Total posts: 3,192
-->
@PressF4Respect
how is the bible credible?
Credible in which context? Historical accuracy? I lack observational data to render a conclusive judgement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If you want to use an old book to make your case, you must first substantiate the claim that your old book is a reliable source for your particular claim.
What is "reliable"?
Would a Christian be convinced that Shiva is real by a few quotes from the ancient Hindu scriptures?I'm going to guess they wouldn't.
In other words, you're incredulous.
Therefore, how can a Christian expect to convince a Hindu that their version of god is true by referring to their own old book?
But this conclusion is based on your own incredulity. Is the resolution informed by that which a Christian "expects" or that which a Christian does?
The same logic applies to any and all unfalsifiable claims (like BigFoot).
Okay.
In order to maintain a coherent belief system, you must apply the same Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence to every claim.
Okay.
If you make exceptions for certain claims without qualifying those exceptions then you are guilty of "special-pleading".
Where and by whom were these exceptions made?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would they have to without their "old book"?You stated that the claimant has the Burden-of-Proof.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Thank you Athias!
No problem.
What is your IQ? It has to be astronomical.
I don't subscribe to the "psychometric" known as "I.Q." But, I do consider myself fairly intelligent.
Who are you? I'm trying not to gush!
Athias is a family name. So it isn't necessarily a pseudonym. For all intents and purposes, I am Athias.
OK. This is my pet peeve with so many atheists, they so often debate the cartoon Christian in their minds, and not me.
It's clear that they're strawmanning you--or at the very least, attempting to strawman you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes. But this comes after zedvictor had already asserted that it was a delusion. Zedvictor didn't particularly substantiate that assertion. Instead, zedvictor attempted to shift the burden to ethang5.Can you prove that some spirituality [...] isn't delusion? = Can you prove that some spirituality [...] is TRUE?
All spirituality (BigFoot) is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS (LochNessMonster).
Who made this claim?
This claim highlights a lack of Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence.
Redundant.
Can followers of JESUS prove that other religion's gods are false, WITHOUT using their own old book?
Why would they have to?
You can't argue that because you think the LochNessMonster is real, therefore BigFoot is false.
No one other than you has stated that.
The Christians believe that the Hindus are delusional.
Which Christians?
The Hindus believe the Christians are delusional.
Which Hindus?
How can you tell which one is "correct"?
To the exclusion of the other? That's subjective.
Is it possible they are both right?Is it possible they are both wrong?
I extend my previous argument.
What Uniform-Standards-of-Evidence can be applied?
Is the application of Uniform Standards of Evidence necessary? If so, what's the reason?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I imagine there was some sarcasm involved. Be that as it may, the suggestion is still "spirituality is delusional." In their attempts to pathologize religious belief and/or spirituality, they've resorted to making sophistic arguments. Now that they have, I ask only that they substantiate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Religion is all about you, God and your relationship with God.
That isn't necessarily true. Religion can focus on community and culture. And since Religion is often associated (if not inextricably) with a moral framework, it cannot be "all about" you. Of course, being a moral agent starts with you.
Why do people believe in God?
Belief is subjective; therefore, you'd have to be specific about which people. I've frequently repeated on these Religion subjects that I believe God exists because I can.
Most were trained from birth to believe, others begin to believe later.
So? Unless you're implying some moral defect in training children, can it not be argued that all children have been and ought to be trained?
Believers believe because they don't want to go to hell of course, that's one big thing.They do want to go to heaven, that's another thing.They want to be better more disciplined people, which is an advantage.They want to feel better and many report feeling more content as a result.They may want to quit drinking or have some other life crisis that can be eased by the adoption of religion.
Those could be apart of it, yes.
There are probably a lot of reasons, but they are all about you and what is going on inside you.Religion is an inwardly focused activity and that's what it's about.
I disagree for the reasons I mentioned above.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Burden-of-Proof.Can you prove that BigFoot is false? If you can't prove that BigFoot is false, then BigFoot must be TRUE!Can you prove that Shiva is false? If you can't prove that Shiva is false, then Shiva must be TRUE!Failure to disprove BigFoot is false DOES NOT PROVE BigFoot is REAL.In science this is called an UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIM. [LINK]
This is rather sophisitic. The unfalsifiable claim originated with zedvictor's question:
Can you prove that some spirituality isn't delusion?
And you answered:
All spirituality is delusional except for the spiritual followers of JESUS.
Ethang5 is not bound to substantiate the negation of zedvictor's claim, nor is Ethang5 suggesting that in the failure to substantiate your position, his position is validated. Both you and zedvictor made claims (as evidenced by the quotes.) You ought to substantiate them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Was that a reference to the entire argument? Nevertheless, I don't accept anything as a given when information to its veracity is not provided. It's fine. Dropping the argument is your prerogative.I'm not sure why you bothered to write out that long post when you were going to refuse to accept a condition for continuing an argument. Regardless, if and when you accept that children and adults have significant biological and psychological differences, we can continue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Neither. When a child is capable of communicating its own interests, the child should decide. There's a fairly sappy movie that has an interesting take on the subject known as "My Sister's Keeper."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Your definition is not correct
My definition is correct.
I would ask
You can ask.
that you do not edit the content of my statements when quoting them.
I didn't merely edit. I corrected.
Epistemological concerns are not relevant. We're talking about this scenario as omniscient third parties.
Epistemological concerns are most certainly relevant, and we're not taking about this scenario as omniscient third parties. If you're going to claim omniscience, then substantiate it.
I still don't know what it means to "forcefully keep" information away from someone. All you have to do to keep information away from someone is not give it. No "force" is required.
Or destroy it; or physically keep someone from accessing it (e.g. detention, false imprisonment, etc.)
"of or relating to the will or power of choosing"
All of which speaks to capacity and discretion, not a particular option.
A person can only choose among options they are aware of.
No. It only dictates the parameters of their options. It affects neither their ability to choose nor their discretion.
You are not in a position to tell me what I'm presuming.
Yes, I am. Your reasoning is present in your argument. As long as I discern said reasoning, I am in a position to tell you that which you are presuming.
Yes it is since the only way to obtain that information is to receive it from the person that has it.
And there's no way for you to know whether or not the information exists if the only source is withholding it. Therefore, you're in no position to conclude that information is being withheld. And no, assuming you're an omniscient third party does not suffice.
I take it as a given that the babysitter wouldn't willingly accept a lower amount if a higher amount was offered. Ergo, whatever amount they settled on is necessarily the highest amount that was offered.
So then why is a teenage babysitter "underpaid" if he or she works for $6?
No, I am not going to give you a crash course in human biology and development. You can take it as a given that children and adults are different biologically and psychologically or we can just cease the conversation.
I didn't ask you for a crash-course. I asked that you explain the reason the differences between adults and minors are a given. If you don't wish to substantiate your point, then you can drop the argument.
I don't need to do that. We're talking about a hypothetical scenario in which we've defined the constraints. That the employer could have offered more is a given in the scenario. If you object to that premise you should have done so a long time ago. Regardless, it's the scenario we are talking about.
No we're not. I gave you real-word examples. Any hypothetical was supplementary and meant to inform the context on which we base our contentions. You claimed that teenage babysitters working for $6 is underpaid. And to a larger point that anyone working for the lowest amount is being "duped." That's not a hypothetical scenario.
Yes I did.
No, you didn't. You're just gerrymandering words in service to your platitude.
That would be a subjective judgement.
So then how is it that you're concluding that minors bear an incapacity to negotiate to an extent which benefits them more, when you, and not they, are the subject of that assessment?
Yes, the specific part you bolded is talking about expression. But that is not the entirety of my comment.
Obviously. Did I not quote your entire comment?
To wit you glossed over the "in realizing" part.
I didn't gloss over it. I've already submitted a counterargument to your claim that children don't know/realize that which is in their best interests.
You do not know what a reductio ad absurdum is despite my explaining it to you.
I do know the description of a reductio ad absurdum, and your explanation is insufficient. But you can continue to tell me that wrong, it won't make a difference.
To repeat, it is not merely an argument that results in a conclusion you personally find absurd.
I do not personally find it absurd. Your conclusion is absurd. Your descriptions contradict definition. Hence, absurd.
By definition, a reductio ad absurdum is an argument that leads to a necessary logical contradiction.
That is not the description you offered before.
Forgive me if I do not define my role as a parent by some obtuse stranger on the internet.
How you deem yourself as a parent is of no consequence.
Regardless, I am not speaking in a legal capacity, so attempting to bind me to a legal definition (regardless of similarity) is out of order.
Once again, your statement has no significance other than a legal one. And since you refuse to, as you so ineptly put it, offer a "crash-course" on human biology (but in actuality, a substantiation that the differences are a given) then nothing you state beyond a legal context has substance.
Yes, I know. But your claim is that the soundness of the subjective theory implicitly excludes all other theories. That exclusion is only automatic if a thing can only have subjective and objective components. This is not established, ergo the exclusion of other theories is not automatic, even if we grant that value can have a subjective component.
The posit is that value is only subjective. Ergo, substantiation of the subjective theory of value would necessarily exclude all other theories which do not sustain said posit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
More accurately, a reductio ad absurdum is an extension from premises that [logically leads to a necessary absurd conclusion.]
Corrected.
Well, the information in question is the highest price they're willing to offer for a job. I take it as a given that they have that information. I haven't made any claims about anyone being entitled to that information.
How would you know that the information were being withheld if the information was withheld?
How would someone be forced away form looking for information? This is a nonsensical question.
It's deduced from the nonsensical notion that anyone is capable of ascertaining the amount an employer would've offered. The only other way is to forcefully keep the information away from access.
The traditional, common sense definition suffices.
Where in that common sense definition does it suggest one need not be deceived?
Regardless, I was quoting you, so you define it.
You incorporated it into your lexicon as well, even if you were reflecting it back at me, so I need not define it because it's your use of the word that I'm challenging, not my own.
I'm not presuming perfect information. In fact, I'm pointing out that the information is imperfect, hence the duping.
Yes you are. Because your inference of that which constitutes a deception-free market is the presence of perfect information.
And the thing preventing an employee from getting that information is the lack of the prospective employer in giving it.
No. First, depriving someone of information is not the same as preventing them from getting it. Second, as I noted above, you've yet to establish how you're able to ascertain that an employer is withholding information about the amount he would've offered.
That's not what "circular reasoning" means.
You're right. I misread something you submitted. With that said, substantiate the reason that the differences between children and adults (both psychologically and biologically/physically) are a given.
The scenario is that they have taken a job for less money than they could have gotten it for. I am defining that as having been duped as no reasonable person would willingly do such a thing if they were aware of a better option.
Your argument is essentially that prospective employees couldn't willfully accept employment for less money in the face of higher offers; therefore, they're being deceived. You haven't established how you'd discern the thoughts of an employer who's purposefully withholding information; second, you haven't established how being deceived is akin to doing something unwillingly despite your common sense definitions.
The assessment is qualitative, not quantitative.
Then how does one determine "What benefits whom more?" if not within a subjective framework?
Not correct. Children often have times difficulty in realizing and articulating the precise nature of their desires.
That has nothing to do with content. You're talking about expression. Only they can appreciate the true nature of their desires.
I didn't say that a parent "wants" in place of its child. That is a ridiculous statement to make.
That's the logical extension of your premise. That is reductio ad absurdum #2.
I'm saying that children often don't know what they want and part of being a parent is discerning the true nature of what they want.
No. Part of being a parent is filtering through that which the child wants, that which you've experienced makes the child happy and sad, and that which makes the child safe. You are the sire/mother; you are the custodian; you are its guardian; you are not your child's "whisperer."
I wasn't speaking in a legal capacity. I stand by my statement.
Your statement has not been demonstrated to bear a significance other than a legal one.
Only if a thing can only exclusively have objective or subjective components, rather than a combination of both. This is not established.
That doesn't matter. The subjective theory of value posits that value is subjective, not a combination of both
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Now we're getting somewhere.
That was a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, the extension of your reasoning to its logical conclusion results in absurdity.
By not being given.
Assuming they have it. And if they did, why would a prospective employee be entitled to it?
I don't know what that even means.
Yes you do. I'm asking you whether or not prospective employees are being forced away from looking looking for information about higher paying jobs?
It's not "willingly working for less" unless they know that there is a higher option on the table. You can't willingly make a choice unless an actual choice is present and you are cognizant of it.
First, define "willing." Second, you're presuming perfect information; hence it leads to this question: what is prevent a prospective employee from getting information on a higher paying prospects?
I accept it as a given that the biological and psychological differences between adults and children is a given.
Circular reasoning. Your "given" is misinformed.
Except I just did.
Presuming givens is not substantiation.
It means they are more capable in arriving at an outcome that benefits them more than the other perosn.
And by which metric are you quantifying this?
This happens, yes.This happens as well.
Absurd. Only the subject knows best what it wants. A parent can observe a child; A parent can guide a child; the parents can even have wants for the child; however, a parent can't want in place of its child; it can't want as the child wants.
Children generally don't have a capacity to act in their best interest.
No, children don't always exhibit the capacity to act in their parents interests, which usually delineates a concern for the child's safety. This however doesn't exclude a child from having interests, let alone acting them out. I assume parents don't purchase toys and stuffed animals for their own immediate benefit.
That's one of their defining attributes.
No, it's not. It's a legal definition.
How so?
Because the other theories you proposed presuppose an objective premise (i.e money, labor, intrinsic, etc.) By substantiating the subjective theory of value, all theories which presume objectivity are necessarily excluded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Substantiate this.No government = No crime
Not really.There are plenty of de facto lawless regions around the globe.You could move to northern Australia for example.
De facto is not the only concern. As long as the government, any government, has jurisdiction, it's not an "lawless" region.
Their duties would be clearly established. If they neglected their duties or otherwise subverted their duties, they would be removed. They would be constantly under public surveillance.
How? Take the United States for example. There are over two million military personnel, and over 800,000 police officers. If they decide to mutiny, who stops them? Who removes them?
There's always a "free-rider" problem.Does your perfect society care for orphans?Does your perfect society care for the elderly?Does your perfect society care for the mentally unstable?These are all examples of "free-riders".
Non sequitur. Never suggested "perfect." And I don't deny "free-riders"; I contend that it's not a problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
By being convinced for taking less payment than they could have received.
Then everyone working is being deceived by your description. Because everyone can be earning more.
No, not always.
Redundant.
Withheld? Surely.
How is the information withheld?
I don't know what "forcefully" means in this context.
Are they being coerced from the means to find the information themselves?
Clearly people are "willing" to work for less. I never suggested otherwise.
Yes you did:
If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place?
Because they were duped.
How does accepting the lowest value suggest deception?
Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.
Now, unless you're conflating deception with coercion, what are you suggesting here?
The differences I have described are observed, not dictated.
No they are not. One example is psychological maturity. There are many studies which demonstrate, for example, identical psychological profiles between women and children. Not just that, but the neoteny of women often results in juvenile characteristics (e.g. larger eyes, slimmer chins, higher toned voices, leaner muscle tissue, etc.) It could be a fascinating subject for those willing to do the research.
The original claims it that "plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service." I take it as a given. Do you deny the existence of people that are duped into working for less than they could otherwise have received?
I don't have to deny it; you have to substantiate it, not just presume it as a given.
I don't know what "sustaining an interest" has to do with anything. I'm simply noting that the adult has enhanced negotiation abilities due to experience. Abilities that allow them to dupe a mere child into accepting a less than optimal arrangement.
And what does "enhanced abilities" in negotiation mean? Your logic is inept: you're arguing either that the child doesn't know what it wants, or that the child does know what it wants, but is too "inexperienced" to know that what it wants isn't actually what it wants. This isn't based on any observation of the child's capacity to act in its best interest; it's based on your prejudice.
The mere existence of other competing theories that aren't conclusively dismissed is sufficient. Regardless, you haven't proven the soundness of your theory, let alone that it is the only one that is sound. Seems to me that such a claim would inherit the burden of providing a counterargument for all of them.
Because value itself is subjective. The gains from any good, service, or transaction depends on the subject. While economics does its best to simplify these transactions with its generalizations (presuming homogeneity) these generalizations can at best be snapshots, not factual assessments. Most empirical evidence observe trends after the fact. If you take the law of supply for example, the convention dictates that that as the price goes up, quantity supplied increases. But this is not the case when it concerns an individual laborer. In that event, we see a backwards bending supply curve, where at a certain point, the Law of supply is contradicted. As income goes up, hours worked eventually decrease.
The Law of Demand would suggest that as price increases, quantity demanded decreases. But for luxury items, this is not the case. Once again, an economic law is contradicted. If you ever studied quantifying a demand curve (and I did when I studied advanced Econometrics) you'd note that the demand curve isn't downward sloping. It's actually logarithmic with many of the points scattered. The downward slope is a result of a linear regression taken, which involves heavy speculation (e.g. confidence intervals.) Why do we see these occurences? Because individual behavior is subjective. And their behavior being a manifestation of their values necessarily infers that their values are subjective as well. (And this is demonstrated in a free-flowing price system.)
I don't have to disprove all the other theories of value. Substantiating the subjective theory of value necessarily excludes all others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And you don't think they'll just switch over to these guys when the government is eliminated?
Of course they would. (They employ mercenaries currently.) The difference is, "our" mode of interaction wouldn't be fundamentally codified by aggression. In the event they send their armies, they'd be the criminals. And "we" can respond accordingly.
hey are examples of what happens when government is crippled and or eliminated.Can you supply any examples of a modern-day country that has a crippled government where "free-people-can-finally-thrive"??
A controlled modern day example? No. Government is everywhere.
That would be part of the deal. If you want to be a police officer, or a mayor or a senator, or any kind of public-servant, you must record (body-cam) and gps yourself to a public blockchain (permanent record) for the extent of your public-service.Everything you do is public knowledge.This keeps bad journalists from being able to smear you, because any citizen can debunk a bad story by going directly to the source.
Public service is contingent on the deferment of authority. If people as you say are prone to mobster mentalities, what's to stop the public servants from using said authority to start a mutiny?
The article mentions that Sweden is highly transparent, so rules to mitigate future misconduct would likely be implemented.
How?
Well there are plenty of options for you to choose from, but you might have some trouble getting reliable electricity and internet service.For example, [LINK]
They all fall within the jurisdiction of a government; therefore, they are not "options."
How would you solve the "free-rider" problem?
By admitting that there's no free-rider "problem."
A corporate structure is "highly centralized" by definition.
Unto itself, yes. But that's not the focus of our discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
So then explain how they are being deceived. There are people who work for less. Are the terms of payment not made clear? Is information on higher paying employment forcefully withheld? If no one would willingly work for less, how is it that there are those working for less?Yes
Because of the existence of other theories of valuation and that fact that no one has been awarded a Nobel Prize in economics for definitively proving one correct and the others incorrect.
It's mere existence doesn't make it sound. And accreditation is irrelevant to matters of fact.
There are immense biological and psychological differences.
Yes, but human beings aren't appliances. Development is nebulous and often abstract. Any law that seeks to dictate these differences rather than observe them is arbitrary.
Because they were duped.
You've yet to substantiate this conclusion.
Experience, exactly, something adults have massive amounts more than children, on average.
One does not need "experience" to sustain an interest. The interest may change with experience, but it's not dictated by experience. Otherwise, every retrospective analysis of one's past decisions will determine that he or she has been deceived throughout their lives up until that point.
Select one you believe is sound. I'll then provide a counterargument.
For one, whether or not the agreement is fair to each party involved.
If the parties, once again, willfully agree, isn't fairness implicit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Yes... yes it is. All water reservoirs, oceans, lakes, rivers, ponds, grottoes, pools, water bottles and gallons should be drained, as well all irrigation systems be dismantled, for their hate crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Because no one would willingly accept a lower value if they believed they could get it for a higher one.
Even if they considered the means and provisions of their prospective employer?
I fundamentally disagree with your theory of valuation.
Why is that?
Of course there is a necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. It's one of the reasons why contracts involving minors are voidable at any time on behalf of the minor.
Saying that "there's a reason," is not same as giving the reason. And the disparity between adults and minors is merely arbitrary. It's a manifestation of the delusion known as Parens Patriae.
People can be duped into "agreeing" to less than satisfactory arrangements. Happens all the time.
If they were "less than satisfactory" then why'd they agree in the first place? If they in retrospect determined that they could've done better, that's not deception; that's experience.
I disagree.
You believe there are other sound theories? Please list one other.
No.
So what else ought to be considered outside of each party's willful agreement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You don't kick-off EVERYBODY, just the people you personally DON'T LIKE. You know, like weirdos and cult members and people who don't speak your language...
That can range anywhere between one person and a million. They presumably have incomes which can be exchanged for use of one's land; the profit maximizer doesn't have the luxury of disliking potential patrons. A few do, but they're the exception.
Have you ever heard of Koch Industries?
Yes. How is KI "highly centralized"?
So I ask you, (IFF) "cartoonishly wealthy banking families" are running rampant (THEN) how is shrinking or eliminating government (referees) going to SOLVE THIS PROBLEM?
Because government enforcement is their sword, and government regulations are their shields.
Let's examine a few examples of dominant industries operating in countries with very weak and or effectively zero government oversight.Avocado cartels in Mexico.Diamond cartels in Africa.Rubber and Bananas and Chocolate are all valuable commodities that have frozen-out the land-owner-farmers by MANIPULATING THE MARKET (in the absence of effective government referees).
First, what is playing fair? Second, why are your mentions the example, and not the exception especially considering that these cartels are backed by the Mexican government, which in turn is subsidized by the C.I.A? Not to mention that Diamond trade and the resulting conflict is likely sponsored by the Rothschild bank.
Are you familiar with panopticon? [LINK]
If anything, this video makes my case for me.
Private citizens would have an iron-clad right to privacy, but public-servants (referees) would have every action placed in a permanent and public record.
Public servants would have their rights diminished? With the predisposition to mobster mentalities, wouldn't this lead to an insurrection?
So, problem solved.
Did that solve the problem, or was that a mere reaction to public pressure? What about the incentives that facilitated the bribery in the first place?
Would you rather live in a country with a functioning government or in a country with no functioning government.
No functioning government of course. I'll make this clear: I'm not an anarchist for the sake of anarchy. Anarchy--particularly autarchy--is the logical extension of my sustaining the moral philosophy of individualism. I do not presume a mere removal of government would solve all problems. There must be a moral framework which guides social interaction--preferably individualism. Just like in your reference to the panopticon, I'd rather have the discretion to weigh my own decisions and act accordingly than to have them dictated to me out of fear of the spectre of a "Wild West."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Given this extremely narrow definition of value, I would say that "duped" would be them being convinced to take the job for the lowest value in this range.
That's convenient. How does accepting the lowest value suggest deception?
Both buyers and sellers are "willing" to buy and sell within a range. The buyer presumably has maximum and the seller a minimum. It is more likely that these ranges overlap rather than terminate on a single exact number. If the buyer's max is, say, $20/hour and the seller's minimum is, say, $5/hour, then the "value" of their service would be between $5 and $20/hour as any number in that range is a mutually agreeable amount.
The value is the amount at which the transaction occurs. Using your example, it can fall withing the range you suggested, but if they both agree to $5, then the value is $5. If they agree to $20, then the value is $20.
Clearly the buyer wants the lower end and the seller would want the higher end. A "fair" value I would think would be at least as much as the market average.
A "fair" value is the amount to which they both agree. It is their interests which matter most in their contract, not those of anyone else.
I reject the notion that a 16 year old and an adult (or adults) negotiate on an even playing field.
You can reject it; but there's no necessary disparity between adults and adolescents in this context. The adolescent sells labor; the adult purchases it. What else needs to be negotiated?
A teenager with little to no real world experience is at an inherent disadvantage and the "duping" comes from the exploitation by the adults in using that disadvantage to vie for a lower price.
Specious argument. None of that matters; the only things that matter are the goals and interests of the parties involved. If the teenager is satisfied with accepting employment at $6 and the adults are satisfied with offering employment at $6, then there's no disadvantage or deception. If the teen doesn't agree, then the teen preferably would seek a better arrangement with another party. I would however not suggest a price floor be imposed dictating all legal arrangements.
