lorry Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 40 minutes ago, Gavitor said: How is this good for them? Is it ok for you to prevent someone from killing themselves and if so why? Maybe they have a legitimate reason for ending their life like being in constant pain with no way other than death to get relief. What gives you the right to decide what someone else does with their own life and body? If that person values death more so than life then stealing from them has not changed that value judgement and they will likely kill themselves by some other means. Are you willing to kill someone so that they cannot do it themselves? Because values are objective, not subjective, and the standard of value is man's life. What gives me the right to bla... bla... bla... is to ask by what standard do you know that bla... bla... bla... to whit I refer you to the standard of value, man's life, against which ends are measured. I don't think you thought through your last question.
Gavitor Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, lorry said: Because values are objective, not subjective How did you come to this conclusion?
Sir Exotic Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 On 10/6/2017 at 11:29 PM, lorry said: Well, yeah I'm not answering the question. I know your response to the answer and I reject it, so...... why? I'm fairly sure I figured out the problem, effort post incoming! /thread
lorry Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 On 07/10/2017 at 1:49 AM, Gavitor said: How did you come to this conclusion? Objectivism. Specifically, An Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology. Stefan has some podcasts and videos from way back when on it, but just get the book, thb fam.
lorry Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 10 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said: /thread There is a concept of force, which I previously defined as generalized force, which any subsequent conception of force (being a narrowing of the definition) can not contradict (without invalidating the definition OR by redefining force which implies the discovery of a yet more generalized conception of force and thus previously unknown distinguishing characteristics of force . Your conception of force (conception because you have not defined it, because libertarians can not define force) contradicts this (definition of the concept of a generalized force) by dropping the coordinate system (by dropping good but keeping bad, like a down with no up) and is by virtue of this is invalid. Your conception of force, which is the libertarian conception of force, is unequivocally wrong. To the physicist (hey) or the mathematician I say, force is a vector quantity, not a scalar quantity.
shirgall Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, lorry said: Objectivism. Specifically, An Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology. Stefan has some podcasts and videos from way back when on it, but just get the book, thb fam. FYI, you answered a "How?" question with a "What" answer. The objective standard by which answers to "How?" questions are evaluated is a minimally-necessary list of assumptions, claims, and logically-valid steps that lead to your conclusion, not a book. This is not the same as people who ask questions about UPB who clearly haven't read the book where the answer to their question appears, because you made the claim "values are objective, not subjective". 2 minutes ago, lorry said: There is a concept of force, which I previously defined as generalized force, which any subsequent conception of force (being a narrowing of the definition) can not contradict (without invalidating the definition OR by redefining force which implies the discovery of a yet more generalized conception of force and thus previously unknown distinguishing characteristics of force . Your conception of force (conception because you have not defined it, because libertarians can not define force) contradicts this (definition of the concept of a generalized force) by dropping the coordinate system (by dropping good but keeping bad, like a down with no up) and is by virtue of this is invalid. Your conception of force, which is the libertarian conception of force, is unequivocally wrong. The libertarian definition of force is shorthand for coercion by another through threat of or commission of violence, the seizure of private property, or limitation of liberty through imprisonment or interference.
lorry Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 So it looks something like this. Man's life is the ultimate end. Thus man's life is the good. Means are valued for their ends. The means to life is the use of man's mind. Thus the use of man's mind is the good. The invalidation of the good is the bad. Thus the invalidation of man's mind is bad. The action of invaliding man's mind is the initiation of force. Thus the initiation of force is bad. Ok, let a good system of taxation be a system in which everyone is taxed which is to say everyone is having force initiated upon them. Because it is a good system, this implies everyone is NOT using their mind. But because everyone is NOT using their mind, it can not be good. So a good system of taxation can not be good.
lorry Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, shirgall said: FYI, you answered a "How?" question with a "What" answer. The objective standard by which answers to "How?" questions are evaluated is a minimally-necessary list of assumptions, claims, and logically-valid steps that lead to your conclusion, not a book. This is not the same as people who ask questions about UPB who clearly haven't read the book where the answer to their question appears, because you made the claim "values are objective, not subjective". The libertarian definition of force is shorthand for coercion by another through threat of or commission of violence, the seizure of private property, or limitation of liberty through imprisonment or interference. 1. How, like, how to you grasp this concept, like, what chain of conceptual integration leads to this concept, to whit I point to the codification of said conceptual chain. 2. The libertarian definition of force is..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................? It is shorthand for........... well, all definitions are shorthand, hey? They are compressions of a concept into it's essential characteristics. I mean, I said libertarians can't define force, and you proceed to not define it, hey?
shirgall Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 1 hour ago, lorry said: It is shorthand for........... well, all definitions are shorthand, hey? They are compressions of a concept into it's essential characteristics. I said libertarians can't define force, and you proceed to not define it, hey? So, you said I defined it, and then said I didn't define it. Yup /thread
lorry Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 9 hours ago, shirgall said: So, you said I defined it, and then said I didn't define it. Yup /thread I said all definitions are shorthands. I did not say all shorthands are definitions. The libertarian definition of force is...... coercion [the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. "it wasn't slavery because no coercion was used"] through threat [see coercion] of or commission of violence [behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. "violence erupted in protest marches"] the seizure [the action of capturing someone or something using force. "the seizure of the Assembly building"] of private property the limitation of liberty through imprisonment or interference. So the libertarian definition of force is force or force or force or limiting liberty through imprisonment or limiting liberty through interference (without defining liberty, which, will end up being a state of the absence of force, won't it, hey?). So the libertarian definition of force, is force. C'mon, man, just say with a straight face "force isn't a vector quantity". I dares yeh.
Sir Exotic Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 12 hours ago, lorry said: Your conception of force (conception because you have not defined it, because libertarians can not define force) On 9/26/2017 at 7:05 PM, Jos van Weesel said: The definition of force: placing a person in an involuntary position without their choice or consent (rape, murder, theft, assault, fraud and coercion)
lorry Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 17 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said: Let elevators, objectively, go up and down. Your definition of elevator is that elevators can only go down. If elevators can only go down then up doesn't exist [because if up exists, the elevator can go up]. Therefore down doesn't exist [because if there is no up, what does it mean to say there is a down]. OR YOUR DEFINITION [2] IS INCORRECT. Force, in the context of ethics, can be good or bad. Your definition of force is that force can only be bad. If force can only be bad, it must be that good doesn't exist. If good doesn't exist, bad doesn't exist. OR YOUR DEFINITION [2] IS INCORRECT. If force can only be in one direction, force has no direction [because direction doesn't exist!], and if force has no direction then force has only magnitude, and if force has only magnitude then force is a scalar quantity. Force is not a scalar quantity, force is a vector quantity, you are wrong because your definition is wrong, and everything that follows from your definition is wrong. The libertarian can not define force because by defining force [correctly] it follows that they must define objective value/ethics [the co-ordinate system in which the force is said to act], and they can't do that because that implies an objective standard of value [and they have to drop subjective value theory]. And if they drop the subjective value theory, they can't be such degenerates, which is the whole point of Libertarianism.
lorry Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 Video of vectors vs scalars for anyone scratching their head.
Sir Exotic Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 14 hours ago, lorry said: ... Throughout this whole thread you have completely missed the important distinction between force and the initiation of force. I suggest you read Universal Preferable Behavior.
lorry Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 13 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said: Throughout this whole thread you have completely missed the important distinction between force and the initiation of force. I suggest you read Universal Preferable Behavior. UPB? Never heard of it.
Sir Exotic Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 21 hours ago, lorry said: UPB? Never heard of it. Assuming you're not being obnoxiously sarcastic; you should read it.
lorry Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 5 hours ago, Jos van Weesel said: Assuming you're not being obnoxiously sarcastic; you should read it. Who's it by?
shirgall Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 2 hours ago, lorry said: Who's it by? I submit this as evidence that lorry does not listen to the show.
lorry Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, shirgall said: I submit this as evidence that lorry does not listen to the show. Show?
lorry Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 Just kidding, I wrote about UPB on the previous page, didn't I? Oh, gawd, I've been memory holed! Bants aside, thanks for the convo. I learned a lot and really appreciate it. Where else can you even talk about this, hey?
Sir Exotic Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Gavitor said: <img> There's no string attached to the hooks either, it's just hooks. Disappointing.
RichardY Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 So, with values being objective, effectively people could trade in their baby for a better one (...or breed another, produce clones)?
Siegfried von Walheim Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, RichardY said: So, with values being objective, effectively people could trade in their baby for a better one (...or breed another, produce clones)? Values are subjective. I base this on the fact that peoples all across the world and throughout history have had conflicting values. Jesus valued all life and desired to save it while Genghis Khan valued only those that could put up a fight. Christianity values individualism (at least in its core, I can't say about the offshoots and sects) over collectivism while Islam values the collective and the constant war against oneself over the individual and peace. Democrats value power in the now over power in the future as well as collectivism while Republicans (supposedly, given the number of Rinos) value Christendom and individualism over collectivism and socialism. Since not all people can be right (because everyone has a value that is polar to someone else's), values must be subjective. Morality is what is objective (otherwise it is merely preference), though the hard part is defining what is moral and right without simply going by gut instinct. Answering the quote: most people value their blood over "genetic superiority" (I put in quotes because it is in of itself a subjective value)--meaning even a genius would most likely value his average intellect son over a genius boy of a similar age.
RichardY Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Since not all people can be right (because everyone has a value that is polar to someone else's), values must be subjective. Morality is what is objective (otherwise it is merely preference), though the hard part is defining what is moral and right without simply going by gut instinct. Answering the quote: most people value their blood over "genetic superiority" (I put in quotes because it is in of itself a subjective value)--meaning even a genius would most likely value his average intellect son over a genius boy of a similar age. I think of morality (as transcendental) that which is subjective and objective. Something like Islam is objective and morally absolute, in the sense, it values the spread of Islam above all, parts may seem irrational but the Idea is to take the Qu'ran as a whole (warts and all), "a Holy Book". UPB answers ethics in the negative sense in refraining from doing things. The real trick would be to provide a comprehensive positive affirmation of Morality. ...The why be Moral? Some woolly ideas that I have intuited from various material, involve the fact of increasing "consciousness" the only phenomena that actually seems to give life any meaning. The alternative is to follow baser instincts. Read through "The Tempest" (William Shakespeare) yesterday kind of a weird play, has people basically doped up on an Island. Imo because they follow for the most part, their baser instincts. Besides people who act immorally often end up drugging themselves imo, just look at famous politicians Kings and Queens. Can be alcohol, can be the Limelight, the effect I guess is similar, "Like a Moth to the flame" (also Shakespeare intrestingly, just looked it up, reading through the plays currently.) A rational proof that taxation is theft, why does the West have to import people when it has a hoard of beneficently gathered "contributions" to bestow on everyone foreign and domestic. Ponzi livestock scheme.
lorry Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Objective..... Quote Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality. Why do we need values?
RichardY Posted October 16, 2017 Posted October 16, 2017 Ayn Rand a masculine(imposes order) sort of lady, in the sense in being high in conscientiousness, for instance interested in Engineering. Reality the imposition of measurement. "And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." Came across the following passage by John Stuart Mill on Quora after searching for the Nietzsche quote. --------- it occurred to me to put the question directly to myself: "Suppose that all your objects in life were realized; that all the changes in institutions and opinions which you are looking forward to, could be completely effected at this very instant: would this be a great joy and happiness to you?" And an irrepressible self-consciousness distinctly answered, "No!" At this my heart sank within me: the whole foundation on which my life was constructed fell down. All my happiness was to have been found in the continual pursuit of this end. The end had ceased to charm, and how could there ever again be any interest in the means? I seemed to have nothing left to live for. At first I hoped that the cloud would pass away of itself; but it did not. A night's sleep, the sovereign remedy for the smaller vexations of life, had no effect on it. I awoke to a renewed consciousness of the woful fact. I carried it with me into all companies, into all occupations. Hardly anything had power to cause me even a few minutes oblivion of it. For some months the cloud seemed to grow thicker and thicker. The lines in Coleridge's "Dejection" -- I was not then acquainted with them -- exactly describe my case: "A grief without a pang, void, dark and drear, A drowsy, stifled, unimpassioned grief, Which finds no natural outlet or relief In word, or sigh, or tear." In vain I sought relief from my favourite books; those memorials of past nobleness and greatness from which I had always hitherto drawn strength and animation. I read them now without feeling, or with the accustomed feeling minus all its charm; and I became persuaded, that my love of mankind, and of excellence for its own sake, had worn itself out. --------- 14 hours ago, lorry said: Why do we need values? I think it comes down to framing or mindset, Aristotelian Carthesis. Why does a Lion kill a Zebra? Reason, because it's hungry. On a larger more meaningful scale it it is a question I'm grappling with. I mean there is the "Do what thou wilt"? But really, although values may be at the heart of taxation, questions for another thread.
Recommended Posts