GYre0ePJhZ

I was thinking about an instance where a child who want to believe that their parents are good or atleast want to be good, even when the parents have abused them. In this case, children have to admit that their parents did not want to be good since the parents did not conform to UPB. If they had wanted to be good, they would have conformed to UPB. I think a lifeboat scenario is an instance where this rationale would not apply, yes. I think in a lifeboat scenario where people have to steal to survive, the thief is with their actions saying that they do not value being good as much as being alive. Hmm...I sort of get objectivist vibes from what I am writing now. I'm not sure what to think. What is the approach people take towards lifeboat scenarios here? I do not find them particularly interesting myself, but I think there is some value in knowing how to answer such conjectures if I meet people who bring it up.

Welcome! Hope you have a pleasant stay

I was only able to watch BB until the blood from this guy who had been dissolved in the bathtub was dripping from the above floor, so I wouldn't know. But I skimmed the imdb message board, and people are arguing like crazy over there on whether BB or True Detective are the best series. I think that is a good sign

Yes. I think the rule would have to be in terms of self-defense then. But the purpose of this question was to ask how UPB can tell the Romans that they 'ought' not to murder the Carthaginians. And it doesn't, it just tells them that it is evil to murder, and if you want to be good you 'ought' not murder. I would not take that assumption for granted when it comes to the sociopaths of the world though. But what UPB does, which I think is wonderful, is that it reveals who those sociopaths who doesn't want to be good are. Because the choice becomes so apparent: Either the sociopaths have to admit that they don't want to be good, or they have to conform to UPB. I have a new thought about UPB working on another level as well. Let me know what you think. UPB reveals those (e.g. parents, priests, politicians) who people want to protect as evil through making the choice apparent: Either those that people want to protect would have wanted to be good, or they would have conformed to UPB. If they did not conform to UPB they did not want to be good. What do you think?

I agree with dsayers. You are insulting the readers in your first paragraph without even knowing what they think about your argument. Just present your argument and see what people think of it without insults. I didn't read your whole post either because I feel it could only be a waste of time as a result of your first paragraph. I am not even curious what argument you defend pick-up artists with, and I have watched a lot of the pick-up material before (mostly Tyler Durden). I hope you don't present FDR and the ideas herein to others in this manner because that can only hurt our cause. If so, please stop doing that.

Just finished the first and only season yet to have been released. I highly recommend it with excellent acting by Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey as protagonists. It raises some questions about the treatment of children in our society (Paraphrasing McConaughey's character, we eat our children) and has a really cool plot that works on many levels. The cinematography is beautiful too. Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2356777/?ref_=nv_sr_1 If anyone has seen it, please let me know what you think of it Edit: Correction, the name of the series is "True Detective" in singular, not in plural as I wrote in the title of the thread. I also have to warn about a few stomach turning scenes.

I second this, you can also check out what Ayn Rand wrote about it.

Can you show me an empirical real world example of a process that is not using the scientific method, i.e. reason and evidence, which both accurately and reliably discovers anything that is true about the physical world?

How can a methodology derived from reality to investigate reality be to stop looking at reality?

No, I am sorry, but this is not the only way to validate a claim. Yes, in the social sciences were I come from we compare the explanatory power of different behavioral theories on outcomes, but all of these theories we test against reality have to pass criterions described by the scientific method before we even bother to investigate it's explanatory power. As a sidenote, I think it was in the hippie times, parapsychological claims were extensively investigated over decades and found to have zero explanatory power. The tradition of the social sciences I come from have never looked back as we see that the methodology behind such claims is against both logic and evidence. In other words, we look at the methodology which produces these conclusion and we can dismiss them without anyone complaining about that, except for the superstitious, who have no authority in scientific matters anyways. So meh..

Has that ever happened? Is that assumption in the realm of what is possible in reality?

Hey dudes I play Hearthstone and would love to play and chat if anyone are interested. I suck though; level 16 only on the ladder. I'll add you guys if you don't mind. I am Avalanche#2192 on b.net. It's a nick I nabbed from my older brother when I was 13 before I even knew what it meant Edit: Do you guys play on Americas server? I play on European.

I re-read the part you mentioned this morning, and got confused, so I hope you still can bear with me Quote from UPB page 46: From page 47: Does not these quotes transform the moral method from a descriptive application of UPB with regards to behavior (i.e. killing is imorral, but not something you should not do, because it is optional to follow the moral method) into a normative application of UPB with regards to behavior (i.e. killing is immoral and something you should not do)? In the last posts we established that it is optional to follow the moral method with no 'shoulds' attached did we not? Is the answer that through the act of debating ethics we are implicitly accepting that one 'ought' to follow, or avoid, whatever ethical rules are found to be true, or not true, in the framework of the moral method? Edit: labmath2, I would appreciate it you made your own thread about your arguments, I experience it as distortion as I don't see how it is relevant to the purpose of this thread. It is optional on your part of course

Ok, cool I am delivering my master's thesis in organizational psychology in two weeks.

Hey Fredrik, Beautiful dog you got there! Glad to see that there are more Scandinavians here. Welcome and I hope you have a pleasant stay Edit: What are you studying?

I will comment on this response as where I see Bob making fallacies or applying sophistry. I am doing this more for fun and practice rather than because I think Bob's response is important to debunk or because I dislike Bob, which I don't. The sophistry aspect of what Bob is doing here is through trying to frame Stef as being more like an animal than a rational person to be taken seriously. Evidence of this are the following: Bob says that Stef drops f-bombs. This is a beautiful choice of words imo. Firstly, bomb is something that is used for violence by terrorists to resolve disputes, and not a rational person. With other words something to be expected from an animal. Secondly, by abbreviating 'fuck' to the f-word, he elevates himself to being better than Stef because he doesn't swear himself, which frames Bob as a rational and moral person. He says that Stef gets so worked up of how awful a movie Rio 2 is. Again, framing Stef as coming from an irrational standpoint. Also to be expected from animals with no sense of what civility is. Bob says the reason for this response it that if he can get Stef to see how he is incorrect and misinterpreting what they movie is trying to convey maybe he will calm down so he can be a happier person. Again, framing Stef as coming from an irrational standpoint. At the same time I think it is arrogant of Bob to claim that he knows what the correct interpretation of the film is while Stef does not. Actually, I think Bob misses the point of what Stef says when he claims that Stef thinks he knows what the intentions of the movie makers are. Stef's argument is that the sexism in the film (and in other areas) goes completely below the radar of most people. Stef did not say that the Rio 2 makers intentionally wanted to make a sexist movie. This could also be said to be a strawman from Bob. He also elevates himself into being someone who only has the best intentions for Stef as he wants Stef to be a happier person. It is in addition an insult to Stef about Stef's level of happiness. Bob says that the specific things that sets Stefan off is not correct. Again, as if Stefan operates from an irrational place. Plays very well into the f-bomb metaphor aswell. Beautiful sophistry. The fallacies: Strawman. Evidence of this is how he exaggerates what Stef is saying: Stef supposedly says it is destructive and will fill little kids heads with the worst stereotypes and send them out in the world in ways that are gonna just harm eachother and ruin their relationships. He refuses to talk about the specific of what Stefan says about Rio 2. This is a sophist way of debunking arguments. Reminds me of Peter Joseph who refused to point to the specifics of what makes the free market immoral. It gives Bob lots of leeway to misrepresent Stef without actually having to deal with the actual arguments of Stef. It is a Platonic form of argument essentially, which has no place in a rational discourse as one can "debunk" with reference to strawmen rather than reality. This was only after two minutes into the response of Bob. There is more during those 2 minutes and probably after (I stopped watching after 2 minutes), but I can't be bothered to indulge in this exercise after this point anymore as Bob lacks a rational methodology to debunk Stef's arguments. Some other thoughts. I know Bob is religious which makes what Bob says a projection since religion is irrational. The majority of the adjectives Bob puts on Stef and Stef's arguments pertains to how Stef communicates his ideas rather than the actual content of them. This I see as evidence of that what Bob really has a problem with is not that Stef are incorrect, but that he did not present them in a way that he thinks is appropriate. That is a completely fine thing to prefer, but don't make that into a way of debunking arguments. If I scream into someones ear that 2+2=4, it does not make that equation incorrect if my methodology nonetheless is correct. You are of course at liberty to not like it, to tell me so, and to, understandably, urge me to change my ways. But it does not make 2+2= not 4. What do you think? I feel pretty good and satisfied with this post as I showcase the argument on how to spot evil people (I dont think Bob is evil by far btw). This through investigating their methodology which was something argued for in the recent article on debunking the arguments of the moral teachers of mankind through looking at their methodology. Edit: Typos

