do you think that two tape recorders set off to play synchronously in a room constitutes an argument or does it merely produce sounds which if they had been spontaneously produced by two agents would constitute an argument ?
do you understand that you can’t argue with a wall?
do you understand that arguing is not merely making ‘sounds with your voice’ , is not merely ‘issuing forth speech’?
Non-sequitur + strawman => grasping at straws. Tape-recorders and/or walls were neither used nor implied in the refutation. Again: “There’s no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one’s (3) right to such control.”
Z.
What refutation? All I saw was a complete lack of understanding of ontology on your part.
This one:
“The only norm ACTUALLY presupposed in argumentation is de facto control of one’s head during the length of the argument. There’s no need whatsoever to presuppose: (1) exclusive (2) permanent control over that head (much less the rest of the body), nor is there the necessity to presuppose one’s (3) right to such control. Argumentation between two heads can go on for a very long time without ANY of the above three AE presuppositions.”
Thanks for sharing your observation. That’s all?
z.
I don’t understand what this means or why it is important. I thought the point of argumentation ethics is that you are making a performative contradiction when you argue against self-ownership. It is a negative proof.
that’s all that’s needed.
1 - thanks for arguing.
2 - you proved it, but don’t realize that
3 - are you possessed by a demon or an angel?
4 - i see no refutation
it is the point.
Which one? All I saw was a complete lack of understanding of ontology on your part. But thanks for believing that your complete lack of understanding constitutes a refutation. Makes me chuckle.
It’s not a proof. It’s a mere assertion, and a silly one, at best. For all you know, I could be a slave arguing the benefits of slavery right here on this forum – my slave-owner allowing me two hours of online argumentation a day, except Tuesdays when she owns me fully free and clear. Thus, I neither have (1) exclusive, (2) permanent control over my head (much less the rest of my body, as even during the two hours of allowed argumentation my slave-owner gets to do whatever she wants with me, though it can sometimes get distracting) neither do I have (or claim, or want to claim) any (3) RIGHT to such control over myself. How EXACTLY am I contradicting myself by arguing against self-ownership? Please point to the performative contradiction.
This is so silly that I have to question the sanity of anyone that would take AE seriously, much less consider it a proof of ANYTHING at all.
Z.
Again, that’s all? Mmm-kay, I’m going to go ahead and chalk this up as: “I really have nothing to say so I’m going to hand-wave my way out of the room.”
Z.
That’s all I need. So why don’t you just hand-wave your way out of the room, while the rest of us understand the nature of the concept “individual”. One does wonder how you ever passed basic arithmetic if you can’t understand the concept of unit/single/individual.
Thanks for making my circularity point with which I started. How convenient to prove argumentation ethics by simply (a priori) defining argumentation as something exclusively done by self-owned agents (by definition!): “You see, by my definition of argumentation, you couldn’t possibly be arguing unless you owned yourself fully, thus, magically I have just proven that, indeed, one couldn’t possibly argue against self-ownership without contradicting himself.” What profound depth.
By defining flying as touching the ground most of the time, I could easily prove that pigs can, indeed, fly.
Z.
you are arguing with me?
you suppose that if you present me with well reasoned propositions that could form an argument, i might be persuaded to reject my former position and accept yours,by the force of reason and acknowledgement of truth, and this grounds your understanding that you are arguing with me?
but what if an evil philosopher has a gun to my head, and says type or die. says give the Hoppean arguments or die. do not concede your position to the interlocutor or die.
what would your posts amount to?
So what? For all I know, that may be EXACTLY what’s going on right now. The validity of an argument is independent of the source that produces it and of the circumstances under which it is produced. It’s either there or not. It’s either good or bad. That’s all. From what I’ve seen so far, yours is more the latter than the … (sorry, my slave-mistress just tickled me) .. former, so you better shape up or your evil philosopher’s finger may start to get itchy on the trigger.
Z.
Z.,
you keep arguing, so, you keep proving argumentative ethics.
so this is to help you distinguish between rational argumentation and mere charades. do you think there is never a charade, that all things superficially purporting to be arguments are arguments? i must conclude that you do.
and so would you be arguing with me, or not? i presume you think you would be arguing with me…
yes, the validity of something understood as being a possible logical argument, does have its validity independant of circumstance surrounding its elucidation. but logical arguments are something different from two people engaged in the activity of rational argumentation. I suppose you don’t know that, or didn’t before i just told you that now. interesting though isnt it?
Except I’m not proving anything. It is you that needs to point to my performative contradiction in order to prove AE. You can’t point to it because it simply isn’t there. Please keep up with the discussion instead of simply parroting Hoppe’s jingle, as if repeating it 1000 times is going to make it any less silly.
Btw, I may have to leave soon, as my argumentation time-slot is about to expire, and my slave-mistress is getting antsy to have me all to herself.
Z.
so when has she allotted for the charade to continue? in the meantime i will talk to this wall, the neighbours will think i am arguing with someone on the phone. they will be wrong.
l8r alligator