If you are not (then):
then don’t argue.
then don’t argue i need to do this.
then don’t argue that.
then don’t make this argument either
then no need to make this argument either
then don’t point this out as an argument either
–
thanks for proving AE again! So fun!
I don’t “think” I’m arguing with you. I AM. Your evil philosopher and my slave-mistress notwithstanding. What else would you think have we been doing?
Nir, just concede, please. This is getting pathetic. Let me talk to your evil philosopher if you think it may help. You DID give it a fair shot (no pun intended [:)] ).
Would you say that lawyers arguing a case in front of a court are “arguing” or performing a “charade”? You’re somehow not arguing because you have a gun to your head; I am somehow not arguing because I am a slave to my lovely salve-mistress (she loves it when I say this); and lawyers are somehow not arguing because they get paid to win their cases. Right? It’s all one big charade, UNLESS you own yourself. Only THEN can you really say that you argue, right? Again, how convenient for Hoppe’s proof, but how silly, as well.
Z.
that’s arguable.
thanks for proving AE again.
I think we are arguing because i don’t believe you when you say that we are engaged in a charade of argumentation
no.
There is an eviler philo behind him, do you think it would help or would it be a charade?
They present arguments for a judge or jury to consider. if the court relied on both cases to be fully stated independently to the court, (i.e. without cross-exam and turn taking) then their role could be filled by tape recorders set to play, or by verbiage written on the wall of the court.
Doing analytics and thinking about what things mean and what can be concluded from things known is silly now? ok.
Nirgraham is making great points. You are being disingenuous. Let me ask you flat out: do you respect and recognize my, and Nirg’s, rights–or not? If not, then who cares what you think, any more than we care what a robber thinks while robbing us? If you DO – and I assume you do, if you are posting here–then that means you do, for some reason, value liberal rights over and above aggression, chaos, etc. Right? Now, all the AE argument says is that in argumentation, there is a basis for preferring peace and related norms, over aggression and related norms. Now, you already agree with us that “there is a basis” for preferring one over the other. So how in the world can you attack us for simply saying what you already believe? Please explain this, without subterfuge or sneaky tactics. Just answer it directly and honestly, please–because this confounds me.
Perhaps you should only stick to believing (or not) things that I have actually said. As I said, I think we ARE indeed arguing, and it seems that you think that we’re arguing, as well – your evil philosopher and my slave-owner notwithstanding.
Then let’s go back to where we left off. Don’t say you weren’t given a chance to end this gracefully.
Interesting. Please do explain the difference between (1) “logical arguments” and (2) “rational argumentation”. I smell a real philosophical breakthrough here. Perhaps even more groundbreaking than AE itself?
How about WITH cross-exam and turn taking? Argumentation or charade? One wonders why people ever pay for lawyers when they could just get themselves a tape recorder from Best Buy.
Strawman, and a desperate mispresentation. What’s silly is claiming to have proven something which has blatantly been (a priori) assumed in the proof itself. I’m sure there’s a fancy latin name for such a fallacy but I can’t come up with it right now, so SILLY would do.
Z.
Let’s say you try to prove identify. Wouldn’t you have to assume it in order to prove it? Yeah. Y’might want to extend that concept some so you can see your problem. If not–kindly refrain from making yourself look stupid any further.
pwn
yes, but if i believed you that you were owned, like you joked that you were, then it would be a charade.
I cant argue against naked sarcasm. I guess my Hoppean arguments lose and your Sarcastarian arguments win.
If you are talking about actual courts, monopoly government courts, where solicitors who defend so called criminals in victim-less crimes, cannot suggest that the monopoly court is a farce without being intimidated and ultimately fined/jailed/killed for contempt. i.e. for truth speaking. then your point is what exactly? ( I embarked on this line of questioning only to help you realise that there are real rational argumentations and mere charades of such, if you want to argue particular cases to delineate the boundary problem, say so)
p.s. You can’t hurt my feelings by calling me silly. I’m used to that. I’m a libertarian.
I am unable to justify myself in Kinsella’s context. I guess that just doesn’t bother me. I can’t speak for others.
Attacks? It seems to me that I’m generally asking for clarification. If the theories are correct, I would think such inquiries and even pointing out of possible errors would be welcome.
If it helps any, based on what you wrote here I don’t think we disagree.
I doubt anyone can do that, so no, I don’t think I can prove my words have objective factual meaning.
Re: Politics, I don’t think the word politics applies when there is no state - at least not by any definition I’m aware of (politics = “who gets what, when and how” implies a state).
Re: Why an individual should behave ethically, if you’d like me to use utilitarianism or consequentialism, again my answer would be an explanation of the consequences of certain actions. If you say that that doesn’t imply any “should” or any “ethics,” then I concur, and then strictly speaking I can’t answer your question because we don’t agree on the definitions.
