Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Nick Danger]

By not voting, you cause the outcome of the election "by some measure"! By failing to support, say, Paul, you are electing Hillary.

What tripe.  This is the same argument interventionists use to justify "humanitarian" wars.  Only positive actions can "cause" anything. 

Why? Because you say so? Because it gives you an easy out?

[Nick Danger]

You've said that the State is a group of people.  Ergo, it has all the same rights as those people.  No more, and no less.

"It" is a group of people.  Each individual in that group has only the rights inhering in every other human being; the group itself has no rights.  Conversely, no individual accrues additional rights by virtue of belonging to a group.  Agents of the State, therefore, occupy the same moral plane as the rest of us, and are to be judged accordingly.

A group has the same rights as it's constitutent members.

I've got two philosophy degrees, and I declare this the worst use of "logic" on a BBS ever!

Well yeah, if you have "degrees," you must be right.

No, just been exposed to a lot of bad reasoning. And this is the worst.

If the Hitler is an actual entity, he has every right to defend himself against attack.

He does.

As I've stated, believing in the actual existence of Hitler makes one a Nazi.  If you believe in Hitler as an entity, then he must have all the rights of any other entity, including a right to exist.  You cannot claim to believe Hitler exists as a real entity, and not be claiming that he has every right to carry out his program of world conquest.

Apparently, you won't need to be demonstrating which sort of school those "degrees" came from...

"Exist" and "carry out his program of world conquest" are not equivalent statements.
[/quote]

Neither are "exist" and "have a right to exist."

I'm just trying to figure out how to "reason" like you, dude.

[Nick Danger]

Refusing to vote makes you morally responsible if your vote would have changed the outcome.  If you have a voice and do not use it, your silence is also an action.

This is fallacious.  No person has any obligation to act, unless he or she chooses to assume said obligation.

if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

True, but choice does not equal action.

In any standard theory of action it does.

[Nick Danger]

Refusing to vote makes you morally responsible if your vote would have changed the outcome.  If you have a voice and do not use it, your silence is also an action.

This is fallacious.  No person has any obligation to act, unless he or she chooses to assume said obligation.

if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

True, but choice does not equal action.

"For to do nothing and to be idle are also action, they too determine the course of events. Wherever the conditions for human interference are present, man acts no matter whether he interferes or refrains from interfering. He who endures what he could change acts no less than he who interferes in order to attain another result. A man who abstains from influencing the operation of physiological and instinctive factors which he could influence also acts. Action is not only doing but no less omitting to do what possibly could be done."

-- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

[Nick Danger]

By not voting, you cause the outcome of the election "by some measure"! By failing to support, say, Paul, you are electing Hillary.

What tripe.  This is the same argument interventionists use to justify "humanitarian" wars.

I have also seen interventionists use modus ponens. That must be tripe as well.

[MaineShark]

Neither are "exist" and "have a right to exist."

Uh, yes, they are, in that context.

I'm just trying to figure out how to "reason" like you, dude.

You went to a state school, didn't you?  Or was it one of those Internet "get a PHD for $10" offers?

Joe

[Nick Danger]

Neither are "exist" and "have a right to exist."

Uh, yes, they are, in that context.

So I suppose that here we just take your word for this?

The set of all even numbers exists. Does the set of all even numbers have a "right to exist"?

[MaineShark]

Uh, yes, they are, in that context.

So I suppose that here we just take your word for this?

Go ahead, if you like.

Of course, if you have all these "philosophy degrees," this shouldn't exactly be any new concept to you.

The set of all even numbers exists. Does the set of all even numbers have a "right to exist"?

"The set of even numbers" is an entity, in your imagination?

Joe

[Nick Danger]

Uh, yes, they are, in that context.

So I suppose that here we just take your word for this?

Go ahead, if you like.

Of course, if you have all these "philosophy degrees," this shouldn't exactly be any new concept to you.

The set of all even numbers exists. Does the set of all even numbers have a "right to exist"?

"The set of even numbers" is an entity, in your imagination?

Joe

In my imagination, and also in Wikipedia:
"An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity

Creating your own definitions for lots of the words you use makes communication with others very tricksy! You are apparently using some sort of unique, personal meanings for 'existence,' 'entity,' and 'right.' I'm sure, given those personal definitions, everything you have been saying makes perfect sense. But I don't see how you expect anyone else to follow you.

[MaineShark]

Creating your own definitions for lots of the words you use makes communication with others very tricksy! You are apparently using some sort of unique, personal meanings for 'existence,' 'entity,' and 'right.' I'm sure, given those personal definitions, everything you have been saying makes perfect sense. But I don't see how you expect anyone else to follow you.

Wikipedia already having benn addressed...

None of the definitions I use are "personal" or abnormal in any way.

Anyone with the most basic education in philosophy should be able follow what I've written here, with no difficulty.  I keep things simple and use plenty of analogies, precisely to make my writing "accessible" to a larger audience.

I write to an audience median IQ of roughly 110-115, which should match the median of the audience here pretty well.

Joe

[Nick Danger]

Creating your own definitions for lots of the words you use makes communication with others very tricksy! You are apparently using some sort of unique, personal meanings for 'existence,' 'entity,' and 'right.' I'm sure, given those personal definitions, everything you have been saying makes perfect sense. But I don't see how you expect anyone else to follow you.

Wikipedia already having benn addressed...

None of the definitions I use are "personal" or abnormal in any way.

Anyone with the most basic education in philosophy should be able follow what I've written here, with no difficulty.  I keep things simple and use plenty of analogies, precisely to make my writing "accessible" to a larger audience.

I write to an audience median IQ of roughly 110-115, which should match the median of the audience here pretty well.

Joe

Well, I have no clue what you are talking about. Let's try again. A rock is an entity. Does a rock have "a right to exist"?

[Nick Danger]

Creating your own definitions for lots of the words you use makes communication with others very tricksy! You are apparently using some sort of unique, personal meanings for 'existence,' 'entity,' and 'right.' I'm sure, given those personal definitions, everything you have been saying makes perfect sense. But I don't see how you expect anyone else to follow you.

Wikipedia already having benn addressed...

Whatever that's supposed to mean, but maybe Kurt Godel is good enough for you" "I say that one can (or should) develop a theory of classes as objectively existing entities..."

Hey, I've a pretty good imagination, don't I?

[Nick Danger]

Creating your own definitions for lots of the words you use makes communication with others very tricksy! You are apparently using some sort of unique, personal meanings for 'existence,' 'entity,' and 'right.' I'm sure, given those personal definitions, everything you have been saying makes perfect sense. But I don't see how you expect anyone else to follow you.

Wikipedia already having benn addressed...

Hey, or how about Frege?
'On Frege's "philosophy of logic", logic is made true by a realm of logical entities. Logical functions, value-ranges, and the truth-values the True and the False, are thought to be objectively real entities, existing apart from the material and mental worlds.'

[MaineShark]

Anyone with the most basic education in philosophy should be able follow what I've written here, with no difficulty.  I keep things simple and use plenty of analogies, precisely to make my writing "accessible" to a larger audience.

I write to an audience median IQ of roughly 110-115, which should match the median of the audience here pretty well.

Well, I have no clue what you are talking about.

That much is blatantly obvious...

Let's try again. A rock is an entity. Does a rock have "a right to exist"?

Is a rock made up of folks who have rights?

Joe

[Nick Danger]

Anyone with the most basic education in philosophy should be able follow what I've written here, with no difficulty.  I keep things simple and use plenty of analogies, precisely to make my writing "accessible" to a larger audience.

I write to an audience median IQ of roughly 110-115, which should match the median of the audience here pretty well.

Well, I have no clue what you are talking about.

That much is blatantly obvious...

Let's try again. A rock is an entity. Does a rock have "a right to exist"?

Is a rock made up of folks who have rights?

Joe

OK, now we have it: your idea is that if the members of a collective entity X have property P, then X has property P.

That is plainly false. The set of all even numbers is composed entirely of even numbers. But it itself is not an even number. The Green Bay Packers is composed of football players, but the Green Bay Packers is not a football player. If it turned out the Republican Party was all white males, that would not make the Republican Party a white male.

So the fact that the people making up a state have rights says nothing BY ITSELF about whether the state has rights. It may or it may not, but your argument is an example of the well know "fallacy of composition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition