads nowhere. It is pointless.
Common usage does not change the identity of reality or identity of words.
It only changes the convention by which one is linked by another. That is true, but this process is not done by reason or evidence.
It's a cultural whimsy for which philosophers are forced to compensate, so it is not a valid argument against language but rather for using it consistently.
Also, the language changes due to science and technology, which does not disprove language either, because science is derived from philosophy. In principle, the language is a valid concept. In practice, this concept is corrected by linguists and historians, which is a final empirical correction, nothing wrong with that. That does not disprove the principle. Words have identity. I used words with identity to say that.

If there is any doubt that rational objects such as words have their absolute, non-ambiguous identity? We can perform a test!
In this test I will use a magic switch for a while and suspend the principle of identity for a moment. Brace yourself:
Relativism relativism? Relativism, relativism... Relativism relativism; relativism -relativism relativism. Relativism + relativism = relativism! Relativism: relativism, relativism' relativism, relativism. Rela-relativism! Re-la-tiviiiiism!!!
You see, without the first principle of identity, the words in there mean exactly what I want them to mean. And I just wrote a couple of the most beautiful haikus in the entire universe. Similarity to Pokemon is purely coincidental.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2014, 10:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-08-2014 02:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.

And according to the Bible, we're both going to burn in Hell because we don't accept Jesus Christ as our own personal savior.

The reversal of the burden of proof doesn't work when theists do it, so what in the fucking hell makes you think that you'll get a pass for your own personal savior? Your facile assertions have yet to be proven dumass, and you have utterly failed to otherwise even make a convincing case.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

See: Magic Thinking.

Asserting that people will stop being assholes, and start being accountable, because of 'the market' without explaining how it works or is enforced (i.e. a rule that isn't enforced might as well not exist) beyond merely asserting that it does, is an complete and utter bullshit cop out of epic proportion. That you continuously fail to grasp 'assertions =/= facts' shows only the depth of your own staggering ineptitude.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Says the man in the Cult of Molyneux. The lack of self-awareness is strong in this one.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

So you'd infringe on their freedom of ignorance? How very Libertarian of you... Weeping



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

If the consensus no longer agrees with the obligation, they can change the obligation you stupid cunt... Facepalm



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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!

Sometimes the consensus agrees on great things, like universal health care. Sometimes the consensus agrees on terrible things, like sexual inequality and bigotry being codified into law. These are how societies work, and unless you plan on cavorting around and forcing your idea onto everyone else against their will (which is what your're rallying against), individuals find themselves bowing to the will of the majority; unless there are other extenuating circumstances. There are always competing ideas, and it simply is not practical for everyone to always get their own way on every policy at all times, and maintain any semblance of a cooperative society. For example, the Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, regardless of however popular or unpopular a particular religious sect may be.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Morality is subjective, so there is that. Which means you don't get to dictate to other, unilaterally on your own, what is and is not moral in any universal or objective sense. Now fuck off...



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Just a recitation if recent history, ironically enough of your lack of evidence for your assertions.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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

You're an idiot with an even weaker grasp on philosophy than your Prophet Molyneux.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

I can't say it better than Chas, so I won't even try.

(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.




(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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?
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

Are you claiming your sensory input is not subjective and limited?

Well, looks like monstrous egotism isn't limited to just your Prophet...



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

They also still persist because some see them as morally ambivalent or morally good. But no, try telling a member of ISIS that they are objectively wrong and they should all drop their weapons and follow you because you have a worldview built upon objective first principles. See how well that works out for you. Because we don't exist within a logic puzzle simulacrum, we live in the real world. It doesn't matter how little sense the world, or the people within, make at times; logic and reasons are not the sole determining factors of any human decision.

So you think you're coming from the standpoint of objective reason and logic.

That means FUCK ALL in the real world if you cannot convince them to value reason and logic. Fucking dumbass...



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Only if the people you are dealing with understand, and can agree, with your 'reason'. For an easy example, everyone else here clearly disagrees with you, and we've spent pages trying to explain how infantile your grasp of reality is. If you were shipwrecked on an island with myself, Chas, cjlr, Rev, and PKJoe; the rest of us who banded together cooperatively would have a far greater chance of survival, even if we each had to give up a little of our freedom to make it work. This is why we have evolved to be very social apes, it has been the key to our survival for millions of years.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

The same peaceful people that shoot IRS Agents? I'd be rooting that they put you down like the mad dog you are.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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?

Making use of public works (i.e. roads) without paying into their maintenance and upkeep (i.e. taxes), makes you a thief; and a thief that shoots someone who is trying to reclaim stolen property from said thief (i.e. Libertarian freeloaders) is guilty of felony murder in the United States.

Oh boy, looks like someone didn't think that one through...



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Rights can be removed without threats and coercion, they can be removed by mutual agreement and negotiation; and they can be added in the same manner. The point has always been that rights are dependant upon the consensus to recognise them, or else they are meaningless; nothing in that argument mandates that the consensus need be reached by force or coercion. Thank you for showing, once again, just how desperately inane you are.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Lumi. Those shades of grey? Just illusion, in reality the world really is just black and white. Yep, keep telling yourself that dumbass, keep telling yourself that until you believe it; just like the Jesus worshipers do...



