How is that at all relevant? You said “Kokesh never really entertains the possibility that people might be willing to do something that they might ordinarily think is wrong”. I said that’s obviously nonsense, since he’s talking to such a person. Case closed. “Why” is completely irrelevant. If you want to make some new assertion and debate that, go ahead.
Well, given that my “cause” is to have people abide by the non-agression principle and the system of property rights described here, I would say yes…having people be rigidly principled would serve…you know, given that that is kind of the goal itself.
(I gotta say, I’m starting to get kinda bored.)
Not really. You are an enemy of freedom. He alleges he favors freedom. That I believe. Whether or not he comes to understand what true freedom looks like and what method of order maximizes that is not really relevant. Whether he comes to realize the truth of the matter and abandons his support of the State, or remains blind and continues in his “limited government” thinking, either way he is ideologically opposed to your nihilism.
As opposed to…God?
You literally just admitted “he was trying to save face but mainly in front of Kokesh and the on-lookers”…and now you’re asking me why does he care about what Kokesh thinks?
Seriously?
You knowing him is irrelevant. I was simply pointing out your assertions contradict each other.
I’m really growing less and less interested in you.
Wonderful philosophy.
Are you serious? We’re talking about an ideological battle and you’re suggesting that people who’s fundamental ideological beliefs oppose each other could just simply all of a sudden agree with each other in effort to “take whoever they can get”. That doesn’t even make sense. If they fundamentally disagree, no one has been “gotten” at all.
I have no idea what you’re even talking about.
No one ever said persuasion is not attempted. But it sounds like you’re saying that if persuasion is not achieved, people whose ideologies are fundamentally opposed could simply agree just to “keep the band together”.
One more time…
a) there never was any “band” in the first place, for, if they fundamentally disagree, then there are no “ranks” in which these people ever stood together at all.
b) even assuming they were together at some point, it sounds like you’re saying if once they disagree, and can’t come to an agreement, they should simply pretend the disagreement doesn’t exist.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Why do you care whether I care or not? You’re a nihilist. Again I still have no idea why you’re even here and why you even spend time talking about this stuff.
And I’m sure I could find rapists and murderers that you are closer aligned to than other people. Does that mean you should “team up” with them? I mean after all, if you try to disassociate yourself from such people, all you do is lessen your ranks and disenfranchise people. Perhaps you make yourself look a little less bad in the eyes of people who actually have a morals, but is that really worth it?
I don’t. Why do you care?
Do you really think you’re getting anywhere by presenting me with your relativist nonsense as if it were some kind of superior reasoned philosophy?
Congratulations?
I wish I could say the same thing about you…that I’m curious as to why you think egoist/nihilist relativism is a “good idea, scratch that, desirable position”…but I’m really not.
As I said, I’m getting quite bored with this.
Are you seriously asking me if I would aggress violence on someone simply because I thought I could gain something and get away with it?..and wondering what’s wrong with that?
I still don’t get what you’re looking for. You’ve basically admitted you don’t believe in right or wrong, you’ve stated multiple times you don’t have morals/ don’t take moral positions/ don’t think about morals, etc. (despite arbitrarily making moral judgements when it suits you), and you’ve essentially shown you are indifferent toward minimizing conflict. So I have no idea what you expect to hear from me, or why you’d want to hear it.
Again, you’re a relativist asking someone to explain to you why one philosophy is better than another. You’re like a blind man asking someone to show you something.
Basically you’re asking me why egoism isn’t a desirable philosophy? Why people simply and quite literally doing whatever they wanted without any real order maintained by established law based in fundamental principles which minimize conflict?
It still kind of amazes me that there actually exist people who would need such an explanation. But only kind of.
As of course, you yourself have contradicted this view multiple times in your praise of government and law enforcement. Yet another reason I’m growing less and less interested in dialogue with you.
Not really. It’s to show an example of an eloquent argument being made.