Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objectivist Party

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?

No. What about her?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?

No. What about her?

lolololololololololololololol
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:16:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?

No. What about her?

Oh, nothing, except for the fact that she's the creator of the entire philosophy this party is based upon. It seems a bit interesting that you so easily dismiss an entire philosophy without reading anything at all about it by its creator.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:16:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification.
Well, a number of things such as self-interest, logic, objective values due to the presence of some divine agency, have been proposed as justifications.

To say so would mean that you probably believe in subjective nature of morality...
It's actually impossible for morality to be objective.
How would you refute the case for objective morals, especially if we were to characterize morality as a concern for the well-being of others?

How would you also define objective as opposed to universal or constant?
So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:19:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yo Ike, I heard you didn't believe in objective morality and use that to dismiss the Objectivist Party. Why does your profile say you support the Dems? Didn't you hear rights are spooks?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:16:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?

No. What about her?

Oh, nothing, except for the fact that she's the creator of the entire philosophy this party is based upon. It seems a bit interesting that you so easily dismiss an entire philosophy without reading anything at all about it by its creator.

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.

That's wonderful. Why won't he mention what those arguments are?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:32:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:28:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.

That's wonderful. Why won't he mention what those arguments are?

Lets say someone that hasn't taken a Biology class yet tells me he doesn't believe in evolution. I wouldn't tell him to go read up on Darwin and move on. I would use the evidence that "I" know from reading Darwin to prove him wrong.

I expect the same thing from people who know a lot about philosophy. If I don't meet the criteria to have a fruitful intelligent discussion that's worth your time, that's alright. You can ignore me, but don't refer me to books I likely won't come across in my lifetime.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:16:32 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:09:13 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

Have you actually read any Rand?

No. What about her?

Oh, nothing, except for the fact that she's the creator of the entire philosophy this party is based upon. It seems a bit interesting that you so easily dismiss an entire philosophy without reading anything at all about it by its creator.

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

I was just saying it's silly of you to think that you are clearly right and able to knock down tomes and tomes of work in a single sentence.

Anyway: the thing with Objectivism is that it's so-named because it's a philosophical and moral system that is BASED on what is objective. Reality is objective under this philosophy.

Also, morality is determined by the very fact of our existence. To steal her words: "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Because life is a conditional entity, it's based on a course of action. because of this, it is the ultimate value, and is every man's right to pursue. Furthermore, free will does exist. One way this is evident is in the idea of thinking. Thinking and conscientious thought is not something that just happens. It requires a focused effort, People can choose to think, or to avoid thinking. Additionally, survival is not guarenteed. As Rand says, a man is given life, but not survival. He needs to think to survive. And from this comes the right to free thought, as all people are able to choose their values and ideas and thoughts, which all, n the end, tie into their ultimate survival.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:35:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:28:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.

That's wonderful. Why won't he mention what those arguments are?

Well, normally one would try to comprehend the vast principle of a philosophy (cough*"the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute" that permeates philosophy, ethics, esthtics, etc) before refuting/dismissing it....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:39:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:32:54 PM, 000ike wrote:

Lets say someone that hasn't taken a Biology class yet tells me he doesn't believe in evolution. I wouldn't tell him to go read up on Darwin and move on. I would use the evidence that "I" know from reading Darwin to prove him wrong.

I expect the same thing from people who know a lot about philosophy. If I don't meet the criteria to have a fruitful intelligent discussion that's worth your time, that's alright. You can ignore me, but don't refer me to books I likely won't come across in my lifetime.

You never plan on reading Rand?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:40:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:32:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:28:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.

That's wonderful. Why won't he mention what those arguments are?

Lets say someone that hasn't taken a Biology class yet tells me he doesn't believe in evolution. I wouldn't tell him to go read up on Darwin and move on. I would use the evidence that "I" know from reading Darwin to prove him wrong.

I expect the same thing from people who know a lot about philosophy. If I don't meet the criteria to have a fruitful intelligent discussion that's worth your time, that's alright. You can ignore me, but don't refer me to books I likely won't come across in my lifetime.

So...you won't read up on objectivism and modify or get a healthier foundation for your views, sir?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:32:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:28:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:26:54 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:23:43 PM, 000ike wrote:

Is this leading to anything? I reaalllly hate when people refer me to books. The purpose of you reading things is so you have more knowledge to employ in an argument. If all you can do is refer to the book/author without actually using their own writing to defeat me, well then we can't argue now can we?

I know I should read some of this stuff, but I really don't have time....and also, the burden of proof is on you for the existence of objective morality, so I'm not apologetic.

Dude bro, the point was that Rand extends unique arguments for the existence of rights and so you can't really just throw her shat to the site without knowing what her arguments actually were.

That's wonderful. Why won't he mention what those arguments are?

Lets say someone that hasn't taken a Biology class yet tells me he doesn't believe in evolution. I wouldn't tell him to go read up on Darwin and move on. I would use the evidence that "I" know from reading Darwin to prove him wrong.

I expect the same thing from people who know a lot about philosophy. If I don't meet the criteria to have a fruitful intelligent discussion that's worth your time, that's alright. You can ignore me, but don't refer me to books I likely won't come across in my lifetime.

I was typing my explanation.

I directed you to Rand herself because I feel she is infinitely better at explaining the philosophy, and eloquently, than I.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:42:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also Ike, on a side note can I inquire into the reason for choosing Harris as your profile pic? He's famous mostly for his secular defense of morality (though his defense is shallow to say the least) and from what I understand you reject the possibility.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:42:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:35:03 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Also, morality is determined by the very fact of our existence. To steal her words: "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Because life is a conditional entity, it's based on a course of action. because of this, it is the ultimate value, and is every man's right to pursue. Furthermore, free will does exist. One way this is evident is in the idea of thinking. Thinking and conscientious thought is not something that just happens. It requires a focused effort, People can choose to think, or to avoid thinking. Additionally, survival is not guarenteed. As Rand says, a man is given life, but not survival. He needs to think to survive. And from this comes the right to free thought, as all people are able to choose their values and ideas and thoughts, which all, n the end, tie into their ultimate survival.

I really am sorry if the things I say are offensive and dismissive. I'm completely open to any argument you have against what I say. However, in my defense, that's largely how arguing is.

Anyway, I'm not seeing what prevents this argument from being an entangled is-ought fallacy. Also, you're/she's using personal experience in support of free will. That's not very convincing since the arguments from neuroscience start off by calling this experience an illusion and use tests to support the idea that it is indeed an illusion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 4:46:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:42:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Also Ike, on a side note can I inquire into the reason for choosing Harris as your profile pic? He's famous mostly for his secular defense of morality (though his defense is shallow to say the least) and from what I understand you reject the possibility.

I wasn't aware. I've only read things online regarding his stance on determinism and freewill,..and also his usage of neuroscience to defend it. That's why I picked him.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:00:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:46:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:42:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Also Ike, on a side note can I inquire into the reason for choosing Harris as your profile pic? He's famous mostly for his secular defense of morality (though his defense is shallow to say the least) and from what I understand you reject the possibility.

I wasn't aware. I've only read things online regarding his stance on determinism and freewill,..and also his usage of neuroscience to defend it. That's why I picked him.

Lol I think Nozick is a better philosopher in the sense of free will than he.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:03:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:00:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:46:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:42:00 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Also Ike, on a side note can I inquire into the reason for choosing Harris as your profile pic? He's famous mostly for his secular defense of morality (though his defense is shallow to say the least) and from what I understand you reject the possibility.

I wasn't aware. I've only read things online regarding his stance on determinism and freewill,..and also his usage of neuroscience to defend it. That's why I picked him.

Lol I think Nozick is a better philosopher in the sense of free will than he.

okay.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:07:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

I don't get you. The democratic party is the party of "rights". The "right" to welfare, the "right" to have an abortion, the "right" to a "fair shot" ect. Why on Earth would you side with them when their entire platform holds fairness and equality as the highest good if there is, in your opinion, no good reason to hold those values? You'd think a hardcore moral nihilist like you would be more apathetic.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:10:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:07:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

I don't get you. The democratic party is the party of "rights". The "right" to welfare, the "right" to have an abortion, the "right" to a "fair shot" ect. Why on Earth would you side with them when their entire platform holds fairness and equality as the highest good if there is, in your opinion, no good reason to hold those values? You'd think a hardcore moral nihilist like you would be more apathetic.

That.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:12:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:07:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

I don't get you. The democratic party is the party of "rights". The "right" to welfare, the "right" to have an abortion, the "right" to a "fair shot" ect. Why on Earth would you side with them when their entire platform holds fairness and equality as the highest good if there is, in your opinion, no good reason to hold those values? You'd think a hardcore moral nihilist like you would be more apathetic.

subjective morality. I don't actually believe moral nihilism has a practical application. I think there is no morality when you look at the universe objectively. However, there are cases under which you can use "ought". If-ought sentences work.

So, I agree with Liberals because I agree with the If portion of their statements.

ex) If you value fairness, you ought to give a graduated income tax.

This won't apply to the people that don't value fairness,...I just assume that most people do.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:12:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 5:07:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

I don't get you. The democratic party is the party of "rights". The "right" to welfare, the "right" to have an abortion, the "right" to a "fair shot" ect. Why on Earth would you side with them when their entire platform holds fairness and equality as the highest good if there is, in your opinion, no good reason to hold those values? You'd think a hardcore moral nihilist like you would be more apathetic.

subjective morality. I don't actually believe moral nihilism has a practical application. I think there is no morality when you look at the universe objectively. However, there are cases under which you can use "ought". If-ought sentences work.

So, I agree with Liberals because I agree with the If portion of their statements.

ex) If you value fairness, you ought to give a graduated income tax.

This won't apply to the people that don't value fairness,...I just assume that most people do.

So you're only disagreement with people of differing opinions is that they don't have the same subjective values as you.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:13:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also Ike, what do you think about the rationality norm we were talking about?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:15:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:12:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 5:07:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 6/15/2012 4:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 3:53:33 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I just discovered we had an Objectivist Party here in the US. Because I drift back and forth between Objectivism and ancap, I find their principles legit (except for the fact that they believe government is justified, which I'm still wishy-washy on).

Here are the principles of the party: http://objectivistparty.us...

I saw the word "rights" and lost interest. Morality has no objective justification. It's actually impossible for morality to be objective. So, the whole platform is contradictory. If we may take subjective premises and treat them like universal truth when it comes to ethics, why can't government do so when it comes to law and policy.

If out of no where I can assert an objective right to speech,.... then the government can also assert an objective right to steal your money.

I don't get you. The democratic party is the party of "rights". The "right" to welfare, the "right" to have an abortion, the "right" to a "fair shot" ect. Why on Earth would you side with them when their entire platform holds fairness and equality as the highest good if there is, in your opinion, no good reason to hold those values? You'd think a hardcore moral nihilist like you would be more apathetic.

subjective morality. I don't actually believe moral nihilism has a practical application. I think there is no morality when you look at the universe objectively. However, there are cases under which you can use "ought". If-ought sentences work.

So, I agree with Liberals because I agree with the If portion of their statements.

ex) If you value fairness, you ought to give a graduated income tax.

This won't apply to the people that don't value fairness,...I just assume that most people do.

So the entire basis of your political opinions is accepting a value that you feel has no rational base, simply because you assume that most people also place emphasis on that value? You must experience a lot of cognitive dissonance, defending a viewpoint that you disagree with rationally.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:13:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Also Ike, what do you think about the rationality norm we were talking about?

All it proves is that you can't justify irrational actions. It doesn't prove that irrational actions are objectively wrong.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2012 5:22:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/15/2012 5:19:49 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/15/2012 5:13:51 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Also Ike, what do you think about the rationality norm we were talking about?

All it proves is that you can't justify irrational actions. It doesn't prove that irrational actions are objectively wrong.

It proves their objectively unjustifiable. You can't embrace irrational norms while still claiming to be acting rationally.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.