Much ink has been spilled over what a “normative claim” actually is, so let me ask a different question:
Do you believe that it is possible for you to tell me a true statement that is inconsistent with a particular action of mine? (I.e., a statement such that if I do action A, I would thereby demonstrate that I don’t believe the statement.)
How does posting prove Argumentation Ethics?
Posting assumes human action.
I didn’t ask why it proves human action. I asked why it proves argumentation ethics.
You got your answer.
No, actually I didn’t, because human action and argumentation ethics are two different things. I asked how posting proves, as you claim, argumentation ethics. Your answer didn’t even mention argumentation ethics, and instead referred to human action.
if you knew argumentation ethics then you wouldn’t be asking me questions.
I already gave you the answer. Don’t bother me with any more questions right now. I don’t feel like teaching you anymore.
Throwing up an iron curtain ain’t exactly helping, either.
Who said I had to help anymore? There comes a time in every person’s life that they begin to learn some things on their own instead of finding the need to ask somebody else for advice. The old teach a man to fish adage.
Translation: “You don’t agree with my position, therefore you must not understand my position.”
Again, you did no such thing. I asked how posting, as you claim, proves argumentation ethics. You responded by saying that posting assumes human action. And, argumentation ethics and human action are two different things.
Would you qualify this as condescending?
No one, obviously, but it might’ve been a missed opportunity, otherwise.
1 - No need to translate. I said what I said word for word.
2 - It is not condescending. I truly do not feel like teaching you anymore. You are asking me questions looking for knowledgeable answers. I assume you do want knowledgeable answers or else you wouldn’t be asking me questions. I don’t feel like letting you pick from my brain anymore.
Teaching a person how to fish isn’t a missed opportunity. It is a gained opportunity for the other person. They don’t need to depend on me anymore they can go and get their own food. It is a very self-reliant thing to do in my opinion.
You are helping me wilderness. I couldn’t ask for a better exemplification of the incoherence of natural law doctrines than your bizarre, language-mangling arguments.
Lilburne,
I’ll teach you how to fish someday. It’s a great way to realize that a person naturally thinks on their own and valuing the lives of other people comes so naturally. One learns how to appreciate the finer things in life. The little details and the vastness of nature where the individual is able to think on their own in the world and naturally find peace in their life. Fishing is awesome. There’s a good way to tie knots so the line stays on the bait. Yes, valuing life, liberty, and private property is the natural way to go.
I’ll pass, wilderness. Rather I’ll just try valuing the existence of a plate of lemon pepper cod on my table, and wait for it to magically appear.
Ok starve yourself. It’s your life. Since I’m a bit giving by nature I’ll let you in on a little secret, loop the line around itself a few times and then pull it through the hole when you go to tighten it up.
Lilburne, can you address my last post here please? The constant bickering between you and wilderness reminds me of something I said to scineram once to the effect of, “If Austrian economics and libertarianism are such nonsense, why do you have 2,000 snide contrarian posts here?”
Whether the whole “you arguing just proves my point” thing is right or not seems rather spurious anyhow. The application is always in response to crime, “You stole my candy bar, now you can’t coherently object to being punished proportionally”.
With regard to this subject, I don’t think you have any knowledgeable answers, because I think you are utterly confused. I’m asking you questions in order to get you to make fully evident the incoherence of your position, so as to prevent you from spreading your confusion to young, impressionable libertarians.
Premise 1: Denying action is an action. Premise 2: The existence of an action disproves any denial of action. Conclusion: Therefore nobody can truthfully deny that humans act. The conclusion is contained in the premises. It’s a deduction.
Sorry, not yet familiar with it.
AE comes in to convince non-sadists and non-ascetics what social arrangement will best suit their ends: namely the contractual society.
That post of mine you quoted wasn’t in response to your post which you linked to. It was in response to the “dodge” image you posted.
First you insist that I formulate a position of argumentation ethics. Then very soon after I comply with your insistence, you are already asking me to write a Mises Daily on it? Seems kind of demanding…
Do you mean like if somebody responded to your analysis by writing “hurt-piece”?
Anyway, I appreciate the relatively civil tone of this post of yours that I’m responding to, so thank you for that.