ProfessionalTeabagger

Determinist: Hey free-willer, don't be so arrogant (even though you have no control over your actions because you have no free will and there was absolutely no possibility of you behaving otherwise and every action is utterly pre-determined and there actually IS no self, only the mindless playing out of unconscious material forces). Hey free-willer (who I'll just accuse of believing in magic, despite the fact you've repeatedly stated you do not and have stated you don't know how human choice works), don't be so arrogant. Don't you know there is a "causal chain" and you see this causal chain goes back and back and all your choices have nothing to do with you. Now you should choose not to be so arrogant. You should be more like determinists who humbly make the positive claim that free will is an illusion and all choice is completely pre-determined; Unlike the arrogant free-will loons who claim to not know. Don't you know that determinism is one of philosophy's most basic concerns? (even though determinists already hold the position that determinism is true). Stop being soooooo arrogant (and sarcastic). Free-willer: Fog off.

Ha ha ha ha ha I didn't predict "Don't get angry bro!" huffy face. Why'd you remove "sarcasm"? Oh please tell me about the "causal chain". That shit melts my butta.

Awesome. THAT is the fucking icing on the cake. If it's not "determinism" it's magic. A perfect ten of determinist dumb. If you want to go for a TEN PLUS then do the "Determined or random" false dichotomy.

HA HA HA HA HA HA You could not have illustrated my point more. "Determinism" or "Physical processes" or "Stuff happens" or "cause and effect". It's the same dumb non-answer given by the same dumb determinists. You ain't got god so fill the sucking gap with "determinism" and you feel nice and secure.

Determinism is AAAAAWWWWSOOOOOOOME!!! How does the brain work? ANS: Determinism. How does choice work? ANS: Determinism. How does gravity work? ANS: Determinism. How does evolution work? ANS: Determinism. How does grass grow? ANS: Determinism. How does [insert X] work? ANS: DETERMINISM. Determinism answers everything. When ya ain't got GOD, determinism fills the gap.

Conscious intentions would be an illusion just like free will. They would just be determined by the playing out of unconscious material forces. Under the causal determinist religion, the ideal you'd be comparing your thoughts would also be determined. How can there be a standard of truth when that standard must also have been determined at some point in this "causal chain"? If you were never free to behave differently in the past than you did then it's not possible to behave differently than you're going to in the future or now.

Gaia is your ruler and deepgreenresistance is her spokesman. Obey.

Why is not calling people names better? Why? I gave an explanation of why I did it. WHY would saying "I'm frustrated" be better? Sorry, tried that a billion times. Determinists responded by repeating same fallacies and condescending in the most vomit-inducing manner. How am I supposed to NOT engage when determinism is the fastest growing religion and it involves almost everything? No, I want to engage and if using a few insults works then so be it. Determinists have no problem telling me that I have no control over what I say so your objections are ridiculous. I say you are sinking into the argument from ignorance determinists use and you come back with an "aw shucks, I'm just a simple fella tryin' to get to the truth". Gimme a break. Who ISN'T going to claim they're just tryin to "sort out the truth". It's just vapid. You say I'm implying free-will is a fact. Okay then tell what it IS I'm "implying" is a fact. Go ahead. You SHOULD know what it IS I'm implying is a fact, right? Let's hear it!

Ah, the determinist white-knight. Obviously I would not think it's ONLY determinists but it's certain that determinists do it. If you find my comment insulting and non-productive then why aren't you criticizing Mike Flemming for being insulting or non-productive? If I state my opinion that everything is not pre-determined and he comes back with "Well then I guess science and the scientific method are wrong" without any explanation and then proceeds to make a bunch of insinuations of intellectual dishonesty, isn't THAT insulting? Really, I'd prefer just to be called a prick. It's LESS insulting and you know where you stand. What would you say is "productive" with determinists? MORE debate? More explanations? Just one more argument? How much has the determinism debate moved in the past ten years? These determinists hold that I have absolutely no possibility of controlling my actions and there was no possibility whatsoever of me not calling him a prick. If someone was having an epileptic fit through no fault of their own and Mike Flemming started laughing at them or holding them responsible I'd call him a prick. It would just be a description. Similarly I call him a prick here because he makes passive-aggressive remarks about the attitude of people on the board while simultaneously claiming they could not have done otherwise. Determinists are pricks. That is a true statement. Also their position is a religious one as they have no sound argument to support the belief. Determinists are pricks who need to prove their religious claims or STFU. Giving the attitude of determinists it IS the optimal way. What would be better? Another argument? Even YOU are sinking into the determinist argument from ignorance (I can't see how it can be a deterministic process, therefore it probably IS) and you're not even a determinist yet.

Thank capitalism for saving us from the rank superstition and evil of primitivism.

It's hilarious how determinist scum down-vote posts. They hold people responsible for what they do while asserting they can have no control over what they do because it's utterly pre-determined. Determinist fail.

Don't humor this jackass. This is a bad person selling you shame and absolutely nothing you say will even give him pause. He won't even consider that his position is debatable. The best you can do with religious fruitcakes like this is hope they don't get hold of explosives.

Determinist prick. Prove your dumb sci-fi religion or stfu.

You've answered a question about the mechanics of the actions of theft. Theft is taking property that isn't yours. You can objectively identify theft in reality without even bring up morality. There is a valid distinction between trading for one of your kidneys and just taking one of your kidney's without permission. When you steal then by definition you are claiming ownership over that which you steal. Ownership is the right of exclusive control. You are exercising your property rights to deny others their property rights. Paint me a scenario were it's logically possible to steal without exercising ownership (exclusive control) over that which you're taking and without deny ownership to the party you're stealing from. I don't quite understand the notion of everyone having a "logical right" to pursue their goal but it would follow from that that everyone must have a "logical right" to deny others their goal. One of your goals will necessarily be that you not be murdered. How can you argue that everyone has some right to murder (if that is their goal) but everyone also has the right not to be murdered (because that will be their goal)? Your science fair example doesn't work because neither party owns the prize so they are not violating each others property or denying the other a right they claim for themselves. They are just in competition. It's not if you are including property violations. If your goal is to murder, rape or assault then you necessarily will be placing some person's goal higher than others. Your view works with everything else but not when it comes to universally preferable behavior. Ha Ha, yeah maybe you're an honorable thief and you wanna give Bob a fair chance but this is just nonsense. You don't acknowledge his "logical right" (my head hurts) because you're willing to deny him his "logical right" to not have his wallet stolen. The success of the wallet stealing or defense has nothing to do with it. I HAVE proven that an extension of myself into reality means something significant because unlike other things that are not extensions of myself into reality my wallet IS an extension of self into reality and as such is obviously significant. It has an objectively different relationship to me than someone else's wallet. How's that NOT significant logically speaking? If you want to be an excruciatingly pedantic nutcase and start going on about "do you own molecules your extended arm touches" then that's YOUR issue. I have given a solid definition. You know what your mind is right? You know what your body is, right? We can reasonably define that as you, right? Values you create (like a wallet) are created by you and not someone else right? They are part of you (time, labor, etc) extended into reality. If I assault you I've damaged your body which is your property. If I steal from you I've also taken from your body. I've taken your time and labor and retroactively enslaved you. I don't need to mess about trying to give precise definitions when you already accept definitions for the body in order to make YOUR arguments. "I am not using the wallet to deny Bob's right to his wallet. Hence there is no preformative contradiction. (If you still think there is a preformative contradiction, please demonstrate how. Please use logical form, if possible.) " A per-formative contradiction? I'm not sure. You ARE denying Bob the right to his wallet if you steal the wallet. By asserting the RIGHT to steal his wallet you've broken with universality because not everybody can steal everyone else's wallet. How can you accept someone has a right to steal your wallet and you have the right to defend it? Thanks for that link. Here's one for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy As for rape, no sorry there are certain criteria that need to exist for something to be rape. One is that the victim must not want the sex and another is that the attacker must know this and proceed anyway. The mentally disabled person does not know the sex is unwanted. While this is terrible it is not rape by the mentally disabled person. They performed the same actions as the rapist but it was not rape. This is my proof that rape is more than the physical actions. It's very hard not to see this as rape and I'm sure it feels like rap and it's very rare but technically it is no more rape then if the victim fell on a stick. What? I know they would not literally do that. It's just to illustrate a point. What you are doing is conflating voluntary competition with violations of property. The state of the light switch is no ones property. The scenario with the light switch will simply have a winner. The other scenarios concern property. This is just silly. You accept their right. If you accept their right then you can't simultaneously deny their right. But you must deny their right to keep the wallet if you give yourself the right to take it and deny THEM the right to keep it. God, I'm trying to imagine a 4 year old having the "logical right" to defend themselves. Mind. Blown.

If they both have the right to initiate force then they both must accept the others right to use initiate force but if they both accept it then it's no longer force. You would not upholding up everyone's right to use force because in initiating force you must necessarily deny the other the right to initiate force on you. The state claims the moral to use force to tax you but it does not grant that same right to citizens. Thus it breaks with universality.

If the social justifications (moral justifications) are illogical then they are wrong and as such the behavior they justify cannot be right. Correct? Then we agree and you're no longer a moral nihilist. I introduced "moral" justification which you asserted was 100 percent subjective and placed it in a category called "social justification". I asked you to justify the theft, not just the actions. Yes, you wanted Bob's wallet (Goal) and actions X, Y and Z were logically necessary (justification). I get it. I'm not asking you to justify that. It's justifying the theft. The theft. The theft. You take Bob's wallet. You understand it is BOB'S wallet. You understand Bob is claiming property rights over the wallet. You understand it is not YOUR wallet. (I know you reject property but I can only deal with so much silliness at once so for the sake of argument just go with it) When you take the wallet you are not taking it because it's being given to you or you have permission or any such voluntary reason. You are specifically taking ownership of the wallet and denying Bob. You are committing theft. THEFT. How do you justify the theft? You have committed theft (or are going to commit theft). How do you justify it. You may be asked to justify it in a court or by bob or by some friend or you conscience or whatever. How do you justify theft? NOT how do you justify the actions involved in the theft. How do you justify the theft? If you want to make further progress then you can tell me what you think my argument is. I can tell YOU what YOUR argument is here. In fact if you want we can swap places and I am certain I can argue YOUR position as well as you can. I was a moral nihilist for a while. I used to enjoy arguing with atheists who would make all sorts of moral arguments as if they had any foundation. I could just constantly pull down their house of cards but I feel like a bit of a prick for it now. I'm willing to bet you cannot argue my position. If it turns out you cannot and I can argue yours then we'll know who's hindering progress. No I established it. Bob owns himself. That's self ownership which is exclusive control of ones body and responsibility for the effects of one's actions. He created the wallet and it's contents, so by definition it is an extension of himself into reality. When you deny property rights you are using property rights to make that denial. Hence you're making a contradiction. Who argued that satisfying a personal goal breaks with universality? You loaded that question with your own version of MY argument. If you want to argue respectfully as you claim you do then don't ask loaded questions. Don't do it. No, they cannot rape. That's why it would make no sense to charge an mentally deficient person with rape; because although they can force a person to have sex they cannot rape. If the person does not understand what they're doing then it's not rape. If it's not rape then the mentally handicapped person did not rape. If you do not understand the distinction then you have some mental disconnect and if you are not willing to concede this obvious point then there's no way you will be willing to budge a millimeter on the other less obvious points. The most likely conclusion is that you are not arguing in good faith but rather digging your heels in and simply seeking to knock down and deflect any argument that comes your way, regardless of its merits. You can logically validate anything to yourself with "goal satisfaction". It's a trivial point. I can logically validate my conclusion that you are wrong with "I want you to be wrong" therefore I ought to hold that you are wrong". But that is irrelevant to whether you're right or wrong. When it comes to something like rape then any possible justification that could be made will either make logical sense or it won't. If it doesn't then it's wrong. Okay then you'd accept the logical justification for someone raping you. Let's play that out. Rape victim: Why'd you rape me? Rapist: I wanted sex with you and you did not so logically I had to use force. That is my logical justification. It was goal satisfaction. Rape victim: So can I rape you? Rapist. No, it would be logically impossible for me to give you permission to rape me. Rape victim: So your goal satisfaction ignores your victim's goals? Rapist: Yes, my victims goals to not need to be taken into account when establishing my OWN goal satisfaction Rape victim: Why? Are your goals inherently more important than everyone else's? Rapist: Well no. I guess satisfying my own goals and not other people's is arbitrary. I knew my victim's goal was not to be raped yet I deliberately placed my own goals higher than hers/ yours. Rape victim: How do you logically justify giving your goals a higher priority? Rapist: I guess logically I can't argue that my goals can be satisfied but my victim's goals cannot. That justifications breaks with universality and cannot be valid. Rape victim: Oh ya daft rapist. BTW, whether you find it repugnant doesn't matter. The rapist could find the fact that some arrogant woman who refuses him the right to use the vagina she happens to be attached to repugnant. She doesn't own the vagina. It's not hers because property does not exist so there can be no rights to the vagina. The rapist could view rape as self-defense and the woman as the aggressor because she's hoarding access to the only vagina. That's how bizarre your position is. For example people very often put forward their moral justifications for the state. They may argue that the state is required to defend property rights and so it's existence is morally justified. If that justification is logically / empirically wrong then that moral justification logically fails. Thus far there are no valid moral justifications for the state yet it is still imposed. It is immoral. The fact that a statist can logically justify their support of the state with goal satisfaction is irrelevant. Their goals do not magically supersede other people's. See?

Fag.

I just said they do not need to base their acceptance of any justification on logic. I clearly said that. I said that Justifications "are subject to logic, not necessarily require logic. A justification requires logic if you want it to be valid." I expect you to respond to arguments made and not refute arguments that were not made. I should get of this line of discussion because you "think" it's hindering progress??? Hindering progress towards WHAT? I just got through arguing that what YOU call social justifications are subject to logic and instead of making a valid rebuttal for why they're not you just repeat the same straw-man (that I argued "social" justifications require logic to be accepted by persons, society, etc). And now you expect me end this line of discussion? WTF Noesis? I'm sorry but you'll have to give some valid reason other than "It suffices to say that I accept only logical validation as proof for the "rightness" of an action—I do not accept social justification, nor any other kind.". Who's even trying to argue for the "rightness" of actions? (other than YOU). You introduced this concept of "social justification" and you just want to drop it? Are you serious? I have established that earlier. Bob owns himself and his wallet is an extension of himself into reality. The notion you may have of "rights" may differ from mine but so what? I have established it logically. Any justification for stealing a person's property cannot be logically justified as it breaks with universality. It doesn't matter if you acknowledge that it's theft or not. Theft is objectively distinct from not theft. As I've argued, satisfying your goal is irrelevant as that only deals with the actions. The actions themselves cannot be right or wrong. Is stabbing right or wrong? It depends on the moral nature. If it's surgery then you can justify that. If it's a serial killer doing it for fun then he cannot justify it. Even if you reject the the right or wrong part you must surely agree that the nature of those two examples of stabbing are not just distinct in degree but in kind. I have enlightened you. Goal satisfaction is irrelevant. Two people could force someone to have sex; one of them severally mentally handicapped and the other mentally normal. The actions themselves may be precisely the same but in the former case there could be no rape. A person who cannot understand their actions cannot rape even though their actions may be precisely the same as a rapist's. This is the proof that rape is more than simply the action. Therefore your logical justification of "goal satisfaction" (which only addresses the action) is not valid. If your goal was to "rape" (to specifically violate another person) then "goal satisfaction" also is not valid because you've acknowledged more to rape than just the actions. There is no valid justification for rape. If you rape someone you acknowledge that it's their body you're violating (you accept ownership of your own body to commit the rape). You would not accept any possible justification for being raped yourself (by definition). If someone raped you there is no possible moral justification someone could give you that I could not show to be wrong. As such rape is morally wrong. Same with theft, murder and assault as they all on the same continuum of property rights.

They are subject to logic, not necessarily require logic. A justification requires logic if you want it to be valid. Saying they are 100 percent subjective is a bald assertion. I gave you the example of your slavery justification. It cannot possibly be valid. So although the acceptance of the justification is subjective, the justification itself uses logic and so submits itself to logical rules. I proved a "social" justification can be objectively wrong with the slavery example and you have not addressed it. Going by what you've said so far, "Socially justified" just means that a person accepts some moral justification as true. Well if you accept something as true then it is subject to logic so it's NOT a separate matter. If someone comes to you and argues that slavery is okay or permissible because of X,Y and Z you would or could point out that their justifications contain logical fallacies and as such cannot be valid. The fact that they still might accept a justification would be irrelevant to the fact that it's still wrong. I haven't departed as I've been arguing that moral justifications are subject to logic. Moral justifications just happen in a particular realm of human interaction. I understand that a logical justification in the form of goal satisfaction justifies the mechanics of the action. The goal was to take Bob's wallet and certain actions were necessary for that. Got it. The problem is I'm not talking about just the actions, I'm talking about the THEFT. There may be many reasons for taking Bob's wallet and how you justify the goal satisfaction may be identical in each case but it may not necessarily be theft. I'm asking how you justify the theft, NOT the action of the taking of the wallet. You can take Bob's wallet because he's your husband and you have permission or he's unconscious and you need info or maybe he previously conned you and you are seeking just restitution. In each case goal satisfaction can be logically justified just as it can in the case of theft. But I'm asking you to specifically justify the theft, not just the action. Do you understand? Sure, that would be the logical consequence of your position. Self-defense and aggression would be the same because you've reduced them to "actions". As Stef points out, an action cannot be right or wrong, correct or incorrect. You eliminate the conceptual distinctions between self-defense and aggression, Love-making and rape, trade and theft. It's all just actions and the only possible logical justifications for those actions are goal satisfaction. Is that about, right?

I don't know what wtf you're talking about.

I think I got it. Logical justifications are entirely formal but social justifications only concern subjective preferences and moral / social norms, right? I now see where you're making the mistake. What you call social justifications are also subject to logic, so social justifications are also in part logical justifications. What you've done is create a distinction that is not valid because although social and logical justifications may address different spheres they are both subject to logic. If the examples of social justification you gave contained internal logical contradictions or contradict previously established criteria then they would necessarily be wrong no matter who was convinced by them. They could not possibly be valid justifications. IOW people can have objective criteria for evaluating social justifications just as they do for logical justifications. "Lots of people have slaves themselves, and it is legal" may have worked as a justification for slavery at the time but it fails objectively as a justification because it violates criteria for logical consistency. The justification uses logical fallacies, right? Appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. Do you understand why those moral justifications (what you're calling social justifications I think) fail and why slavery would be objectively immoral on that basis? No, I would be saying "If you steal Bob's wallet then how would you justify that?". Bob will, by definition, not want his wallet to be stolen (not being stolen from is a universal preference so any theory, rule, justification for theft must break with universality). By definition you can give NO valid moral justification for stealing Bob's wallet, therefore stealing Bob's wallet will be morally wrong. You are still free to steal it of course. Morality is a choice. When I ask you "How would you justify assault?" I'm not actually expecting you to give a valid answer. It's impossible to justify assault in any valid way. That's just the objective nature human interaction in reality. It's the same with all property violations like rape, theft and murder. My challenge to you is to understand WHY assault can have no valid moral justification. I asked the question in order that you would realize this. Now that I've explained why the distinction you make between social justification and logical justification is a false one, maybe you can give me the only real answer possible to the question , "How would you logically justify assault?". (Remember it's specifically "assault" not just the act of smacking someone in the face as that could be assault or not assault) She would still be making more or less the same point. If it has no truth value then it cannot be true. Her logic is fine. I think you are maybe nit-picking on an ambiguity that doesn't matter.

I find that hard to mentally unpack that because it sounds bizarre but I'm willing to accept that maybe i just don't get it. I'm confused because in this philosophical discussion concerning the branch of philosophy called ethics you have corrected people's logically inconsistent behavior and asked for logical justifications for their behavior many times. If philosophy can only deal with "logical justifications" then why are you using "social justifications" (justifications to yourself or anyone else) here? I wasn't aware that this strict distinction between a social justification and a logical justification existed. As far as I know a logical justification requires someone to justify to whether it be yourself or someone else. If I logically justify something then there has to be someone to justify it to. How else would you justify something? I understand the facts will be the same but we are talking about justifications. I assume this is not something you made up, so could you please provide an argument for the claim (as you've just made statements so far)? Also, if you cannot give a "logical justifcation" could you please tell me how you would socially justify the assault?

The right got terrorism and the left got global warming. Daddy state keeps us safe from bad man. Mommy state keeps us safe from our bad selves. They'll never make laws against climate change skepticism because then they'd be forced to prove their claims.

People would buy the book. He could get a Nobel prize. The Nobel peace prize is different from the Scientific prizes. Preachers would pay for a book that disproves evolution even if the alternative is alien creation. Evolution withstood 150 years of scientific criticism. Christianity did not.

I'm not sure why you wrote the first paragraph. It's interesting to know what you think but how is it relevant to my question? I'll be careful not to confuse social justifications with logical justifications. You may have noticed that I haven't done that yet. As there's seems to be no answer to my question I'll ask again and re-phrase it a little. By your own criterion you can logically justify to yourself the assault but can you logically justify the assault to the person you assault? It's a simple question. I can answer it so why can't you?