Estoppel - Argumentation Ethics - Aggression

 

z1235:

...or, perhaps, you are trying to refute my Writing Ethics proof?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, you're just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.

So you're saying the proof is good? It's really a simple question in need of a simple answer. Is my Writing Ethics proof good or bad ('no proof there')? 

Z.

 

 

Scineram, what is property ? How is it justified ?

Juan:

Seriously though, you don't really understand the objections to your crass logical positivism or are you just 'arguing' in bad faith ?

I always argue in good faith. What would be the purpose of arguing in bad faith?

This is like the 20th time you've called me a logical positivist. You haven't yet articulated why you imagine this to be so, but you're certainly welcome to. (What, did you think AJ stands for the positivist A.J. Ayer?)

z1235:

So you're saying

That you're just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

That you're just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.

What about belching, arguing, and painting? Subsumed in the same larger concept, a different one, or not subsumed at all? 

How about answering my question?

z1235:

Is my Writing Ethics proof good or bad ('no proof there')? 

Z.

 

scineram:

Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

But who ultimately controls the pen/pencil/keyboard? You're confusing proximate with ultimate.

scineram:

Who cares?

You should. Unless, of course, you're fine with superficial thinking. Which it appears you are.

 

I always argue in good faith. What would be the purpose of arguing in bad faith?

How can I know what are you trying to achieve ? You can certainly be arguing in bad faith.

(What, did you think AJ stands for the positivist A.J. Ayer?)

I didn't even realize that the first letters of Ayer's name were the same letters you use as nickname, so the answer is "No, I didn't think that"

Yet your position is a variation of logical positivism. You think you can refute arguments by invoking a 'rigorous' logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra, not to human affairs. Not to mention that you are avoiding using your standard to judge your own 'proofs'. Which would mean you are indeed arguing in bad faith.

So, again, please give a flawless, formal, and unambiguous definition of ALL the concepts and terms you use or admit that your refutations are invalid and have zero 'convincing power'. And while at it, please give a formal definition and units to measure this 'convincing power'.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

That you're just not grasping that writing, talking, and singing are all subsumed in a larger concept.

z1235:

What about belching, arguing, and painting?

Only the latter two in the same concept as above. Perhaps you could, just maybe, give just a teentsy bit of thought here.

z1235:

What about belching, arguing, and painting?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Only the latter two in the same concept as above.

So a Belching Ethics proof would be no good, whereas Argumentation Ethics and Painting Ethics proof would work? Also, care to disclose the algorithm (rule) by which you subsume these actions into different concepts? 

Z.

 

Juan:

"No, I didn't think that"

OK.

Juan:

Yet your position is a variation of logical positivism. You think you can refute arguments by invoking a 'rigorous' logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra, not to human affairs. Not to mention that you are avoiding using your standard to judge your own 'proofs'. Which would mean you are indeed arguing in bad faith.

Wow. I've never seen you actually put together an argument, but what you stated here was clear, cogent, and in fact a perfectly reasonable point. It's funny, because now that you've explained what you mean I think I basically agree with you, at least in terms of argumentation ethics. I fully agree that rigorous logical standards are out of place when trying to evaluate situations that Hoppe is talking about, and in a sense that is the very issue I take with argumentation ethics. Let me explain.

What you've stated in fact leads me to a nice rewording of my general objection to argumentation ethics: It seems to me that Hoppe tries to borrow the extra persuasive power of that "'rigorous' logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra" and apply it to an ethical judgment or standard. He seems to want the full force of a mathematics-level logical proof, but perhaps you will agree that if that were his aim he would be misguided (I grant that maybe you don't agree that that is his aim). Insofar as Hoppe aims for the extra "oomph" that a rigorous logical proof would provide, I must take exception for exactly the reason you point out. That is why I have sometimes noted that argumentation ethics is fine as a persuasive concept. What I object to is his apparent attempt to elevate that persuasive concept to the level of a logically proven fact with all the certainty of a mathematical theorem.

The concept "don't be a hypocrite" is a persuasive one. My point could summed up as, "Why not just leave it at that? Why a proof?" And given your insight above, maybe you would agree.

There is still the question, "Why does AJ attack this libertarian idea if he claims to be a libertarian?" The only reason is that I think it's doing more harm than good. In fact, I think theories like argumentation ethics do tremendous harm. And no, I'm not prepared to back that statement up - I'm just noting that that's where I'm coming from so you (and others that may read this...hi wilderness) don't think I'm refuting it for no good reason or in bad faith.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

scineram:

Maybe his owner allowed him or even ordered to write.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

But who ultimately controls the pen/pencil/keyboard? You're confusing proximate with ultimate.

scineram:

Who cares?

You should. Unless, of course, you're fine with superficial thinking. Which it appears you are.

 

well, I have given specific reasons why your question is irrelevant.

z1235:

What about belching, arguing, and painting?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Only the latter two in the same concept as above.

z1235:

So a Belching Ethics proof would be no good, whereas Argumentation Ethics and Painting Ethics proof would work?

What do you think the differences between a belch and a discussion are?

scineram:

well, I have given specific reasons why your question is irrelevant.

No, you just rambled on about nothing.

 

Thanks AJ. I'm replying tomorow.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

scineram:

well, I have given specific reasons why your question is irrelevant.

No, you just rambled on about nothing.

 

I guess so, if pointing out how you conflate possession with ownership, like a good mutualist, is rambling.

Wherever you go--there you are.

So you if you wish to deny that...I'm thinking you'll have a problem. And you should kill your lie about me, because I don't conflate possession with ownership.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

What do you think the differences between a belch and a discussion are?

I can think of many differences. Which ones in particular do you find to be relevant to an Ethics proof? What about a massage and a discussion? Subsumed in the same concept or not? What "concept", btw?

Talking of discussions, how about YOU answer some questions of mine for a change?

Is my Writing Ethics proof good or not? If for some reason it isn't, would you care to explain why? Since this is the THIRD time I'm asking you the same question, I can only assume that you are purposefully avoiding it. Any reason why?

Anyone else here willing to refute my Writing Ethics proof? I mean, I knew it was good, but I didn't expect it to be THIS good. 

Z.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

What do you think the differences between a belch and a discussion are?

z1235:

I can think of many differences.

List what you believe to be the relevant ones for this discussion.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

List what you believe to be the relevant ones for this discussion.

How's this: One can ('truly') belch while being owned by someone else; one cannot ('truly') discuss while being owned by someone else?

Btw, don't assume that me continuing to answer EVERY question of yours implies my resignation to the fact that you have yet to answer even ONE of mine. I'm generous to you because I can easily afford to be so.

Z.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

List what you believe to be the relevant ones for this discussion.

z1235:

How's this: One can ('truly') belch while being owned by someone else; one cannot ('truly') discuss while being owned by someone else?

There's more to it than that. Keep going. Consider the nature of discussion and what it's supposed to accomplish.

btw: your questions betray the fact that you have no understanding of the topic. My questions are designed to get you to think about the topic without the usual government-run-school method of wet-nurse force-feeding teach-to-the-test crap. Should you wish to be spoon-fed: find someone else. I don't do that stuff.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

btw: your questions betray the fact that you have no understanding of the topic. My questions are designed to get you to think about the topic without the usual government-run-school method of wet-nurse force-feeding teach-to-the-test crap. Should you wish to be spoon-fed: find someone else. I don't do that stuff.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? Your non-answers (repeatedly) betray the fact that whenever cornered you merely hand-wave your way out of the room by getting "tough" and by accusing the other party of not having enough "understanding". It may have worked with others but it's not going to work with me. I, too, have "stuff" that I don't do. 

Now, how about you "teach" me by answering my questions, for a change? It just may work better for everyone involved. 

Z.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

btw: your questions betray the fact that you have no understanding of the topic. My questions are designed to get you to think about the topic without the usual government-run-school method of wet-nurse force-feeding teach-to-the-test crap. Should you wish to be spoon-fed: find someone else. I don't do that stuff.

z1235:

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sure you do. You don't want to actually think this out; you want me to do YOUR thinking for YOU and tell you the answer. No, that just won't do. You will have to think it through yourself.  I'll help, but you have to do the lifting yourself.

Now then, what is the nature of a belch vs the nature of discussion? That is to say: what is a belch? What is discussion?

What you've stated in fact leads me to a nice rewording of my general objection to argumentation ethics: It seems to me that Hoppe tries to borrow the extra persuasive power of that "'rigorous' logical standard that in reality only applies to algebra" and apply it to an ethical judgment or standard.

Well that's somewhat ironic because I think you are doing that - Hoppe not so much.

I think we agree that arguments must be consistent and that if an argument is not consistent it can be dismissed, no ? What Hoppe and others are getting at is that arguments that try to refute "self-ownership" are not consistent. For instance, take a look at this post from scineram http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7985/283017.aspx#283017

It seems that scineram is trying to attack the concept of self-ownership of, say, Mr Smith, and the only way he found to do it is to claim that Mr Smith is 'owned' by Mr Jones. Which of course begs the questions "is Mr Jones a self-owner ? " and "is Mr Jones ownership of Mr Smith legitimate" ?

Scineram thinks he's proven that property is somehow arbitrary and yet he uses the concept of property...when trying to refute the concept of property. It seems scineram 'argument' is inconsistent and so 'we' don't need to take him seriously.

He[Hoppe] seems to want the full force of a mathematics-level logical proof, but perhaps you will agree that if that were his aim he would be misguided (I grant that maybe you don't agree that that is his aim).

I think it is you the one who wants to put the argument in mathematical/formal terms, not Hoppe. So IMO you are somewhat misrepresenting the position of the 'objective moralists'.

Insofar as Hoppe aims for the extra "oomph" that a rigorous logical proof would provide, I must take exception for exactly the reason you point out.

That assumes that the only kind of valid logical proofs are formal proofs of the kind that show, say, that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2.

However, since we are dealing with ourselves, that is, we are humans (which are self-directed self-aware entities) discussing humans problems, we can't put all arguments in formal terms. Yet you keep on asking for definitions AS IF it were possible to put the whole problem in formal terms. You seem to be asking for something that can't be done.

That is why I have sometimes noted that argumentation ethics is fine as a persuasive concept.

Heh. And what does persuasive mean ? An argument should be persuasive only if it's right. On the other hand, take demagogues who are 'persuasive' because they tell people what people want to hear, not what is true. Is that the kind of 'persuasiveness' you are referring to ?

What I object to is his apparent attempt to elevate that persuasive concept to the level of a logically proven fact with all the certainty of a mathematical theorem.

Well, I think you are talking about three different things there

1) persuasiveness (which is a fuzzy concept)
2) consistency, which is part of 'objective morality'
3) formal logic

and although those things are interrelated, I don't think you are seeing all the 'correct' relations between them.

The concept "don't be a hypocrite" is a persuasive one. My point could summed up as, "Why not just leave it at that? Why a proof?"

It seems to me that being a hypocrite entails being [logically] inconsistent too.

Say A steals stuff from B, and of course A intends to keep the stuff. So, how's A going to 'argue' that he gets to keep the stuff ? Will A invoke 'property rights' ? Can he do that in a consistent fashion ? I doubt it.

Same thing with statists. The statists get to give orders ? Well, so I do get to give orders too, and my orders cancel their orders. Which means that in practice they can't justify any authority over their 'subjects'. It's a matter of logical consistency...

There is still the question, "Why does AJ attack this libertarian idea if he claims to be a libertarian?" The only reason is that I think it's doing more harm than good.

Yes, I admit that's a likely explanation. And I have that same position except I think the idea that causes more harm than good is amoral utilitarianism =P

Thanks for the clear discussion, Juan.

Juan:

I think we agree that arguments must be consistent and that if an argument is not consistent it can be dismissed, no ? What Hoppe and others are getting at is that arguments that try to refute "self-ownership" are not consistent. For instance, take a look at this post from scineram http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7985/283017.aspx#283017

It seems that scineram is trying to attack the concept of self-ownership of, say, Mr Smith, and the only way he found to do it is to claim that Mr Smith is 'owned' by Mr Jones. Which of course begs the questions "is Mr Jones a self-owner ? " and "is Mr Jones ownership of Mr Smith legitimate" ?

Scineram thinks he's proven that property is somehow arbitrary and yet he uses the concept of property...when trying to refute the concept of property. It seems scineram 'argument' is inconsistent and so 'we' don't need to take him seriously.

Assuming scineram wasn't speaking tongue-in-cheek (hard to tell), I agree you don't need to take his statement seriously. If someone wants to use the concept of ownership in one case, but disavow it in another case without a good explanation why, then I agree such a person would be being inconsistent.

Juan:

I think it is you the one who wants to put the argument in mathematical/formal terms, not Hoppe. So IMO you are somewhat misrepresenting the position of the 'objective moralists'.

Well, I got that impression from words like "proof" and to some degree "(performative) contradiction." If it could be shown that Hoppe was not aiming for a rigorous proof, but more just a strong argument, I would have only minor reason to take exception to his theory.

Juan:

That assumes that the only kind of valid logical proofs are formal proofs of the kind that show, say, that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2.

However, since we are dealing with ourselves, that is, we are humans (which are self-directed self-aware entities) discussing humans problems, we can't put all arguments in formal terms. Yet you keep on asking for definitions AS IF it were possible to put the whole problem in formal terms. You seem to be asking for something that can't be done.

I don't think I mentioned "formal," but basically I agree that we can't encapsulate the entire nature of a human problem in rigorous (and certainly not formal) terms. My comments can be seen as objecting to this same thing, by demanding a clearer statement of the "proof" of it - because I know none can be supplied. In other words, I've been "asking for definitions AS IF it were possible to put the whole problem" in rigorous logical terms because it has been my impression that Hoppe and others are treating the argumentation ethics as if it were a rigorous, logical proof. If it is not, I have nothing major to say against it.

Juan:

And what does persuasive mean ? An argument should be persuasive only if it's right. On the other hand, take demagogues who are 'persuasive' because they tell people what people want to hear, not what is true. Is that the kind of 'persuasiveness' you are referring to ?

By "persuasion" I mean very generally any verbal method of getting others to agree with you, so it could be honest, dishonest, or neither. Deliberately distorting facts would be a dishonest form of persuasion, but not all persuasion is dishonest, especially since not all statements are about facts. Regarding, "An argument should be persuasive only if it's right," I would say an argument (an honest argument) can only be persuasive if it is considered right or valid by the person listening. In particular, arguments that assume certain ethical positions and reason logically from those positions can be very persuasive, and valid, if the audience shares those starting ethical positions. I would be a lot more sympathetic to argumentation ethics if it could be presented in that way.

Juan:

1) persuasiveness (which is a fuzzy concept)
2) consistency, which is part of 'objective morality'
3) formal logic

I hope I cleared up any fuzziness about persuasiveness above. It just means how effective the argument is at changing people's minds (how many people it convinces, etc.). Of course the most persuasive argument isn't necessarily the best one, and I hope it goes without saying that we want to avoid dishonest, flawed, and counterfactual arguments even if our aim is persuasion.

Re: consistency, since I don't agree that morality can be objective (OR, I don't see what you mean by that), I can't make sense of that one. We may have to agree to disagree. Or if you can explain more clearly what objective morality means, we could try to clarify that. (If interested, see my attempt to clarify this concept with KoB on the previous page of this thread: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/7985/283025.aspx#283025.)

Juan:

although those things are interrelated, I don't think you are seeing all the 'correct' relations between them.

I think it's just that we may have different impressions of what Hoppe is attempting, who his audience is intended to be, and what the role of his theory is intended to be. If I shared what seems to be your view of the overall nature/intent of his theory, I would probably not be objecting to it.

Juan:

Say A steals stuff from B, and of course A intends to keep the stuff. So, how's A going to 'argue' that he gets to keep the stuff ? Will A invoke 'property rights' ? Can he do that in a consistent fashion ? I doubt it.

I don't really think there is a logical problem with what the thief is attempting, just, as you said above, we certainly don't have any reason to "take him seriously" when he argues by using property rights in his defense. In other words, he wouldn't be very persuasive if he tried to invoke property rights as an argument to keep the stuff he took. Probably no one would be convinced. They would say, "If you really believed in property rights, you wouldn't have stolen!" So it seems to me that whether he has in fact (logically) "contradicted" himself or is being (logically) inconsistent doesn't need to be talked about. It seems superfluous even if it could be in some sense proven.

In summary, I'm saying I don't think the logical analysis (even if correct) could add anything to the more familiar "hypocrisy" claim. Example from above:

Thief invokes property rights to argue that he should get to keep his loot. As a response, "You have performatively contradicted yourself" seems to add nothing to the more pedestrian statement, "If you really believed in property rights, you wouldn't have stolen!"

Juan:

And I have that same position except I think the idea that causes more harm than good is amoral utilitarianism =P

For instance, if you called someone an "amoral utilitarian" would you mean that that person has no moral sense or moral feeling?

Juan:

It seems that scineram is trying to attack the concept of self-ownership of, say, Mr Smith, and the only way he found to do it is to claim that Mr Smith is 'owned' by Mr Jones. Which of course begs the questions "is Mr Jones a self-owner ? " and "is Mr Jones ownership of Mr Smith legitimate" ?

Scineram thinks he's proven that property is somehow arbitrary and yet he uses the concept of property...when trying to refute the concept of property. It seems scineram 'argument' is inconsistent and so 'we' don't need to take him seriously.

 In this topic I only try to attack a supposed proof of self-ownership. Argumentation ethics claim its denial is inconsistent. My scenarios denied it, the point is they are not inconsistent. More precisely AE does not establish that they are inconsistent. It is an invalid argument to prove them inconsistent. Another proof might establish their inconsistency or be a valid argument for self-ownership, but AE is not.

You have a real problem differentiating between an assertion and a demonstration, sci.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Sure you do. You don't want to actually think this out; you want me to do YOUR thinking for YOU and tell you the answer. No, that just won't do. You will have to think it through yourself.  I'll help, but you have to do the lifting yourself.

Now then, what is the nature of a belch vs the nature of discussion? That is to say: what is a belch? What is discussion?

Let me know when you decide to stop belching (i.e. making vacuous claims to superior understanding of the universe) and start discussing (i.e. answering questions posed by your counter-party) and I may consider responding.

Z.

 

 

z1235:

Let me know when you decide to stop belching (i.e. making vacuous claims

Let me know when you stop being butthurt.

 

Well, I got that impression from words like "proof" and to some degree "(performative) contradiction." If it could be shown that Hoppe was not aiming for a rigorous proof, but more just a strong argument, I would have only minor reason to take exception to his theory.

I don't think that talking about proofs and contradictions means one is necessarily commited to a mathematics-like kind of proof. Even if the term "performative contradiction" sounds a bit more technical, I think it's being correctly used in the context of AE and AE-like positions.

In other words, I've been "asking for definitions AS IF it were possible to put the whole problem" in rigorous logical terms because it has been my impression that Hoppe and others are treating the argumentation ethics as if it were a rigorous, logical proof. If it is not, I have nothing major to say against it.

I'd say that the proof does rely on logic - all proofs must rely on logic. But unless we are dealing with explicit mathematical/formal subjects, we don't ask for definitions all the time. Constantly asking for definitions seems odd to me, but if you think it's a legitimate thing to do, then I think you are bound to define all terms you use, which for some reason you declined to do...

By "persuasion" I mean very generally any verbal method of getting others to agree with you, so it could be honest, dishonest, or neither. Deliberately distorting facts would be a dishonest form of persuasion, but not all persuasion is dishonest, especially since not all statements are about facts.

OK.

Regarding, "An argument should be persuasive only if it's right," I would say an argument (an honest argument) can only be persuasive if it is considered right or valid by the person listening.

(My wording was a bit sloppy..)

What you now mention seems to highlight a problem. I wasn't focusing on how persuasive AE or similar arguments are, not to mention that one can't predict or even easily 'measure' how persuasive arguments are. My focus is whether the argument is 'right' or 'wrong',

It is true that an argument is 'persuasive' if the target of the argument thinks the argument is right, but that's a tautology of sorts and a form of solipsism. Say, people who favor communism would be persuaded by commie arguments, That doesn't mean that the arguments are 'right'.

In particular, arguments that assume certain ethical positions and reason logically from those positions can be very persuasive, and valid, if the audience shares those starting ethical positions.

But that assumes the problem away in my opinion, and even if people share some ethical premises, they tend to reject the conclusions of those premises. For instance lots of people claim to not support theft, BUT favor taxation. It's not that hard to show that taxation and theft are the same thing, yet people remain unconvinced.

I hope I cleared up any fuzziness about persuasiveness above. It just means how effective the argument is at changing people's minds (how many people it convinces, etc.). Of course the most persuasive argument isn't necessarily the best one, and I hope it goes without saying that we want to avoid dishonest, flawed, and counterfactual arguments even if our aim is persuasion.

I see. I wonder though why would we want to avoid using persuasive arguments (even if flawed) if our aim is persuassion ?

Re: consistency, since I don't agree that morality can be objective (OR, I don't see what you mean by that), I can't make sense of that one.

Say your neighbor likes to eat cat food. That's his personal and 'subjective' taste and you don't have a say on it.

Say you neighbor likes to kidnap people and turn them into cat food. That's a different matter which doesn't deal only with your neighbor's 'subjective preferences'. Whether your neighbor is justified in doing what he likes, or not, is a moral problem, and the 'solution' is not to just say that what is right is whatever an individual thinks is right for him.

I think it's just that we may have different impressions of what Hoppe is attempting, who his audience is intended to be, and what the role of his theory is intended to be.

That may be true to some degree, though I think you are not only objecting to the 'style' so to speak of Hoppe's presentation but to the substance of the whole natural rights position ?

I don't really think there is a logical problem with what the thief is attempting, just, as you said above, we certainly don't have any reason to "take him seriously" when he argues by using property rights in his defense.

Even if he doesn't explicitly try to argue his case invoking property rights, his actions are in a way not very consistent. He thinks he can use other people's stuff (that's why he steals) but he would object to people 'stealing back' from him, even without opening his mouth.

In other words, he wouldn't be very persuasive if he tried to invoke property rights as an argument to keep the stuff he took. Probably no one would be convinced. They would say, "If you really believed in property rights, you wouldn't have stolen!"

Yes. And isn't that an appeal to logic and consistency ?

So it seems to me that whether he has in fact (logically) "contradicted" himself or is being (logically) inconsistent doesn't need to be talked about.

Yet saying "If you really believed in property rights, you wouldn't have stolen!" is an appeal to consistency ?

In summary, I'm saying I don't think the logical analysis (even if correct) could add anything to the more familiar "hypocrisy" claim.

But the claim of hypocrisy is based on a logical analysis. Furthermore, the concept of hyposcrisy is a moral concept. For people who believe in 'subjective' morality the concept should be practically meaningless ?

