A valid reductio is not a statement that “this is what your argument is”, it is a statement of “this is what your argument logically leads to, wether you accept that conclusion or not”. Many of my arguments against you and others here have been perfectly valid as reductios.
From wikipedia.com.
the numbers added are my own
1)In mathematics and formal logic, this refers specifically to an argument where a contradiction is derived from some assumption (thus showing that the assumption must be false).
2)However, Reductio ad absurdum is also often used to describe any argument where a conclusion is derived in the belief that everyone (or at least those being argued against) will accept that it is false or absurd. This is a comparatively weak form of reductio, as the decision to reject the premise requires that the conclusion is accepted as being absurd.
i was using it in the correct formal sense 1. you were thinking of the weaker everyday sense 2. I will graciously accept your admission of defeat in this minor tangent to our main dialogue :-p
ok, putting aside the fact that A and B are on C’s property (where C could be A or B or another, and might have laid out explicit rules of conduct. and also ignoring that the two may be paid up members of pda, local law firms or providers of codes of conduct)
so we are in the rawest possible state of natural law. And lets say we assume the validity of the argumentation ethics approach.
… now that i led you down the path to thinking i was going to say B could kill A.
at the point in time we are considering, after the slap, there is no issue of B acting in self-defence against A. There is nothing to defend. A has finished administering the slap, its done, sunk cost. move along nothing to see here.
This is what I meant.
I’m not surprised to see neither BP or Juan decided to take on NUK’s substantial post on natural law.
I’m starting to see Juan and BP’s position on this though. If a mother has a late term abortion, she is a murderer for using lethal force against a benign trespasser.
Also, I am probably going out tonight, and want some advice. If someone tries to stab me, is the proportional response different than if they tried to shoot me? What about if someone tries to rape me? Kidnap me? We could make a whole website explaining what the correct proportional responses are, and solve the whole knowledge problem. Think of it as central economic planning for self-defense.
Another problem I have, is that if I can’t shoot a trespasser, can I shoot an animal (like a bear) that trespasses? Or am I required to get my wheelbarrow and give him a ride to the edge of my property? I know a bear is not a man, but the act of trespass can be and might be the same. Or does man have the right to aggress against property and animals do not?
All this subjectivity is so confusing. So, anyone going to address NUK’s wonderful post?
And from the same source
" reductio is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result."
So this
is quite sloppy. Reductios deal with deduction from ONE premise, not with the incompatibility of VARIOUS premises. You can graciously admit that your were not very accurate…
No because we’re not dealing with math. Anyway, I could say that your idiosyncratic understanding of the NAP contradicts the NAP and you will probably just deny it, so…
The point remains, your position is just absurd positivistic legalism. Are you dishonestly brushing aside the fact that your system leads to absurd ?
Also, you failed to admit that your understanding of estoppel is the very OPPOSITE of Kinsella’s ? Too bad…
So you just post without bothering to read what the people you attack are posting ? Good.
So that you know, NUK has no argument and his no-argument has been addressed. Also, he doesn’t stick to logic, so he’s left with faith or subjectivism if you prefer.
I’ll play a dirty trick on you : Do you realize that NUK’s position CLEARLY CONTRADICTS that of Rothbard’s and Kinsella’s ?
perhaps juan needs someone he trusts like brainpolice to explain to him the ins and outs of the reductio. I know my logic professor took some pains to explain it to me, and i dare say i understand it fine despite the intervening years. We are having a conversation on the logical coherence of moral axioms, we are not discussing whether unintended consequence which appear absurd (in the ‘isnt that strange’ sense of the word) would result from adoption of these positions.
As for Kinsella i dont know how forcefully you could make that argument, i certainly did not fall for the bait you set in regards to it. I almost wonder if you understand how I was able to logically evade it.
lol, here we go with appeals to authority…
lol Oh man, you’re killing me Juan. Shrill! Shriek your assertions out! The more shrill you are, the more right you are!
Ok, but I’m not taking my pants off this time.
So ?
Haha. You’re kind of out of your depth. The thing is, appeals to authority do appeal to people like LS. I’m afraid he doesn’t deserve any better.
Or were you referring to Kinsella and so called estoppel ? If that’s the case I’d love to hear your take on it. It seems that a lawyer (Kinsella) and somebody who sounds like a budding lawyer use the same concept to justify A and not-A. It’s quite interesting…
Anyway, you have miserably failed to show how the application of the NAP leads to regard cold blood murder as a non-aggressive behaviour. The only thing you did is use circular arguments which hint that you are just a legal positivist playing word games.
pot, kettle, black.
perhaps you didnt notice but Kinsella’s document that you jumped on was concerned with a theory of punishment and not self-defence. perhaps you can tell me which of the two we have been focused on throughout?
juan, to put it to you as to a baby, without all the qualification and enlightened talk which i have expanded on profusely (to which you have not directed any pinpoint criticism). The NAP has been miss abbreviated. it should be NIAP. because aggression has two meanings apply force, and attack. note attack is being the first to apply force in a situation. So please be accurate and bitch about how in your opinion Non-Initation-(of)Aggression-Principle is inconsistant with killing during defence.
To brush aside all your trashy sophisms : libertarianism is built upon inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. You need to explain how a trespasser gives up/looses his inalienable right to life.
im afraid most libertarians dont agree that every human being has a ‘right to life’ . that would entail a right to medical care, food, etc. etc.
so if libertarianism wants to make statements free of contradiction, its better to say
‘libertarianism is built upon liberty and property’
but maybe i just appreciate truth more than you do?
I’m still undecided as to the ethical aspect of proportionality. I will however remark that if you’re going to be blowing the brains of children out for stepping on your lawn you’re going to have a very difficult time trying to find insurance.
i completely agree.
Again, you’re out of your depth as to why some people here quarrel with each other. So what you perceive as support for your deranged, sorry amazingly clever theories may be something else…
We’ve been dealing with the ultimate foundation for rights. Of course, all you can do is quibble, no ?
What you see as enlightened talk I see as pointless evasion. It would be great if you managed to make your points succinctly. It would be easier to show they are just sophisms.
Haha..More quibbling eh ?
No, you show how in your opinion killing is justified by the mere fact that a geographical line is being crossed.
Strawman. You can do better than that ? Maybe not. Anyway this is a negative right. You’ve a right to your life not being taken.
Yes, because those are seen as extensions to life…
Give me a break.
Why ? It’s a perfectly justified and moral thing to do.
You see, that would be kind of incongruent…You live in a free society…You stick to the very principle it’s founded on. And yet your insurance costs are so high that nobody wants you as a client ? Weird…
there is nothing incongrous about being a freeman in a free society whether your insurance costs, be high, or low.