Apple joins coalition of U.S. corporations to support same-sex marriage - Page 5

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

No - you are mis-remembering I think. The classic question is "have you stopped beating your wife?" And the entire point, again, is the attempt to constrain to a yes/no answer, both of which admit the presumption, and it becomes the fallacy of many questions. It is a common error to mis-characterize any loaded question as that fallacy.

 

But both contain the same built-in presumption.

 

How is "When did you stop beating you're wife?" fundamentally different from "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The issue is less about the constraint of the yes/no answer than it is about the built in presumption. What you're saying is true if the questioner will only accept the constrained set of implied answers. For example:

 

In "When did you stop beating you're wife?" and the questioner will only accept a date as an answer it is not fundamentally different from the question phrased as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" and the questioner constraining the answer to yes or no. Both of these questions can be dealt with by rejected the in-built presupposition (that he has been beating his wife) by answering "I have never beat my wife."

 

But none of this changes the fundamentally loaded nature of the question to begin with.

 

When you ask "Where did your oppression complex come from?" there is a built-in assumption that the recipient of this question has an "oppression complex" and built-in implication that the acceptable answers are either a) a source of this "oppression complex", or b) "nowhere" which does not entirely (or even at all) reject the built-in assumption that the question recipient does have an "oppression complex." Again, the recipient can answer by rejecting this assumption outright by saying "I don't have an oppression complex." This differs in no significant way from the beating your wife example.

You are still missing or ignoring my point. I completely agree that it is a loaded question. My point is that it is not an informal fallacy. I cannot find a way to state that more clearly, but the distinction, while subtle, is precise, and carries significant implications. If your argument is that it does not change the "fundamental" nature of the question (i.e. they kind of mean the same thing), and so you are unable to distinguish between those classes of question, then we will have to agree to differ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

You are still missing or ignoring my point. I completely agree that it is a loaded question. My point is that it is not an informal fallacy.

And I believe you're wrong. So, yes, I guess will have to agree to differ on this (et al.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Just an observation - NAP is so plagued by conflicting definitions, exemptions, and contradictions...

 

Please do share.

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

 

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

I'm familiar with the wiki page. I'm also familiar with the criticisms. Of course that there are criticisms doesn't, ipso facto, make them correct or valid.

The key points here are to a) examine this principle and consider it and debate it without simply rejecting it out of hand, and b) to consider how and if it could be implemented, and c) whether it is logically and morally consistent (or more so than other proposed approaches.) I don't know if there is a claim of perfection (nor is there such a claim for the free-market) however many critics (tonton among them) appear to hold the NAP, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or free-market capitalism in general to a much higher standard, even a standard of perfection that they do not hold the state to. Personally, I seek and strive for a model that is morally and logically consistent (or at least as morally and logically consistent as we can get this side of heaven.) That's the pure goal. Short of that, I am willing to compromise, but my point of compromise is much further away from the size, scope and power of government than tonton's and, perhaps, yours. Ultimately, in practical terms, I would characterize myself as a "minarchist"...seeking, at least, the so-called "night watchman state." I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion. I don't seek to coerce anyone to adopt what I propose...though I would greatly appreciate that sentiment be returned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Plagued may have been the wrong word.  Benefits from... might be more accurate.

 

There is a concise summary on Wikipedia that mentions many of the different interpretations, a number of which have been honed to address exactly the kind of arguments that tonton is likely to use. He won't win that argument because you have too many options to draw from.

 

I'm familiar with the wiki page. I'm also familiar with the criticisms. Of course that there are criticisms doesn't, ipso facto, make them correct or valid.

 

The key points here are to a) examine this principle and consider it and debate it without simply rejecting it out of hand, and b) to consider how and if it could be implemented, and c) whether it is logically and morally consistent (or more so than other proposed approaches.) I don't know if there is a claim of perfection (nor is there such a claim for the free-market) however many critics (tonton among them) appear to hold the NAP, libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism or free-market capitalism in general to a much higher standard, even a standard of perfection that they do not hold the state to. Personally, I seek and strive for a model that is morally and logically consistent (or at least as morally and logically consistent as we can get this side of heaven.) That's the pure goal. Short of that, I am willing to compromise, but my point of compromise is much further away from the size, scope and power of government than tonton's and, perhaps, yours. Ultimately, in practical terms, I would characterize myself as a "minarchist"...seeking, at least, the so-called "night watchman state." I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion. I don't seek to coerce anyone to adopt what I propose...though I would greatly appreciate that sentiment be returned.

I was not rejecting NAP at all - just commenting on its diversity of interpretation as an impediment to nailing down any particular contradiction. I actually think it embraces many admirable ideas. Some of its iterations do not even preclude taxation - I view opposition to taxation as an added libertarian construct. The criticisms may or may not be valid, but in many cases led to supporters of NAP modifying it accordingly, so a working assumption would be that some, at least, are valid.

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get. Good luck educating the majority to that enlightened state. Who's going to take care of educating by the way? Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed. Do you really foresee being able to replace that without leading to the same chaos that has ensued every time in history that anarchy has occurred? NAP is the first casualty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I was not rejecting NAP at all - just commenting on its diversity of interpretation as an impediment to nailing down any particular contradiction. I actually think it embraces many admirable ideas. Some of its iterations do not even preclude taxation - I view opposition to taxation as an added libertarian construct. The criticisms may or may not be valid, but in many cases led to supporters of NAP modifying it accordingly, so a working assumption would be that some, at least, are valid.

Fair points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Who's going to take care of educating by the way?

The educating of these principles? Well, it will have to be private individuals and institutions. There are many that are out there giving it the old "college try." But I could easily argue that there was a time in the not too distant pat where people though different races were of different values and different levels of superiority or inferiority and that some deserved to be enslaved or even were expendable...and that these were widely held ideas and values. I believe that's changed much more than some might think and in an incredibly short time period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed.

I don't disagree. But I do disagree that all of these "carrots of order, security and care" and enforcement need to be provided by the state and that the rules which constrain society must be declared and enforced by the state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Interesting comment: "I also recognize that none of this can come about without widespread respect for life, liberty and private property. So the fundamental problem is education, information and persuasion." In my view, you just stated the fundamental obstacle to practical libertarianism. Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles. We are a fundamentally competitive species, and the strong will take what they can get.

 

I disagree.

Disagree with what - that humanity has not demonstrated that capacity, that we are competitive, or that the strong will take what they can?

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Who's going to take care of educating by the way?

 

The educating of these principles? Well, it will have to be private individuals and institutions. There are many that are out there giving it the old "college try." But I could easily argue that there was a time in the not too distant pat where people though different races were of different values and different levels of superiority or inferiority and that some deserved to be enslaved or even were expendable...and that these were widely held ideas and values. I believe that's changed much more than some might think and in an incredibly short time period.

I really wish I could agree with you on that, but seriously - look around. You think racial discrimination, for example, went away because of education? It went away because it was outlawed, and it still thrives in geographic and demographic regions. If it's fading that's due to suppression of exposure to younger generations.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Civilized society succeeds by offering the carrots of order, security and care in exchange for not competing outside the rules, with still some enforcement needed.

 

I don't disagree. But I do disagree that all of these "carrots of order, security and care" and enforcement need to be provided by the state and that the rules which constrain society must be declared and enforced by the state.

So who gets to make the rules and provide those things? I like the system of a limiting constitution with elected representatives, who at least we can vote out of office if they annoy us. The population is too large to form a big committee. What's left? Private companies? They will definitely have our best interests at heart, no question about that, no sir. We're from the corporation and we're here to help.  If you think that constitutionally limited governments tend towards increased powers, how do you think for-profit companies will operate in that environment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Disagree with what - that humanity has not demonstrated that capacity, that we are competitive, or that the strong will take what they can?

Most of it. Specifically the claim that "Humanity has never demonstrated a capacity for widespread adoption of those principles" and that "strong will take what they can get" and while I agree humanity has a competitive nature, I don't believe that this nature is fundamentally destructive or problematic but in fact has many positive consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I really wish I could agree with you on that, but seriously - look around. You think racial discrimination, for example, went away because of education? It went away because it was outlawed, and it still thrives in geographic and demographic regions. If it's fading that's due to suppression of exposure to younger generations.

I guess we disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

So who gets to make the rules and provide those things?

