lol… he said he’s not a libertarian and doesn’t like the NAP - oh well! I guess only LS can be subjective. I’m not allowed to speak my subjective preferences.
Unintentional dishonesty is an oxymoron.
See now somebody asks a question. And this is the “civil” response. It’s quirky to say the least.
No it’s not.
He said it.
Hence why I asked how far he is actually going to take this. I have made several posts saying that I thought he was what I would call a Blockian libertarian and honestly I think I am going back to my Rothbardian roots which is similar to Block, I stated that I found it strange that he suddenly went from this to stating that no one has an obligation to do anything and establishing objective moral value [ which I think is what the NAP is ] is authoritarian. Like Nitro said, people can be Austrians yet not libertarians and that is fine and maybe that is what was discovered by liberty today or maybe he already knew it and we just didn’t realize. Anyways I made the mistake of misjudging his values before concerning the Thick/Thin libertarianism debate, so I am trying not to do it again. He says that no one has an obligation to follow the NAP, ok that’s fine, but that excludes him from libertarianism [ and I think he knows that ] even in the most basic sense.
Lilburne,
So far you have joined the crowd in this thread that hasn’t addressed any of the points except to try to make this an emotional issue - idk any other word for it, if somebody could help me I’d gladly use another word, but the intellectual issues have clearly been avoided - just alot of “how dare you” and ‘we’ve mobbed LS’, etc…
I guess that’s how feelings of regret are shown to harbor people to back away into the valuation light?
It’s a valid question and I wasn’t being sardonic. I really meant what I asked. I didn’t get a response. Perhaps Liberty is having a bad day. It happens. Sometimes we get caught up in our discourse. I certainly did with Roderick Long.
You’re doing well so far. Although, it may also be subjectively wrong from their perspective. People do things they would not want done to them, or that they may not think are right, but are the more preferable of two outcomes.
An acknowledgment of reality. Nothing more, nothing less.
Even when I ask valid questions, I get booed as being a troll or something.
It’s the cougar picture. People are fearful of the cougar.
yes, they may be letting themselves down by the lights of their own subjective morality, and you could explore that with them. or they may not. in whcih case we are back at my original example.
you are acknowledging the reality of peoples non-moral opinions. i dont believe you can justify calling them moral opinions as they dont claim to be about objective moral truths since objective moral truths are denied. they are subjective preferences and values, they dont claim to truth or falsehood.
it is incoherent to say that “the cat is on the mat is true for me subjectively but not true to you.” as using that language gives the lie to the objective truth of the matter, that you arent considering the truth of whether there is a cat on a mat or not. you are merely reporting your subjective experience. its only coherent to say that 'my experience indicates to me that there is objective truth to the cat being on the mat (or not) or 'i prefer to think that the cat is the mat (whether it is on the mat or not)
yeah, i guess
excellent clip! thank you[:)]
How old are you, 12?
I have explained my position on the intellectual issues over and over and over again. You don’t find my explanations convincing. Others do. There’s no utility in discussing it with you further. I obviously won’t convince you. And discourse with you has proved to be rather unpleasant, because it seems I had vastly over-estimated your character.
You know, LS and I have been more friendly with you and more patient with your rather fuzzy thinking and writing than most anyone else here. But boy, have you burned those bridges.
I have no idea what that was about.
I acknowledge that other people have different opinions on what constitutes morality.
Don’t understand.
I agree. I never said every opinion was coherent.
I totality get what you’re saying. I see the same picture of how this process works out. Any agent-relative valuations that take place (those subjective preferences) to be even considered moral is a truth/falsity process. It’s based on what is understood about the world as in seeing if a murder takes place and then therefore understanding ‘that’s a murder’. It’s even called a murder or a crime cause it’s been understood as something to avoid - hence the basic defining of crime. It is false to murder. That’s an intellectual judgement call. Sure we feel sick about it, but I can feel sick about eating dirt. But to even understand if it’s something false and a crime - to even name it that - that’s being objective. That’s noticing the object called ‘murder’ and understanding it’s something to be avoided even on a gut level. But it takes a mind to even know this. To notice such an object and then to attribute if such an object is something to be avoided whether based on gut feelings, sickness in the tummy, and then making the call - it’s wrong. That what being objective is.
Call me a troll too - go ahead if it will make you feel better - but I’m clearly not a troll and you clearly have fuzzy thinking cause it’s all subjective right. You clearly can’t even say what you just said about me above - that would be being objective. Now whether it’s true or not is another question.
Are you done with your emotional conflict?
maybe - are you 2?
im sorry, i couldnt be clearer and make my message more transparent. I’d be happy to roll it over with you, maybe pm later? i held off as you know…
in the hope of latching onto the part that you perhaps agree with, I could boil down my argument as follows
just as it is incoherent to say that "the cat is on the mat is true for me subjectively but not true to you.’
so it is incoherent to say that ’ murder is wrong is true for me subjectively but not true for you’
Hi nirgrahamUK,
Would it be incoherent to say “roses are beautiful is true for me subjectively but not true for you”?