RED DAVE

99Percent:

I think you have been defeated in this discourse and refuse to admit it.

I have taken you seriously in this discussion, post by post, point by point. All I have asked is that you take me seriously and not provoke with infammatory language. It seems to me that the "emotions, feelings, and rhetoric" are coming from you. As witness your reference to "force."

What force? Have I jumped out of your disk drive slot and committed an act of violence on you?

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

RED DAVE

Autonemesis

Subjective interpretations of what? Some objective truth that's "out there" just waiting for the "correct" interpretation to be invented? Your question/objection is loaded.

Poor, misunderstood and persecuted 99%

If the reasoning is faulty, then it won't be very convincing to someone who values reason. If your reasoning is flawless but your rhetoric weak, then it won't be very convincing to someone who doesn't value reason above rhetoric. What good is a supposed morality that you can't convince anyone to adhere to? Convincing people to agree with your position is what politics is all about. I might argue also that that is what ethics and morality are all about, too.

RED DAVE's point, which was not lost on me, was that there are subjective reasons why you adhere to this idea of objective morality. It appeals to you on some level that no one, not even you, would call objective. His plea - and I'm with him on this point - was for you to argue in favor of those subjective values on which your admiration for so-called objective moral principles depends, rather than on this Randian facade you're using as a front.

RED DAVE

Kind Bud says:

Thanks for that. I was trying to get 99Percent to look at both the philosophical and personal points. I know, I certainly have both in this and other threads.

RED DAVE

managalar

I'd like to thank Gurdur, Red Dave, and Kind Bud for their remarks.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 99Percent
Whats the point if you yourself accept there is no truth, only subjective interpretations of it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is, we have to try the best we can to find answers and solutions, and share that opertunity to search with future humans, as past humans have done for us.

-managalar

99Percent

RED DAVE: I said "at worst". BTW, that post wasn't directed at you.

Kind Bud: Its not only loaded, but its fundamental! If we can't agree on what is "true", then whats the point of any discussion?No, its not a question of valueing reason. If the reason is flawed or faulty, then its false. If its good, then its true. There isn't anything to "value".Again the subjectivistic trap of boxing everything into values. If the reasoning is true, then rhetoric is unnecessary. You must accept it as it is because its true. Rhetoric is for those who need to convince on appeal to emotions (eg RED DAVE) on subjectivistic terms like politicians who use very subjective terms such as "wealthy", "poor", "poverty level", "needs", etc.My morality applies to me, but objective morality applies to everyone. There is no "convincing" to do, only explaining and hope that its understood. I find it discouraging that you have reached a level of understanding where only convincing and rhetoric is the way to proceed. That way a discussion is just based on feelings, appeal to emotion, to authority and to the consensus of the majority. When OTOH I see it plainly that we are thinking rational beings where we can understand and communicate objective reality and concepts. Which is what carries me to continue any discussionYou seem to project your own insecurities when you portray me as using a "facade" so that I can "convince" you of my moral "values". When in fact its not "my" morality I am talking about but objective morality that applies to everyone where perceived or interpreted "values" don't have anything to do. Your own insecurity arises from not wanting to see what is in fact real and true, something you confirm every single waking moment of your life, because you are indeed afraid of commiting a real mistake. Its strangely similar to discussing with a theist who refuses to see that his god is indeed imaginary.

managalar: Well, you can keep on trying on your own. Its clear that what I say has no bearing on your quest for knowledge as you seem to easily dismiss it as subjective. ie, that what I find is true only applies to me.

RED DAVE

Trolling around the Internet, I came up the following:

Libertarians and Slavery

This confirms something I've always supected, that Libertarians, and Conservatives in general, are soft on slavery.

If you believe that individual rights either stem from property rights (Libertarians) or should be subordinated to property rights (Conservatives), the concept of a human being as property shouldn't be alien to you. Of course, you can port in from the outside a principle like, "Human Beings Can Never Be Property." But that means that you are elevating a human right (not to property, a slave) ovr property rights.

The peudo-election of Bush, the elevation of a pig like Ashcroft, a known Southern sympathizer, and the upcoming rash of movies about the South and the Civil War (reported in today's New York Post), means that it's time, once more to be Gone With the Wind at the Birth of a Nation.

Libertarians have an obligation to clarify themselves and others about it their beliefs about slavery and property.

RED DAVE

Thomas Ash

Hi Gurdur,
I'm doing a teaching English project with an organization called Teaching & Projects Abroad in my gap year before going to Cambridge to study philosophy, which is quite a common thing to do in the UK.I'm staying on the outskirts of Accra, the capital, which is a pretty amazing experience - and very religious (in fact, I just started a thread about this over in the Secular Lifestyle & Support forum, which has a description of some of what I've seen.) Have you ever been to Africa?

curmudgeon

And if you'd bothered to READ the rebuttal that is CLEARLY linked at the top of the article, you'd know, as we do that your entire post is a complete red herring. Here's the rebuttal: http://www.libertyforall.net/2002/ar...epic-myth.html

How completely dishonest of you to ONLY post the link that conforms to your pre-concieved notion, and ignore the rebuttal entirely.

RED DAVE

from curmudgeon:

1) I'm not required to read rebuttals to posted articles.

2) Thanx for pointing out the rebuttal.

3) The rebuttal is concerned, among other things, with clarifying the Libertarian Party position on slavery.

4) Instead of a rant, how about a rebuttal on the relationship between property rights and human rights under the libertarian system.

RED DAVE

managalar

That 'rebuttal' does little more than illustrate that there is some debate amongst libertarians on the issue. Is someone free enought to sell their freedom? This guy says no...thereby imposing a limit on freedom by saying it just cant happen, but others say you are free to do with your body and self as you please. The WHOLE libertarian ideal of 'right to property' is moronic nonsense, and it blows my mind how many people cant see that.