Nathan Metric

What did I say that needs more of an argument?

Complete nonsense video. First of all, the only thing this video proves is that government surpluses are bad. It doesn't prove balancing the budget is bad. The best theoretical money system would be a money system where the number of infinitely divisible dollars never changes and a slow but gradual increase in purchasing power happens over time as a result of increases in worker productivity. If deflation isn't occurring you must be doing something wrong. Second, the only way government spending can stimulate the economy at all is if the value of private savings are reduced. So...... where is the net economic benefit???? Third, they assume that taxes to pay off the debt and interest are somehow taken "out of circulation". Nonsense. The Federal Reserve is a private bank. It's no more Federal than FedEx. The money will be taken "out of circulation" just as much as private savings accounts take money "out of circulation".

A distinction without a difference. Saying something is not an argument is no different than saying it is a fallacy. Sun Tzu is an actual authority on warfare. You're just a forum poster. We're not talking about how armies get organized. We're talking about how one army treats another army. Saying that commanders do things that appeal to the lowest common denominator is a red herring. Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Warfare in order for it to be warfare has to be unpredictable. If a bunch of soldiers get killed in a predictable manner it isn't warfare. If a bunch of soldier get killed because the other team has weapons that are so powerful they don't even need to use deception it isn't warfare anymore. It's a slaughter. It's a mass execution. It's shooting fish in a barrel. We wouldn't even consider it warfare. So as far as I am concerned what Sun Tzu said about all warfare being based on deception is practically a universal truth.

Subjecting yourself to a minor pain doesn't change the fact you're an organism that is adverse to pain. The whole point of subjecting yourself to minor pain is to avoid a greater pain in the future. A debate = any discussion over what the truth is. Now the next thing you're probably going to say is "But science isn't a discussion. It only takes 1 person to practice the scientific method" and that would be trivially true, but you have to be delusional to think 1 person without input from colleagues; without input from competing opinions is going to reach maximal truth. The amount of truth you can grasp as a individual is limited. Let's say one scientist dubiously thinks he has done a successful experiment. Let's say another scientist thinks his experiment is faulty. Well how are they supposed to have a rational discussion without accepting the rational principles of debate? Such as we both exists, correction implies universal standards, truth is better than falsehood, language has capacity for meaning, people are responsible for their behavior, etc? It's not possible dude. You have to be a utter fool to think the principles of debate have no utility in science and if you think science has nothing to do with our well-being you are even more of a fool. First of all, if you don't think the truth is reached by debating then why are you debating with me? Second, a moral claim is not a scientific claim. Morality = coherent logically consistent claims about what a person should do. Completely missing the point. The point of tennis and chess is to play a game. You can change the rules of tennis and chess and still have a game. Debate however is not a game. Debate is about identifying something of moral significance: the TRUTH. If you want to find the truth you can't just make the premises of debate whatever you want A claim that evidence supports a conclusion = an argument. An argument is a relationship between data and a conclusion. There is no way to maintain the integrity of science without debate. Stefan wants there to be a method to evaluating moral claims just as there is a scientific method for evaluating scientific claims. He never said that UPB literally is exactly the same as the scientific method. Obviously a moral claim is not equivalent to a scientific claim. You do not judge them the same.

First of all, an appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the person is actually an authority. Second, A tactician is not merely someone who draws up military plans. A tactician is someone who is skilled in the art of warfare. Third, if war is 100% predictable it wouldn't happen. All wars imply deception or a degree of ignorance in the players.

1) Pain is the signal for dangers to your health so yes actually pain IS bad for your life. Pain is the one form of meaning you can't deny. You body involuntarily reacts to pain. Anyone who denies their own pain is full of crap and anyone who claims knowledge of the truth has nothing to do with avoiding pain is even more full of crap. Science = a form of debate. The rational principles that are the premise of debate are also principles that apply to science. 2)What? Of course truth is known through debate. There is no such thing as a truth you can't argue for. The premises of tennis and soccer are arbitrary in the sense that we can make them whatever the hell we want them to be. You cannot however make the principles of debate whatever you want because the point of debating isn't merely to have a debate....the point of debate is to find the truth. Pain = signals for bad health and truth is how you avoid pain so therefore the rational principles of debate ought to be applied to life itself. 3)Straw man argument. If you make a scientific claim about reality you need supporting evidence. I don't know where you get this idea I'm some kind of non-empirical rationalist. If you say "the evidence supports X" you are making an argument. Sorry, but science is still a type of debate. You also need to realize that an ethical claim =/= a scientific claim. How you judge an ethical claim is not equivalent to how you judge a scientific claim. Nonsense. "All warfare is based on deception" -Sun Tzu There is no such thing as a predictable tactician.

