“Assuming it isn’t retribution (e.g. covered by estoppel theory), it is logically unjustifiable per Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. You erred in speaking of willingness as a reason to use force: any such reasoning is incorrect.”
That’s an assertion. It’s equally accurate, relevant, and unimportant for someone to say that it’s logically incompatible with utilitarian philosophy. Either give a reasoned “why” as to why X is wrong in murdering him or admit that you have no reason. Even bringing up the relevance of retribution is foolish since if the reason it’s bad is because of retribution would mean that it is negative, not because the murder is inherently negative, but because he believes it to be so.
“A third possibility is that his writings are the ramblings of a batshit crazy person. Nietzsche also seems to focus on Germany and on Christianity, i.e. a particular location and time in history. It is an example of the impermenance [sic] that Aristophanes spoke of.”
And someone to be making that call isn’t someone who has read very little of his work and has every reason to strawman/make a mockery of Nietzsche.
You’re being like those leftists who say things like “Von Mises was a reactionary fascist crank who was brought to the United States by the Rockefellers”, when if you read Mises’ book it’s perfectly clear that Mises was a staunch advocate of liberty in a liberal tradition as well as being a genius
What kind of inequality are you talking about? I certainly don’t think that all people are equal in every respect (for example, in terms of abilities). But I do consider them equally morally accountable for their actions.
I asked you to prove that you matter more than people who live and breathe sports statistics because it seemed to me like you were making an objective (i.e. factual or logically proven) statement when you said “I’ll gladly say that I matter more than the people who live and breath [sic] sports statistics”. Now I may well have been wrong in my initial perception - it could be that you meant that as a statement of opinion/belief. If that’s the case, then I’ll state that no one, including myself, is obligated to agree with you.
Actually, your more recent statement that you “don’t need to justify [that you matter more than the people who live and breathe sports statistics] because it cannot be justified” seems to me to be a tacit admission that you do see that as simply a matter of opinion/belief. In that case, I don’t necessarily agree with you, but thanks for sharing, I guess.
Either give a reasoned “why” as to why X is wrong in murdering him or admit that you have no reason.
I’m not sure what you mean by “wrong” here. It is unjustifiable and you caused a performative contradiction. You were arguing that murder could be justified, while the means you chose (argumentation) presupposes self-ownership and non-violence.
sort of like someone who hovers around an internet forum eager to pronounce that he knows that he knows about Austrian economics and is proud to then, on account of that fact, shout down anyone else who has a different opinion on such a subject? Like someone who pretends to be an authority on something on an internet forum? because no one in real life will listen to him ramble about his rightness on a subject? Right, Smiling Dave? Right?
“It is unjustifiable and you caused a performative contradiction. You were arguing that murder could be justified, while the means you chose (argumentation) presupposes self-ownership and non-violence.”
It presupposes that the individual controls his body. If that’s ownership then it doesn’t mean that one should own it. There’s no reason in this case for our actor not to steal something from X. Talking doesn’t presuppose non-violence. That’s a foolish idea and you provide very little elaboration on this essential point.
At any rate, let’s say that he is enacting a “performative contradiction”, even though I don’t believe him to be doing this. So what? That only really matters to him if he cares about acting consistently. If he doesn’t, then why does it even matter?
You’re not doing a good job at showing that your morality is present, and you have not begun to indicate why it matters.
So, you use you morality to judge the actions of others. My morality is different than yours. That is the inequality that I am referring to. you do not havea right to hold me to your moral standards and I you. It is as simple as that.
Yes, it was. just as is your morality. You do not have a right to claim that Kant’s moral theory (I know you didn’t say this, but just for instance) is enough to punish me for my moral actions.
And so you posted your most recent post because…you reconsidered and didn’t think accept that anymore?
@SD
No, it is yours and Auto’s that have been hurt. That is why it is still bothering you.
Who says I don’t have that right? You? Who says I have to agree with you?
FYI, I couldn’t care less whether you think I don’t have a right to hold you to my moral standards. I will do so anyway. Do you understand? Just try to stop me. (You can’t.)
Okay then. Again, thanks for finally clarifying that.
I never argued otherwise.
Again, whether I have that right is itself a matter of opinion - and I’m no obligated to agree with yours (whatever it may be).
It seems like you are displeased with mass media, popular culture, and education. I would argue that this displeasure makes sense. Many entertainers, artists, and thinkers are irresponsible. They push doctrines that are not independently verified by their minds, and try to ignore the effects of their lack of independence. They spread lies and cater to escapism.
I think that it is unfortunate that most people ignore the important questions. They don’t want to think about death, or question religion or government. That is their choice though. I don’t really understand how that affects you. You can try to lead people voluntarily away from ignorance, or end up making them stupider and more codependent by coercing them. The more likely option is to ignore them entirely if you can.
I don’t think that philosophical inquiry is an end in itself. Not all life needs to be based on the big questions. I have sufficient understanding of those questions most of the time. I spent a long hard time thinking about those questions already, at some point I hope that my effort will be paid off, and that I will be able to move beyond just contemplating the great truths and actually start interacting with reality for my own enjoyment.
Also you might be surprised how the great truths and the little things relate to one another. I have come to some profound conclusions during some of my most mundane experiences.
All in all I am not sure if the NAP discussion is relevant. Kant doesn’t own the NAP. As I said, free people are just more valuable in the long run.
I never said it was. However, Malachi was clearly responding to me, then you gave him “+1 […] for awesomeness and pwnage”. I think it’s entirely reasonable for me to have assumed that you were describing his response to me as having both awesomeness and pwnage. Does that make sense?
Malachi didn’t even respond to Smiling Dave. To be honest, I think I’m more “with the picture” here than you are.