welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Conscientious Sadist
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CTrees wrote:
I actually am (honestly!) interested in what form the solution would take, as I never seem to see that addressed, only handwaved. My apologies for attempting to get at those sort of issues, I guess.

It can't be described much better than handwaving because people fall everywhere on the continuum between here and anarchy (and also on the other side of here). I'm declining to answer because there isn't an answer (or are too many of them), not because I have a problem with you asking. There's certainly no need for an apology.

CTrees wrote:
It seems to me as though this merely substitutes the tyranny of the supermajority for the tyranny of the majority. Am I reading that wrong?

You are reading it exactly correctly. Anyone who would stop short of anarchy is stopping short of unanimous consent. The injustices get smaller as your majority gets more superior, and each person who is libertarian in the status quo would find themselves content at a different point along the line (except for the anarchists, who make it to the edge and fall off).
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam the Eagle wrote:
If you do not understand the first part this one and the third, then let's not get into it for now, or bring it into pm, there is enough to chew elsewhere.

Okay, the thing is, I don't think the problem is as much with my understanding as it is with your English. Your second sentence, "Those folks suffering from larger problems suffers too suffering from lesser ones." is unintelligible. I'm not interested in taking your grammar problems to pm.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Separating one issue from another is all well and fine if you keep the background in check or easy for all to see.

When asked for elaboration on the background, Usagi provided it.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
As a rethoric form it can justify almost any statement with or without backing it up. Extreme example:

- Humans are mortals
- Cats are mortals
Therefore Humans are Cats.

Your "syllogism" there isn't wrong because it's a syllogism. It's wrong because it doesn't actually operate logically. Your problem is with bad logic, not with syllogisms.

If you want to make a point, you need to describe where and why the logic is failing, not just call it a syllogism and be done with it.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Maybe another example would help?

I can't find anything in common between your "example" and Usagi's hypothetical, so I can't figure out what point you're trying to make.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yorick



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 12101
Location: In the undersnow

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is this back to violence or is it still a dickfight?
_________________
Currently experiencing: not summer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll give you three guesses, but you're getting punched in the dick during the first two.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam the Eagle



Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 2275
Location: 192.168.0.1

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
Sam the Eagle wrote:
If you do not understand the first part this one and the third, then let's not get into it for now, or bring it into pm, there is enough to chew elsewhere.

Okay, the thing is, I don't think the problem is as much with my understanding as it is with your English. Your second sentence, "Those folks suffering from larger problems suffers too suffering from lesser ones." is unintelligible. I'm not interested in taking your grammar problems to pm.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Separating one issue from another is all well and fine if you keep the background in check or easy for all to see.

When asked for elaboration on the background, Usagi provided it.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
As a rethoric form it can justify almost any statement with or without backing it up. Extreme example:

- Humans are mortals
- Cats are mortals
Therefore Humans are Cats.

Your "syllogism" there isn't wrong because it's a syllogism. It's wrong because it doesn't actually operate logically. Your problem is with bad logic, not with syllogisms.

If you want to make a point, you need to describe where and why the logic is failing, not just call it a syllogism and be done with it.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Maybe another example would help?

I can't find anything in common between your "example" and Usagi's hypothetical, so I can't figure out what point you're trying to make.


1- Spelling out things for you isn't enough the first time and English is now the issue but you couldn't understand or even point out what was wrong before. I'm guessing English is just fine, but you're not willing or able to understand so act like a dick. Not my problem.

2- I'm not talking to Usagi, I'm talking to you. If you want to weasel out and use others instead of providing answers on your own as smoke screen, be my guest.

3- You're still not replying to any points made and focus on side issues, Him would be proud of you.

This is indeed a dick fight and you blinded me with your e-penis.
_________________
Meu aerobarca esta cheoi de enguias
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:

We are talking about government, not society. One can be disentangled from the government without being geographically removed. There are plenty of people in the United States who are not citizens of the United States. I live in Australia without being an Australian citizen. Two people do not have to be ruled by the same government to interact with one another.

We're talking about government?


Oh...
Quote:

Snorri wrote:
The renovation directly and clearly benefits Peter. He has not asked for it and wouldn't have paid for it, but that does not mean he does not benefit or likes it. (if he does not want it then he is acting against the very beliefs Libertarianism is based on and any further discussion is pointless)

What beliefs of Libertarianism is Peter acting against? I seriously don't have any idea what you mean.

Well perhaps not truly a Libertarian belief so much as one that is shared by many of them.

That is: We are rational decision-makers who would go for financial gain without question.

Still, it wouldn't make sense for him to oppose it.
Quote:

If there is literally no difference in the apartments, and the inconvenience of moving for Peter is nonexistent, then it doesn't really matter. If, on the other hand, one cannot find identical residence, or if moving is inconvenient, then Paul and Mary are imposing a loss on Peter. That's unjust.

Well obviously. I thought however that imposing on Peter is unjust no matter what.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While you've posited an interesting thesis, there, Snorri, I don't know how many Libertarians would agree that we are rational decision-makers who go for financial gain without question. In fact, most would find such a statement risible. The fundamental belief of Libertarians is generally along the lines that individual self-determination is the highest value, which would mean that the right to turn down a financial gain, imposed or not, is vitally important.
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snorri



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10878
Location: hiding the decline.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
While you've posited an interesting thesis, there, Snorri, I don't know how many Libertarians would agree that we are rational decision-makers who go for financial gain without question. In fact, most would find such a statement risible. The fundamental belief of Libertarians is generally along the lines that individual self-determination is the highest value, which would mean that the right to turn down a financial gain, imposed or not, is vitally important.



Well yes they have the right. Everyone has the right to do what they want. But I do think that part of the thought behind supporting Libertarianism is tied to believing humans are fundamentally rational in everything and act as ideal capitalist people.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17253
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:

CTrees wrote:
Is it fair for that one person out of fifty to impede what everyone else thinks is a good deal and wants? For that one person to impinge on the freedom of the others to make an agreement as to their environment?

Yes. It is not unjust to nix a freedom which imposes loss on others unjustly.


last night i was watching a pbs show called "the human spark". one of the questions they were posing was why modern man made all these leaps forward, while neanderthals, who evolved from the same base stock, did not, but continued to do the exact same thing for thousands of generations.

the answer is now clear: neanderthals were libertarians.


(and sam - really, that first sentence was unintelligible. and i got that sojobo's first objection to it. chill out, and reword it.)
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mizike



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 5131
Location: Iowa City

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
last night i was watching a pbs show called "the human spark". one of the questions they were posing was why modern man made all these leaps forward, while neanderthals, who evolved from the same base stock, did not, but continued to do the exact same thing for thousands of generations.

the answer is now clear: neanderthals were libertarians.


Neanderthals were smarter than us. We just killed the eggheads.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam the Eagle wrote:
Spelling out things for you isn't enough the first time and English is now the issue but you couldn't understand or even point out what was wrong before. I'm guessing English is just fine, but you're not willing or able to understand so act like a dick. Not my problem.

English was always the issue. I didn't mention it in my first post because it was evident to anyone fluent in English what the problem was. I thought you would look at your post and notice how poorly constructed your comments were. Everyone here will tell you that, "Those folks suffering from larger problems suffers too suffering from lesser ones." is unintelligible, just like I did. Everyone.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
I'm not talking to Usagi, I'm talking to you. If you want to weasel out and use others instead of providing answers on your own as smoke screen, be my guest.

Actually, you were talking to Usagi. I know that because you quoted and responded to Usagi. I know that because the example you're criticizing was Usagi's. I'm "using" Usagi's addition of more info to his example because it's his example, not mine.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
You're still not replying to any points made and focus on side issues, Him would be proud of you.

"Your grammar is so bad I cannot understand you." is not a side issue. If you are unable to say what you mean clearly enough to be understood, then I cannot respond.

Also, you seem to have forgotten the part about syllogisms, which has been our only successful communication so far. You phrased your problems incorrectly, and I've said so, and you have, in fact, already admitted you had a problem with bad logic, and not with syllogisms as such. I answered your point made quite directly. It's not my fault that the only point you made clearly is one you have now withdrawn.

Sam the Eagle wrote:
This is indeed a dick fight and you blinded me with your e-penis.

I don't think this is a fight. Thanks for the clarification on how you view it, though.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snorri wrote:
That is: We are rational decision-makers who would go for financial gain without question.
. . .
But I do think that part of the thought behind supporting Libertarianism is tied to believing humans are fundamentally rational in everything and act as ideal capitalist people.

Calling people rational actors is not the same thing as saying that people are rational. It just means that people have reasons for what they do, not that those reasons are based on sound argument.

Also, if by "ideal capitalist" you again mean they automatically seek every financial gain, then no, greed is not an inherent part of libertarianism. If nothing else, they would not be inclined to trade personal freedoms for financial gains.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
I agree that governance by unanimous consent is impossible. I'm not asking for it.

I don't think either of those things make the idea of unanimous consent unrelated to the concept of justice, though.

Originally I responded to your assertion that "one sided" bargains are implicitly unfair, and on those grounds should be avoided. I tried to suggest that so far as cohesive social systems exist, their members will universally be participants in some type of one sided bargain (since everyone can't/won't agree on everything). To be part of a social system, then, is to participate in one-sided bargains... somewhere, somehow, at some time. It's definitional.

This is not to say that every one-sided bargain is good... but it means that an argument against it based solely or primarily on the basis of it being one-sided is an argument that says nothing meaningful. Criticisms must be based on other grounds.

EDIT: by extension, if a one-sided social bargain is implicitly value-neutral, so too is unanimous consent.

Quote:
You mentioned before that talk beyond the rights one is capable of asserting is potentially wonderful, though fictive. Doesn't that halfway suggest that we should push to have as many rights as possible? We can't get more rights than we can get (sorry for being so taut), but surely we should get as many as we can?

The unanimous consent thing, then, is outside the scope of possibility, but related to justice by pointing out a valuable direction to move in, or at least that a particular pressure should be taken into account when making a decision.

Yes, but based on the criteria I just laid out. We should always push for more rights, but only to the extent that we can justify them on some other grounds. Beauty without a beholder is something, but it's not what we're talking about when we usually employ the word. Implicit in our conception of beauty is a relationship of some kind between the observer and the observed. Similarly, we ask for rights because they point out a valuable direction, but not because they embody value itself.

We shouldn't have as many rights as we can get; we should have as many rights as we can justify.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
E-boy



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1552
Location: Virginia (Much barfiness)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mizike wrote:
mouse wrote:
last night i was watching a pbs show called "the human spark". one of the questions they were posing was why modern man made all these leaps forward, while neanderthals, who evolved from the same base stock, did not, but continued to do the exact same thing for thousands of generations.

the answer is now clear: neanderthals were libertarians.


Neanderthals were smarter than us. We just killed the eggheads.


Bah and humbug. Brain size is only extremely roughly correlated with intelligence. Modern humans with brains as tiny as 900 CC's can be found who are quite functional and even exceptional.

The political affiliations of neanderthals are, sadly, unknown.... Many however, in spite of being long deceased, were registered to vote both republican and democrat in the last several elections. Their inability to properly punch a ballot led to all manner of problems, particularly in Florida.
_________________
"Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid" ~ SGT John Stryker from "Sands of Iwo Jima".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
dazedb42



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia

PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

E-boy wrote:
Mizike wrote:
mouse wrote:
last night i was watching a pbs show called "the human spark". one of the questions they were posing was why modern man made all these leaps forward, while neanderthals, who evolved from the same base stock, did not, but continued to do the exact same thing for thousands of generations.

the answer is now clear: neanderthals were libertarians.


Neanderthals were smarter than us. We just killed the eggheads.


Bah and humbug. Brain size is only extremely roughly correlated with intelligence. Modern humans with brains as tiny as 900 CC's can be found who are quite functional and even exceptional.

The political affiliations of neanderthals are, sadly, unknown.... Many however, in spite of being long deceased, were registered to vote both republican and democrat in the last several elections. Their inability to properly punch a ballot led to all manner of problems, particularly in Florida.


and they were sexy too.
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 19 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group