Jump to content

JSDev

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    116

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JSDev

  1. JSDev

    Tautology

    JSDev posted a topic in Philosophy

    I'm having trouble understanding what the definition of a tautology is. I commented on a post on facebook that seems tautological to me. Given this definition: Somebody posted this as part of their argument that praxeology doesn't have any value. I responded that since, by definition, praxeology is a deductive study, it is not empirical, therefore to use it as an argument against it, is a tautaology. a couple people on the thread said I needed to go back to logic school. I need help, thanks!
  2. JSDev
    Which is why I said omniscience is impossible. The only argument against this claim that I'm hearing can be summed up as "Omniscience is possible if an omniscient being exists". This doesn't answer the question. If I say, it's impossible to know if you've reached the limits of all knowledge, you can't simply say "well, not for an omniscient being"!
  3. JSDev
    What kind of IT work do you do? I'm your age and I've been in web dev for about 15 years and it can be really frustrating at times with office politics etc, but as I get older, and since I've been getting into self-knowledge I have way more confidence to not be complacent to bullshit. I'm also a father but I started really young so my kids are all teenagers. However, a friend of mine who is older than me had a son a couple years ago, and I'm starting to see that more often, older people having kids. And of course Stefen had a daughter late in life. It's not unusual. Age combined with self knowledge is a powerful tool for seeking out quality relationships. Don't let age get you down.
  4. JSDev
    I almost died laughing... "cooperation" "empathy" "reciprocity" are key elements of free markets, not government. What an idiot.
  5. JSDev
    The love it or leave it argument is actually not an argument that requires any time wasted refuting... It requires no understanding of property rights / who owns what, etc to invalidate. This is because the moment someone says that to you, they don't realize that it implies that they agree with everything the state is doing and that it automatically disqualifies all forms of dissent and protest, which is completely counter to leftist sensibilities. You can tell them that from this day forward they're not allowed to speak out against *anything* they perceive to be wrong like the war because they too can just love it or leave it.
  6. JSDev
    Just listened to this "debate"... I had great respect for Kinsella until hearing this. I can't wrap my head around why he felt it was necessary to act like a child (no disrespect to children). As wrong and annoying as helfeld was, he didn't deserve to be called a mother fucker. His lifeboat questions were pretty easy to answer too. Fine to steal water in an individual life or death situation but do not codify and institutionalize this theft in the form of a gang and call it a moral limited government. Also, why don't you have friends who will give you water voluntarily, I mean you're dying and nobody wants to give you water? The question is completely absurd.
  7. JSDev
    Sorry, "ancap" rules aren't just something we pulled out of our ass. Question #1 and #2 have been answered over 100s of years of common law. The burden of proof is on you to come up with a set of alternative rules, that are better at resolving conflicts than what we've been doing for centuries. Just to be clear, what we have now is the usurpation of these common law rules by gangs, asserting, through brute force alone, their own rules for applying ownership. No coincidence, they always rule in their own favor. This is not reason, it is not philosophy, and it DOES NOT resolve conflicts, it creates conflict.
  8. JSDev
    So you admit then that you have no theory. Sorry, but everyone who wants to live in a civilized peaceful society NEEDS a theory, explicitly stated or not. Even socialists have a theory, they believe in collective ownership of property. A civilized society, be it libertarian or non-libertarian, REQUIRES some form of property rights to resolve conflicts over scarce resources. You need rules to determine how to assign ownership - when that ownership is in dispute. How do you propose to resolve these conflicts? (I made some changes to my entry above since you have posted. Please re-read for added clarity)
  9. JSDev
    Labmath, I'd suggest that rather than you trying to dissuade us of our theory of property, a theory that has been tested and in practice within 100s of years of common law, where most law comes from, how about you describe your theory of property and how it is better than ours at resolving property disputes. You can start by describing your theory as it relates to our most fundamental property, our bodies. **Your theory of property rights has to be consistent, predictable, and universal, that is it cannot be arbitrary and it must appeal to reason** You have the burden of proof, that your theory is better than one that has been finely tuned over 100s of years and laid down on well worn cowpaths. Let's do this very methodically so that the curious among us have an opportunity to really think about the new ideas you'll be teaching us.
  10. JSDev
    I'd argue it was I who stopped the conversation. You never answered my question as to why you make a distinction between shirts and land. You are only interested in defending a position rather than having any real curiosity for anarchism. You think you can come to a forum devoted to libertarianism and all that it entails, and blow our minds with your nonsensical ideas on property rights like we haven't heard this shit before? You have a tremendous lack of respect and empathy for people who have thought about these things for a very long time. Why are you here? What do you expect to get out of this conversation? Do you own your body or do others have to agree that it belongs to you? And if they disagree?
  11. JSDev
    Seriously? It's the same reason I can't assert a right to your shirt. This is ridiculous already.
  12. JSDev
    Why do you make a distinction between land and clothing? Because your clothes are made of cotton grown on land, I can just take the shirt off your back, right?
  13. JSDev
    Not sure. It's like asking how would you deal with someone who doesn't believe in gravity lol. Anyway, I'm not sure how your island metaphor relates to statism/democracy. Are you suggesting that social rules and environmental issues are only possible with a state? This just seems like a reformulation of "muh roads!". There's decades worth of reading material on how things could work in a voluntary society, if you're truly curious. No offense, but I'm not spending my time going over that for you.
  14. JSDev
    I'd tell them their 7th grade social studies understanding of government is deeply flawed. The dead giveaway is in this statement: "If anyone disagrees with the way we choose to govern ourselves, they have two options..." There is NO "we" and there is NO choice. Those are euphemisms for gangs with guns.
  15. JSDev
    I don't know what to say but thanks. Unexpected but right on.
  16. JSDev
    Thanks for the responses. Rather than the act of not cleaning up, I'm trying to explore my emotions and how I react to it. Most of the time I really don't care. It's out of my control whether or not they desire to live in a clean house. Some days though, it's like I've awakened the beast within and I realize how inconsiderate they're being, and that ultimately as their parent I'm the reason they're inconsiderate. The ultimate frustration!
  17. JSDev
    I've been following Larken Rose on Facebook lately. He recently posted this as a teaser for a project he's working. It's pretty awesome.
  18. JSDev
    It's one of those things that's really hard to describe. Let's assume god exists just to remove that as a consideration. If he said to you that he knew everything, and you asked him how he knew he knew everything, how do you suppose he'd answer that? Would he just say he has faith in himself? He can't ever truly know the answer to that. And if he can't know the answer to that then he is not all knowing.
  19. JSDev
    incorrect, it's logically impossible for such a being to exist. Point being that even for the sake of argument you can't just posit such a being. It's like saying you can imagine a cricket that can jump in two directions at the same time (even granting you that you don't believe such a cricket exists). You can have those words come out of your mouth but it's still logically impossible.
  20. JSDev
    We don't have to assume that. There's no way you can know you've reached the edge of knowledge even in a finite universe. You're are correct that by definition, omniscience implies universal certainty, but there's no way any being can be universally certain. Yeah i agree with that, but I find that this particular logic fail is one most theists don't think about so I thought it was worth mentioning.
  21. JSDev
    I believe it's axiomatic. There are always things you don't even know you don't know. For example, there's no way a god can be sure he wasn't created by just another higher being.
  22. JSDev
    Omniscience is a logical impossibility. The reason is because, as Donald Rumsfeld is famous for saying, there are known knowns (things we know we know), known unknowns (things we know we don't know), but also unknown unknowns (things we don't know we don't know). Omniscience is defined as all knowing, but it's impossible because even a self proclaimed omniscient being can't know for sure it knows everything because of the unknown unknowns category of knowledge.
  23. JSDev
    Thanks for sharing and articulating something that I've been feeling as well. Really thought provoking. Good luck to you.
  24. JSDev
    Yes I'm one of those parents. I used to yell at my kids for not cleaning up after themselves. It's been a long time since I've yelled at them about it, and I've come to accept responsibility for them not pitching in to help out. I accept that they leave dirty disgusting dishes in the living room, and that if they don't clean it up voluntarily, that it is my fault for not instiling cooperative values. They seem to be oblivious, and nothing I say will get them to "get it". It seems trivial, but we have a large family, and without cooperation, things can get disastrous in a really short time. Anyone else have experience with this? If you're a teenager still living at home, I'd like your thoughts as well.
  25. JSDev
    "Just sayin" is another one of those qualifiers people tack on the end of rants as a get out of jail free card. She studied culinary arts at the Peter Joseph School of Word Salad
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept