labmath2

I do not dispute any of the data, but the data analysis is meh. I am reading how to lie with statistics now so i think i am more sensitive to how you present data. A glaring example is the graphs that show correlation. I think correlation is calculated using averages, but what happens when the variance is high. How reliable are those correlation vales?

As a black person (Nigerian), I am offended by the way the whole thing went down. No one asked if the officer was acting within the confines of his authority. No one explained how they would get her to leave. There is no mention (to my knowledge) of her parents thoughts on this. Its just one of those situation that has no winners.

When i read the one percent comment, I imagined what it must be like to have an IQ of 145 or higher and converse with someone with 99 or lower. Would it be easier to simply tell them what to do as opposed to showing them how to think. Above all though, that comment made me think about how people treat children. They train them instead of reason with them. They treat them like they don't and couldn't understand peaceful negotiation so they turn to punishment and bribes.

when i get back, i will tell you all the assumptions/invalid arguments i spot in your theory. For simple comment, every time you link two ideas see if you successfully proved the link (logical steps).

I have been pondering this myself and i cannot come up with good arguments against this position. I have a gut feeling that its wrong, bu I do not have the argument.

I see what dsayers is saying. You made a choice to drink fully aware of the consequences. Yet, you wish to not be held accountable once those consequences kick in. I have a question. If a girl is drunk but consents to sex with a sober person (the consent is on tape), is her state of mind relevant to the consent? What if instead of consent to sex, she signed a contract, would the contract be valid?

What do you mean by controlling one's self while denying control to another is internally inconsistent?The previous answer is that you are asserting and denying self ownership. The problem there is that self ownership is described as self control. Which translates to control is ownership. If that is true, then both of these statements are true: 1. You own what you control 2. You control what you own. Since its much easier to check control (control can be checked empirically), then i just need to see if you control something to know if you own it. However, you have repeatedly rejected this conclusion, but i still do not know where the logic is incorrect. I imagine you reject the proposition that self control is self ownership. If self control is self ownership, but ownership is not control, then i am not very good at english. If the two subsequent statements i wrote are not true, then i am not very good at logic. If i am not very good at logic or english, please correct me so i can stop making the same mistakes.

I assume they cannot control your body in the same sense and at the same time that they control their body, so law of non contradiction is not triggered. The red part has an implicit definition of ownership that goes beyond control. However, you do not explicitly state what that it.

I think i will add this comment then stop. You say do you control yourself (in this moment) and I say yes. Then you say you are demonstrating self ownership. So a lightbulb goes off in my head, i own anything i control. I yank the first person i see hook him up to a machine that restraines his movement and profess my ownership of his body. You turn to me and say that is immoral. I ask what you mean and you explain that i am forcefully controlling his body agaist his will. I respond, you mean i am controlling my body against his will. You say no its his body. I say, but i control it so its mine. At this point you school me in the meaning of self ownership.

May I interject. I own my body because i control it. If someone else did control it, they are acting immoral. If control=own, then the more apparent interpretation is if someone else controls it, they own. The confusion then stems from the link between control and moral claim. Since control itself is not sufficient for moral claim, something else must be going on. You may have answered this in another thread, but this is the problem as it appears to me here.

I have read the book and noted my objections. I think i am ready to discuss it with Stefan.

Koroviev, at this point, i will have to bow out. I do not think further engaging will result in any meaningful resolution, We seem to be talking past each other.

Math right, who needs it?

This was part of my larger post, which was the third part to the three part exploration. I am not claiming all words are ambiguous. I am claiming dictionary does little to resolve the meaning of some words. I am willing to engage you while i use the colloquial meaning of property, but then we would be talking about current legal definition which is sanctioned by the state.

I am not sure i understand what you mean by the red part. I am willing to discuss the difference between reasonable and capacity for reason if it will help me understand your proposition better. I was just under the impression that you had worked it out and you were happy with the result. I now realize i should have asked you what the criteria for capacity for reason is, emphasis on capacity.

I think i have actually discerned my issue with UPB, but i need to reread the book this weekend before scheduling a call in. I need to make sure i am not mistaken about something already addressed in the book.

This is why precision is necessary. I was under the impression that the individuals capacity for reason was the test, now it seems you are asserting its the species capacity for reason. The comment about it causing me unease was a reference to moral intuition. It was intended as an argument.

Koroviev i am sorry if this bothers you, but its the only process i know of understanding your propositions short of you beaming them in my head.

I cannot accept the definitiins for morality and property. For me to accept them, you need to define right, wrong, good, bad, own, possess or possession.

I was very pleased with the convetsation until very ape came into the picture. I saw many good(excuse my lack of a better word) definition of money. A good way to engage someone like Very Ape is to hold their feet to the fire. Everytime he makes a statement, have him support it with evidence or clarify its meaning. It may be the case that he is very bad at communication, so he knows what he is trying to say, but his words fall far short. Uh nforyunately, i am inclined to think he simply has an idea he is unwilling to explore(I think the paradox is lost on him). I say this because dsayers asked him a simple question and despite multiple stabs at it, he has yet to produce a yes or no.

I fear we may be unable to have rational discourse. I showed the property example in an earlier post. Its not that i cannot find definitions, its the ambiguity or tautology involved that creates confusion. If i say for example organ transplant is an instance of bodily control, you can reject it (or at least gloss over it) by saying i am misrepresenting your proposition. I will have no way of refuting such a claim unless we have precise definitions. On the last point about what Stef means by gravity, read your comment again. Your comment seems to boil down to gravity does not work that wat. My claim is not that gravity inverses, but that such a claim would not be a contradiction since you are not claiming gravity points up a km d down at the same time and in the same way. Do not take this the wrong way, but when you respond, read your comment for clarity and precision.

Its very helpful. I think understand two things i did not before. The first is that capacity for reason is roughly measured by capacity to make and/or follow propositions (tested through communication). The second is that you use human as shorthand, the more appropriate category is any living thing which can make and/or follow propositions. If you agree with my understanding as stated here, then you must concede a human with mental impairment beyond a certain point is no longer UPB applicable. If i killed such a human, is it not murder? It may just be me, but something about the notion that killing some humans do not count as murder causes me unease. It is possible that i am completely wrong, in which case, i mostly understand what you mean, but not fully.

I think its easier if i point out why i am being picky particularly with humans. Earlier i gave a few examples and you quickly pointed out a dead human is not part of the set/category. I hoped in the next response you will narrow the set down to precisely what you mean. I will take the proposition as "humans possess the capacity for reason." If i can show one example where a subset of humans do not possess capacity for reason, then the proposition is false. A case where i am clearly making a mistake: Sperm is a subset of humans. Capacity for reason is "if i do nothing differently for 18 years, then human will be able to speak and understand human language." Assuming i am a virgin, then clearly not all humans possess the capacity for reason. If i know as precise as possible what counts as humans, and how we check capacity for reason, then mistakes will likely not happen. If the claim "Humans possess the capacity for reason" is not a true axiom (cannot be rejected without being asserted), then it must be empirically true, or its false. If it is empirically true, then we can begin to move forward as to how you derive any other proposition from it.

I read dsayers in this thread and i feel unease. Let us posit something that is so untrue i am ashamed to posit it, but bear with me for the moment. Research comes out tomorrow that societes with democratic governments do better on every measure of well being than any other alternatives, including no goverment. You check the data and it works out empirically. Would you reject such data because it is incompatible with your principle? Now that i managed to get that down without vomiting, i can go back to being rational.