Further Steps Toward a Discussion of Rights
Gandalf Grey
discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the nature of
Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism have some bearing on this list, and
because these two subjects have already taken up [perhaps not unexpectedly]
a large part of the discussion so far, I will address some aspects of each
to begin. In a later post, I hope to appraise cognitive theories of
morality and ethics such as Moral Realism and hopefully some theological
arguments.
Cultural *Moral* Relativism and Moral Nihilism:
A basic Relativist argument may be framed as follows:
1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
2. Therefore there is no objective "truth" in morality. Right and wrong are
only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture, even as
they do from individual to individual. To speak of "the correct moral view"
is essential meaningless as each cultures view is correct for that culture.
The question is two-fold: Is there any utility to this viewpoint? Is the
argument itself sound?
Insofar as moral relativism serves to protect us [in theory] from making
broadly elitist moral judgements without regard for cross-cultural
differences, and thus further protecting against the temptation of employing
a kind of moral imperialism in our dealings with the world, there is great
utility in such a viewpoint. Especially in the area of morality, any
principle that causes us to stop and think is of obvious
value.
As a purely logical argument, relativism is not sound, however. The
conclusion of relativism cannot be demonstrated to follow from its premise.
The premise of moral relativism describes belief, but the conclusion
describes reality. The fact that human beings [or entire cultures] may
disagree on ANY question
does not logically entail that there is, therefore, no correct answer to the
question. The fact of disagreement does not imply the conclusion that there
is no valid truth to be arrived at. The relativist argument presumes that
IF there was, say, a correct moral principle, there would be no
disagreement. It further implies that if there were such things as valid
moral
principles we would have to be effectively infallible with respect to those
principles,
and there is no logical reason to expect this to actually be the case.
There are, additionally some unfortunate consequences to taking the
relativist argument seriously.
1. We could no longer say that the customs of other cultures are morally
'wrong.' Considering the already mentioned dangers of cultural elitism,
this sounds rather attractive at first [indeed, the major point of cultural
relativism rests on this fact], but it also implies that we could not make
the same judgement of any cultural practice irrespective of how extreme that
practise might be. Hitler's treatment of the Jews comes to mind immediately
as an example of where relativism can lead if we're not very careful in its
application. In a strict relativist view, the treatment of the Jews in WWII
was a product of the German culture of that period. What they did must have
been morally right because it was culturally influenced. It was 'right TO
THAT CULTURE, hence, it must be morally correct in principle.
2. Right and wrong become simply a matter of what is currently considered to
be so in any given culture or society. This leads to an unfortunate aura of
fatalism to the entire idea of morality and social progress. Indeed, if
relativism is to be considered sound, there really is no such thing as
social progress. The entire idea of progress presumes that it is possible
to become, in at least some sense of the word, "better." Relativism
militates against any conception of 'better' with respect to moral issues.
There is no "better" and no "worse." There is only what happens to BE in
any given culture.
Therefore, even within our own culture, it was morally correct to own slaves
in pre-civil war America simply because it was a part of pre-civil war cultu
re. It is also morally correct not to have slaves simply because it is a
part of present culture.
Lastly, Moral Nihilists take the 'apparent' conclusion of relativism to
reject all
moral conclusions whatsoever. Since all cultures differ and since those
differences 'appear' to demonstrate the existence of no single moral truth,
nihilists take this as a reason to reject any and all morality.
The only tentative resolution I can offer to these problem is to observe
that there is often less REAL difference between cultures with respect to
fundamental morality than appears on the surface. Often what are seen as
moral "ends" in a aggressive argument on morality are in reality "means" to
an
end. To that ultimate 'end' there is often more opportunities for
agreement.
Subjectivism/Ethical Noncognitivism and Emotivism:
Ethical Subjectivism or Ethical Noncognitivism holds that there is no moral
truth to be acscertained in any moral statement. The following statements:
Generosity is good.
Generosity is right
Generosity is acceptable
Generosity is something people ought to display toward others.
All mean that "I" [the statement maker] personally approve of Generosity.
And also...
Stinginess is wrong
Stinginess is bad
Stinginess is unacceptable
Stinginess ought not to be allowed
All mean that "I" [the statement maker] personally disapprove of Stinginess.
Aside from the helpful, and often overlooked fact that subjectivism
describes the fact that people are often expressing their personal opinions
and nothing more when they make moral statements, there are several serious
problems with the subjectivistic view.
1. The infallibility problem:
If moral statements are what the subjectivists say they are [expressions of
personal opinion] then all moral statements are true.
If each one of us is saying something true whenever we make a moral
statement then we are all infallible on any given moral issue when we are
speaking sincerely.
But, even if we are telling the truth, we sometimes make mistakes concerning
our moral statements. We often change our views on moral issues and go on
to
make different moral statements based on those new views.
Therefore, we are not infallible.
Therefore, Subjectivism cannot be correct.
2. The disagreement problem.
If someone says 'abortion is wrong' and someone else says 'abortion is
right, ' they are in disagreement and their disagreement is likely to deeply
felt by both of them.
It is also true that both individuals will generally be aware of exactly
what constitutes the grounds of the disagreement. I.e., they will both
understand the common meaning of the words "wrong" and "right," and they
will both 'mean' the same thing when they use these words and the word
"abortion." This implies that they are not confused or mistaken about the
gounds or terms of the argument. Though they are both arguing about the
same thing, they are in disagreement.
But if subjectivism is correct, they cannot be in disagreement because both
statements are true subjectivistically.
Since there is a disagreement, subjectivism cannot be correct.
There is also the formal logical problem here that, if the first person says
abortion is right and they're being sincere, then their statement is true.
But if the second person says abortion is wrong and they're being sincere,
then their statement is true. This would mean that, where abortion = X,
both X and not X are valid statements. But since X cannot be both X and not
X, subjectivism fails by way of an internal contradiction.
Emotivism is a variation on subjectivism promoted by Ayer, Charles Stevenson
and Swedish philosopher Axel Hagerstrom as a view that would repair the
logical flaws in subjectivism. Emotivism makes the claim that
moral statements are NOT statements such as "my cat is a Persian" or
"Aristotle wrote a book on Ethics." Such statements are either true or
false and the REASON we use those statements is to convery some kind of
information to the listener or the reader. There are other statements that
could be called 'commands' such as "come over here" or "take out the trash."
Also, statements such as "Damn!" and "Wow! A Cheese Pizza!" or "Oh, to be
Rich!" are, likewise, not true or false in the same way statements of fact
are, but
also convey information in the sense that they convey commands or wishes or
our attitudes toward certain things.
Emotivism holds that moral statements are both language used to influence
behavior [ "you ought not to kill" ] and to express [not report on] personal
opinions. Hence, "Dietrich was a great actress" is NOT like saying "I think
Marlene Dietrich was a great
actress" but more like saying "Wow! Dietrich!"
Since subjectivism holds that "Dietrich was great" REALLY means "[I think]
Dietrich was great," with the attendant logical problems listed above,
Emotivism removes this problem and still retains the idea of a statement
conveying some kind of information. In other words, it would be appropriate
to ask for an explanation of why "I think" that Marlene Dietrich was a great
actress, but it is essentiall meaningless to ask for an explanation of "Wow!
Dietrich!" although both kinds of statements still convey a kind of
information.
The major failing of Emotivism is that it fails the test of explanation.
Emotive statements do not lend themselves to any kind of explanation, in
that they are not based on 'reasons.'
As has been discussed in another post [Toward a Discussion.....], it is
always appropriate to ask for an explanation for any moral judgement. The
reason is more than just a plea for how nice it would be to have an
explanation or the implication that a statement without a reason is of
little practical value. There is a *logical* necessity involved. If one
does not have a reason for a moral judgement such as "all good government is
based on Rights," one isn't making a moral judgement AT ALL. To say "all
good government is based on Rights, but there is no reason why it would be
good" is a self contradicting statement and such a statement cannot be
logically correct.
Since there must be a connection between moral judgements and reasons for
those judgements, ANY theory of the nature of moral judgements would be
required by definition to give some account of that connection. Emotivism
cannot do so and therefore fails as a theory of moral judgements.
To end this on a positive note, it's important to recognize that even such
noncognitive theories of metaethics as subjectivism, relativism and
emotivism recognize the need to make SOME account of reason in ethics and
morality. Often, in looking at the situation I've described, people despair
of our looking at such things as rights because it appears that there are
only two ways [cognitive and noncognitive] of looking at the basic questions
of morality. These two ways might be represented as follows....
1. There are such things as moral facts, in the same fashion as there are
such things as facts about physical science, geography and so on [cognitive
ethical theories].
or...
2. There is no such thing as a moral fact. Whatever statements we make
about 'moral issues' are nothing but some expression of personal feeling,
opinion, or preference [noncognitive ethical theories].
Since these two viewpoints seem mutually exclusive and since there are grave
problems with the classic cognitive viewpoint [on which I hope to write
later], it would seem that we are faced with no way to deal with ethical
principles in a constructive fashion.
But this viewpoint misses a third alternative. Human beings don't just have
feelings and opinions as an alternative to physical facts and physical
phenomona. Human beings also possess reason, leading to the possibility
that.......
3. Moral truths are truths of reason: A moral judgement is true if it is
supported by better reason than its alternatives.
If we want to understand the terms and judgements that moral investigation
inevitably produces, it is reason that will most fruitfully serve as a
focus. A "truth" in ethics is a conclusion that is backed by better reasons
than its alternatives, and the correct solution to an moral question is the
answer that has the weight of reason on its side. Such truths have the
virtue of retaining their value independently of opinion. This does not
suggest that those who use reason are incapable of error. What it does
imply is that reason offers us at least the opportunity to step back from
our opinion for independent verification that does not rely on just another
opinion.
Captain Compassion
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a continuing
>discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the nature of
>Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism have some bearing on this list, and
>because these two subjects have already taken up [perhaps not unexpectedly]
>a large part of the discussion so far, I will address some aspects of each
>to begin. In a later post, I hope to appraise cognitive theories of
>morality and ethics such as Moral Realism and hopefully some theological
>arguments.
>
What is Civilization
Civilization is social order promoting cultural creation. Four
elements constitute it: economic provision, political organization,
moral traditions and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts. It begins
where chaos and insecurity end. For when fear is overcome, curiosity
and constructiveness are free, and man passes by natural impulse
towards the understanding and embellishment of life.
Physical and biological conditions are only prerequisites to
civilization; they do not constitute or generate it. Subtle
psychological factors must enter into play. There must be political
order, even if it be so near to chaos as in Renaissance Florence or
Rome; men must feel, by and large, that they need not look for death
or taxes at every turn. There must be some unity of language to serve
as medium of mental exchange. Through church, or family, or school, or
otherwise, there must be a unifying moral code, some rules of the game
of life acknowledged even by those who violate them, and giving to
conduct some order and regularity, some direction and stimulus.
Perhaps there must also be some unity of basic belief, some faith --
supernatural or utopian -- that lifts morality from calculation to
devotion, and gives life nobility and significance despite our mortal
brevity. And finally there must be education -- some technique,
however primitive, for the transmission of culture. Whether through
imitation, initiation or instruction, whether through father or
mother, teacher or priest, the lore and heritage of the tribe -- its
language and knowledge, its morals and manners, its technology and
arts -- must be handed down to the young, as the very instrument
through which they are turned from animals into men.
The disappearance of these conditions -- sometimes of even one of them
-- may destroy a civilization. A geological cataclysm or a profound
climatic change; an uncontrolled epidemic like that which wiped out
half the population of the Roman Empire under the Antonines, or the
Black Death that helped to end the Feudal Age; the exhaustion of the
land or the ruin of agriculture through the exploitation of the
country by the town, resulting in a precarious dependence upon foreign
food supplies; the failure of natural resources, either of fuels or of
raw materials; a change in trade routes, leaving a nation off the main
line of the world's commerce; mental or moral decay from the strains,
stimuli and contacts of urban life, from the breakdown of traditional
sources of social discipline and the inability to replace them; the
weakening of the stock by a disorderly sexual life, or by an
epicurean, pessimist, or quietist philosophy; the decay of leadership
through the infertility of the able, and the relative smallness of the
families that might bequeath most fully the cultural inheritance of
the race; a pathological concentration of wealth, leading to class
wars, disruptive revolutions, and financial exhaustion: these are some
of the ways in which a civilization may die.
For civilization is not something inborn or imperishable; it must be
acquired anew by every generation, and any serious interruption in its
financing or its transmission may bring it to an end. Man differs from
the beast only by education, which may be defined as the technique of
transmitting civilization.
Civilizations are the generations of the racial soul. As
family-rearing, and then writing, bound the generations together,
handing down the lore of the dying to the young, so print and commerce
and a thousand ways of communication may bind the civilizations
together, and preserve for future cultures all that is of value for
them in our own.
Let us, before we die, gather up our heritage, and offer it to our
children.
---Will Durant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Civilization is the interlude between Ice Ages"
--Will Durant
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one:
"O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
--Voltaire
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@verizon.net
Michael Richmann
>
> I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a continuing
> discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the nature of
> Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism have some bearing on this list, and
> because these two subjects have already taken up [perhaps not unexpectedly]
> a large part of the discussion so far, I will address some aspects of each
> to begin. In a later post, I hope to appraise cognitive theories of
> morality and ethics such as Moral Realism and hopefully some theological
> arguments.
>
> Cultural *Moral* Relativism and Moral Nihilism:
[one boatload of bullshit deleted]
Tell us, thief.
What's your stance on property rights?
--
Mike
Nap
Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:a17bvt$29$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a
continuing
> discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the nature
of
> Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism
Ah. The two pillers of liberal thought. They sum up to say "I don't have
to be right, because there is not such thing as right or the real world, and
you can't call me wrong because it's what I want to believe in."
It is the basis for saying that 2+2 = 5. This is not wrong because the
answer is relative and subject to personal interpretation, and you're
a valid, worthwhile <Barney Song> human being as good as the
people who are saying that 2+2 = 5!
What a crock of shit.
Hint: The principle that anthropologist apply and you liberal geeks
picked up, that you don't judge a culture in your own culture's
context (the prohibition against being ethnocentric) is to gain an
understanding of other cultures (and to avoid the falsehoods of
our own culture!) and not meant to be a statement that logic and
reasoning are relative.
> have some bearing on this list, and
> because these two subjects have already taken up [perhaps not
unexpectedly]
> a large part of the discussion so far, I will address some aspects of each
> to begin. In a later post, I hope to appraise cognitive theories of
> morality and ethics such as Moral Realism and hopefully some theological
> arguments.
>
> Cultural *Moral* Relativism and Moral Nihilism:
>
> A basic Relativist argument may be framed as follows:
>
> 1. Different cultures have different moral codes.
Yep.
> 2. Therefore there is no objective "truth" in morality.
Obvious bullshit. We agree that you have no idea what truth
is, which would explain why you tell falsehoods so often.
> Right and wrong are
> only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture, even
as
> they do from individual to individual. To speak of "the correct moral
view"
> is essential meaningless as each cultures view is correct for that
culture.
Yet if you assume the premises that:
1) A moral code must not extinguish itself or those that practice it,
and
2) A moral code cannot have a prefered position, i.e. require everyone
to work but ME, and the "me" is chosen arbitrarily...
Then you can deduce, with a give set of facts, that things like
stealing, unprevolked murder, and so on are wrong in an absolute
sense.
As I said, your idiot's premise is that all moral codes are RIGHT.
What a doofus! Yes, there are many different moral codes, but
you make the wrong implicit assumption that all moral codes are
right and thus truth is releative.
JEEZUS fucking Krist. You people should never have been give
pop-books on Einstein's relativity. You screw things up just like
the idiots who tried to apply Darwin's theory of evolution to Economics
and social structure. How many millions did that little stupidity
kill in WW II, huh?
Since the rest of your post is based on these two flawed concepts,
I'm not bothering with them.
Scott D. Erb
That's another issue, but Gandalf's post is very interesting.
I'm going to reply to it and some other responses when I have
time to give it more thought later this weekend.
As for property rights, are you one of those silly ones who think
any form of taxation is a violation of property rights? That's
funny!
Nap
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C37503D...@worldnet.att.net...
As for your argument, are you one of those silly ones who suppose
an bad argument and then attribute it to someone so you can
ridicule them? That's funny!
Michael Richmann
No, Oh Maine Mosquito. But as Beck would be only to happy to point out,
your attempt at misdirection is noted and without any surprise either.
Now, if you'd been paying attention to Gandalf's antics, you'd know he's
been posting the work of others without renumeration or compensation for
quite some time now.
I'd say that falls under the category of property rights.
That is, unless you believe that the intellectual work of others is not
their own.
--
Mike
Gandalf Grey
Nap <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:U5IZ7.13178$MK.197113@rwcrnsc54...
>
> Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a17bvt$29$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a
> continuing
> > discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the nature
> of
> > Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism
>
> Ah. The two pillers of liberal thought. They sum up to say "I don't have
> to be right, because there is not such thing as right or the real world,
and
> you can't call me wrong because it's what I want to believe in."
As neither I nor several liberals I know are at all comfortable with either
of these concepts, your statement is quite self-evidently wrong.
Additionally, considering the fact that Moral Absolutism is in fact
responsible for nearly all of the wars that have ever occured on this
planet, your criticism is not well placed.
> Since the rest of your post is based on these two flawed concepts,
> I'm not bothering with them.
Since "the rest" of my post is devoted to criticizing not only these two
philosophies but every other form of noncognitive moral theory, you've only
proven that you haven't either read the post or understood it.
>
>
Gandalf Grey
Speaking of funny. Since you managed to 'suppose' my criticism of
noncognitive moral theories was a defense of them, you seem to have fallen
victim to the very habit you're describing.
Learn to read before you comment.
>
>
Nap
>
> Nap <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:U5IZ7.13178$MK.197113@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a17bvt$29$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a
> > continuing
> > > discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the
nature
> > of
> > > Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism
> >
> > Ah. The two pillers of liberal thought. They sum up to say "I don't have
> > to be right, because there is not such thing as right or the real world,
> and
> > you can't call me wrong because it's what I want to believe in."
>
> As neither I nor several liberals I know are at all comfortable with
either
> of these concepts, your statement is quite self-evidently wrong.
Every other post, when you are faced with facts and data that show
that your opinion is in conflict with reality, you appeal to this idea.
> Additionally, considering the fact that Moral Absolutism is in fact
> responsible for nearly all of the wars that have ever occured on this
> planet, your criticism is not well placed.
You've confused moral absolutism with the subset of being wrong.
Yes, there are people out there who due to faulty thinking have
fallen into superstitions and believe that they have a truth that though
they do not understand, must be right because "God" gave it to
them. On the other hand, there are people who know they have
the correct moral code given their premises. My two premises
are simple and should be obvious.
Scott D. Erb
I noticed that too, but that's Nap, he's a troll of the "Patriot"
mold.
I still plan to get to your post and think about it soon. But
it's late so at this point I'm just replying to the posts that
don't require considerable serious thought.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a185j7$cls$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Nap <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:U5IZ7.13178$MK.197113@rwcrnsc54...
> > >
> > > Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:a17bvt$29$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > > > I'd like to make some further comments that might be helpful in a
> > > continuing
> > > > discussion of the moral basis for rights and obligations. As the
> nature
> > > of
> > > > Moral Relativism and Moral Subjectivism
> > >
> > > Ah. The two pillers of liberal thought. They sum up to say "I don't
have
> > > to be right, because there is not such thing as right or the real
world,
> > and
> > > you can't call me wrong because it's what I want to believe in."
> >
> > As neither I nor several liberals I know are at all comfortable with
> either
> > of these concepts, your statement is quite self-evidently wrong.
>
> Every other post, when you are faced with facts and data that show
> that your opinion is in conflict with reality, you appeal to this idea.
You mean that in every post where I'm criticised for being a moral
subjectivist and relativist, I respond that I'm not either? I should hope
so. I'm not either a subjectivist or a relativist.
But since you obviously never read the post and so didn't realize that the
post was, in fact, a critique of Subjectivism and Relativism, your further
error in suggesting I support these theories isn't surprising.
All and all, a rather astonishing example of the fact that most of you right
wingers don't even bother to read anything before you begin spitting out
your accusations.
Michael Richmann
Chuckle. Just like I did to yours.
Sleep well, Perfesser Erb.
--
Mike
Scott D. Erb
I agree there, and your definition of moral relativism is more in
line with what I'm used to than others presented. It also is
similar to philosophy of science definitions of relativist
thought.
The utility argument, while logical, is a bit superficial (which
I think you realize). One can just as easily posit an idea of
"tolerance" that can achieve the same utility without the same
logical problems, and in fact tolerance can be limited, meaning
that one doesn't have to accept all moral codes as having equal
validity. Also, the utility argument falls apart if one imagines
that a culture may think it appropriate and moral to spread its
own culture and destroy other cultural beliefs. One cannot
condemn such a view from the pure relativist perspective, and it
negates the utility you ascribe to relativism.
> There are, additionally some unfortunate consequences to taking the
> relativist argument seriously.
>
> 1. We could no longer say that the customs of other cultures are morally
> 'wrong.' Considering the already mentioned dangers of cultural elitism,
> this sounds rather attractive at first [indeed, the major point of cultural
> relativism rests on this fact], but it also implies that we could not make
> the same judgement of any cultural practice irrespective of how extreme that
> practise might be. Hitler's treatment of the Jews comes to mind immediately
> as an example of where relativism can lead if we're not very careful in its
> application. In a strict relativist view, the treatment of the Jews in WWII
> was a product of the German culture of that period. What they did must have
> been morally right because it was culturally influenced. It was 'right TO
> THAT CULTURE, hence, it must be morally correct in principle.
Perhaps, though many argue that such things as the holocaust (and
Chinese treatment of dissidents, etc.) do NOT actually reflect
cultural differences, but rather are imposed by those in power,
often against the cultural beliefs of that society. A relativist
could argue that really understanding cultural norms would lead
one to oppose impositions of ad hoc culture by leaders who
actually try to subvert cultural norms.
> 2. Right and wrong become simply a matter of what is currently considered to
> be so in any given culture or society. This leads to an unfortunate aura of
> fatalism to the entire idea of morality and social progress. Indeed, if
> relativism is to be considered sound, there really is no such thing as
> social progress. The entire idea of progress presumes that it is possible
> to become, in at least some sense of the word, "better." Relativism
> militates against any conception of 'better' with respect to moral issues.
> There is no "better" and no "worse." There is only what happens to BE in
> any given culture.
Yes, that seems a really stopping point, especially if we believe
humans have the chance of improvement. Still, a relativist could
respond that nothing prevents someone from trying to change the
culture from pure personal subjective beliefs. If there is no
truth, than anyone's belief (as well as any cultural set of
understandings) is equally legitimate. From the relativist
perspective all such questions become inherently political and
revolve around questions of power. In that the relativists have
a point in terms of how the real world operates.
> Therefore, even within our own culture, it was morally correct to own slaves
> in pre-civil war America simply because it was a part of pre-civil war cultu
> re. It is also morally correct not to have slaves simply because it is a
> part of present culture.
>
> Lastly, Moral Nihilists take the 'apparent' conclusion of relativism to
> reject all
> moral conclusions whatsoever. Since all cultures differ and since those
> differences 'appear' to demonstrate the existence of no single moral truth,
> nihilists take this as a reason to reject any and all morality.
Ironically, they could take this as a reason to simply accept a
moral view out of choice. If there is no obvious right answer,
and if any answer is feasible, then they could choose to make
their own the one they support and promote.
That's the real contradiction: moral relativism (as you define
it) becomes a breeding ground for things like fascist and nazi
ideologies because they have no reason to reject the idea that
power is truth, and if it works in the world then it is
legitimate. That is an absolute negation of the utility you
ascribe to relativism above.
> The only tentative resolution I can offer to these problem is to observe
> that there is often less REAL difference between cultures with respect to
> fundamental morality than appears on the surface. Often what are seen as
> moral "ends" in a aggressive argument on morality are in reality "means" to
> an
> end. To that ultimate 'end' there is often more opportunities for
> agreement.
I agree, and that is evidence for belief in a set of moral
principles. Practically, it can allow humans to believe that
there "seems to be" a set of moral truths, and that allowing for
"uncertainty" over specifics it is rational to look at basic
principles and construct social systems in line with those
agreements. That seems *essential* in an era of globalization
where interdependence makes it easier for powerful actors to
simply defy otherwise workable local laws and customs, limiting
the workability of what has until now in many places worked
(that's been true for awhile, colonialism destroyed many of the
local ways of defining and guiding ethical behavior between
members of society.
> Subjectivism/Ethical Noncognitivism and Emotivism:
>
> Ethical Subjectivism or Ethical Noncognitivism holds that there is no moral
> truth to be acscertained in any moral statement. The following statements:
>
> Generosity is good.
> Generosity is right
> Generosity is acceptable
> Generosity is something people ought to display toward others.
>
> All mean that "I" [the statement maker] personally approve of Generosity.
>
> And also...
>
> Stinginess is wrong
> Stinginess is bad
> Stinginess is unacceptable
> Stinginess ought not to be allowed
>
> All mean that "I" [the statement maker] personally disapprove of Stinginess.
>
> Aside from the helpful, and often overlooked fact that subjectivism
> describes the fact that people are often expressing their personal opinions
> and nothing more when they make moral statements, there are several serious
> problems with the subjectivistic view.
>
> 1. The infallibility problem:
>
> If moral statements are what the subjectivists say they are [expressions of
> personal opinion] then all moral statements are true.
They are true to that individual, based on their beliefs. That
doesn't make a distinction of essential or universal truth. If
one is talking about universal truth regardless of the subject
involved, subjectivism expresses an ambivalence about such
claims.
> If each one of us is saying something true whenever we make a moral
> statement then we are all infallible on any given moral issue when we are
> speaking sincerely.
That's why a subject must, in my opinion, recognize his
fallibility. A subject must recognize that there is no proof for
many of these views, and his mind is imperfect, working on biases
and perspectives that are questionable (both in terms of
psychology and just scope of experience). Once a subject does
that, he can 'relativize' his subjectivism. This opens the door
to tolerance even while holding strong personal beliefs,
including beliefs that some things are absolutely moral or
immoral.
> But, even if we are telling the truth, we sometimes make mistakes concerning
> our moral statements. We often change our views on moral issues and go on
> to
> make different moral statements based on those new views.
>
> Therefore, we are not infallible.
>
> Therefore, Subjectivism cannot be correct.
There are ways to get out of that conclusion. Glibly, a
subjectivist could say that subject A at point in time X is a
different subject than at point in time Y (and many do make that
argument -- are you, for instance, really the same person you
were ten years ago?) However, I think a relativized subjectivity
(perhaps that's not the best way to word it) based on
acknowledgement and practical acceptance of that fallibility is a
kind of subjectivity that can avoid the pitfalls you mention.
> 2. The disagreement problem.
>
> If someone says 'abortion is wrong' and someone else says 'abortion is
> right, ' they are in disagreement and their disagreement is likely to deeply
> felt by both of them.
>
> It is also true that both individuals will generally be aware of exactly
> what constitutes the grounds of the disagreement. I.e., they will both
> understand the common meaning of the words "wrong" and "right," and they
> will both 'mean' the same thing when they use these words and the word
> "abortion." This implies that they are not confused or mistaken about the
> gounds or terms of the argument. Though they are both arguing about the
> same thing, they are in disagreement.
>
> But if subjectivism is correct, they cannot be in disagreement because both
> statements are true subjectivistically.
A subjectivist would say truth is subjective, so each person is
true for his own self; subjectivism as I noted must remain
ambivalent about universal truths.
> Since there is a disagreement, subjectivism cannot be correct.
>
> There is also the formal logical problem here that, if the first person says
> abortion is right and they're being sincere, then their statement is true.
> But if the second person says abortion is wrong and they're being sincere,
> then their statement is true. This would mean that, where abortion = X,
> both X and not X are valid statements. But since X cannot be both X and not
> X, subjectivism fails by way of an internal contradiction.
Again, pure subjectivists talk about 'truth' in terms of
subjective truths (many can co-exist). They either deny the
existence or consider irrelevant attempts to address the
existence of universal truths. A pure subjectivist would argue
you are misusing the term "truth" as applied to their
perspective.
-snip bits on emotivism, I have no response or argument on that-
> To end this on a positive note, it's important to recognize that even such
> noncognitive theories of metaethics as subjectivism, relativism and
> emotivism recognize the need to make SOME account of reason in ethics and
> morality. Often, in looking at the situation I've described, people despair
> of our looking at such things as rights because it appears that there are
> only two ways [cognitive and noncognitive] of looking at the basic questions
> of morality. These two ways might be represented as follows....
Personally, I have ceased looking for one key or "philosophy" for
determining this. To me it's a question of balance, linking
intuition/empathy with reason, logic, experience, evidence, and
logical assessment of different arguments to come up with a 'best
bet' on how to live my life and on what to base my actions. It's
a subjectivist approach first, but relativized by the knowledge I
not only can be wrong but most assuredly AM wrong on many of my
views, especially the application of principles in context. That
requires a tolerance of other views, though there are always
points when other views cross a moral line and action against the
acts of people holding other views is required. This is not an
absolute or provable point, but rather one that again requires a
judgement call, a 'best bet.' This perspective makes the SOCIAL
nature of morality (ethics and morals involve interactions, they
are inherently social questions) very important, as well as the
building of agreements and compromises to allow people with
diverse belief systems to co-exist, as well as to consider
immoral or unethical belief systems which would work against that
co-existence.
Nice in theory and for the most part I agree, but assessing
whether or not a "reason" is better depends on the measure of
"better," and that will probably ultimately get down to value
judgements that are at some level subjective/intuitive and not
provable by science or reason. There are a lot of "isms" out
there, a lot of ways you can go. Use reason, experience,
intuition, etc., and ultimately it's up to you, you bet your
life, you make your judgement and go with it. If you're smart
(using 'you' universally), you keep assessing your call as you
go, recognizing that more information and experience will help
you make a better call, and its never to late to make
re-assessments. That also makes education (learning about the
world, from science to social and psychological fieldds, as well
as logic, philosophy, literature, and spiritual beliefs) an
important part of life.
After all, the unexamined life is hardly worth living, as someone
said so long ago.
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
anyway;
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C38601C...@worldnet.att.net...
Well, keep in mind that there are several schools of thought when dealing
with all sorts of relativism, and not all apply to discussions of morality.
>
> The utility argument, while logical, is a bit superficial (which
> I think you realize). One can just as easily posit an idea of
> "tolerance" that can achieve the same utility without the same
> logical problems, and in fact tolerance can be limited, meaning
> that one doesn't have to accept all moral codes as having equal
> validity. Also, the utility argument falls apart if one imagines
> that a culture may think it appropriate and moral to spread its
> own culture and destroy other cultural beliefs. One cannot
> condemn such a view from the pure relativist perspective, and it
> negates the utility you ascribe to relativism.
One CAN condemn the view, even from a relativist perspective. It's not a
controversial idea that McVeigh and his ilk live by a different moral code.
We can accepot the fact that such idiots have a different view of
government, and also agree that their methods of dealing with it do more
harm than good to society. Moreover, we can accept parts of their moral
code, without accepting all of it.
One of the more troubling aspects of Gandalf's position is that it only
deals with absolutes, and not degrees, and I think degrees are important, if
we're ever going to discuss rights in any meaningful way.
I recommend "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for insight into the average
German's culpability in the Holocaust. I would apply the same thing to
treatment of Chinese dissidents. I find it hard to believe that out of a
billion plus Chinese, there aren't enough people to throw a scare into the
government, at the very least. The Chinese actually do have a history of
equating respect and blind obedience, it would seem.
>
> > 2. Right and wrong become simply a matter of what is currently
considered to
> > be so in any given culture or society. This leads to an unfortunate
aura of
> > fatalism to the entire idea of morality and social progress. Indeed, if
> > relativism is to be considered sound, there really is no such thing as
> > social progress. The entire idea of progress presumes that it is
possible
> > to become, in at least some sense of the word, "better." Relativism
> > militates against any conception of 'better' with respect to moral
issues.
> > There is no "better" and no "worse." There is only what happens to BE
in
> > any given culture.
>
> Yes, that seems a really stopping point, especially if we believe
> humans have the chance of improvement. Still, a relativist could
> respond that nothing prevents someone from trying to change the
> culture from pure personal subjective beliefs. If there is no
> truth, than anyone's belief (as well as any cultural set of
> understandings) is equally legitimate. From the relativist
> perspective all such questions become inherently political and
> revolve around questions of power. In that the relativists have
> a point in terms of how the real world operates.
Why all of this, "there is no truth" stuff? There are several schools of
thought among relativists, and "the truth cannot be known" is also a degree
of relativism, as well as "humans make their own truth." These are all
expressions (albeit simplistic) of moral relativism. The problem is, you
guys are stuck in the "there is no truth" dogma, and can't seem to extract
yourself. It is possible for there to be more than one truth, esepcially
when it comes to moral codes. Take pacifism; one person on Usenet, at least,
thinks that being a pacifist means using peaceful means to accomplish
everything. I, on the other hand, think that there are times when you have
to eliminate evil in a less-than-peaceful way. The end for both of us is the
goal of a peaceful world, but we obviously use different methods. So which
one of us is wrong? That would depend on your personal perspective.
I agree wholeheartedly with the last statement above, by the way. I think
relativism is definitely realistic, and the alternative is idealism that has
little or no practical purpose in the world, at least in its current state.
>
> > Therefore, even within our own culture, it was morally correct to own
slaves
> > in pre-civil war America simply because it was a part of pre-civil war
cultu
> > re. It is also morally correct not to have slaves simply because it is
a
> > part of present culture.
> >
> > Lastly, Moral Nihilists take the 'apparent' conclusion of relativism to
> > reject all
> > moral conclusions whatsoever. Since all cultures differ and since those
> > differences 'appear' to demonstrate the existence of no single moral
truth,
> > nihilists take this as a reason to reject any and all morality.
>
> Ironically, they could take this as a reason to simply accept a
> moral view out of choice. If there is no obvious right answer,
> and if any answer is feasible, then they could choose to make
> their own the one they support and promote.
Agreed, But don't forget the converse to that. Just as we encounter such
nihilists every day, we also have to deal with those who think that their
moral conclusions are right, and reject all others. In fact, this seems to
be a more common phenomenon, and seems to result in far more damage. Think
Taliban, Ayatollah, the Crusades, and even the Nazis.
>
> That's the real contradiction: moral relativism (as you define
> it) becomes a breeding ground for things like fascist and nazi
> ideologies because they have no reason to reject the idea that
> power is truth, and if it works in the world then it is
> legitimate. That is an absolute negation of the utility you
> ascribe to relativism above.
Here's an interesting question I thought about a little yesterday; suppose
there is no answer to any moral question. Picture that there is an actual
God, and we are able to see him for five minutes, and we ask him, and he
tells us, "The answer is inside each and every one of you," or something
just as profoundly obtuse? I think we're better off with not knowing at that
point. But the bottom line is, people have chosen moral codes that work for
their society, and while there are common threads, it is not possible, at
this stage of human development, to discount any one of them as "wrong",
except on those on which we agree. So far, what seems to have worked the
best is basing moral codes on that which creates a better society for all
people. Of course, then there's the problem of varying definitions according
to society. That's why I think that some sort of relativism is inevitable,
because like it or not, even if there is one absolute truth out there, we're
not likely to find it anytime soon, and there remains the possibility that
there is no real answer to any moral question. Therefore, what we need to do
is understand where these moral differences come from and work to either
adjust them, or find a comon ground on which we can live.
>
> > The only tentative resolution I can offer to these problem is to observe
> > that there is often less REAL difference between cultures with respect
to
> > fundamental morality than appears on the surface. Often what are seen
as
> > moral "ends" in a aggressive argument on morality are in reality "means"
to
> > an
> > end. To that ultimate 'end' there is often more opportunities for
> > agreement.
>
> I agree, and that is evidence for belief in a set of moral
> principles. Practically, it can allow humans to believe that
> there "seems to be" a set of moral truths, and that allowing for
> "uncertainty" over specifics it is rational to look at basic
> principles and construct social systems in line with those
> agreements. That seems *essential* in an era of globalization
> where interdependence makes it easier for powerful actors to
> simply defy otherwise workable local laws and customs, limiting
> the workability of what has until now in many places worked
> (that's been true for awhile, colonialism destroyed many of the
> local ways of defining and guiding ethical behavior between
> members of society.
And I have no doubt that as we become more globally homogenous, there will
be more agreement on what constitutes a good moral code. But a somewhat
relativist attitude is going to have to precede that phase.
Don't forget to add one other factor.
Generosity to whom?
If I feel that generosity is wonderful, and that all people should be as
generous as possible, does that mean I'm violating my moral code when I
refuse to be generous to the Nazis? Conversely, if stinginess is
unacceptable, when a Nazi asks me for five bucks, and I have plent of cash
on me, is my refusal to fork over a violation of my moral code?
>
> > If each one of us is saying something true whenever we make a moral
> > statement then we are all infallible on any given moral issue when we
are
> > speaking sincerely.