I'm not saying life and debate are the same. I'm saying what is good for life is the same as what is good for debate. You do not avoid pain by not caring about the truth and the ethics of debate is how we figure out the truth. No no no no no. Entering a debate is not about playing a game and having fun. it is about the truth. The premises of debate are not arbitrary like the rules of tennis or soccer, but are basic rational principles you need to hold in order to pursue the truth. Truth = what we can logically argue for. Anything you can't argue for we ought to not consider as the truth. If you have to assume free will exists in order to logically argue for anything then free will must exist period.

"True, but it doesn't make the LoI a reality of the universe. Not in quantum physics is it realized, as things change and mutate according to probabilities in time where A = A is true now, but after some time A changed into B on its own (see atomic decay, neutrino mutations). The laws of logic are analogous to classical physics, in which things flow deterministically. The universe works probabilistically in the quantum realm. So that means logic is only a framework, a way of thinking, not a real fundamental aspect of the universe. Even then, just because we would choose to believe it, it doesn't mean it is necessary to believe it for life. Couple things. 1) This paragraph is completely meaningless unless I believe the Law of Identity is a universal rule. Any argument against the Law of Identity is meaningless unless your words mean what you intend them to mean and not what you do not intend them to mean. 2) Even if it were true that the universe deals in probability that is a claim of identity. The universe IS probable and not deterministic. In order for the Law of Identity to be bunk the universe would have to be both probabilistic and deterministic at the same time. That is nonsense. Quantum mechanics is either one or the other. 3) "Probability" is something people invoke for things they don't understand. What is more believable? The Law of Identity is arbitrary or our knowledge of the quantum level is incomplete? I think it is way more believable that our scientific understanding of things is incomplete than the idea that logic is a fabrication of our minds. Belief that our scientific understanding is somehow complete is ironically a very unscientific way of thinking. 4) You claim that Laws of logic are analogous to classical physical laws. How do you know that? How do you know one theory = a "law" and other theories are not "laws"? How do you know some theories are valid and some are not valid? What is your concept of proof and disproof? In order to claim that the Laws of Logic are equally as valid as the physical laws of universe (which by the way I think is a diminishing of their validity) that is presupposing you actually have a methodology of truth in the first place. How can you have a methodology of truth without an epistemological foundation and how can you separate a valid epistemological foundation from an invalid epistemological foundation without appealing to the Rules of Logic as though they are they absolute and transcendent? To put it simply the form of your argument contradicts the content of the argument. “Assuming premises out of thin air in order to force a conclusion isn't logical. I addressed this earlier. Just because you are following syllogisms it doesn't mean you are justifying them to begin with.” Oh really? You really want me to explain to you why you need logic to hunt prey? You really want me to explain to you why you need logic to grow crops or construct a shelter? Seriously man? I think you’re just trying to waste my time. “We didn't just evolve to do some illogical things. We evolved completely without logic whatsoever. Instinct, survival, reproduction - not logic. The argument is that life doesn't need rational behavior, and that demanding rational behavior needs justification, not assumptions.” There is no such thing as “instinct” unless the animals assumes things are what they are and not what they are not. You do not survive without treating threats as threats and not as non-threats. You do not survive treating food as non-food. You do not reproduce unless you believe the opposite sex really is the opposite sex and not the same sex as you. All of those things you listed we evolved to do require logic. Also, “I demand that you justify demanding people to be rational” is a completely insane demand. It is so obviously self-contradictory you have to be a fool to not notice it. “That's exactly what UPB is asking you to do. It says that UPB is logical, therefore you must do UPB. Stefan was asked this recently, why should anyone behave according to UPB, and he just said "because it is correct".” No it says that you should be logical. There is no iron law of the universe that forces you to be logical. You can choose to be logical or you can choose to be illogical. So saying we “must” be logical is just bad metaphysics. “All of them. Some are necessary assumptions for objectivity - the other are assumptions that force a moral conclussion. It's like you didn't read my opening post at all. I am not against making assumptions at all, since some are necessary.” So what do you want UPB to do? You want it to not force a conclusion at all? So you want it to be completely meaningless then? There is no such thing as a “necessary” assumption. An assumption by definition is arbitrary. "Loaded question. The pragmatism I referred to is the pragmatism of the assumptions taken for the sake of debate - that's pragmatic, not empirical. " You said two things. A) Stefan has an agenda he wants UPB to fulfill and b) he selects his "assumptions" pragmatically and not logically. That is implying that Stefan and his book are manipulative and self-serving. 'Now you are the one telling me I must be logical. My argument is not against logic, it is against the use of premises of a particular action, debate, into the general life at large. " First of all, I’m not saying you “must” be logical. I’m saying you ought to be logical. Second, if you are arguing against the universality of the premises of UPB you are essentially arguing against the virtue of being logical in day to day life. If you want to be logical in day to day life; if you want to possess the truth in day to day life you must universally apply the premises of UPB and the conclusions of UPB in your day to day life. “True, but morally irrelevant.” Oh so you are admitting that one lives to the extent they are logical? Great! “Fun and logic are different things. Fun is alogical, not antilogical. I never said you shouldn't be alogical. Your argument here is a strawman. My purpose with the example of the church and santa is to show that you already behave differently during a debate and general life, yet you want a theory that treats them both as if they were the same - like wanting to have your cake and eat it too.” Well you can call it whatever you want. I have logical reasons for not being obnoxious toward Christmas time and I have logical reasons for not violating the property rights of Christians. A logical person values preserving rational civilization Which means he values reproducing rational civilization. Which means he values family life. Which means he values not being obnoxious. So therefore I do have a logical reason to not refute Santa Clause in front of children at too young an age. A logical person values preserving rational civilization. Which means he believes in the virtue of having