Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if both of them have agreed to the same standard of legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That should be understood as part of agreeing. Well, actually, no, not really. I don't think they need the same standard. As long as it fits both parties' standard, it doesn't really matter if it's the same standard or not.

Example: A thinks flipping a coin or dueling with pistols are legitimate interaction techniques. B thinks that flipping a coin or rock-paper-scissors are legitimate. They agree to flip a coin. This meets both of their standards.

[ QUOTE ]
This will often be the case since concepts of legitimacy are socially constructed and often become social norms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What follows from here should be fairly intuitive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you tell me what you mean by this?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean by that should be fairly intuitive.

Even if you allow for subjective morality, ultimately only voluntary interactions can be legitimate.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not making the claim that music is definitely 'objectively' good or bad. But you have yet to provide any reasoning for a very controversial position, and continue to speak as if the subjectiveness of right/wrong is 'necessary' and 'obvious', when the vast majority of philosophers would disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I apologize for my use of the word “obvious”.
I may be misusing the word ‘subjective’ since I’m a little fuzzy on its meaning. I’ll try to stick with ‘relative’.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you provide evidence for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Evidence for what? That many people in the art world would disagree with your claim?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that Picasso is a great painter.

[ QUOTE ]
Because if you are asking about empirical evidence of the kind found and used in the natural sciences, you are approaching the issue in an odd manner since physics and art are two very different things. But this doesn't imply that one is 'objective' and the other 'subjective'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’d be interested to hear whatever evidence you think is appropriate.

You are putting forth the challenging problem to me of proving/support why morals are relative. Our “common sense” views of things are very different so this is difficult. I guess the reason I consider morals relative is, because I simply can’t imagine them being absolute. I can’t think of any reasoning by which they could be. I mean how would you go about supporting a statement such as “theft is wrong” as being true? Can you show me how this can be done?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh no, ALaw has gone from preachy to ornery.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I am sick of trying to "help you understand my position" (which is what you claim to be doing, is it not?) when it's clear that you are just looking for odd ways to find logical flaws in my position.

If you're trying to argue against my position, at least admit it, and don't tell me you're just trying to understand it.

[ QUOTE ]
And my point was that I haven’t been talking about what I think would happen under the lack of government. I’m talking about the concepts of justification, legitimacy, ownership, morality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

And my position is that something is "legitimate" only when two people consent to it. Other than that, I don't see what possibly could make it "justified" or "legitimate."

You are trying to look at a vague hypothetical drunk driving situation. Since I think you don't have a right to violate someone else's property and I don't think you necessarily have a right to self-ownership under impairment, it should be pretty whoppingly clear why I think you can restrain a drunk driver and not necessarily violate anyone's property rights. Really, you can just concede that the logic adds up. The boogie monster will not come eat you if you do.

It doesn't even mean you have to admit it is the most reasonable interpretation of legitimacy. We can proceed to argue that. But it clearly adds up, and you (and wtfsi) are trying to suggest that there is some blatant flaw when there is not.

I tried to explain this all in less rigid terminology earlier to help you understand the line of reasoning. You said a lot of stuff that was off point (i.e. maybe nobody owns the roads or doesn't have rules against drunk driving!). Then when I get frustrated with you and try to point out why the instance of someone not owning the roads people drive on should not be considered, you accuse me of being a jerk. Just don't say things that make it seem like you are making no effort to understand my position if you don't want me to say you are making no effort to understand my position.

It's pretty standard procedure. Really, try to actually learn something about AC if you're gonna get all sensitive whenever I tell you you're not making sense.

If I ever say something that you think does not make sense, please, I *WANT* you to call this to my attention. I don't see the point of being "polite" in the way you mean it. I think it's more polite to call someone's mistakes to their attention, and give him the opportunity to defend himself or learn from it. If I'm overly rude, I really do apologize and really don't mean anything personal. But I'm not gonna stop pointing it out when I think you're making mistakes. Just focus on defending your reasoning and not on interpreting my criticism personally.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, if both of them have agreed to the same standard of legitimacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That should be understood as part of agreeing. Well, actually, no, not really. I don't think they need the same standard. As long as it fits both parties' standard, it doesn't really matter if it's the same standard or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Did I really agree to that. I missed the "right" and "wrong bit. All I really agree to is that if for legitimacy to exist between two parties they must have previously agreed to some common standard. You'll probably accuse me of backtracking to be difficult or something, but I'm being sincere. Just had a brain fart.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of trying to "help you understand my position" (which is what you claim to be doing, is it not?) when it's clear that you are just looking for odd ways to find logical flaws in my position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh dear. If I think something is a logical flaw I will argue that. If I disagree with something I will argue against it. If I don't understand your reasoning or position I will ask questions that I think will help me understand. If I disagree with the answers or think they're flawed I may say so. That doesn't mean I wasn't trying to understand. Arguing against ideas certainly can help clarify them. For instance if I point out what looks like a logical flaw and you explain why you think it's not then I should hopefully now better understand your position.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am sick of trying to "help you understand my position" (which is what you claim to be doing, is it not?) when it's clear that you are just looking for odd ways to find logical flaws in my position.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh dear. If I think something is a logical flaw I will argue that. If I disagree with something I will argue against it. If I don't understand your reasoning or position I will ask questions that I think will help me understand. If I disagree with the answers or think they're flawed I may say so. That doesn't mean I wasn't trying to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you persisted in erroneous ways. So, either you were being disingenuous or you were truly not getting it. Your pick.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
You are trying to look at a vague hypothetical drunk driving situation. Since I think you don't have a right to violate someone else's property and I don't think you necessarily have a right to self-ownership under impairment, it should be pretty whoppingly clear why I think you can restrain a drunk driver and not necessarily violate anyone's property rights. Really, you can just concede that the logic adds up. The boogie monster will not come eat you if you do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I’ve said I understand why you think that, multiple times. I don’t recall saying your logic didn’t add up on that point.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
If I ever say something that you think does not make sense, please, I *WANT* you to call this to my attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

But you persisted in erroneous ways. So, either you were being disingenuous or you were truly not getting it. Your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ (calling it to your attention)

Erroneous ways such as?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I ever say something that you think does not make sense, please, I *WANT* you to call this to my attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

But you persisted in erroneous ways. So, either you were being disingenuous or you were truly not getting it. Your pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

^ (calling it to your attention)

Erroneous ways such as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Lord.

What's the point of this? I've had enough of this "argument within an argument." When I said to call it to my attention if I ever said anything that doesn't make sense, I meant as it relates to the substance of the discussion. Not to these pointless arguments within an argument of who said what.

Thanks to the addition of wtfsvi (or whatever the name is) I can't even keep track of all the nonsense that's been said today alone, so no I'm not gonna go back and try to rehash it out of context. Just go back and read the thread if you want to see where I disagree with you.

What are we even talking about anymore?

Forget driving. It's a horrible example to use in the abstract, because so much depends on other factors (such as WHO OWNS THE ROADS and who else will be driving on them and why exactly we are stopping them). Let's use the case of a drunk person trying to jump off a cliff.

What exactly is your question? I have absolutely no idea what the point of this whole thing was. It's so blatantly simple that I can't even keep track of what the objections are.

You want to know why you're entitled to stop him?

My answer is: You'd have to believe he currently does not have self ownership.

Pvn said this originally as one of his 3 points. Your driving hypothetical was sloppy, but I tried to sloppily explain the reasoning. For now, let's stick with drunk cliff jumping.

But really, let's get back to the actual point of what started this discussion if there is really any need to continue this. Remind me what it is we are actually arguing.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
What are we even talking about anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]
My "posting habits". You were the one who found it relevant. I am merely defending myself.