Political Theory

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Nitroadict — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:49:08 GMT

Juan:
Aha. The band of the skeptical trolls engaged in making irrelevant personal remarks.

If you can dish it out, you can receive it as well.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

I. Ryan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:14:03 GMT

Juan:

did you manage to answer my questions about your political position and its justification ?

No.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Daniel James Sanchez — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:09:32 GMT

I. Ryan:
It shocked me because you sound like an somewhat immature teenager.

I was going with an 11 year-old. But now I think you're right. Teenagers are often more petulant than tweens. So, I should probably characterize him as more of a 14 year-old.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Juan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:08:47 GMT

Aha. The band of the skeptical trolls engaged in making irrelevant personal remarks.

Now, Ryan, sonny, did you manage to answer my questions about your political position and its justification ? Did I miss your answer (thanks to Lilburne's thread organization) ? Or did you just fail to provide one ?

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

I. Ryan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:05:26 GMT

Juan:

Is there anything special about being 37 ?

It shocked me because you sound like an somewhat immature teenager.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Daniel James Sanchez — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:04:15 GMT

Juan:
Is there anything special about being 37 ?

Only if you act like you're 11.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Juan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 23:03:37 GMT

Is there anything special about being 37 ?

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

I. Ryan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:59:29 GMT

Lilburne:

Moreover you, as a 37 year-old man with the emotional maturity, eloquence, and subtlety of mind of a below-average 11 year-old, have no business calling anyone else childish.

Juan is 37? What the hell?

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Nitroadict — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:58:09 GMT

Juan:
Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.
Hey Nitro how are you doing ?

Hm?

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

AJ — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:42:21 GMT

Lilburne:
With most people, I think its a matter of arguing from (not for) the NAP that they already for the most part adhere to

Good point. On reflection, I agree.

Lilburne:

First I would ask the statist who is otherwise a decent person whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong. If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" (see the OP above) and showing him that he actually is promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement.

If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.

I've seen this approach before, and it is good. I think there may be ways to improve it in terms of persuasion. For example, no one likes to be caught out as having supported something immoral. They will tend to dig in their heels rather than admit to it. I think it's crucial that they realize that fact "in the silence of their own room," which takes a lot of finesse on the part of the advocate.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Juan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:21:04 GMT

Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.

Hey Nitro how are you doing ?

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Juan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:20:20 GMT

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here. Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages.

Your opinion. Sounds to me as if you want people to discuss things using a specific format. YOUR format...

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position.

Or perhaps you want to spread your sophisms across four different threads so that they are harder to track. Also, having different threads to discuss the same issue seems to me to be the opposite of focused. But you know, "freedom is slavery" and generally speaking black is white...in some people's world.

Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply.

Or perhaps there's no NEW and IMPROVED(tm) approach, just a bunch of skeptics feeding their egos.

Maybe what you see as 'subtlety of mind' is just self-serving sophistry.

Or perhaps you just don't really get it. Just like people like AJ and AM really don't get it.

Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Or perhaps irony is dead.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Nitroadict — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:07:00 GMT

Lilburne:

Juan:
lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it.

Again you exhibit a deficient subtelty of mind. Each of those threads encompasses a separate issue which, if one is interested in the careful consideration of ideas, and not the reactive grunts you contribute, can be the object of lengthy, focused, and productive discussion.

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here. Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages. A couple weeks would pass, someone else would make another all-purpose natural rights thread, and the whole thing would start all over again.

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position. Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply. Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Daniel James Sanchez — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:56:37 GMT

Juan:
lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it.

Again you exhibit a deficient subtlety of mind. Each of those threads encompasses a separate issue which, if one is interested in the careful consideration of ideas, and not the reactive grunts you contribute, can be the object of lengthy, focused, and productive discussion.

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here. Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages. A couple weeks would pass, someone else would make another all-purpose natural rights thread, and the whole thing would start all over again.

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position. Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply. Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Re: Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

Juan — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:33:52 GMT

lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it.

Do you think you can come up with any other childish remark ?