IS and OUGHT

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

If you aren't going to explain how this right is created, backed, granted and so on
Oh, I have backed it, minimally at least, with the fact everyone knows he is own, knows that his life, his, liberty, his property is his and no one else's.

The source of this knowing doesn't change the fact everyone knows this about themselves.

*
you have no way to deonstrate additional shit
In this thread I'm demonstrating as moral reality or amoral survival trait it can undergird an ethical system of is & ought.

Really, is there anyone here who objects to the idea that he is a free man with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property?

*
Your work is lazy and bad.
As is the work of anyone who proposes an ethical system.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:59 pm
I have never disputed that people by their nature all want autonomy. I am disputing the bullshit notion that you can or must limit rights to some set that you derive from this.
Where is the limit in flash is a free man with a right to his life, liberty, and property; Henry is a free man with a right to his life liberty and property; neither have any claim on the other?

It's there, minimal & sensible. It is: flash doesn't get to do diddly with another's life, liberty, and property; Henry doesn't get to do diddly with another's life, liberty, and property.
If you aren't going to explain how this right is created, backed, granted and so on ... which you claim doesn't matter...
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:55 pm Whether this knowing is built into him by The Creator or is simply some peculiarly specific survival trait, is irrelevant, I think.
... Then you have no way to demonstrate additional shit. Things under the heading of additional shit include that this is the only right. Or that only rights that derive from this are "real". Nor even that this is some primary right that must not be overridden for any other right.

Just leaving shit out when you reply doesn't change that there is a massive absense in your reasoning Henry.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

In a free country I may grow facial hair if I so choose.
You can do that, if you can do that, any time, any where, you like. You belong to you. Do with yourself as you choose.

*
Neither you, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Pope in Rome is going to dictate to me what I choose to be designated as.
And not you, the PM, the fella with the funny hat, or God Himself can compel me to call you man when I know you're woman.

*
You are so traditional in a dictatorial fashion that you come across as a paradigm case of male chauvinism.
I only lay claim to myself so, in that sense, I am dictatorial. I have no claim on you. Do as you will. Grow a beard down to your knees. Think of yourself as the manliest man in the whole of Creation. I won't stop you. I have no right to.
promethean75
Posts: 4931
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by promethean75 »

"I won't stop you. I have no right to."

You can and you must, Henry Quirk.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

If you aren't going to explain how this right is created, backed, granted and so on ... which you claim doesn't matter
Then it doesn't matter. No ethical system does. Do as thy will is the whole of the law (oh, wait, that has no backing either).

*
you have no way to demonstrate additional shit. Things under the heading of additional shit include that this is the only right. Or that only rights that derive from this are "real". Nor even that this is some primary right that must not be overridden for any other right.
Okay.

*
Just leaving shit out when you reply doesn't change that there is a massive absense in your reasoning Henry.
Okay.

So: what's your address? As you apparently have no claim to yourself -- practically or morally -- I wanna get in there while the getttin's good and leash you. I got all kinds of work for you...and I'm not shy with the whip.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:16 pm "I won't stop you. I have no right to."

You can and you must, Henry Quirk.
Why?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Yeah, I was asking you why your one and moral principle that you have noticed has to be the only one, or the main one, or the one that never gives way to any other Henry. The fact you can't even deal with that after 10 or 20 years of this stuff is not a me problem.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:26 pm Yeah, I was asking you why your one and moral principle, that you have noticed, has to be the only one, or the main one, or the one that never gives way to any other, Henry. The fact you can't even deal with that after 10 or 20 years of this stuff is not a me problem.
C'mon, Flash, I'm acknowldegin' I can't give you what you're askin' for, that bein' a moral fact.

And, in thread, I haven't tried.

What I have done is point out a fact and suggested an ethical system can be derived from it.

Sure, in the past, I've argued hard and long about the moral reality of natural rights.

But, as you have so often done with related stuff, you dissuaded me from all pursuin' that some time back.

Now, I believe natural rights -- my life, liberty, and property are mine; your life, liberty, and property are yours; neither of us have a claim to the other's life, liberty, and property -- is moral reality. But I accept you do not.

And, since -- without backin' -- you say...
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:36 pmYou hae the right to be treated in accord with the gender that you know yourself to be
...I generalize that you have a right, without backin', to be treated as you like across the board, in keepin' with what you know yourself to be: you have no claim to yourself; you have no right to your life, liberty, or property; the leash, when applied, is of no consequence to you; your outrage at such a thing is irrelevant; you have no reason to resist the leash other than I don't like it.

Your address?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by FlashDangerpants »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 4:09 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:26 pm Yeah, I was asking you why your one and moral principle, that you have noticed, has to be the only one, or the main one, or the one that never gives way to any other, Henry. The fact you can't even deal with that after 10 or 20 years of this stuff is not a me problem.
C'mon, Flash, I'm acknowldegin' I can't give you what you're askin' for, that bein' a moral fact.

And, in thread, I haven't tried.

What I have done is point out a fact and suggested an ethical system can be derived from it.

Sure, in the past, I've argued hard and long about the moral reality of natural rights.

But, as you have so often done with related stuff, you dissuaded me from all pursuin' that some time back.

Now, I believe natural rights -- my life, liberty, and property are mine; your life, liberty, and property are yours; neither of us have a claim to the other's life, liberty, and property -- is moral reality. But I accept you do not.

And, since -- without backin' -- you say...
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:36 pmYou hae the right to be treated in accord with the gender that you know yourself to be
...I generalize that you have a right, without backin', to be treated as you like across the board, in keepin' with what you know yourself to be: you have no claim to yourself; you have no right to your life, liberty, or property; the leash, when applied, is of no consequence to you; your outrage at such a thing is irrelevant; you have no reason to resist the leash other than I don't like it.

Your address?
You see the first part of what you write and second part don't seem to agree much with each other.

I'm asking you what makes this principle that you do like so much better than principles that other people like? And I'm mainly getting sulky attitude in return.

But if somebody else cooks up a set of rights including not to die of poverty and shit, then everyone agrees that this supersedes your right to not pay any taxes, you can whitter about every inconvenience you ever experience being slavery as much as you like, it's just a case of your prefererred right being overridden for a purpose in accordance with other rights. I know what your opinion agianst that is, but I don't see anything that makes one particular opinion special against all the others out there.

So there's nothing wrong with Harbal's position on the matter of rights.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:13 pm
In a free country I may grow facial hair if I so choose.
You can do that, if you can do that, any time, any where, you like. You belong to you. Do with yourself as you choose.

*
Neither you, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Pope in Rome is going to dictate to me what I choose to be designated as.
And not you, the PM, the fella with the funny hat, or God Himself can compel me to call you man when I know you're woman.

*
You are so traditional in a dictatorial fashion that you come across as a paradigm case of male chauvinism.
I only lay claim to myself so, in that sense, I am dictatorial. I have no claim on you. Do as you will. Grow a beard down to your knees. Think of yourself as the manliest man in the whole of Creation. I won't stop you. I have no right to.
If you don't own me, which you don't, then you have no claim to "know" what sex I am, or what gender I am, or anything else I can legally choose to attribute to me. Your vaunted 'knowledge', Henry, is what you choose to believe.

There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

I'm asking you what makes this principle that you do like so much better than principles that other people like? And I'm mainly getting sulky attitude in return.
No, what you're gettin' is: I can't give you what you want. I can ask, and have asked, is there anyone here who objects to the idea that he is a free man with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property? and I can point to an ethical system based on each of us bein' free men, each with a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property, as bein' better (how can it not be?). But I can't, to the amoralist, show this as moral fact.