universal codes of ethics Which means he believes in the virtue of respecting private property rights. So therefore a logical person does not interrupt a church gathering. “No, he just used an irrational method to select his initial assumptions in order to force a conclusion that he liked. I think that's a rational mistake. Like assuming the rules of tennis, and continue assuming the rules after the game is over. Does he sleep with a tennis racket, too?” The difference is you can live without treating life as a game a tennis awhile you cannot live awhile disregarding logic and the tools (rules of debate) necessary for the pursuit of truth. The quickest way to pain is to not care about the truth. “You're conflating the idea that the premises lead to a conclusion with the action of forcing the premises to lead to a desired conclusion in the first place. Very dishonest to do. When I say UPB forces a conclusion I use force to mean "unjustified assumptions" - where the assumptions are justified for a debate, but not for a not-debate. Then just say the premises are arbitrary. Don’t say they “force a conclusion”. There is nothing wrong with forcing a conclusion. The whole point of an argument is to persuade your opponent to adopt a certain conclusion that you prefer them to adopt. “This doesn't define what virtue is without UPB. When you say that UPB tells you what you should do, you're saying that virtue is defined by UPB. Therefore, UPB = Virtue. It's still a circle. "Use my system that defines virtue in order to be virtuous otherwise your're not virtuous" is the same as saying "Follow my religion that defines salvation in order to obtain salvation otherwise you won't be saved from hell" - you're not defining virtue/salvation without the system you are selling me. This is a trick.” First of all, UPB did not invent the concept of virtue. The concept of virtue as what you universally and unconditionally ought to do goes back WAY before Stefan was even born. It’s not like nobody has ever attempted to do what Stefan has done. What people typically mean by virtue in the meta-ethical sense is what one ought to do regardless of opinion, time or place. It doesn’t matter whether the moralist philosopher is Mill, Kant, Spinoza, Locke, Rand, etc. All of them have the same meta-ethical concept of virtue. They just disagree on what ethical rules lead one to virtue. UPB is not synonymous with virtue. The most you can say is that using UPB is virtuous, but that’s not equivalent to saying UPB literally is virtue as a noun. Second, UPB is meant to provide a methodology for achieving virtue. Now if you ask why we should be virtuous at all you must understand you are going outside the scope of Stefan’s book. A person who wants to commit evil intentionally is someone you are probably not going to convince to be ethical no matter what you do. Ethics isn’t about convincing evil people to be good, but to give people of good will the tools to identify evil in the world and achieve virtue. Perhaps Stefan should write a book explaining why one should be ethical in the first place. I think there is an argument there to be made even if it might be 99% ineffectual. Even if it made a 1% difference it would be worth it because that would have a huge effect on the life of those 1%. I’ll tell you right now that I use to be a malevolent evil person myself who was trying to brainwash people into nihilism for what I thought was my self-interest. Stefan in a debate with a Max Stirner person “How Not to Fight Evil” was the final stroke that convinced me to abandon my evil ways. “Logic isn't just following a syllogism. I said this before, and you still think that following premises is enough to be rational. Update your intellect.” A rational person is someone who takes their duty to the truth seriously. Now if you are going to take your duty to the truth seriously then clearly you ought to apply the rules of debate to life generally speaking because the rules of debate = the rules you need to follow in order to come toward the truth. “No, you use debate to figure out the ethics of life. Then you step out of the debate knowing that you used the platform in order to think about life. Then you step into life, charged with the clarity gained from the debate, knowing it isn't a debate.” Nonsense. First of all, moral rules are not universally binding unless the rational principles used to justify them are universal to begin with. Second, are you okay with a police department arresting you and torturing you to “confess” to your crimes on the basis that falsehood is better than truth? I doubt it. Are you okay with sitting down at a corporate board meeting on the premise that language does not have capacity for meaning? I doubt it. Are you okay playing a football game where the referee believes correction does not require universal preferences? I doubt it. “I explained why it's a mutual assumption, not a universal reality. The rest of the universe, outside of our debate, doesn't care about corrections.” First of all, so what if the universe doesn’t care about corrections? So what? You’re smart enough to know nobody is talking about fulfilling the wishes of the universe, but about figuring out what the truth is. Humans do not live to the extent they are irrational, but to the extent they are rational. Second. If two people think I am correct that does not mean I am actually correct. I am only correct if I am actually adhering to reality. Truth is not intersubjective. It transcends the intersubjective. “This assumes epistemological nihilism isn't correct. Life can function well with epistemological nihilism, so this is something we ascribe only for a debate.” First, epistemological nihilism is self-contradictory because epistemological nihilism itself makes epistemological claims all of which are equally as unjustified (by its own logic) as the epistemological claims it wants to undermine. So it is complete nonsense from start to finish. Second, yes primitive life forms do not need a theory of knowledge in order to live. However, if you want to get to higher levels of existence you need science and there is no such thing as the scientific method without an epistemological foundation. So I call BS on this claim of yours that we do not need epistemological in day to day life. We wouldn’t even be have computers without an epistemological foundation. “It's not moral nor is it a rule - they are assumptions and premises.” LOLOLOL. Completely meaningless statement. Is that supposed to be a truth claim or something? Am I supposed to respect what you say and change my behavior because what you say is the truth? “Same as above. In the real world, some debates are futile. People will debate anything, even if they're wrong. Sometimes using force to stop wrong debates is better than wasting people's time. Saying that "peaceful debate" is better is only for the purposes of this particular debate, not all debates, and certainly not true for life in general.” Not true for life in general? Oh really. You expect me to believe when you are in a dispute with someone you are more likely to use violence against them instead of debate them? I call BS on that. If that were true you would be in prison right now. If you care about living or you care about ethics you must care about the truth. How are you supposed to arrive at the truth unless you first accept that peaceful debate is better than force? Only an insane person thinks he can arrive at the truth by forcing people to agree with him and bend to his every will. Now there are