quote:

---

In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
Yes, in showing that all structure is flawed, Derida essentially rendered them all equal in being invalid.

That said, only a troll or an idiot will argue that anarchy is better than civilization. Or that there can be no such thing as one thing being better than another.

---

Oh, I missed this post.

I'm guilty of trolling and/or idiocy then, I guess. That's pretty much what I was saying all along.

quote:

---

Jensus got served! Jensus got served!
Oh, I missed this post.

I'm guilty of trolling and/or idiocy then, I guess. That's pretty much what I was saying all along.

---

Where you're going awry is assuming the inherent worthlessness of moralities/ideologies because they are, to some extent, subjective. Remember, though, that these subjective ideologies have objective consequences in their real life applications, and from these we can decide which are good and which are bad.

quote:

---

While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Karnaj wrote:
Where you're going awry is assuming the inherent worthlessness of moralities/ideologies because they are, to some extent, subjective. Remember, though, that these subjective ideologies have objective consequences in their real life applications, and from these we can decide which are good and which are bad.

---

Only if you can somehow decide what good and bad is, which is pretty impossible.

quote:

---

Jensus still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Only if you can somehow decide what good and bad is, which is pretty impossible.

---

No, it's actually rather easy. If you start from a rational, internally consistent ruleset (like, say, Lockean rights, or even sententia/quantificational logic), it's quite simple to compare systems and pick the better one. As an exercise, compare Europe's liberal democratic socialism to Nazi Germany's national socialism. Given their consequences, which is better?

quote:

---

Karnaj has a secret obsession with Richard Simmons, as evidenced by...
No, it's actually rather easy. If you start from a rational, internally consistent ruleset (like, say, Lockean rights, or even sententia/quantificational logic), it's quite simple to compare systems and pick the better one. As an exercise, compare Europe's liberal democratic socialism to Nazi Germany's national socialism. Given their consequences, which is better?

---

Your problem lies in the first part of what you said. You have to assume that something is inherently worth attaining or working towards, which is the error.

quote:

---

9/10 people simply worship thier Domamatrix

---

Dominatrix.

quote:

---

The propaganda machine of Jensus's junta released this statement:
Your problem lies in the first part of what you said. You have to assume that something is inherently worth attaining or working towards, which is the error.

---

Why is it an error? Because there exists a point of view where it's irrational to do so? BFD. Those POVs are irrelevent, anyway, because they represent scopes beyond our perceptions. It's interesting to consider them as a mental exercise, sure, but it doesn't gain us anything practical to say "Within a certain point of view, nothing is worth anything."

As an aside, you don't need to assume something like Lockean or any negative rights; they arise as a natural consequence of you being alive and a human being. They are just like reason, consciousness, or an opposable thumb.

But, assumptions are unimportant; we're just looking at consequences. If you use an internally consistent comparator, you're going to get the same results as me when we individually apply it to the same things. The comparator will always work the same, whether you assume it has worth or not.

Now, I again ask: compare the objective, observed consequences of liberal democratic socialism and nazism. Based on these objective criteria(and only these objective criteria), which is better?

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Jensus gently hums:
Oh, I missed this post.

I'm guilty of trolling and/or idiocy then, I guess. That's pretty much what I was saying all along.

---

Which proves my original point, that you don't have enough background in the subject to speak intelligently.

quote:

---

Jensus stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Can anyone find a real argument in any of Bloodsage's posts? I gave up.

Oh well, at least Diadem seems to get it (even though he seemed to miss the point that I don't have any vision because I genuinely can't justify having one to myself).

---

acutlly.. that's something very aparent to me. i understand where you are coming from. that's what i meant by analyising too much.

be it thorugh whatever means... most likely to me due to simple evolutionary emotions that allowed our species to become what it is... or it could be society... a common core belief system was created. it's an emotional thing.

you look at it and question "why." you tear it down to its base parts, and see no merit for it existing based on no more than its existance. that isn't a reason to you, it's a cop out. you desire a point to its being for it to be warrented. problem with you is that even if there is a point to that, you need to justfiy the point as well... then seek justification for what you just thought about... and go into a recurcisve loop of extreme nihilisim... because there is no end goal.. no driving force pushing you in any direction. no metaphorical "soul."

i guess the best way to explain it to you is an emotion you may or may not have - empathy. if you don't have it, it's like explaining the idea of color to somone who can only see in black and white (it's a bad example, but all i can think of at the moment). even if you can guess what it is, you can't really experince it.

does this make me better than you? no. does that even make my view right? only to myself. but it does give me the ability to see your view and my own, and understand both.

---
in a more logical explenation, you need an anchor. something to stop questioning "why" after hearing a justificaiton, because if you don't have an anchor, you'll just keep going deeper and deeper. there will be no end.

diadem fucked around with this message on 05-09-2005 at 09:28 PM.

quote:

---

As an aside, you don't need to assume something like Lockean or any negative rights; they arise as a natural consequence of you being alive and a human being. They are just like reason, consciousness, or an opposable thumb.

---

This is basically what I don't understand and can't find anything on. Why do they arise as a consequence of me being alive and a human being?

Also, I don't know which is better. Better in relation to what goal? Where does the goal come from and why are we aiming for it?

quote:

---

While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Bloodsage wrote:
Which proves my original point, that you don't have enough background in the subject to speak intelligently.

---

That's...retarded. I've been saying all along that I don't understand what you apparently base your arguments on. Why are you replying to me at all if you don't want to elaborate on what I repeatedly stated I didn't understand?

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Jensus gently hums:
That's...retarded. I've been saying all along that I don't understand what you apparently base your arguments on. Why are you replying to me at all if you don't want to elaborate on what I repeatedly stated I didn't understand?

---

I seem to remember saying once already that, had you approached this differently, you'd have been fine. Being stupidly argumentative != seeking knowledge.

Further, I've said from the very beginning--over and over and over-- that shared assumptions are necessary for productive communication in general, and debate specifically.

All you're doing is trolling by saying, "But why does it have to be that way? I don't see any reason civilization can be said to be 'better' than anarchy--it's all relative, dood, murder and sex are just acts, mon. . .you can't attach value to things."

quote:

---

While possessed by the spirit of Somthor, Bloodsage wrote:
I seem to remember saying once already that, had you approached this differently, you'd have been fine. Being stupidly argumentative != seeking knowledge.

Further, I've said from the very beginning--over and over and over-- that shared assumptions are necessary for productive communication in general, and debate specifically.

All you're doing is trolling by saying, "But why does it have to be that way? I don't see any reason civilization can be said to be 'better' than anarchy--it's all relative, dood, murder and sex are just acts, mon. . .you can't attach value to things."

---

That's what I'm saying. I don't understand why you can't question that, it doesn't make sense to me.

quote:

---

Jensus startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
That's what I'm saying. I don't understand why you can't question that, it doesn't make sense to me.

---

Think on this:

1. Cogito ergo sum, or, as I learned today, Je pense, donc je suis, is the one and only thing that can be "proven" in the sense you are expecting.

2. Without shared assumptions, how is communication possible, much less debate?

3. Don't you think your whining and complaining about how you're being treated constitutes exactly the same kind of value judgment you claim is invalid?

That's why nihilism is a bankrupt philosophy, useful only as a temporary mental exercise.

1. Okay

2. Isn't that an argumentum ad consequentiam?

"It is morally correct to make assumptions and base your argumentation on them, because otherwise communication is impossible" seems fallacious to me.

You keep superficially explaining the issue, but it doesn't really explain anything. You mock it, but I simply do not understand why civilization is morally better than anarchy. It's more comfortable, certainly, but it doesn't make it morally better to me.

3. Ad hominem - not practicing what you preach does not invalidate what you preach.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Jensus gently hums:
[QUOTE]In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
[QB]Think on this:

1. Okay

2. Isn't that an argumentum ad consequentiam?

"It is morally correct to make assumptions and base your argumentation on them, because otherwise communication is impossible" seems fallacious to me.

You keep superficially explaining the issue, but it doesn't really explain anything. You mock it, but I simply do not understand why civilization is morally better than anarchy. It's more comfortable, certainly, but it doesn't make it morally better to me.

3. Ad hominem - not practicing what you preach does not invalidate what you preach.

---

And here we have a great example of why you haven't learned anything yet--you refuse to acknowledge the inherent impracticality of your alleged philosophy. In short--as I think I've said--it's an interesting mental exercise, but can't work in practice. Your continued unwillingness to explain what kind of society you'd build using this philosophy (you realize the inherent contradiction of insisting your approach is better, if you deny the worth of assigning value?) is simple proof you're just arguing to hear yourself talk, without positing any position of your own other than, "All positions but mine are worthless, and I refuse to accept your assumptions.

Next, why don't you just answer the questions? Explain to me how communication, and therefore debate, are possible without shared assumptions. You seem to think they are, now demonstrate it. I assure you, however, debate without shared assumptions is not possible, but feel free to explain a situation where it is if you can find one.

There's nothing fallacious in what I'm arguing, and you've rather egregiously misrepresented what I've said in order to make it seem that way. Making choices--value judgments--is part of being human. Not everything is numerical. . .and a hard-core nihilist would deny even the relevance of numbers, because they rely on shared assumptions.

So quit the games, and start trying to learn. "Oho! I think I can point out a logical fallacy in what you say," isn't getting you anywhere. First, you've been consistently wrong in labeling them, and second, you use it as an excuse not to think the problem through.

quote:

---

Jensus startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what shared assumptions we should have. Who gets to decide what they are? And what are the most moral assumptions to make?

---

Ah, now that's a different question entirely.

Especially in philosophical discussions, one must negotiate the assumptions. In this case, one should negotiate, for example, the relative merits of civilization. . .or, even more basic, what kind of life one should expect as a human being.

You're partially correct, in that there is no universal authority for setting values outside of religion. . .but that aside, most of us can agree that living in fear of death or slavery < living a long fulfilling life. Given that, we have a basis from which we can discuss ways to achieve that.

Make more sense now?

quote:

---

In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
Ah, now that's a different question entirely.

Especially in philosophical discussions, one must negotiate the assumptions. In this case, one should negotiate, for example, the relative merits of civilization. . .or, even more basic, what kind of life one should expect as a human being.

You're partially correct, in that there is no universal authority for setting values outside of religion. . .but that aside, most of us can agree that living in fear of death or slavery < living a long fulfilling life. Given that, we have a basis from which we can discuss ways to achieve that.

Make more sense now?

---

Sure, I could always agree with that. I don't want to live in slavery either. I just can't explain why, and that bothers me tremendously.