Someone7

Bob K

He is telling you not to appear to speak for all non-theists when you spout off your Randian bullshit, because quite a few of us don’t buy it.

I see you are an asshole, therefor being someone whose skin is so thin that he calls people arrogant punks when they disagree with him, perhaps due to lack of proper social interaction.

Tell me, did your ‘moral system’ tell you to act like a jerkoff to pug? Shall I “define operationally” jerkoff for you? Could this be one of those common day-to-day limitations of your (Rand’s) moral system?

Let’s see, you’re opening post is about the bible and slavery, with you obviously making the case that the bible condones slavery. Then, you espouse your obviously Randian shit as a morality for “atheists and agnostics”? Gee, I wonder what the else you could be besides a non-theist. Bible hating deistic Randian perhaps? Combine that with the fact that nowhere does pug even remotely suggest that he thinks you’re a theist in his post, and you not only make yourself look like an ass, but a stupid ass to boot.

You asked him to define odd, not tell you what “is normally accepted as a basis for morality amongst people who discuss such issues”, moron.

It appears you either don’t know what it means to beg the question, or you actually think you previously asked him what it is we ought to be valuing. Either way, you look like an idiot.

Actually, it shows you’re needlessly correcting typos and can’t comprehend plain sentences very well. When he says he won’t pick apart the terminology since it is his own, he means he won’t bother refuting what he just said, since you didn’t actually say it yourself. That you don’t understand this is rather amusing.

Begged/unanswered question: Why does Bob K think pug is begging the question of what moral framework we should be using, since pug never actually stated what moral framework we should be using? Could it be Bob K is a arrogant punk who doesn’t even know what <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging" target="_blank">begging the question</a> even means?

Quick question, how does your system tell us what desires we should have? What if I desire to kill everyone? Is cooperating with society in my best interest then?

The odor of Rand coming off you is making me gag, go take a shower.

That you clearly have no clue what a begged question is, is made evident by this example alone.

He doesn’t have to provide a morality that can do that, you idiot. This is a critique of your proposed moral system, he is not advancing his own moral system.

Begged/unanswered question: Did Bob K actually read pug’s post and personally respond with this idiotic trash, or did a semi-intelligent monkey trained to try to make himself sound as logical as possible do it?

I guess that answered that question. No, Bob K couldn’t have actually read this, otherwise he’d know that pug was not in anyway advancing any other moral system, merely critiquing his.

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

Bob K

Haran asked me to read the article Christianity and Slavery in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm</a>

Here is my report.

First we find a denial that slavery is slavery: [quote]The first missionaries of the Gospel, men of Jewish origin, came from a country where slavery existed. But it existed in Judea under a form very different from the Roman form.

Slavery IS slavery—a denial of an individual’s liberty—freedom!

The wonderful Paul is excused from the responsibility of condemning and abolishing slavery:All are told they are equal, neither bond nor free, but this is an evasion and obfuscation that is exemplified by the Orwellian “all are equal, but some are more equal than others” [paraphrase].

Slavery is still slavery no matter how anyone tries to deny/evade/obfuscate.

And then ... Xnity accepts society as it is. True. And slavery is still slavery. Nothing changes.

Does Xnity attempt to influence transformation through individuals?

How can anyone prove it does/does not?

The Mosaic law and the lack of Xn condemnation of slavery and the lack of admonishments to free slaves and abolish slavery are not proof that Xnity champions destroying the Mosaic law and, hence slavery.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS and T. Jefferson’s the Essence of the Law as modified require looking at injury to innocent men caused by slavery and condemning and abolishing slavery. No gods needed. No Xns needed. The humanity of mankind rising to its most compassionate and noble.

Xnity demands that masters and slaves live as brethren?

How can that ever happen when the master is the master of slaves and slaves are the property of their masters and slavery is nevertheless a reality?

And are slaves to obey their masters with fear? Because of fear? is that not the message of Paul?

Not exactly a condemnation of slavery.

Note this absurdity: Slaves are to honor the gods by obeying their masters, and, hopefully, to enjoy their slavery since it honors their gods?

What kind of logic is this?

Is this not pure Xn logical twisting to justify slavery?

Check this out: Isn’t that a fabulous twist? Slaves are to be relieved to learn that Xns did not scorn labor. They remain slaves, nevertheless. But they are relieved, somehow.

More nonsense: Isn’t that wonderful? No one was denied Xnity.

But slaves remained slaves.

So what?!?! They received Xnity, didn’t they?

And we again find Paul urging slaves to obey their masters: And then: But they are still slaves!

Next: We are not concerned with dead slaves, but with live ones, or, at least, those who could have been freed while they were alive if Xns had worked harder to free them and to abolish slavery.

And this is nonsense: Slavery damn well did exist—the Babel said so, sanctioned it, and encouraged it.

And then we are told: This is an excuse of the fact that primitive/early Xns did not view slavery as wrong because of Mosaic law and the sanction of slavery by the Babel. Moreover, it is an obfuscation which tries to get us to believe that there is a possibility that a revolution would have caused all civilization to perish.

Were there no other civilizations in existence that could have carried civilization onward?

Civilization was born of the S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS process when people began to realize that to achieve most of their desires and to maximize their happiness they needed the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they needed to be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires.

And civilization is renewed in every generation when through the S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS process people realize that to achieve most of their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people for which they need to be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people to negotiate and to achieve common desires.

The S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS process and impulse would have caused civilization to endure even if a revolution had caused Roman civilization to have perished.

Check out this nonsense: So, serfs are slaves by a different name—serfs! They have no liberty. They are tied to their land. And bishops could own land and serfs. Meaning bishops could own slaves.

And more: Great! Slaves/serfs could look forward to serf security—to being serfs until death.

Moving along, we find this statement: Slavery = loss of freedom/individual liberty; hence serfs, having no freedom/liberty, = slaves.

And then we find this slap at the Protestant Reformation: This Is an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so ...

We are told that Popes condemned slavery.

We are told that Xns worked to free slaves.

Then we are told the following: The problem herein is that slavery was abolished in defiance of Mosaic law.

And there is another reason to understand how slavery was abolished: the nature of man—human nature, with the process of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS leading to the recognition that innocent men are injured when they are forced to become and be slaves and that, therefore, the essence of the law being that no man should injure another innocent man, slaves should be freed and slavery abolished.

This is the same human nature that produced civilization and that renews civilization in every generation. No gods needed.

Am I convinced by this article that Xnity opposed/abolished slavery?

No.

I am further convinced that slavery was recognized/sanctioned/supported/encouraged by the Babel and therefore Xnity and was abolished by S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS and T. Jefferson’s “The essence of the law is that no man should injure another; all the rest is commentary” and the recognition that an innocent man is injured by slavery/being captured and sold as a slave and that, therefore, slaves should be set free and slavery should be abolished.

No gods needed. Human nature all the way.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Bob K

Part 1

Someone7:

Bob K Quote: Someone7 Quote: At least a few do buy it.

Asha'man: CowboyX Quote: I read Atlas Shrugged but otherwise am not familiar with Rand’s philosophy.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS is original and comes out of Operational psychology, which you can check out at <a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com" target="_blank">www.bobkwebsite.com</a>

Note: By ‘original’ (A) you can say something new or (B) you can say something old in a new way.

By either A or B Operational Psychology is original.

I predict you will do your best to put down Operational Psychology, and if so, then try your best to speak in psychological terms instead of anti-Randian terms, or at least provide definitions of the terms you want to use to ensure that I read and understand your messages as you intend.

Bob K quote: Someone7 Quote: Experience has taught me that when people start telling me what to do/not to do inre: philosophy without giving good reasons that I have good reason to believe they are arrogant punks.

If someone has good reasons to tell me/warn me what I should/should not do then where those reasons ought to benefit not only other people but myself as well then I am best served to pay attention and to follow good advice.

Lacking good reasons but nevertheless telling me what to do/not do means an individual is an arrogant punk.

Someone7 Quote: Common sense tells me that when someone speaks as did Pug and now you that I am witnessing punks in action. I thereby report what I observe.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS does not necessarily mean I have to be SS every waking moment of my life.

When someone tells me what I have to do/not do without giving good reasons then I have a reason to regard this individual as injuring me and therefore respond in self-defense and to use PS procedures to do so. If someone is not willing to cooperate and there are no common desires to be negotiated then I am not obligated to respond to his nonsense with SS procedures.

Bob K Quote: Someone7 Quote: Let’s see, from my experience in dealing with critics, one of their favorite tactics is to claim that I have not used a specific term they think is more relevant when in fact the term they prefer is merely a synonym, therefore I try to get out in front of all this by using multiple slashes which annoy some people but in fact give me a chance to list multiple synonyms or other equivalences and thereby clarify my intentions while avoiding potential nit-picking nonsense.

From time to time Repliers have accused me of being a theist so, therefore, from my experience, I can avoid such confusions by again getting out front with my agnosticism as I did with Pug.

From experience comes certain practical wisdoms that can save time and trouble for a lot of people.

Bob K Quote: Someone7 Quote: One of critics’ favorite tactics is to selectively quote and thereby leave out the true intent and other information and details.

Here is the complete Bob K/Pug exchange relevant to your ‘moron’ quote:

(A) Bob K quote: (B) Pug quote: (C) Bob K By the complete quote it should be clear that since he was complaining that my proposed natural morality was nonsense I asked in a question-statement that he provide an example of at least one natural morality he thought was better/did not have the faults of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

It is one thing to criticize and then provide a better example; it is useless complaining to criticize without offering a better example.

I predict that if you go to <a href="http://www.bobkwebsite.com" target="_blank">www.bobkwebsite.com</a> and review Operational Psychology that you will complain without offering good reasons and without offering a better example of a cognitive psychology than OpPsych.

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: Begged/unanswered question: What is YOUR definition/description of a begged/unanswered question?

Answer with a genuine definition/description as requested, not the usual evasion/obfuscation tactics.

Here is the complete exchange with Pug that lead to my question:

Pug Quote: Bob K Quote: Pug makes his complaint that S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS does not offer values we should be valuing but only offers a strategy for achieving goals without offering values we should be valuing, so, the question going begging for an answer is as written: What ought we to be valuing?

One of the problems that anyone raises for themselves when they (A) complain by describing a problem but (B) do not offer a solution is the possibility that someone will ask them for a solution, as I did. Without solutions complaints are useless natterings, and what is the subject of the complaint might just be the best solution/way to go until someone else develops a better one.

You should have noticed that I in fact addressed Pug’s complaint by showing that implicit in S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS are values in the following exchange.

Bob K Quote: Bob K Quote: Someone7 Quote: Actually, here is the original unedited Pug Quote: Actually, the “feel free to correct me” could be interpreted to include correcting typos, but that is perhaps getting to be a little bit too Clintonian, yet the possibility remains that ...

Actually, here is my corrected Re-Quote: I am a professional writer; I therefore deal in correcting my own typos and have a habit of correcting the typos of others. Some have commented that they do not mind, and others have in fact stated that they would prefer that I so do. No one has ever complained about my corrections. And I do not mind someone else correcting my typos.

If my correcting typos bothers you, that’s Life in the Big City/Fast Lane.

Obviously, Pug meant ‘cooperate’ instead of ‘corporate,’ and ‘our’ instead of ‘or.’

But what terminology was he referring to that he would not pick apart? His own terminology? Or mine? The odds are that he is referring to his own, but that is a strange statement—that one would not “pick apart’ one’s own terminology by offering definitions, preferably operational definitions, of the terms used to ensure clarity of communication. Hence my [not{?}], which gives Pug a chance to respond and clarify, which he did not.

The essence of communication: (A) Be specific; (B) give the speaker feedback by paraphrases of his message (1) to indicate you have heard his message as he intended or (2) to give him a chance to rectify your paraphrase and thereby make sure you hear his message as he intends.

Hence, where there could be a legitimate question of whose terminology was not going to be picked apart, and discretion being the better part of valor, it was better to ask via [not{?}] than not ask.

Your statement of Pug’s intention as written is laughable.

You said: Pug is not saying that he is not refuting his own words. He is saying that he is not providing definitions, operational definitions, of the terms [terminology] he is using [or, potentially, of challenging the definitions of the terms that I am using, hence the legitimate question of whose terminology is not going to be picked apart]. and he is saying that he wants to pick apart the general idea that [ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>

Bob K

Part 2

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: Bob K thinks Pug is begging the question What moral framework should we be using? because Pug actually used the phrase ‘moral framework’ without defining it or providing an example of a moral framework.

When an individual throws out a term/phrase he does not define and for which he does not give an example, such as ‘moral framework,’ then he risks a situation in which (A) someone asks a begged question/unanswered question/question begging to be asked and answered, such as “What moral framework should we use?”, and (B) he—the individual using a term/phrase which he did not define and for which he did not provide examples—ought to answer to achieve and maintain credibility.

Again you use the tactic of selective quoting.

Here is the Bob K/Pug exchange:

(A) Pug quote: (B) Bob K quote: Notice that S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS provides a morality/moral framework for picking goals/goal-setting/desire specification/etc. by requiring that the desires and feelings of other people be considered in goal-setting, both the individual’s personal/PS goal-setting and the cooperative/SS goal-setting resulting from negotiating common desires/goals with other people.

Example: If as a pilot I want to practice aerobatics and thereby set a personal/PS goal/desire for aerobatics I ought to set a cooperative/SS goal/desire to consider the desires and feelings of other people and thereby their safety and therefore I would best serve my personal/PS goals/desires and cooperative/SS goals/desires by practicing aerobatics over the ocean or land areas which are uninhabited and I thereby would not injure/kill an innocent person if I should experience a structural failure/engine out/etc. or otherwise exceed the aerobatic limits of the airplane and crash.

Pug’s complaints:

(A) S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS does not provide a morality;
(B) S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS only provides a strategy for reaching goals once a moral framework has been established/chosen;
(C) S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS does not give a basis for picking one goal or another.

Where Pug used the phrase ‘moral framework’ in his complaint that no ‘morality’/’moral framework’ exists in S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS but that a ‘moral framework’ must be used for setting goals, the begged question “Do moral frameworks exist which could be used for picking goals?” arises and leads to another begged question “What moral framework should we be using [for picking goals]?”

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#circulus</a>

What does the phrase “begging the question” actually mean?

In my observation [and not necessarily anyone else’s] it means that within a logical argument, particularly concerning the premises, there exist unanswered questions, questions that are begging to be asked and answered, questions begging for an answer, questions which must be answered to verify/falsify the premises and therefore validate/invalidate the conclusion.

Notice the phrase in the description of the fallacy of begging the question: “This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.”

To me this phrase refers to my observation that in the fallacy of begging the question there are questions which although unasked are nevertheless unanswered and therefore going begging for an answer. Thus questionable premises have the attached baggage of unanswered question begging for answers and hence he have the fallacy of begging the question.

The most common begged/unanswered question in logical arguments is found in the premises: Is this premise verifiable/falsifiable/verified and therefore true?

A premise in a logical argument must be verifiable/falsifiable/verified.

Premises can only be verified/falsified by proof, which consists of (1) physical evidence which consists of people/things/events consisting of matter/energy [and are therefore real in contrast to being the content of ideas/mental representations of people/things/events] who/which can be observed by the senses of sight/hearing/touch/smell/taste either (A) directly, including the use of machines which amplify/augment the senses, such as telescopes, microscopes, audio amplifiers, etc., or (B) indirectly through the effects of unobserved people/things/events upon observable people/things/events; or (2) eyewitness reports of physical evidence from credible eyewitnesses corroborated by credible corroborators [credible = not proven to have lied or exaggerated a claim/assertion of physical evidence]; or (3) logical arguments in which the premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified [by physical evidence] and lead to related conclusions which are true/reasonable if the premises are true/verified.

We see that verification/falsification of premises in logical arguments ultimately rely upon physical evidence, either the physical evidence itself or eyewitness reports of physical evidence.

Physical evidence speaks for itself. If it exists, it is proof of the verity/falsity/truthfulness of a premise in a logical argument.

For eyewitness reports we have the problem of determining if or not the eyewitnesses are credible, and this can be done (A) by the eyewitnesses not having personal records of deception/fraud/lying/etc., and (B) by credible corroborators, who must also not have personal records of deception/fraud/lying/etc.

Logical arguments have a form, and if that form is followed, then the conclusions are valid even if they are not true. If the premises are true, the conclusion is said to be valid, but valid conclusions can also be untrue/not descriptive of reality.

Example: The P = Q = X Logical Argument Form:
Premise #1: P = Q.
Premise #2: X = P.
Conclusion: X = Q.

Example: The P = Q = X Logical Argument Form: X = men; Q = mortal; X = Socrates.
Premise #1: All men are mortal.
Premise #2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

This is a classic logical argument form which if followed produces a valid argument.

Notice that when nonsense words are inserted into a P = Q = X Logical Argument the form is valid even though the conclusion is not necessarily true and has to be verified/falsified by physical evidence/eyewitness reports/etc.:

Example: The P = Q = X Logical Argument Form: X = blicks; Q = blark; X = Bloke.
Premise #1: All blicks are blark.
Premise #2: Bloke is a blick.
Conclusion: Bloke is blark.

Where nonsense words have been installed the logical argument nevertheless follows the classic form and is valid.

The begged question/unanswered questions are as follows:
A. What is a blick?
B. Do blicks exist?
C. Can we verify if or not blicks exist?
D. What is the condition of blark?
E. Can we verify if or not the condition of blark is a legitimate condition of blicks?
F. Is Bloke a blick?
G. Can we verify if or not Bloke is a blick?

Notice that in these begged/unanswered questions we are asking for physical evidence of the existence of blicks and the condition of blark for blicks such that if blicks are verified to blark, and if Bloke is verified to be a blick, then Bloke is blark, and thus the Conclusion: Bloke is blark is both valid and true if and when blicks are blark and Bloke is a blick.

There are thus always these begged questions in logical arguments:

A. Is this premise verifiable/falsifiable/verified?/Is the premise true?
B. What proof verifies the premise?
C. Is the proof credible?

Example:
Premise #1: The Bible is the word of God.
Premise #2: The word of God cannot be doubted.
Premise #3: The Bible states that the Bible is true.
Conclusion: Therefore the Bible must be true.

Begged Question re: Premise #1: Is the Bible the word of God?
Begged Question re: Premise #1: Can this premise be verified/falsified?
Begged Question re: Premise #1: What is God/What is a god?
Begged Question re: Premise #1: Do gods exist?
Begged Question re: Premise #1: What proof exists that gods exist?
Begged Question re: Premise #1: Can gods be verified/falsified/verified by observation [by sight/hearing/touch/etc. directly or indirectly by their observable effects upon observable people/things/events]?
Answer: No. In contemporary times no credible eyewitness has produced proof/physical evidence of the existence of gods: no one has shown us the gods; and the gods have not shown themselves to us, thus, without the appearance of the gods as proof of their physical existence, we are not obligated to believe that gods exist. There are no reliable eyewitness reports from credible eyewitnesses corroborated by credible corroborators which provide physical evidence for the existence of gods.

Begged Question re: Premise #2: Can the word of God be doubted?/Why can’t the word of God be doubted?
Begged Question re: Premise #2: Can this premise be verified/falsified?
Begged Question re: Premise #2: What proof exists [physical evidence] that proves that the word of God cannot be doubted?

Begged Question re: Premise #3: Does the Bible declare that it is true?
Answer: Yes, it does.
Proof/Physical Evidence: Prov. 30:5. Every word of God is pure; 2 Tim. 3:16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Begged Question re: Premise #3: Can we accept as proof/physical evidence the statement of the Bible that it is true?
Answer: No.
Proof/Physical Evidence: None: The printed words by themselves do not prove they are true.

Therefore the Conclusion: The Bible is true is invalid because the premises are not verified or otherwise are falsified by proof/physical evidence or lack of it.

NOTE: A nonexistence of positive proof is not negative proof; the lack of physical evidence of the existence of gods is not proof of the nonexistence of gods; nevertheless, positive proof of the existence of gods must be physical evidence of the gods themselves, and, lacking such proof, any premise asserting that gods exist is not verified and therefore is not accepted as true.

Thus, for logical arguments, questions concerning the verifiability/falsifiability/verification of the premises often go begging for attention/answers, and unanswered questions are the begged questions that often reveal if or not the premises either can be verified/falsified or otherwise are true/false.

Most people focus upon the following begged/unanswered question when they think of or otherwise discuss begging the question [which has several forms]: Is the conclusion present in the premises? or Is a premise present in the conclusion? or Are we assuming that which we are trying to prove?

The requirement for answering the begged/unanswered questions relating to verifiability/falsifiability/verification of the premises such as Are the premises verifiable/falsifiable/verified? and How can we verify the premises? will often produce the awareness of and understanding of a conclusion in the premise/premise in the conclusion or perhaps a reorganization of the logical argument itself.

In the above example of a logical argument suffering from begging the question we have the following.

Premise #1: The Bible is the word of God.
Premise #2: The word of God cannot be doubted.
Premise #3: The Bible states that the Bible is true.
Conclusion: Therefore the Bible must be true.

Notice that the conclusion is not present in premises and that the Conclusion: Therefore the Bible must be true is true if Premise #1: The Bible is the word of God is true and if Premise #2: The word of God cannot be doubted [recast as Premise #2: The word of God is true] is true.

Notice that to conclude that the Conclusion: Therefore the Bible must be true is true we do not need to know if or not Premise #3: The Bible states that the Bible is true is true if Premise #1 and Premise #2 are both true.

In circular arguments, one simple begged/unanswered question can often reveal if or not there is a logical argument and therefore if or not the conclusion is true: Can the premise which is present in the conclusion be removed and eliminate the circularity?

Example:

Premise #1: Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office.
Premise #2: Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Premise #3: Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail.
Conclusion: Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office.

Premise #1 and the Conclusion are roughly the same.

Eliminate Premise #1:

Premise #2: Any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job.
Premise #3: Homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret.
Premise #4” Homosexuals willing to do anything to hide their secret so they will not lose their jobs will be open to blackmail.
Conclusion: Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office.

Begged Question re: Premise #2: Is this premise true? Is there a government policy against homosexuals? Will homosexuals lose their jobs because they are homosexuals?
Begged Question re: Premise #2: What proof/physical evidence will verify/falsify this premise?
Answer: Government policies. Government policies concerning homosexuality/sexual orientation are most often not state secrets and therefore can be easily determined.
Proof: Government policies re: homosexuals/homosexuality. Either homosexuals are in or out. If out, then homosexuals will lose their jobs if discovered, and Premise #2 is true.

Begged Question re: Premise #3: Will homosexuals do anything to hide their secret?
Answer: If I could hide a secret that would cost me my job, I would most likely do so, therefore it seems logical that homosexuals would hide their homosexuality so they would not lose their jobs.
Begged Question re: Premise #3: Have homosexuals in the past hidden their homosexuality so they would not lose their jobs?
Begged Question re: Premise #3: What proof/physical evidence would prove that homosexuals have hidden their homosexuality so they would not lose their jobs?
Answer: Previous cases in which homosexuals were discovered to be homosexuals and in accord with government policies against homosexuals they lost their jobs. If previous cases are discovered and verified, then Premise #3 is true.

Begged Question re: Premise #4: Have homosexuals in government jobs been blackmailed?
Answer: Previous cases in which homosexuals were willing to do anything to hide their secret so they would not lose their jobs and were blackmailed. If such cases are found, then Premise #4 is true.

Therefore the Conclusion: Homosexuals should not be given government jobs is reasonable if the premises are verified. [Disregard the fairness of the government policy towards homosexuals because of the possibility that the fairness issue could be extended to innocent citizens who could be injured if homosexuals had to compromise state secrets to avoid losing their jobs. The Conclusion is reasonable and fair to citizens. It is not fair to homosexuals, and this unfairness should be addressed and changed so that no one in a government job could ever be blackmailed because of his sexuality/sexual orientation.]

You should be able to see the possibility that begged questions are simply the unanswered questions that can arise in determining the verity of the premises of a logical argument, and that unanswered questions can be helpful in determining if or not premises can be verified/falsified and therefore the related conclusion is true or false [or reasonable] or if eliminating a premise which is identical to the related conclusion can enable a logical argument to be created which leads to a conclusion which is either true or reasonable.

Whenever someone complains about a problem without offering a solution the question naturally arises of What is your solution? This is a begged question, an unanswered question. Endless complaints with no solutions produce useless natterings; some people are complainers and others are problem-solvers and decision-makers.

Inside a complaint ought to be the seed of a solution. Inside the complaint is an obvious desire for a solution, but a solution, or a series of solutions to be evaluated, nevertheless ought to be present in the complaint. In this way, a complaint can point to progress.

Since Pug is complaining that my S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS natural morality does not appear to him to provide a moral basis for establishing values/goals, this question naturally arises: What is a moral basis for establishing values/goals?

Questions often put people on the defensive. Questions force people to think.

Question-statements make a request for information, as does a related question, but without the provocation of defensiveness.

Example: Question: What is a moral basis for establishing values/goals?

Example: Question-statement: I would like you to tell me if you are aware of a moral basis for establishing values/goals.

Thus, within Pug’s complaint that S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS does not provide a moral basis for establishing values/goals is the seed of a solution—the establishment of a moral basis for establishing values/goals.

I pointed out that — The moral basis for establishing values/goals is the difference between PS and SS which is the PS nonconsideration of the desires and feelings of other people and the SS consideration of the desires and feelings of other people.

S7 Quote: Bob K Quote: Your intent to murder everyone is clearly PS; and once your intention is known by SS people they most likely will choose to defend themselves against you by arresting or killing you [survival has a natural high priority for most people]; whether they can be successful is not necessarily known initially, but the chances are good that you will suffer negative consequences.

If you intend to kill everyone, will cooperating with everyone be in your best interests?

No.

Of course, parsing words, if you need the cooperation of at least a few other people to kill everyone else, then you will obviously need to cooperate with those few who agree with you and who therefore support you.

And, again, parsing words, if in order to get yourself into a position in which you can kill everyone else you need to gain everyone else’s confidence and trust, then you may need to cooperate with them until you can pull the chain/press the button/pull the trigger.

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS has within it a value system: SS values = cooperating with other people.

So long as you cooperate with other innocent people, you are free to choose whatever other desires/fears/priorities are to be important to you.

If you like pizza and I like fried clams, so long as we do not conflict over what to order then there is no reason why you cannot prefer pizza and I cannot prefer fried clams. If you like parachuting and I like flying airplanes, then perhaps I can help you enjoy parachuting by flying whatever plane we can rent that we can use for parachuting. You get what you want, I get what I want. You aren’t hurting me; I’m not hurting you. No reason for conflict, plenty of reason for cooperation, therefore SS, as in S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS.

Inre: slavery, Bob K Quote: How true this quote is!

S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS and T. Jefferson’s “The essence of the law is that no man should [be allowed to] injure another [man who is innocent, who does not intend to injure people who do not intend to injure him]; all the rest [of the law] is commentary” blend to show that the basis of a natural morality can lead to a value system for which the basic goal is the achievement of one’s desires and the maximization of one’s happiness by the consideration of the desires and happiness of other people and the cooperation needed to negotiate and to seek to achieve common goals. Once the consideration of the desires and happiness of other people is in action and therefore a reality, you are free to set whatever values/goals for yourself which are important to you.

Free will may not be as free as people think: once you have set your desires/fears/priorities, then your behavior may become highly deterministic. If you prefer pizza to fried clams, then, given the free choice, you will choose pizza, and your behavior becomes highly predictable.

But what is most important is the freedom from external interference from other people that you will need so you can set your desires/fears/priorities exactly, within reason, defined as considering the desires and feelings of other people, as you want them to be. This freedom to choose may actually be what people are really thinking about when they think about free will. Obviously, your will is not free if someone else is telling you what to do and when to do it. Therefore, free will may be freedom to choose.

As each person develops sets of desires/fears/priorities according to the roles he plays as a family member, a friend, a spouse, a parent, a worker/boss/partner, a teammate, etc., his personal set of desires/fears/priorities changes, but underneath all will be the basic natural morality of S-&gt;PS-&gt;SS and T. Jefferson’s The Essence of the Law.

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: As mentioned, other than having read Atlas Shrugged and whatever Rand philosophy is within it, I am not familiar with Rand’s philosophy.

If you are having trouble with my originality, then you might try being specific with your complaints/criticisms, and include definitions of the terms you want to use to ensure that I read and understand your message as you intend.

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: I have answered his criticism and have asked him if or not he has a moral system he would like to propose to counter mine.

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: You are now learning to identify and ask begged/unanswered questions.

Good for you!!!

If people talk about morality, this question is likely to arise: What is morality? If not, that will remain a begged/unanswered question.

Bob K Quote: S7 Quote: Pug Quote: Does the statement “there are better strategies to pick in which to maximize the efficiency of your ends” imply that Pug has an awareness of ‘better strategies’ and wouldn’t you be curious to know are those ‘better strategies’?

So, shouldn’t you naturally ask this begged/unanswered question: What are the “better strategies to pick in which to maximize the efficiency of your ends”?

If not, why not?

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Bob K ]</p>