Who says that they have to be "set" by some central authority? We have quite a number of "rules" and customs in society that don't need any governmental enforcement. Society actually has a number of self-correcting characteristics that ultimately create the "rules" as things go along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I like the system of a limiting constitution with elected representatives, who at least we can vote out of office if they annoy us.

I like this idea too. If it could actually work. But the US has demonstrated that constitutional limits don't seem to be respected by elected representatives and they are often beholden to special interests (business and otherwise.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

The population is too large to form a big committee.

I agree. Who's suggesting that? You seem to be consistently view a different whorl order only through the lens of the current world order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

What's left? Private companies? They will definitely have our best interests at heart, no question about that, no sir.

No question at all? Seems you're revealing a bias here. I think the opposite. In a world where no business can force me to buy anything from them, they actually must have my interests at heart if they want my business or they won't get it. The ones who actually don't have very much incentive to have my interests at heart are the local, state and federal bureaucrats and agencies and politicians who generally get paid and get my money whether they've served me well or not and who, at best might, possibly get elected out in a couple of years (and that's only for the elected ones!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

If you think that constitutionally limited governments tend towards increased powers, how do you think for-profit companies will operate in that environment?

The important difference here is that the state is given (or claims) special privileges (to use force) to achieve it objectives where businesses must create value for me in order to earn my business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The suspect declines to submit to a trial.

Who says he's required to. He doesn't even need to be present. The burden is upon whomever claims a crime has been committed to prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Let's make it very simple. Fingerprints were found all over the murder weapon. Someone's blood was found at the scene that was not the victim's. There is no fingerprint or DNA database to refer to. What do you do under the non-aggression principle?

A million dollars was stolen from the victim.

The suspect is at the airport with a ticket for the Bahamas.

What do you mean what do you do? What is the goal in this scenario? To right the wrong? First is to prove who committed the crime. Once that has been established, that criminal can be morally and justly be apprehended and the process of righting the wrong (this might include repayment of the stolen property, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 



Conservatives don't care about anything but:
1. Enriching their corporations (especially oil and gas companies).
2. Interfering with anything that the President tries to do - even if it was something that the conservatives were pushing just a few years ago.
3. Trying to return to the era where white males were the only ones who mattered or had any voice in decision-making.
4. Returning women to the kitchen and bedroom.

Lets see...

1. You must drill your own oil to run your car and heat your home... how knowable.

2. If his policies made sense maybe they wouldn't.

3. If it weren't for white males you would still have slavery, there would be no affirmative action, no 1964 welfare act... just keep blaming them for your failure and see who the real racists is.

4. Being a mother is an honorable job. Strong families have fewer problems with delinquency and crime. Too bad you never had a father.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Too late. The guy got on the plane.

Not sure why that's a limiting factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Simply fingerprinting him or taking his DNA could have proved or disproved his guilt, leading to justice, either way. But to do either of those things, unless the suspect cooperates (who says he has to?), there is no way to get that information without violation of the non-aggression principle.

Agreed that the suspect need not voluntarily submit to these procedures. Of course if he is innocent he may be willing to simply to clarify his innocence and avoid any incorrect finding of guilt. Absent this, then the burden of proof is still on the person trying to prove it. They would have to use other forms of evidence in this pursuit. I don't see the problem here. Are you looking for perfection here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I've just proved that the non-aggression principle was unenforceable in this example. Someone was killed. No one was held accountable. The system of the non-aggression principle failed miserably.

First your premise that the NAP is something to be "enforced" is flawed from the get-go. It is a principle of conduct. What you're really looking for is how justice (as defined by righting some wrong such as murder or theft) will be achieved under a system which only the NAP applies. You've created a single example where this justice might not be achieved. Is this the standard you wish to use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I could name a hundred other examples.

Perhaps. But even this one fails to prove what you think it proves. Again is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

It does prove that there can be no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security in such a system. Yes, it does.

It doesn't prove any of those things at all. Far from it.

Now, I repeat my questions: Is this the standard you wish to use? That a person was able to escape justice for a crime they have committed? Is that the standard you're holding a societal organizing approach to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Mad Max.

What, are you in middle school?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Hence my assertion that you don't understand logic.