But, again, this is all assuming that value is only determined by mutually agreed upon price ranges. Subjective theory of value isn't the only theory out there and I don't feel it's the end-all-be-all when it comes to such valuations.
Subjective theory of value is the one sound theory.
"Should" is a loaded term. There are things that "can" be considered, such as the specific duties required of the babysitter, the ages and number of the kids involved, the temperaments of the kids involved, the day of week, the time of day, whether or not the babysitter requires or can supply transportation, etc...
And you're under the presumption that a teenager doesn't consider these contingencies before accepting employment for $6 an hour?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If I own ten acres of real-estate that surround your 1, I can force you to pay tolls to cross my land.I can charge people rent to live on my land. I can charge companies a fee in order to conduct business on my land. Land makes money.More land = more money = more land.
Exactly; therefore it's far more lucrative and incentivizing to charge for use of your land rather than to kick one off simply because you dislike them.
There are lots of privately held corporations that are highly centralized. The two concepts are not incompatible.
Give an example.
It's true that the system makes people complicit in the process that traps them, but that fact doesn't make it okay. It seems to me that the system is designed, whether consciously or not, specifically to get people locked into it.
I'm not at all suggesting that this is okay. But with cartoonishly wealthy banking families who operate on trapping the populace in their debt schemes, governments are mere tools (along with mass media) to cajole the unwitting into political activism which facilitates said scheme.
In a tribal government, the leader of the tribe would organize hunts, make sure the people didn't starve and settled disputes among tribe members.If the tribal leaders did a poor job of this, they would be killed or banished.
And this was the case with tribal chiefdoms, that is killed or banished?
In a feudal government, the leader of the fiefdom would organize security and food supplies, make sure the people didn't starve and settled disputes among tribe members.If the feudal leaders did a poor job of this, they would be killed or banished.
Was this the case with feudal chiefdoms?
Is it now?
Yes.
Great metaphor. The only problem is if there's only ONE GAME IN TOWN
Why would there be a single rent-seeking monopoly dictating a single game in town?
And how is that any different from a FREE-MARKET-WARLORD?
To what extent is this person acting as a "war-lord"? If the "war-lord" merely participates in free exchanges and dissemination of products and services, why would it matter that he or she is a "war-lord"?
The idea of a referee is to mitigate bullying. If you think people should NOT be forced to "play by the rules" then you essentially have no rules and people will act like MOBSTERS.
Then what's the point of any organized social interaction? If people are predisposed to acting like mobsters, then all government action would reflect his mobster mentality because government members consist of people.
There are specific barriers and codes-of-conduct that insulate referees from corruption.
How? Who maintains/sustains these codes of conduct if not the very people who you claim are predisposed to mobster mentalities? The rules are only as good as the people who follow them. And according to your rationale, the rules are mobster rules.
Professional sports and even professional auditors have proven over time that there can be effective and reasonably fair referees.
As well as the opposite.
Or perhaps we could follow these real-world examples
Perhaps not:
Sweden is a parliamentary democratic with a constitutional monarchy. This country globally known for its high quality life, equality, human development, education and health. The government system of Sweden is also transparent and stable. The government agencies of Sweden considered the corruption as ‘abuse of power’. There is also a efficient anti-corruption unit in Sweden to investigate and prosecute corruption.
But just because a country has a clean public sector at home, doesn’t mean it isn’t linked to corruption elsewhere.Take Sweden for instance. It comes fourth in the index, yet the Swedish-Finnish firm TeliaSonera – 37 per cent owned by the Swedish state – is facing allegations that it paid millions of dollars in bribes to secure business in Uzbekistan, which comes in at 153rd in the index.The company is now pulling out of business in Central Asia, but Sweden isn’t the only “clean” country to be linked to dodgy behaviour overseas. As our research shows, half of all OECD countries are violating their international obligations to crack down on bribery by their companies abroad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I couldn't find a rate lower than $11
Regardless, I fully admit that plenty of people are duped into working well below the value of their labor or service.
How are they "duped"? Do they not understand the difference between $6 and more? The value of their labor is not in the least bit objective. Its value in the labor market is determined by the amount someone else is willing to pay for it meeting the amount for which you're willing to sell it.
Why? Are you denying existence of factors outside "subjective preferences of the involved parties" or are you just personally interested in mine?
Neither. You've stated that $6 is underpaid. If the teenage babysitter agrees to this, and the employers agree to this, what else should be considered?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
That is my contention. OP is suggesting allowance of a situation that is either redundant (volunteerism) and therefor unnecessary or a situation that is abhorrent (slavery) and therefore.
We've already established that to which you refer is not slavery. Hence, non sequitur.
It's the going rate in this area.
Fair enough.
Because $6 is less than the worth of babysitting services anywhere.
No, it's not. Teenage babysitters are private contractors who are often paid cash. Some reports have their pay as high as $30 and as low as $6.
Yes.
Please elaborate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Rejecting the qualifier of specious, I presented that dichotomy. I never said the OP did.
So then what is your contention? Because clearly volunteerism or "slavery"--informing my characterization of your dichotomy as "specious"--is a non sequitur.
What do you mean?
According to which standard do you pay your babysitter? Did you calculate all of his or her living costs and determine that he or she ought to be paid anywhere between $15-20? Or did you arbitrarily choose that amount based on your babysitter's, as well as your own, preferences?
My point is, if the 16 year-old babysitter agrees to work for $6 an hour, and his or her employers agree to pay him or her $6 an hour, how is he or she being "underpaid"? Are there considerations outside the subjective preferences of the involved parties that should be taken into account?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Either this scenario allows for the existence of people working for nothing or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then there is no reason to drop it to 0 in the first place. If it does, then my objection stands.
Yes it allows for the possibility for one to work at $0. But once again, it's a starting point. He isn't presenting your specious dichotomy of slavery or volunteerism.
We usually pay ours $15-$20/hour.
And this amount isn't at all subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Op is literally talking about working "for nothing while they are being trained."For nothing being, absolutely, not relatively, 0.
We're not talking about the number 0. We're talking about the "minimum" which the OP suggests should go as low as zero. Essentially, OP's argument is this: w (wages) ≥ 0 (relative); not w (wages) = 0 (absolute.)
Oh, I thought the deliberate and conspicuous emphasis that I added (then called explicit attention to) would make it abundantly obvious: paying them 6 dollars an hour is underpaying them. Grossly so.
How much should they get paid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I disagree. 0 is about as absolute as you can get.
Unless the person pays to work. But that's not what I was talking about. 0 is merely the starting point. A person can work for 1 cent of 1 million dollars; that's the point.
"Sweatshop is a pejorative term for a workplace that has very poor, socially unacceptable working conditions. The work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenged or underpaid." (Emphasis mine). And, depending on the kids being watched, difficult, dangerous and climatically challenged also applies!
So how does a 16 year-old's babysitting for six dollars fit that description? (And there are no contingencies because you replied to my question with a mere yes.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
One of the primary objections to slavery (at the time) from the north wasn't the immorality of owning people but rather the economic impact of having a class of unpaid individuals. The "forced free work" was a significant factor in the issue of slavery in the US, one that we cannot ignore.
It may have been a significant factor in the northern public's evaluation of slavery, but nonetheless, slavery is still the de jure and/or de factor ownership of another person. It's isn't the amount that informs slavery; it's the fact that a person can "own" another person with impunity.
So either the OP is redundantly suggesting we need to allow for something that is already allowed or they are suggesting something akin to slavery.
No, the OP is suggesting that no employer be bound to a legal minimum (or a minimum of 0.) He's not directly suggesting that it be legal for one to work at the amount of 0. Remember "minimum" is a relative scale, not an absolute one.
Yes.
Define sweatshop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Except "slavery" isn't characterized by the amount for which one works; it's characterized by de jure or de facto ownership. If I were to "own" another person, I could pay them $100 an hour, and they would still be my slave.It's either slavery or volunteerism. Volunteerism already exists in the status quo so the only new thing that could be proposed here would be slavery.
Yes, or something so similar that disputing the differences would be an exercise in pointless and irrelevant semantics.
Let's test that theory: according to you, a 16 year-old babysitter who works for six dollars an hour is essentially working in a proverbial "sweatshop"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Working for "nothing" isn't slavery.Slavery is illegal and it should stay that way.
We have also abolished sweatshops as well.
Are those the only jobs offered below minimum wage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll reply to your responses here:
Isn't it always? In any system, there are winners and losers. The winners will purchase more land, and kick out anyone they dislike. And then buy more land.
How do you suggest they "buy more land" if they're kicking out everyone they dislike? Where are they earning their income?
Whether or not its administered by a "private contractor" or not, it will inevitably become "an overly-centralized institution".
No, because to be "private" is to not be "overly-centralized." How do you suppose they'd centralize without the coercive force of a centralized government?
You're describing wage-slavery.But it's even worse than that.
No, I'm describing "debt-slavery." All governments accumulate debt which tax-paying citizens are obligated to service said debt. International bankers sell this debt using the tax payer's labor as collateral.
and in many cases their lands have been polluted by industrial waste, and now, stripped of their ability to provide for themselves as they have for literally thousands of years, they are forced to abandon these traditions and work for fiat.
It's all part of the debt-scheme.
Eh, I'm pretty sure the original intent, the original use-case for government was to adjudicate disputes between citizens and to provide public roads and protect public resources like water and to protect citizens from foreign invasion and to protect property rights so the powerful (ranchers and or railroads) can't simply take your land by force.
Which government are we talking about? Tribal governments? Feudal governments? Autocratic governments? Republics? None of them fit your description. Perhaps the closest thing was the United States during its first nine years when it had its own colonial script and operated under Articles of Confederation. But that's far too indulgent with your description.
The government should act as a referee.Now imagine if you had a sports league where the most powerful teams openly advocated eliminating referees.wHY do you think they would do that??Or if they promised referee's well paying jobs when they retired from being referees.wHY do you think they would do that??Or if they managed to get their former coaches and or other personnel and or their relatives installed as referees to officiate their own games.wHY do you think they would do that??
Social interaction ought to reflect a pick-up game of basketball. Everyone who desires to participate either conceives a set of rules to mutual agreement, or adopt the ones which naturally come with the game. Each participant is free to accept or decline the rules suggested. Not only that, each participant is free to seek other arrangements which reflect their own values for rules setting without being deprived of that with which they came in. These games are usually self-regulated and in the event of disputes, codes of resolution are exercised (e.g. "miss on me.") Either that or resolution is brought about through concession. This works because each participant has an identical goal in mind: entertainment. And there's a plethora of considerations taken, consciously or subconsciously, before and during engagement. Cheating is heavily discouraged because one risks getting alienated and/or ostracized in future games.
With the government acting as a referee, the "referee" proverbially puts a gun to your head, and forces you to play by his rules whether you agree with them or not. And in the event, you dissent, it will shoot you, detain you, or rob you of everything you have--including your socks.
THE "PROBLEM" ISN'T THE REFEREES THEMSELVES, OR EVEN THE IDEA OF REFEREES IN GENERAL.THE "PROBLEM" IS CORRUPTION.
If we were to entertain your statements in the other thread, and for the sake of argument, concede that in the absence of government, we'd live in a "wild west" because people cannot be trusted to be left to their own device, then how is that members of government can be left to their own devices? Isn't a corrupt government inevitable?
"If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action."
- Ludwig Von Mises
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I stated to Athias, specifically, as a place for starters they need to begin.
You're suggesting that they end where they began. Your argument is circular. Once again,
You: People are seeking fairness through equality.
I: Why is equality (via the law) fair?
You: Fair and equal are synonymous.
Essentially you're only stating that "being equal" is being equal. Nothing more, nothing less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The perceived right of humans to, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and the perceived right to "a fair and expedient trial".What we seem to be philosophically funneling down to is a society structure similar to the old feudal-system where land (and or boat) owners hold all the cards and everyone else exists at their whim (under the implicit threat of banishment).Perhaps we should consider some hypothetical system where every citizen is assigned (immutable, non-transferable) ownership of some small, fertile, plot of land.
Who is the "everyone else"? Are you under the presumption that land ownership in the absence of government would be concentrated among a select few?
The entire basis (justification), the primary AXIOM of government is (should be, at least hypothetically) to "serve and protect" (by setting policies and enforcing laws that "serve and protect" the interests of its individual citizens).The "problem" is that every Organization is an Organism. And Organisms are AXIOMATICALLY self-interested and self-protecting.Self-regulation inevitably results in a conflict-of-interest. The government, cannot be self-regulating. Who watches the watchers?For example, "The Policeman's Dilemma", which is that, ostensibly, the primary job of a police force is to reduce crime. But if they are successful in reducing crime, their budget and staff are cut proportionately.HOWeVEr, if crime INCREASES (or the mere threat of and or the general fear of crime increases), then both their budget and staff (and their associated power and influence within the community) INCREASE proportionately.And as such, they would appear to have inherently contradictory incentives.
No, the basis for government is rule. "Serve and protect" is nothing more than propaganda. If that were its purpose, it would act as a private contractor, not an overly-centralized public institution. The only difference between modern government (democracy) and, let's say, feudalism is that the populace believes its ingratiated in the hegemony. Governments historically have sought one thing: rule.
Fiat money is not owned by individuals.It is held by individuals and it is used by individuals, but it is OWNED by the issuer (either the state itself or by its authorized agents).The interesting part is that the Founding Fathers anticipated this wage-slavery system,“No State shall … coin money; emit bills of credit; [or] make any Thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts[.]” Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1.
- The basic unit is the dollar, a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver.
- Only gold or silver coins and currency (specie-backed banknotes) can be legal tender.
- No state may issue coins or currency.
- No one may counterfeit U.S. Government-issued coins or currency.
- Fiat money is forbidden.
The Supreme Court, in its famous Legal Tender and Gold Clause Cases, ruled that Congress has ‘plenary power’ to issue fiat money and dictate its value, pursuant to its power to ‘regulate the value’ of foreign and domestic coin. This interpretation is erroneous. Congress has no such ‘plenary’ power. Its power to regulate the value of gold and silver coins is a limited power that exists for the limited purpose of ensuring that both kinds of coin remain in circulation, that is, to counteract Gresham’s Law. [LINK]
Of that I'm already aware. Fiat is but a mere note of debt. The money to which fiat is indexed is owned by individuals. And when I say that tax-paying individuals are collateral, I'm not speaking of recompense in the form of fiat money (which may be backed at best by 10% of capital reserve) I'm speaking of recompense in the form of labor. Each tax-paying citizen bears a share of public debt, and they must "work it off." That is, in practice, backing the fiat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't watch much anymore--nothing new, at least. The most recent program I've watched was "The Boys" an amazon prime series based on comics of the same name. Despite its feminist narratives, it was a fairly decent adaptation.
I've also taken a liking to NBC's "The Good Place."
One show that I sort of anticipating is "Wheel of Time," based on a series of the same name by Robert Jordan. But as of yet, there's no prospective release date.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Human rights activists are must busy-bodies who should mind their own business.
What's the human right being violated in the proprietor's exercise of his or her discretion?
Please explain.
Government is at its core a coercive hegemony which undermines the discretion of individuals to act in accordance to his or her self-interests. There are no "rights" with government; only privileges. Even the process by which governments are selected (democracy, dictatorship, monarchy--which is still a dictatorship, etc) focus on the elimination of individual dissent. Every practice of government therefore is an extension of this undermining if a single individual cannot exit government.
I'm pretty sure the government appropriates lands with force.
That, too.
And they create money out of thin air, so there's no need for them to steal it.
There's plenty of need for them to steal it. The money is not printed out thin-air; rather than a gold-standard, government implements a debt-standard where tax-paying citizens are the collateral. And because of the fourteenth amendment, tax paying citizens are legally bound to the resolution of this debt. What happens when a citizens refuse to pay his or her taxes? With what is law the law codified?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would an individual, who owns an apartment building be justified in expelling a tenant at any time and for any reason?
Yes. By that same token, a tenant can leave at will even if the landlord attempts to have him or her stay.
Or are you suggesting that only guests or intruders who have not signed an agreement with the land owner can be expelled at any time and for any reason?
No. All contracts and transactions must be willfully entered and sustained less they violate individual sovereignty. Hence, each party can enter or exit at will. If there's a dispute, they can either settle it themselves or employ the services of an outside party who'll help them reach a resolution. Neither party ought to coerce the other into any arrangement.
And furthermore, would a government or other land owning institution be justified in deporting the homeless and perhaps simply drop them off-shore (not on land)?
The government isn't justified in anything. The government appropriates lands with stolen money. Not to mention, it doesn't follow its own rules of proprietorship. Now if a private institution happened to own all the land in a domain and has rented it to several thousand occupants, would he or she be justified in expelling a person who doesn't pay rent, even if the expulsion meant that person had no option but to learn how to swim so to speak? Yes.
Or perhaps, throw stowaways overboard?
That's at the discretion of the ship's owner and/or captain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
If an individual has purchased land, or entered an arrangement where he or she would either rent or mortgage a home, then no institution (even government) should be justifiable in deporting said individual regardless of destination so long as the proprietorship or contract is maintained. With that said, individuals do have the capacity to expel anyone from their lands regardless of the consequences the expelled may face as a result of not being on their lands.Ok, so according to this same principle, would you consider it moral to deport a sovereign-individual to a well-known, highly dangerous, potentially deadly geographic area (against their will)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
However, I am unclear as to where you believe this individual-sovereignty comes from?
From individuals. It's an argument premised on an observation of the human condition.
I've never once claimed that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't alive.
I never stated that you did, otherwise I would've stated you argued it. It's in reference to a general argument sustained by many of those who maintain a pro-choice position.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.
In essence, the argument over whether the zygote, embryo, fetus is a life is irrelevant in the context of individuals rights. Live or not, it doesn't have any entitlement to its mothers womb.
Does a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus have any right to one's person? At what point and by what authority do the gain and or earn that right?
Not authority; morality. It's gained through the adherence of individualist philosophy. So yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus has a right to its person just as much as an infant, child, adolescent, and adult does.
Is this principle you're referring to "the right to one's person"?
Individual sovereignty is the principle to which I refer.
The point is instead that it's nobody's business except for each individual sovereign mother.
And this must always be the case, even after gestation.
Created:
Posted in:
Commoning to common agreement of definition of word/terms is the starting place.That you cannot connect 'equality' to fairness shows you inability to have rational, logical common sense and mature discussion ergo unnecessary mind games is immature childs game is what your playing.
You: Equality is fair.
I: Why is equality fair?
You: Fair is defined as equal.
Your only contribution to a rational, logical, common sense, and mature discussion is circular reasoning/tautology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Some mammals take care of their young.Some mammals abandon their young, typically the runt starves.Some mammals (even rabbits) eat their young.All of these behaviors are predicated on instinct.I believe our legal AXIOMS should (naturally and ideally) conform to,(1) Protect yourself.A citizen's body is sacrosanct.A citizen's personal information is sacrosanct.(2) Protect your close friends and family.Activities and transactions between close friends and family members is sacrosanct.The information you share with your close friends and family members is sacrosanct.(3) Protect your territory.A citizen's personal real-estate-property is sacrosanct.The information concerning activities and or other property that may or may not be located should only be public insofar as those activities and or other property can be observed from outside a citizen's real-estate-property line.That being said, I also strongly believe in following the letter of the law-of-the-land.
I don't have many ways in which to counter your statements (not that I would since I cant argue against the fact that you believe everything you just listed.) That being said, I'll state this:
I argue that all individuals are sovereign, and that the laws of the lands are currently subverting them. Instead of letting law reflect a moral economy, common law especially deludes groups into Hobbesian traps, creating a fundamentally adversarial environment. And in glorious contradiction, the true nature of man as Hobbes would argue, is not excluded from those who'd presume to govern. In the context of this discussion, I do not argue that woman has a right to her person because the law legislates it, but because she's a sovereign individual. More to the point, in any interaction between individuals, to maximize--and I'm using this term particularly--any transaction conducted between them, their self-interest ought to/must be respected. Self-interest is the starting point to any interaction.
Furthermore, I'm not going to argue that the zygote/embryo/fetus isn't a life, not only because I firmly believe that is not the case, but also it isn't necessary to sustain consistently a pro-choice position. That is, whether one concedes that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life, it doesn't have a right to its mother's womb. Gestation is its mother's gift, not the unborn child's entitlement. By the same token, I would also argue that rearing is its mother's and/or father's gift, not the infant/child/adolescent's entitlement. While some would argue that the termination of pregnancy is tantamount to murder, I would argue otherwise. While in some cases, I'd argue it is, in the case where it's merely expelled, the death of the fetus isn't a result of its mother's malice aforethought, but the undeveloped physiology of the zygote/embryo/fetus. The fetus's incapacity to survive outside of its mother's womb is an unfortunate consequence of nature.
The right to one's person is derivative of individual sovereignty; to undermine any tenet of said principle is tantamount to undermining the principle in its entirety. So despite my personal objection to abortion itself, my sustenance of the pro-choice position is a necessity to my adherence to individual sovereignty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Hence, I was soliciting his explanation given the poor definition of fairness. Ebuc is conflating "fairness" with "equality"; and he isn't wrong in citing a dictionary which does the same. However, I presumed there was more substance to his argument. My presumption was wrong.The definition of fairness seems to be tantamount to goodness. It is very poorly defined and wholly subjective and based on a wide range of non-factual personal opinions. The definition itself is basically an "appeal-to-common-sense" fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, there are laws that strip certain people of basic human rights.Are you asking if I personally agree with these laws?Please be more specific.
I'm not inquiring as to that which the law can do; of that, I'm already aware; I'm inquiring as to that which the law ought to do, and yes that would solicit some personal content.
In the absence of law (and or law enforcement) like in the wild west, I would suggest that how a parent treats or mistreats or abandons their children is nobody else's business.Historically, children have been considered property until they complete some cultural rite-of-passage at which point they are considered a citizen of the tribe.The primal human value hierarchy is simple,(1) Protect yourself.(2) Protect your close friends and family.(3) Protect your territory.The primal human value hierarchy is both instinctive and intuitive.And the primal human value hierarchy applies to physical security and privacy.
So any obligation a parent bears his or her child is at his or her discretion? Fair enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
So your argument is a lexically semantic one; that is, equality is fair because the dictionary states as much.You need to begin with a dictionary and stop your childish mind games. Maybe a childrens dictionary and work your way to a mature adult dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Once again, why is equality (via the law) fair? You've only stated that it's fair; I'm soliciting an explanation to the reason it's fair.It is humans attempt at being fair. And fairness stems from philosophy ergo morality.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Eddard Stark's death: this set the tone for the series.
2. Hatching of the Dragons: this is tantamount to the creation of three nuclear bombs for a world which hasn't seen them in centuries.
3. Robb and Catelyn Stark's death: defeated idealistic delusions of typical medieval fairy tales.
4. Hardhome: the first real battle between the living and the dead which was to tease a climactic future event.
5. Arya Stark's killing of the Night King: demonstrated that the writers no longer had any commitment to conveying a cogent plot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not necessarily.In times and or lands where women are and or were legally considered property, then they have or would have no personal-right-to-privacy.
Does your position reflect decisions of law?
In the same way it is illegal to cut down a tree without a permit, but it is not illegal to crush an acorn.
Would you, 3RU7AL, who argues in favor a woman's privacy endorse the position that a mother bears an obligation to her child, and must transfer her obligation by legally sanctioned means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Have you never heard the phrase 'all are equal in the eyes of the law. Isnt there also a statue of some blindfolded lady holding a balancing scale.
That's not an answer.
Maybe you not familiar with law in USA.
I am familiar with law in the U.S.
equality via law is sought after because of humans desire for fairness aka fair play, via philosophical considerations of morality, by most humans, barring those humans who have no access to their empathetic centers of their brain,
You're merely repeating your previous statement; why is equality (via the law) fair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
No, there's no practical effect because the starting point for philosophy is reason. Logic is a mechanism that indexes the consistency of reason to selected truths. (Logic doesn't create truth.) So when you ask "is logic valid?" you're assuming an objective truth which logic doesn't presume to inform.None that I know of. It's not a very useful topic to discuss because it has no practical effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
It usually does. However, it is also the only field (that I can think of) that would be willing to question that presupposition.
Which branch of philosophy (or philosopher) however unusual questions the presupposition that logic is valid?
Created: