I meant: Generally, can you type?
very good. i am exposed.
i cannot type.
so you are still demanding impossible level proofs?, even though you dont require them for other things of great import, like science and your knowledge of the world outside of the realm of morality.?
This sounds like praxeology, which I am interested in learning more about.
I. Ryan, did you manage to
a) describe your political system
b) morally justify it ?
perhaps you are just another advocate of might-makes-right ?
a) “Nope.”
b) “Nope.”
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? When the hell did I imply that I am an “advocate of might-makes-right”? Are you delusional?
Again it is inferred from previous posts of yours. You can of course easily explain your political position … I wonder why you refuse ? Obviously you are not interested in honest discussion, only playing the childish skeptical game.
I am genuinely interested to read that post and an explanation of the alleged implications.
What do you want? A label or an entire explanation of my political ideology?
A label might do. Are you a miniarchist ? A voluntarist ? But If you want to describe your system , go ahead …
I generally avoid labels unless I provide a positive explanation. And, I do not believe that I have a developed a complete enough ideology to provide a positive explanation. If you want to understand the more-developed sections of my ideology, then follow and respond to my posts.
But you see, you are a new guy, with a Mussolini avatar that is obviously there because you support Mussolini. Worst yet, you disagree with other people, so obviously your arguments must be ridiculed.
It’s all very logical when you think about it.
I have only just caught up on the recent related series of threads, & I have to say, I also am tending to the so-called “dissidents” in the discussion.
Additionally, the entire amount of straw manning occurring against the “dissidents” of natural rights seems to be based more on popularity points than honest discussion, at times.
I find it thoroughly embarrassing that healthy questioning can’t seem to occur without taking more than a few strolls through a field of oppositional scarecrows.
I asked I. Ryan what’s his position at least 4 times, even before knowing who the guy in his avatar was. He just keeps on evading. He must think I’m retarded.
You think a straight answer from him is asking too much ?
If by dissidents you mean the amoralists, they may be ‘dissidents’ but they surely are the majority.
cry me a river.
Maybe he sees you as a possible troll, who would like nothing more than some label to ascribe to him for easier future ridicule (gotta say, not entirely unreasonable)?
Maybe he has entirely un-related reasons that are not directed personally to any other given member. Maybe it’s because he’s a Leo, & his planet is in alignment with the Sun this month.
I don’t know why you are taking it personally though, as if everyone needs to check with you with their labels and/or name cards.
But I forgot the new rule here too: if you do not label yourself, you are automatically assumed to be a Statist, or someone worth trolling. Fantastic.
I love these amoralist & moral nihilist strawmens I’ve been reading lately, as I’ve never realized, before the natural rights threads, that almost everyone seemingly qualifies, just like the odious “You Might Be A Winnar of a Million Dollars!” junk mail that haunts mailboxes across the land.
I also don’t recall that believing in natural rights was ever a requirement for having morals (i.e. that people disagreeing with natural rights somehow automatically means they have no morals).
I think you’ve done plenty of that already.
Or maybe he lacks the guts ?
Hrmm, which is most likely given your past behavior?
Yes, I think that making fun of ridiculous views is not unreasonable. You are free to disagree.
Also, I thought that people who advocate socialism are usually ‘labeled’ socialists. People who reject coercion are usually called voluntarists. And so on and so forth. I didn’t know calling a spade a spade was some sort of sin.
I also thought that asking somebody to provide the NAME of his political position was an efficient way to know where he stands.
But it seems that doing that is a crime known as ‘labeling’ ?
Why are you assuming I’m ‘taking it personally’ ?
Those are not the first messages I exchanged with I. Ryan. He did ask me a series of ‘personal’ questions on a different thread which I answered. At the same time he didn’t answer mine.
I think that if he had a consistent position he wouldn’t mind describing it.
By the way, did you manage to explain what sort of things are ‘observable’ ? You think moral realism is not a valid system because you can’t ‘observe’ morals ? Am I getting you right ?
Juan,
You yourself recognized that people have an inner sense of morality. You dismiss it for being “not rational enough”, but you’ve acknowledged its existence. I have repeatedly expressed that I believe in such a sense, and that I believe it is extremely important. I’ve also repeatedly expressed my own deep moral revulsion against state aggression. So why do you insist on lying by, twice now, referring to me as an amoralist? Did your ethical syllogism spit out as a logical conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with lying? I guess that wouldn’t be too bad, considering that others have concluded from such syllogisms that it would be wrong to interfere with a father’s right to brutally torture his child.
Yes, there’s such a thing as moral sense, we agree on that. I didn’t exactly dismiss it, I pointed out that sometimes people have the wrong moral intuitions. I don’t think you fully acknowledged that. You replied that people are somehow misled into disregarding their moral sense - I don’t think that explanation is fully satisfactory.
Senses are more or less automatic. You can’t help having sensations. So, if you are seeing a house in front of you, it would be hard for me to convince you that you are seeing a car or any other object.
Consider Smith and action ‘X’. Smith’s moral sense may tell him that action X is wrong - that seems to be automatic. Now Smith knows that action X is wrong. He can go ahead and do X anyway or he can be a nice guy. Why would Smith choose to do X or not do X ? It seems to me that there’s more to moral agency than intuition.
I wasn’t referring to you in particular this time, but assuming I did, my quarrel with you is that despite the fact that you and I agree on seeing coercion as wrong, you don’t seem to believe that coercion is really wrong. You are saying that your subjective evaluation of coercion is negative, but that coercion per se is really morally neutral. Am I getting that wrong ?
No, lying is also morally wrong.
I think they are making wrong deductions but that doesn’t mean that rational ethics are impossible. Also notice that their moral sense doesn’t seem to be working that well either…