y_feldblum

Are rights biological? Do they have anything to do with the differences in biology between man and beast? No. They are proper. Respecting rights is proper to man. We've concluded that, by obviousness, sexual preference is not an uncontrollable genetic/biological phenomenon; it is the product of volition. Many things are the product of volition, though: crime, laziness and folly, idleness and sloth, obesity. None of the things on that list is proper to man, because what is proper to man is to live one's life rationally and ethically (Rationality, Productiveness, Pride). I don't believe anyone will argue with the premise that heterosexuality is proper to man. But is homosexuality proper as well; or, is there reason to claim that it isn't?

Just to be contentious - let's pull our troops out of Germany, Okinawa, and wherever else they may be stationed to no use, and let them invade and utterly destroy the governments of "Iran, Syria, the [Palestinians], Saudi Arabia, Pakistan," et al.; that way, we can keep Iraq under submission and fulfill the rest of our objectives while undoing something that should never have been done. Yeah, yeah, I know we're in Iraq for the same reason we stayed in Germany and Japan. My point is, troops in Iraq are useful now, somewhat, while troops everywhere else but the Middle East are pointless and a waste of this sentence. After we pull out from the rest of the world, let's finish smashing up Baathists and other Islamofascists, religious or secular, wherever they may be (because I don't think we're all the way done smashing things up in Iraq yet) and then get the hell out from all those hellholes that want to stay Islamofascist, whether religious fundamentalist or secular tyrannist.

All things are scarce; freedom can only be acquired through blood, sweat, and tears; and the principle of freedom arbitrarily to use and dispose as justification for the principle against arbitrarily to use and dispose is ludicrous. Do you really think land is different from other forms of property, or are you merely quoting others?

Try using "problematical".

The logical fallacy of argument from "it's just semantics" insists that, at least where it's applied, words do not matter. For validation of this claim, I refer you to Poohat's post.

Is it for lack of a better graphic, particularly the :surrender: one, that you used that smilie? Or, in your story, did you proceed to find and use a "to relieve stress, bang head here" stress-relief kit? Edit: This is my 200th post. Whoever cares, send me something nice (like a blank check or a credit card). Edit: In continuation of the above -- Had Ayn Rand lived in a slightly later era, or had credit cards been invented and popularized in a slighly earlier era, how would her use of the term blank check been affected? Edit: In recognition of this thread's title, you are all free to dismiss my above question.

So, how do I add my creation to the Bureau of Investigation of Grievous Epistemological Logical Fallacies (big elf) crime-list? And, pointing out that your opponent is just debating semantics is the single biggest indicator that, instead, you are. And, reclassifying what your opponent is debating from reality to linguistic usage and then knocking him for debating linguistic usage is indeed a fallacy - the straw man fallacy. Spell-check: linguistic; arguing.

The values that I value. A thing is a value because you value it. You should say instead the things that I value.

Proposal: ban those who use the logical fallacy which I hereby name the argument from "it's just semantics".

I have a magical unicorn in my backyard and I would let you see it except it's only visible to me and the other annointed. Try falsifiability. Eg, the above is not falsifiable.

Bearster convinced me - especially his first rhetorical device.

http://chrisdavis.typepad.com/blog/2004/03...mportance_.html I have lots of time to spare. I have little access to philosophy, except through the internet. I have lots of access to internet forums. I have no chance of convincing a single person at Internet Infidels forum (every grade of subjectivist or intrinsicist imaginable is represented there). I don't particularly care about anybody there. I don't know terribly much re Objectivist philosophy, mostly bits and pieces, TF, AS, VOS, CUI, FTNI (alphabet compositions). I've heard debating can force one to sharpen his logic, tighten his concepts and definitions, etc. New knowledge by debate comes excruciatingly slowly. Debating is somewhat fun, though I can think of somewhat "funner" things to do. Aarg. Choices choices choices. And why do I have this wierd aversion to starting threads myself and an almost perverted desire to piggyback on GC's poll?

What about, say, the Free State Project forcing New Hampshire to secede from the US? Is that moral as an absolute, and is that moral in the context of new territory, and is that moral in the context of oppression / immoral law, and what other contexts can you think of (and, as always, what are the relevant premises in deciding the justness of action in these contexts)?

Ah - but is The Transcendental Head of Super-Reality realing?

That's exactly the nature of subjectivism. Such decisions as whether you can be prosecuted or not for discrimination in our legal system are based entirely on whim. It is impossible to know, in any instance, whether or not the government or litigant will have a case against you based on the law. The discrimination laws are not for or against; they are arbitrary. In answer - there is no answer aside from the both literal and rhetorical why not?

That's not a quote you want taken out of context!

He proposes: Quantification of happiness is not important. Measurement of happiness [by resorting to facial cues] is important. Firstly, the two propositions are in contradiction. To measure is to quantify. Secondly, he proposes to measure a "second-degree emotion". Happiness is an emotion, and how it is expressed by the face is a whim based on the emotion. How does one measure a whim, in what units? How many millimeters do the points of the mouth have to be raised above normal? And how do we know that this measurement is an accurate reflection of happiness? Many religious teachings involve going around with a happy face all day, no matter what one is feeling. The "greatest happiness" categorically demands a quantity, expressed in terms of the Plank unit (smallest possible unit) of happiness. Otherwise, there is only happy and not happy; there is no happier than. If happiness were qualitative only, it would be impossible to compare two instances, let alone make a judgment about which action including all its consequences leads to greatest happiness. If that is his wording, he specifies that there must be a greatest happiness number, and this thing cannot be expressed by the total number of millimeters difference in the corners of everybody's mouth, for all time. In short, he disregards the definition of utilitarianism, while at the same time depending on it; he is stealing the concept. Moreover, how much analysis has he done or is he aware of that show, incontrovertibly, that selfish actions lead to the greatest total happiness? How does he know that what he does for himself is the most effective way to make himself and everybody else in the universe the most happy? And, just for fun, ask him what would happen were people to cover most of their faces: eg in the desert to protect against sand and dust and heat, and in winter to protect against ice and the cold, and when it's simply in fashion or imposed by religion? How could one measure through facial cues?

... Haha, I am free of the hobgoblins of my little mind. Because pimps aren't hobgoblins and foolish consistencies are just not cool. But seriously admins, this is waaaaay of topic - oh that's right ----------------------------------------------------- I have to agree with CF. Is there a right to secede? - And if so, is it relevant in answering the question? Is it moral for a country to declare war on the former citizens who are taking a territory and seceding? ----------------------------------------------------- Total smilie count in thread thus far: 18 19

Well ... erm ... I had the tact to cut down on my wasteful smilie usage.

How is one able to judge, in units, an emotion? Number of dopamine molecules attached to every individual neuron per unit time?

Not to take a tangent or anything ... but their pledge of allegiance could include the phrase one nation under Water.

(Without knowing anything too much) A possibility is a construct of the mind; it is not any concrete entity. Of course it can pop into and out of ... because it is not in existence to begin with. It is a component of knowledge of the conceptual kind. Perhaps it is related to the statement The natures of all entities X are such that they do not preclude event Y. (Where Y is the possibility). Feel free to rip this post apart, or ignore it altogether - but only on the condition that you answer LB's question.

I propose to ban anybody who uses the phrase We're just arguing semantics or anything akin to it.

The most potent resource of any country is the minds of the people. Japan is a virtually barren country, and aside from its unfortunate government, it is wealthy. Yet Iraq, rich beyond measure in oil, is poor beyond measure. The difference in wealth is not a question of natural resources; it is a question of human resources. Slavery is often the tool to extract natural resources; but whenever it has tried to extract human resources, it has failed. Slavery guarantees a country failure, and freedom guarantees a country success, irrespective of how much natural resources it has. The presence or amount of natural resources is never a measure or guarantee of a country's success or failure; the presence of human resources always is. Where did Locke, Smith, Rand, and Friedman get their ideas? Poohat, why do you allow yourself such a degrading handle?

Is validation a synonym for proof or derivation?