For moral relativists

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
off topic reply so I don't want this to derail the thread, but why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you were born into a society that is a certain way does not mean that it 'should' be that way, or that it is desirable.

The status quo is not 'correct' because it is the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your choices are to
A- Change your society
B- Find a society more to your liking
C- Live as a legal deviant, accepting the fact that you may face penalties if caught.
D- Live outside of society

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing more than a description of the status quo. It doesn't provide any sort of normative justificaiton for that state of affairs being the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
He asked "why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?" I was just laying out the alternatives. Maybe I misunderstood his post. I took it as a question rather than an argument. If it was an argument then it would appear to be somewhat of a straw man attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said the status quo is not justified by virtue of being the status quo. You responded with a description of the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is disputing what the status quo is. If someone makes a post suggesting that, for example, pot be decriminalized, do you respond by saying "but pot is illegal!!!" ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Decriminalizing pot would fall under category A. How did I imply that I'm opposed to changing the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Decriminalizing pot is not the same as suggesting that pot be decriminalized.

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a moral relativist out of preference or convenience, but because I see no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Makes me almost want to believe in God.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying that people shouldn't do what they think they should do, and instead do what you think they should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing dumb removed.

[ QUOTE ]
I would really love a place where everyone did what i think they should do, how can i have that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non Sequitur personal threat removed

[/ QUOTE ]Why shouldn't people do what they feel they should do, and instead to what PVN feels is morally correct?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
off topic reply so I don't want this to derail the thread, but why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you were born into a society that is a certain way does not mean that it 'should' be that way, or that it is desirable.

The status quo is not 'correct' because it is the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your choices are to
A- Change your society
B- Find a society more to your liking
C- Live as a legal deviant, accepting the fact that you may face penalties if caught.
D- Live outside of society

[/ QUOTE ]

This is nothing more than a description of the status quo. It doesn't provide any sort of normative justificaiton for that state of affairs being the status quo.

[/ QUOTE ]
He asked "why would you want to have your life and the rules you live by defined by some people who lived 200 years ago?" I was just laying out the alternatives. Maybe I misunderstood his post. I took it as a question rather than an argument. If it was an argument then it would appear to be somewhat of a straw man attack.
[ QUOTE ]

Nobody is disputing what the status quo is. If someone makes a post suggesting that, for example, pot be decriminalized, do you respond by saying "but pot is illegal!!!" ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Decriminalizing pot would fall under category A. How did I imply that I'm opposed to changing the law?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how ACists argue. Even if you want to change the status quo, youre still a filthy statist status quoist.

PVN, seriously, reread your response and bk's response to this guy. You guys are not debating with any intellectual honesty here.

[/ QUOTE ]

We both reject the fundamental way the society is run. When someone says "go fill out form J and sumbit it to beaurocrat Jones if you don't like it" we don't think any of that is legitimate.

We want government to be gone and want people to simply live the way they choose as long as they are not agresssing against others. We don't want an organized power structure we are beholden to. So when someone says "hey you can go to the power structure and complain" we know we CAN do that but the whole point is that we want that power structure we are beholden to dismantled/gone.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
What he is saying is that group 1 is doing what they think they should do and it involves forcing the minority into following their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ] In varying degrees, and extents this might be unavoidable.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody is arguing that democracy isnt effective at what it does, just that we dont believe its a moral way to run society.

[/ QUOTE ] Some people do.

[ QUOTE ]
By all means use your overwhelming force to make decisions for my life, theres not much I can do about it.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't have any overwhelming force, and there are things you can do about.

[ QUOTE ]
Just dont expect me to praise your corrupt system of governance.

[/ QUOTE ] I don't, why would I expect you to praise a corrupt system? It seems like one should oppose corruption.

[ QUOTE ]
At least a mugger doesnt expect me to appreciate what he is doing to me.

[/ QUOTE ] Most people don't believe that government and muggers are the same.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a moral relativist out of preference or convenience, but because I see no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Makes me almost want to believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think God negates moral relativism.
Unless you redefine "good" as meaning "preferable to God" and "bad" as meaning "not preferable to God".

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a moral relativist out of preference or convenience, but because I see no way around it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Makes me almost want to believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think God negates moral relativism.
Unless you redefine "good" as meaning "preferable to God" and "bad" as meaning "not preferable to God".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much so. I was refering to a perfectly moral god.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not ignore those things. They are right there in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? You've got one half of the problem (you might not find someone who will take you) but ignored the first half (you might not be able to get out).

[/ QUOTE ] You're right. I didn't include that. Getting out wasn't a problem in my example society. If that is a problem I agree that that is messed up.


[ QUOTE ]
This is totally moving goal posts. I don't have to move into an existing barber shop to compete with an established barber.

[/ QUOTE ] What are you talking about? You said your barber does not use force to maintain territorial monopoly. The way I understand that term that is exactly what he does. Maybe I misunderstand what territorial monopoly means, though?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A "love it or leave it" arrangement is not voluntary - unless the party issuing the ultimatum is the rightful owner of the property one must leave if he does not agree to the proposal.

[/ QUOTE ] So who says who the rightful owner is? I bet most people would think the american people are the rightful owners to the land in the U.S, yet you don't accept a "love it or leave it" arrangement from the american people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The american people own the land in the US? How come I didn't get a check for my portion of the sale of the house next door to me?

How come the Government doesn't claim to own my property? In fact, they specifically *deny* that claim.

[/ QUOTE ] Ok. So you want whoever owns the land to have the power that government has now. That might be better or worse or the same, but do you really think that it is the only way to have a "consistant moral system"? That is really ridiculous.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I did not ignore those things. They are right there in my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? You've got one half of the problem (you might not find someone who will take you) but ignored the first half (you might not be able to get out).

[/ QUOTE ] You're right. I didn't include that. Getting out wasn't a problem in my example society. If that is a problem I agree that that is messed up.

[/ QUOTE ]


Maybe there should be a new tax where everyone with a net worth under say 500K can go collect 300K and a free ticket to any country of their choice.

I wonder who would love the USA then?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe there should be a new tax where everyone with a net worth under say 500K can go collect 300K and a free ticket to any country of their choice.

I wonder who would love the USA then?

[/ QUOTE ] It happens again and again. I have no idea where you people get your strawmen from. I guess I'll just chalk it up to English not being my first language and give up.