I am the legitimate owner of the universe.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=472881 time=1600874252 user_id=11800]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472878 time=1600873979 user_id=472]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=472877 time=1600873779 user_id=17350]

Tenants pay for damages.
[/quote]

that ain't in the contract, and I didn't break it

advocate did: through abdication of responsibility
[/quote]
Aha! The real reason not to kill God ... you don't want to inherit his liabilities, especially not while there's all those expensive lawsuits about peado priests touching the choir.

I feel we have made a breakthrough in this, the best of all possible threads.
[/quote]

As per usual, nobody has talked about any of the contentions originally made. I anticipated that response and accepted it as a way of clearly differentiating anyone who does.

[henry quirk]

how convenient: I'm the owner, but I'm not responsible

no more rent for you

As always, you must not have actually read the post. That is not remotely similar to any contention i've ever made, here or anywhere.

i read it, that's why I mock it: it's silly

you're silly

[henry quirk]

Tenants pay for damages.

that ain't in the contract, and I didn't break it

advocate did: through abdication of responsibility

Aha! The real reason not to kill God ... you don't want to inherit his liabilities, especially not while there's all those expensive lawsuits about peado priests touching the choir.

I feel we have made a breakthrough in this, the best of all possible threads.

you mean advocate is yahweh, and them perv priests are his?

I hadn't thought about that

time to try advocate

let's haggle on the charges

criminal negligence?

[FlashDangerpants]

that ain't in the contract, and I didn't break it

advocate did: through abdication of responsibility

Aha! The real reason not to kill God ... you don't want to inherit his liabilities, especially not while there's all those expensive lawsuits about peado priests touching the choir.

I feel we have made a breakthrough in this, the best of all possible threads.

you mean advocate is yahweh, and them perv priests are his?

I hadn't thought about that

time to try advocate

let's haggle on the charges

criminal negligence?

Cuplable fiddlycide

[henry quirk]

Aha! The real reason not to kill God ... you don't want to inherit his liabilities, especially not while there's all those expensive lawsuits about peado priests touching the choir.

I feel we have made a breakthrough in this, the best of all possible threads.

you mean advocate is yahweh, and them perv priests are his?

I hadn't thought about that

time to try advocate

let's haggle on the charges

criminal negligence?

Cuplable fiddlycide

HA!

[RCSaunders]

This is unrelated to legal ownership. Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control. Legitimate ownership does not imply actual access and control, such as when you're stolen from. The person(s) who most legitimately can claim the right to access and control everything, insofar as possible, is the best philosopher, as that person is most likely to do the best things with that ownership. This assumes they also meet baseline criteria for good leadership, meaning in particular knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness above average. The best philosoper is who has the best philosophy, the criteria for which are to be found in a different thread. I met those criteria including to have the best philosophy, therefore i am the legitimate owner of the known universe. They're are no logical flaws or reasonably debatable facts in this argument.

That's true, because there can be no logical flaws in what is not logic, and facts that do not exist are not debatable. You win. You get a cookie!

[Advocate]

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=472942 time=1600891912 user_id=16196]
[quote=Advocate post_id=472810 time=1600825878 user_id=15238]
This is unrelated to legal ownership. Ownership is best understood as certainty of access and control. Legitimate ownership does not imply actual access and control, such as when you're stolen from. The person(s) who most legitimately can claim the right to access and control everything, insofar as possible, is the best philosopher, as that person is most likely to do the best things with that ownership. This assumes they also meet baseline criteria for good leadership, meaning in particular knowledge, intelligence, and conscientiousness above average. The best philosoper is who has the best philosophy, the criteria for which are to be found in a different thread. I met those criteria including to have the best philosophy, therefore i am the legitimate owner of the known universe. They're are no logical flaws or reasonably debatable facts in this argument.
[/quote]
That's true, because there can be no logical flaws in what is not logic, and facts that do not exist are not debatable. You win. You get a cookie!
[/quote]

It sounds like you're trying to imply i'm wrong without actually saying how i'm wrong. I won't ask you to prove a negative by saying what isn't logical but how about pointing our a fact that isn't one? Give us something to work with. Pure refutation isn't philosophy. It's not even valid thought.

[Immanuel Can]

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention that you are maintaining a dangerous property. It is reported that many injuries and indeed, fatalities have been occasioned by the lack of repair in your holdings.

Please take measures to modify and improve this, so that your property is no longer hazardous to neighbours. Failure to comply will result in fines, should further injury or death occur to any person or persons after this notice has been received.

You have sixty days to address this situation.

Yours,

The Universe Council.

[henry quirk]

Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention that you are maintaining a dangerous property. It is reported that many injuries and indeed, fatalities have been occasioned by the lack of repair in your holdings.

Please take measures to modify and improve this, so that your property is no longer hazardous to neighbours. Failure to comply will result in fines, should further injury or death occur to any person or persons after this notice has been received.

You have sixty days to address this situation.

