Koroviev
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Koroviev
-
-
I think you're right - I've banned you from the message board to help prevent you from wasting further time. You're welcome!
*slow clap
-
When I saw the title, this is what I wanted to post.
Next on my list
-
Was going to start a post like this but I'm glad to see it's already here! To add (and bump) I just started How to Talk so Kids will Listen and Listen so Kids Will Talk so far it's really good and if there are any more recommendations I'd love to read them
-
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.
I'm sorry to hear that. Good Luck!
-
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.
Soo many snarkuments come to mind, context clues are hard for some people, can you define what you mean by "you don't understand" and you want me to "define," but out of respect for this community and respect for you (although I'm definitely not feeling the respect reciprocated), I will restrain myself and try once more.
1. we know we have property because we have property. We have bodies which we have control over and no one else has control over our bodies without our permission or through the initiation of the use of force.
2. If someone else could control our bodies without our permission we would no longer have that property and thus would no longer own our bodies.
3. Since no one else can control our bodies without our permission or the initiation of the use of force then we must have ownership over our bodies.
4. if someone initiates the use of force in order to control our bodies that ownership has been removed.
5. since ownership over one's body is the default then the forceful removal of that ownership must be immoral.
Property:
1. a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
Control:
to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command
Body:
the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.
Own:
of, relating to, or belonging to oneself or itself
Permission:
authorization granted to do something; formal consent
Force:
strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence
initiate:
to begin, set going, or originate
We(in this context):
a human being
someone else:
any human being other than the initial one in question
removed:
remote; separate; not connected with; distinct from
immoral:
violating moral principles;
moral:
of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
Principle:
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived
truth:
1. the true or actual state of a matter
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like:
sophistry:
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.
respect:
1. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability
2. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment
-
Hmm, Labmath may contend that the ambiguity contained within words renders them meaningless, but that might be stronger than what he said throughout this discussion. I. of course, would say that inherent ambiguity is not problematic, simply demonstrated by the fact that we use these words. I point to a barn and say "tree" and you know I'm an idiot. Conversely, you say "Hey look at that tree over there" and I will locate the nearest tree and evaluate what peculiarities may have caught your eye.
It might be true that one, all arguments are arguments about definitions, and that two in some sense these arguments will often be fruitless where they seek to dig beneath the inherent foundation-less axioms they are built upon. In stead, if you want to know what a word means, yes for an approximation you can consult a dictionary, but if you want the full course on when to use a word, look to how others do and see if your practice is playing the game correctly.
Very well put, the only thing that I would add is if you have to spend the entire discussion defining every single word you use you're never going to make any progress in the discussion itself.
-
If I could throw my two cents in here, I think Socratic interrogation is one of the very methodological approaches that is functionally limited. Hammering away for definitions will eventually lead to exhausting the questioned persons patience. Labmath, are you doing this intentionally to demonstrate the overarching argument you were making from the beginning? That the appeal to axioms is a dead end? That's meta as fuck.
As impressive as that would be isn't that the same argument as words have no meaning. Also it does not answer my first point which was that all discussions of principles and ethics are debates about axioms.
-
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.
That's really too bad I was hoping you had some good arguments. Good luck!
-
Gravity isn't a given. Gravity has been proven(for the sake of argument) to exist wherever a higgs boson interacts with matter. If you can prevent the higgs fields from being operative, then something will not fall when dropped. We have a mechanistic connection between the theory and the effect and it is in that way limited. If you could demonstrate that the higgs field could never be suspended or affected...and could demonstrate the same thing with consciousness and our actions, you would have an analogy.
Ah, sorry in my original comment I was trying to say that gravity was an analogy for property rights but instead that the proposal of "if there is gravity then things will fall" is more along the lines of "if there are property rights then they should be respected" as opposed to "because there are property rights they should be respected"
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.
We can play that game all day long but it's really really pointless. I trust your judgement as to those definitions do you have a counter argument or not?
I understand what you're saying and I feel that way also. But think about it for a moment. One thing to keep in mind is that when people get morality wrong, millions of humans get murdered. What you might feel is superfluous precision is precision nonetheless. On top of that, consider that my initial claim was that UPB is confusing and over-verbose. It's a provocative claim! The challenge reveals both that my summary might not be a sufficient replacement and demonstrates one of the reasons why UPB is verbose by comparison. My point is that if we're seeking the truth, these should be welcome challenges. Because they're either going to disprove the case I made or refine it. Either way, we're all better off for it
Makes sense I just didn't want to run into the problem we're running into with the comment above.