Sadly, for you, none of the above support your assertion. You've given one example of the possibility of justice not being served and claim this is "proof" that there would be and can be, and I quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

no justice, no enforceable law (even against murder and theft) and no security

You haven't even proven it in your example, let alone shown how the one example proves that there would or could be no justice, enforceable law or security. You simply made a huge logical leap. You've used a non sequitur here. So, in fact, there is no logical deduction here at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Why shouldn't it be? Why don't you tell me? There can be no security without justice.

I'm asking you if that is the standard you want to use. Is it?

Now let's turn things around.

You clearly believe that it is morally defensible, even morally imperative to endow some people with the authority if not the "right" to initiate the use of force against others in certain circumstances.

First, what are the limits or boundaries of those circumstances? In other words when is it morally defensible for said people to do so? When is it not? What are the conditions we can use to when they are outside of their moral authority? What are the limits?

Second, who should these people be (or not be)? How will it be decided who should have such special authority?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

It's not a question of morals or not. It's the only practical way to ensure any measure of order. Without order there is chaos.

It's not? It certainly seems to be. You seem to be positing a set of moral values about what is right to do and what is not right to do. What ought to be done and what ought not be done. This is the very essence of moral thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The rule of law.

I was hoping for something less vague and hand-wavy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

A representative constitutional system with checks and balances and universal suffrage is the best system we have thus far devised. It is not a perfect system. It is not infallible.

Yet you seem to be holding any other system to a higher standard of perfection.

You also continue to avoid answering my question: The issue of someone escaping justice...is that the standard you wish to use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But there has never been a system that has worked so well to ensure the rule of law is administered in a responsible way.

That may well be that, to date, this is the best system humanity has devised. But that does not mean it is the best system and that something else cannot be better. I suspect that this system we have today seem as impractical, unworkable and even "Utopian" to those hundreds of years ago who knew nothing but monarchy or feudalism. If you told them the world could operate under a system like we have today they likely might have looked at you like you were completely insane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

BULLSHIT

Well, now I'm convinced. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Allow me to rephrase. No acceptable amount of...

You've only claimed it. You only assume it. But you haven't proven that. Not even close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Whatever standard I use, I guarantee you my example would not be possible under any measure of acceptability.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you please re-phrase?

Next...yes or no...is this the standard you want to use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


No. It is the ease with which someone can commit a crime without reasonable fear of reasonably reciprocal justice.

So your standard for judging the acceptability of a system of social organization is: How easily someone can commit a crime without fear of "reciprocal justice."

OK. But you still haven't proven that a system of social organization that is based on the NAP (or as closely as possible) would be worse than what we have now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Well, then, you have the means, through our system, to present your case through (and let me paraphrase Muppetry here) deductive reasoning, and not just assumptions and unproven theories, which is all you've ever presented on the matter.

All you are presenting here are assumptions and unproven theories about how things would be.

You assume (without proving) there wouldn't be any justice or law or security.

You assume (without proving) the world would be like Mad Max.

You assume (without proving) there would be total chaos and social Darwinism.

That's all you're doing here.

I say that if you want to assert that some people should be able to use force and coercion against others, the burden of proof is on you to prove why this is necessary. I say that's wrong. You think it's okay. If you want to use force against me and claim it is legitimate to do so, you should be the one proving to me why it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

So your standard for judging the acceptability of a system of social organization is: How easily someone can commit a crime without fear of "reciprocal justice."

 

OK. But you still haven't proven that a system of social organization that is based on the NAP (or as closely as possible) would be worse than what we have now.

One standard.  And you are committing the burden of proof fallacy.  It is up to you to prove that NAP is better, not for tonton to prove that NAP is worse.  We have a system of government.  You want it changed.  The responsibility is upon you to make your case.  So far you have failed miserably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

All you are presenting here are assumptions and unproven theories about how things would be.

 

You assume (without proving) there wouldn't be any justice or law or security.

 

You assume (without proving) the world would be like Mad Max.

 

You assume (without proving) there would be total chaos and social Darwinism.

 

That's all you're doing here.

 

I say that if you want to assert that some people should be able to use force and coercion against others, the burden of proof is on you to prove why this is necessary. I say that's wrong. You think it's okay. If you want to use force against me and claim it is legitimate to do so, you should be the one proving to me why it is.

Somalia.  You hate it and shrug it off because it's a counterexample to your claims.  However, your confirmation bias won't let you admit that Somalia undermines your propositions.