times where you have to respond to violent disputes with violence. Yes, but why? The reason we do so is isn’t because we believe peaceful debate isn’t the best way to resolve disputes. It is precisely because we believe peaceful debate is better than force that we used force against such people. If we didn’t use force against those people we wouldn’t be able to encourage people to use debate instead of coercion in order to resolve disputes. Does that make sense? “An unsubstantiated claim, which is falsifiable, totally not necessary for life - it is subject to its own debates just for it. To assume it for the practicality of intellectual exercise doesn't void its significance as a testable claim about people. In other words, assuming that the world is real is necessary because it can't be tested, so it can only be assumed. Assuming responsibility for individuals is not on the same level, as it is a falsifiable claim. I find this assumption to be one of the leading "forced" premises of UPB.” How do you falsify self-ownership without both a) using self-ownership and b) applying self-ownership? You cannot assume the validity of something in order to prove it doesn’t exist. If you are going to debate someone you have to believe 4 things. 1) You believe you are responsible for your behavior. If you didn’t think you were responsible for your behavior you would have told me already “These words are not really what I believe”. 2) You’re assuming you have a right to use your body. If you genuinely thought you had no right to use your own mouth you wouldn’t be using it. 3) You believe I am responsible for my behavior. You don’t argue with rocks falling down a hill. 4) You believe I have a right to manipulate my body. It makes no sense to try to correct people unless you believe they have a moral right to manipulate their bodies to be in accordance with your wisdom. “The world is real” is not an assumption. It is a logically consistent claim. I do not “assume” self-ownership. I justify self-ownership by appeal to logical consistency. Also, can you imagine a police department that doesn’t believe in self-ownership? LOL “Arbitrary is a strawman here. I never claimed subjectivity, nor arbitrariness within the context of debate. Nor am I arguing against their use within a debate. Are you even reading what I write properly? Read my posts a few times before writing back. Take your time. I can wait.” You do not understand. I mean arbitrary in the sense that the rules of football or chess are arbitrary. There is no moral significance to the rules of football or chess. They are arbitrary inventions. I do not agree that the rules of debate are morally equivalent to the rules of football or chess. I believe they are essential to human life itself. That you should apply the rules of debate to life itself. “No you don't think I am insane. An insane person can't think rationally, so you'd also be insane to argue with me. You are using an emotionally charged intimidation tactic to try to get me emotional as well and cloud my judgment. It won't work on me.” LOLOOLOL. Okay whatever. Tell me what I actually think. If this were a private two person dialogue you would have a point, but this isn’t a two person dialogue. This is a public forum on the internet. I do not absolutely have to convince you. I can convince other people that you are wrong. Journalists do this all the time. They engage irrational people in public often on camera. It doesn’t actually matter whether they can persuade the person they are interviewing. What matters is whether they can persuade the larger audience. Would it be better if I could persuade you? Yes, but I kinda doubt that is going to happen. I’m getting to the point where I am realize that I basically have to refute your entire philosophy on life and when I get to that point I start to get bored. “Logic is not absolute as I argued earlier since the universe, at a fundamental level, doesn't follow the rules of logic. Also, logic is derived from the empirical examination of the world at a classical-physics level, which means that scientific/empirical truths supercede logical truths since logic is the son of science, not backwards.” Wrong. There is no such thing as the scientific method without an epistemological foundation and you cannot separate a valid epistemological foundation from an invalid one without appealing to logic consistency as though the rules of logic are absolute and transcendent. “You can't start with the premise that universal moral rules exist because "universal moral rules" are a conclusion, presumably, of a string of justified premises. It would be like starting a race beyond the finish line and declaring yourself the winner. "I'm going to prove universal morality exists. First, assuming universal moral rules exist..." is nonsense. For the record, I don't think the actual UPB book does this mistake, but that your interpretation of it is wrong. But if you were to show me how UPB assumes morality exists with a citation, I will accept that.” No no no First of all, “Universal moral rules exists” is not the final conclusion. The final conclusion is the non-aggression principle. Second, Stefan does not “assume” universal moral rules exist. He justifies this claim by appeal to logical consistency. Page 37-42 Debate is how we find the truth and there is no way to argue against the existence of universal moral rules without contradicting yourself. From there he then develops his methodology. There is no point in developing a methodology of truth unless a) the truth exists and b) truth has a definite nature. Same with morality. You don’t write a treatise on morality unless universally binding rules exist. If you can’t even get THAT far why bother? “"You can't assume your conclusions and call yourself honest afterwards.” It is the logical implication of any universal ethical system that the government is evil. The government can only exist because of the breaking of universal ethical rules. It has to have a set of rules that applies to itself and a one that applies to everyone else. Call it forced or whatever. There is no way around this. Wrong. They are two ways of saying the same thing. Yet he is still punished or placed in a mental asylum as though he is responsible in some sense. Saying that different types of people and different behaviors deserve different treatment =/= a denial of self-ownership. What? No no no. The point of those questions is to figure out what type of punishment/rehabilitation the person deserves. There is no denial of self-ownership. If your arm presses the trigger that kills someone you are responsible for killing them Period. Just because different criminals get qualitatively and quantitively different types of punishment or perhaps no punishment at all based on the circumstances of the scene doesn't mean there is some denial of self-ownership. Nonsense. If you can't argue for a position in a debate then it must be BS in real life. Something that is true in a debate does not magically become untrue in real life. Let's say I kill a person in self-defense. There are two layers to the discussion. 1)Did I actually kill in self-defense which is a factual question and 2)what should my punishment/rehabilitation for this behavior be which is a moral question. Even if I had a mental disorder or I was under the influence I would still be responsible for my crime if I did a crime. I just wouldn't be treated the same as a normal criminal. Everyone is morally liable for their actions. They just don't deserve the same treatment.