-
Generally speaking, his challenge is perfectly valid. It is the communicator's job to communicate and defining terms avoid misunderstandings. A good example of this is once upon a time, I made a thread exploring whether "fraud" was immoral or not. The conversation blew up at the starting line because I didn't define my terms. While I was talking about somebody who is deceived prior to consenting to an exchange, most people received the word as somebody who consents to an exchange and then doesn't deliver their side of the deal after the other person has. All the difference in the world! Had I defined my term ahead of time, even if you didn't agree with my definition, you'd at least know what I was talking about.
I agree if you are using a word outside of the commonly accepted definition but all of my definitions directly line up with what we've been talking about the whole time. Is there really that much confusion around the definition of body?
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.
Yes an instance of an organ transplant is bodily control, you cannot transplant my kidney without the initiation of the use of force or without my permission, just like you cannot make my arm wave without the use of force or my permission etc., etc.
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.
Nope, this is still not what I was saying just like it was not what Stef said. You are absolutely correct that if gravity inverses that claim itself would not be a contradiction. However what I've said (and what Stef has said) is that if gravity inverses in a single instance that would be a contradiction of gravity itself since the very definition of gravity makes it universal.
If I must define my terms I will, although I'd much rather give people the benefit of the doubt.
Body: the physical structure of a person or an animal, including the bones, flesh, and organs.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior
Property rights: the right an individual has to have and protect their property
control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command
property: that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner
if there are property rights, they by definition ought to be respected. When we are conducting an inquiry into the origins of where those rights arise, whether they exist at all, we can't assume their existence in the arguments describing the basis of how they function.
1. Do we own ourselves?
2. Yes, because we alone control our actions
3. But what if we don't own our actions(necessarily)?
4. Doesn't matter because to change who owns our actions you would have to violate property rights.
2 has to be proven before we can assert 4.
I could be wrong here but how is that different from:
1. Do things fall when droped?
2. yes because gravity
3. what if gravity does not make things fall when dropped
4. Doesn't matter because to change gravity you have to validate the law of gravity
-
First of all "psychic" powers are as laughable as you make them out to be, sort of. While it could be true that consciousness will never be fully understood by science, motor control most likely will be. If what creates ownership is some link between my consciousness and my actions, when this link is severed, what is to say of self-ownership? Also how does this link get made? and more importantly, the fact that this link exists doesn't mean it ought to right? While our actions are out of the reach of technology for now, I don't assume they will be for long. As you know from our other conversation, I prefer a morality that doesn't rely on these very murky grounds.
What I would be very interested to see is if most people used "ownership" "property" and "self-ownership" (if they even have such a concept already) in the way that property rights theorists do.
You still have to compare it to the norm and then ask how or why that exception is different.
Isn't it more like if there is gravity then the rock ought to fall to the ground. If there are property rights they ought to be respected.
-
1
-
-
Ok so this is where I get stuck: I own(control in an inalienable fashion) myself and to that extent, the effects of my actions. Therefore I have property rights and violation of these property rights is immoral. But what if someone controls myself(body through the mind)? This is a violation of the property rights established by me owning myself. <This is circular no?
Do you mean someone uses only their mind to control my body? First off I don't think there have been any advances in this area...ever
Second, this is an abnormal situation so we have to compare it to the normal situation by asking questions like how did the person with telekinetic powers get control over the other person? Did the other person give the psychic give permission? If the person being controlled did not give the psychic permission then the psychic must have forced their way into a position of control over the other person thus the psychic is immoral. I hope we're not basing the soundness of UPB on mind control but it does seem to still hold 
-
http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2015/10/13/jennifer-lawrence-lenny-essay-hollywood-gender-pay-gap
It's all over the news.
Sorry, lol, this is my news
-
1
-
-
The red parts i either do not understand or I fail to see the link between the two propositions or you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. For example, "It [morality] stems from the fact that there are indeed property rights since no other person can control another's body." First off all, you will have to define morality, property rights, control, and body. Second, demonstrate that in fact no other person can control another's body (i.e. does organ transplant count as someone else controlling your body?). Then, show how the fact that no other person can control another's body logically demonstrates property rights.
