Juan: Stephen Forde:How can one have a theory of contractual enforcement without having a theory of property rights enforcement in the first place. It begs the question. Yes, that's one of the problems. And the theory of enforcement of contracts must be consistent with a prior theory explaining why we have rights at all.
Stephen Forde:How can one have a theory of contractual enforcement without having a theory of property rights enforcement in the first place. It begs the question.
I have put forth both my theory of property, my theory of contracts, and my theory of self-soverignty. All are consistent with reality, reason, and logic. The fact that they do not agree with your gut emotional response means nothing.
Knight_of_BAAWA:You have yet to show that killing for a pack of gum is proportional.
Pablo:I am growing bored of this.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know.
Pablo:The burden of proof is still on you.
Pablo:The party who is initiating violence opens themselves to an 'open contract' with the victim.
Depending on the laws of the property in which the crime has taken place,
You could clarify what you mean by using the word 'self-sovereign'.
My argument is simple: if you have agreed to what is 'proportional', or 'just', then you can be held to that definition.
The earth being flat is not a subjective value.
I have put forth both my theory of property, my theory of contracts, and my theory of self-soverignty
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I am growing bored of this.Perhaps you should quit being a sophist.
Or perhaps the strawmen and ad hominem attacks should stop. It is childish and shows a lack of intelligence. I have had just about as much ad hominem attacks and strawmen that I can take for one thread.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know. Pablo:The burden of proof is still on you.Nope. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that it's ok to use more force than was used initially.
I reject your clam that proportionality is the back bone of defense. I don't believe in an eye for an eye. I believe in protection of ones property, without the need to be required (by coercion) to submit to a third party czar. The burden of proof still lies with you to provide what is a proportional defensive action to take against a bubble gum theif.
Until you can provide me with a universal definition of proportionality, this argument will continue to go no where. Avoid the question at your own loss.
Pablo:Or perhaps the strawmen and ad hominem attacks should stop.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nope. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that it's ok to use more force than was used initially.
Pablo:I reject your clam that proportionality is the back bone of defense.
The burden of proof is upon you to show that it's ok to use more force than was used initially. Until you can do that, this argument will go nowhere. IOW: don't try to shift the burden of proof; I'll have none of that. And I will keep reminding you of your burden until you either get it through your head or you end the discussion. It's your choice, sophist. I suggest you make your choice now.
Juan:Depending on the laws of the property in which the crime has taken place, As I explained, land has no laws and PDAs are non territorial.
If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature, and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor), then he is indeed responsible for his own land. If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws.
Juan:You could clarify what you mean by using the word 'self-sovereign'. Okay. Individual rights derive from self-sovereignty, NOT from contracts - happy now ?
You are still using multiple definitions of rights and portraying them as if they are the same idea. Self-sovereignty is not a 'right', it is a must. Every acting individual must choose. His ability to choose implies the ability to contract.
Juan:My argument is simple: if you have agreed to what is 'proportional', or 'just', then you can be held to that definition. And my reply is even simpler. The thief has not agreed to be killed. Can you GET that ?
He does not need to have agreed if he is acting coercively/violently. I have said this before. Good luck getting a trespassing criminal to agree to be punished though. I would love to see the world you live in.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:Or perhaps the strawmen and ad hominem attacks should stop.And the only one doing such is you.
You are joking right? I have not made a single of either. You have repeatedly called me derogatory names and misrepresented nearly everything that I have been saying.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Whenever you get tired of trying to shift the burden of proof, let me know. Pablo:The burden of proof is still on you. Knight_of_BAAWA:Nope. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that it's ok to use more force than was used initially. Pablo:I reject your clam that proportionality is the back bone of defense.I reject your rejection based on the fact that we are self-owners.
That is a non sequitor. Proportionality has nothing to do with self-sovereignty.
Knight_of_BAAWA:The burden of proof is upon you to show that it's ok to use more force than was used initially. Until you can do that, this argument will go nowhere. IOW: don't try to shift the burden of proof; I'll have none of that. And I will keep reminding you of your burden until you either get it through your head or you end the discussion.
You are incorrect. The burden of proof is on you to prove that a 'proportional' amount of defensive force is needed to combat aggression. How would you measure such force? Who is to decide what is proportional? You can not just continue to claim a shift in the burden of proof when you still have made no argument that requires my disproof.
Knight_of_BAAWA:It's your choice, sophist. I suggest you make your choice now.
Another unfounded ad hominem. Do you even know what a sophist is? Your attacks are becoming more and more ridiculous every time you speak. I am here to debate, not to have my person attacked by unfounded accusations. Your inability to look beyond your own beliefs is proving to me that you are a fool, and because of this, I am henceforth discontinuing any discussion with you on this topic
Knight_of_BAAWA:I reject your rejection based on the fact that we are self-owners.
Pablo:That is a non sequitor.
So sophist--got anything I can't shoot down?
Pablo:You are incorrect.
Pablo:Another unfounded ad hominem.
Juan: The earth being flat is not a subjective value. Justice is not a subjective value either, you little moral nihilist.
Just like proportionality isn't subjective?
Perhaps you should read a little book entitled "Anarchy and Law: The Political Economy of Choice".
Once again, I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective values and morals.
Juan:I have put forth both my theory of property, my theory of contracts, and my theory of self-soverignty Congratulations. You think you're some sort of great philosopher ? Oh wait, you're a 'law' student...that explains a lot...
Wow. You accuse me of not putting forth my ideas. I challenge your claim, and I am accused of being a 'know it all', which is exactly what you have been portraying yourself as this entire conversation. That is laughable. To make such a claim because someone is a law student is simply.. mind boggling.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:It's your choice, sophist. I suggest you make your choice now. Pablo:Another unfounded ad hominem.You clearly do not know what an ad hominem is. Please read this, sophist: The ad hominem fallacy fallacy. And yes: you are a sophist.
I know I said the last post was my last, but your ability to propose irrational beliefs as truth, and maintain them with pure stubborness is too much for me to let go.
Have you read the article you sent me? I am well aware of the meaning of ad hominem. You have exhibited a perfect case. You are avoiding the argument entirely, and instead are resorting to attacking my character based on unfounded ignorance.
"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument"
I'm also not sure if you read the other link you sent me, because you are clearly mistaken.
Sophist: Wandering teachers who came to Athens from foreign cities, and sought to popularize knowledge. They filled a need felt in Greece at this time for a general dissemination of that scientific knowledge which had previously been more or less privately cultivated in learned societies. Nowhere was this need more widespread than in Athens where a political career necessitated an acquaintance with the intellectual attainments of the race. The Sophists came to Athens to assist young men in achieving political success. Before long, this brought with it the subordination of purely theoretical learning to its practical usefulness, and the Sophists, far from teaching what is most likely to be true, instructed the youth in what is most likely to bear political fruit. Thus eloquent public appeal and the art of rhetoric soon took the place of pure science and philosophy. In this very desire, however, to persuade and refute, the problem presented itself as to whether among the various conflicting opinions which the Sophists had taught their pupils to defend and to oppose, there was anything of permanent value which could claim the assent of all men everywhere. This quest of the universal in knowledge and in conduct forms the basis of the Socratic Ques
The word has come to mean someone who uses philosophy in order to gain political or economic advantages. How am I doing this?
Pablo:Have you read the article you sent me?
Pablo:I'm also not sure if you read the other link you sent me, because you are clearly mistaken.
"Sophism: An eristic or contentious syllogism, distinguished from paralogism by the intent to deceive (Aristotle). -- G.R.M."
As you're clearly trying to deceive vis. shifting the burden of proof, you are a sophist.
Pablo:If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature, and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor), then he is indeed responsible for his own land. If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws.
If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature,
and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor),
then he is indeed responsible for his own land.
If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws.
Pablo: Juan: The thief has not agreed to be killed. Can you GET that ? He does not need to have agreed if he is acting coercively/violently. I have said this before.
Juan: The thief has not agreed to be killed. Can you GET that ?
Pablo: Juan: Justice is not a subjective value either, you little moral nihilist. Just like proportionality isn't subjective?
Juan: Justice is not a subjective value either, you little moral nihilist.
Pablo: Once again, I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective values and morals.
Knight_of_BAAWA:As you're clearly trying to deceive vis. shifting the burden of proof, you are a sophist.
I am trying to deceive? Who am I trying to deceive by asking you to be more precise in your definitions? That is absurd.
Yeah, and if individuals put penalty clauses into their contracts that are much greater than the original amount exchanged, than the proportional force one is allowed to use to enforce the contract is much higher than the value lost from the other party breaking the contract.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:Have you read the article you sent me?Yep. And you committed the ad hominem fallacy fallacy. I addressed your argument (by pointing out the fallacies therein) AND made some sarcastic comments. That's not the ad hominem fallacy, little one. Perhaps you should take Logic 101 for the twelfth time.
Reread the article- slowly. Step by step. Your lack of ability to comprehend it is beyond belief. You clearly have been avoiding my question of what your supposed 'answer' is. You still have yet to answer my question to your definition.
Do you understand what sarcasm is? Because, you are not being sarcastic. You are being rude and childish. You can not maintain the debate so you stand firm in assuming you need provide no proof for your arguments. The reason you will not accept the burden of proof is due soley to the fact that you have no proof. You continue to make radical accusations based on incorrect understandings of the words you use.
Irrationality is no substitute for intelligence. Stubbornness is no substitute for truth.
Knight_of_BAAWA:little one
Keep on proving your foolishness.
Pablo:I am trying to deceive?
Pablo:Who am I trying to deceive
Juan: Pablo:If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature, and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor), then he is indeed responsible for his own land. If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws. If you believe that land is derived as a result from ones labor in nature, I pointed out the fact that land just exists - it's not created by man. "Land is derived" is nonsense. Maybe you meant that conventional land ownership is derived from etc.
Indeed. Pardon the mistype. Property is what I meant.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yep. And you committed the ad hominem fallacy fallacy. I addressed your argument (by pointing out the fallacies therein) AND made some sarcastic comments. That's not the ad hominem fallacy, little one. Perhaps you should take Logic 101 for the twelfth time.
Pablo:Reread the article
If you can't, I suggest turning off your computer and going back to school.
Stephen Forde:Yeah, and if individuals put penalty clauses into their contracts that are much greater than the original amount exchanged,
Juan: and that man is responsible for his own actions (labor), Nonsense. Man is responsible for his actions if they cause harm. Otherwise being "responsible" means nothing.
... Perhaps reread what I wrote? I am advocating just this.
Juan:then he is indeed responsible for his own land. What do you mean ? He should care and feed his land ? Send the land to school ? Or ?
Having responsibility for an object is different than 'being responsible'. You confused this, that is the reason the second portion does not make sense to you.
Juan:If he is responsible for it, the land can be bound by his laws. You mean than now 'land' is a moral agent which should abide by rules such as "not kill" ?
No, the land is the mans responsibility.
Juan:Do you realize that in one sentence you managed to come up with four nonsensical assertions and then tied them all together in one big non-sequitur ?
Or, more simply, you did not understand me.
Juan: Pablo: Once again, I am not a nihilist. I believe in subjective values and morals. Okay. I'm not a murderer - I just believe that killing when I feel like is the right thing to do.
Non sequitor. Do me a favor. Learn what subjective and objective means.
Knight_of_BAAWA:What you most certainly are NOT doing (and thus you're lying again) is asking me to be more precise in my definitions.
How many times have I asked for an objective, universally applicable definition for what is subjective, or just.
Pablo:... Perhaps reread what I wrote?
Pablo:Indeed. Pardon the mistype. Property is what I meant.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:Reread the articleI have. You should take your own advice, little one. Further, you should actually provide some evidence for your outlandish claims, given that you have the onus of proof.
Provide evidence that you need to reread the article? Easy enough. You don't understand it.
Wisdom is not gained with age. Wisdom is gained with rationality, an open mind, reason, and logic. Stubborn fool. Keep calling me 'little one' as if it has anything to do with my intellect. All you are proving is that you are deeply in touch with your inner irrational child.
Pablo, do you think you could be bothered to actually back your claim? I'm still waiting, little one. Just let me know when you're ready.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo, do you think you could be bothered to actually back your claim? I'm still waiting, little one. Just let me know when you're ready.
When you learn to communicate, then we will talk.
I have backed up my claim. It is not my problem that you fail to comprehend it.
Juan: Pablo:... Perhaps reread what I wrote? Pablo:Indeed. Pardon the mistype. Property is what I meant. Look, you don't even know what you type - that's why it doesn't make sense. And I'm tired of your repetitions anyway. Have fun - I'm done.
Wow. I said land, instead of property, and quickly corrected the error. You understood what I was trying to communicate, so what is the problem?
I am tired of repeating myself as well. When you continue to fail to represent my arguments, I must continue to correct you. I'm glad you are done. Perhaps your search to find 'justice', and 'proportionality', will lead you to understand what I am telling you. Good luck.
When you continue to fail to represent my arguments,
Pablo:I have backed up my claim.
Oh wait--you didn't.
When you learn to be honest, I'll be here. Until then: I'm done with you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I have backed up my claim.You showed that it's ok to destroy a village in order to save it? Really? Oh wait--you didn't.
What are you talking about?
Knight_of_BAAWA:When you learn to be honest, I'll be here. Until then: I'm done with you.
When you learn to read, I'll bere here. Until then: grow up.
Juan:When you continue to fail to represent my arguments, I'm not 'representing' your arguments. You make nonsensical claims - don't understand the objections made to your nonsensical claims, and keep on repeating your nonsensical claims. And the joke is, you think that's arguing.
What objection have I not responded to with proof and reason? You have refused to answer any of my questions in regard to your theories. You will continue to do so, so this 'debate' is pointless.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I have backed up my claim.You showed that it's ok to destroy a village in order to save it? Really? Oh wait--you didn't. When you learn to be honest, I'll be here. Until then: I'm done with you.
Yeah, that's why I stopped a long time ago. Pablo is all about destroy the village in order to save it, like Bush had to rid the free market to save it. lol
Pablo and his 'might makes right'
Juan:What objection have I not responded to with proof and reason? You have refused to answer any of my questions in regard to your theories. You will continue to do so, so this 'debate' is pointless. ignored
Thats nothing new.
wilderness: Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I have backed up my claim.You showed that it's ok to destroy a village in order to save it? Really? Oh wait--you didn't. When you learn to be honest, I'll be here. Until then: I'm done with you. Yeah, that's why I stopped a long time ago. Pablo is all about destroy the village in order to save it, like Bush had to rid the free market to save it. lol Pablo and his 'might makes right'
Please read my posts before making assumptions.
Pablo: wilderness: Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:I have backed up my claim.You showed that it's ok to destroy a village in order to save it? Really? Oh wait--you didn't. When you learn to be honest, I'll be here. Until then: I'm done with you. Yeah, that's why I stopped a long time ago. Pablo is all about destroy the village in order to save it, like Bush had to rid the free market to save it. lol Pablo and his 'might makes right' Please read my posts before making assumptions.
I've read 'em. I've tried to discuss with you. And what has happened in this thread shows how ridiculous your assertion is, even though you have yet to show why somebody should kill a lad that stole bubblegum. Pathetic.