No because truth = what you can logically argue for and you can't argue against the concept of self-ownership. You expect me to believe there is such a thing as a truth you can't argue for? Not sure what you're point is. The form of my argument isn't Neeel is a hypocrite therefore I'm right the form of the argument is all arguments against self-ownership are self-contradictory. Let's quote what you actually said "Nope. Lots of things live that exercise neither self ownership or logic." That's implying that what is necessary for other life forms = what is necessary for humans. Plants do not need to exercise self-ownership or logic to live. So what? That means absolutely nothing. We are not talking about life generally speaking but human life. Human life requires action. Action requires that the person believes a)that they are responsible for themselves and b)that it is good for them to exercise ownership over their body But it's not mere action that the human lives, but action that allows them to fulfill the biological demands of their body. You cannot fulfill the biological demands of your body without exploiting logic.

Stefan said he wanted to create a rational basis for secular ethics. Is that wrong? UPB forces a conclusion. So what? An argument is a relationship between data and a conclusion. If a string or words doesn't force a conclusion it isn't even an argument. I guess you want Stefan to write a completely meaningless book that doesn't force a conclusion. LOL Like what? Which "assumptions" need further argument? Virtue is what one should do regardless of their subjective opinion at any time at any position. UPB is how we figure out what we should do. There. No Circle. If you think acting logically = a subjective preference then I think you are a bit confused about what this word "subjective" means. For something to be subjective it must be arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary or illogical about acting logically. If you are acting logically then you are logical. Period. Um no. Not just for debate. For life. You live to the extent you act logically. You avoid pain to the extent you act logically. If you are thinking about entering a neighborhood you are not going to want a police department that acts on the basis that falsehood is better than truth or that correction does not require universal preferences. How do you know what the ethics of life are without debate? If you can't argue for your ethical views then they must be BS. Not if they are epistemological premises. "We both exist" is a claim about reality. "The senses have capacity for accuracy" is an epistemological claim. "LANGUAGE HAS THE CAPACITY FOR MEANING" is a claim about the reality of human language. "CORRECTION REQUIRES UNIVERSAL PREFERENCES" is an epistemological claim. "An objective methodology for determining truth from falsehood exists" is an epistemological claim. "Truth is better than falsehood" is an axiomatic moral rule "Peaceful debate is the best way to solve disputes" is an axiomatic moral rule. "Individuals are responsible for their actions" is a claim about reality. So no. There is nothing about the premises of UPB that are intended to be merely arbitrary rules of debate. 1) I do in fact think you are insane. Anyone who questions the virtue of being logical in day to day life is literally the definition of insane. I don't think I'm going to convince you UPB is valid, but I do think I can convince other people that UPB is valid. 2)What premises of UPB are "assumptions" I do not agree that scientific truth is the highest form of truth. The conclusions of science are never absolute. They can only ever amount to be probable truths. Not absolute truths. The Rules of Logic however are absolute. They transcend science. So too are certain fundamental epistemological claims. They too transcend the scientific method. The scientific method has no philosophical grounding without epistemology. Science starts with the premise that truth is objective. This premise is justified by appeal to logical consistency (any argument against the objectivity of truth is self-contradictory) UPB does something similar. It starts with the premise that universal moral rules exists. It justifies this premise by appeal to logical consistency and develops the methodology from there. You can't argue against UPB without exploiting UPB. As far as I can tell, UPB is equally as valid as science. The way it justifies itself is similar to way we justify science. Prove that UPB makes too many "assumptions" Prove that UPB "over complicates" things. if you are trying to make a "rational case for secular ethics" then obviously it is going to justify anarchism. That is because all statism revolves around moral relativism.

This entire paragraph is meaningless unless we believe in the Law of Identity as a universal law. 1) How could logical behaviors not be relevant to life's purposes? How do you hunt prey without logic? How do you grow crops without logic? How do create a civilization without logic? Humans are not vegetables. They do not live to the extent they are illogical but to the extent they are logical. 2) So what if we evolved to do some illogical things. So what? That's an appeal to nature fallacy. 3)Nobody said you "must" be logical. 4)What premises of UPB are "assumptions" 5)How do you know Stefan is Machiavellian? Well yeah consistency is good if that consistency has to do with us acting logically. Because logic is obviously better than illogic don't you know? Now try proving to the world that illogic is better than logic without using logic. Please entertain us. He isn't saying consistency is automatically good. He is saying being consistently logical is good. You don't eat rocks on the basis that they might be something other than a rock or that it might be better to believe in the falsehood that it is better to eat rocks than food. No, you believe the rock is a rock, the food is food and you believe it is better to adhere to the actual biological demands of your body than bogus demands. The reason we do not undermine the belief in Santa Claus is because a)it is not harmful for a child to believe in Santa Claus and b)it is obnoxious to do so too early. If you value your family and friends (which you should) you don't do obnoxious things. You don't get in the way of harmless fun. There is nothing illogical about having fun. Quite the contrary, having fun is part of our nature and acting according to one's nature is logical. And the reason we don't interrupt a church mass is because that is a violation of the right to private property. Our concern for the truth leads us to believe in the virtue of a rational civilization and the virtue of applying universal ethical rules for rational beings to follow. We do not interrupt a church because we don't care about logic. Quite the opposite. We don't interrupt then precisely because we care about acting logically.

The methodology of UPB is "invented" as you say. So what? The scientific method was invented. Is the scientific method arbitrary? No it isn't. So you have no point whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether UPB was invented or discovered. What matters is whether it is logical. If you think the ethics of argumentation have nothing to do with virtue you must believe one can act virtuously without knowledge of the truth. That is completely insane dude. It almost doesn't even deserve a response. How do we know what the truth is other than by figuring out what we can logically argue for? How can we figure out what ethics is without figuring out what we can logically argue for? You must be expecting us to believe that one can consistently act morally without philosophy; without possession of the truth and you must expect us to believe there is such a thing as a universal moral rule that does not need to be argued for. That is insane. The only way we know a moral rule genuinely is universal is if you can make an argument that it is and the only way a string of words counts as an argument is if it adheres to the rules of debate. Most importantly the rule of Truth is Better than Falsehood. And no, "have to do" and "should do" are not the same thing. "Have to do" = what is necessary. "Should do" = what you have to do to be virtuous. If self-ownership doesn't exist in reality then why are you talking to people as though they do have self-ownership? Yeah because you see humans are vegetables right?

Some people prefer to be insane. So what? Is that supposed to prove all preferences are equally subjective or equally objective?