For the yellow part, Can you point to the person that said that so i can try to read their proposition to understand what they mean by it. Does that mean all things with mass are subject to gravity in the same way?
Come on, you can't really be serious with this...are you? I hope you are perfectly capable of finding the definitions of words you do not understand, I'm not using them in any confusing context or in anyway out of the ordinary. Second, do it. Really, try it right now. Control someone else's body without the use of force or their permission. Spoiler...you can't. Since you can't without the use of force or that person's permission that means that person fundamentally has property rights over their body.
I believe it was Isaac Newton who said the yellow part (http://study.com/academy/lesson/newtons-laws-and-weight-mass-gravity.html) what I was saying was in response to this " Now Stefan says its a contradiction to say gravity should point down except on thursdays in the middle of the ocean. Actually, its not." Stef has never said this what he's said was if gravity pulls things down except on Thursdays in the middle of the ocean it is not a universal and therefor contradicts gravity, which is very different from saying it is a contradiction.
-
link?
-
But this happens all the time in the world. People keep money they find on the street and say it's "theirs" now. Nobody will question it when you use the five dollars to buy something. If you leave a house abandoned eventually hobos are going to move in. Which is why you need security.
Imagine that I leave the lumber alone, and a scheming man sees it, takes it, and sells it to you on the premise that it was his property. You'd be convinced it is your lumber now. Later on I see you with the lumber I made, and immediately assault you in a fit of justified anger through the property rights theory. However since you believe it is your lumber as well you react in defense of your believed property rights and stab me, and kill me.
All from rationalizations of property of no empirical nature. If there were such a thing there would be no confusion in who owns what.
The only thing I'd say is non transferable is authorship of goods and services. If I make a painting that's something I authored. Selling the painting would transfer ownership, not authorship. It still is nonetheless an unproved claim without evidence, which is why artists sign their work and strive for unique styles to make it clear that they made it.
I absolutely agree but from the material standpoint the only property would be your physical body, as you've said, but would take away any responsibility you'd have for actions that were not directly observed (i.e. murder moves into the grey area when no one sees it).
If you find $5 on the ground and do not give it back when someone asks for it well then technically you've taken their property.
Why is painting a picture any different from chopping firewood? There are different efforts involved but fundamentally they are exactly the same you could paint the Mona Lisa then leave it unattended someone could still take it and try to sell it to you. There's still no material proof that it's yours.
-
Right, but there's no material link between you and the actions of your body either. By that line of thought if I stole something from you without direct evidence that I stole it wouldn't I then not be responsible? The same "direct link" exists when you push a rock as does when you leave a pile of lumber unattended, the only time it is obvious your pushed the rock is when you are in the act of pushing it. The only difference would whether or not someone saw you take the action. If I come across a house while someone is away at work wouldn't that then mean no one owns that house because they are not building and or buying it at that point in time?
-
Property rights are not material. That is my argument. There is no material link between my body and the stuff I own. Therefore there are no empirically obserable signs that a chair is my chair just by studying the chair. Which is why property rights are only rationalizations, whether they are useful or not I don't really care. Strictly speaking I am my body. There is no ghost me that owns body me. I am responsible for the actions I do with my body, but I am not the master of a body and the body who is a slave at the same time. I = My body. Not I + My body.
But then aren't you saying that you aren't responsible for the results of your actions?
-
This was kind of brought up in another recent post, and the way I look at it is 1) does your mother know for certain that they were not spanked and 2) there is a HUGE difference between being a "push-over" by letting your kids do whatever they want and peaceful parenting. parents who are "push-overs" often seem to have done just as little research into parenting as those who think spanking is the answer, the difference being they do not want to be violent toward their children (I'd assume because they're scared of what others would think of them not necessarily because they think it's best but I could be wrong here). All this is doing is shifting the power structure so all of the power is in the child's hands and the parents generally just become..well...empty shells trying to corral their unruly children around. If your children never learn that you have needs/wants/desires/etc. then absolutely most often they will become spoiled brats but that in no way means you need to beat them. It's a false dichotomy that people fall into all to often.
-
Koriviev, i just noticed you said in another thread that i ignored you. I did not mean to, but i did.
Can you please rewrite your critisism this time do not state what Stefan said, unless you think i misrepresented or misinterpreted him, just address the points.
When you do address the points, any proposition you make must either be a true axiom, refer to part 2 and 3, or provide empirically true.
The reason i am not doing a irect address out s because i dont fully understand most of youfr comment.
I'm not sure I said anything that Stefan has said. I did interpret what I understand into my own words but they were my own arguments. If you want me to clarify specific parts that were maybe hard to understand I'd be more than happy to do that but I don't see any use in restating everything since it's all right there. But I guess a summation would be it seems you'd misinterpreted UPB.
Side note: I am not hurt or anything that my post got missed I was simply responding to Bugzysegal who'd told me to come read this.
The problem of self-ownership is a very messy one. What it comes down to I think, is the idea that we cannot alienate certain properties in the person. The last few paragraphs of this article http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/pateman/Self-Ownership.pdf bare this out. However, she notes in earlier paragraphs that what once was considered inalienable bodily possessions, kidneys, bits of liver, and other organs, has changed in the advent of modern science. Now there are even underground markets in these things. What if neuroscience advances to the state that even our very source of our volition could be produced by another?
This was already talked about as well above: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45392-problems-with-ethics-from-principles/?p=414801
In a nutshell either they would have to take control of your body by force (immoral) or you would have to give them permission to take control of your body (you are responsible for what happens).
-
Hi Zaccheus, thanks again for your work!
I just received some feedback from some friends of mine regarding the pamphlet. This couple had wanted something that they could use in their efforts to communicate peaceful parenting to some neighbours. The feedback they (my friends) offered was that it would be more useful to have a pamphlet that was more concise. Like some real attention grabbing bullets, using powerful but short facts, and then have links to more detailed info if the reader wanted. The problem they said was that the people that hit their kids are often of lower IQ and would not make it through that pamphlet. Anybody that is interested in the details and will read through it all is already somebody who is at or on their way to peaceful parenting. What this couple was looking for was something that could be used to hopefully spark that moment of insight or interest that would initiate a parent to begin questioning their cycles of violence that they were involved in.
Perhaps an intro version of the pamphlet could be made up?
Maybe something like a 1 page flyer?
-
but isn't inductive reasoning empirical? Also, is anything pertaining to morality true in an absolute sense? Either way what does it matter if it is or is not. If the argument is sound and it is sufficient why does it need to be true in an absolute sense?
I did read labmath's post and responded to it, quite well I thought, but my response seems to have been missed or ignored.
-
Hmm... I think the way I frame it, and feel free to call it non-sense, is that all arguments are inductive. How we rank the value of inductive arguments is two-fold, their initial falsafiabiliy, and how may times they have been tested since inception. That is, the strength of arguments comes from how precise and testable they are and how often they have survived these test that would disprove them. In short "Everything's inductive."
Ah! Great! So if all arguments are inductive then you'd have to hold all arguments to that same standard not just new ones. Also, if everything is inductive then couldn't you say that which is supported by evidence for a really really really long time in every situation is consistent? And that which is consistent and influenced as little as possible by personal feelings and opinions objective? Then that which is deduced from that which is objective and consistent is logical. etc. etc.
-
If every argument is based at some point on an axiom and an axiom cannot prove itself then there can be no arguments which is self defeating no matter what you're arguing about. By that theory then every argument breaks down at some point and there is no such thing as a valid argument. If I propose that E=mc2 but the meaning of E only exists because of our shared experience of it. Wouldn't you then have to propose that that theory is weakened as well?
Do you like tattoos?
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Personally I've never understood tattoos it always seemed like a waste of money especially when they're in a place where you can't even see them. I've always seen it as paying all this money for some really great art that only other people can see, wouldn't it be easier to just buy a painting? A lot of them are done as a rebellion or whatever but aren't there better ways to rebel (I dunno become an anarchist
)? The only other answer I've ever gotten was "I just like them." That's great but it seems to me like there's a lot more other way more enjoyable things you could spend less money on.
*Side note: coming from a 20-something guy I'm sure this is blasphemy but just my 2-cents