So I can't tell someone that they shouldn't kill someone because that behavior fails the moral method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to kill, their actions fail the moral method and they are exhibiting immoral behvior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a decriptive one. How does a failure to follow the moral method justify sending people to jail if immoral behavior is not something they should not do? It is, as you said, optional with no "shoulds" attached to it. Analogy with the scientific method: I can't tell someone that they shouldn't use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality because it fails the scientific method. But I can tell them that if they do choose to use chicken entrails to discover any truths about reality, their actions fail the scientific method and thus, they are exhibiting unscientific behavior. Thus, it is not a normative statement, just a descriptive one. How does the failues to follow the scientific method justify sending people to jail if unscientific behavior is not something they should not do? It is optional with no shoulds attached.

Alright. I will start to bring forth the devil inside to try to shoot UPB down. I want to reiterate that I don't do this to be a jerk, because I understand that I implicitly accept UPB when trying to reach the truth. Maybe it helps sharpen your blade too. --- What first came to my mind was how Carthage was obliterated by Rome in the 3rd century BC. After Rome had won the third Punic war, Rome sent a cohort of diplomats to supposedly iron out peace terms. However, the diplomats were sent more as a courtesy of keeping up the veneer of civility while they in reality wanted to destroy Carthage completely, which they in the end did no matter what the Carthaginians agreed to. I do not see how UPB makes it binding upon the Romans to not destroy Carthage. What UPB would persuade the Romans to alter is not the destruction of Rome, but rather to not send diplomats under the pretense of peace. Roman Aristocracy: "Alright Mr. Molyneux, you make a fine, fine argument. You have convinced us to not send our diplomats, but just outright murder all of Carthage instead so we don't have to be illogical, as sending a diplomatic cohort implicitly binds us to the assumption that peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes." ------ I don't know how good this argument is. The problem the devil here lines out, is how we can make it binding upon evil people to be virtuous. What the application of UPB does in this instance is to reveal the evils of the Roman aristocracy to the public and to dissuade the aristocracy from pretending to be good through sending diplomats. It does not prove the falsehood of UPB. It just proves that the Romans were evil as murder is not something that is universally preferable. Does this make any sense?

So UPB does not decide what is true about morality or not, the same way it does not decide what is true about the physical world. To participate in debate over morality and the physical world, one logically have to accept UPB as a framework for investigating such matters. For physics this application is called the scientific method while it for morality is called the 'moral method' (I actually think I will adopt this word when I think about how UPB applies to morality so I do not confuse the heck out of myself). Is this a correct interpretation? If so, you deserve reddit gold

Great story, Lians! Makes me want to go to a meet-up all the more I was considering going, and I could have made it if I really worked and planned for it. Ah well, no excuses. I will just go do it next time!

When I summarized UPB, I only mentioned the reason why one cannot rationally reject UPB in the realm of ethics, while a complete picture of UPB also takes into account what UPB is as a concept? If so, then UPB as a concept is an umbrella term, which rests on eight premises a person implicitly accepts as factual when participating in debate?: We both exist The senses have the capacity for accuracy Language has the capacity for meaning Correction requires universal preferences An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood Truth is better than falsehood Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes Individuals are responsible for their actions From those eight premises, one can deduce that both the scientific method and the ‘moral method’ are true. Am I in the right here? Are there other such methodologies? The ‘aesthetic’ method? I am not sure what you mean by this. Is your meaning that I am wrong when I say that it is hypocritical to reject UPB, or is it that it is accurate but it is in addition to being hypocritical, illogical to reject UPB? Also, is that which is illogical something that is 'more' than that which is hypocritical in a quantitative sense? In that case, compared to what standard is it 'more'? I am also not sure what the adjective ‘plain’ is supposed to add to the meaning here. Did you mean: It is not only hypocritical it is also illogical? I know readers may perceive me as annoying and nit-picky, but it is important to me that I get this right. In addition, I think I cannot understand how that which you write afterwards is relevant to my post unless I understand that first sentence. This post of mine wins the FDR question mark contest btw

Thanks for your reply, cynisist! I really enjoyed your answer. It is bedtime here in Europe, so I will get back to this thread tomorrow when I have more time to both think and reply with something of intelligence

Hey party people, I read UPB a year ago, and while I agreed and still agree with the conclusions of the book, I think I understand it more at an emotional level than at an intellectual level. Like how kids instinctually understand the hypocricy of their parents without being able to verbalize what exactly is hypocritical. This is a problem for me if I want to argue its validity, which I have refrained from since I know I don't understand it enough to be able do it justice or even persuade others. I now want to really wrap my head around it and play the devil's advocate and shoot it down to the best of my abilities. I hope you will endulge me in spite of my staccato try-hard semi-academic English writing, which is my second language. It is of utmost importance to me that you point out where I am in error since I with this post implicitly assume that speaking the truth is universally preferable I think a good place to start would be for me to summarize UPB with my own words: If I were to summarize UPB I would say that it's validity hinges on that the very act of participating in debate over ethics implicitly assumes that universally preferable behavior is valid. If you don't accept UPB, despite participating in debates over ethics, you face a self-detonating contradiction; your arguments are not consistent with your behavior and thus you are a hypocrit that imposes standards on others which you exempt yourself from. If this summary is accurate I have some objections from a devil's advocate position, but I think to have understood it is important before I can play this role. So would you say this is a good summary of UPB?

First and foremost I want to say that I feel really sorry about your situation. I felt the pain and the confusion you are dealing with through your words. I think you deserve to have intimate and great friendships from what I can read. I don't want to be as a preachy as I don't feel I have enough people of high quality in my life either, but I hope I can offer something of value to you. But that is up to you to decide.There is a lot in what you are writing so I will give my opinion on a few things. Maybe other can either disagree with me or provide another perspective. I am also afraid I am not presenting my opinions with enough empathy, let me know if you think so, but I here it goes:I don't know what you mean by "alright", but if you mean "good" in an ethical sense, your question is not in the realm of ethics I think. That means whatever you think is alright is alright for you. However, I am not sure whether she is a person of good enough quality with regards to your happiness. I think she is dysfunctional as evidenced by her abusive relationship with the boyfriend and evasion of acknowledging her mother's failure to protect her from molestation. I also wonder whether it is good for your happiness to be living with your mother. I also have three questions: How attractive is she on a scale from 1-10? How attractive is your mother on a scale from 1-10? Do you want to be in a relationship with this girl? If you feel like talking to someone you can contact me on skype: eppa55. I am not a therapist btw, just a random dude on the internet

I love Stef's acting and interpretation of the Trial and Death of Socrates. What is talked about here is very interesting to me and I thoroughly enjoyed your interpretation of your behavior through this framework. As to the question of whether you are part of the problem or the solution I don't think what you did is relevant to the question since you were in a situation of egregious lies and manipulations. Little good can be done in situations like that except refraining from enabling their corruption and showing them the negative consequences of their behavior, if possible. I three days ago had a situation at my university where a girl in my class got really pissed off at me for simply disagreeing with her on a, for me, mundane topic (language policies). She started interrupting me, raising her voice, and mocking my arguments (which were sound). I told her that I did not want to discuss with her anymore because she was rude to me. She got even more angry after I said that and declared herself the winner and me to be childish. I said "blablabla" to her, where she responded "no, it's not blablabla", and I said "yes, your passive-aggressive behavior is like that". After that the situation ended and she left the group 5 minutes later. What gets me the most is not that she was rude and labeled me childish. What gets me is that noone around dared to take a stance on her obvious verbally bullying behavior. I even asked some people in private what they thought of the situation, and they said "it's best to not discuss sensitive topics" and "you are both very stubborn". They did not mention that I was perfectly nice to her all the way until I felt she was getting too rude, and that she was the one who started to raise her voice, interrupt me, mock my arguments, and calling me childish. In this I feel the same as Socrates, looking to other people who claim to be just, noble, and virtuous for support and protection from this verbal bully. But....nothing. Just diminishments, lectures on what topics I should discuss, and....indifference. They claim to be good, but turn their heads the other way when bad people are verbally abusing me, who is a good person. As a result I feel hate for these spineless unhumans and I want them to suffer for their cowardice. Thank all that is good for my girlfriend who keep me sane in this insane and cowardly world (and that I am finished at the uni in 3 weeks). Rant-mode off!