Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member  (Read 17027 times)

Amazing Alfredo

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
  • I'm a Calvinist!
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2003, 05:27:26 pm »

Zack Bass;

When women are plentiful, Polygamy flourishes.

Which is why you'd like to "cull" male babies, right?

Beyond, you know, killing babies, you'd have to coerce any man who decides to increase his descendants by culling the girls instead, so that his offspring can each have dozens of children by multiple wives instead of a relative handful with one husband (plus his Y will get spread around a lot more). Not very libertarian.

"You're despicable."

"And you're stupid."

The best I can do to you off the top of my head is to say that this is no better than saying:
(1)  Everything I tell you is factually true.
(2)  I tell you that arguing with me is wrong.
Therefore the proposition "arguing with me is wrong" is factually true.
That doesn't pry out the fallacy, but it shows that one is in there.

No it doesn't.

If I had to guess, you think the gut reaction to the argument -- "That can't be right" -- proves it has to have a fallacy.

If you really believe that, I guess you think the following is also fallacious:

All Frenchmen are great statesmen.
Petain was a Frenchman.
Therefore Petain was a great statesman.

But it's OBVIOUSLY a perfectly valid syllogism.

You just find the premises of my syllogism absurd, as "Everything I tell you is factually true." clearly is. But a false premise is not a logical fallacy, it's a false premise. So my point still stands: it is possible to logically derive propositions about right and wrong from propositions dealing only with is.

Suppose, for the moment, both of your premises were actually true. Just how would you escape the conclusion? You can't. It's in the premises, in the manner of all valid syllogisms.

The fact that you happen not to believe in a Being whose every statement is true doesn't change the fact that if such a being exists and has chosen to speak about moral matters (which I believe to be the case), we would have a firm factual foundation for ethical reasoning.


First off, the should in that sentence is not a moral equivalence, please read 'it should be illegal to exclude certain parties from entering said contract by[because] the states own anti-discrimination laws" - meaning - the state has anti-discrimination laws, BY the states own definition, it SHOULD not discriminate in allowing contracts to be made between ANY two people (minors excluded, duh, etc etc).

The anti-discrimination laws don't apply to marriage licenses. Otherwise, there would already be gay marriage. Duh.

get out of the business altogether - we already (I think) agree on this point.  I thought we were discussing a partial step towards that end which I submit is 'allowing any adult persons to enter into any contract (martital or otherwise) that they desire'

How, exactly, is increasing the number of state marriage licenses and the number of persons who might get one a partial step toward abolishing them?

we will never get anywhere here, you are talking about the state not allowing the granting of Marriage licenses, I am talking about the state allowing the same.

Granted by whom? By the state. The state doesn't engage in "allowing the granting of Marriage licenses", it engages in granting them. I want it to stop. You say you want it to stop, but you also want it to grant more in the meantime.

Thank you for completely ignoring my first question with that strange statement, I guess I was creating too much dissonance in your mind about what is in man's nature.

Nope. I just deny that what men would do given, as Zack Bass says, "plentiful women", has as much to say about human nature as what men and women actually do in the world as it is.

Are you suggesting that agreements among people on what is right or wrong is a rejection of libertarianism?  You could be right, I am not really up on all the ramifications of all these "isms".

I'm suggesting that relativism is incompatible with any ism. In the case of libertarianism, the whole point is that the non-violation of rights is an ethical absolute.

If your premise is false you have no objective moral precepts.

And if it is, I do. Which takes us from the is/ought distinction, to the different question of what actually is.

You cannot prove the premise, therefore you have only your opinion.

Says you.

I suppose I can't prove my premise to you, but I don't care--

"Could you really persuade," he said, "if we don't listen?"
"There's no way," said Glaucon.

Your argument basically states "IF what I believe is right, than I am right."  It tells us nothing.

No more than any other valid syllogism.

If what I believe -- the premises -- are right, then I am right -- about the conclusion.
Nothing in life is free except love, and that's not free either.


  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:A Few Concerns From a Prospective Member
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2003, 05:47:31 pm »


As John Galt would say, "Check your premises".

So, other than being slightly amusing what's the point?

I mean in a hypothetical universe where your premises (say A and B are true) than A+B=C.

But absent proof of A and/or B what does this get you on a logical basis?

And by the way I would say that your first premise that an "omniscient being exists" is provably false.  

Omniscience is a logical impossibility. Because the the omniscient being would be part the universe of which it has all knowledge, meaning it would also have to have all knowledge not only of the universe but of its own self and mind, which gives rise to an infinite repeating pattern to be stored in something which is finite.

Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up