Catherine Flick spreads FUD on bitcoin and dual use

[matonis]

Regarding the video post from genjix on Catherine Flick http://bitcoinmedia.com/catherine-flick-bitcoin-and-the-dual-use-dilemma , Irdial of London asked me to post his unedited reply to the video so I post it below:

This is an appalling presentation on many levels. It betrays what I can only describe as a very restricted world view, taking into consideration a narrow and blinkered perspective. It’s useful as a sounding board for people with a better understanding of the topic, and so I welcome it as a springboard.

Ethics is not “about helping good people make good decisions when the best decision isn’t always clear.” Here is a good definition of what it actually is: “Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Ethics is therefore, not about ‘helping good people’.

What is good and bad in subjects like money is interpreted differently from person to person and country to country. People like Catherine Flicks display demonstrably unethical and immoral thinking in the case of Bitcoin and money and exchange, since she advocates the use of force to control human beings who are interacting with each other voluntarily.

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

These people are the Statists, who rely on hand waving, generalizations, rules of thumb, received wisdom, poor logic, fear-mongering and whatever irrational motivation is to hand to make their case for the immoral and violent control of other people.

The approach Ms Flick has taken to examine Bitcoin is completely wrong. There is no such thing as ‘the Dual Use Dilemma’ in relation to Bitcoin. This is language carried over from the debate about nuclear technology, where nuclear reactors, which can be used to produce goods for medical examinations and killing cancerous tumors have a ‘dual use’ of also being able to supply fissile material for explosives. Using this term in the context of Bitcoin is an attempt to impart a feeling of imminent danger to Bitcoin, in the same way that FUKUS is trying to do with Iran and its peaceful and perfectly legal nuclear programme; ‘Its not a threat now, but it may be in the near future’.

Bitcoin, like any technology, is neutral. It is a discreet piece of software that can be fully examined without a questionnaire of its users. It is literally like a hammer or any other inert object. If she was undertaking a simple survey of bitcoin users, then this approach would be the correct method, but she is attempting to discuss ‘the Dual Use Dilemma’ of Bitcoin, and this is her error. What people use it for does not in any way change what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is neither ethical nor unethical.

Think about it this way. If Flics was examining hammers, and surveyed a set of people on them, she might get carpenters and burglars in her survey sample. Burglars use hammers to steal. Carpenters use hammers to build. She could create pie charts and type out their responses and give a talk on her academic results, without actually touching upon hammers at all. This is exactly what she has done with Bitcoin.

She would say that burglars using hammers to steal is, “rather worrying” and then say that carpenters do good work with hammers. None of this has anything to do with hammers as a tool, and yet she would offer that the regulation of hammers is a possibility that is reasonable, rational and perhaps desirable. No one with any sense would advocate the regulation of simple tools, and yet, because Bitcoin is a simple tool that can transmit ‘money’ it is immediately assumed that the State must have something to do with it. It simply does not follow.

Since people insist on conflating Bitcoin with money, ‘The Ethics of Money Production’ by Jörg Guido Hülsmann:

http://mises.org/books/moneyproduction.pdf

is worth buying and reading. Money is a good like any other. As is true with hammers and saws, there is no reason whatever to expect that money should not be manufactured by private individuals and it is entirely correct and beneficial for the public that it should not be regulated by the State, or anything other than market forces.

The problem with discussing Bitcoin as a form of money is that it is not money at all… but this is a digression. Bitcoin, whatever it is, is neutral, just like guns and hammers and all tools are neutral. You as a human being can take actions with it that are either ethical or unethical.

No one has the right to tell you what you may or may not do with your Bitcoins or your goods. If you are trading voluntarily, inside mutually agreed terms and not harming or defrauding other people, then no one has any sort of moral claim against you or your property.

If you do not accept this, then you, by extension, accept that the State (for example) has a claim on the things you own and do, and they have a legitimate reason to control you and your possessions and transactions, wether you act through voluntary exchange or not.

This is the fundamental difference between people who advocate that the State should regulate everything and the people who have a complete understanding of the true nature of human beings and right and wrong.

We, the ethical people, do not want to enforce our will and personal beliefs upon others. The Statists on the other hand, are hell bent on controlling everyone, in every area of their lives in every thing that has been invented and which has yet to be invented.

It is clear who the ethical people are in this equation, and more than that, as a purely practical matter, the State ruins everything it touches. Just look at the built in 2% inflation rate of Sterling as an example. It is designed to steal two percent of everyone’s stored wealth year on year. The absolute last thing that any new invention needs is the corrupting and destroying hand of the state upon its neck.

Academics like Catherine Flicks are used to justify the intervention of the State in everyone’s affairs by spreading FUD through their poorly designed studies and briefings. In the age of the internet however, these presentations can be refuted wherever they appear, both by inline commenting and hyperlinking.

Bitcoin and the systems that are sure to evolve from it and run in parallel with it are now an inevitable reality that is going to permanently disempower the Statists and dismantle the violent ‘society’. One day, Bitcoin will seem as natural and beneficial as sunshine, and the good of it, untouched by the State, will be apparent to all.

[1714982641]

1714982641

[1714982641]

1714982641

[cypherdoc]

Irdial is a good read.  he understands Bitcoin and is right about Flick's presentation.

[jimbobway]

I left this on the bitcoinmedia site:

Surveys like the one Catherine created can influence the psychology of people’s minds. What if I substituted “Bitcoin” with another phrase?

1.) Do you think it is good or bad for Catherine Flick to donate to hate or terrorist groups?
2.) Do you think it is good or bad for Catherine Flick to donate to legal political or other organizations?
3.) Things that Catherine Flick can do for good?
4.) Things that Catherine Flick can do for bad?

Asking questions like this can unfortunately associate Bitcoin with “bad” subjects, just like how Catherine Flick can be associated with these negative subjects.

[genjix]

Catherine is a fan of bitcoin, and she was innocently asking a question. What I took for her talk was about what our individual decisions should be and how they influence bitcoin's development. We don't exist in a bubble, and our individual ethical decisions help push bitcoin as a cause for good.

She wasn't arguing in favour of an authority. Not at all.

BTW is Irdial lonelyminer? He should email me if he wants to write an article. Or anyone for that matter.

My reply there:

-----------------------

You make a good point, and I can totally understand what you’re saying. But ethics is more than ‘being good’. Ethics is about helping good people make good decisions when the best decision isn’t always clear.

There are hundreds of small ethical decisions everyday that build up to outcomes. Catherine wasn’t talking about bitcoin’s anthropomorphic morality, but about the people driving bitcoin forwards. The community.

There are many small decisions now about bitcoin’s future that can have massive future ramifications if bitcoin becomes big. Computing, the internet and web itself are an empowering tool simply because of those early engineers who had the prescience to design it that way, understanding the future impact such tools would have.

Their ethical decisions are a gift to us today. And a valuable and humbling example to follow.

[jimbobway]

Catherine Flick seems like a nice lady.  I think people are just fine tuning bitcoin and why it should exist and debating it with Catherine's arguments.  In addition, libertarians are also very passionate about individual freedoms.

[lonelyminer (Peter Šurda)]

BTW is Irdial lonelyminer?

No. Also, I try to avoid discussing ethics.

[bitplane]

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply.

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

[FreeMoney]

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply.

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

We might find that we can agree on some axioms then it would be straightforward logic from there.

[jimbobway]

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply.

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

We might find that we can agree on some axioms then it would be straightforward logic from there.

Right on!

[Littleshop]

This is an appalling presentation on many levels. It betrays what I can only describe as a very restricted world view, taking into consideration a narrow and blinkered perspective. It’s useful as a sounding board for people with a better understanding of the topic, and so I welcome it as a springboard.

This shows a serious problem with the Bitcoin community.  Someone posts something (even someone from the Bitcoin community in this case) that is not 100% positive or an ad for bitcoin and they get jumped all over.  The presentation was not FUD, or if it is, we have reinterpreted FUD to be anything we do not like.  

I watched the presentation (mostly because of this post, not the original post on bitcoinmedia.com) and have found it to be reasonable and mostly interpreting results of a poll taken here on this board.  It is certainly not 'appalling' as the quoted person has said.  She has opinions but is mostly responding an interpreting a bunch of other peoples views.  

[jimbobway]

This is an appalling presentation on many levels. It betrays what I can only describe as a very restricted world view, taking into consideration a narrow and blinkered perspective. It’s useful as a sounding board for people with a better understanding of the topic, and so I welcome it as a springboard.

This shows a serious problem with the Bitcoin community.  Someone posts something (even someone from the Bitcoin community in this case) that is not 100% positive or an ad for bitcoin and they get jumped all over.  The presentation was not FUD, or if it is, we have reinterpreted FUD to be anything we do not like.  

I watched the presentation (mostly because of this post, not the original post on bitcoinmedia.com) and have found it to be reasonable and mostly interpreting results of a poll taken here on this board.  It is certainly not 'appalling' as the quoted person has said.  She has opinions but is mostly responding an interpreting a bunch of other peoples views.  

To be honest I did not think her presentation was FUD until I read Irdial's response.  In particular this paragraph stood out for me:

Think about it this way. If Flics was examining hammers, and surveyed a set of people on them, she might get carpenters and burglars in her survey sample. Burglars use hammers to steal. Carpenters use hammers to build. She could create pie charts and type out their responses and give a talk on her academic results, without actually touching upon hammers at all. This is exactly what she has done with Bitcoin.

She would say that burglars using hammers to steal is, “rather worrying” and then say that carpenters do good work with hammers. None of this has anything to do with hammers as a tool, and yet she would offer that the regulation of hammers is a possibility that is reasonable, rational and perhaps desirable. No one with any sense would advocate the regulation of simple tools, and yet, because Bitcoin is a simple tool that can transmit ‘money’ it is immediately assumed that the State must have something to do with it. It simply does not follow.

If more people in legislation thinks like Flicks, then it is likely that bitcoins will be more and more regulated.  Libertarians seem to be able to spot these types of statist ideas like an eagle's eye.

[fornit]

You make a good point, and I can totally understand what you’re saying. But ethics is more than ‘being good’. Ethics is about helping good people make good decisions when the best decision isn’t always clear.

define "good".

[majamalu]

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.

Is that an opinion?

[hazek]

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply.

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

I agree completely, I really want someone to prove to me as a matter of fact that ethics exists and that there is such a thing as objective morality but I haven't found one single person that can do that.

Btw bitplane, could I perhaps get you interested in this thread I wrote on another forum? It goes into how to bring about a voluntary society upon realizing that ethics are subjective and "rights" an illusion: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34237.aspx

You seem like a likeminded person so I'd really appreciate your opinion.

[hazek]

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.

Is that an opinion?

He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong.

[majamalu]

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.

Is that an opinion?

He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong.

Ok, I'm sure you (hazek) are familiar with this argumentation:

Universally Preferable Behavior in a Nutshell (by Stefan Molyneux)

Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.

Reality is objective and consistent.
“Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

[hazek]

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts.

Is that an opinion?

He is merely stating that there is no proof to support a conclusion to the contrary therefor not an opinion. I'm sure if you can prove as a matter of fact that ethics aren't just based on opinion he will admit he was wrong.

Ok, I'm sure you (hazek) are familiar with this argumentation:

Universally Preferable Behavior in a Nutshell (by Stefan Molyneux)

Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.

Reality is objective and consistent.
“Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Yes of course, unfortunately UPB is invalid as I show here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/34084.aspx (my OP isn't as clear as it could be but if you read all my posts you'll see exactly why it's invalid)

Stef makes the preposterous mistake of pretending that preference = requirement which is the same as if I claimed 2+2=5 but also 5=4, as soon as he does that he renders his whole argument invalid by his own standards.

[hazek]

But real quick:

“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.

That is false. In order to live it's not merely preferred to breathe, drink, eat ect, it is required. Same goes for anything else. As soon as you have an subjective goal(staying alive), you also have objective requirements(breathing, drinking, ect). Without a goal you merely have a subjective preference. Subjective preferences != objective requirements.

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. Btw look at politicians on TV having a debate, does your definition apply to them? No. But they still call it a debate.

Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Therefor UPB is invalid.

And there you go. It's all just Stef's opinion, nothing less, nothing more, unfortunately.

[majamalu]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

[cunicula]

The observation that it is unethical to use force to control people’s private financial transactions is not an opinion. People who advocate the control of others by force and by default can be demonstrated to be immoral and unethical from first principles and logic.

Stopped reading right there. Ethics is subjective by nature, first principles (axioms) are always unprovable and often arbitrary, even more so in ethics. Furthermore, humans and systems created by humans are not mathematical constructs and binary logic need not apply.

All ethics is based on opinions, not facts. Some opinion may hold true given a certain set of axioms but that doesn't make it an absolute truth outside that system, no matter how much you wish it to be true.

Wow, a thinking person, at bitcointalk no less. You must get flamed and called a troll frequently during your ramblings here.

[matonis]

Catherine is a fan of bitcoin, and she was innocently asking a question. What I took for her talk was about what our individual decisions should be and how they influence bitcoin's development. We don't exist in a bubble, and our individual ethical decisions help push bitcoin as a cause for good.

Currencies don't need fans; they needs users.  Bitcoin users and followers do not need to be timid or ashamed of a protocol that enables transactions with user-defined anonymity and user-defined untraceability. It is a proud and noble cause. Personally, I would like to see greater integration and cooperation with the Tor, i2p, and Freenet communities. And, I know some that are working towards this already.

I'm not quite sure how any 'payment medium' can be pushed as a cause for 'good' or for 'bad', except maybe via the bitcoin miners and the protocol revisions that they select to adopt. The reason it is FUD is because she associated dual use as a major dilemma for bitcoin. It is not a dilemma for bitcoin -- it is a feature. Several others have pointed out that knives and pencils and cars have dual use too.  Here are some examples of positive transactions that bitcoin facilitates (be proud....feel free to add your own):

1. the financial support of politically-unpopular or politically-incorrect causes;
2. the father who discretely wants to support an illegitimate child;
3. the woman exercising her right to choose to have a private abortion;
4. the person paying for victimless crime transactions, like pot and prostitution (laws against those enforce morality);
5. the person paying for a VPN service who doesn't want to leave a payment trail;
6. persecuted minorities fleeing a dictator in an attempt to secretly transport their small remaining wealth to safety;
7. Libyan living in Benghazi buying handgun to protect his family from Gaddhafi thugs;
8. the Iranian, Syrian, or <insert nation-State> man that purchases a gun for the protection of his family;

BTW is Irdial lonelyminer? He should email me if he wants to write an article.

Irdial already has a very successful blog and he has written articles for many years at http://irdial.com/blogdial/

[hashman]

Currencies don't need fans; they needs users.  Bitcoin users and followers do not need to be timid or ashamed of a protocol that enables transactions with user-defined anonymity and user-defined untraceability. It is a proud and noble cause. Personally, I would like to see greater integration and cooperation with the Tor, i2p, and Freenet communities. And, I know some that are working towards this already.

I'm not quite sure how any 'payment medium' can be pushed as a cause for 'good' or for 'bad', except maybe via the bitcoin miners and the protocol revisions that they select to adopt. The reason it is FUD is because she associated dual use as a major dilemma for bitcoin. It is not a dilemma for bitcoin -- it is a feature. Several others have pointed out that knives and pencils and cars have dual use too.  Here are some examples of positive transactions that bitcoin facilitates (be proud....feel free to add your own):
[snip]

You got the point, but then you jumped and took the bait anyway..   

As far as dual use goes it's very simple what the two cases are :  1) stuff I like 2) stuff I don't like
and no, you will not find any examples that everybody agrees with. 

Personally I'm more interested in the transactions that block chain currencies DON'T allow:  me adding 9 zeros to my bank account because I know a secret handshake. 

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

[majamalu]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

[Herodes]

Good post by the first poster.

Catherine Flicks I don't know, but if it's correct that she's an academic it probably means she is working for an institution that is completely or party state founded. Having liberal views or condoning something like bitcoin might have real consequences for her professional career and paycheck, although in theory an academic should be allowed to speak freely about whatever he/she wants to speak about, there are often people in high powerful positions that can have someones career wrecked unless they are political correct. And more so if the academic is continually pushing a view that the people sitting on the money bag disagrees with.

I can't assume anything about her and her motives, but for a large amount of people, fear and powerful people above them does limit what they dare say, write or publish because they are afraid to have their paychecks taken away from them.


I'm sure most of you are aware of that, and just think for youself. If you have a difficult boss, and are dependant on your job to make ends meet, and you know that the boss dislikes people who talk against him, no matter how stupid his ideas are, and you know that he does in fact fire and cause troubble for people that speak their mind freely, would you still speak your mind freely ? Chance are that most people will not, because they are afraid.

Of course, finding a new job in such a situation would be the advisable thing to do, but this is the same reason you will never find a bank manager talking highly about bitcoin, as this is not in the interest of the board and the share holders, even if he personally loves bitcoin.

[a63ntsm1th]

-deleted, already covered

[majamalu]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point?

[hazek]

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate.

In that case you'd be trolling, not debating, and that can be proven. Of course, a 3rd party observer could still conclude that you are debating, but he would be wrong. The important question is: Are you basing your arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then you are debating. You are free to call "debate" to a mere exchange of insults, for instance, but you'd be wrong.

Great! I have the same question for you as I posed to those saying this same thing on freedomainradio forum: Can you prove this as a matter of fact? Can you prove what a debate is as a matter of fact?

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for proof as a matter of fact.

Again: Are they basing their arguments on logic and/or empirical evidence? If so, then they are having a debate. What's your point?

You see that's your problem, you keep making statements without any proof.. I'm not asking for your opinion what you think constitutes to a debate, I'm asking you whether you can prove as a matter of fact, much like how you'd attempt to prove gravity by throwing a rock as a matter of fact, that a debate is what you say it is.

(btw I wouldn't try too hard, cause it's just your opinion and there is no proof..)

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

[majamalu]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

[majamalu]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself.

But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth.

[westkybitcoins]

But real quick:

“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.

That is false. In order to live it's not merely preferred to breathe, drink, eat ect, it is required. Same goes for anything else. As soon as you have an subjective goal(staying alive), you also have objective requirements(breathing, drinking, ect). Without a goal you merely have a subjective preference. Subjective preferences != objective requirements.

Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.

According to who? You? Unless your subjective goal is to be objectively correct than your statements about what constitutes to a debate is merely your own subjective definition.

Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).

Nope, I could be debating with you with an alternate goal in mind(trolling) and a 3rd party observer could still reasonably conclude we are having an debate. Btw look at politicians on TV having a debate, does your definition apply to them? No. But they still call it a debate.

Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

Therefor UPB is invalid.

And there you go. It's all just Stef's opinion, nothing less, nothing more, unfortunately.

Nice.

I think I'll keep a copy if this post handy for next time I come across Stef's writings (I always suspected serious logic flaws, but never cared enough to dig into his material and find it.)

As to the OP, I don't think the intent was to spread FUD. That said, her perspective, IMO, still wound up causing it to happen to some degree.

[hazek]

Btw in case you are confused, this is what I want you to prove:

Debate: The process of arguing about propositions.
Argumentation: The process whereby humans use reason to communicate claims to one another.
Therefore, if two guys are insulting or throwing stones to each other, they are not having a debate.

Prove to me as a matter of fact that a debate is "The process of arguing about propositions."

That is a consistent definition.

Here's another consistent definition: "A chair is a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person."

If you prefer to call "table" to a chair that's ok, but that doesn't change the nature of the object.

1st: the most consistent definition is not a proof as a matter of fact, is just the most shared subjective opinion
2nd: a chair only outlines some of the most basic and most common characteristics of the object in question but leaves a huge wiggle room of what exactly a chair is

Following your chair analogy, a debate could as well be:
de·bate   [dih-beyt]  Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic . strife; contention.



Are you beginning to see the problem on your hands? There is no proof for what a debate is. It can be many things.. According to you it's something and according to other people it's something else. Unlike a debate, the force of gravity is always the same and universal no matter what you call it or who observes it.

I mean, can't you see that the following statements...:
- The force of gravity on earth is 9.81 m/s*s
- Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable

.. have nothing in common? You can test the first, you can measure it, replicate the results, predict the outcome, the whole scientific method shabang.. while you can't do any of it for a debate. A debate is what you think it is.

But there is a way to make your statement provable! You just have to presuppose the right kind of subjective goal of a debate. Only with such subjective goal in mind, the requirements are objective and can be proven as a matter of fact.

I hope you get it now.

I understand the need to agree on the definition, but once we agree on that definition ("the process of arguing about propositions") we're admitting that the tools for finding the truth are logic and evidence - Do you know other tools that work for that? If in the middle of the debate (so defined) I hold a proposition simply because I have great faith in it, I would be contradicting myself.

But what if we don't agree on that definition? Well, that means at least one of us is not interested in finding the truth.

And there you go, by your own admission what constitutes to a debate depends on agreement. Does what is gravity depend on agreement? No.

Btw yes you are right, if I don't agree to your definition I'm not interested in finding the truth, however that doesn't mean we aren't having a debate. Being interested in finding the truth and calling it a debate is your thing, for me and lots of other people it could be something else. Exhibit A: The presidential debates on TV. You can ask a 100 million Americans if their candidates are having a debate and I guarantee most will say yes. Now according to you, they're not but according to them they are.

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now? 

[hazek]

Ehehehehehehe 

[majamalu]

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now?  

Concepts do not exist; concepts are valid or invalid. Number two does not exist, but it is a valid concept.
Regarding the chair, you can say many things about a chair, but if your definition is valid (like "a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person") and we agree on it, I can't say later that a chair is a mammal (I can, but it would be a contradiction).

[hazek]

Ok I guess you're too involved with your own subjective definition of the concept of a debate to see my point so I'll stop here..

Just remember preference != requirement, just like 2+2 != 5 and 5 != 4.

[notme]

Btw 2: I think what confuses you and what you're forgetting is that a debate is just a concept in our minds, that doesn't really exists that people agreed has certain meanings.. Like the concept of a chair that also comes in a lot of shapes, sizes, colors, ect.

Got it now?  

Concepts do not exist; concepts are valid or invalid. Number two does not exist, but it is a valid concept.
Regarding the chair, you can say many things about a chair, but if your definition is valid (like "a piece of furniture consisting of a seat, legs, back, and often arms, designed to accommodate one person") and we agree on it, I can't say later that a chair is a mammal (I can, but it would be a contradiction).

If I stretch my definition of furniture a bit, and agree to your definition of chair, a horse is a chair.

Definitions contain further terms that also need defining.  You'll never finish defining everything.

[majamalu]

It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things).
It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).

Get it now?

[hazek]

It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things).
It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).

Get it now?

It doesn't matter if you hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable in a debate, or if you have a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints in a debate or if you have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers in a debate or if you have a deliberation/consideration in a debate: the concept of "debate" is valid in all of those cases(it fits every possible debate).

Yep I get it.

p.s.: there is no such thing as universally preferable, since preference is always subjective it can't possibly be universal, what is universal is a requirement, but a requirement != preference and this is something you wont even address..

[hazek]

BTW it's so hilarious how religiously you'll defend an invalid argument just because it came from a person who you clearly look up to. Why can't you put your objective hat on for a moment and truly examine his argument instead of blindly making illogical excuses for it.



One final time. Preference != requirement, do you understand this? Cause I'll explain it to you if you don't understand how preference isn't the same as requirement. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the flaw in Stef's argument.. As long as you think preference = requirement his argument will appear valid and that's where you're still making the mistake.

[majamalu]

BTW it's so hilarious how religiously you'll defend an invalid argument just because it came from a person who you clearly look up to. Why can't you put your objective hat on for a moment and truly examine his argument instead of blindly making illogical excuses for it.


One final time. Preference != requirement, do you understand this? Cause I'll explain it to you if you don't understand how preference isn't the same as requirement. Understanding the difference is crucial to understanding the flaw in Stef's argument.. As long as you think preference = requirement his argument will appear valid and that's where you're still making the mistake.

Can't you see what's happening?

A) You are arguing for what you believe to be true, ie you have a preference for the truth.

B) In order to find the truth, using logic and evidence is universally preferable behavior, just as in order to stay alive as a human being, eating is universally preferable behavior.

C) If you say that you don't have a preference for truth, you can not expect anyone to take seriously anything you say.

If you don't get it, that's ok, but you should recheck your personality type (specialy this: "Tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason").

Last attempt:
Nobody said preference = requirement. You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west.

[hazek]

Last attempt:
Nobody said preference = requirement. You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west.

Bwahahahaha you can't be serious.. Do you not see you just contradicted yourself while pretended that preference = requirement when you said it is universally preferable(required) to head west? It's not preferable, it's required! Period.


Look, I see Stef confused you about the meaning of both words so I'll explain them to you. Pay attention!

A preference expresses your desire to pick something from either group A over something in group B (from options: west AND east) but INCLUDES both groups. A requirement expresses the only choice available between group A or group B and excludes the one over the other(from options: west OR east).

For example if you say you prefer going west over east, you are saying you'd like to go west most of the time but not necessarily always. Sometimes you might reluctantly go east.
But if you say you are required to go west, then you are saying you don't have a choice but must always go west. East isn't an option. And this is a simple logical operation of AND and OR. What Stef and you are doing is pretending AND = OR, 2+2=5 5=4, preference = requirement. As soon as you do that anything else you utter is invalid.

Therefor saying "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west." IS COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

The correct example would be "In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is required to head to the west." Or you could say "In order to get by car anywhere from New York, it is preferable to head to the west as opposed to south or north even though you still might go those directions.


It's truly astonishing over how many people Stef manages to hold this spell where he convinced them that somehow, because he pretended it's true, preference = requirement.


p.s.: So I want get accused of dodging anything:
A) Yes I have a preference for truth, but it's my own subjective preference.. just because I have it, it doesn't mean every single human being has it, ask any liar.
B) No, in order to find the truth(a subjective goal) using logic and evidence is REQUIRED behavior, just as in order to stay alive as a human being, eating is a REQUIRED behavior.
C) Just because anyone wouldn't take me seriously, doesn't mean I'd never prefer a lie over the truth, I mean come on, this is kindergarten stuff

[hazek]

Oh and I'd like you to address the bold bit:

It doesn't matter if you have two oranges, or two apples, or two dogs: the number two is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible 2 things).
It doesn't matter if you have a green chair, and a blue chair, and an old chair: the concept "chair" is valid in all of those cases (it fits every possible chair).

Get it now?

It doesn't matter if you hold "truth" to be objective and universally preferable in a debate, or if you have a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints in a debate or if you have a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers in a debate or if you have a deliberation/consideration in a debate: the concept of "debate" is valid in all of those cases(it fits every possible debate).

Yep I get it.

p.s.: there is no such thing as universally preferable, since preference is always subjective it can't possibly be universal, what is universal is a requirement, but a requirement != preference and this is something you wont even address..

[majamalu]

Last attempt:
Nobody said preference = requirement. You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required) to head to the west.

Bwahahahaha you can't be serious.. Do you not see you just contradicted yourself while pretended that preference = requirement when you said it is universally preferable(required) to head west? It's not preferable, it's required! Period.

You are not paying attention. Again: You have to clarify what preference, and for what purpose. Example: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable (required in this example) to head to the west.

May be you are confusing "prefered" with "preferable".

[hazek]

May be you are confusing "prefered" with "preferable".

Maybe you should learn that they mean one and the same but are not synonymous with required. 

pre·fer  (pr-fûr)
tr.v. pre·ferred, pre·fer·ring, pre·fers
1. To choose or be in the habit of choosing as more desirable or as having more value: prefers coffee to tea.
2. Law
a. To give priority or precedence to (a creditor).
b. To file, prosecute, or offer for consideration or resolution before a magistrate, court, or other legal authority: preferred the suit in a higher court.
3. Archaic To recommend for advancement or appointment; promote.


pref·er·a·ble  (prfr--bl, prfr-)
adj.
More desirable or worthy than another; preferred: Coffee is preferable to tea, I think.




Like I said, the spell Stef keeps you under is truly astonishing.

[majamalu]

May be you are confusing "prefered" with "preferable".

Maybe you should learn that they mean one and the same but are not synonymous with required. 

"Preferable" is for anyone: In order to get by car to Los Angeles from New York, it is universally preferable to head to the west.

That doesn't mean that you must prefer that. It only means that if you prefer to go to the east and act accordingly, you will not get by car to Los Angeles from New York.

[hazek]

Unbelievable.

Anyway you're too deep under so I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread.

I suggest you show Stef's argument and my points about it's flaws to an impartial 3rd party who hasn't yet been exposed to the argument and listen to their opinion which might perhaps wake you up and perhaps you can also report back to me what they tell you

[majamalu]

I know it's not easy to understand, because we are trained (by immoral institutions) to believe that morality is a matter of opinion.

Let me tell you: Your mistake is a dangerous one; it is the root of moral relativism (which, in turn, feeds violent institutions).

[cunicula]

I know it's not easy to understand, because we are trained (by immoral institutions) to believe that morality is a matter of opinion.

Let me tell you: Your mistake is a dangerous one; it is the root of moral relativism (which, in turn, feeds violent institutions).

If I was to make an introduction video explaining how and why to use the ignore button, it would feature the above post.