Did you even read the explanations of those premises? Especially the last one: If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response.
If my argument that human beings are not responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set. (The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book.)
Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. Did you read it? he is assuming non-determinism, or at least soft-determinism. I just have to assume hard-determinism which is, to refute his argument. |
|
|
|
|
Discussing the book again:
I do not agree with his premises 5,6,7,8.
|
|
|
|
I don't see how it could be done with a minor change specifically on the technical side??
Elaborate.
Well, the following could be done. Кeep all ask and bid orders for all fiat currencies versus BTC in the blockchain. This is possible without changing the protocol. Allow peers to vote for each order, just like they vote to confirm or reject the transaction. Orders which are going to perturb exchange rate against any fiat up or down by more than 0.015% per day would to be suspended or knocked out by peers (no central control involved). This way exchange rate would not change by more than 5% per year. Then let all online exchanges execute orders from same blockchain. and what if i traded person-2-person with a friend? whoops, your system is broken. |
|
|
|
This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism Why are these three things linked together: free market, Americans, and libertarianism? Libertarianism and the free market go against everything America stands for. Is this a case of outside observers mistakenly thinking that America is libertarian and pro-free market? Because I assure you, it is not. the thread was mysteryminer's reaction to my jew thread, with the same content. |
|
|
|
|
i should join their forum, and see how long before a ban. if i did said i supported communism...
|
|
|
|
i conclue that he have based his opinions upon a incomplete system of axioms.
You can't even spell "conclude" You're hopeless. tha libertard book, that myrkul linked!
And you call him biased? powerful ideas for all lovers of personal and political freedom.
Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world. yes, they are indeed self proclaimed libertards. No, they are self-professed libertarians. Your use of the pejorative, "libertard" shows your bias, not theirs. i have never claimed that i was not biased(i think...). whats your problem? libertards are libertards. |
|
|
|
|
i conclue that he have based his opinions upon a incomplete system of axioms.
|
|
|
|
tha libertard book, that myrkul linked!
And you call him biased? powerful ideas for all lovers of personal and political freedom.
Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show in the world. yes, they are indeed self proclaimed libertards. The scientific method, rationality itself, and mathematical laws are all examples of objective criteria for
establishing the truth of a proposition. and that is a subjective opinion! Is it merely an opinion that 2+2=4? yes, based on rules i have to subjectively accept before i can do math, i could just reject them and be done with it. |
|
|
|
The scientific method, rationality itself, and mathematical laws are all examples of objective criteria for
establishing the truth of a proposition. and that is a subjective opinion! |
|
|
|
However, there exists in our minds an imaginary entity called “God,” and this entity is considered perfectly moral. Unfortunately, this entity continually and grossly violates the edict that “violence is wrong” by drowning the world, consigning souls to hell despite a perfect foreknowledge of their
“decisions,” sanctioning rape, murder, theft, assault and other actions that we would condemn as utterly evil in any individual. christian god? okay... i read on... Where the heck did you just pull that from? tha libertard book, that myrkul linked! |
|
|
|
|
ah ha! he needed 3 pages to explain the law of the excluded middle. and now he is explaining(not defining) reality, the differences between subjectivity and objectivity, and what metematical reasoning is...
the author also seems way too libertarian biased to be having a sane and intellectual discussion with.
so far, this is not a proof, its propaganda(and he knew i would say that, babbling about round vs. flat earth).
|
|
|
|
However, there exists in our minds an imaginary entity called “God,” and this entity is considered perfectly moral. Unfortunately, this entity continually and grossly violates the edict that “violence is wrong” by drowning the world, consigning souls to hell despite a perfect foreknowledge of their
“decisions,” sanctioning rape, murder, theft, assault and other actions that we would condemn as utterly evil in any individual. christian god? okay... i read on... |
|
|
|
Ground rule #8
I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel.
for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid...
this is gonna be fun.
If you are so bad at English that you think "I respect your intelligence" is telling you that you're stupid, then perhaps we need to break off conversation until you're actually conversant in English. ground rule #8 is a coward's of saying everything i say from now on will only be vaguely defined. "I respect your intelligence" means that im stupid, when i want clear definitions, its just a more nice way to say it. I want him to piss on my intelligence and give me clear definitions. |
|
|
|
Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.
If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it? yes, but you can't come up with one. Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded. http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upbbook assumes secularism. Well, you did want rational, did you not? A big bearded sky-man telling you to be nice is not very rational. but could be true. the world in it self is inconsistent. Ground rule #8 I respect your intelligence enough to refrain from defining words like “reality,” “reason,” “integrity” and so on. We have enough work to do without having to reinvent the wheel. for a correct proof you should have very clear definitions, this is not. and the author is even telling me that im stupid... this is gonna be fun. |
|
|
|
Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.
If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it? yes, but you can't come up with one. Big words, from someone so intentionally small-minded. http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upbbook assumes secularism. |
|
|
|
Consistency is very very tricky and very very hard to ensure. See gödel's incompleteness theorems.
If I show you a consistent, rational proof of ethics, will you accept it? yes, but you can't come up with one. Not all slaves wants to be free.
You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free. oh. i want to. im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon. Nobody is forcing freedom on anyone. you are. |
|
|
|
if the state considers it an aggression, you have violated your own NAP. your own subjective opinion does not matter here, according to the NAP. You are contradicting yourself with this sentence. It doesn't matter if the state (or anyone) considers defense "aggression." It isn't. define aggression! |
|
|
|
Not all slaves wants to be free.
You are a fine example of this fact. You're fighting very hard not to be free. oh. i want to. im fighting for all them who does not want to, but you are trying to force freedom upon. |
|
|
|
Let's try a different angle. Why do you consider slavery to be wrong?
Because i have been taught that it is wrong(because don't wants to be a slave myself), and that there are equal rights for everyone. <- This is just my society speaking. OK, let's take those reasons separately: 1. You've been taught that it is wrong. 2. You don't want to be a slave yourself. 3. Your society has taught you that everyone has equal rights. OK, two of those are external reasons, and basically boil down to "cause I was told to," but number two there is internal, and therefore objective, even to a brain in a jar. So: Why do you not want to be a slave? the second im am also told. You don't want to be a slave because someone told you that you don't want to be a slave? yup. if i was born a slave, and i had accepted my faith. I might have had a different opinion. Not all slaves wants to be free. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