Yours,

The Universe Council.

he won't comply...sic the dogs on him

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=472954 time=1600894632 user_id=9431]
Dear Sir:

It has come to our attention that you are maintaining a dangerous property. It is reported that many injuries and indeed, fatalities have been occasioned by the lack of repair in your holdings.

Please take measures to modify and improve this, so that your property is no longer hazardous to neighbours. Failure to comply will result in fines, should further injury or death occur to any person or persons after this notice has been received.

You have sixty days to address this situation.

Yours,

The Universe Council.
[/quote]

So literally everyone is going to ignore the extremely relevant bits about it not being the same as legal or practical ownership? They're there specifically to dispense with this kind of "refutation" snark.

[Immanuel Can]

So literally everyone is going to ignore the extremely relevant bits about it not being the same as legal or practical ownership? They're there specifically to dispense with this kind of "refutation" snark.

Seems they weren't as bulletproof as you might have hoped.

[henry quirk]

The person(s) who most legitimately can claim the right to access and control everything, insofar as possible, is the best philosopher

you're not the best philosopher cuz...

The best philosoper is who has the best philosophy, the criteria for which are to be found in a different thread.

I met those criteria including to have the best philosophy

my criteria sez you suck

for example...

libertarian fascism: a philo-cul-de-sac...bad philosophy


They're are no logical flaws or reasonably debatable facts in this argument.

libertarian fascism: you are a bad philosopher...don't feel bad, I'm not a philosopher at all...

[henry quirk]

a sour stew of arrogance & naivete...

We have to have a single world government to deal with world level issues. The environment will not be dealt with until after major disasters hit because there is no agreement between nations, it's a race to the bottom. World government is absolutely necessary, evil or otherwise. The notion of fascism is totalitarian. The state is all. The purpose of a state is to manage issues people cannot or will not manage themselves. A state is likewise necessary, evil or otherwise. In order to provide its citizens with maximum freedom, the state must first ensure adequate security. The state must have a monopoly on force, evil or otherwise. To attain maximum effectiveness at it's good or evil aims, a state must be efficient, and efficiency entails organization and delegation. A state, like a person, is most effective when it concentrates on fundamentals within it's realm of adequacy. In order to be efficient a well-ordered state will manage only the most crucial and central decisions at the top and delegate as much as possible downward, where locality of understanding is the most efficient management method. In other words, the state must control everything and delegate as much of that control as reasonably possible while maintaining it's own clearly stated objectives (which must include no less than protections of legitimacy, including at least transparency for the state, privacy for citizens, accountability, and oversight. Any freedoms which can reasonably be made available equally to all citizens can best be made in this framework of iron-fisted necessity tempered with a meaningful desire to maximize freedom only second.

eloi & morlocks

[Advocate]

>>[b]The person(s) who most legitimately can claim the right to access and control everything, insofar as possible, is the best philosopher[/b]

>you're not the best philosopher cuz...

You've quoted the actual contention but then responded to the example, which is a very different argument entirely.

>my criteria sez you suck

I can show why that's an invalid criteria, but you suck so I'm not going to bother.

>libertarian fascism: a philo-cul-de-sac...bad philosophy

I'm probably wrong but i think i'd like to understand what philo-cul-de-sac means. I haven't proposed anything self-defeating or circular in any way so...

As for bad philosophy, your supporting evidence is very compelling. I now agree with you. Everything i say is necessarily wrong by default.

>libertarian fascism: you are a bad philosopher...don't feel bad, I'm not a philosopher at all... ;)

What's bad about it? Is having a primary power not a necessary attribute of a sustainable society? Is freedom not the best use of the efficiency gained in centralising that control? What exactly are you refuting? There's a different discussion to be had about the checks and balances necessary on that power and how to distribute the freedom fairly.

Do you admit the truth of the rest of my chain of reasoning? If not, which points and why? The Truth wishes not to be believed, but to be tested.

-Kaiser Basileus

[Advocate]

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=472970 time=1600897070 user_id=472]
eloi & morlocks
[/quote]

Some people do not wish to be involved with how things work, they just want to live their lives, follow the rules, have babies, and die. And there's no reason a prosperous society shouldn't provide that for them. We need cogs for the wheels. There are other people who can't be happy unless they're involved with the deepest workings of society and a prosperous society is best achieved by enabling them. There is a fundamental difference in these two ways of being. For one the complex truth is an interference, and for the other, a necessity. There is no moral problem with this division in-so-far as there are legitimate criteria for determining someones ability to manipulate things to effect others in positive ways. Moreover there are people who are incapable of managing complex problems that effect others well, and there should be a hard line between them and doing so.

I'm relying on fundamentally undeniable criteria to construct this world view. The fundamentals must be correct before we worry about the niceties. Society must be sustainable first. It must value truth first. The truth is that elevating intellect is our best way of making everyone happy. It's completely idealistic And completely pragmatic. Drink the fucking kool-aid.