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

An individual can, but unless everyone else agrees with him, it is meaningless. Once again fuknuts, we live in reality and must interact with other people; logic, reason, and empiricism mean fuck all unless you can convince enough other people they do.


(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Yeah, just ignore society because it doesn't empirically exist? Right. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid Lumi...

We can observe societies, therefore we have empirical evidence that societies exists. This is almost as stupid as that time you defended yourself with satire.

Almost.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Doesn't matter, this is how reality works; reality isn't alway reasonable.



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If people claim ownership rights for themselves, they say it exists and they can't deny yours! Not with rational and moral justification.

If people claim [God exists] for themselves, they say it exists and they can't deny yours! Not with rational and moral justification.

What does usually cjlr say? Oh right!

Presuppositionalism: It's not just for theists anymore!



(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Remember that part about being unable to see the world in anything but either/or absolutes? Thanks for proving us all right once again.

Ownerships rights only exist if everyone else agrees with you. Try reasoning with a Lion on the African savanna that he doesn't have ownership rights tot he Gazelle you just killed (ironically ending the Gazelle's right to life, oops). How well does your objective ownership argument work out with that Lion? Does it prevent the Lion from taking the Gazelle? No, because the Lion lacks the ability to agree with your concept of personal property and ownership.

Human initially agreed to simple concepts like these whenever we learned it was generally beneficial for group survival, if we all didn't have to worry about taking each other's 'things'. We found out it was more conducive to a stable society, if we could trust others to not take our things. But there is no guarantee that other's won't, whether they be other people who violate the mutual agreement, others who don't recognise the mutual agreement, or other actors or variables that cannot contemplate or acquiesce to the mutual agreement.

Much like morality, 'property rights' and ''ownership' would mean FUCK ALL in a universe filled with nothing but rocks.


(27-08-2014 08:06 AM)Luminon Wrote:  "Everyone else agrees" is rationally and morally bullshit. It's bullshit in science and it's bullshit in reasonable standards of human behavior.

That has been the standard of human behavior and interaction for millions of years. You know that point when we point out just how out of touch you are with reality? Here we can see you at near your zenith.

You can only get anything done, with a group of people, if you can get that group of people to agree with you; doesn't matter what it is.

Want them all to follow you?

You have to convince them enough to get them to agree with it.

Want them to agree to mutually agreed upon property rights?

You have to convince them enough to get them to agree with it.

Want them to value reason, logic, objectivity, and the scientific method?

You have to convince them enough to get them to agree with it.

Want them all to believe in the infallible wisdom of the Prophet Molyneux (pbuh)?

You have to convince them enough to get them to agree with it.


It's simple as that Lumi, and I can't help but laugh at the ultimate irony; that for as much as you argue for freedom, you seem entirely ignorant of how your 'objective' principles ignore the consent of other people! You argue that your property rights are logical and objective, and I merely point out that unless others consent to agree with you, they are meaningless in any real world sense. Now for as much as you whine against coercion, what is your option here? Will you coerce them to consent to your subjective interpretation of your claimed 'objective' property rights? What if they get by without ever having needed that concept, and it's entirely alien to them? Would you force them to consent to your viewpoint? Because unless you can convince them willingly to agree with you, then all of your reason, logic, and 'objective principles' mean fuck all in any real sense; they're nothing more than thought exercises.

And therein lies the ultimate irony, the massive flaw of all your arguments. That unless you can get them to agree, to get them all to consent to your principles, you would be in effect violating your own principle to impose them on others without their consent.

And I'm pretty sure your Prophet Molyneux (pbuh) has argued that, in violating your own principles, you invalidate all of your own arguments. Laughat

That isn't a problem for me because I argue that once you are part of a social group (even as small as a family, which ironically most of us are born into), a social contract, you implicitly consent to the fact that you might not always agree with everything that is done by the group or not always get your way. But by participating in the group, you are consenting to this implicitly, because it is the nature of human interaction; negotiation. There is always a give and take. Long ago we learned that trading some freedom to work collectively as a group greatly increased our chances of survival, and we have evolved accordingly ever since. You are born (not by your choice) to your parents (not of your choice) and are hopefully cared by them (also not your choice). There are a lot of things that we don't get to chose, by the nature of the reality that we live in. Logic and axioms don't give a flying fuck about your vaunted first principles, you don't live in a logic simulator, you live in the real world; where things aren't always logical, fair, or rational. Fight against that all you want, be an petulant indignant little internet shit-stain all you want; it won't change the nature of the reality you live in.


You either get enough people to agree with you, or all of your philosophy is nothing more than thought exercise with no real world impact. Society, human interaction and negotiation, is getting people to agree with; to consent to a particular argument, rationalization, or viewpoint.

So long as you interact with other human beings, you will be involved in this war of ideas.

And in a war, sometimes you lose.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: