Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reason for Anarchy

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 9:32:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does anybody have any critiques on this justification for anarchy (not including the objective morality part)?

Basically, the reason is moral in origin. It's obvious that objective morality does not exist and there is no way that it can logically exist, even if there was some kind of deity. That leaves subjective morality as the only truth, and the very premise of subjective morality is that nobody's moral opinion is inherently worth more than anthers. However, the imposition of morality on other people, especially using the State as a mechanism, is the implicit desire for your own moral opinion to be more valid that any other's, i.e., we should provide healthcare to everybody. The State is a large facilitator of this imposition and the democratic system is ultimately hypocritical in that while assuming the validity of everybody's opinion as equal in the beginning, it attempts to recognize a supposed objective opinion at the end of the process. While we can never eliminate moral imposition, since that would require people living in caves with no contact to others, a step closer to that would be the elimination of the State, since its monopoly of force and power is naturally suited to the enforcement of a particular moral opinion.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Rebuttal: morality doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if I force my beliefs on 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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2012 11:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
fringeelements makes a good argument in his video "100 ephiphanes" Its long though (over 2 hours).

For the two long, don't watch argument, he makes the claim that democracy is flawed. This is due to many factors: Special interest groups, rationally irrational voters, voter blocks, and bulk voting. He also claims that states never formed based on utilitarianism principles. They were justified based on religion and that stateless societies are actually more difficult to conquer because they are less likely to listen to authority. Its also a waste of resources because it takes more resources to conquer them then it does to extract from them. He uses the war in Iraq and afghanistan to show that the US already spends more of Iraq and afghanistan's just to occupy them (well probably less now due to US withdrawal).

He also shows that people are naturally socialist, however socialism doesn't work to the large scale. Statism is socialism working towards the large scale, and people believing that the small scale works in the large scale, but in reality it does not.

He also claims that a polycentric legal system would be a better system then a monocentric legal system, since judges will based on reputation and act as "law-takers" not as "law-makers" as the current system dictates. In a monopoly on law, one has to be forced into whatever bullsh1t the law makers want because there is no other choice.

He concludes that statism only exists because we are ideologues to the state through indoctrination.

However, it should be noted that while fringeelements believes that an ancap society is the best system, he does not believe that a collapse of the state would be a good thing in the short-run and believes that the collapse of a state (say the US) would quickly lead to a formation of a new state. He states however, that the problem is not that statism is good, but the states have monopolized the system of law and security, making it difficult for a new system to develop immediately after its collapse.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 12:18:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 11:20:21 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rebuttal: morality doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if I force my beliefs on you.

Ah yes.... I've thought of that one before. If morality is ultimately crap, then how can any of my impositions of it on other people be "immoral?" The answer that I came up to this is basically that you circumvent the entire morality paradox by stating that the truth is that morality doesn't exist, and then just by operating on the simple axiom that "The truth is good," the conclusion of anarchy closely follows.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 12:58:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 12:18:11 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:20:21 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rebuttal: morality doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if I force my beliefs on you.

Ah yes.... I've thought of that one before. If morality is ultimately crap, then how can any of my impositions of it on other people be "immoral?" The answer that I came up to this is basically that you circumvent the entire morality paradox by stating that the truth is that morality doesn't exist, and then just by operating on the simple axiom that "The truth is good," the conclusion of anarchy closely follows.

I don't really see it that way. Moral nihilism contains no positive political program, even though you have to abandon moral justification altogether in light of it. And even if one admits that moral justification of the State is wanting, one can still support statism in conjunction with the "truth is good" thesis. The whole thing is force anyways so it doesn't seem like any stretch of the imagination.
: 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.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:00:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 12:18:11 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/31/2012 11:20:21 PM, socialpinko wrote:
Rebuttal: morality doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if I force my beliefs on you.

Ah yes.... I've thought of that one before. If morality is ultimately crap, then how can any of my impositions of it on other people be "immoral?" The answer that I came up to this is basically that you circumvent the entire morality paradox by stating that the truth is that morality doesn't exist, and then just by operating on the simple axiom that "The truth is good," the conclusion of anarchy closely follows.

What?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:25:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:00:25 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What?

Valuing truth (evidence, logic?) inevitably leads to anarchy, because the incentives the market and human interaction, in general, lead to empirically better results. The empirical evidence is that people who use logic and evidence prosper more than those who don't. What it means to prosper is self-evident (or at least should be). Ironically, RoyLatham helped me in thinking about this.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:25:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/1/2013 1:00:25 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What?

Valuing truth (evidence, logic?) inevitably leads to anarchy, because the incentives the market and human interaction, in general, lead to empirically better results. The empirical evidence is that people who use logic and evidence prosper more than those who don't. What it means to prosper is self-evident (or at least should be). Ironically, RoyLatham helped me in thinking about this.

No, I got that, I meant how he said that "If your being nihilistic, but you say truth is good". That's an oxymoron. In Nihilism, good is nonexistent.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:32:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:25:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/1/2013 1:00:25 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What?

Valuing truth (evidence, logic?) inevitably leads to anarchy, because the incentives the market and human interaction, in general, lead to empirically better results. The empirical evidence is that people who use logic and evidence prosper more than those who don't. What it means to prosper is self-evident (or at least should be). Ironically, RoyLatham helped me think about this.

Contrary to using logic and evidence, using violence to achieve one's ends or an "organizational entity's" ends is empirically, historically, even statistically inferior.

I like the moral arguments against statism though, because they are generally more readily accepted by average people than economic/rational arguments. It may be simplistic, but Molyneux has a common example that as children we are taught "Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill." Then, as adults we understand government, which is essentially a massive institution that requires stolen funds to function, lies to indoctrinate obedience as the highest virtue, and kills using initiatory aggression in territorial expansion, police raids, wars, and executions. State = Immoral, because mama said so!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:37:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:32:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:
No, I got that, I meant how he said that "If your being nihilistic, but you say truth is good". That's an oxymoron. In Nihilism, good is nonexistent.

That's true, but he also adjusted for that by supposing that the 'truth is good' axiom is what one was operating under.

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Interesting. I would not be able to go through life operating under nihilism.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:39:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree mostly with Political Nihilism, it's the others that make me feel unhuman.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 2:20:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:32:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/1/2013 1:25:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/1/2013 1:00:25 AM, OberHerr wrote:
What?

Valuing truth (evidence, logic?) inevitably leads to anarchy, because the incentives the market and human interaction, in general, lead to empirically better results. The empirical evidence is that people who use logic and evidence prosper more than those who don't. What it means to prosper is self-evident (or at least should be). Ironically, RoyLatham helped me in thinking about this.

No, I got that, I meant how he said that "If your being nihilistic, but you say truth is good". That's an oxymoron. In Nihilism, good is nonexistent.

"Good" was perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. "Enforceable" is more like the appropriate term.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 2:27:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:37:10 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 1/1/2013 1:32:07 AM, OberHerr wrote:
No, I got that, I meant how he said that "If your being nihilistic, but you say truth is good". That's an oxymoron. In Nihilism, good is nonexistent.

That's true, but he also adjusted for that by supposing that the 'truth is good' axiom is what one was operating under.

The earliest philosophical positions associated with what could be characterized as a nihilistic outlook are those of the Skeptics. Because they denied the possibility of certainty, Skeptics could denounce traditional truths as unjustifiable opinions. When Demosthenes (c.371-322 BC), for example, observes that "What he wished to believe, that is what each man believes" (Olynthiac), he posits the relational nature of knowledge. Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism. Nihilism, in fact, can be understood in several different ways. Political Nihilism, as noted, is associated with the belief that the destruction of all existing political, social, and religious order is a prerequisite for any future improvement. Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.

Interesting. I would not be able to go through life operating under nihilism.

Not necessarily. Everything that you now think is a fact and is true you can think the same if you adopt the philosophy, with the only recognition that it cannot be proven that it's objectively true. It might make you feel meaningless (which is the entire purpose of nihilism... lol), but it shouldn't have any impact on your personal opinions since they are purely subjective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 1:37:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 9:32:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's obvious that objective morality does not exist and there is no way that it can logically exist, even if there was some kind of deity.
You may explain.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:46:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/31/2012 9:32:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Does anybody have any critiques on this justification for anarchy (not including the objective morality part)?

Basically, the reason is moral in origin. It's obvious that objective morality does not exist and there is no way that it can logically exist, even if there was some kind of deity. That leaves subjective morality as the only truth, and the very premise of subjective morality is that nobody's moral opinion is inherently worth more than anthers. However, the imposition of morality on other people, especially using the State as a mechanism, is the implicit desire for your own moral opinion to be more valid that any other's, i.e., we should provide healthcare to everybody. The State is a large facilitator of this imposition and the democratic system is ultimately hypocritical in that while assuming the validity of everybody's opinion as equal in the beginning, it attempts to recognize a supposed objective opinion at the end of the process. While we can never eliminate moral imposition, since that would require people living in caves with no contact to others, a step closer to that would be the elimination of the State, since its monopoly of force and power is naturally suited to the enforcement of a particular moral opinion.

I simply cannot think of condescending enough language for this idiocy. So I won't try.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 7:53:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Lordknukle, I am a moral nihilist. Anarchy does not remotely follow from that conclusion, in fact, it completely obliterates it. People like Nietzsche despised anarchists, and rightly so. Your OP consists fallacy after fallacy, and you derive conclusions which don't seem at all connected to your premise.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:17:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:53:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Lordknukle, I am a moral nihilist. Anarchy does not remotely follow from that conclusion, in fact, it completely obliterates it. People like Nietzsche despised anarchists, and rightly so. Your OP consists fallacy after fallacy, and you derive conclusions which don't seem at all connected to your premise.

As much as I disrespect you, I respect facts. Bring these "fallacies" to light.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 7:53:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Lordknukle, I am a moral nihilist.

You're a conservative Jew. You're not a nihilist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:22:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 1:37:00 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/31/2012 9:32:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
It's obvious that objective morality does not exist and there is no way that it can logically exist, even if there was some kind of deity.
You may explain.

The first part follows from the premise that there is no god.

The second part follows from the premise that even if there is a god, there is no justification for his moral opinion to be objective since it was ultimately constructed by him. That is unless it just arose from nothingness, which is a ludicrous assumption.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:28:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:22:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The second part follows from the premise that even if there is a god, there is no justification for his moral opinion to be objective since it was ultimately constructed by him. That is unless it just arose from nothingness, which is a ludicrous assumption.
Morality is an attribute of God, i.e., His nature. To suggest that it was merely constructed by Him tells me you don't really know what you're talking about. By the way I could use a job, can I teach you?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:28:29 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:22:43 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
The second part follows from the premise that even if there is a god, there is no justification for his moral opinion to be objective since it was ultimately constructed by him. That is unless it just arose from nothingness, which is a ludicrous assumption.
Morality is an attribute of God, i.e., His nature. To suggest that it was merely constructed by Him tells me you don't really know what you're talking about. By the way I could use a job, can I teach you?

Hilarious. This isn't a theological debate. If you want to assume that something always existed, will always exist, has power over everything, has always existed with specific characteristics, and defies logic, then it's your stupid choice.

Also, your actual argument is wrong. If it were shown that babies are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, would that right and wrong be considered "objective?" Maybe, but not necessarily- dependent on why that morality is intrinsic. Arguing that god has always existed is just a cop-out to avoid the fact that since everything has a starting point, and even if his morality is intrinsic, it doesn't make it objective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:38:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:33:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Hilarious.
Your inability go understand what you read -- indeed.

This isn't a theological debate.
Nor was there any implication that it is so...

If you want to assume that something always existed, will always exist, has power over everything, has always existed with specific characteristics, and defies logic, then it's your stupid choice.
You agreed to assume this for the sake of argument. That's why you argued to "if God exists, objective morality cannot." Go fish more red herrings Ma'am.

Also, your actual argument is wrong. If it were shown that babies are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, would that right and wrong be considered "objective?"
No, because they by definition are prone to subjective thought, and we have no reason to consider their senses as objectively true. If God exists, and we both assume that for the sake of argument, then it follows that since He is the maximal being, whatever is part of Him must be ultimately and objectively good and true -- this includes morality.

Maybe, but not necessarily- dependent on why that morality is intrinsic. Arguing that god has always existed
Didn't argue that. There are good treatments for hallucinations, I could help you find some.

is just a cop-out to avoid the fact that since everything has a starting point, and even if his morality is intrinsic, it doesn't make it objective.
Nothing to do with what I said, so -- I guess you should have a nice day Mr. Ma'am!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:45:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:38:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:33:27 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Hilarious.
Your inability go understand what you read -- indeed.

This isn't a theological debate.
Nor was there any implication that it is so...

Right, coming from the person that highlighted the only part of the OP that had anything to do with religion. Do you ever listen to yourself?

If you want to assume that something always existed, will always exist, has power over everything, has always existed with specific characteristics, and defies logic, then it's your stupid choice.
You agreed to assume this for the sake of argument. That's why you argued to "if God exists, objective morality cannot." Go fish more red herrings Ma'am.

The above has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that what you're assuming to be true is illogical.

Also, your actual argument is wrong. If it were shown that babies are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, would that right and wrong be considered "objective?"
No, because they by definition are prone to subjective thought, and we have no reason to consider their senses as objectively true.

Let's rephrase this for the semantically-prone:

If it were shown that babies are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, from the moment of their birth, would that right and wrong be considered "objective?"

Intrinsic means that it exists before the "subjective thought."

If God exists, and we both assume that for the sake of argument, then it follows that since He is the maximal being, whatever is part of Him must be ultimately and objectively good and true -- this includes morality.

Totally non-sequitur. There is no reason that maximality results in objectivity.
Maybe, but not necessarily- dependent on why that morality is intrinsic. Arguing that god has always existed
Didn't argue that. There are good treatments for hallucinations, I could help you find some.

God always existing is a prerequisite for your deistic fantasy.

is just a cop-out to avoid the fact that since everything has a starting point, and even if his morality is intrinsic, it doesn't make it objective.
Nothing to do with what I said, so -- I guess you should have a nice day Mr. Ma'am!

It has everything to do with what you said- if you just cared to read more carefully.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mirza, your nonsense has nothing to do with anarchy. I'm not replying to your next post.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 8:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:45:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Right, coming from the person that highlighted the only part of the OP that had anything to do with religion. Do you ever listen to yourself?
Pay attention to the fact that I didn't refer to the thread topic -- I started out with asking you to explain what you meant. Sure it's a discussion now (captain obvious here), so what? I pointed out something ridiculous from your post, you agreed to discuss.

The above has nothing to do with my argument. It has to do with the fact that what you're assuming to be true is illogical.
It has nothing to do with my argument. I told you why you're way off the line Ma'am.

Let's rephrase this for the semantically-prone:

If it were shown that babies are born with an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, from the moment of their birth, would that right and wrong be considered "objective?"

Intrinsic means that it exists before the "subjective thought."
Their sense of right and wrong might not stem from an objective source. That's NOT the case with God. He is a maximally great being, morally perfect by necessity, and morality is not contingent.

If God exists, and we both assume that for the sake of argument, then it follows that since He is the maximal being, whatever is part of Him must be ultimately and objectively good and true -- this includes morality.

Totally non-sequitur.
Uh oh.

There is no reason that maximality results in objectivity.
You're babbling. God and morality are interconnected -- both being necessary and NOT contingent.

God always existing is a prerequisite for your deistic fantasy.
Strawman.

It has everything to do with what you said- if you just cared to read more carefully.
Whatever you're trying to say sounds like kindergarten level. The amount of red herrings and strawmen is enormous!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:01:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:48:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Mirza, your nonsense has nothing to do with anarchy. I'm not replying to your next post.
It's perfectly relevant to your opening post, where you argued for anarchy being justified on the basis that it does not presuppose a moral system, which cannot exist *even if God exists.* Keep cowering out, I'll track you down on this later.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:22:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 8:18:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2013 7:53:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Lordknukle, I am a moral nihilist.

You're a conservative Jew. You're not a nihilist.

My general political beliefs are conservative (not that I would say they "should" be that way). As you yourself admitted, belief in God has nothing to do with nihilism.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:48:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 9:22:03 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 1/1/2013 8:18:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/1/2013 7:53:21 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Lordknukle, I am a moral nihilist.

You're a conservative Jew. You're not a nihilist.

My general political beliefs are conservative (not that I would say they "should" be that way). As you yourself admitted, belief in God has nothing to do with nihilism.

True.

Again, what are my so-called "fallacies," or are you just going to run around like incompetent jester, calling my supposed falsehoods?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2013 9:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I remember when anarchy threads were marginally interesting.
(
: 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
1/1/2013 10:11:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/1/2013 9:49:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I remember when anarchy threads were marginally interesting.
(
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