>
> That's why a subject must, in my opinion, recognize his
> fallibility. A subject must recognize that there is no proof for
> many of these views, and his mind is imperfect, working on biases
> and perspectives that are questionable (both in terms of
> psychology and just scope of experience). Once a subject does
> that, he can 'relativize' his subjectivism. This opens the door
> to tolerance even while holding strong personal beliefs,
> including beliefs that some things are absolutely moral or
> immoral.
Exactly. I think war is basically wrong, but I am all for going after Al
Qaeda, albeit slightly differently than we're doing it. I think political
assassination is immoral, for the most part, but if it saves lives on
balance, I can see where exceptions can be made. For example, I'm pretty
sure bib Laden is guilty of a lot of really bad things. If he can be caught
and tried, fine. But if he cannot, I feel that assassinating him will result
in the saving of thousands of lives. On balance, I am having to compromise
my morals for the greater good. That's why I thinks it's impossible to hold
any sort of absolute moral belief. I mean, if we can't hold an absolute
moral belief when it comes to human life, when can we do so? Now, you can
say that, by weighing the costs/benefits of such things, you are expressing
your moral value that life is sacred, or important, or whatever, but the
reality is, killing bin Laden, while not preferable to putting him on trial,
is preferable to not catching him, and allowing him to run free. Therefore
my absolute belief in the value of life has been compromised. Evil, in
whatever form, sometimes has to be eliminated in an evil way.
>
> > But, even if we are telling the truth, we sometimes make mistakes
concerning
> > our moral statements. We often change our views on moral issues and go
on
> > to
> > make different moral statements based on those new views.
> >
> > Therefore, we are not infallible.
> >
> > Therefore, Subjectivism cannot be correct.
>
> There are ways to get out of that conclusion. Glibly, a
> subjectivist could say that subject A at point in time X is a
> different subject than at point in time Y (and many do make that
> argument -- are you, for instance, really the same person you
> were ten years ago?)
Good point. I know I'm not. I'm college educated and own my own business; my
perspectives have changed a lot in ten years. Not only that, but the more I
live, the more I learn, and the more I learn, the more I find out I was
wrong before. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
> However, I think a relativized subjectivity
> (perhaps that's not the best way to word it) based on
> acknowledgement and practical acceptance of that fallibility is a
> kind of subjectivity that can avoid the pitfalls you mention.
>
> > 2. The disagreement problem.
> >
> > If someone says 'abortion is wrong' and someone else says 'abortion is
> > right, ' they are in disagreement and their disagreement is likely to
deeply
> > felt by both of them.
> >
> > It is also true that both individuals will generally be aware of exactly
> > what constitutes the grounds of the disagreement. I.e., they will both
> > understand the common meaning of the words "wrong" and "right," and they
> > will both 'mean' the same thing when they use these words and the word
> > "abortion." This implies that they are not confused or mistaken about
the
> > gounds or terms of the argument. Though they are both arguing about the
> > same thing, they are in disagreement.
> >
> > But if subjectivism is correct, they cannot be in disagreement because
both
> > statements are true subjectivistically.
>
> A subjectivist would say truth is subjective, so each person is
> true for his own self; subjectivism as I noted must remain
> ambivalent about universal truths.
Putting aside the fact that almost not one would characterize abortion as
"right", even the most virulent defender of women's rights, (like me) it is
still possible that both statements could be true, depending on the
explanation. For example, if one said "abortion is wrong, because it kills a
potential human life," and the other said, "abortion is right, because the
world is overpopulated," isn't it possible that both are "right"? One is
saying that "killing human life is wrong", while the other is saying that
"overpopulation is wrong." Now, I don't knwo about you, but I tend to agree
with both of those statements. Therefore, it is possible for two people to
make a moral judgment that seem to be at odds, and both are right.
Like I said; I think relativism is inevitable on some level. I know I'm
pigheaded, but I think it's unavoidable. Eskimos put old folks on ice floes
for what they consider very moral reasons. We put people on machines and
keep them alive for what we consider to be very moral reasons. Unless we
accept both of those as valid, how are we ever going to find a common gmoral
ground from which we can both work?
> > Since there is a disagreement, subjectivism cannot be correct.
> >
Hank
Gandalf Grey
Abu Siveto Ritewingers <humbol...@musician.org> wrote in message
news:9G_Z7.53065$fo.18...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Absolutely. I think that whatever remarks I'm making here apply only to
some aspects of morality and are not only non-representative of relativism
in it's entirety but are necessarily incomplete with respect to morality as
well. I hope that you or someone else will make additional remarks on this.
> >
> > The utility argument, while logical, is a bit superficial (which
> > I think you realize). One can just as easily posit an idea of
> > "tolerance" that can achieve the same utility without the same
> > logical problems, and in fact tolerance can be limited, meaning
> > that one doesn't have to accept all moral codes as having equal
> > validity. Also, the utility argument falls apart if one imagines
> > that a culture may think it appropriate and moral to spread its
> > own culture and destroy other cultural beliefs. One cannot
> > condemn such a view from the pure relativist perspective, and it
> > negates the utility you ascribe to relativism.
>
> One CAN condemn the view, even from a relativist perspective. It's not a
> controversial idea that McVeigh and his ilk live by a different moral
code.
> We can accepot the fact that such idiots have a different view of
> government, and also agree that their methods of dealing with it do more
> harm than good to society. Moreover, we can accept parts of their moral
> code, without accepting all of it.
>
> One of the more troubling aspects of Gandalf's position is that it only
> deals with absolutes, and not degrees, and I think degrees are important,
if
> we're ever going to discuss rights in any meaningful way.
Agreed. When it comes down to RIGHTS or even specific instances of RIGHTS,
that will be the time to demonstrate various positions whether cognitivist
or noncognitivist. My remarks are [at this point] not intended to be
anything other than general.
I'd like it if you'd talk more about that. There's no question that the
statement "the truth cannot be known" means something very different from
"there is no truth." Emotivists would say that we look in vain for the
"kind" of truth we want to find when we listen to an emotivist statement
such as "wow! Dietrich!" Other theories state that there IS truth, but we
can't know it, and still others insist that there is simply no such thing as
moral truth. I would expect that the actual difference between these views
should be obvious when it comes to what individuals have to say on a
particular topic.
> The problem is, you
> guys are stuck in the "there is no truth" dogma, and can't seem to extract
> yourself. It is possible for there to be more than one truth, esepcially
> when it comes to moral codes. Take pacifism; one person on Usenet, at
least,
> thinks that being a pacifist means using peaceful means to accomplish
> everything. I, on the other hand, think that there are times when you have
> to eliminate evil in a less-than-peaceful way. The end for both of us is
the
> goal of a peaceful world, but we obviously use different methods. So which
> one of us is wrong? That would depend on your personal perspective.
It seems to me that you're relying on the fact that two people have
different methods that they call by the same name as 'proof' of the 'truth'
that both people are pacifists. In the case you mention, the truth is not
based on what those two people call their philosophy. The truth is whether
or not they're actually doing the same thing. That's where one will find
the facts and the facts won't depend on the word used to describe their
actions. If Tom is a pathological liar who makes up stories which he always
concludes by saying "and that's the truth!" And John always does his best
to report the facts, it is stretching common sense and the English language
to suggest that Tom and John are both being "factual."
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with the last statement above, by the way. I think
> relativism is definitely realistic, and the alternative is idealism that
has
> little or no practical purpose in the world, at least in its current
state.
Unfortunately, on logical grounds, relativism simply doesn't work. It's one
of those philosophical principles that sound right when you say it quickly,
but it simply can't stand up on it's own when you think about it.
I agree for the most part, BUT there's no working to 'adjust them' because
there's no basis in relativism to make any judgement that would imply that
they need adjusting. Relativism doesn't leave room for any moral judgement
and the moment you say, for example, that gays should have a certain right,
you're making a moral judgement, an "ought" statement.
Undoubtedly. Unless we get off of the idea, so prevalent in conservatism,
that America is the Moral Policeman and the Ultimate Moral Judge of the
world, there won't be a basis for a world discussion, let alone movement
toward world agreement.
It gets even more complicated. Suppose the same condition and that the
person asking you for five bucks is a miser? If we really believe that
stinginess is wrong, and we don't believe in moral subjectivitiy, would
giving five bucks to a miser be a dilemma? Likewise, if we are subjective
in our beliefs, what MORAL reason would we have NOT to give a miser five
bucks?
Is it absolutely necessary that the belief in some "true" principle
concerning human life would lead to our having to treat differing situations
as though they are the same situation? Think about that for a minute. Does
the true-ness of a principle necessarily imply that our response to any
situation involving that truth would have to be inflexible?
Yes. For the stated reasons. Each statement has to be judged on the basis
of precisely what the statement says not on some other definition of one
word in the sentence. If we believe that ANY statement on abortion has to
be judged simply on the word abortion, we're rejecting what the individual
may actually be saying. I still believe that your attitude toward truth
results from mistaking particularistic aspects of the word for the universal
meaning of the word. "For all X's, X cannot be both X and not-X" is a true
statement, but is not a statement ABOUT truth.
Likewise, in the comments above, both statements say something about what
might be potentially harmful or beneficial about abortion, but neither
statement could be considered a final statement involving the moral truth
about abortion because neither statement goes far enough in defining the
entire moral character of abortion. In order to judge the TRUTH about one
of these statements, we would have to say something like "abortion is wrong
because it kills a potential human being AND NO OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE
ADMISSABLE."
> One is
> saying that "killing human life is wrong", while the other is saying that
> "overpopulation is wrong." Now, I don't knwo about you, but I tend to
agree
> with both of those statements. Therefore, it is possible for two people to
> make a moral judgment that seem to be at odds, and both are right.
Again, this is why I believe that most arguments about morality are not
about ends but are about means. In the two statements above, as you note,
the real moral question isn't about abortion at all. The real moral
question, in my opinion could be stated as "what shall we consider to be the
more valuable, the sanctity of a potential human life or the expediency of
controlling over-population?" Each one of the original statements above
depends for its force on what the speaker presumes is a truth involving one
of these values, and THAT 'truth' is what creates the disagreement over
abortion.
That this disagreement is real cannot be doubted. That this disagreement is
based on both sides recognizing where the real disagreement lies is more
problematic. That both sides can be correct is unlikely in any logical
sense.
>
> Like I said; I think relativism is inevitable on some level. I know I'm
> pigheaded, but I think it's unavoidable. Eskimos put old folks on ice
floes
> for what they consider very moral reasons. We put people on machines and
> keep them alive for what we consider to be very moral reasons. Unless we
> accept both of those as valid, how are we ever going to find a common
gmoral
> ground from which we can both work?
For the most part, I agree that some relativism is necessary for a
discussion at all on many of these issues. It's the leap between the
presumption that all cultures HAVE and BELIEVE in their own moral systems
to, THEY MUST THEREFORE be correct that I can't accept for reaons I've
already gone into.
Gandalf Grey
The very problem I have with [in deference to Abu] what I would call
dogmatic relativism taken to it's logical conclusion is that, in principle,
we could not be justified in morally criticizing 'ad hoc' culture, because
ad hoc cultural decisions is relativism's definition of what morality really
is. What I think most people WANT to be able to say is that we should be
understanding and 'reasonably' tolerant of other views and other ways of
doing things and that somehow that shouldn't stop us from JUSTIFIABLY
condemning monstrous or truly evil acts. This, it seems to me is a laudable
goal. The problem is that relativism rips out from under us the entire
basis for making any justifiable statements involving "truly evil acts" by
its defining "truly evil" or "truly good" or any "truly" moral quality as
something that is not only culturally subjective but always correct. How
can we ever demonstrate that "truly evil acts" are different 'in principle'
from the moral decisions of the society or culture we're interested in?
If our hypothetical relativist states that Hitler's Germany was engaging in
immoral acts that fall outside of the relativistic moral acts of a 'normal'
culture, how can he demonstrate that he isn't falling into the definition of
a relativistically incorrect moral judgement when he uses the word "normal?"
Do you see what I'm asking? If relativism states that all moral judgements
are culturally based and have no other meaning than "true for them" then how
do we ever step outside of that restraint to make a valid judgement about a
Hitler? Our relativist would seem to be constrained to say something like,
"well, that sure would be wrong if he tried it in America."
But is he better off looking at our own culture? What can our dogmatic
relativist say about the slave-trade in the antebellum Southern United
States? Can he say it was wrong? Not as a relativist. Slavery was most
definitely a product of the culture of that time and there were moral
arguments [albeit very poor ones] to defend the practice. Since relativism
believes that what a culture believes is right IS right for it, slavery had
to have been moral in the South in the days before the Civil War. But
Slavery is wrong in America NOW because we think it's wrong now by the same
relativist definition of moral truth. This leaves our relativist in the
position of either having to simply report that we used to have slaves but
now we don't or--if we demand a moral judgement--having to say that Slavery
used to be good but now it's bad. He can't say that we just thought it was
bad without violating the relativist position on the meaning of moral
statements. Moral statements are true because a culture THINKS they are!
>
> > 2. Right and wrong become simply a matter of what is currently
considered to
> > be so in any given culture or society. This leads to an unfortunate
aura of
> > fatalism to the entire idea of morality and social progress. Indeed, if
> > relativism is to be considered sound, there really is no such thing as
> > social progress. The entire idea of progress presumes that it is
possible
> > to become, in at least some sense of the word, "better." Relativism
> > militates against any conception of 'better' with respect to moral
issues.
> > There is no "better" and no "worse." There is only what happens to BE
in
> > any given culture.
>
> Yes, that seems a really stopping point, especially if we believe
> humans have the chance of improvement. Still, a relativist could
> respond that nothing prevents someone from trying to change the
> culture from pure personal subjective beliefs. If there is no
> truth, than anyone's belief (as well as any cultural set of
> understandings) is equally legitimate. From the relativist
> perspective all such questions become inherently political and
> revolve around questions of power. In that the relativists have
> a point in terms of how the real world operates.
There's no question that relativism represents the truth about morality IF
we take the way cultures treat morality as our only possible proof of what
moral truth is. And therein, I think also lies one of its problems. Are we
justified in taking the actions of people as the only possible evidence of
what moral truth is? I recognize that to do a question like this justice
would require a book, but it's an important question nevertheless. Most
people who think of themselves as progressives believe in the idea of
"social progress," in that most would like their cultures to become "better"
in some social respect. Even those who defend their cultures or societies
as perfect in every respect would not want to see them slip back to some
less-perfect state. Even people who frankly deny that there is such a thing
as "morality" or "moral truth," still believe in such an idea of progress.
So there's no question that for moral relativists and most other
relativists, what we just find society doing is not what we necessarily
believe society ought to be doing. The problem is that moral relativism
makes it meaningless to talk about progress toward some better state of
affairs because the notion of a society moving toward better goals is a
fundamentally moral concept. Whenever we start talking about
'better/worse,' 'ought/ought not,' 'good/bad' concerning social acts, we are
talking about values and that defines human morality, regardless of how we
SEE people acting and whether or not we perceive in their actions a
recognition of universal truths or relative truths or any other kind of
truth.
>
> > Therefore, even within our own culture, it was morally correct to own
slaves
> > in pre-civil war America simply because it was a part of pre-civil war
cultu
> > re. It is also morally correct not to have slaves simply because it is
a
> > part of present culture.
> >
> > Lastly, Moral Nihilists take the 'apparent' conclusion of relativism to
> > reject all
> > moral conclusions whatsoever. Since all cultures differ and since those
> > differences 'appear' to demonstrate the existence of no single moral
truth,
> > nihilists take this as a reason to reject any and all morality.
>
> Ironically, they could take this as a reason to simply accept a
> moral view out of choice. If there is no obvious right answer,
> and if any answer is feasible, then they could choose to make
> their own the one they support and promote.
>
> That's the real contradiction: moral relativism (as you define
> it) becomes a breeding ground for things like fascist and nazi
> ideologies because they have no reason to reject the idea that
> power is truth, and if it works in the world then it is
> legitimate. That is an absolute negation of the utility you
> ascribe to relativism above.
It leads to an odd contradiction. If Adolf Hitler becomes the leader of a
group of people who believe in tolerance and peace, that culture is
perfectly fine from a relativistic moral standpoint: they believe what they
believe and what they believe is true is true for them, and there is no
other kind of truth to be had. If Adolf Hitler succeeds in convincing that
culture to become intolerant and warlike, the culture is still perfectly
fine from a relativistic moral standpoint; they still believe what they
believe and what they believe is true to them and what they believe is the
only kind of truth involved. There is simply no moral difference in the two
cultures as long as the cultures believe what they believe. And since
whatever they truly believe IS the moral truth, the culture is morally
correct either way.
Hopefully not.
This leads to the logical equivalency of a subjectivistic moral statement to
a statement about a preference in flavors of ice-cream. I don't believe
that the subjectivists actually intend that to be the case. To a
subjectivist the truth of "Abortion is wrong" is based on it's equivalence
to "I think abortion is wrong." Although the truth of the statement is
unquestionable [as long as it's sincerely made], its actual value is no
greater than "I like chocolate ice-cream."
I should apologize for the seeming finality of my last statement. I don't
mean to suggest that reason alone is or should be the determining factor for
a valid moral principle. Lots of different kinds of experiences and
evidence can have bearing on moral principles and the more investigation we
do, the more likely it is that we will approach 'the best' moral principle
possible.
Nap
> subjectivist and relativist, I respond that I'm not either? I should hope
> so. I'm not either a subjectivist or a relativist.
You definately are not a realist, and you often made
use of subjective arguments.
Your post are such long winded trip that no, I didn't
bother reading the whole stupid thing. I did assume that
you were defending the intellectual philosophy that you
use in almost every argument made on the usenet.
I should have realised that you are so completely irrational
as to attack the very philosophy that you use in practice.
Gandalf Grey
>
> Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a18ls6$mqa$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Nap <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:9%OZ7.14790$MK.236750@rwcrnsc54...
> > You mean that in every post where I'm criticised for being a moral
> > subjectivist and relativist, I respond that I'm not either? I should
hope
> > so. I'm not either a subjectivist or a relativist.
>
> You definately are not a realist, and you often made
> use of subjective arguments.
Exactly where would that be? I tend to depend on logical arguments. Logic
isn't subjectivistic or relativistic.
>
> Your post are such long winded trip that no, I didn't
> bother reading the whole stupid thing.
In other words you just posted a blowhard opinion not even based on the post
itself. Thanks for admitting that the only thing you could criticize in the
post was what you WISH I had said.
> I did assume that
> you were defending the intellectual philosophy that you
> use in almost every argument made on the usenet.
Most philosophies are intellectual: even neo-Thomist, Christian and
'creationist' philosophy has intellectual arguments to defend it. Are you
sure you want to go where you're going?
>
> I should have realised that you are so completely irrational
> as to attack the very philosophy that you use in practice.
Would that be anything like you attacking me for attacking that philosophy
you pretend I support? Would it be THAT irrational?
>
>
>
>
mcFly
rich...@concentric.net says...
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > Michael Richmann wrote:
[ most krap gone]
> > As for property rights, are you one of those silly ones who think
> > any form of taxation is a violation of property rights? That's
> > funny!
>
> No, Oh Maine Mosquito. But as Beck would be only to happy to point out,
> your attempt at misdirection is noted and without any surprise either.
>
> Now, if you'd been paying attention to Gandalf's antics, you'd know he's
> been posting the work of others without renumeration or compensation for
> quite some time now.
First of all, you're full of krap.
Secondly, your krap doesn't have anything at all to do with the
subject of the thread.
Thirdly, if you want anyone to even start to humor your krap,
then you'd have to start criticizing pithy, dana and other
hateMeisters here who post a steady stream of nonsense from
Conservative sources that are equivalent to hate groups.
Since I don't see you krap on everybody who does what you don't
like (just Gandalf), I feel quite free to ignore anything else
you have say on anything that matters to you.
With apologist shills like you posting krap to Usenet, the Far
Right is doomed.
Fly
Nap
> > You definately are not a realist, and you often made
> > use of subjective arguments.
>
> Exactly where would that be? I tend to depend on logical arguments.
Logic
> isn't subjectivistic or relativistic.
LOL! This is new. I'm flattered that you are now claiming
that you use logical arguments.
I'll be impressed when you start being rational.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C38601C...@worldnet.att.net...
(snip old parts to enhance readability for those who don't like
to scroll through long posts)
> > Perhaps, though many argue that such things as the holocaust (and
> > Chinese treatment of dissidents, etc.) do NOT actually reflect
> > cultural differences, but rather are imposed by those in power,
> > often against the cultural beliefs of that society. A relativist
> > could argue that really understanding cultural norms would lead
> > one to oppose impositions of ad hoc culture by leaders who
> > actually try to subvert cultural norms.
>
> The very problem I have with [in deference to Abu] what I would call
> dogmatic relativism taken to it's logical conclusion is that, in principle,
> we could not be justified in morally criticizing 'ad hoc' culture, because
> ad hoc cultural decisions is relativism's definition of what morality really
> is. What I think most people WANT to be able to say is that we should be
> understanding and 'reasonably' tolerant of other views and other ways of
> doing things and that somehow that shouldn't stop us from JUSTIFIABLY
> condemning monstrous or truly evil acts.
I think that's what most people intend. I had an interesting
discussion with some Chinese students once about the claims by
Chinese legal scholars that their systems reflected Confucian
culture. While the students agreed that China was much more
collectivist in terms of its cultural morality than the
individualist West, they disagreed that the policies of the CCP
reflected the culture, and said that rather the government was
trying to defend its own imposition of power by claiming it was a
cultural difference. That's what I was getting at above: often
people attribute certain things to cultural relativism which
really reflect actions taken by a small group in defiance of the
actual cultural beliefs.
There will always be, thanks to the nature of knowledge in this
world, an imprecise line between what should be tolerated and
what is monstrous and cannot be. On the extremes it seems pretty
clear and defendable -- mass executions and rapes of innocents is
condemned, the fact I drink coffee in the morning is not, even by
a Mormon who considers caffeine a drug. In the middle things get
mushy. To someone like a Beck, even taxation is considered theft
because he believes that the money he earns (better put: the
federal reserve notes he is privileged to use) is his alone and
is absent societal obligations and considerations.
My own approach is to differentiate moral differences which
require me
to act immorally or not. Let's say for a moment that somehow I
shared Beck's view on the morality of taxation. I still wouldn't
go his route because I do not believe that paying taxes is
immoral (and clearly neither do other posters who pay taxes even
while considering it theft). To me that would be a social norm
codified into law that I should follow unless I want to pay the
consequences (speeding laws are similar), but that though I may
lose a small bit of funds, I'm not acting immorally by paying
taxes or prevented from having freedom and property by paying
taxes. (And, of course, one reason I don't think its theft is
because I am convinced the wealtheir one is, the more one has
benefited from the stability, rule of law, and infrastructure
that taxes have provided. By buying into the system and making
money in it, one has incurred an obligation to help pay for the
system that has allowed and helped people achieve outcomes that
would have been impossible otherwise.)
I will intervene and not tolerate moral differences in those
cases where my moral beliefs require intervention, such as to
save a life, to stop human rights atrocities, etc. The nature of
that intervention is often problemmatic and raises new moral
questions. That's why I think ethics is really the central
question in life (and worth spending time discussing).
Everything else from politics to relationships to the meaning of
social existence centers around questions of ethics.
>This, it seems to me is a laudable
> goal. The problem is that relativism rips out from under us the entire
> basis for making any justifiable statements involving "truly evil acts" by
> its defining "truly evil" or "truly good" or any "truly" moral quality as
> something that is not only culturally subjective but always correct. How
> can we ever demonstrate that "truly evil acts" are different 'in principle'
> from the moral decisions of the society or culture we're interested in?
But Abu doesn't seem to think relativism as he defines it
necessitates such an approach. I think the term is being used
differently in this debate, it gets a bit messy (I dealt with
that in my response to Abu earlier).
> If our hypothetical relativist states that Hitler's Germany was engaging in
> immoral acts that fall outside of the relativistic moral acts of a 'normal'
> culture, how can he demonstrate that he isn't falling into the definition of
> a relativistically incorrect moral judgement when he uses the word "normal?"
> Do you see what I'm asking? If relativism states that all moral judgements
> are culturally based and have no other meaning than "true for them" then how
> do we ever step outside of that restraint to make a valid judgement about a
> Hitler? Our relativist would seem to be constrained to say something like,
> "well, that sure would be wrong if he tried it in America."
One could argue, as German opponents to Hitler did, that his acts
violated German cultural morality as well, and were instituted by
force and propaganda. Still, I see your point.
> But is he better off looking at our own culture? What can our dogmatic
> relativist say about the slave-trade in the antebellum Southern United
> States? Can he say it was wrong? Not as a relativist.
At least not as a radical relativist. The problem in these
debates is that we tend to work with two terms: absolutist and
relativist, when in reality most people are inbetween.
Recognizing our inability to prove and KNOW if there is a right
morality, and that different perspectives lead to different
conclusions, most people swing towards relativism. Recognizing
that some things are so heinous that we KNOW they are wrong,
people have absolutist views on others. The devil is in trying
to figure out any kind of objective way to organize this, and I
think that's well neigh impossible.
>Slavery was most
> definitely a product of the culture of that time and there were moral
> arguments [albeit very poor ones] to defend the practice. Since relativism
> believes that what a culture believes is right IS right for it, slavery had
> to have been moral in the South in the days before the Civil War. But
> Slavery is wrong in America NOW because we think it's wrong now by the same
> relativist definition of moral truth. This leaves our relativist in the
> position of either having to simply report that we used to have slaves but
> now we don't or--if we demand a moral judgement--having to say that Slavery
> used to be good but now it's bad. He can't say that we just thought it was
> bad without violating the relativist position on the meaning of moral
> statements. Moral statements are true because a culture THINKS they are!
Again, that kind of extreme or radical relativism doesn't seem to
be what Abu is talking about. Your definition is in line with
what I understand relativism to be, but if we define ONLY radical
relativism as moral relativism, it sets it up as a straw man.
Also I know that some moral relativists deal with the idea that
what is moral in one "culture" may not be moral in aother
subculture (e.g., white morality in the antebellum south may
condone slavery, black morality might not -- then can a
relativist condemn slavery if it goes against black mores, as
they are the ones imapcted)?
Overall, I agree with you, but suspect the problem is in issues
with some relativist thought and some moral certainty mixed
together. Shades of grey, as they say.
I'll continue in a bit.
-Scott
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Continuing...
Again, you seem to describe what I would call the post-modernist
or "nihilist" version of relativism. Some relativists would
simply say, "no morality is best by definition, but we can define
one as best out of human choice and work towards it." After all,
what would prevent a moral relativist from deciding that he WANTS
to act on a particular set of norms, and WANTS to try to spread
them, even if he can't claim they are right or best? Why MUST he
reject all claims about good and bad? It isn't necessitated by
moral relativism, it is only one possible way a relativist can
go.
The problem with relativism of that sort is the next point:
> > That's the real contradiction: moral relativism (as you define
> > it) becomes a breeding ground for things like fascist and nazi
> > ideologies because they have no reason to reject the idea that
> > power is truth, and if it works in the world then it is
> > legitimate. That is an absolute negation of the utility you
> > ascribe to relativism above.
>
> It leads to an odd contradiction. If Adolf Hitler becomes the leader of a
> group of people who believe in tolerance and peace, that culture is
> perfectly fine from a relativistic moral standpoint: they believe what they
> believe and what they believe is true is true for them, and there is no
> other kind of truth to be had. If Adolf Hitler succeeds in convincing that
> culture to become intolerant and warlike, the culture is still perfectly
> fine from a relativistic moral standpoint; they still believe what they
> believe and what they believe is true to them and what they believe is the
> only kind of truth involved. There is simply no moral difference in the two
> cultures as long as the cultures believe what they believe. And since
> whatever they truly believe IS the moral truth, the culture is morally
> correct either way.
Two points: a) some relativists would certainly disagree with any
claim that the culture is "correct." They would argue the
culture simply chooses a particular form of morality, and that
form is neither correct or incorrect, it just is. Moral
relativism does not necessitate valuing a particular culture as
correct or proper just because it is -- that is a mistake that
the Right often makes when they condemn relativism. b) your
point is still well taken, though, since a relativist could argue
that since there is no right culture, whoever has power can make
the culture what he or she wants -- power is truth, as the
fascists claim. The danger of relativism, even one that does not
necessitate valuing a culture just because it exists (or labeling
it correct) is that it easily becomes "whoever has the power
makes the morality," which is the lynchpin of fascism.
The radical relativist would shrug and say, "hey, that's the way
the world is, and we have to deal with it." He has a point. The
Nazis were able to gain power and change the moral norms. The
relativist could also say, "we can choose a morality which says
our culture should fight against fascism, and that's what I'd
do." That seems more in line with Abu's notion of relativism
than one that would simply accept as legitimate every existing
form of cultural norm. There is nothing, again, that says a
relativist must accept as legitimate a cultural norm just because
it exists, relativism leaves open the possibility to choose to
oppose that norm (especially a subjective relativism that doesn't
require the individual to adhere to group norms).
-snips of old bits for readability -- those wanting context,
please click back to the previous post in this thread.
> > Again, pure subjectivists talk about 'truth' in terms of
> > subjective truths (many can co-exist). They either deny the
> > existence or consider irrelevant attempts to address the
> > existence of universal truths. A pure subjectivist would argue
> > you are misusing the term "truth" as applied to their
> > perspective.
>
> This leads to the logical equivalency of a subjectivistic moral statement to
> a statement about a preference in flavors of ice-cream. I don't believe
> that the subjectivists actually intend that to be the case. To a
> subjectivist the truth of "Abortion is wrong" is based on it's equivalence
> to "I think abortion is wrong." Although the truth of the statement is
> unquestionable [as long as it's sincerely made], its actual value is no
> greater than "I like chocolate ice-cream."
OK -- the point I was getting at is I don't think pure
subjectivists would take subjectively true statements as the same
thing as a universally true statement (true for everyone) since
that would be impossible in subjectivist thought unless everyone
thought the same thing.
--and more snips of old bits to get to the final point -
I understood what you meant, and just built on it to state my own
approach, not thinking I was really disagreeing.
Thanks for the continuing thoughtful posts. You and Abu can
fight all you want, somehow from the friction comes some really
intriguing posts from both sides, much higher in quality than
much of the internet discourse, something that makes this worth
reading and archiving! Thanks!
ciao, scott
The Patriot
Want an example of Gandalf's understanding of basic logic?
He argues that if having no legislature equals having no laws....
...therefore...
....legislature equals laws.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3388147973d&selm=9tk1hb%24t2f%241%40slb6.atl.mindspring.net
Not only is poor Hanson a liar and a coward, he's a long way from
being the brightest star in the sky.
>I'll be impressed when you start being rational.
>
Poor Ricky couldn't put together a logical argument if his sad,
pathetic life depended on it.
--
"I never said there was any evidence" -Rich Hanson (Gandalf)
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
"The Patriot" <thepa...@dont.tread.on.me> wrote in message
news:hn5j3u4rk86l5cdsv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 04:31:30 GMT, "Nap" <an...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a1ah61$qul$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> >>
> >> Nap <an...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> news:jB3_7.16427$Sf2.150690@rwcrnsc52...
> >
> >> > You definately are not a realist, and you often made
> >> > use of subjective arguments.
> >>
> >> Exactly where would that be? I tend to depend on logical arguments.
> >Logic
> >> isn't subjectivistic or relativistic.
> >
> >LOL! This is new. I'm flattered that you are now claiming
> >that you use logical arguments.
>
> Want an example of Gandalf's understanding of basic logic?
>
> He argues that if having no legislature equals having no laws....
> ...therefore...
> ....legislature equals laws.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3388147973d&selm=9tk1hb%24t2f%241%40s
lb6.atl.mindspring.net
>
> Not only is poor Hanson a liar and a coward, he's a long way from
> being the brightest star in the sky.
Of course, anyone using the link above will know he's characrterizing YOUR
illogical argument, and not framing one of his own. Here's what he says:
"Further, your argument is internally illogical. If true, it goes something
like this....
no legislature = no laws
legislature = laws.
no laws = no obligations
laws = obligations.
Hence by your own argument, so long as a legislature exists, the individual
does have an obligation due to laws.
No matter how you look at it, you've been shown to be wrong on this issue."
------------------------------------------------------
So that means you're not only a liar, but you're stupid enough to provide us
with the evidence that you're a liar. Wow; you're kind of like THE right
winger, huh?
>
> >I'll be impressed when you start being rational.
> >
>
> Poor Ricky couldn't put together a logical argument if his sad,
> pathetic life depended on it.
You know, I can't repair a car worth a crap. And given that, I don't think
I'd be too quick to call someone working on my car "a bad mechanic".
Think about it, if you're capable.
Hank
The Patriot
ROTFLOL... and his characterization was using a totally fallacious
argument which I guess you are also too stupid to recognize even
though anyone with an ounce of common sense can easily see it.
>"Further, your argument is internally illogical. If true, it goes something
>like this....
>
>no legislature = no laws
>legislature = laws.
>
>no laws = no obligations
>laws = obligations.
>
>Hence by your own argument, so long as a legislature exists, the individual
>does have an obligation due to laws.
>
>No matter how you look at it, you've been shown to be wrong on this issue."
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>So that means you're not only a liar, but you're stupid enough to provide us
>with the evidence that you're a liar. Wow; you're kind of like THE right
>winger, huh?
wow, you must just as dumb as Hanson, you poor illiterate fool.
My statement was.
"no legislature = no laws
no laws = no obligations"
Which is perfectly logical
It was dumbshit Hanson who tried to claim that
"no legislature = no laws"
therefore
"legislature = laws."
Which is a commonly known fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.
Heres some more....
No balls = no kids
kids = balls
No food = no poop
food = poop
Get it now, dumb ass? LOL
>> >I'll be impressed when you start being rational.
>> >
>>
>> Poor Ricky couldn't put together a logical argument if his sad,
>> pathetic life depended on it.
>
>You know, I can't repair a car worth a crap. And given that, I don't think
>I'd be too quick to call someone working on my car "a bad mechanic".
>
>Think about it, if you're capable.
>
>Hank
Take a lesson in logic, Hanky boy.
Abu Siveto Ritewingers
I didn't analyze whether the characterization of his argument was valid. I
didn't have to, because your characterization of the argument as "his" was
patently false. Note that he says it's "your argument", while you clearly
state that "He argues that..." You're a liar, meaning that anything you say
about him has no credibility.
>
> >"Further, your argument is internally illogical. If true, it goes
something
> >like this....
> >
> >no legislature = no laws
> >legislature = laws.
> >
> >no laws = no obligations
> >laws = obligations.
> >
> >Hence by your own argument, so long as a legislature exists, the
individual
> >does have an obligation due to laws.
> >
> >No matter how you look at it, you've been shown to be wrong on this
issue."
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >So that means you're not only a liar, but you're stupid enough to provide
us
> >with the evidence that you're a liar. Wow; you're kind of like THE right
> >winger, huh?
>
> wow, you must just as dumb as Hanson, you poor illiterate fool.
Better read your own writing.
>
> My statement was.
> "no legislature = no laws
> no laws = no obligations"
> Which is perfectly logical
No, it isn't. He's right; you did say the following, and you're too stupid
to realize it.
In order to make the leap above, you'd have to believe that laws cannot
exist without a legislature, which is ridiculous. Under your statement
above, what if an unelected town council makes the laws, or a king, or a
dictator? Then the statement "no legislature = no laws" is incorrect, and
the statement following it doesn't, well, follow.
>
> It was dumbshit Hanson who tried to claim that
> "no legislature = no laws"
> therefore
> "legislature = laws."
>
> Which is a commonly known fallacy called Denying the Antecedent.
Which YOU employed, not Gandalf. In order to leap to "no laws = no
obligations", then you have to believe that "no legislature = no laws". I
think you would agree that a legislature is not necessary to have law.
>
> Heres some more....
>
> No balls = no kids
> kids = balls
Non-sequiter.
>
> No food = no poop
> food = poop
>
> Get it now, dumb ass? LOL
Yes I get it. YOU employed that fallacy, not Gandalf. I'd be careful who
you're calling dumbass, because you just repeated a claim that no
legislature means no laws, and did so twice, and blamed it on Gandalf. And
you did so right after you lied about what he said and claimed that HE made
the argument, not you.
You don't really give a shit about credibility, do you?
>
> >> >I'll be impressed when you start being rational.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Poor Ricky couldn't put together a logical argument if his sad,
> >> pathetic life depended on it.
> >
> >You know, I can't repair a car worth a crap. And given that, I don't
think
> >I'd be too quick to call someone working on my car "a bad mechanic".
> >
> >Think about it, if you're capable.
> >
> >Hank
>
> Take a lesson in logic, Hanky boy.
>
Ditto, Limbot.
Hank
Gandalf Grey
The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian variation
of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on the
moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their 'moral'
response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk into
a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
self-centeredness.
>
> >This, it seems to me is a laudable
> > goal. The problem is that relativism rips out from under us the entire
> > basis for making any justifiable statements involving "truly evil acts"
by
> > its defining "truly evil" or "truly good" or any "truly" moral quality
as
> > something that is not only culturally subjective but always correct.
How
> > can we ever demonstrate that "truly evil acts" are different 'in
principle'
> > from the moral decisions of the society or culture we're interested in?
>
> But Abu doesn't seem to think relativism as he defines it
> necessitates such an approach. I think the term is being used
> differently in this debate, it gets a bit messy (I dealt with
> that in my response to Abu earlier).
I don't think he is either. That's why I used the term 'dogmatic
relativist' above, to exclude Abu, and anyone else who doesn't subscribe to
the ultimate logical implications of relativism/subjectivism. I suspect
that Abu uses--as most people do--a specific, personal interpretation of
relativism that doesn't include the logical contradiction I've pointed out.
My point continues to be that the philosophical positions we take have
implications whether we like those implications or not. There are two
aspects to the problem of philosophies that contain logical internal errors.
First, I take it as given that caring, socially involved individuals will
obviously take positions on issues that probably will NOT include negative
implications. But as movements grow, more and more people latch on to such
movements and these individuals do not always spend all that much time
critically examining all the implications of the movements. In the case of
relativism, most people will not act as though moral relativism is a blank
check for doing what they please or simply not caring one way or the other
about such issues as rights, etc., using the philosophy as an endorsement
for egoism or cynicism. Obviously, Abu DOES care. The problem is that SOME
people use relativism as an excuse NOT to care.
The second problem is that even if all moral relativists were utterly
involved in a commitment to social progress, ultimate the critics of social
progress would use the logical errors of relativism to damn its adherents
for any negative events that occur even if those events are wholly
accidental or even unrelated to relativism. No society goes through history
without unfortunate events. By way of example, for seventy years,
liberalism held sway in American politics. For all of that time,
conservatives did what they do, dedicating themselves largely to
obstructionism and criticism. Even had there been NO flaws in the
philosophical underpinnings of liberalism, some unfortunate events would
have occurred in America in seventy years. The question is, on what can the
critics blame those events?
The argument can be made that the right wing will blame liberals and
progressives regardless. Anyone who has spent five minutes in the political
groups will conclude that the right wing blame game is not so much
opportunistic as it is 24/7 and fueled by outright lies as often or more
often than legitimate criticisms. But the more immediate concern, for me at
least, is do they have a valid basis from which to lay blame? In my
opinion, ideologically, with respect to relativism, they DO have a valid
basis. I have no problem with pointing out the outright lies and smears of
today's right wing movement. But I have to admit, when one of them points
out that many progressives in America subscribe to moral relativism, which
is a philosophical dead letter, I can't really argue the point [except to
point out that many right wingers honor so-called 'anarcho'-capitalism and
objectivism, both of which are fatally flawed pseudo-philosophies].
I agree completely. I doubt that Abu is advocating any of the extreme
positions I'm referring to. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let me
make it clear that I doubt that any moral relativist, subjectivist or
emotivist would advocate the implications I've mentioned concerning these
philosophies. As I've hopefully explained above. The danger in adhering to
these views without reflection is in the UNINTENDED implications of these
philosophies.
Let me take another example of an unintended context on this. Right now,
there actually is a poster in this group [a right wing poster, ironically]
making the case that the German culture in WWII would have ultimately ousted
Hitler on their own and that the military actions of the allies only
hastened that end. His theory, as I understand it, is that Hitler did not
represent the REAL German culture and so, relativistically, could be said to
be acting outside of a relativistic view of morality. It's stretching the
question to the breaking point, but I further suppose that in this poster's
mind, this puts the question of Hitler out fo the realm of morality and into
some limbo world of the law or the military or whatever, but certainly not
of morality.
Fine, for the moment. But let's see what this does to our views of morality
in general. It could certainly be said that, say, Hannibal Lecter does not
represent the moral views of American culture. Does this put the Lecters of
the world beyond morality? Since morality--if morality is anything at
all--is that context in which we define 'rightness' and 'wrongness,' are we
to throw up our hands at any extreme social behavior and say "well, that's
just too extreme, so it's beyond morality!"??
What sort of position are we to take on an issue like this? With respect to
Hitler, must we simply assume that REAL cultures will somehow assert
themselves and take care of such moral monstrosities as Adolf Hitler, Joseph
Stalin, and so on? In light of the above, here in the United States, with
regard to the slave-trade, what was the REAL culture, that of the antebellum
South, or that which asserted itself after the Civil War? Did the North
actually destroy America's REAL culture, or were we just somehow waiting for
our REAL culture to show up and deal with slavery?
It's for reasons like this that I take the unpopular position I do. There
is NO question in my mind that morality is a cultural concept and that
morality takes place within cultures and societies. But to go from that and
insist that morality can only be subjectively defined and legitimated by
individual cultures, seems to me to be a prescription for disaster.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3C399E36...@worldnet.att.net...
> The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian variation
> of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on the
> moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
> relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
> them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their 'moral'
> response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk into
> a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
> frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
> self-centeredness.
Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective
behavior, with no inherent contradiction between self-interest
and the interest of others. I think the "ethical egoist"
perspective is based on a false understanding of reality, evident
in how it doesn't work and has failed to catch on.
You've already pointed out how Rand isn't taken seriously by
philosophers, and I suspect that a lot of people are inspired by
her fiction and take to the stories as they do inspire a 'take
charge of your life' attitude. But unfortunately inspirational
fiction does not make for good philosophy. I look forward to
your next article.
> > But Abu doesn't seem to think relativism as he defines it
> > necessitates such an approach. I think the term is being used
> > differently in this debate, it gets a bit messy (I dealt with
> > that in my response to Abu earlier).
>
> I don't think he is either. That's why I used the term 'dogmatic
> relativist' above, to exclude Abu, and anyone else who doesn't subscribe to
> the ultimate logical implications of relativism/subjectivism. I suspect
> that Abu uses--as most people do--a specific, personal interpretation of
> relativism that doesn't include the logical contradiction I've pointed out.
>
> My point continues to be that the philosophical positions we take have
> implications whether we like those implications or not. There are two
> aspects to the problem of philosophies that contain logical internal errors.
>
> First, I take it as given that caring, socially involved individuals will
> obviously take positions on issues that probably will NOT include negative
> implications. But as movements grow, more and more people latch on to such
> movements and these individuals do not always spend all that much time
> critically examining all the implications of the movements. In the case of
> relativism, most people will not act as though moral relativism is a blank
> check for doing what they please or simply not caring one way or the other
> about such issues as rights, etc., using the philosophy as an endorsement
> for egoism or cynicism. Obviously, Abu DOES care. The problem is that SOME
> people use relativism as an excuse NOT to care.
There are also the relativists who are caught up in a Derridian
denial of logo-centric language who play with it not as a way to
deal with complex ethical issues but as a fascinating exploration
of the limits of human language and reason. Nothing can be
constructed that can't be deconstructed, and the ability to
deconstruct shows the un-naturalness of the constructed claims.
That is all well and good, but absent a dose of pragmatic social
sense it becomes a bit of a black hole.
Again, I think most don't get close to those ideologies, but
those who do find these forums a way to hold forth and try to get
heard in a culture that otherwise brushes them off. In that
sense it's therapeutic, I guess. I think practically liberalism
can be criticized for many things, from a tendency to want to
just throw money at problems to a lack of recognition that
self-respect and responsibility are more important for long term
success than just having the opportunity for food, health care,
and shelter. But I think David Broder wrote a column recently
about how the Republicans have moved far right in the last twenty
years, while the Democrats have stayed in the center. Having
been originally a Republican back in my college years, I remember
how being a pro-choice environmentally conscious and socially
progressive Repblican was perfectly acceptable. In the eighties
I moved to the Left as the GOP moved to the right, but I look at
I see my Senators Snowe and Collins reflecting that old GOP
spirit, as well as people like Chaffee and former Republican
Jeffords, but the Delays and Lotts have taken over the party, and
that's had a negative effect on both politics and the discourse
-- witness the Clintonophobia and the like of the past decade.
I for one did not join in the Bush bashing after the election or
the claims that Gore 'really won,' since I don't want to see the
Democrats go down to the level of a Delay (and, of course, we see
right wing propaganda books on how Gore supposedly tried to
'steal the election,' etc., showing some of them can't even win
gracefully). Win or lose, you make arguments and get ready for
the next election, no big deal. That's harder to do these days,
and I'm not sure what that means for American politics. I think
the public wants someone who can over come it -- that's why Bush
was popular, he sold himself as a nice guy -- but the political
discourse has taken a turn for the worse.
-snip-
> > Again, that kind of extreme or radical relativism doesn't seem to
> > be what Abu is talking about.
>
> I agree completely. I doubt that Abu is advocating any of the extreme
> positions I'm referring to. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let me
> make it clear that I doubt that any moral relativist, subjectivist or
> emotivist would advocate the implications I've mentioned concerning these
> philosophies. As I've hopefully explained above. The danger in adhering to
> these views without reflection is in the UNINTENDED implications of these
> philosophies.
But again: does a moral relativist have to take a stance that
because differences exist between cultures these are all
legitimate and correct, or can the relativist say "differences
exist, and as a relativist (especially if it is a subjectivist
relativist) I can accept or reject the desirability of these
differences and act to try to change what I don't like." If so,
and if that isn't a contradiction of the relativist ideology,
then some of the implications may not automatically flow.
> Let me take another example of an unintended context on this.
Right now,
> there actually is a poster in this group [a right wing poster, ironically]
> making the case that the German culture in WWII would have ultimately ousted
> Hitler on their own and that the military actions of the allies only
> hastened that end.
Actually, he's stating a position I have always held too, having
studied German political culture and the early days of the Nazi
regime.
>His theory, as I understand it, is that Hitler did not
> represent the REAL German culture and so, relativistically, could be said to
> be acting outside of a relativistic view of morality. It's stretching the
> question to the breaking point, but I further suppose that in this poster's
> mind, this puts the question of Hitler out fo the realm of morality and into
> some limbo world of the law or the military or whatever, but certainly not
> of morality.
Well, again, I agree with the poster's empirical statement, but I
certainly wouldn't take that to mean it is outside the realm of
morality. To me it's a social scientific point: namely that when
a regime takes power that contradicts the cultural norms of a
society, it can only last by brute force (Stalinism) or by
artificial efforts to evoke unity (Hitler's use of war to
maintain unity and legitimize internal terror). Without war,
Hitler would have either had to crack down hard in a Stalinist
sense (it would have been possible, but more difficult in Germany
than Russia) to maintain power. Hitler, of course, wanted war,
and he probably would have expanded the effort to the point of
defeat, since otherwise he would have to deal with unity
unraveling.
That's only a theory, of course. I don't think it takes the
question of Hitler out of the realm of morality though. If I had
been a Social Democrat in Germany in 1933, I'm sure I would have
been one of the many who did all possible to fight against his
rise to power and would have ended up at Dachau. It can't help
but be a moral issue, it seems to me.
> Fine, for the moment. But let's see what this does to our views of morality
> in general. It could certainly be said that, say, Hannibal Lecter does not
> represent the moral views of American culture. Does this put the Lecters of
> the world beyond morality? Since morality--if morality is anything at
> all--is that context in which we define 'rightness' and 'wrongness,' are we
> to throw up our hands at any extreme social behavior and say "well, that's
> just too extreme, so it's beyond morality!"??
>
> What sort of position are we to take on an issue like this? With respect to
> Hitler, must we simply assume that REAL cultures will somehow assert
> themselves and take care of such moral monstrosities as Adolf Hitler, Joseph
> Stalin, and so on? In light of the above, here in the United States, with
> regard to the slave-trade, what was the REAL culture, that of the antebellum
> South, or that which asserted itself after the Civil War? Did the North
> actually destroy America's REAL culture, or were we just somehow waiting for
> our REAL culture to show up and deal with slavery?
OK, but I would distinguish between an empirical point (where I
agree the poster that German culture was not the same as Hitler's
enforced actions, and thus Hitler probably could not have lasted,
especially absent war) with a moral question. I don't see how
the moral issue changes whether or not Hitler's morality
reflected German mores or would have resulted in his eventual
demise.
> It's for reasons like this that I take the unpopular position
I do. There
> is NO question in my mind that morality is a cultural concept and that
> morality takes place within cultures and societies. But to go from that and
> insist that morality can only be subjectively defined and legitimated by
> individual cultures, seems to me to be a prescription for disaster.
Disasters will happen in any event, and that is probably the
response of the relativist: wishing it was otherwise and not
liking the consequences of reality doesn't change reality.
However, I think the issue comes down to the old "is" vs. "ought"
problem. The world IS one where there different cultures, etc.,
but that does not mean that every cultural moral system that
exists ought to exist. That's why I separate ethical principles
(the ought issues) from rights (the is issue) when I discuss
these, basically in order to try to avoid the confusion that
occurs when is questions bleed over into ought questions.
I don't think we can find one right answer to the "ought"
question, but I don't believe the search for an answer is wrong,
nor do I think people should feel dissauded from standing up for
their convictions IF they have rationally and honestly thought
through moral issues and hold a moral belief to be true,
regardless of what the culture says. I do think that there is a
kind of necessity of tolerance involved here, perhaps akin to
Kant's categorical imperative (Kant's come closest to reaching a
universal sense of ethics via philosophy, IMO), that if you want
to act on your convictions you need to have a society which
allows that without discrimination. In such a society, that
requires everyone have the right to act on their convictions.
The problem, of course, comes when convictions of different
individuals collide due to different moral beliefs, and that is
the realm of politics.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Gandalf Grey wrote:
>> The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian variation
>> of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on the
>> moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
>> relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
>> them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their 'moral'
>> response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk into
>> a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
>> frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
>> self-centeredness.
>
>Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
>simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
>self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective
>behavior, with no inherent contradiction between self-interest
>and the interest of others. I think the "ethical egoist"
>perspective is based on a false understanding of reality...
What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
*is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
you prefer your ignorance.
"There are no conflicts of interest between rational men." Ayn
Rand said that, and she's absolutely right.
But you *don't* really believe it, and this is obviously
demonstrable from your preference that the state dictate peoples'
activity. You're not interested in "cooperative behavior". It's just
more of your patented euphemasia -- active and deliberate destruction
of language and concepts. Your "cooperati[on]" is actually submission
to state diktat, but you know better than to say it in clear terms,
because even people like Saskia would realize what you are.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> >> The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian variation
> >> of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on the
> >> moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
> >> relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
> >> them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their 'moral'
> >> response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk into
> >> a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
> >> frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
> >> self-centeredness.
> >
> >Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
> >simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
> >self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective
> >behavior, with no inherent contradiction between self-interest
> >and the interest of others. I think the "ethical egoist"
> >perspective is based on a false understanding of reality...
>
> What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
> *is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
> you prefer your ignorance.
If you'd actually make an argument and discuss these issues
instead of appearing to be afraid of a little give and take,
maybe we could get somewhere on it. Reason and rational
discourse give no man refuge if he avoids them. You want to
discuss these ideas openly and without resorting to silly name
calling and attacks, then cool. If you show me I'm wrong, I'll
admit it. If we find out we agree on some basic points, even
better.
> "There are no conflicts of interest between rational men." Ayn
> Rand said that, and she's absolutely right.
That also harkens back to Kant, though Rand's formulation seems a
bit vague. I can't believe that there are no conflicts of
interest between rational men, rather rational men will realize
that cooperation and working to a mutually acceptable and
beneficial solution is the best way to handle a conflict of
interest. You and I may show up to the same Nissan dealer and
really want the new V6 Altima SE in the same color, and they
might only have one to sell. We each may want the car that day,
there may be no other dealer around. That's a conflict of
interest, but one we can resolve better cooperatively in some
way.
> But you *don't* really believe it,
The most pathetically lame and idiotic argument around here is
the "you don't believe what you're arguing" crap. If someone
argues something they don't believe, they are defeating
themselves by promoting ideas contrary to their own. The fact
that you personalize this to the point where you define people
who's ideas you don't like into a little category and then refuse
to accept when they make arguments that might show common ground
is a weakness in your approach, Billy. It's not rational, it's
like you're working so hard to protect the persona of macho take
no bull that you push aside the very possibility that there might
be something to be gained by discussing issues with people you
disagree with.
> and this is obviously
> demonstrable from your preference that the state dictate peoples'
> activity. You're not interested in "cooperative behavior". It's just
> more of your patented euphemasia -- active and deliberate destruction
> of language and concepts.
You're just telling more fibs, Billy -- either that or you are
the one being willfully ignorant. I certainly OPPOSE the state
dictating people's activity in almost all cases. In those
exceptions, I demand it be with democratic representation,
following the constitution and respectful of individual
liberties. The only reason you see me as somehow having an
extreme support of state dictates is that you do not accept that
people can abide ANY government activity and taxation without
automatically lumping them into a group of those who somehow want
the state to control everything. That's not rational either.
And gee, if your view of me were correct, I'd have been arguing
against my own "true" beliefs the last two years. If I really
wanted to make politics to be state controlled, it would be
pretty stupid for me to argue against it and warn about
government abuse of power over and over. I'd be defeating my
purpose.
>Your "cooperati[on]" is actually submission
> to state diktat, but you know better than to say it in clear terms,
> because even people like Saskia would realize what you are.
You like to fantasize about how others in the group "really are,"
but especially in this case, as anyone who knows me and discusses
politics with me would tell you, you're all wet on that charge.
My colleague at work argues with me about politics, he's a
traditional liberal democrat and he says (and even tells his
classes) that "Scott is much more libertarian in his approach."
The fact is I distrust government power and the state more than
most on the Left, and if you read my posts you'd know it. The
fact is that I also distrust markets as a solution and the kind
of capitalist anarchy you support, or ultra-capitalism of the
traditional libertarianism. You take that and just assume I must
want to have the state control everything.
Sorry, Billy, you're wrong, and your refusal to actually step up
and discuss these issues honestly is NOT rational. But you know,
I don't carry grudges for more than 30 seconds, and you decide to
post an argument, I'll respond -- perhaps even taking a few days
to go over it carefully, if it warrants. I'll answer questions
about my response. I'll ask some questions myself. I'll treat
you and your argument with respect. Hell, I know I replied out
of emotion and too arrogantly, even with a view at making you mad
after you said something that made me mad when we first locked
horns years ago. I understand that created bad feelings, and I
shouldn't have handled it that way -- and I'm working to avoid
that kind of thing in current net debates if people show a desire
to discuss. So why not post a real debate and argument on this?
If you do that, then readers can judge for themselves who is
evasive, and whose argument holds water. But to the extent you
refuse such debate, why should any one but those already on your
side on these issues believe your charges and claims?
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a0340...@news.mindspring.com...
This reponse on the part of Beck clearly demonstrates that the Right Wing in
general and it's Beckian counterpart on this group in particular are
incapable of arguing with anything other than what they wish their opponents
were saying. Beck here pretends to read Erb's mind as a substitute for
argument. As Beck seldom understands the REAL arguments of his opponents,
this has come to be the nearest he ever gets to what might normally be
called a rebuttal.
'But you don't REALLY believe it.....", "Your cooperation is ACTUALLY
submission....", ".......but you KNOW better than to SAY IT.....", etc.
All of these comments, nearly the whole of Beck's statement, are nothing
more than a shadow opponent built out of Beck's own imagination and wrestled
with successfully because it never says a word that Beck hasn't put in its
mouth.
The following paraphrase of J.S. Mill's description of Jeremy Bentham serves
as a fitting epitaph to chisel on the tomb of Beck's stillborn skills as a
thinker.
"The greatest of his defects, his insufficient knowledge and appreciation of
the actual ideas of other men, showed itself constantly in his grappling
with some delusive shadow of an adversary's opinion, leaving the actual
substance unharmed."
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "There are no conflicts of interest between rational men." Ayn
>> Rand said that, and she's absolutely right.
>>
>> But you *don't* really believe it, and this is obviously
>> demonstrable from your preference that the state dictate peoples'
>> activity. You're not interested in "cooperative behavior". It's just
>> more of your patented euphemasia -- active and deliberate destruction
>> of language and concepts. Your "cooperati[on]" is actually submission
>> to state diktat, but you know better than to say it in clear terms,
>> because even people like Saskia would realize what you are.
>
>This reponse on the part of Beck clearly demonstrates that the Right Wing in
>general and it's Beckian counterpart on this group in particular are
>incapable of arguing with anything other than what they wish their opponents
>were saying.
No, Dick: I simply read his words.
Scott D. Erb
Yet your claim of what I believe is contrary to what my words
say.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >Gandalf Grey wrote:
>>
>> >> The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian variation
>> >> of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on the
>> >> moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
>> >> relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
>> >> them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their 'moral'
>> >> response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk into
>> >> a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
>> >> frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
>> >> self-centeredness.
>> >
>> >Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
>> >simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
>> >self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective
>> >behavior, with no inherent contradiction between self-interest
>> >and the interest of others. I think the "ethical egoist"
>> >perspective is based on a false understanding of reality...
>>
>> What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
>> *is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
>> you prefer your ignorance.
>
>If you'd actually make an argument and discuss these issues
>instead of appearing to be afraid of a little give and take,
>maybe we could get somewhere on it.
Look: you're the one who came on with nothing but stark bloody
ignorance over "the 'ethical egoist' perspective", and I don't care
whether you like it when I'm here to point out that you don't know
what you're talking about. I'm long, long -- many years -- past
caring whether you "get somewhere on it" or not, because I know that
you're not honest about any of this, Erb. If you were, you'd stop and
think about a point like the one I just made: you don't know what
you're talking about with all your insipid blither about "the 'ethical
egoist' perspective", but that never makes any difference with you.
You're happy to keep shooting your stupid mouth off over something you
don't understand and never bothered to learn.
So, take your "give and take" and jam it up your pompous ass.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >>
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "There are no conflicts of interest between rational men." Ayn
>> >> Rand said that, and she's absolutely right.
>> >>
>> >> But you *don't* really believe it, and this is obviously
>> >> demonstrable from your preference that the state dictate peoples'
>> >> activity. You're not interested in "cooperative behavior". It's just
>> >> more of your patented euphemasia -- active and deliberate destruction
>> >> of language and concepts. Your "cooperati[on]" is actually submission
>> >> to state diktat, but you know better than to say it in clear terms,
>> >> because even people like Saskia would realize what you are.
>> >
>> >This reponse on the part of Beck clearly demonstrates that the Right Wing in
>> >general and it's Beckian counterpart on this group in particular are
>> >incapable of arguing with anything other than what they wish their opponents
>> >were saying.
>>
>> No, Dick: I simply read his words.
>
>Yet your claim of what I believe is contrary to what my words
>say.
Not to anyone who can read and understand plain English.
bu...@appointed.com
wrote like a right wing nut;
> No, Dick: I simply read his words.
I suspect you didn't read anything BURGERKING
Considering you generally claim to be looking down the barrel of a gun
all the time
=================================================================
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>Maybe he wants to blow up the planet. Its his property.
>> Don't come around here anymore talking about "demonizing",
>>Emma.
>
>Billy, you must first realize the person you are addressing.
Yo, Smith: "Emma" had a chance to sort out her ethics and give
up a life of Tit-Sucking at my expense.
*You* are in line for the smokey end of a 7.62.
Keep pushing it, pal. You have no idea what you're fooling
around with, and I'm not talking about *me*.
Billy
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
> >> *is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
> >> you prefer your ignorance.
> >
> >If you'd actually make an argument and discuss these issues
> >instead of appearing to be afraid of a little give and take,
> >maybe we could get somewhere on it.
>
> Look: you're the one who came on with nothing but stark bloody
> ignorance over "the 'ethical egoist' perspective",
Actually I was responding to Gandalf's piece and his
description. You say my view agrees with it. That is an
intriguing start, but you don't seem to take it anywhere.
> and I don't care
> whether you like it when I'm here to point out that you don't know
> what you're talking about.
I could care less, since I think everyone sees that you are the
one avoiding making arguments and taking positions, while a
number of us are engaged in a real discussion about rights, their
origin, meaning, etc.
If you would particiapte in the discussion, rather than just fire
off assertions and snide asides from the sidelines (I couldn't
resist that wording) that would be great.
> I'm long, long -- many years -- past
> caring whether you "get somewhere on it" or not, because I know that
> you're not honest about any of this, Erb. If you were, you'd stop and
> think about a point like the one I just made: you don't know what
> you're talking about with all your insipid blither about "the 'ethical
> egoist' perspective", but that never makes any difference with you.
Think about it I did. I even asked you for more detail and an
argument. But instead you get back to attacking me personally
and the like. I don't care about any of that, or does it matter
to me if you care. If you make an actual argument then I will
care and take it seriously. The emotional personal stuff is by
definition irrelevant.
> You're happy to keep shooting your stupid mouth off over something you
> don't understand and never bothered to learn.
Well, I've been involved in these discussions, and you come in
here with comments like that, devoid of logic or rational
argumentation (let alone evidence). Perhaps there is something I
don't understand, but unless you state it, there is no reason for
me or anyone to think you understand anything profound here.
You see, reason and rational discourse doesn't allow one to hide
behind bluster, insults, attacks, and emotionalism. The lies
bear the argument and the rationality/evidence behind it. I have
no fear of that, but you seem to avoid it.
> So, take your "give and take" and jam it up your pompous ass.
You are the pompous one, Billy. I'm more than willing to take
your arguments seriously and treat you with respect, but all you
do is arrogantly attack and deride. The fact is that such
tactics really don't work, and I think deep down you know that.
Why not try rational discourse for a change -- if someone is
dishonest or illogical, nothing makes that more clear than an
open exchange based on reason and not emotional name calling.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> >> What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
>> >> *is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
>> >> you prefer your ignorance.
>> >
>> >If you'd actually make an argument and discuss these issues
>> >instead of appearing to be afraid of a little give and take,
>> >maybe we could get somewhere on it.
>>
>> Look: you're the one who came on with nothing but stark bloody
>> ignorance over "the 'ethical egoist' perspective",
>
>Actually I was responding to Gandalf's piece and his
>description.
"Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective behavior,
with no inherent contradiction between self-interest and the interest
of others."
That's what you wrote. The clause of that sentence after the
paragraph could have been taken straight out of any vernacular
rendition of Objectivism. It is nothing *but* ethical egoism, but you
have no way of knowing that. What extends the matter out to the
limits of sanity is the attitude that you strut around here over
something you don't know.
>You say my view agrees with it.
I did not remark on Hanson's remarks, Erb: I refer explicitly and
exclusively to *your* words, exactly as you wrote them.
>> and I don't care
>> whether you like it when I'm here to point out that you don't know
>> what you're talking about.
>
>I could care less, since I think everyone sees that you are the
>one avoiding making arguments and taking positions,...
There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
years ago, before anyone else. You're lying shape-shifting fraud, and
only a mental defective would attempt "argument' with you.
>> You're happy to keep shooting your stupid mouth off over something you
>> don't understand and never bothered to learn.
>
>Well, I've been involved in these discussions, and you come in
>here with comments like that, devoid of logic or rational
>argumentation (let alone evidence).
...except your own words, of course.
Billy Beck
wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Billy Beck wrote:
>>>
>>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >> What you just described in the first sentence of that paragraph
>>> >> *is* the "ethical egoist" position, Erb, but you don't know it because
>>> >> you prefer your ignorance.
>>> >
>>> >If you'd actually make an argument and discuss these issues
>>> >instead of appearing to be afraid of a little give and take,
>>> >maybe we could get somewhere on it.
>>>
>>> Look: you're the one who came on with nothing but stark bloody
>>> ignorance over "the 'ethical egoist' perspective",
>>
>>Actually I was responding to Gandalf's piece and his
>>description.
>
> "Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
>simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
>self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective behavior,
>with no inherent contradiction between self-interest and the interest
>of others."
>
> That's what you wrote. The clause of that sentence after the
>paragraph...
..."first comma", goddammit.
>....could have been taken straight out of any vernacular
>rendition of Objectivism. It is nothing *but* ethical egoism, but you
>have no way of knowing that. What extends the matter out to the
>limits of sanity is the attitude that you strut around here over
>something you don't know.
>
>>You say my view agrees with it.
>
> I did not remark on Hanson's remarks, Erb: I refer explicitly and
>exclusively to *your* words, exactly as you wrote them.
>
>>> and I don't care
>>> whether you like it when I'm here to point out that you don't know
>>> what you're talking about.
>>
>>I could care less, since I think everyone sees that you are the
>>one avoiding making arguments and taking positions,...
>
> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
>years ago, before anyone else. You're lying shape-shifting fraud, and
>only a mental defective would attempt "argument' with you.
>
>>> You're happy to keep shooting your stupid mouth off over something you
>>> don't understand and never bothered to learn.
>>
>>Well, I've been involved in these discussions, and you come in
>>here with comments like that, devoid of logic or rational
>>argumentation (let alone evidence).
>
> ...except your own words, of course.
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a1970...@news.mindspring.com...
That's quite a brash personal claim for a guy who doesn't understand the
difference between an analogy and a metaphor and who has consistently
answered the supposed thoughts of others rather than their words. This
isn't something you started doing this week, Junior. The mind reading
impression has been your MO for a long time now.l
Gandalf Grey
I would have to be more a matter of your pointing out what he doesn't know
what he's thinking about, Junior. Since, in fact, you never really address
what he's written.
> I'm long, long -- many years -- past
> caring whether you "get somewhere on it" or not, because I know that
> you're not honest about any of this, Erb.
Because, of course, you can read minds.
> If you were, you'd stop and
> think about a point like the one I just made.
But why would he do that? Since your remarks are never directed at what
people actually say, but rather at what you believe they're thinking, how
can anyone really discuss anything with you, Junior?
Gandalf Grey
>
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
> >
> > Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C399E36...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> > The responses and reactions of the Beckians are based on a Randian
variation
> > of "Ethical Egoism" which I intend to tackle as my next full article on
the
> > moral basis for rights. The Egoist doesn't really subscribe to moral
> > relativism or even subjectivism in any sense that would justify favoring
> > them with the term. It would be more appropriate to say that their
'moral'
> > response to situations is grounded on magnifying a psychological quirk
into
> > a self-justifying mis-statement on individualism. Along that road, they
> > frequently make the mistake of labeling as 'moral' that which is merely
> > self-centeredness.
>
> Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
> simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
> self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective
> behavior, with no inherent contradiction between self-interest
> and the interest of others. I think the "ethical egoist"
> perspective is based on a false understanding of reality, evident
> in how it doesn't work and has failed to catch on.
You're quite right. As I point out in the analysis of Ethical Egoism I've
just posted, Ethical Egoism ultimately cashes out in favor of Rational
Egoism such as that we see in contractarianism. The way it works is
basically......
Psychological Egoism observes that human beings often act so as to promote
their own interest. Shades of this will be seen in Hobbes.
Ethical Egoism suggests that human beings 'ought' to ALWAYS act to as to
promote their own interest.
Rational Egoism notices that human moralities require the cooperation of
individuals, recognizes that Ethical Egoism is practically impossible for
this reason and goes on to design contractarian moralities that define
'goods' as those things acceptable to each person, given his/her interests,
predicated on the compliance of all.
Gandalf Grey
> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
> years ago, before anyone else.
And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything out:
by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
them to make and defend their own positions.
Face it, Junior. The minute you start pretending to read minds you lose any
credibility you might have had and achieve nothing but the status of a
fraud. That's where you're at in this group. Whenever you're invited to
actually make your own positions clear, you pretend that your opponents
aren't interested in the truth and you run away as fast as your little Jello
legs will carry you, leaving your roadies, like Wayne, to pathetically
protest about how 'honest' you are while the rest of us stand and watch your
tail lights receding in the distance. You only insert yourself into other
conversations to take potshots at what you PRETEND are other people's
arguments, and even at that you're reduced to your mind reading routine.
Be a man! Take a position and defend it. And if you don't like what others
are saying attack them on the basis of what they're really saying, not some
strawman you build for the occasion.
Your cowardice is getting to be a little embarassing.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Actually I was responding to Gandalf's piece and his
> >description.
>
> "Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
> simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
> self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective behavior,
> with no inherent contradiction between self-interest and the interest
> of others."
>
> That's what you wrote.
Indeed.
> The clause of that sentence after the
> paragraph could have been taken straight out of any vernacular
> rendition of Objectivism. It is nothing *but* ethical egoism, but you
> have no way of knowing that.
It also comes from Kant's approach, and from idealist
traditions. Actually, there has been a lot from objectivism I
agree with. I've also been told that my view on how people
should not seek to get self esteem from being part of a nation or
group rather than through their own individual acts could also be
straight from Rand. There are things I believe that could come
straight from many different authors, but that doesn't
necessarily put me in agreement with their whole philosophy.
> What extends the matter out to the
> limits of sanity is the attitude that you strut around here over
> something you don't know.
Yet while you make assertions and insults, you don't actually
make an argument and engage the issue. There are a number of
people I disdain, but I realize that if I criticize them
personally and directly I must also explain my ideas and deal
with them. A few with whom I think that utterly impossible and
for whom I have no respect, I ignore and kill file -- a few
permanently, others until the killfile expires. If you really
think my views are idiotic, transparently hypocritical, and all
that, then you'd be best advised to ignore me completely. If you
feel a need to reply, that actually suggests you are bothered.
And if you are bothered, then what better way to get satisfaction
than rather to insult me to actually engage and win an argument.
You see, one can't hide from reason in a real debate. Insults
and attacks are ways of cloudy the issue. When you make
assertions and call me names but don't present counter arguments,
you make yourself look like you can't come up with a response and
are just emotionally upset that someone thinks different. If you
ignore me completely, it'll look like you think me a waste of
time and irrelevant. If you come up with an argument and stick
to reason and logic, you can point out fallacies and hypocracies
in my argument if they occur, and you can prove your point
right. Or, if neither of us can actually win outright, at least
readers can see the real differences, rather than a haze of
accusations and attacks.
> >You say my view agrees with it.
>
> I did not remark on Hanson's remarks, Erb: I refer explicitly and
> exclusively to *your* words, exactly as you wrote them.
>
> >> and I don't care
> >> whether you like it when I'm here to point out that you don't know
> >> what you're talking about.
> >
> >I could care less, since I think everyone sees that you are the
> >one avoiding making arguments and taking positions,...
>
> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
> years ago, before anyone else. You're lying shape-shifting fraud, and
> only a mental defective would attempt "argument' with you.
Yet somehow you feel a need to reply. I really don't think
calling names like you do accomplishes much or makes it look like
you really have reason on your side. It'll get some hoots from
those who agree with you anyway, but it makes you look like
you're bothered enough to call names, but unable to actually
state clearly why I'm wrong and defend your claims.
> >> You're happy to keep shooting your stupid mouth off over something you
> >> don't understand and never bothered to learn.
> >
> >Well, I've been involved in these discussions, and you come in
> >here with comments like that, devoid of logic or rational
> >argumentation (let alone evidence).
>
> ...except your own words, of course.
My own words are evidence for your argument? That's a rather
bizarre statement. Which words?
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com>...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
>> years ago, before anyone else.
>
>And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything out:
>by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
>them to make and defend their own positions.
I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual liberties"
all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:3c3a25b3...@news.mindspring.com...
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
> > years ago, before anyone else.
>
> And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything out:
> by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
> them to make and defend their own positions.
There's also a difference between "pointing something out" and
actually making a persausive case. For Billy III (Jr., I
believe, is actually his dad), when he "points something out"
it's usually an assertion with no substantiation.
> Face it, Junior. The minute you start pretending to read minds you lose any
> credibility you might have had and achieve nothing but the status of a
> fraud.
> That's where you're at in this group. Whenever you're invited to
> actually make your own positions clear, you pretend that your opponents
> aren't interested in the truth and you run away as fast as your little Jello
> legs will carry you, leaving your roadies, like Wayne, to pathetically
> protest about how 'honest' you are while the rest of us stand and watch your
> tail lights receding in the distance. You only insert yourself into other
> conversations to take potshots at what you PRETEND are other people's
> arguments, and even at that you're reduced to your mind reading routine.
>
> Be a man! Take a position and defend it. And if you don't like what others
> are saying attack them on the basis of what they're really saying, not some
> strawman you build for the occasion.
>
> Your cowardice is getting to be a little embarassing.
Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it. State it
clearly. Explain it. Defend it under questioning. Otherwise,
nobody really can tell why you believe what you believe.
Scott D. Erb
There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty. Note
as well I consistently warn about the dangers of too powerful a
government. But if you think there is something contradictory
about my position, you need to make an argument for it. Just
asserting it as if it were some kind of self-evident truth makes
you look like you just don't like a challenge to your faith.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a3e9f...@news.mindspring.com...
What I cannot "obliterate" is the FACT that you don't argue with people,
only with what you pretend their positions are. It's the same kind of
cowardice you demonstrated with your ridiculous comment on Ethical Egoism.
My definition of that philosophy is the standard philosophical definition
but your reaction to it is to deny it without even stating what you
'believe' the correct definition to be.
You're a coward, Junior.
And it shows.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3A4ABC...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Beck the Jelloboy wrote:
> >
> > "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
>
> > What extends the matter out to the
> > limits of sanity is the attitude that you strut around here over
> > something you don't know.
>
> Yet while you make assertions and insults, you don't actually
> make an argument and engage the issue.
Junior's standpoint on your comment is an interesting bit of projection. I
feel that the best characterization of Beck's entire presence and problem on
this group is that of a man who struts about an understanding of issues that
he never actually demonstrates.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >Actually I was responding to Gandalf's piece and his
>> >description.
>>
>> "Yeah, but I think that kind of thought will remain an anomoly
>> simply because it doesn't work, and most people learn that
>> self-interest actually leads to cooperative and collective behavior,
>> with no inherent contradiction between self-interest and the interest
>> of others."
>>
>> That's what you wrote.
>
>Indeed.
>> The clause of that sentence after the
>> paragraph could have been taken straight out of any vernacular
>> rendition of Objectivism. It is nothing *but* ethical egoism, but you
>> have no way of knowing that.
>
>It also comes from Kant's approach, and from idealist
>traditions. Actually, there has been a lot from objectivism I
>agree with. I've also been told that my view on how people
>should not seek to get self esteem from being part of a nation or
>group rather than through their own individual acts could also be
>straight from Rand. There are things I believe that could come
>straight from many different authors, but that doesn't
>necessarily put me in agreement with their whole philosophy.
Uh-huh. That must be why you went on to say, "I think the
'ethical egoist' perspective is based on a false understanding of
reality, evident in how it doesn't work and has failed to catch on."
You think that "self-interest actually leads to cooperative and
collective behavior," but you think it's "based on a false
understanding of reality".
We weren't talking about the "whole philosophy", Erb, but it sure
is a convenient way out of your own contradictions.
>> What extends the matter out to the
>> limits of sanity is the attitude that you strut around here over
>> something you don't know.
>
>Yet while you make assertions and insults, you don't actually
>make an argument and engage the issue.
"The issue" here is your outrageous double-talk, pretense, and
fraudulence. Don't mistake this.
> There are a number of
>people I disdain, but I realize that if I criticize them
>personally and directly I must also explain my ideas and deal
>with them. A few with whom I think that utterly impossible and
>for whom I have no respect, I ignore and kill file -- a few
>permanently, others until the killfile expires. If you really
>think my views are idiotic, transparently hypocritical, and all
>that, then you'd be best advised to ignore me completely.
You wish. Stop begging. I'll tag your raggedy-ass bullshit as
long as I can breathe and logon, and you have *shit* to say about it.
>If you feel a need to reply, that actually suggests you are bothered.
You're goddamned right: your kind of mendacity is something that
I will never, ever learn to live with.
>And if you are bothered, then what better way to get satisfaction
>than rather to insult me to actually engage and win an argument.
That completely depends on who I'm arguing *to* -- and what about
-- and you don't qualify. You're a bug in my collection, Doktor.
I'll hold you up in front of the class whenever I take it in mind, and
you don't have to believe that others sometimes get the lesson, but
that's not important.
Gandalf Grey
> You wish. Stop begging. I'll tag your raggedy-ass bullshit as
> long as I can breathe and logon, and you have *shit* to say about it.
>
Right. Just like you were going to keep on posting Roselle's address. And
there wasn't a thing anyone could do about that either.
What a joke you are, Junior.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>>
>> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com>...
>> >>
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
>> >> years ago, before anyone else.
>> >
>> >And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything out:
>> >by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
>> >them to make and defend their own positions.
>>
>> I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual liberties"
>> all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
>> contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
>>
>> Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
>
>There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
>individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
>are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty.
There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
contingent disposal, Erb, and if you think they are, then you'd better
be ready to give up your life to someone whose contingency demands it,
but I think even you can figure out where that's headed. And you're
only interested in *some* rights for *some* people, because you're
quite willing to force people into paying for your "social welfare
services" whether they agree to the deal or not. Their "rights" don't
matter to you.
The essence of the thing that you're talking about is
unilaterally trading some peoples' lives for others, without their
permission. Nothing about that qualifies it as a belief in
"individual rights", "strong" or weezily, like you.
Billy Beck
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
>> >> years ago, before anyone else.
>> >
>> >And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything
>> >out: by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
>> >them to make and defend their own positions.
>>
>> I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual liberties"
>> all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
>> contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
>>
>> Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
>
>What I cannot "obliterate" is the FACT that you don't argue with people,
>only with what you pretend their positions are. It's the same kind of
>cowardice you demonstrated with your ridiculous comment on Ethical Egoism.
>My definition of that philosophy is the standard philosophical definition...
Really? Now, we're into allegation that you can substantiate
with reference to some kind of "standard". Let's see you dig it out
of Copleston, for intance.
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy<wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a53e1...@news.mindspring.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com>...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
> >> >> years ago, before anyone else.
> >> >
> >> >And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything
out:
> >> >by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than
allowing
> >> >them to make and defend their own positions.
> >>
> >> I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual
liberties"
> >> all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
> >> contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
> >>
> >> Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
> >
> >There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
> >individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
> >are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty.
>
> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
> approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
> bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
> contingent disposal, Erb,
What are they subject to and why?
Put up or shut up, Junior.
You're getting tiresome.
Billy Beck
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> You wish. Stop begging. I'll tag your raggedy-ass bullshit as
>> long as I can breathe and logon, and you have *shit* to say about it.
>Right. Just like you were going to keep on posting Roselle's address.
I *did*.
I said out loud here that he knew how to make it stop.
And I'm the one who stopped it.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it, Erb, and it'll a
cold day in hell when I need your advice about the matter.
Billy Beck
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy<wj...@mindspring.com>...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
>> >individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
>> >are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty.
>>
>> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
>> approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
>> bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
>> contingent disposal, Erb,
>
>What are they subject to and why?
Nothing.
>Put up...
I have. I am not responsible for your coma.
>You're getting tiresome.
Fine, then. You know your way to the next post, right?
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a5841...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>
> >> You wish. Stop begging. I'll tag your raggedy-ass bullshit as
> >> long as I can breathe and logon, and you have *shit* to say about it.
>
> >Right. Just like you were going to keep on posting Roselle's address.
>
> I *did*.
>
> I said out loud here that he knew how to make it stop.
>
> And I'm the one who stopped it.
Even for someone who's full of crap, you're full of crap, Junior.
Gandalf Grey
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a56de...@news.mindspring.com...
Hey, moron. So can you and the ALLEGATION IS YOURS. I went to some
considerable work on that article. Your elbow room for potshots will cost
you rent and the rent is demonstration of my error on YOUR PART. You're
making the assertion that I'm wrong on the subject. Cough up some
definitions that disagree.
This is just another example of your cowardice and your laziness, Beck. Put
up or shut up.
Who Cares?
>
> I'll hold you up in front of the class whenever I take it in mind, and
> you don't have to believe that others sometimes get the lesson, but
> that's not important.
So you're gonna carry on in your Dad's
tradition, and ruin innocent lives with
foolish ideals?
Gandalf Grey
Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a5905...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy<wj...@mindspring.com>...
> >>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
> >> >individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
> >> >are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty.
> >>
> >> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
> >> approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
> >> bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
> >> contingent disposal, Erb,
> >
> >What are they subject to and why?
>
> Nothing.
Support your claim.
Gandalf Grey
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
>
> I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it,
No, you aren't. You're quite evidently not willing to DO anything FOR
anything. You can't even get up the viscera to stand up for your beliefs
with anything but this gelatin imitation you present on the web.
You're a coward.
Billy Beck
"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> >> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
>> >> >> years ago, before anyone else.
>> >> >
>> >> >And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything
>> >> >out: by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than
>> >> >allowing them to make and defend their own positions.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual liberties"
>> >> all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
>> >> contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
>> >>
>> >> Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
>> >
>> >What I cannot "obliterate" is the FACT that you don't argue with people,
>> >only with what you pretend their positions are. It's the same kind of
>> >cowardice you demonstrated with your ridiculous comment on Ethical
>> >Egoism. My definition of that philosophy is the standard philosophical
>> >definition...
>>
>> Really? Now, we're into allegation that you can substantiate
>> with reference to some kind of "standard".
>
>Hey, moron. So can you and the ALLEGATION IS YOURS.
So, you're saying that I'm the one who wrote, "My definition of
that philosophy is the standard philosophical definition," right?
Your delusions are getting under your skin, Hanson.
>I went to some considerable work on that article.
You should have spent your effort on the DNC fax machine, !Dick.
>Your elbow room for potshots will cost you rent and the rent is demonstration
>of my error on YOUR PART. You're making the assertion that I'm wrong on
>the subject.
Yeah: I'm the one who strutted, "I can site any number of
philosophical sources that will agree on my definition of Ethical
Egoism." I'm the one who hawked, "I've got the entire tradition of
modern Western philosophy and nearly all of its writers to back me
up."
You can't imagine how it surprised me to see all of my assertions
posted under your username.
Gandalf Grey
I'm saying that if you're going to come to the party to throw rotten fruit
and vegetables, you'd better bring ammunition with you, Beck. If you think
you're going to sit back and do nothing but take potshots and still retain
credibility without the support to back them up, you're very much mistaken.
Put up or shut up.
> >Your elbow room for potshots will cost you rent and the rent is
demonstration
> >of my error on YOUR PART. You're making the assertion that I'm wrong on
> >the subject.
>
> Yeah: I'm the one who strutted, "I can site any number of
> philosophical sources that will agree on my definition of Ethical
> Egoism."
I can if I need to. No, Junior, you're the one who wrote the following in
response to my definition of Ethical Egoism:
"No, !Gandalf, it's not. You're wrong. You don't know what you're
talking about. "
Prove it, Junior. If you have a definition and arguments that prove your
statement, crawl out from under the bed where your cowering and post it.
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@home.net> wrote:
>"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> I'll hold you up in front of the class whenever I take it in mind, and
>> you don't have to believe that others sometimes get the lesson, but
>> that's not important.
> So you're gonna carry on in your Dad's
> tradition, and ruin innocent lives with
> foolish ideals?
If I go to my grave freezing, starving, and all alone, I'll be
the one who chose it, all on my own, and I will still have been
blessed from my earliest days with something that you never had the
remotest angle on, Langford.
You're absolutely pathetic.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
>
> I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it, Erb, and it'll a
> cold day in hell when I need your advice about the matter.
You are irrelevant. You can't defend your position, you just
bluster.
Boring.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C3A7B95...@worldnet.att.net...
No kidding. Billy just keeps sinking deeper into the bog he's created for
himself.
It's really pretty sad.
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Billy Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com>...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> There is no "argument" to "make" with you, and I pointed this out
> >> >> years ago, before anyone else.
> >> >
> >> >And the way you're "pointing it out" is the way you "point" everything out:
> >> >by arguing with the positions you invent for others rather than allowing
> >> >them to make and defend their own positions.
> >>
> >> I didn't "invent" Scotti's pious stand for "individual liberties"
> >> all the while he's pimping the nanny state, Hanson. That's *his*
> >> contradiction, and it's plainly obvious in his own words.
> >>
> >> Nothing you say can obliterate that fact.
> >
> >There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
> >individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
> >are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true liberty.
>
> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
> approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
> bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
> contingent disposal, Erb, and if you think they are, then you'd better
> be ready to give up your life to someone whose contingency demands it,
> but I think even you can figure out where that's headed.
Your response is illogical. Believing strongly in something
means a just that: a strong belief, not subject to meaningful
doubt. I do not doubt the desirability of rights. I'm not so
stupid as to think that there is one pure absolute way rights can
be expressed in the world, context matters. Most importantly, I
know that it is contrary to a belief in individual rights to
expect everyone to define them and understand them the same way I
do, that is why politics and contestation of the meaning of
rights in context is inevitable and necessary.
> And you're
> only interested in *some* rights for *some* people, because you're
No, I'm a universalist, I think any rights should exist equally
for all people.
> quite willing to force people into paying for your "social welfare
> services" whether they agree to the deal or not. Their "rights" don't
> matter to you.
No, I'm not. But I do recognize that taxation with
representation is legitimate. You have yet to make an argument
why it isn't, though you assert it over and over.
> The essence of the thing that you're talking about is
> unilaterally trading some peoples' lives for others,
Not even close. You have no basis for that accusation, it's
bizarre.
> without their
> permission. Nothing about that qualifies it as a belief in
> "individual rights", "strong" or weezily, like you.
Your opinion is noted. Luckily, it is irrelevant.
Who Cares?
>
> If I go to my grave freezing, starving, and all alone, I'll be
> the one who chose it, all on my own, and I will still have been
> blessed from my earliest days with something that you never had the
> remotest angle on, Langford.
:D
My parents raised me the same way. The difference
between you and me is that my parents raised me
to be nore pragmatic than principled. Maybe not
on purpose, but when push came to shove,
out came the relative rankings.
You're just not able to break free of old memes
with a poor survival value in today's society.
> You're absolutely pathetic.
You've popped a head gasket, buddy.
You're the one bemoaning the tragic loss of
"The One Woman In My Life"
Now *that* is pathetic.
You know why you she's gone?
You're a poor risk for genetic propagation.
You don't have the assets or mindset to succeed in
the current environment. I know, man, because
I was *there* for fifteen years. Loser City. Women
avoid unsuccessful types, excessively rigid or angry
men, poor providers, anti-social loners.
Your dad saddle with you with a bunch of beliefs
that probably worked for *his* dad, but they
don't work NOW, buddy, and that's what counts.
I could nail a fertile babe now, if I wanted. But
it would be a lot of risk, work and money, and
I don't have the emotional need for kids anymore.
Get a clue, Billy. THIS is your life. This
is IT, man. You don't get a bonus round
for "being principled".
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> And you're
>> only interested in *some* rights for *some* people, because you're
>
>No, I'm a universalist, I think any rights should exist equally
>for all people.
...except me, for instance.
>> quite willing to force people into paying for your "social welfare
>> services" whether they agree to the deal or not. Their "rights" don't
>> matter to you.
>
>No, I'm not. But I do recognize that taxation with
>representation is legitimate. You have yet to make an argument
>why it isn't,...
Yes, I have. I produce what I own, and that's why neither you or
anyone else can have it. You can try to swamp that fact in Usenet
flubber all you want, but it remains a fact.
>Your opinion is noted. Luckily, it is irrelevant.
No, it's not, because I'm the one who is never, ever, going to
pay for your idea of what my life should be.
Gandalf Grey
Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a918c...@news.mindspring.com...
> >No, I'm not. But I do recognize that taxation with
> >representation is legitimate. You have yet to make an argument
> >why it isn't,...
>
> Yes, I have. I produce what I own, and that's why neither you or
> anyone else can have it. You can try to swamp that fact in Usenet
> flubber all you want, but it remains a fact.
Man, what a WHINER! That's so yesterday, Junior. I'll bet you're also
never, ever going to pay that library fine on *Philosophy for Dummies*
either. Who cares?
The real issue is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about and
you run like a Gumby everytime you're asked to back up your groundless
assertions.
Billy Beck
"Who Cares?" <vene...@home.net> wrote:
> THIS is your life.
That's exactly right, and I don't need you to point that out.
It's been my entire point all along.
Billy Beck
Richard Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >No, I'm not. But I do recognize that taxation with
>> >representation is legitimate. You have yet to make an argument
>> >why it isn't,...
>>
>> Yes, I have. I produce what I own, and that's why neither you or
>> anyone else can have it. You can try to swamp that fact in Usenet
>> flubber all you want, but it remains a fact.
>
>Man, what a WHINER! That's so yesterday, Junior.
In Hanson's world, the very idea of claiming what one produces is
out of fashion, like his old bell-bottoms.
Try to understand what that means.
Gandalf Grey
>
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
> >>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >No, I'm not. But I do recognize that taxation with
> >> >representation is legitimate. You have yet to make an argument
> >> >why it isn't,...
> >>
> >> Yes, I have. I produce what I own, and that's why neither you or
> >> anyone else can have it. You can try to swamp that fact in Usenet
> >> flubber all you want, but it remains a fact.
> >
> >Man, what a WHINER! That's so yesterday, Junior.
>
> out of fashion, like his old bell-bottoms.
More mind-reading impressions. You barely understand the gutter YOU live
in, Jelloboy. Stop pretending you understand anyone else's world.
Try to involve yourself in the discussion, Junior. This isn't alt.esp
Who Cares?
"Billy Beck" <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3a9f85...@news.mindspring.com...
Yeah, try it for once, Billy. Try for once to admit
that you're human, and that you can't be perfect,
and therefore you have zero right to expect
perfection out of anyone else.
Get your dad's bullshit out of your head and
LEARN about values. About having to be
an adult and set priorities, and admit limitations
on what you can and can not do. About
having to <GASP> making relative rankings
about what's right and wrong, based on
circumstance and time.
You're the one that's clueless about "values",
pal, because you can't RANK them, it's
all binary with you, either perfect or defiled.
It's bullshit and it doesn't work. And it
sure as hell doesn't work with wives or
girlfriends or your kids.
silve...@nospam.com
wrote:
>
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
>
> I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it, Erb, and it'll a
>cold day in hell when I need your advice about the matter.
sure you are narc boy. At the first time you'll run off narcing for
them. Yer a coward boy and you have damn well proved it here in this
group.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
**********************************************
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
You got the slightest proof he's lying about his life, Dick? Or are
you just flapping your withered dugs at the mirror again?
>You're a coward.
What's your address, Dick?
>Put up or shut up.
Put up what, Dick? He's already slammed you into the dirt 57 times in
a row. No one out there even tries to defend you, except for Erb and
the reluctant Jack. You're a recorded liar, a documented plagiarizer,
a low-life computer addict loser, a messed up psychotic with delusions
about his own intellectual abilities, and a political has been.
But don't hurt yourself rattling the bars on your little tin cage.
That wouldn't be pretty.
Mike
Gandalf Grey
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ejvm3ussvc1bj7b9i...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:41:32 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>
> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:3c3a58a5...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
>
> >> I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it,
>
> >No, you aren't. You're quite evidently not willing to DO anything FOR
> >anything. You can't even get up the viscera to stand up for your beliefs
> >with anything but this gelatin imitation you present on the web.
>
Yeah. His entire history on this group.
Billy Beck
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>>You're a coward.
>
>What's your address, Dick?
Hilarious. Real looking-glass stuff. We have here a known
psychotic with suicidal tendencies gibbering rank bullshit through the
newsgroups with his hair on fire, behind a fake ID, and he's calling
me a coward: someone who anyone can know anything about by just
asking, who's never posted under a false name, and who's posted
address, telephone number and SSN/DOB more times than anyone would
care to count.
We're talking about the premier savant-mendace in the group. No
lie is beyond his audacity. It's always been his MO, since he first
arrived in '96: lie fast, hard, and often enough, and nobody will be
able to keep up with the mess.
Really a historic performance.
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:41:32 -0800, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3c3a58a5...@news.mindspring.com...
>> >> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >Billy, if you believe in something stand up for it.
>> >> I'm the one who's ready to go to prison for it,
>> >No, you aren't. You're quite evidently not willing to DO anything FOR
>> >anything. You can't even get up the viscera to stand up for your beliefs
>> >with anything but this gelatin imitation you present on the web.
>> You got the slightest proof he's lying about his life, Gandalf?
>Yeah. His entire history on this group.
Bzzzzzzzzzt. You lose. The voices in your head don't count, Dick.
Gandalf Grey
Billy Junior <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c3bbd5e...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>
> >>You're a coward.
> >
> >What's your address, Dick?
>
> Hilarious. Real looking-glass stuff. We have here a known
> psychotic with suicidal tendencies gibbering rank bullshit through the
> newsgroups with his hair on fire, behind a fake ID, and he's calling
> me a coward:
Yep. Start supporting your assertions or get used to the shit fitting,
Bill.
Gandalf Grey
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! You don't get to make that decision, Mikey.
Eagle Eye
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> "There are no conflicts of interest between rational
>> >> >> men." Ayn Rand said that, and she's absolutely right.
>> >> >> But you *don't* really believe it, and this is obviously
>> >> >> demonstrable from your preference that the state dictate
>> >> >> peoples' activity. You're not interested in "cooperative
>> >> >> behavior". It's just more of your patented euphemasia --
>> >> >> active and deliberate destruction of language and
>> >> >> concepts. Your "cooperati[on]" is actually submission to
>> >> >> state diktat, but you know better than to say it in clear
>> >> >> terms, because even people like Saskia would realize what
>> >> >> you are.
>> >> >This reponse on the part of Beck clearly demonstrates that
>> >> >the Right Wing in general and it's Beckian counterpart on
>> >> >this group in particular are incapable of arguing with
>> >> >anything other than what they wish their opponents were
>> >> >saying.
>> >> No, Dick: I simply read his words.
>> >Yet your claim of what I believe is contrary to what my words
>> >say.
Your own words are contrary to other arguments you have made.
You can claim to be against centralized government, strongly in
favor of individual liberties, and interested in holding
government accountable. But people who read your other statements
realize that you don't actually practice what you preach, such as
when you advocate universal health care or when you parrot the
government line rather than addressing possible evidence of
abuse of power.
This disparity is a pervasive component of your presence in
these groups. It isn't limited to your political arguments.
You incessantly engage in negative behavior then accuse your
opponents of these faults, implicitly denying the sequoia in
your eye. Whether it be your slash-and-burn tactics, your
resemblance to mercury in committing to a position, or even
your hiding behind an alias to act like a vandal, your
history in these forums belies whatever latest remark you
make. You and your sycophants can pretend that you have no
history outside your latest post, you can deride the use
of Google/Deja or other archives as being "old bits", but
you just can't erase your record.
>> Not to anyone who can read and understand plain English.
>That's quite a brash personal claim for a guy who doesn't
>understand the difference between an analogy and a metaphor and
>who has consistently answered the supposed thoughts of others
>rather than their words. This isn't something you started doing
>this week, Junior. The mind reading impression has been your MO
>for a long time now.l
With Erb in particular, many of us have long ago given up any
attempt at respectful, straightforward debate. I wasted years
trying to get him to stop his dishonest tactics, trying to get
to a point where we could just argue issues in a mature, rational
manner. All his talk of wanting to have civil debate, without
all the personal issues, was like a hard-core addict periodically
declaring he's clean and sober, only to run out that night to
buy a bottle or score a fix. Just how long is someone supposed
to hold out hope for a change?
No, Scott Erb is a disingenuous fraud who isn't who he presents
himself to be ideologically (or in other ways). Nor does he
say what he actually thinks or believes, unless it suits his
immediate purposes. His extensive history demonstrates this
and anyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt will always
get burned.
=====
EE
Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
Eagle Eye
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
[snip]
>> and I don't care whether you like it when I'm here to point out
>> that you don't know what you're talking about.
>I could care less, since I think everyone sees that you are the
>one avoiding making arguments and taking positions, while a number
>of us are engaged in a real discussion about rights, their origin,
>meaning, etc.
>
>If you would particiapte in the discussion, rather than just fire
>off assertions and snide asides from the sidelines (I couldn't
>resist that wording) that would be great.
In article <a27glf$umj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> Gandalf Grey
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Been there and done that. I'm not going to get into the
>peculiar right wing game of having to repost the same
>demonstrations every time one of you feels like wasting my
>time.
Utter hypocrisy.
Eagle Eye
Yeah, Billy. Be more like Gandalf:
In article <a27glf$umj$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> Gandalf Grey
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Been there and done that. I'm not going to get into the
>peculiar right wing game of having to repost the same
>demonstrations every time one of you feels like wasting my
>time.
=====
Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye
Gandalf Grey <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Junior Beck, the Jelloboy <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3c3a5905...@news.mindspring.com...
>> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>> >Junior Beck, the Jelloboy<wj...@mindspring.com>...
[snip]
>> >> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole linguistic
>> >> approach to this matter is rife with weezling. "Strongly"? What
>> >> bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights are not subject to
>> >> contingent disposal, Erb,
>> Nothing.
>Support your claim.
>
>Put up or shut up.
Yeah, be like Gandalf:
Eagle Eye
>you run like a Gumby everytime you're asked to back up your groundless
>assertions.
At the risk of being repetitive:
Eagle Eye
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
>> >individual rights and still thinking some social welfare
>> >services are needed to enhance equal opportunity and true
>> >liberty.
>> There most certainly is. To begin with, your whole
>> linguistic approach to this matter is rife with weezling.
>> "Strongly"? What bullshit. You either do or you don't. Rights
>> are not subject to contingent disposal, Erb, and if you think
>> they are, then you'd better be ready to give up your life to
>> someone whose contingency demands it, but I think even you can
>> figure out where that's headed.
>Your response is illogical. Believing strongly in something means
>a just that: a strong belief, not subject to meaningful doubt. I
>do not doubt the desirability of rights. I'm not so stupid as to
>think that there is one pure absolute way rights can be expressed
>in the world, context matters. Most importantly, I know that it
>is contrary to a belief in individual rights to expect everyone to
>define them and understand them the same way I do, that is why
>politics and contestation of the meaning of rights in context is
>inevitable and necessary.
You say this, but...
>> And you're only interested in *some* rights for *some* people,
>> because you're
>No, I'm a universalist, I think any rights should exist equally
>for all people.
..does this mean you believe that the people of Maine, Georgia,
California, Ethiopia, Italy, Afghanistan, China, Cuba, etc. all
have exactly the same, equal rights?
So when the "society" in the Netherlands decides that every citizen
has a "right" to "free" health care, "free" education, "free"
internet, "free" public transport, etc. are you saying that
Ethiopians or Georgians have these rights in an equal fashion?
After all, you have pushed the notion that "rights" are social
constructs.
>> quite willing to force people into paying for your "social
>> welfare services" whether they agree to the deal or not. Their
>> "rights" don't matter to you.
>No, I'm not.
So you're against universal health care, including the German model
which you have touted?
>But I do recognize that taxation with representation is
>legitimate. You have yet to make an argument why it isn't, though
>you assert it over and over.
It isn't legitimate for the simple reason that it's coercion. No
majority vote can change that fact. If it could, then the would be
no moral barrier to voting in slavery, human sacrifice,
concentration camps, etc..
[snip]
Eagle Eye
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>There is nothing contradictory about believing strongly in
>individual rights and still thinking some social welfare services
>as well I consistently warn about the dangers of too powerful a
>government.
You frequently claim to be opposed to government abuse of power.
However, when Rob Robertson tried to get you to examine evidence
in the Foster matter, you refused, opting to parrot the government
line.
Your actions speak louder than your platitudes.
Stung Unnuts
He never said anything remotely like that. He said they SHOULD have
equal rights, not that they did. In fact, he said so in the sentence
just before your response.
>
> So when the "society" in the Netherlands decides that every citizen
> has a "right" to "free" health care, "free" education, "free"
> internet, "free" public transport, etc. are you saying that
> Ethiopians or Georgians have these rights in an equal fashion?
>
> After all, you have pushed the notion that "rights" are social
> constructs.
They are. As evidenced by the fact that the Dutch have the right to
socialized (not free) health care, education, Internet, et al., and no
one in the US has the right to all of that, except education, and
health care if they're dying or in great pain.
>
> >> quite willing to force people into paying for your "social
> >> welfare services" whether they agree to the deal or not. Their
> >> "rights" don't matter to you.
> >No, I'm not.
>
> So you're against universal health care, including the German model
> which you have touted?
People are never forced to do anything. They belong to a society, and
continue to do so of their own free will. Taxes are not coerced; they
are required as the other part of the social contract. If you are
going to partake of society, you must help pay for it, too. For the
same reason you're not "coerced" into paying for a Snickers Bar at the
7-11, you are not "coerced" into paying for roads and schools. You are
free to leave at any time, and find or found a society that doesn't
require taxes to be paid, or you are free to work to change this one.
>
> >But I do recognize that taxation with representation is
> >legitimate. You have yet to make an argument why it isn't, though
> >you assert it over and over.
>
> It isn't legitimate for the simple reason that it's coercion.
It is not coercion, by any definition. If you believe that, then you
must believe that you're "coerced" by society into not killing or
stealing, which is absurd.
> No
> majority vote can change that fact. If it could, then the would be
> no moral barrier to voting in slavery, human sacrifice,
> concentration camps, etc..
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if this society wanted to,
it could repeal the Bill of Rights at any time, and reinstitute
slavery, concentration camps, etc. That's why we all need to stop this
nonsense about rights being somehow "natural", because it's ludicrous.
Rights SHOULD be natural. But given that almost no one in the world
has basic rights to anything, it's impossible to support the claim
that they are.
Hank
Eagle Eye
Fine. I was a bit sloppy.
The implications are that if group A "creates rights" that Erb
thinks everyone in the universe SHOULD have those same "rights".
Now, if Saudi Arabia "gives" men the "right" to beat their wives,
but the US protects the right of women not to be beaten, how does
Erb resolve this conflict?
His choices:
1. Abandon his universalist view.
2. Argue that certain rights (like the right not to be beaten) are
inherent, so that no one can ever abridge them.
>> So when the "society" in the Netherlands decides that every
>> citizen has a "right" to "free" health care, "free" education,
>> "free" internet, "free" public transport, etc. are you saying
>> that Ethiopians or Georgians have these rights in an equal
>> fashion?
>>
>> After all, you have pushed the notion that "rights" are social
>> constructs.
>They are. As evidenced by the fact that the Dutch have the right
>to socialized (not free) health care, education, Internet, et al.,
>and no one in the US has the right to all of that, except
>education, and health care if they're dying or in great pain.
The reason I put "right" in quotations is because Erb calls them
that. In reality, they are privileges which rest on the practice
of coercing people to pay exorbitant taxes.
If you really want to argue they are rights, watch what happens
when a sizable majority refuses to pay taxes or the system goes
bankrupt. With no money to pay for these so-called rights, the
Dutch citizens no longer get them for free.
The concept of "socially constructed rights" always runs into a
brick wall. Rights are universal, inalienable, and inherent.
>> >> quite willing to force people into paying for your "social
>> >> welfare services" whether they agree to the deal or not.
>> >> Their "rights" don't matter to you.
>> >No, I'm not.
>> So you're against universal health care, including the German
>> model which you have touted?
>People are never forced to do anything.
I'm forced to pay taxes. If I don't, they'll put me in jail.
>They belong to a society, and continue to do so of their own free
>will.
No, people live in certain areas. Other people take it upon
themselves to draw lines on a map and invent laws.
Until I agree to help pay for your social programs, I have no moral
obligation to do so.
>Taxes are not coerced;
So people in prison for tax evasion aren't being coerced?
>they are required as the other part of the social contract.
What social contract? I never signed any contract. I certainly
wouldn't ever agree to any contract which punishes me with prison
or confiscation of my property for doing things that harm no one
else.
>If you are going to partake of society, you must help pay for it,
>too.
How does one not "partake of society"? If I interact with private
citizens, exactly how is that any of your business, much less an
obligation to pay for some other things? Is this where you spout
"love it or leave it"?
>For the same reason you're not "coerced" into paying for a
>Snickers Bar at the 7-11, you are not "coerced" into paying for
>roads and schools.
The cashier at 7-11 doesn't send the IRS to arrest me or confiscate
my property if I don't buy a snickers bar.
(Are you trying to make this easy for me?)
>You are free to leave at any time,
I knew it. "Love it or leave it."
>and find or found a society that doesn't require taxes to be paid,
>or you are free to work to change this one.
Why is it that those of us who believe in liberty are obligated to
leave, but schmucks like you who want to be generous with other
people's money get to stay?
I reject that preposterous notion.
>> >But I do recognize that taxation with representation is
>> >legitimate. You have yet to make an argument why it isn't,
>> >though you assert it over and over.
>> It isn't legitimate for the simple reason that it's coercion.
>It is not coercion,
Don't pay your taxes. See how long it takes them to come seize
your property and/or put you in prison.
Obviously and clearly, if you are forced to do something under
threat of harsh punishment, then you are being coerced.
>by any definition. If you believe that, then you must believe that
>you're "coerced" by society into not killing or stealing, which is
>absurd.
When a government makes laws against murder and theft, then
sentences offenders to prison, then it is enforcing those laws by
force or threat, which is the dictionary definition of "coerce".
Of course, you don't have the right to murder or steal, while you
do have a right to decide what to do with your money. So, inasmuch
as "coerce" has the connotation of being UNJUSTIFIED force, I'd say
that a government punishes murderers and thieves, while a
government coerces people to pay taxes.
>> No majority vote can change that fact. If it could, then the
>> would be no moral barrier to voting in slavery, human sacrifice,
>> concentration camps, etc..
>I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if this society wanted
>to, it could repeal the Bill of Rights at any time, and
>reinstitute slavery, concentration camps, etc.
You're exactly right. And not a bit of it would be MORAL.
>That's why we all need to stop this nonsense about rights being
>somehow "natural", because it's ludicrous.
Except when a government murders and enslaves people, it's not
eliminating rights. It is TRAMPLING, ABRIDGING, VIOLATING rights.
>Rights SHOULD be natural. But given that almost no one in the
>world has basic rights to anything, it's impossible to support the
>claim that they are.
It doesn't matter what you put down on a piece of paper
(constitution, laws, etc.) or whether there is no paper in effect,
no one has the right to murder someone else. Or, do you think one
is ever morally justified to slaughter an innocent person?
Eagle Eye
Eagle Eye <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
[snip]
>The implications are that if group A "creates rights" that Erb
>thinks everyone in the universe SHOULD have those same "rights".
>
>Now, if Saudi Arabia "gives" men the "right" to beat their wives,
>but the US protects the right of women not to be beaten, how does
>Erb resolve this conflict?
>
>His choices:
>
> 1. Abandon his universalist view.
> 2. Argue that certain rights (like the right not to be beaten) are
> inherent, so that no one can ever abridge them.
Sloppy wording again. That should be:
2. Argue that certain rights (like the right not to be beaten) are
inherent, so that no one can ever eliminate them.
The Patriot
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
You forgot to mention:
3. "invent" a new definition of universalism that allows the
contradiction to go away.
It's significant to note that I already coerced Erb into nearly having
to admit that rights were inherent. His rhetoric devolved to the
point of declaring that his "ethical principles," were the "natural"
source of man's social morality. When it became obvious to him that I
was leading him along a well defined path towards the obvious
conclusion that his "natural ethical principles" would translate
directly into natural inherent rights he flushed like a quail and
began sputtering his usual garbage about me not wanting to discuss the
real issues.
>>> So when the "society" in the Netherlands decides that every
>>> citizen has a "right" to "free" health care, "free" education,
>>> "free" internet, "free" public transport, etc. are you saying
>>> that Ethiopians or Georgians have these rights in an equal
>>> fashion?
>>>
>>> After all, you have pushed the notion that "rights" are social
>>> constructs.
>>They are. As evidenced by the fact that the Dutch have the right
>>to socialized (not free) health care, education, Internet, et al.,
>>and no one in the US has the right to all of that, except
>>education, and health care if they're dying or in great pain.
>
>The reason I put "right" in quotations is because Erb calls them
>that. In reality, they are privileges which rest on the practice
>of coercing people to pay exorbitant taxes.
>
>If you really want to argue they are rights, watch what happens
>when a sizable majority refuses to pay taxes or the system goes
>bankrupt. With no money to pay for these so-called rights, the
>Dutch citizens no longer get them for free.
>
>The concept of "socially constructed rights" always runs into a
>brick wall. Rights are universal, inalienable, and inherent.
And Erb and company are the first to complain that their "rights" are
being violated whenever they perceive the society (read government) is
picking away at them but they cannot abandon the argument that their
precious organized society is the source of all of mankind's goodness,
even in the face of organized societies' atrocities.
Their dile ma is obvious. You cannot declare society to be the source
of man's humanity when it's obviously been the source of a great deal
of man's inhumanity.
C'mon EE, you know that lefty's definition of freedom is when they are
free to force you to do what they want you to do. You didn't really
think that your freedom had anything to do with you, did you?
>>by any definition. If you believe that, then you must believe that
>>you're "coerced" by society into not killing or stealing, which is
>>absurd.
>
>When a government makes laws against murder and theft, then
>sentences offenders to prison, then it is enforcing those laws by
>force or threat, which is the dictionary definition of "coerce".
>
>Of course, you don't have the right to murder or steal, while you
>do have a right to decide what to do with your money. So, inasmuch
>as "coerce" has the connotation of being UNJUSTIFIED force, I'd say
>that a government punishes murderers and thieves, while a
>government coerces people to pay taxes.
>
>>> No majority vote can change that fact. If it could, then the
>>> would be no moral barrier to voting in slavery, human sacrifice,
>>> concentration camps, etc..
>>I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if this society wanted
>>to, it could repeal the Bill of Rights at any time, and
>>reinstitute slavery, concentration camps, etc.
>
>You're exactly right. And not a bit of it would be MORAL.
>
>>That's why we all need to stop this nonsense about rights being
>>somehow "natural", because it's ludicrous.
>
>Except when a government murders and enslaves people, it's not
>eliminating rights. It is TRAMPLING, ABRIDGING, VIOLATING rights.
You know, EE, it's too bad that people like you and I do believe in
natural rights because if we didn't all we'd have to do solve all our
problems is socially construct some rights that allowed us to get rid
of lefties.
oooops!
I guess they'd either have to change their ideas about natural rights
or they'd be obligated by those beliefs to "rightfully" march in
lockstep over the cliff.
>>Rights SHOULD be natural. But given that almost no one in the
>>world has basic rights to anything, it's impossible to support the
>>claim that they are.
>
>It doesn't matter what you put down on a piece of paper
>(constitution, laws, etc.) or whether there is no paper in effect,
>no one has the right to murder someone else. Or, do you think one
>is ever morally justified to slaughter an innocent person?
>
> =====
> EE
>
> Honorato libertam et ruat coelum.
--
"I never said there was any evidence" -Rich Hanson (Gandalf)