I don’t know. It seems you are complaining about the fact that I’m being annoying.
Are you only making a comment along the lines of “I don’t like how Juan writes” ? Or are you suggesting that I shouldn’t write the way I do ? Are you saying I shouldn’t be ‘annoying’ ?
If it is the latter, then I would ask you, why do you think you have a saying on how I behave ?
well, then, lets wrap this up, i forego formal positive proofs for natural law, just as a i forego formal positive proofs for natural science, . yet my ethics are not matters of faith, anymore so than my knowlegde of science and of the human world.
Logical positivism is highly boring AND annoying.
Are you saying you should be?
as a footnote to my last comment, just as when i feel confident to say 'gravity will smack you to the ground" to any of you thinking of jumping out of airplanes, i will say ‘killing people is wrong’ when you tell me you have a murder in mind.
Oh don’t be an ass.
Actually the burden of proof is on you to establish why our values that we hold to be true are in fact false.
What “system of government”?
I was merely responding to his definitional requests.
Well, there’s no moral obligation to be annoying so I’m not saying I should be annoying.
On the other hand, given the annoying skepticism of the moral subjectivists, I don’t see why I can’t be annoying as well. Are they above the (non-existent) law or something ?
So called miniarchism - the one system you support.
When did I say that I support minarchism?
Yes, consequentialist definitions of “ought” allow the crossing of the is/ought divide, so it appears we agree.
You find their skepticism annoying because you are intolerant and not a bridge builder. Reacting in a tit for tat manner does nothing to solve their “annoying skepticism” (whoever thought a libertarian would call skepticism “annoying”?) but just poisons the discussion.
I don’t believe so. I find your reciprocity to be contradictory to your own established values.
Just to annoy you further, I am also leaning towards the position of Zefreak and lilburne. I don’t think the is-ought gap has been crossed. As soon as it is, I will get on board. But to pretend it is, when I know it isn’t, smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
You never denied it when asked, and it can be inferred by other things you said. At any rate, do you mind describing what political system you support and why you think it is justified ?
Did I mention values?
do we? you dont seem capable/ or desirious (i dont know which) of making moral statements or debating whether something in particular is moral or not…unless you have abandoned moral skepticism?
Firstly, provide examples and explanations of the alleged minarchistic implications.
How do you propose we define “moral”? It’s hardly a term with an agreed-upon definition.
Ignoring someone can be a more effective answer than a written one.[:D]