Anarchist Cain: Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong.
Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong.
Well, in practice that depends on who's actively trying to convince whom. If you're trying to convince me of the existence of something you believe in (like "natural law"), you're going to have to do better than just stating your belief. If you don't, then there's no issue. Of course that works the other way, too.
Anarchist Cain: scyg:Otherwise I could claim that the earth is ruled by little invisible men who in turn are controlled by Santa Claus, and as you would have no way of disproving this, you'd have to accept it. Obviously an absurd situation. Actually I could. Santa Claus is a mythical representation of human empathy and giving. There is no entity called Santa Claus who is living in this world. The myth of Santa can be shown through cultural reference in various societies. http://www.christmas-day.org/multiculturism-santas.html Proof of his nonexistence can also be seen by impersonators and the fact that parents/family/friends actually deliever the present
scyg:Otherwise I could claim that the earth is ruled by little invisible men who in turn are controlled by Santa Claus, and as you would have no way of disproving this, you'd have to accept it. Obviously an absurd situation.
Actually I could. Santa Claus is a mythical representation of human empathy and giving. There is no entity called Santa Claus who is living in this world. The myth of Santa can be shown through cultural reference in various societies. http://www.christmas-day.org/multiculturism-santas.html
Proof of his nonexistence can also be seen by impersonators and the fact that parents/family/friends actually deliever the present
That's not really proof. What if I left Santa out of it - could you prove that the world is not run by vile little invisible men?
There just ain't such a thing as a "natural law" - all prescriptive laws are set by humans. Live with it.
Lilburne: Anarchist Cain on August 7, 2:15 pm:Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong. Anarchist Cain on August 6, 8:08 pm: Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint. If you believe it, prove it. Lilburne on August 7, 2:30 pm: LOL!
Anarchist Cain on August 7, 2:15 pm:Actually like I said, why should we try to prove something is true when we already believe it to be true. The proof is on you to establish that we are wrong and why we are wrong.
Anarchist Cain on August 6, 8:08 pm: Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint. If you believe it, prove it.
Angurse:Nope. I said an amoralist can call natural law correct or incorrect without making the judgment from a moral standpoint.
If you believe it, prove it.
Lilburne on August 7, 2:30 pm: LOL!
LOL!
A mistake on my part. I was growing tired of Angurse constantly saying 'I could do it!'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
scyg:That's not really proof. What if I left Santa out of it - could you prove that the world is not run by vile little invisible men?
Run in what sense?
Anarchist Cain: Run in what sense?
In the same sense that governments run countries. Exercise power over what happens in them.
scyg:In the same sense that governments run countries. Exercise power over what happens in them.
So invisible men are exercising a forced monopoly on a geographical location?
Anarchist Cain: So invisible men are exercising a forced monopoly on a geographical location?
Call it what you will - I'm inviting you to disprove it. You will fail, even though we both know it's not true. That's why logically the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something - the opposite leads to an absurd conclusion.
scyg: Anarchist Cain: So invisible men are exercising a forced monopoly on a geographical location? Call it what you will - I'm inviting you to disprove it. You will fail, even though we both know it's not true. That's why logically the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something - the opposite leads to an absurd conclusion.
Wow, I thought this was common knowledge..
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
scyg: Call it what you will - I'm inviting you to disprove it. You will fail, even though we both know it's not true. That's why logically the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of something - the opposite leads to an absurd conclusion.
What is the goal of these invisible men?
Anarchist Cain: What is the goal of these invisible men?
You appear to be dodging the question. Their goal is beside the point - the challenge is to disprove their existence. Running the country is just an off-the-cuff example. I could just as well claim that they killed JFK from the grassy knoll - your ability to disprove this statement would not change - it would still be nil.
This is exactly why the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and not the other way around.
To make it as clear as I can - in this case, since I'm making a positive claim, i.e. that little invisible men are running the country, the burden of proof would be on me. Since I can't prove this assertion, a reasonable person could be expected to reject it. However, and this is an important caveat, that does not preclude belief, which by its very nature is not rational or logical.
Natural rights are.
Life is.
Liberty is.
Property is.
Without these rights that are, then no defining will happen. No exploring can even occur without these rights. How do you explore human nature or otherwise without living (life), choosing [(liberty) i.e. without being able to choose to explore this, that, or other], or person [(property) i.e. without being the human that you are? can't
As for natural law: A=A, etc...
wilderness: Natural rights are. Life is. Liberty is. Property is.
Why? Because you say so?
wilderness: Without these rights that are, then no defining will happen. No exploring can even occur without these rights. How do you explore human nature or otherwise without living (life), choosing [(liberty) i.e. without being able to choose to explore this, that, or other], or person [(property) i.e. without being the human that you are? can't
I'm not sure if I understand. We can't explore human nature if we don't accept your unproven axioms about things that supposedly are? That's completely ridiculous, unless I've misunderstood what you were trying to say.
the only way for you to have made this response is by facilitating life, liberty, and property...
you prove these by being...
and you didn't even need me...
wilderness: the only way for you to have made this response is by facilitating life, liberty, and property... you prove these by being... and you didn't even need me...
The only things I have proven by that post (assuming for the sake of argument you're not conversing with a Turing computer) is that I'm alive, have liberty (to write), and have the power to control a computer, not that these are in any way inherent rights or even qualities of a human being.
Anarchist Cain:A mistake on my part. I was growing tired of Angurse constantly saying 'I could do it!'
Again, please quote where I said I was an amoralist. I'm growing tired of you constantly contradicting yourself and avoiding questions.
thanks for proving my point, scyg, once again, as to what is...
I honestly don't think you know what it means to prove something. But enjoy your blissful state of self-conviction. It must be nice.
every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is...
good job
wilderness: every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is... good job
This isn't even a passable representation of Argumentation ethics, it doesn't prove any sort of right, only capability.
Who said I was "representing Argumentation ethics"... not I.
You're defending the status quo. Why should life, liberty, and property be maximized?
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
wilderness: Who said I was "representing Argumentation ethics"... not I.
Read it again:
"This isn't even a passable representation of Argumentation ethics, it doesn't prove any sort of right, only capability."
Your argument doesn't prove any rights whatsoever and its so poor it isn't even a passable representation of AE. Not saying you were trying to representing AE necessarily, but on the surface you are using similar approach.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is... good job You're defending the status quo. Why should life, liberty, and property be maximized?
I guess you don't have the knowledge to answer your own question.
Angurse: wilderness: Who said I was "representing Argumentation ethics"... not I. Read it again: "This isn't even a passable representation of Argumentation ethics, it doesn't prove any sort of right, only capability." Your argument doesn't prove any rights whatsoever and its so poor it isn't even a passable representation of AE. Not saying you were trying to representing AE necessarily, but on the surface you are using similar approach.
and yet I'm not using that approach... no time to socialize...
wilderness: Anarcho-Mercantilist: wilderness: every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is... good job You're defending the status quo. Why should life, liberty, and property be maximized? I guess you don't have the knowledge to answer your own question.
It is a non sequitur to deduce that we should maximize lifespan, happiness, eudaimonia, etc. from the 'fact' that we must control some parts of our bodies to live and argue with others.
wilderness:every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is...
How does the fact of my having life, liberty, or even property prove that everyone should have them? In other words, how does my having them prove natural law in any way? After all, that's what I thought we were discussing here, not the fact that you or I are alive.
AM, then go and kill yourself if it's a non-sequitur...
but wait... damn... to kill yourself life, liberty, and property is too...
scyg: wilderness:every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is... How does the fact of my having life, liberty, or even property prove that everyone should have them? In other words, how does my having them prove natural law in any way? After all, that's what I thought we were discussing here, not the fact that you or I are alive.
every person is life, liberty, and property
as you, yourself, point out the fact
wilderness:and yet I'm not using that approach... no time to socialize...
Your approach is extremely similar, as I've already said.
Try and follow along:
wilderness:the only way for you to have made this response is by facilitating life, liberty, and property... you prove these by being... and you didn't even need me...
scyg: The only things I have proven by that post (assuming for the sake of argument you're not conversing with a Turing computer) is that I'm alive, have liberty (to write), and have the power to control a computer, not that these are in any way inherent rights or even qualities of a human being.
wilderness:thanks for proving my point, scyg, once again, as to what is...
wilderness:every time you respond you prove that life, liberty, and property is... good job
All you are doing is presupposing certain rights are true merely because scyg is engaging, and then saying he in is a perforamce-contradiction when he denies it. Again, very similar to AE.
What happened to finger painting?
wilderness:every person is life, liberty, and property
My-oh-my, not only have you invented a new logic system that requires no rational thinking, you've obviously also come up a new language that requires no sensible connection between words. I'm afraid this is a bit beyond my humble intellectual capabilities. I'm out of this one.
i didn't want you to take it the wrong way so I edited it out...
i'm having fun...
well, I've been here long enough today, can't spend my whole time here...
scyg: wilderness:every person is life, liberty, and property My-oh-my, not only have you invented a new logic system that requires no rational thinking, you've obviously also come up a new language that requires no sensible connection between words. I'm afraid this is a bit beyond my humble intellectual capabilities. I'm out of this one.
i suggest you read up on the literature here at the mises and also this would be a good beginning as well... it will help you so this is no longer "...a bit beyond (your) humble intellectual capabilites..." don't get down on yourself...
Angurse:Again, please quote where I said I was an amoralist. I'm growing tired of you constantly contradicting yourself and avoiding questions.
I never called you an amoralist. Do you deny that you can show that a amoralist can engage in debate on morality without establishing morality itself? If you can do it, I would like to see it because it will be a first for me.
Laughing Man:I never called you an amoralist.
Angurse:The amoralist can still make value statements, just not value judgements from any moral framework. Hes rejecting morals from another ground, like reason, or deliberation. Again, you are using the term too vaguely.
Anarchist Cain: Strange, before you were saying you have done no such thing nor attempted to and now you are saying you can.
Strange, before you were saying you have done no such thing nor attempted to and now you are saying you can.
You clearly referred to me as an amoralist by saying you instead of an amoralist.
Laughing Man:Do you deny that you can show that a amoralist can engage in debate on morality without establishing morality itself? If you can do it, I would like to see it because it will be a first for me.
Yes and I've already explained why, just as you and I can engage in debate on the Easter Bunny without establishing the existence of the Easter Bunny itself. As I've said repeatedly, view it within context. All you've done is repeat an assertion (and contradict yourself).
I'll help this along, I think the Easter Bunny would hop house to house when delivering baskets as opposed to jogging from house to house.
Now you must prove that with my mere speculation that I do believe in the Easter Bunny.
An amoralist could easily say something along the lines of "It would make more sense for natural rights to come from self-ownership instead of from owning a pony." Do you understand? Speculation isn't the endorsement of a particular view.
Laughing Man:I never called you an amoralist. Do you deny that you can show that a amoralist can engage in debate on morality without establishing morality itself? If you can do it, I would like to see it because it will be a first for me.
You seem to be conflating ethics with meta-ethics.
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."
Angurse:You clearly referred to me as an amoralist by saying you instead of an amoralist.
You did say an amoralist can do such a thing. Since you made such a claim I figured you would know what it was and therefore could show me it.
Angurse:Yes and I've already explained why, just as you and I can engage in debate on the Easter Bunny without establishing the existence of the Easter Bunny itself. As I've said repeatedly, view it within context. All you've done is repeat an assertion (and contradict yourself).
You give the conception a name, a form and actions yet you say it does not exist. Clearly do not even realize the implication of your words so why should I expect you to understand mine?
Laughing Man: You give the conception a name, a form and actions yet you say it does not exist. Clearly do not even realize the implication of your words so why should I expect you to understand mine?
I see, people simply cannot discuss fiction and context just doesn't exist.
Angurse:I see, people simply cannot discuss fiction and context just doesn't exist.
You are trying to argue that fiction can exist through argument yet not really exist. Fiction is just that..fiction. So there really is no such thing as the easter bunny, so deducing what actions it does or what kind of demanor it has is illogical.
Laughing Man:You are trying to argue that fiction can exist through argument yet not really exist. Fiction is just that..fiction. So there really is no such thing as the easter bunny, so deducing what actions it does or what kind of demanor it has is illogical.
Wrong.
I'm saying that fiction doesn't exist. Period. And when people argue about it they aren't implying that they really believe it does exist.
Fiction is just that...fiction. There really is no such thing as the easter bunny and generally people who discuss such thing are aware. Discussing what actions it does or what kind of demeanor it has may be illogical, but that still doesn't imply belief in its existence. It just shows that people speculate. A big "so what?" You have yet to actually prove this claim of yours.
Angurse:Discussing what actions it does or what kind of demeanor it has may be illogical, but that still doesn't imply belief in its existence
Yes it does. Action is existence. It is a basic axiom that you seem to not realize.