Thief invokes property rights to argue that he should get to keep his loot. As a response, "You have performatively contradicted yourself" seems to add nothing to the more pedestrian statement, "If you really believed in property rights, you wouldn't have stolen!"

Well, agreed, The first statement is supposedly more scholarly but I don't see a fundamental difference between the two. I'd say both try to describe the same facts.

Besides, the whole 'theory' is supposedly a philosophical investigation on the nature of morality or amorality or what have you, so scholarly or philosophical language would be used to varying degrees.

For instance, if you called someone an "amoral utilitarian" would you mean that that person has no moral sense or moral feeling?

I'm saying that people who explicitly deny the validity of concepts such as morally right and morally wrong are technically speaking amoralists. A fair amount of utilitarians seem to belong in that category. Whether they personally have moral sense or moral feelings, I don't know. At any rate, I don't trust people whose standard of justice is to 'maximize social utility'.

scineram:

In this topic I only try to attack a supposed proof of self-ownership. Argumentation ethics claim its denial is inconsistent. My scenarios denied it, the point is they are not inconsistent.

I think your scenarios assume self-ownership while trying to deny it so your counterexample is not valid. Whether you see that or not, I don't know.

This is too easy.  Once somebody dialogues, then they, themselves, have initiated - dialogue - and that person did not initiate physical aggression.  Therefore either the people that don't get AE or think mental farts somehow refute AE are protaganists or/and dishonest.  To dialogue is to not initiate physical aggression.  So everybody posting in this forum has proved AE by dialoguing, by communicating in a way that does NOT initiate physical aggression.  What's so funny is I remember the days in this forum when the so-called subjectivists/amoralists thought natural law theorists thought too much or some bunk version of that, yet, it's really their own shadow they are boxing.

Post here in this forum as one venue that most people that visit this forum obviously all can see as a human action of all posters, and proof of AE happens.  How many posts in this forum alone?  Count those and that's how many times AE has been confirmed.  It's as simple as that.

wilderness:

Once somebody dialogues, then they, themselves, have initiated - dialogue - and they person did not initiate physical aggression. 

A dialogue is not the same thing as an argument.

But is it the 5-minute or the full half-hour?

wilderness:

Once somebody dialogues yawns, then they, themselves, have initiated - dialogue a yawn- and that person did not initiate physical aggression. 

wilderness:

So everybody posting yawning in this forum has proved AE YE (Yawn Ethics) by dialoguing, by communicating yawning in a way that does NOT initiate physical aggression. 

wilderness:

How many posts yawns in this forum alone?  Count those and that's how many times AE YE has been confirmed.  It's as simple as that.

I still think my Writing Ethics proof is better. 

Z.

 

 

 

 

Stranger:

A dialogue is not the same thing as an argument.

yeah, one begins with d and the other a.  It doesn't matter.

wilderness:

Stranger:

A dialogue is not the same thing as an argument.

yeah, one begins with d and the other a.  It doesn't matter.

No wonder you don't understand argumentation ethics.

Stranger:

No wonder you don't understand argumentation ethics.

No wonder you don't.

z1235:

I still think my Writing Ethics proof is better.

I still think you don't understand the nature of the concepts involved.

 

wilderness:

Stranger:

No wonder you don't understand argumentation ethics.

No wonder you don't.

If you don't understand how argumentation and dialogue differ as actions, then you don't understand the very premise of argumentation ethics.

Stranger:

If you don't understand how argumentation and dialogue differ as actions, then you don't understand the very premise of argumentation ethics.

What is self-evident is not arguable any further.  No initated physical aggression has occurred.  That's the proof in this action:  posting in this forum.

Are you going to argue the truth of what argumentation is compared to dialogue?  Are they NOT verbally communicating, ie. that which is consistent with posting in this forum?  Even if I went:  zljnl;dnfnqowinopiqn lwkr:  and solely posted that, the self-evident proof of an ethical action needs no more explanation.