Eiuol

What's stupid is doing it yourself. Standing on your property defending is not itself retaliatory, but it is intended to be retaliatory if necessary. That isn't self-defense in thee heat of the moment, and seems to be exactly the job for government to monopolize. That the police are unable to do this job in Ferguson is part of the problem. I thought I said how. They've failed to control a situation, not because it was above their expectation, but because they're apparently incompetent. It follows then they are using their weapons poorly.

Defensive isn't different than self-defense, so the worst Kate did is misspeak since she explicitly said self-defense is okay. If you are posting yourself in order to specifically take control over ALL aspects of defense, something is wrong there. It's not "self-defense" as much as it is taking force into your own hands to control a situation, even retaliatory force. But the point of a police force is that individuals do not do retaliatory force save for the heat of the moment. The police would do that - the government has a monopoly on retaliatory/defensive (is there a difference?) force. In fact, it is even smarter to do nothing on your part and let the police do it. That is, if they're trained police...

Thanks, I didn't know - and I appreciate you pointing it out.

This is a discussion board, meaning the point is to also exchange information. If you are satisfied that you "won", fine, but I am saying that if you have better information, show it to me! I'm not a news junky or a big follower of news. I'm acknowledging that you know more than me about the facts here. If you say I should figure out what reliable sources are, tell me what these sources are.

Neither of us showed outside sources so neither of us has any evidence of any truth at all. One, it isn't robbing as much as it was maybe shoplifting. It's doubtful he even did THAT, he probably paid... Okay, dozens of witnesses. I haven't thoroughly investigated yet, so show me some sources if you say this is so. Then, we have to establish that these witness reliability. What the cops have done wrong: the original shooting was shooting a kid to death rather than to disable, inability to control the situation which grows worse due to their mishandling (quelling violence by shooting rubber bullets might not be lethal, but it makes the situation worse and clearly doesn't get the desired effect), see Kate's link regarding the shut down McDonalds, controlling media (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/18/police-in-ferguson-arrest-and-threaten-more-journalists/) by arresting journalists and not for being with rioters. Plus we know THAT tear gas was used, but I hear little except assumptions why. My point is that this is NOT a proper response on EITHER side and a cavalier respect for rights for both. I mean, is ANY action proper as long as lethal force isn't used? I'm thinking of proper action as what first and foremost stops the rioting. It is possible to protect people and property without throwing tear gas around and firing rubber bullets.

Same as you - various news things. I don't presume to know as much as other posters, so I made clear what you'd need to tell me about to change my mind, but as far as I have seen, what has happened is not an appropriate response. Rioting is bad. So is exaggerated police response. I'm not saying there should be NO response, but it seems like the police don't know what they're doing.

I mean, maybe you presume more background knowledge than I have. Still as far as I know, 1) any rioting is made worse by exaggerated response, 2) there's no particular evidence that Mike Brown was a thug anyway except from the cop who shot, but this is irrelevant 3) the police there are not making objective decisions about enforcement, relying on people untrained in civil disorder (and being untrained to deal with it properly, it follows that they are using weapons improperly).

"Just as" likely? Lots of Americans support what he did, shooting a kid to death with no apparent responsible use of weaponry? I'd like evidence of that. And if what "the police did" includes all the apparent over-the-top anti-riot activities, then I'd be more surprised to see any supporters. I'm fine about the original shooting being a case taken to court as it should. But I don't think this conversation is about that. Isn't it about everything ELSE that transpired? Perhaps the protesters should calm down, but so should the police and arguably the police have behaved worse.

Meaning the cops are acting immorally and illegally in a violent way such that they were acting too militarized... America isn't broken yet. Except, it is HIGHLY concerning that there are cops out there showing an intent to act as a police state would. Fortunately it can be stopped now. I can only hope this won't happen again. Not just about the shooting, I'm talking about the aftermath. The question is how the cops to blame will be dealt with. And weapons laws. (key word: WEAPONS)

Clarify what? I asked you a question to clarify things. You didn't reply. Generally I don't understand your posts, and I admit it - I have no reading comprehension of what you are getting at. So I usually your posts as some sort of jumping off point. Interestingly, quotes you provide tend to support what I say. A lot of your posts consist of saying "you're wrong, ITOE says so" without saying how a quote contradicts. Anyway, if you don't answer my clarifying question, there's nothing more to say.

Not all knowledge is propositional. Do you really think it is possible to state everything that can be stated? Answer without quoting ITOE. Stop saying things with little explanation as though we should understand what your point is. I only see poor reading comprehension, or a really foggy and vague argument.

New Buddha didn't say propositions can't be exhaustive. He said no one can exhaustively state all possible propositions.

Plasmatic, If I ask if X is Y, and you say yes, it means X is always Y. If X is only sometimes Y, then saying yes is a non-answer as the answer is at best "usually, yes". Maybe it is nitpicky, but it's one example that your explanations don't help. I didn't mean my question about English as sarcasm, it's just that it would explain why a yes/no response didn't convey what you intended. If you type so slow that your connection of grammar and spelling is disconnected for trying to focus, then that leads to unclear communication. I even told you why ontological isn't a term that made sense, and how I understand it so far, and stated in a way that shows that I don't know what you mean. The terms you set didn't make sense nor were they terms in Objectivist literature, all while the terms are still uncertain in my mind. Define your terms! Uhh, I didn't say otherwise? The quote doesn't even mention propositions anyway... If you mean evaluating "truth type" is important, "true/false" isn't a type of truth, it's an evaluation of a fact. The ITOE quote confirms this view, as there is no types of truth mentioned and truths are not ever products of the facts of the mind. Wow. I'm disagreeing with you, so therefore, I don't understand? Because of this line, I won't be responding to you further. You need to demonstrate that I don't understand before saying I don't understand...

Then the answer was "no", not "yes". You didn't say same, but saying yes to "do you mean man-made fact" means it is the same... Serious question, is English your second language? Often it seems like disagreement with you are only differences of language use. Also I see you get where/were their/they're your/you're wrong - consistently, not just as typos. Anyway, why say "ontologically" objective instead of objective? Ontological usually implies a specific hierarchy and is more specific than metaphysical. It makes more sense to simply say metaphysical. No fact is independent of consciousness, in terms of recognition at least - an epistemological convenience. What is independent is the truth of the fact, even man-made facts are true independent of consciousness, that's why Rand made a distinction in terms of volitional control instead of truth type (there are not types of truth). Even more, the distinction of epistemological fact is not needed, since any fact is necessarily the case. A skyscraper existing is a man-made fact, but it is necessarily the case that it exists, has a height, has a width, etc. The only way I can get epistemological fact to make sense is as a synthetic truth precisely because it seems to me that you're evaluating truth type. To be clear, I am agreeing completely with the Objectivist view. Usually I am clear when I'm disagreeing with the Oist view, and if I don't mention disagreement, I am in agreement. My overall point here is the same as SL's post #19. Nothing exists "more" than something else. A metaphysical priority only really makes sense in terms of relationships among entities, but there is no absolute Order to concepts; and entities in an order is a question of epistemology. An atom for instance isn't more or less real than a basketball, but we can identify how these entities relate in metaphysical terms, such as basketballs are made of atoms, or both entities exist no matter what I say, i.e. primacy of existence. Priority applies here in the sense primacy of existence is needed to determine anything as true or real.

You said an epistemological fact IS the same as a man-made fact by answering yes to my question... Now you're saying it ISN'T the same. So I ask again: What is an epistemological fact? What does ontologically objective mean? What does Searle have to do with this? All this to say: I don't understand your post.

No one ever even suggested primacy of existence is "simply" man-made. You may use "epistemological" and "man-made" interchangeably, but no one else is. They're not the same. "Epistemological fact" doesn't even make sense, that sounds like you're saying that some knowledge exists "outside" minds. Any fact is metaphysically true, even if man-made. But I've never seen such a distinction between metaphysical facts and CREATING facts except for Kant and Logical Positivists, although they just said "analytic" and "synthetic" instead. Rand only ever distinguished facts in terms of the referents, not really a fact itself.

What do you mean? Seriously, I don't understand. What would "simply" designating an epistemological fact mean? By epistemological fact, do you mean man-made as opposed to metaphysical?

Okay, location will be the corner of West 59th and Avenue of the Americas. It's a convenient spot and at a neat store, Chocolate Covered Everything. Plenty of things to do.

Me neither - I admit, people fail to understand me at all sometimes, too!

No, I meant you personally. Your English is good for communicating, but I don't think it's good enough to discuss philosophy in your own words.

Pretty simple. The guy lied that he wanted to date and disregarded any apparent impact on his own values. That's immoral, given what you stated. I mean, I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think that "dating" is "one date" or all the other presumptions you mentioned. If he is that socially ignorant, well, that's different... If say, he was from a culture with really radically different dating norms, then his lack of knowledge may make sense, meaning he did nothing wrong per se. Why are you asking this? It seems like you're insinuating something.

Huh? This makes little sense. Is existence in its entirety an orange? No. Is an orange exhaustive of existence? No. Is an orange a part of existence? Yes. The problem seems to be English language, not philosophy.

This makes sense, but the quote says "distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of others possible". So the choice to live doesn't explain the greatest number of others - it's not fundamental. I think Rand uses "essence" and "fundamental" as synonyms, but there may be small differences in usage.

Stop quote bombing with ITOE! How is that supposed to be an argument? Tell me specifically how your quote indicates that I am wrong. That quote is about conceptual development, which still has rules about it that aren't man-made, not a metaphysical ontological organization. I've stated no contradiction. To repeat what I do agree with as I understand: there are metaphysical facts about entities making no entity metaphysically equal to another, which means there is a metaphysical fact that entities are related differently. The last part of your quote is what I mean, including Rand's caveat about the word metaphysical. The imprecise, or rather totally unexplained, language is quote bombing, using ontology in an apparently unique way, What does this line even mean? "The Primacy of existence is the ontological principle that is the representation of the universally absolute fact that is existence itself !"

I think you're totally missing the point. Your words are imprecise and you throw a quote at me as though it reveals my error. Sorry, but it doesn't help anyone. The word metaphysical is very unwieldy. Yes what an entity IS is a metaphysical fact. It is by nature that way regardless of HOW I seek to understand it. In your quote, it says "the priority is both cognitive and metaphysical". What I'm trying to say is that even if there is a metaphysical fact, there is no "official ordering". No metaphysical ordering. I don't know if Rand means that there are metaphysical facts about entities making no entity metaphysically equal to another, which means there is a metaphysical fact that entities are related differently. Or it might mean there really is a metaphysical priority of concepts that can, for example, suggest that a thing being firewood is in all cases less important than an entity being a chair. The latter interpretation is pretty Platonic. The first one makes more sense to me. Take a table made out of wood. I bought it in order to make firewood. What is it primarily? Firewood or a table? It IS both, but which is it primarily? Depends what you choose to focus on. MOD NOTE: SPLIT FROM HERE