Border crises

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:29 pm
Did I get your view correct? Would you like to modify my summary?
Whatever made you think I am defending a view of any sort? I am simply persuading you by using your own dogmas against you.

Do you accept or reject the premise: God designed humans to recognise right and wrong.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:39 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:31 pm
Whatever made you think I am defending a view of any sort?
Well, you asserted that you knew about things that you said are "right," or at least "not wrong," or "becoming so." And all I asked is how you knew anything about these things. That seems fair enough.

But for some reason, you can't seem to explain how you discern the "not wrong."

I've tried as hard as I can to be fair in summarizing your statements in those three points. And you don't want to own them or even modify them and correct me, so I can see your view.

I've got to wonder why....

Skepdick
Posts: 831
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Skepdick » Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:41 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:39 pm
I've got to wonder why....
Because I am arguing in bad faith (which is rather weird, since I am not supposed to say this)

Does the fact that I am arguing in bad faith make my argument invalid?

Surely you are smart enough to see that answering 'yes' to the above makes you guilty of ad-hominem.

I am an asshole. But if my argument is sound and valid, I do believe you are going to have to concede to my point. These are your words and your principles after all. Do you not want me to hold you accountable to them?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:26 pm
Imagine...a person is here to actually do what philosophy is supposed to do...to make us wiser. And (s)he has the integrity and common sense to change an opinion when circumstances warrant it? Wow.
I notice you are still dodging the question, despite your faith.

Do you accept or reject the premise: God designed humans to recognise right and wrong.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:49 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 5:39 pm
I've got to wonder why....
Because I am arguing in bad faith (which is rather weird, since I am not supposed to say this)

Does the fact that I am arguing in bad faith make my argument invalid?
No. But I don't have much time for insincere conversations, if that's what you're suggesting. Life's too short.
But if my argument is sound and valid, I do believe you are going to have to concede to my point.
It isn't, of course. It's got at least one faulty premise. But I think that since you say you're uninterested in the issue of truth here, there's not much point in pursuing that.

Have a nice day.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:01 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases.
If it takes differences into account, “absolute” loses 15/16 of its meaning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
For example, "Thou shalt not murder" is absolute. But it does not imply "You shall not kill in defence of your family," or "You shall not kill by accident."
Definitions are explicit; they do not imply anything further.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
The absence of malice and the absence of the possibility of preventing death are both what philosophy calls "excusing conditions" for the moral prohibition against killing.
Murder is unlawful killing. If unlawful killing is to be proscribed while at the same time killing that is not unlawful is morally acceptable, then indeed excusing conditions have been applied. This would make killing subject to conditions. A thing that is conditional is a thing that is relative.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
So an absolute can be applicable to different circumstances without becoming "relative."
So you say, and I say the opposite. And this is the crux of the disagreement. See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
...to think that an absolute entails that it "must be implied [Sic] in the same manner" without regard for relevant differences in situation is untrue.
Taking into account any differences results in a differential kind of absolute; ie a conditional absolute, ie a relative absolute; ie something that is not absolute.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
...whether an absolute is being "applied" is not the issue, since it is possible for human beings to fail to "apply" what they know to be the right thing to do.
My mistake. I might have said “does not pertain” or “does not apply” instead of “is not applied”. By using the transitive form, I would have clarified that I was referring to when something is applicable regardless of whether people actually apply it or not.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
One can have an absolute moral responsibility, but nuance it by situation.
To nuance an absolute moral obligation by situation is to change it to a situational responsibility.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
Premeditated murder is absolutely wrong.
Premeditated murder is qualified murder. Qualified is conditional, situational, relative.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
Now you've slid the term "limited" over to mean "not absolute," instead of "able to be understood better by considering circumstance." That creates what's called an "amphiboly," which is a fallacy, a fault in logic.
Absolute is not limited. Limited is not absolute.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
From where do you acquire this certainty? What tells you it's true?
To live the good life, one must try to be an altruist. Harming another is anathema to altruism.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
You've understood "absolute" to mean different things: you think it means "indifferent to circumstances," or "rigidly enforced," or "devoid of excusing conditions." It means none of those things.
You could probably convince me of what you’re saying by referencing the dictionary that supports the idea that absolute is not indifferent, rigid, or subject to conditions.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
It simply means that, given the circumstances that define a particular act (like "murder," which is defined by deliberate killing of a human being, and by malice aforethought) the moral prohibition is absolute. It does not mean that we disregard the definitional conditions that make a thing actual "murder" in the first place.
Yes, murder is a particular kind of killing—one that is deliberate and often premeditated in terms of malice.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
A more subtle understanding of what an "absolute moral prohibition" is will disabuse you of this confusion.
Ditto

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by commonsense » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:03 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases.
If it takes differences into account, “absolute” loses 15/16 of its meaning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
For example, "Thou shalt not murder" is absolute. But it does not imply "You shall not kill in defence of your family," or "You shall not kill by accident."
Definitions are explicit; they do not imply anything further.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
The absence of malice and the absence of the possibility of preventing death are both what philosophy calls "excusing conditions" for the moral prohibition against killing.
Murder is unlawful killing. If unlawful killing is to be proscribed while at the same time killing that is not unlawful is morally acceptable, then indeed excusing conditions have been applied. This would make killing subject to conditions. A thing that is conditional is a thing that is relative.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
So an absolute can be applicable to different circumstances without becoming "relative."
So you say, and I say the opposite. And this is the crux of the disagreement. See also:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
...to think that an absolute entails that it "must be implied [Sic] in the same manner" without regard for relevant differences in situation is untrue.
Taking into account any differences results in a differential kind of absolute; ie a conditional absolute, ie a relative absolute; ie something that is not absolute.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
...whether an absolute is being "applied" is not the issue, since it is possible for human beings to fail to "apply" what they know to be the right thing to do.
My mistake. I might have said “does not pertain” or “does not apply” instead of “is not applied”. By using the transitive form, I would have clarified that I was referring to when something is applicable regardless of whether people actually apply it or not.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
One can have an absolute moral responsibility, but nuance it by situation.
To nuance an absolute moral obligation by situation is to change it to a situational responsibility.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
Premeditated murder is absolutely wrong.
Premeditated murder is qualified murder. Qualified is conditional, situational, relative.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
Now you've slid the term "limited" over to mean "not absolute," instead of "able to be understood better by considering circumstance." That creates what's called an "amphiboly," which is a fallacy, a fault in logic.
Absolute is not limited. Limited is not absolute.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
From where do you acquire this certainty? What tells you it's true?
To live the good life, one must try to be an altruist. Harming another is anathema to altruism.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
You've understood "absolute" to mean different things: you think it means "indifferent to circumstances," or "rigidly enforced," or "devoid of excusing conditions." It means none of those things.
You could probably convince me of what you’re saying by referencing the dictionary that supports the idea that absolute is not indifferent, rigid, or immune to conditions.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
It simply means that, given the circumstances that define a particular act (like "murder," which is defined by deliberate killing of a human being, and by malice aforethought) the moral prohibition is absolute. It does not mean that we disregard the definitional conditions that make a thing actual "murder" in the first place.
Yes, murder is a particular kind of killing—one that is deliberate and often premeditated in terms of malice. As it is a particular kind of a thing, it must be subject to conditional characteristics of that thing.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
A more subtle understanding of what an "absolute moral prohibition" is will disabuse you of this confusion.
Ditto

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5909
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Border crises

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:19 pm

commonsense wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
There is no requirement that an absolute must be clumsy in application. It can take into account differences that matter in specific cases.
If it takes differences into account, “absolute” loses 15/16 of its meaning.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolute
"Absolute" is an adjective. You can have an "absolute" prohibition against one thing, but not against another. "Thou shalt not murder" is an absolute. It admits of no exceptions. But "murder" is a definable action -- it requires particular circumstances to be definable AS murder.

So the definition of "absolute" is not being questioned here. It's the interpretation of the associated noun.
Definitions are explicit; they do not imply anything further.
If this were true, all words in any dictionary would only be defined once. Check and see if that's how it actually is.
Taking into account any differences results in a differential kind of absolute; ie a conditional absolute, ie a relative absolute; ie something that is not absolute.
Again, you're mistaken. It's not "absolute" that is under question here: it's its application to particular nouns or moral injunctions. Again, "absolute" is an adjective -- that means it needs a noun to establish its application.

An "absolute" success is the opposite of an "absolute" disaster. The adjective's the same, but in this case, the noun changes everything.
“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
One can have an absolute moral responsibility, but nuance it by situation.
To nuance an absolute moral obligation by situation is to change it to a situational responsibility.
I wondered if you were making this error.

No, it's not.

There are laws, and then there are applications of laws.

We have, for example, prohibitions against "theft." That's absolute: if you genuinely stole somebody's property, you deserve punishment -- no question, no exceptions. But the question is, "Did you genuinely steal?" Did you have criminal intent, when you took the property? Did you know it was someone else's? Did you know whose it was? Did you intend to keep it, or to restore it to its owner? And so on.

So the law itself is absolute. But the application is dependent on the particular circumstances that pertain to each case. That does not make the law itself "relative."

“Immanuel Can” wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:34 pm
Premeditated murder is absolutely wrong.
Premeditated murder is qualified murder. Qualified is conditional, situational, relative.
Again, incorrect.

All adjectives are "qualifiers." But when you add a different adjective to a noun, instead of making the term to which it refers LESS precise, it generally makes it MORE exact.

You can see this in the case of "premeditated killing," or "murder." "Unpremeditated killing" becomes "manslaughter," not "murder." "Accidental killing" becomes either "criminal negligence" (if the possibility was known), or no crime at all. In each case, the noun's the same, but the adjective alters its outcome.
From where do you acquire this certainty? What tells you it's true?
To live the good life, one must try to be an altruist. Harming another is anathema to altruism.
What scheme of morals entitles you to invest the word "altruist" with the connotation "part of the good life"?

Rand or Nietzsche would say that self-interest was the highest good: what master-scheme of morals, applicable to both you and them, makes your view right, and theirs wrong?
You could probably convince me of what you’re saying by referencing the dictionary that supports the idea that absolute is not indifferent, rigid, or subject to conditions.
See the importance of the noun-adjective relation, as detailed above.

Nick_A
Posts: 3980
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Border crises

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:46 pm

The important thing to remember is that the border crisis has nothing to do with concern for people. It is a means for furthering two goals: power and socialism by means of the Cloward-Piven strategy. Overload the system and it must crumble inviting statist slavery to restore order leading to worse results.

The left is without shame. It believes that their imagined ends justify their egoistic means regardless of how cruel the suffering they impose on people unable to know better. An absolute disgrace.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests