The Glade 4.0

Perhaps that is what you intended to say but it is not what you said. If you said "Philosophy with lesser force , in the face of a force it cannot counter, is useless, except as a means of "feel-good" about yourself as you're being steamrolled." you would have said what you intended to say.

Still that is a snapshot in time. Philosophy expands and contracts and it is by the philosophy that a movement gains or loses force relative to its opponents. Thus (my point repeated) if you worship only force you must also submit that philosophy drives the use of that force so it is in no way useless.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I have no idea how you came to your libertariansim, I can only judge by your posts here.

Nice dodge on the other point. If you're not going to clarify and explain yourself, fine but at least be a man about it and say so.

I need do no such thing.

If X has a philosophical viewpoint and an army division, while Y has no philosophical viewpoint and a BB gun, the viewpoint of X will prevail.

However, if X has a philosophical viewpoint and a BB gun, while Y has no philosophical viewpoint and an army division, Y's lack of philosophy will still steamroll X. The philosophical viewpoint is not the determining factor in either scenario. The army division determines the outcome.

It's easy to demonstrate this. In the past I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that rights exist. You replied that they are the starting assumption of your philosophy and cannot be proven any more than any other starting assumption can be proven. You further claim that one cannot reject your starting assumption without rejcting their own (conveniently forgetting that YOU can't reject anyone else's starting assumption without rejecting yours, either).

You did not arrive at libertarianism by being objective but by making a subjective starting assumption, one that you evidently think is ok for you to make but not ok if anyone else makes a different one.

So, no, I'm not being arrogant, you are. You are simply claiming your own subjectivity is objective - again. You are also lying outright, because you've admitted this in the past repeatedly, and if we hadn't had 3 board crashes I would be linking the occasions.

I'm sure you will now move the goalposts in order to claim that you actually mean something else, but we've also got 5 years of you simply using loaded language, lecturing self-righteously, cherry-picking evidence and facts, and just generally trying to use a lot of rhetorical douchewagonry in order to avoid addressing any actual issues or problems with your positions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is moronic. Philosophy is a minor cause of the gain or loss of strength. It is not "by philosophy" that this occurs; that is one reltively minor factor among many. Complex cause fallacy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Don't claim to want objective discussions anymore *******, if the only response you have in a philosophical discussion is to insult people for "not understanding how the world works."

You are not advocating logically and/or morally consistent stances, and want to fall back on an appeal to history while simultaneously insulting me for pointing out legitimate concerns with your inconsistency.

I guess you're right though, I do need to learn how the simpleton's mind comprehends the world. I'll work on being dumber, numbnuts.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Ahh DE we weren't talking about my moral a priori (as you introduce now), we were talking about how I arrived to adopt a philosophy. No one arrives at their moral a priori, they discover it. I arrived at libertarian philosophy by using objective considerations to my moral a priori.

For example I would have to examine objectively if the existence of the FDA did or did not infringe on rights (and no more and no less than that) - I would have to discard my presupposition that it is a good agency, I would have to discard my belief that governmental intent is reason enough for existence, I would have to discard my previous emotional investment in arguing that the agency should exist. This is objective consideration.

You have 5 years of me being honest and consistent. I know that infuriates many of you. I won't lie that I take glee in watching some people mentally squirm because of it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Again one must prove a fallacy by demonstration, not just categorize and evade.

By what means does an individual decide to undertake collaborative force? Is it through a process in the brain where the individual recognizes the self and its actions on its future self and others? If so it is philosophy.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Now you're just trying to have it both ways. All you're doing is taking your personal ideas and callign them objective.



See? Having it both ways. You can't objectively determine if the FDA infringes on rights without already having the a priori that determines that rights as you see them exist.

There's nothing the least bit objective about any of this.



Consistently stupid. Honest? No, you have been anything but honest for the last 5 years. We ahve 5 years of you playing word games and little else.



Annoys would be the proper term. Yes, your blatant dishonesty and word-game-whoring are annoying.



Yes, we all know you get great enjoyment out of moronic trolling.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I did precisely this. You are just stating this because you think somehow if you assert that I didn't people will magically be unable to see for themselves that I did.



Who cares?



False. That is not philosophy.

philosophy

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't understand how you cannot see that having a moral a priori and then using objective means to arrive at a philosophy that agrees with it is completely different than trying to arrive at a moral a priori using objective measures (which is an impossibility).

I am however not surprised that you proceed to paint an expected scenario so you can more easily claim it occurs when you don't understand a response.

Oh and thank you:
3a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Quit moving the goalposts. You stated:



Now you're carrying on about objectively arriving at libertarianism by making observations and then coming up with a philosophy that agrees with your a priori, except that the **** a priori is already a libertarian philosophy to begin with.

Trying to have it both ways.



I'm not surprised that you're being a dishonest, goal-post-shifting, word-game playing turd yet again.



Which is not what you said, nor even close.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is one way to establish one's own point as a matter of fact. It does so by discarding the negatives which cannot be true. Where you find disagreement you establish logical faults by pointing out that negating one point does not necessary negate others generally by association fallacy or equivocation.



You're confusing "rights" with "morality" the two are not the same. People absolutely can decide to create and support immoral rights. A perfect example would be the Taliban where men had the right to beat women for not wearing a burka or any number of other stupid things. They created that "right", however I still find it morally reprehensable. We're also as a larger world community working to try and influence their decision to change and revoke those kinds of "rights".[/quote]

People cannot decide to create and support immoral rights if rights are defined by man. That makes no sense. If people create a right, they do so around a moral framework. If you perceive something to immoral, you do so because you perceive it violates what you think to be a right. In this case, the right of women not to be beat for an apparently arbitrary reason. Yet, such an action is just an expression of ones rights. Rights constructed in accordance with ones own moral framework. What you are saying is "immoral" through the lens of your own perspective and opinion.

The ridiculous video posted about moral objectivity and science made the erroneous statement. In fact, the speaker admitted that moral objectivity could not be understood by man, yet posited because such a framework existed, we had no business not trying to construct our culture around it.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Hmm, I made need to pop some more popcorn before this is over.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

This would make an awesome drinking game too... Take a shot every time someone is an ***. Alchohol poisoning with each page.

That said... I agree with farther that having a right to life means dick when you have been killed. (paraphrase =me)

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

you bastard!

*swill*

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You're assuming that all people agree on what is moral. They do not. I'm sure that the members of the Taliban think it's completely moral to beat women who don't follow their rules.

Of course what I'm calling immoral is based on my own lens of perspective and opinion. That is ENTIRELY my point. There is no universal or objective morality or rights. All rights and morality are perspectives and opinions of the individual people that hold them.

Rafael made no such assumption; nor, for that matter, did his source.

_________________

So what? So can a dog. Meanwhile, I can go on a killing spree. That doesn't mean I have that right. Just because you can do something, doesn't make it a right.

Seriously, Aizle. No fair appealing to "that's how the world has worked since the beginning of time".

I must insult you now and call you names.

See, I don't see the insult. Then again, I rarely see the insults DFK! does.

I guess it's genetic. Thicker skin must run in my family.

I wonder if this post is considered an insult? Probably. Oh well.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Yawn. Dude, you're intellectually superior to no one. I challenged your core philosophy, and all I got was "butt out, I'm talking to Aizle". Claiming you are objective does not make it so. I believe you are fairly consistent, but most definitely not objective. And while I must admit, some of your posts do make me mentally squirm, it's not for the reason you think it is. It's posts like this:

You must have very thick skin if you don't think being called an "*******" and "numbnuts" is an insult.

No, I caught those - it was the "I submit that you need to get our of your libertarian box and understand how the world works" sentence that DFK! apparently took as an insult that escapes me. I mean, it's not a compliment, that's obvious, but it's not an insult. Is asserting that someone is thin-skinned an insult? I don't think it's disrespectful, nor do I think it's abusive. I don't think it's particularly respectful, but it doesn't dross over into disrespect, either. Not in the same league as calling someone names, at any rate.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Oh, my bad, numbnuts.