You may be right that I cannot prove that there exists nothing fitting all those characteristics. However, Lilburne’s conception of evolution-based morality - based on empathy and inborn sense of justice - seems to fit these characteristics as well. I am generally agreeable to Lilburne’s idea.
nature=certain characteristics common to all people: yes, probably. E.g., all humans have a brain.
nature=something else: then what?
All I think we can really do is persuade, yes. I don’t deplore natural rights for that; I simply point out that they seem to be persuasive tools - good ones at that! - but that seems to be their only useful role. I can’t come out and unequivocally say that persuasion is definitely their only useful role until I fully understand every theory that claims a different role for natural rights (which could go on infinitely). That is why I aim to clarify, and if necessary deconstruct (or, if they convince me, agree with), theories that claim something more than a persuasive role for natural rights.
If “ethical” excludes consequentialism and also excludes arguing within people’s own ethical frameworks, then no.
I don’t. Sometimes reality is hard. I don’t see how an objective ethicist would be more convincing, though, given that he doesn’t know if the advocates of said policy accept objective ethics. And if I knew they accepted objective ethics, I could just as easily argue my case within that framework, using statements like, “Given that you accept natural law, here is what natural law seems to say on this matter: …”
I certainly agree that utilitarianism is dangerous in the statist context. I am speaking in the non-statist context. I am only utilitarian/consequentialist for and in relation to my own self, unless - again - I am the one deciding or proposing the law, like if I were head of a PDA or something. If I were a PDA entrepreneur, I might well use natural law as the guiding principle, maybe even employing in some form all of Rothbard’s, Hoppe’s, and Kinsella’s ideas. But I would do that only if I believed that would be in my best interests, as well as in what I can only guess are the best interests of others who may be affected.
I don’t find it a useful word, except in the context of an inborn “sense of justice” that people may have. Although it may be inborn, I don’t think it manifests itself in the same way for all people (e.g., even if it’s inborn the same for everyone, it seems to manifest itself differently for pro-choicers vs. pro-lifers). I certainly feel a sense of justice, but I don’t think it responds to situations exactly the same as anyone else’s.
Not necessarily. If it’s just a personal objection then no. If it’s meant to apply to everyone, then it seems not much different from central planning. Sure, one can say that the theorist isn’t making the law, just “discovering” it - but kings have used the same argument, i.e., “I’m not making the law, I’m simply taking orders from the Almighty. Therefore, I’m not a central planner.” Or global warming advocates can say, “We’re not central planning, we’re simply implementing the proven science.” The ethical theorist could likewise say, “I’m not making the law, I’m simply pointing out the obvious logical natural law. If you don’t see the obvious, that’s just too bad.” Not to equate natural law theorists with authoritarians like these, but I think it’s healthy to question theories that claim there are rules everyone must follow. More than that, I don’t see why - if it really is obvious to all - that anyone would need to “advocate” natural law, unless we’re talking about in the statist context.
I look at it this way: One person’s view is just one person’s view. If you want to persuade more people to your view, use the most effective persuasion techniques.
I’m not a nihilist in my personal ethics. It’s just that, my personal objections matter for others only insofar as I personally get to decide the law, but if we’re in anarchy I don’t get to decide the law for others, so it seems irrelevant since I’m not a statist.
I earlier argued that these theories only apply to people who already accept objective ethics or rights. I rest my case.
But they don’t. They apply to everyone, since there is some form of rights accepted, even if “might makes right, and I’m mighty so I have all the rights” is it.
Please explain your contradiction or kindly concede.
Z.
What contradiction?
Then don’t use the sarcastic part as a crutch – disregard it. Explain the difference above or kindly concede.
Z.
there is no contradiction. the fact is that you think you can have a rational argument with a tape recorder playing a voice at you where the narrator is stating a series of propositions.
Strawman. I never said such a thing. Closing your eyes to your contradiction is not going to make it go away. That strategy stops working past the age of three.
Now please explain the contradiction between these two statements or kindly concede:
How can you reconcile your statements that (on one hand) the validity of a logical argument is independent of its source and circumstances, and at the same time state that the validity of my (and your) arguments is somehow different (diminished to a “charade”) depending on what you or I believe, joke about, or depending on whether or not you are being coerced by an evil philosopher (or me being tickled by a slave-mistress)?
Which one is it? Is an argument an ARGUMENT no matter what, or is an argument whatever YOU will conveniently define in order to avoid conceding?
Z.
You’re not helping. ANYTHING that requires to be a priori assumed in order to be proven, is NOT proven. It’s simply assumed. Claiming that it’s thus proven is plain silly – that is, in the grown up world outside of your sandbox.
Z.