mustang19:Yep, and you could call any statement I make that isn't completely in line with some moral absolutist position a "special plea".
So you admit to adopting an illogical position and thus you concede the debate. How does it feel to be a hypocrite?
mustang19:His law school plaque. Lawyers aren't that bright, but they're probably better than some random redneck-off-the-street. Why do I trust judges, then? Well, unfortunately, society needs to pick someone to run its legal system and studying law is the best education anyone seems to have developed for filling that role effectively.
What do you mean by "society", and why does it (whatever it is) "[need] to pick someone to run its legal system"?
mustang19:I can, and you're the one ignoring my implicit assumptions, Picard. The "how much" question is what you should be asking.
Earlier you used the phrase "completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards". Ignoring for the moment what you think actually constitutes a "safety hazard", it's clear from that phrase that you consider the elimination of safety hazards to be your ultimate goal here. If that's not your position, then why did you use that phrase? I don't see how that phrase can logically imply any other position. So I'd like to know what your actual position is here, and why it is what it is. If your position is indeed that the elimination of safety hazards is your ultimate goal here, then I'd like to know why.
So no, I really don't see how I was ignoring your implicit assumptions. Maybe I was mistaken about what they are, but if so, the onus is on you to correct my mistake. I'm not a mind-reader, after all.
mustang19:By enough to justify whatever inefficiency the regulation causes. I'll trade some fraction of a percent loss of wages from legal fees for comp protection if that's how it has to work.
Do you understand what the fallacy of composition is or not? Please answer my question.
What do you mean by "inefficiency"? How much do you think justifies it? Is this just another instance of "I know it when I see it", i.e. a subjective whim, or is there an empirical formula to be used here?
mustang19:For the purposes of this argument you can call me a utilitarian. Want more specifics? Well, I'll answer.
How do you think utility can be objectively measured?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
That doesn't follow.
If that's not clear enough, I'll just move on. Sorry, I know you've asked these questions a few times, but I don't see anything to add to a word definition besides my totalitarian whims or what's in the dictionary.
Earlier you used the phrase "completely or at least mostly eliminate the safety hazards". Ignoring for the moment what you think actually constitutes a "safety hazard", it's clear from that phrase that you consider the elimination of safety hazards to be your ultimate goal here. If that's not your position, then why did you use that phrase?
Because I thought it was a desirable but unrealistic goal.
I don't see how that phrase can logically imply any other position. So I'd like to know what your actual position is here, and why it is what it is. If your position is indeed that the elimination of safety hazards is your ultimate goal here, then I'd like to know why.
I'd like to make workplaces safer. Why is that desirable? Whim. If you like unsafe workplaces, I guess that's that.
I know what it is and I didn't literally mean that all workplace safety issues are the same.
Yep, whim. Watch those videos and get back to me about how great it was not to have worker protections.
It can't be. Common sense is all we got.
mustang1912:That doesn't follow.
How not? To continue "arguing" from an illogical position entails conceding the logical debate.
mustang1912:If that's not clear enough, I'll just move on. Sorry, I know you've asked these questions a few times, but I don't see anything to add to a word definition besides my totalitarian whims or what's in the dictionary.
What I'm trying to do is understand your thinking, and it appears that you don't want me to succeed there. That, of course, means that you're not engaging me honestly and straightforwardly. So why bother engaging me at all? "For the lulz"? I don't see how there's any "lulz" to be had here, but then again I'm not you.
mustang1912:Because I thought it was a desirable but unrealistic goal.
In other words, I was basically right - like I thought. So how again was I ignoring your implicit assumptions?
mustang1912:I'd like to make workplaces safer. Why is that desirable? Whim. If you like unsafe workplaces, I guess that's that.
I'm sure there's more to it than just "whim". Remember, I'm trying to understand your thinking. Questioning your desire for safer workplaces (better for your "make workplaces safer") in no way means I necessarily don't share that desire.
mustang1912:I know what it is and I didn't literally mean that all workplace safety issues are the same.
Then why do you point to alleged conditions inside a single meat-packing plant as representative of what your opponents want - or what their positions would necessarily entail?
mustang1912:Yep, whim. Watch those videos and get back to me about how great it was not to have worker protections.
There you go again.
mustang1912:It [utility] can't be [measured]. Common sense is all we got.
That invalidates the utilitarian position, which is predicated on the notion that utility can be measured.
ate my post
I can't prove how "apples therefore giraffes" (or your argument) or "all systems besides moral absolutism are illogical" doesn't follow. It just doesn't. There's no logical progression there.
It's lulz.
I don't remember.
I like safe workplaces because I like to work in them, and I think it helps other workers too. If not employers.
Because that's a nasty example of what those positions lead to.
Actually, few utilitarians even proposed a way to quantitatively measure utility. I don't think that was ever the objective.
mustang1912:I can't prove how "apples therefore giraffes" (or your argument) or "all systems besides moral absolutism are illogical" doesn't follow. It just doesn't. There's no logical progression there.
It's more like this:
1. Anyone who continues arguing from an illogical position, after admitting that their position is illogical, has conceded the logical debate.
2. You've continued arguing from an illogical position after admitting that your position is illogical.
3. Therefore, you've conceded the logical debate.
mustang1912:It's lulz.
Yeah, I don't believe you. I see no "lulz" to be had from this. And you don't really seem amused.
mustang1912:I don't remember.
I don't believe you here either. So let's try this again: how again was I ignoring your implicit assumptions?
mustang1912:I like safe workplaces because I like to work in them, and I think it helps other workers too. If not employers.
Wouldn't that make it in employers' interest to make their workplaces safer?
Of course, there's also the question of what you think constitutes a "safe workplace" vs. what others think constitutes such. Like I said before, I don't accept "I know it when I see it" as a legitimate answer to this question.
mustang1912:Because that's a nasty example of what those positions lead to.
Necessarily? If so, please elaborate on your reasoning here.
mustang1912:Actually, few utilitarians even proposed a way to quantitatively measure utility. I don't think that was ever the objective.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is the classic expression of the utilitarian position, attributed to John Stuart Mill. The word "greatest" implies maximization, which is inherently quantitative.
after admitting that your position is illogical.
What? When?
Not always, if it costs the employer. Employees are basically free to the employer; one gets killed/mangled and he draws another from the labor pool without bearing the full cost of what happened.
Not necessarily. But you don't seem to be concerned with historical evidence.
The word "greatest" implies maximization, which is inherently quantitative.
Not necessarily.
Because I'm arguing from utilitarian whims, and for the record that's all I'll base my moral positions on from now on. Whether or not whims are always "illogical" has no meaningful answer. Maybe they are in the sense that an ought cannot be derived from an is, but not always in the sense of being contradictory.
My other account magically stopped working. So I'm using a new alt.
Labeling a statement special plea doesn't really mean anything for a moral opinion.
mustang1912:What? When?
Right here: "Yep, and you could call any statement I make that isn't completely in line with some moral absolutist position a 'special plea'."
mustang1912:Not always, if it costs the employer. Employees are basically free to the employer; one gets killed/mangled and he draws another from the labor pool without bearing the full cost of what happened.
Not bearing the "full cost of what happened" doesn't mean bearing basically no cost whatsoever. That's another false dilemma you're trying to peddle. Furthermore, your position begs the question as to why the employer should bear the "full cost of what happened", let alone the question of what the "full cost of what happened" actually is.
mustang1912:Not necessarily. But you don't seem to be concerned with historical evidence.
Historical evidence is irrelevant here. You've just effectively conceded that your position is not the only one that could prevent or mitigate the conditions found in that meat-packing plant.
mustang1912:Not necessarily.
What else do you think the word "greatest", when used in that context, can imply? Or are you saying that maximization is not necessarily inherently quantitative? Vague phrases like this don't help advance the debate, but I'm not sure if you're really that interested in advancing it.
mustang1912:Because I'm arguing from utilitarian whims, and for the record that's all I'll base my moral positions on from now on. Whether or not whims are always "illogical" has no meaningful answer. Maybe they are in the sense that an ought cannot be derived from an is, but not always in the sense of being contradictory.
Nevertheless, I think your moral positions are most definitely hypocritical (i.e. contradictory).
Sorry, I wasn't aware exactly what the phrase meant, and I'll take that back. I'll say it wasn't a special plea. If special plea is taken to mean presenting a point without support, well, this is a moral argument, and my support is my moral opinion ("whim").
The second. Having the most fun getting banned from Mises (this is probably my last post btw) is an example of a qualitative maximization problem.
That's another false dilemma you're trying to peddle
I never said "basically no cost whatsoever"; stop that. My reasons for wanting workplace safety and my acknowledgement that law operates case-by-base have been discussed quite a bit, but I don't think I'll be able to keep posting.
I don't see it. Worker's comp might not be perfect, but repealing it is probably worse if historical evidence means anything.
blablanine:Sorry, I wasn't aware exactly what the phrase meant, and I'll take that back. I'll say it wasn't a special plea. If special plea is taken to mean presenting a point without support, well, this is a moral argument, and my support is my moral opinion ("whim").
Keep in mind that this is what started our whole sub-discussion about special pleading:
Autolykos:So the employee is not responsible for risks he's willing to take? By that reasoning, I wouldn't be responsible for my own death if I was unlucky in a round of Russian roulette. Or are you resorting to special pleading here?
If you're now saying that you weren't resorting to special pleading, then you must agree that, by your reasoning, I wouldn't be responsible for my own death if I was unlucky in a round of Russian roulette.
blablanine:The second. Having the most fun getting banned from Mises (this is probably my last post btw) is an example of a qualitative maximization problem.
What does the phrase "qualitative maximization problem" actually mean to you? I consider it to be nonsensical. It doesn't make sense to me to talk about maximization in a qualitative sense.
blablanine:I never said "basically no cost whatsoever"; stop that.
You said that employees are basically free to the employer, did you not? "Basically free" and "basically no cost whatsoever" mean the same thing, do they not?
blablanine:My reasons for wanting workplace safety and my acknowledgement that law operates case-by-base have been discussed quite a bit, but I don't think I'll be able to keep posting.
Just so you know, I'm not the one reporting your posts (if anyone is).
Acknowledging that what the state calls "law" operates on a case-by-case basis in no way means one must agree with it ever. I maintain that you resort to "I know it when I see it" as a cop-out against questions of principle, which I don't think looks good on your part. Maybe you don't care, but whether you do really makes no difference to me.
blablanine:I don't see it. Worker's comp might not be perfect, but repealing it is probably worse if historical evidence means anything.
Either you really don't see it, in which case I think you're deluded, or you really do see it and don't care, in which case I think you're deluded and also trolling.
Maybe. Then again, I was talking about a particular application of my utilitarianism rather than universal linguistic rules.
Well, let me give you an engineering example of qualitative maximization if you can't see how qualitative factors can matter. QKT optimization requires qualitative approaches.
Ah, hyperbole again. Well, I'm sure there is some cost; they do have to spend time hiring new people after killing them.
What, exactly, is the contradiction? That I have subjective opinions about morals that didn't emerge somehow from formal logic? That a legal definition of neglience in worker's comp matters for Russian Roulette? I'm going to need more explanation.