Playing With Plato Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 It is interesting that you happened to use examples you know to be human to explain how you could manipulate the definition, indicating that you actually do see those examples as human. What you're really saying is that your capable of lying to yourself and others about what a human being is. You didn't accidently say, for example, a turtle is no longer human. You very clearly demonstrate an understanding of what a human is, and therefore an acceptance of the uniformity of "human" by suggesting that you can just change the definition to include (examples you know not to be human) or exclude (examples you know to be human) whatever you want. You thus prove that you don't think the concept of human is as elastic as you claim to percieve it. You might say, but during slavery the definition of human didn't include blacks, and that's why whites allowed themselves to abuse and mistreat them. But I would say that those whites knew they were abusing human beings, they just had other justifications or self-egrandizing motives for it. It may have been common place to call them "subhuman" or the like, but they knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDB Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but has somebody commented on the fact that Tadas is assuming we are human in order to debate the issue?Dude, at least read the first post. [edit] I misread his post, the comment makes a valid point. So I should say to *myself*, "Dude, read carefully before making snark!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Dude, at least read the first post. I did read that one. Why would you assume that I didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDB Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I did read that one. Why would you assume that I didn't?I misunderstood you when you said, "Sorry, I haven't read every post in this thread, but has somebody commented on the fact that Tadas is assuming we are human in order to debate the issue?" You mean, nowhere in Stef's description does it say anything about UPB applying only to humans, that in fact it applies to anyone who makes a moral claim, has nothing to do with defining human beings. I feel stupid now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 and here is main problem of UPB and all other moral principles: they all rely on definitions of "human being" which is not really available everyone just skips that part as self evident or refers to biology as scientific proof that humans are animals that belong to certain class of primates. Man can be philosophically differentiated from other creatures as "a rational animal" meaning man has the ability to reason (not that he is in all cases rational) that is sufficient distinction in cases that involve man's capacity to reason this is why I think UPB is universifiable for humans only the NAP, on the other hand, I have argued, should deter people from slaughtering animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Molyneux Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, to be annoyingly technical, UPB would apply to all rational creatures, aliens included, on the assumption that they leave our butts alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kody Palmer Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I love how you guys just down vote this guy for having the courage to not just take everything said by Stef to be gospel. Instead of trying to be objective you all just gang up on him. What a great community you guys have created here. Way to encourage open dialogue and Skeptical viewpoints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysterionMuffles Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Kody you have a valid point but those last two sentences were unecessary guilt tripping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I love how you guys just down vote this guy for having the courage to not just take everything said by Stef to be gospel. Instead of trying to be objective you all just gang up on him. What a great community you guys have created here. Way to encourage open dialogue and Skeptical viewpoints. How are you distinguishing agreement from slavish obedience to doctrine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, to be annoyingly technical, UPB would apply to all rational creatures, aliens included, on the assumption that they leave our butts alone. It's about time those damn Klingons behaved themselves.. ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDB Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I love how you guys just down vote this guy for having the courage to not just take everything said by Stef to be gospel. Instead of trying to be objective you all just gang up on him. What a great community you guys have created here. Way to encourage open dialogue and Skeptical viewpoints.I've been reading stuff by noesis and haplo that criticizes Stef's ideas, but they don't get voted down. I think this is because they themselves stay calm and also show that they have done their homework and know what they are talking about, compared to the OP here who attacks what ounds to me like a straw man. Still, I agree with your general idea that it would be nice if there was less hostility. Can you think of something we can do to encourage this, beyond what you've already done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I've been reading stuff by noesis and haplo that criticizes Stef's ideas, but they don't get voted down. I think this is because they themselves stay calm and also show that they have done their homework and know what they are talking about, compared to the OP here who attacks what ounds to me like a straw man.Still, I agree with your general idea that it would be nice if there was less hostility. Can you think of something we can do to encourage this, beyond what you've already done? They left the boards long before there was a rating system on the boards (this is actually somewhat new). A great many posts in that thread would likely have been voted down if it were the present day (including some of my own). Also, can you be very explicit about this "hostility"? What specifically is hostile? Ideally, it shouldn't matter how something is communicated, but rather the ideas themselves judged on their merits. Typically, I don't care much about how rude or polite a person is as long as they actually have something meaningful to say. That seems to me the philosophical attitude. What is true is what matters. Some ideas are worthy of ridicule. Many of the things that have come out of my mouth (and fingers?) have been laughably false. One example of an idea that's laughable is the idea that one could come into a discussion and hostilely condemn others for being hostile. Haha Assuming it is really that far from true, it would seem to me that the best response would be to accept that fact and take it with good humor that they said something so foolish. This idea that people on the boards should be more [fill in the blank] may be entirely true for all I know, but it seems like anybody who actually cared enough to honestly correct people should model the behavior themselves that they want to see in others, first and foremost. If it's really the case that people are not being free thinking, or skeptical, or open minded, or whatever enough, then it makes no sense to me that you would condemn them in order to correct them. What would a close minded, slave to doctrine type person do with that? Obviously they wouldn't be receptive. Conversely, how would a person who is being unjustly condemned react? Well, probably not too receptive either. None of this is directed at you, necessarily. I just felt like ranting and you gave me a good jumping off point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDB Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Also, can you be very explicit about this "hostility"? What specifically is hostile?I haven't been taking notes, hadn't thought about it much until I saw the post I was responding to. I thought it was a bit strange when I first saw the OP of a thread get so many down votes that I had to click on whatever it is to unhide the post. And maybe it's just the fact that hey, this is still the Internet, people tend to make hasty jokes and snark or answer when they don't know what they're talking about. To get the signal, you have to take the noise. But if someone has a proposal to actually improve things, I can imagine benefiting from that. In fact, maybe it wold protect me from some of my impulsive behavior, like that unfair snark I tossed you the other day. I went back and edited it, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I haven't been taking notes, hadn't thought about it much until I saw the post I was responding to. I thought it was a bit strange when I first saw the OP of a thread get so many down votes that I had to click on whatever it is to unhide the post.And maybe it's just the fact that hey, this is still the Internet, people tend to make hasty jokes and snark or answer when they don't know what they're talking about. To get the signal, you have to take the noise. But if someone has a proposal to actually improve things, I can imagine benefiting from that. In fact, maybe it wold protect me from some of my impulsive behavior, like that unfair snark I tossed you the other day. I went back and edited it, by the way. I appreciate that. I'm not particularly bothered by snarkiness. I would be a hypocrite, actually, if I criticized someone on those grounds. My response was meant actually to see what I missed, not to call you on snarkiness. I assumed your comment was saying that I had missed something obvious, like maybe some reasoning as to why the OP was addressing humans and not hamsters or something. I was literally thinking in my head "why doesn't TDB just tell me what silly thing I said?" Also, I didn't downvote your post in case you thought I did. (In fact I cancelled the downvote out since your correction). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 You got to wonder at the title of this thread and its content.. Not like it required much work, compared to the gospel of Stef. I've never understood the argument that to defend good ideas against bad ones was to lack objectivity and become bullying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kody Palmer Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Kevin, I differentiate slavish obedience to doctrine from agreement by People getting downvoted just because they show skepticism. Also, when you guys start suggesting this or that podcast for them to listen to so they they will understand better as if disagreeing isn't okay. People should feel comfortable agreeing and disagreeing on this board and not feel peer pressured in to seeing it one way or the high way. Also, when I notice people saying that Stef didn't say this or that when he clearly did. For Example, when I said that Stef says Parents on drugs cannot connect emotionally with their kids and you say he never said that. If you go listen to the feed on parenting, this is one of Stef's main themes. It's clear to me that when someone gets to the point where they can see no wrong in a person and start defending them in a way which is out of touch with reality, like you, then they have reached the level of obedience to a doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Kevin, I differentiate slavish obedience to doctrine from agreement by People getting downvoted just because they show skepticism. Also, when you guys start suggesting this or that podcast for them to listen to so they they will understand better as if disagreeing isn't okay. People should feel comfortable agreeing and disagreeing on this board and not feel peer pressured in to seeing it one way or the high way. Also, when I notice people saying that Stef didn't say this or that when he clearly did. For Example, when I said that Stef says Parents on drugs cannot connect emotionally with their kids and you say he never said that. If you go listen to the feed on parenting, this is one of Stef's main themes. It's clear to me that when someone gets to the point where they can see no wrong in a person and start defending them in a way which is out of touch with reality, like you, then they have reached the level of obedience to a doctrine. Can you show how it was simple disagreement or skepticism that caused the downvote? To say that so confidently makes no sense to me (especially since you immediately change your story). How do you know the reason people downvote? I could just as easily assert that you are making accusations about people simply because you are a jerk. Telling people what their motivations are is not honest. You don't know that. And also, I said that it could very well be the case that Stef said that thing about parenting on drugs, but that wasn't my memory of what he said and I asked you to provide a quote or some kind of reference and you basically said "no" and then told everyone (literally) that they could go fuck themselves. You are portraying this discussion we had in a misleading way. Why don't you show people how it actually went down? (You're the one who brought it up) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kody Palmer Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 No, I cannot show why people downvote, but when I see multiple people getting downvotes after they disagree with someone I can make an educated guess that the reason they are getting down voted is because they have a different point of view. Also, when did I change my story? You said that you couldn't remember when Stef said that Parents cannot connect emotionally with their children when they are on drugs. You asked me to provide a podcast which I couldn't do because I do not keep track of every podcast and what is said in it. That seems to me like a very unreasonable request, also considering how many times I have heard him say it and how it has been a theme with Stef when speaking with children who had drug addicted parents. Also, how do you figure that telling people their motivations is not honest? Does that mean that if Stef tells someone what their motivations are they are not honest, or does this rule only apply to me? How am I portraying our discussion in misleading way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Hey Kody, if there is an issue (misleading one) with Stef or UPB we've overlooked.. I'd appreciate some brevity.. Point it out fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kody Palmer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 hey xelent, i'm not sure who you meant when you say we but I do not have a problem with UPB. I didn't enjoy the book, maybe because the writing was over my head. But I am really more a fan of Stef's views on man's relation to the state, and I enjoy his podcasts on religion As far as his books go i'm a everyday anarchy kinda guy. I would only object to some of his beliefs when he strays away from the gun in the room and delves in to social commentary, like the truth about paul walker, and his views that sports athletes are overpaid. I only chimed in to this thread because I've notices some people down voting anything that doesn't jive with the status quo around here. I think we as a community would be better served to remain skeptical and never get complacent or assume we got it all figured out. :bunny: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts