Read it again:
“This isn’t even a passable representation of Argumentation ethics, it doesn’t prove any sort of right, only capability.”
Your argument doesn’t prove any rights whatsoever and its so poor it isn’t even a passable representation of AE. Not saying you were trying to representing AE necessarily, but on the surface you are using similar approach.
I guess you don’t have the knowledge to answer your own question.
and yet I’m not using that approach… no time to socialize…
It is a non sequitur to deduce that we should maximize lifespan, happiness, eudaimonia, etc. from the ‘fact’ that we must control some parts of our bodies to live and argue with others.
How does the fact of my having life, liberty, or even property prove that everyone should have them? In other words, how does my having them prove natural law in any way? After all, that’s what I thought we were discussing here, not the fact that you or I are alive.
AM, then go and kill yourself if it’s a non-sequitur…
but wait… damn… to kill yourself life, liberty, and property is too…
every person is life, liberty, and property
as you, yourself, point out the fact
Your approach is extremely similar, as I’ve already said.
Try and follow along:
All you are doing is presupposing certain rights are true merely because scyg is engaging, and then saying he in is a perforamce-contradiction when he denies it. Again, very similar to AE.
What happened to finger painting?
My-oh-my, not only have you invented a new logic system that requires no rational thinking, you’ve obviously also come up a new language that requires no sensible connection between words. I’m afraid this is a bit beyond my humble intellectual capabilities. I’m out of this one.
i didn’t want you to take it the wrong way so I edited it out…[:P]
i’m having fun…
well, I’ve been here long enough today, can’t spend my whole time here…[:D]
i suggest you read up on the literature here at the mises and also this would be a good beginning as well… it will help you so this is no longer “…a bit beyond (your) humble intellectual capabilites…” don’t get down on yourself…[Y][:)]
I never called you an amoralist. Do you deny that you can show that a amoralist can engage in debate on morality without establishing morality itself? If you can do it, I would like to see it because it will be a first for me.
You clearly referred to me as an amoralist by saying you instead of an amoralist.
Yes and I’ve already explained why, just as you and I can engage in debate on the Easter Bunny without establishing the existence of the Easter Bunny itself. As I’ve said repeatedly, view it within context. All you’ve done is repeat an assertion (and contradict yourself).
I’ll help this along, I think the Easter Bunny would hop house to house when delivering baskets as opposed to jogging from house to house.
Now you must prove that with my mere speculation that I do believe in the Easter Bunny.
An amoralist could easily say something along the lines of “It would make more sense for natural rights to come from self-ownership instead of from owning a pony.” Do you understand? Speculation isn’t the endorsement of a particular view.
You seem to be conflating ethics with meta-ethics.
They are the same thing. Just another nonsensical ‘divide’ - hey you are conflating philosophy with meta-philosophy.
You did say an amoralist can do such a thing. Since you made such a claim I figured you would know what it was and therefore could show me it.
You give the conception a name, a form and actions yet you say it does not exist. Clearly do not even realize the implication of your words so why should I expect you to understand mine?
I see, people simply cannot discuss fiction and context just doesn’t exist.
You are trying to argue that fiction can exist through argument yet not really exist. Fiction is just that..fiction. So there really is no such thing as the easter bunny, so deducing what actions it does or what kind of demanor it has is illogical.
Wrong.
I’m saying that fiction doesn’t exist. Period. And when people argue about it they aren’t implying that they really believe it does exist.
Fiction is just that…fiction. There really is no such thing as the easter bunny and generally people who discuss such thing are aware. Discussing what actions it does or what kind of demeanor it has may be illogical, but that still doesn’t imply belief in its existence. It just shows that people speculate. A big “so what?” You have yet to actually prove this claim of yours.
Yes it does. Action is existence. It is a basic axiom that you seem to not realize.