*
But if somebody else cooks up a set of rights including not to die of poverty and shit, then everyone agrees that this supersedes your right to not pay any taxes, you can whitter about every inconvenience you ever experience being slavery as much as you like, it's just a case of your prefererred right being overriden for a purpose in accordance with other rights. I know what your opinion agianst that is, but I don't see anything that makes one particular opinion special against all the others out there.
Oh, from your perspective as someone with no claim to yourself, the majority wins...not becuz the majority is right but simply becuz they are the majority. And you, with no claim to anything (other than what's allowed by the majority), well, you may not like what the majority demands of you, or restricts you to or from, but -- if you're gonna be consistent (and, of course, you don't have to be) -- you have no foundation to resist. If your government, backed by the will of the people, decides trannies are a menace that must be contained or eliminated, well, them's the breaks. You certainly can't argue (well, you can, but who'd take you seriously?) the trans-person has any rights. you could argue they have privileges, sure, but that's all (understandin', of course, that what the people give, the people can take away).

Taxes: now, you, as you have no claim to diddly (beyond what is granted you by the majority) you'll pay, you have no reason not to other than I don't like it. Doesn't matter if it's feeding the poor or buildin' bombs. You have no real objection to offer. Certainly, you can't claim anyone has a right to food or no right to bombs (well, you can but it has no backin').

*
So there's nothing wrong with Harbal's position on the matter of rights.
He was in & out so fast, I don't recall what his position was.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:02 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:13 pm
In a free country I may grow facial hair if I so choose.
You can do that, if you can do that, any time, any where, you like. You belong to you. Do with yourself as you choose.

*
Neither you, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Pope in Rome is going to dictate to me what I choose to be designated as.
And not you, the PM, the fella with the funny hat, or God Himself can compel me to call you man when I know you're woman.

*
You are so traditional in a dictatorial fashion that you come across as a paradigm case of male chauvinism.
I only lay claim to myself so, in that sense, I am dictatorial. I have no claim on you. Do as you will. Grow a beard down to your knees. Think of yourself as the manliest man in the whole of Creation. I won't stop you. I have no right to.
If you don't own me, which you don't, then you have no claim to "know" what sex I am, or what gender I am, or anything else I can legally choose to attribute to me. Your vaunted 'knowledge', Henry, is what you choose to believe.
Then I shall call you it.

Objections?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

flash,

This?
Harbal wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:07 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 12:54 pm If you were overpowered and leashed, treated as property: is this wrong?
It would be very wrong as far as I was concerned, and I would do what I could to get out of that situation.

If nobody else thought it was wrong I would be left to deal with the problem on my own.
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 1:14 pm
It would be very wrong as far as I was concerned, and I would do what I could to get out of that situation.
Yes, and everyone else thinks the same thing: It would be wrong to leash me and I'll escape when or if I can.

Even the slaver thinks this.
If nobody else thought it was wrong I would be left to deal with the problem on my own.
Oh, there's a whole whack of folks who'll leash you, but not a one of them will willingly accept the leash.

Every one, any one, knows he is his own.
But, we've established none of this works for you.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:06 pm
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:02 pm
henry quirk wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 3:13 pm

You can do that, if you can do that, any time, any where, you like. You belong to you. Do with yourself as you choose.

*



And not you, the PM, the fella with the funny hat, or God Himself can compel me to call you man when I know you're woman.

*



I only lay claim to myself so, in that sense, I am dictatorial. I have no claim on you. Do as you will. Grow a beard down to your knees. Think of yourself as the manliest man in the whole of Creation. I won't stop you. I have no right to.
If you don't own me, which you don't, then you have no claim to "know" what sex I am, or what gender I am, or anything else I can legally choose to attribute to me. Your vaunted 'knowledge', Henry, is what you choose to believe.
Then I shall call you it.

Objections?
No, I shall call you she/he/it. Covers all the bases.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Belinda »

Henry, if you call me "it" that would be like you misspelling Belinda. It would be a typo error, as you know I am a person not a thing. Things don't express feelings . You attribute "bleeding heart " to me therefore you believe I'm a person not a thing. You can call me "he" if you like and I would not mind.

BTW There is no statutory definition of biological sex in the US nor universally.
Last edited by Belinda on Tue Aug 09, 2022 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply