ProfessionalTeabagger

People like Sam Harris should understand that the debate will be had whether they show up or not. Stefan has proven, especially in thew latest mock debates that he can argue staist positions even better than Sam.

Violating consent communicates that you are willing to claim a right you necessarily deny another. As any ethical justification underlying your actions must be universal in order to be valid, such violations of consent cannot have any valid ethical justification. They are immoral.

If someone claims taxation is not theft then start taxing them.

It has to be at least theoretically predictable.

After viewing your profile I can see that you are earning a negative rating and I would assume it's this kind of obtuseness you're displaying that's causing it. I did not argue that something can't be "aware" because it is an extension of human choice. That's retarded. Simplly quoting me and repeating your claim is not an argument. That shit isn't going to fly around here. I argued that it might be better for you to use non-human programmed example because the missile system is just a tool of the human. Get it? How you got to "something can't be "aware" because it is an extension of human choice", I don't know. Why would I argue such a ridiculous thing given my position on free will? If you continue to insist this is my argument after I have clearly stated twice that it is not then there'll be no further discussion.

Nope. Not remotely what I said or argued. Not wasting my time debating someone who just makes up their opponent's arguments in their head.

I didn't argue that determinism makes it impossible for beings to observe causal relations and act accordingly. ​You're not isolated from the thought experiment. It's theoretical. I didn't try to predict two elements. Only the molecules. The missile system isn't aware. It might be better to use a non-human-programmed example as one could say the missile system is an extension of human choice. The "awareness" really goes back to the programmer and the system is just a tool. ​I don't know what argumentation style means. What does that matter? It's either correct or incorrect.

There might be practical reasons one can't change a predicted thing but theoretically you can. We can predict lots of determined things in reality but you only need to think about it theoretically for what I'm saying to be true. In determinism (causal determinism - which is what most people seem to be referring to when they use the term) the future point X is set as matter of natural law. There can be no possibility of point X being any different. Under determinism you cannot have a future point X and point Y. This would mean the future is in flux and not set. So any such set future point can be theoretically predicted (whether it be a few atoms, the movement of a planet or something conceptual). Let's say you have a small isolated space filled with air molecules and a super-computer to calculate where each molecule will be in 1 minute (future point X). You can predict future point X. But as soon you you calculate future point X you can now change future point X. If determinism was true then this could not logically happen. The only explanation is that the original prediction was wrong and failed to take into account the change made to point X. So if you then take into account that change and make a new prediction you can them change this new prediction. And so on and so on into infinity. The future point X exists in a state of flux and is not determined. So all it takes to disprove determinism is to show one non-determined event. This thought experiment shows such an event is possible. Thus determinism is disproven. You can apply determinism to non-conscious configurations of matter/energy but not to conscious, intelligent configurations that have become aware of the determined reality itself. Once determinism becomes aware of determinism it's no longer determinism.

As I said, in this instance it can't then be predicted. That's because if they succeeded in predicting it would be changed then that outcome itself could be changed and so on and so on. You create a theoretically endless loop.

I thought a similar thing upon watching the movie. It was a good narrative device but doesn't make logical sense. If one is free to change the future then the future is not determined. That's how you know determinism isn't true. Because under determinism the future is set as a matter of natural law. So it theoretically can be predicted. If it can be predicted then it can be changed. But if it can be changed then it can't have been determined. If you say the change was itself determined then it can't be predicted.

UPB is applied to moral theories, rules, justifications etc that underlie your actions. You don't HAVE to do anything but if you do things that you know that have no logical moral justification, etc (are not UPB) you'll be wrong. You're not just "assuming" UPB for this moment and maybe later you'll not. Once you hold someone to it then it applies at all times in all places. You can say it doesn't but you'll be wrong. The best analogy is the scientific method. You don't have to use it all or only sometimes. But if you don't you'll be wrong (in that particular realm).

Are you saying I'm incorrect?

Well, Trump plowed through much, much worse and won. So copy him.

No, the free market generated the wealth that enabled the science. Hence why the most free market countries rocketed ahead in science. They severely restricted the free market in Venezuela and despite having the same access to technology living standards collapsed.

Okay then who has represented the public rather than their own interests? Who said government is ALWAYS the problem? What do you mean "THE question? There is also the question of free market or government. It's a perfectly valid question. Especially in the moral sense. Don't try to dictate what "THE question" is. "Market failure" assumes some goal of the market (as if a market is some agent and not just people interacting in the economic realm). As if it should have achieved X but failed. Should the government "step in" whenever there's a failure in the market of free ideas or the market of romance or the market of friendship?

Compared to what?

I didn't just claim it. I made an argument for it. Can you show me where it's wrong or not? This is a philosophy forum. Rudeness is not a valid rebuttal. Either you respond to the argument I gave you properly or I'm calling bullshit on sincerity.

I gave you the argument? Where is my argument wrong?

I just gave you an argument. Tell me where it's either wrong or somehow not relevant.

Rape involves violently inflicting that preference on others. So it can't be morally neutral. That's why a rape victim who uses force on her rapist is engaging in self-defense. But the same person using force on someone for playing jazz (because she prefers not to hear jazz) is NOT engaging in self defense. If rape was morally neutral then it would be no different from listening to jazz. But clearly there's a moral distinction.

Cheers. As it explains, something morally neutral has no ethical content. The ethical rule that rape is a personal preference (morally neutral) cannot logically stand because rape is enforced on others. Therefore rape cannot be morally neutral. Rape cannot be UPB. It's explained just above the "morally neutral" part you linked. Stefan did not "dismiss" the notion that rape can be morally neutral with a statement. He made an argument. You need to show where that argument is wrong.

Link to the part of book you're referring to.

Any moral justification/rule, etc that underlies your behavior would have to be logically consistent otherwise it's wrong. So one test of consistency is universality (otherwise it's arbitrary and thus wrong). Something like theft cannot be universal. You'd be doing something to someone else you could never, by definition, agree to yourself. So if you rape, steal, assault or murder you do so in the knowledge that what you're doing can never be morally justified. It would be literally wrong. So being sociopath or whatever is irrelevant. If you do any of these things you will be unable to provide any moral justification that doesn't collapse into insurmountable contradiction. To disprove this then all you have do do is provide a logically consistent justification for rape, murder, etc.

On the Anarcho-capitalism Reddit they posted the call-in and titled it Stefan Molyneux loses another debate with this description - Check out his most recent call where he throws a hissy fit and takes his ball away when things aren't going well. Relying on moral relativism is not an argument. Kudos to this caller for standing his ground and not getting derailed by Molyneu'x games. I think many of them with same opinions as the caller are trying to put a brave face on it.

Wouldn't such an intelligence be a person?