Debates are about logic. About the truth. Are you expecting us to believe when it comes to life at large it doesn't matter if you act illogically? That is total nonsense. The reason we care about logic is because we care about truth and the reason we care about the truth is because we care about avoiding pain. The quickest way to experience pain is to not care about the truth. Anyone who denies the meaning of their own pain is full of crap. Empirically speaking that is simply how people act. They treat their pain as the most meaningful thing in their lives. Couples of things 1)I call BS when you say you live without the application of most of the UPB rules. The breaking of moral rules is a more immediate threat to your health than anything. It can take a long time for a disease to kill you, but one driver who is driving his car in an immoral fashion will kill you in an instant. This idea that ethics has nothing to do with a healthy life is total nonsense. It is not even wrong....it is literally the exact opposite of the truth. 2)When a scientists calls someone else unscientific they actually are in fact calling them immoral. If being unscientific wasn't immoral calling people unscientific would have no meaning whatsoever. 3)Ethics is for our well-being Not fulfilling the wishes of the universe. If you wanna get truly metaphysical nobody "needs" to do anything except obey the natural laws of the universe. That is irrelevant. Nobody is talking about what you need to do, but rather about what you should do. You cannot argue that one ought to be illogical because a)acting illogically leads to pain and anyone who denies their own pain is full of crap and b)it is a completely meaningless statement. "Truth is better than falsehood" is an axiom in the same way the Law of Identity is an axiom. Anyone you make an argument against something either you're making a truth claim on the assumption that one ought to adhere to the truth or you're just spouting meaningless opinions. Let me give one more reason the ethics of debate ought to be ethics of life. See we do not just live life automatically. We live by choice. When we live we have to live in a particular manner. You have to move somewhere. You have to be somebody. You have to work at a particular job or particular jobs. You have to marry a particular person. You have to look at something in particular. If you're going to college there is an infinity of fields you can study. Without a value structure you don't even know what you are supposed to study. We care about ethics because we care about having a value structure. Without a value structure the human being just becomes paralyzed. The first value is the value of pain. People can deny the truth, deny that they think, deny objective morality, they can even deny objective reality, but nobody ever denies their own suffering. We do not like pain so therefore we value logic. Now if logic is a value then that means systems of beliefs that are logical are preferable to ones that are illogical. So thus we arrive at the idea of "truth is better than falsehood". If you believe people are responsible for their actions in a debate then why wouldn't they be responsible for their actions for life at large? That is intellectual cheating. Humans are not like rocks falling down a hill. They are capable of programing themselves and being programmed by others. That's free will. If we are to believe that the ethics of argumentation have nothing to do with the ethics of life then we must believe that one can live virtuously without knowing what the truth is. That is a completely insane belief. Ethics is not about what you "have" to do but about what you should do. You are very confused about the nature of ethics. Yes, there is nothing "necessary" about following UPB. Nobody has said such a thing. If however you want to be ethical, if you want to live a meaningful life, if you care about your own health and the health of Western civilization then you better damn well behave ethically and spread around the concept of universal ethics.

1)Well no I do not think it is a just a matter of preference. I think the preference for the virtuous life is the only sane preference to hold. Self-interest in the traditional sense is illogical and futile in the long run. 2) I reject that the claims "God is just" and "God is good" have any meaning without an external universal ethic. There is a nihilism at the root of all religious belief.

1)Okay, so the moralist acts morally because he wants the satisfaction of being virtuous and he wants to be in the possession of virtue after death. Fine. So what? How is this in anyway equivalent to doing what is right because it gives you the reward of sex or money, or fame or power? I see no equivalence whatsoever. 2)How do you know it is wiser? "Wisdom" is meaningless concept with morality. What would make you think he is more merciful? He clearly is not. All human punishments are finite. God's punishments are infinite. How do you know he is just? "Justice" is a meaningless concept unless a universal ethic exists. It is not nihilism to follow a leader, but the reason you follow this leader is because of your nihilism. The real philosophical foundation for religious belief is nihilism. Not moral objectivism.

1)So what? Living a life of honor is vastly different than living a life purely in self-interest. There is zero equivalence. See what you Christians do is you follow your self-interest and God merely manipulates your self-interest. That isn't genuinely virtuous living. God gives you an external reason to pursue virtue when virtue should be the end itself. 2So what your theory really amounts to is "There are no divine commands without Christianity" and has nothing to do with what people typically think of as justice. in order for a state to be "justice" it must be a universally preferable one. Meaning it is a state that preferable for non-subjective reasons. Here is what you actaully believe. 1)You believe the concept of justice is subjective and 2)You believe God's subjective will is more powerful than yours so therefore you bend your self-interest to God's self-interest. That is just Christian nihilism. You are guilty of the same nihilism you accuse atheists of. The only difference is your nihilism is manipulated by the threat of the divine.

1 It's not just if you value honor then be ethical. It's more complicated than that. I'm saying living a life in the pursuit of honor is the only meaningful way to live. The only meaningful death is the honorable one. You are still under the delusion that the selfish life is some kind of rational choice, but if you really think about the fleeting nature of life and the true nature of death you will realize that self-interest ain't all it's cracked up to be. In the long run all self-interest is empty and futile. So my argument is three-hold. A)There is such a thing as objective morality B)If you value honor you should be ethical and C)There is no rational reason to live a non-virtious life since all self-interest is pointless in the long run. 2If God "creates" moral principles then they are not actually moral principles. They are arbitrary dictates. In order for a rule to be a moral one it has to not be dependent upon subjective whim. If all morality is subjective then there isn't actually such a thing as justice. You calling God "just" is a completely meaningless claim unless justice is universal.

1)By definition pursuing justice increases one's honor. Honor is synonymous with virtue. And no honor is not just an idea in one's head. Honor is universal. Honor exists even after death. 2)Oh so you're admiting that God doesn't not have a monopoly on justice. Thx you. That's all we need you to admit.

1)NO. You should do what is ethical regardless of your self-interest. That is what genuinely ethical behavior is: an unconditional good will. It doesn't matter how much sexual pleasure you experience, how much wealth you accumulated, how much power to won over others, how popular you got or how many pleasant memories you have. There is no guarantee that any of those things will survive death. Death is inevitable, unknown and absolute. Life is fleeting. Only Death is Real. The more meaningful life is to a man the meaningless death is. The only thing death can't take away from a man is the honorable end. Honor is forever. THAT is why I need no other reason to act ethically. Self-interest in and of itself is empty and futile. 2)Justice = universally preferable states of being. By that definition God cannot have a monopoly on justice.

1)Ought is always part of an if/then clause. Not true. Morality by definition is universal. There are oughts that are not conditional. For example, You ought to pursue the truth is an unconditional universal ethic. 2)Speaking Gibberish. There are only two options: A)God determines what right and wrong are or b)Justice is universal. If A is the case there there isn't actually such a thing as justice. Justice in order to be justice must be universal. If B) is the case then you can't say Atheists are automatically doomed to nihilism in the absence of faith because justice is something that can be theoretically grasped by all.

1)And your point is.....what exactly? That we ought to pretend like the world is perfectly just somehow? 2)If God himself is the standard for judging people then there isn't actually any justice. Just a bunch of arbitrary dictates, rewards and punishments. Justice must be universal in order to to be real justice. The concept of justice must transcend God for it to be real justice. Morality by definition is universal. If it ain't universal it ain't morality. It's just arbitrary slave regulations. God contradicts himself so any universal morality that transcend God would render God immoral. So you either have to to admit a)Morality is universal and God is immoral or b)There simply is no such thing as justice with God.

1)Presupposing that is impossible for atheist societies to have an objective morality. You have done nothing to prove this. 2)I agree that there is something quite nihilistic about the belief in reincarnation. 3))How exactly does God judge souls if there is no objective morality in the universe without him? Is it arbitrary? If his judgement are all arbitrary then where is the justice in that? If his judgements are not arbitrary then why would you conclude that the intellectually honest atheist must be a nihilist?

I used to be guilty of sociopathic thinking myself so perhaps I can help you. Here is what I found most troubling about what you said. I think you are a bit confused as to what exactly it means for something to be a "fundamental" axiom. A bit confused about Stefan's book. Don't Steal and Don't Rape are hardly "fundamental". They are more like middle or last principles of morality. Some Max Stirner guy came on Stefan's show and asked "why be moral" or "why follow UPB" and Stefan said "because it is correct". So really "Don't Steal" and "Don't Rape" are not the fundamental axioms of UPB, but "Truth is Better than Falsehood" is the fundamental axiom of UPB. The reason you should adhere to UPB is because the moral rules that are derived from the methodology of UPB are correct and you ought to adhere to what is correct. Now THAT my friend is an axiom I doubt even a sociopath can disagree with. If you are going to question why one ought to adhere to what is correct then you probably should be locked in an insane asylum. Not adhering to reality is literally the definition of insanity.

First of all, there is no such thing as "worker's rights". All rights must be universal. Also, are we really supposed to believe that companies only give workers restroom breaks because the government saids so? Second, when you legislate workers rights into law you create an incentive for corporations to find loop holes such as creating private arbitration systems. Without such legislation there would be practically no reason for them to create such mechanisms except under a belief that arbitration is more economically efficient than the government court. Third, the federal law saids that one cannot appeal a decision by a private arbiter, but in the free market there is no "government" to make an arbiter's decision final. So what would happen in the free market is either a)the workers and corps would already be subscribed to the same local arbiter before hand. or b)the worker's would have their own arbiter, the corporation would have their own arbiter, the two arbiters would agree to select another judge(s) to hear the case and that would make the system fair.