So you’re saying the proof is good? It’s really a simple question in need of a simple answer. Is my Writing Ethics proof good or bad (‘no proof there’)?
Z.
Scineram, what is property ? How is it justified ?
I always argue in good faith. What would be the purpose of arguing in bad faith?
This is like the 20th time you’ve called me a logical positivist. You haven’t yet articulated why you imagine this to be so, but you’re certainly welcome to. (What, did you think AJ stands for the positivist A.J. Ayer?)
That you’re just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.
What about belching, arguing, and painting? Subsumed in the same larger concept, a different one, or not subsumed at all?
How about answering my question?
Z.
You should. Unless, of course, you’re fine with superficial thinking. Which it appears you are.
How can I know what are you trying to achieve ? You can certainly be arguing in bad faith.
I didn’t even realize that the first letters of Ayer’s name were the same letters you use as nickname, so the answer is “No, I didn’t think that”
Yet your position is a variation of logical positivism. You think you can refute arguments by invoking a ‘rigorous’ logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra, not to human affairs. Not to mention that you are avoiding using your standard to judge your own ‘proofs’. Which would mean you are indeed arguing in bad faith.
So, again, please give a flawless, formal, and unambiguous definition of ALL the concepts and terms you use or admit that your refutations are invalid and have zero ‘convincing power’. And while at it, please give a formal definition and units to measure this ‘convincing power’.
Only the latter two in the same concept as above. Perhaps you could, just maybe, give just a teentsy bit of thought here.
So a Belching Ethics proof would be no good, whereas Argumentation Ethics and Painting Ethics proof would work? Also, care to disclose the algorithm (rule) by which you subsume these actions into different concepts?
Z.
OK.
Wow. I’ve never seen you actually put together an argument, but what you stated here was clear, cogent, and in fact a perfectly reasonable point. It’s funny, because now that you’ve explained what you mean I think I basically agree with you, at least in terms of argumentation ethics. I fully agree that rigorous logical standards are out of place when trying to evaluate situations that Hoppe is talking about, and in a sense that is the very issue I take with argumentation ethics. Let me explain.
What you’ve stated in fact leads me to a nice rewording of my general objection to argumentation ethics: It seems to me that Hoppe tries to borrow the extra persuasive power of that “‘rigorous’ logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra” and apply it to an ethical judgment or standard. He seems to want the full force of a mathematics-level logical proof, but perhaps you will agree that if that were his aim he would be misguided (I grant that maybe you don’t agree that that is his aim). Insofar as Hoppe aims for the extra “oomph” that a rigorous logical proof would provide, I must take exception for exactly the reason you point out. That is why I have sometimes noted that argumentation ethics is fine as a persuasive concept. What I object to is his apparent attempt to elevate that persuasive concept to the level of a logically proven fact with all the certainty of a mathematical theorem.
The concept “don’t be a hypocrite” is a persuasive one. My point could summed up as, “Why not just leave it at that? Why a proof?” And given your insight above, maybe you would agree.
There is still the question, “Why does AJ attack this libertarian idea if he claims to be a libertarian?” The only reason is that I think it’s doing more harm than good. In fact, I think theories like argumentation ethics do tremendous harm. And no, I’m not prepared to back that statement up - I’m just noting that that’s where I’m coming from so you (and others that may read this…hi wilderness[;)]) don’t think I’m refuting it for no good reason or in bad faith.
well, I have given specific reasons why your question is irrelevant.
What do you think the differences between a belch and a discussion are?
No, you just rambled on about nothing.
Thanks AJ. I’m replying tomorow.
I guess so, if pointing out how you conflate possession with ownership, like a good mutualist, is rambling.
Wherever you go–there you are.
So you if you wish to deny that…I’m thinking you’ll have a problem. And you should kill your lie about me, because I don’t conflate possession with ownership.
I can think of many differences. Which ones in particular do you find to be relevant to an Ethics proof? What about a massage and a discussion? Subsumed in the same concept or not? What “concept”, btw?
Talking of discussions, how about YOU answer some questions of mine for a change?
Is my Writing Ethics proof good or not? If for some reason it isn’t, would you care to explain why? Since this is the THIRD time I’m asking you the same question, I can only assume that you are purposefully avoiding it. Any reason why?
Anyone else here willing to refute my Writing Ethics proof? I mean, I knew it was good, but I didn’t expect it to be THIS good.
Z.
List what you believe to be the relevant ones for this discussion.
How’s this: One can (‘truly’) belch while being owned by someone else; one cannot (‘truly’) discuss while being owned by someone else?
Btw, don’t assume that me continuing to answer EVERY question of yours implies my resignation to the fact that you have yet to answer even ONE of mine. I’m generous to you because I can easily afford to be so.
Z.
There’s more to it than that. Keep going. Consider the nature of discussion and what it’s supposed to accomplish.
btw: your questions betray the fact that you have no understanding of the topic. My questions are designed to get you to think about the topic without the usual government-run-school method of wet-nurse force-feeding teach-to-the-test crap. Should you wish to be spoon-fed: find someone else. I don’t do that stuff.