Good summary. Also "morality" is just a fuzzy concept the way most people present it. It implies that good actions and bad actions must be externally validated in some way. Things clear up a lot when you ask "good for what?" What are good ways to behave when our behavior affects others?
Once you start thinking of the result we care about it, the result we'd like to achieve for how society operates, it becomes pretty clear why a god isn't necessary to determine that murder is bad. Murdering other people for no reason, or just for kicks, has some pretty obvious negative consequences for the people affected.
- Registered User
Member for 10 years, 1 month, and 27 days
Last active Mon, Feb, 5 2018 10:18:16
- 8 Followers
- 5,231 Total Posts
- 222 Thanks
Apr 20, 2017@MTGTCGPosted in: Debate
Where do governments come from? Everywhere in the world started with anarchy, with no governments around. People then gathered power and declared themselves kings, or any other form of government you dislike. Obviously it becomes rather hard to just "compete" with these existing powerhouses that you think are abusing their power, or else you wouldn't be on here complaining about it.
Your system obviously doesn't work. It doesn't function the way you say it does. We have several thousand years of human history as proof.
Governments are not some magical curse cast by a witch that can be broken by blog posts. It's just people in power forcing other people to do what they want. If I and a group of people in an anarchist society decided to pool our money to pay for a private security force, then decided we would force you to pay for it as well and would send our private security force after you if you didn't... That's police. That's taxes. What you gonna do about it?
Your kneejerk reaction is to say, "Well I'll make my security force and it'll be so much better and bigger and cooler than yours." Okay then, do it. Do it right now, in the real world. What's stopping you?
The whole world started with absolute freedom and without any governments buddy. Where did they come from? Clearly absolute freedom DOES produce abusive power structures despite what you claim. So how did that happen?
Rich Guy: "I'm a rich guy with a gigantic private security force and I've conquered or purchased huge amounts of land."
Libertarian: "No problem."
Rich Guy: "I'm also going to label myself a King."
Libertarian: "No! Now you're suddenly a government and that's bad!"
Feb 20, 2017Posted in: Philosophy
That's like asking, "Why eat a cake when it's fresh when it's just going to go stale eventually?"
Feb 2, 2017Every society in the world started in anarchy. Every single one became a government. That's why we have governments controlling the world and running everywhere.Posted in: Debate
*People choose to create governments of their own will*. You can establish a starting circumstance, but anarchy by definition refuses to enforce laws. People given perfect freedom will choose to form an organized structure, either for defense or for power or both. That *always* happens, throughout all of human history across the entire world. You can claim it won't happen, but you're denying the evidence of the entire world - which always show governments arising in every society that starts in anarchy.
Jan 31, 2017Posted in: DebateQuote from MTGTCG »1. Markets would bring about common law.
2. Who wants to subscribe to a rights enforcement agency that supports bad people? The answer is bad people. There are more good people than bad people, so good REAs beat bad REAs. It's not that hard...
3. You would betray the cartel secretly.
Your central error is assuming that "governments" are some mystical non-human-produced force. Rich dudes amassing power and conquering people is how you get kings in the first place, which is a system of government. We started with anarchy everywhere, and now there are governments basically everywhere. You suggest that people will come together in organized resistance against people who are abusing their powers. You're correct, that's what governments are. That's what a police force is.
Clearly every group of people starts in anarchy and eventually results in governments forming. If you think this is a bad thing, then you have to admit anarchies DO tend towards bad things. You're caught in a contradiction.
Jan 17, 2017Posted in: ReligionQuote from jaredpeyton »What do you guys believe about salvation? I Read articles such as http://biblereasons.com/salvation-and-being-saved/. This is really getting to me. I've been thinking about life and the afterlife lately. Does Jesus save us? Has anyone else thought about this stuff? Looking for opinions. Thanks for anything you can share.
Fortunately, there is no compelling reason to believe that an afterlife exists. All our experience indicates that a person's mind and identity is dependent on and determined by their physical brain. You don't exist before your brain develops. Taking brain damage can radically change a personality. You can lose a limb and keep on living, but destroy the brain and it's all gone.
We're pretty clearly software and the brains are our hardware. Destroy the hard drive of a computer and ask if the data that lived on it goes to an afterlife. Obviously there's no reason to think so, and it would invalidate our understanding of how things work.
This shouldn't be troubling, unless you live in terror of your memories of how it felt to not exist for billions and billions of years. I personally don't remember that experience as being too troubling.
Dec 21, 2016The argument that the holocaust is what happens when you care about people is a great example of the mental game of twister that Libertarians have to consciously perform. Even if building a military was established as a bad thing, that wouldn't demonstrate that caring about people is bad. It would just mean that building a military is a bad way to help people.Posted in: Debate
This is a new level of facepalm.
Dec 15, 2016Posted in: DebateQuote from DJK3654 »Quote from FourDogsInAHorseSuit »Are really counting revolutions and insurrections that came from refusing to pay?
Nope. We're counting people executed by the government in modern times for tax evasion. Not people that chose on their own to wage rebellion because of (insert reason here). Environmental terrorists that are killed during their own attacks aren't executed for supporting the environment. They're killed in action, or executed in places with the death penalty, because they're trying to murder people.
If you tell someone to come to work on time, or else they'll be fired... And they retaliate by coming in with a gun and trying to kill you, but security takes them down first... They weren't threatened with *death* for failing to come in late. They were threatened with being fired.
So yes, I'm looking for a list of the executions the government has carried out as punishment for tax evasion.
We've been there with typho0nn. He considers be killed for violently resisting punishments as meaning the offence for the original punishment is under threat of death.
Is that true Typho0nn? In that case, if I choose to violently resist your argument and am killed because of it - you're threatening my disagreement with DEATH?! That makes you sound like quite the big brother police state dictator. Sure you want to stick to that argument?
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May 1, 2017Posted in: DebateQuote from Jay13x »
I do not, but if other forum users have good ideas, please let us know. In all honesty, other gaming sites don't have debate sections like this one for some of the same reasons I mentioned above.Quote from Kryptnyt »It was nice to have a place to put potentially vitriolic thoughts where intelligent people could sift through it for you. I was actually trying to find the words for such a thing. It's not something I can do on Dotabuff, haha... Can you suggest any similar forums with a decent mix of political backgrounds like this one has?
The irony is that the reason you guys are closing this debate site is what has made it so much better than most debate sites that I've perused: our moderators are rarely asleep at the wheel, which says a lot about Blinking Spirit and his various helpers through the years I've been here. They put in the work to keep this forum going, and more importantly, were able to discern infractions from bias triggers quite well. There probably are other decent online debate forums, but I've yet to find one better than this one. I'll be on the lookout.
Apr 4, 2017Posted in: Religion
A finite life which will be followed by an infinite afterlife is a sad existence and ultimately meaningless. Nothing is meaningful when compared to infinity.Quote from Kassill »Life without the hope of salvation or something more is a sad existence and ultimately meaningless.
If you drop the expectation of an eternal afterlife (even ignoring the question of salvation), this life literally becomes infinitely more valuable.
That's demonstrably untrue, since I have hope for a better tomorrow for myself and the people around me without an expectation of salvation.Quote from Kassill »Life needs salvation, a hope for a better tomorrow, a better future for ourselves and those around us.
Feb 23, 2017Posted in: Philosophy
I think if you're going to ask questions, you should be prepared to answer them as well. Try answering mine. You may find that they address your point after all. I mean, just for starters, I very explicitly suggested an answer to your original question using the words "how is this not a perfectly sufficient answer to your original question", so I'm quite unperturbed by complaints that I didn't do that, and rather more perturbed by the implication that you didn't read it.
If the value of something is what you assign to it, how is it rational to expect the value to be in the thing before you've assigned value to it? If I established that books are written by human authors, and then immediately afterwards claimed that an author should only write a book if it has already been written by some nonhuman means, would that make any sense to you?
What about believing in the existence of belief? Since the act of valuing is what generates value, and the act of believing is what generates belief, but the act of believing in God doesn't generate God, doesn't belief seem like a better analogy here than God?
How is it even logically possible for you to gain anything from dying when dying is by definition the event after which there is no "you" to gain or lose or indeed possess any properties whatsoever? Can you improve a car's performance by destroying the car?
What's the point of avoiding struggle? How can the end of hardship have any value if there is no such thing as value?
Feb 22, 2017Posted in: Philosophy
In sentence one, you deny the reality of objective metrics for life. In sentence two, you claim that our ancestors' lives were worse than ours according to some metric. There seems to be a contradiction here. How, exactly, were our ancestors worse off? If our ancestors were worse off, doesn't that imply that we're better off? If we're better off, might our descendants someday achieve a best, or at least continue to make progress towards it? And conversely, if there are no objective metrics, how can our ancestors have been worse off? If they weren't any worse off, what is there to explain about their lives and decisions?
Whence "merely"? What is insufficient about biology (or anything else on the table) as an external source of value? What possible external source of value would be sufficient? When you look for external sources of value, what are you expecting to find and not finding? And why are your expectations where they are? Could it be those expectations that are the trouble? And if there are no external sources of value, if value really does come from the self, so what? Is internally-sourced value less real or less valuable than externally-sourced value? If so, how so? If not, how is it not a perfectly sufficient answer to your original question?
Jan 3, 2017Lithl posted a message on Russia, the possibility they hacked the DNC, and the possibility they're next for an Iraq WMD situationPosted in: Debate
You have a very strangely-jointed thumb, then.Quote from Jusstice »when you point a finger at someone, you’ve got four fingers pointing back at you.
Dec 15, 2016Posted in: Debate
And there's social evolution as well as biological evolution. Cultures with norms that promote their members' well-being tend to survive and expand; cultures with other norms tend to collapse and disappear.
Dec 15, 2016Blinking Spirit posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all alongPosted in: Debate
It is crap. We've done this dance before, remember? Every time you've cited a source on any topic, one of two things has been true: either (a) it has been blatantly pushing a particular narrative (i.e. biased) and filled with lies and omissions; or (b) it has been a decent source that you did not understand because you were reading it through the filter of your own commitment to a particular narrative (i.e. bias). If you wish, I can go back and find examples of both of these issues occurring, and of myself and others identifying and explaining them to you. So when I say that the information you prefer to work with is overwhelmingly bad information, it is with the weight of evidence and experience. And I am under no obligation to give deference to bad information. Stop complaining that I'm being mean to you and start asking yourself whether you might, in fact, have a problem. You say you're a skeptic, but real skepticism starts with the self.Quote from Typho0nn »"for lack of a better term..." this is sarcastic and degradation, if you want to debate please keep it civil. You are just trying to pass it off as crap.
Dec 14, 2016DJK3654 posted a message on New evidence uncovered by the Washington Post puts scary new spin on the "Fake News" Crisis -- It really was Russia all alongPosted in: DebateQuote from Typho0nn »@Hackworth
Yep, so, Russia wanted a candidate that would work with them instead of wanting to go to war with them... Good!!!
Has it occurred to you that Russia might want to intentionally make it look like they would start a war with Clinton to favour Trump in order to help their actual agenda?
Because that seems like quite a plausible idea to me.
And both the CIA and FBI agreed that Russia deliberately interfered in this election.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.