For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So, for ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, 'the answer' to 'the question', 'Who am 'I'?', is, once and for all, "A determinist".
Unless, OF COURSE, "henry quirk" BELIEVES, or even just THINKS, one 'might be' doing some thing, then "henry quirk" also BELIEVES, absolutely, that its so-claimed 'own property' has FAR MORE 'rights' than you, and your 'claimed' 'natural rights', and WILL shoot you DEAD, if it so chooses and WANTS TO.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:54 pmOkay. Here's where I stand on the topic...
A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.
LOLhenry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:54 pm And even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.
No, it just limits us -- all of us -- to doin' what we like with our own lives, liberties, and properties.Except all property rights conflict with liberty.
Do you really think it's a moral expression of your liberty to take my life without just cause or to leash me and put me to work in your fields or to take my sister and force sex on her or to hoodwink my ma into buying sumthin' she'd never drop a dime on if she knew it was a lemon? This is not liberty: it's license. It's murder, slavery, rape, and fraud. You really think liberty encompasses these? You really think it's a bad thing you don't get to use other people as you choose?What else can property rights mean except the obligation of one person to limit his freedom vis a vis another person's property?
No, it trumps murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud. Of course it seems you feel your liberty isn't complete without being able to violate someone else's. You don't really think that, do you?So the "natural rights" to property ALWAYS trump someone else's natural right to liberty (or vice versa).
For someone willing to actually think about what this...It simply means that the natural rights you worship are more complicated and nuanced than you suggest.
No, that's not true. Different legislative schemes are used to blunt and violate person's natural rights. There's where your differing definitions come into play. Joe buys a building. He's met Stan's asking price and he owns the building. The gov wants its cut: taxes, licensing fees, business or residential fees, various mandatory insurances. On top of that he has to ask permission, and pay for the privilege, to use his property. If the space isn't zoned for the bookstore he wants to open, well, there won't be a bookstore. So, on top of fairly and voluntarily transacting with Stan, Joe is also robbed and and defrauded by people supposedly working for him, people he may have never consented to be ruled by. Those folks work hard, under the cover of democracy, to steal from and slave Joe. You condone this, yeah? Your liberty is somehow not complete unless Joe is kept under thumb?Except that how property is defined differs wildly from culture to culture.
Now hold up. I own a nice little plot upon which sits a nice little house. It's ours, me and my family. How am I controlling anyone? Again, are you really gonna argue your liberty is flummoxed becuz you don't have the right to enter my house at three in the morning, raid my fridge, take my kid's xbox, and then force yourself on my 82 year old ma? Is your liberty incomplete becuz I object to paying for the privilege of living on land and in a home I already paid for and becuz I decide who enters and stays? Is your liberty limited becuz I object to funding gov programs you want but I didn't ask for?Can someone "own" land (i.e. control other people vis a vis that land)? Not in many societies
In many cultures kills were communal. It wasn't one guy alone who brought home the meat, it was many. Over the long haul all the hunters and their families owned the meat. There's no natural rights violation there, just a sharing of labor and the fruits of labor. Now I bird and small game hunt with my coach gun. I'm on property owned by friends or family or where I've gotten permission to be. I think, as I'm the one trudgin' thru the woods or fields, since I'm the one who invested in the weapon and trained to use it, since it was my aim that was true, the meat (minus whatever meat I've agree to fork over for hunting on somebody else's land) is mine alone. Seems to me I'm morally in the clear.Does someone "own" the food he kills or gathers? Not in many societies.
Sure, we create all manner of stricture on land use and most are grade-a violations of natural rights. And every one knows this. One of the evidences for the realness of natural rights is the universal understanding, the intuition common to everyone, that my life is mine, my liberty is mine, my property is mine. Despite all the, racial, political, philosophical, social, and -- yes -- cultural differences, between and among us this little intuition cuts thru them all. Even the slaver, the murderer, the rapist, the thief, and the con man, as they go about their awful businesses, know their own lives, liberties, and properties are theirs alone, and each would be as outraged as you or I at being violated. So, when a property owner is royally screwed, like Joe, up-post, he has good reason to be miffed. He knows he's being wronged. What's worse: he knows the wrong is sanctioned, it's legal.Our definitions of and protections for property vary wildly, which seems to indicate that they are culturally (not "naturally") constituted.
We can and do, as I say, create all manner of natural right violatin', immoral, strictures. We could simply abide by...We can determine how we want to define property and what "rights" (i.e. obligations on others) it entails. That includes easements, zoning laws, taxes, etc., etc.
Too late! I already have.There's no use complaining that these limits violate natural rights
Again, you don't really believe your not being able to do as you like with what is mine truly is a violation of your liberty, do you?because all property rights are fiat rights, and inevitably conflict with liberty.
Note to others:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:40 amThis was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:36 amYou know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!
You sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:48 amNote to others:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:40 amThis was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:36 am
You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!
For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.
And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.
Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.
But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.
Anyway, even though we live in an ultimately deterministic world, this is basically irrelevant at the everyday human world level. Where we look at choices from the psychological perspective, and look at life circumstances etc. I assume Mary was like the average person so psychologically she could make choices just fine, in that everyday sense she had enough free will when she chose to abort the baby, duh.iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:48 amNote to others:Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:40 amThis was about the 6th or 7th time in a row you dodged my single point. Now believe it or not, if you understood my point, I could then actually answer how it pertains to any possible everyday life situation.iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:36 am
You know, it just dawned on me. What if -- click -- henry quirk is competing in this same Olympic event?!
For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.
And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.
Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.
But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.
What do you even think the word 'compatatilism' is even referring to, exactly, "immanuel can"?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:09 pmEasy to say. Far too easy. And Compatiblists say it.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 1:59 pm Compatibilism is, there is free will, and determinism doesn't have to be false.
1. There is no such thing as "compatibilists".
Does it become true that God is a "he" just because some of you human beings say it is?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:09 pm Exactly how is it possible to make sense of that claim? It doesn't become true just because they say it, obviously.
What a Truly VERY, VERY SIMPLE and EASY 'task' you have set forth here "immanuel can".Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:09 pm So maybe you can make sense of it for us: show us that free will can exist while Determinism isn't thereby made false.
LOL
LOLAtla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 2:47 pmIt's okay if you water down a concept, but then don't present it as an option in the original debate, because it isn't.God wrote:Compatibilist Reinterpretation?
Compatibilists argue that free will can exist even if determinism is true. Their conception of free will is often defined in terms of the ability to act according to one's own desires and rational deliberations, without external coercion or compulsion. In this sense, compatibilists focus on freedom as voluntariness and authentic self-expression, rather than absolute metaphysical freedom to have acted otherwise in an identical situation.
This has led some critics, especially incompatibilists (both libertarians and hard determinists), to argue that compatibilists have shifted or "watered down" the original concept of free will. They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.
That accounts for free will. It doesn't account for Determinism. So it doesn't account for Compatiblism. It doesn't show the two are in any way "compatible."
Now let's posit an omniscient God who can see the future as well as we can see the past. He would know whether we will make a trip to the store tomorrow. But he won't force us to do so, any more than the man who went yesterday was forced to make the trip.
This is precisely the problem with your example. "Knowledge" does not "make" things happen. So it's not Deterministic.The 'freedom" of the act is not constrained by the knowledges.
That I can still reduce the Atla's here to posting dreck like this has to count for something, right?Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:52 amYou sure Mary wasn't pregnant with your child, maybe that's why you're so obsessed?iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:48 amNote to others:
For those here who think they do understand Atla's point, please note what that is.
And, sure, perhaps I just don't understand it given his description of it.
Then note how in your own opinion I do keep missing it.
But, please, only insofar as that might be illustrated by you given a particular set of circumstances, like Mary's abortion.
Well, OBVIOUSLY, Correct 'the wording' so that 'the wording' IS IRREFUTABLE.Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:26 pmI think the wording is kind of weird - do you include the full state of the "will" or agent in question when you say "situation"? I assume you would, but the wording leaves that ambiguous.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:20 pmNobody has this sort of free-will. Not even the free-willers.They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.
In the same situation, they are going to make the same choice. They are not going to choose differently because they have no reason to choose differently.
Let's say that exactly the same situation exists twice and the free-willer selects a different option each time.
Which choice represented the will of the person? How can they have two different wills in the same situation? One of the choices must be the preferred option.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:26 pm If you don't include the full state of the agent, then even if determinism is true, as long as a slightly changed agent is in that identical situation, a different decision could happen.
But if the state of the agent is included then yeah, I agree with what you're saying here.
And, when any of you decide what the 'actual debate' is about, exactly, let 'us' know.Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:29 pmDoesn't matter what our take is, point is this is what "the" free will debate is about.phyllo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 3:20 pmNobody has this sort of free-will. Not even the free-willers.They claim that the original or traditional notion of free will involves a robust form of freedom, which includes the genuine ability to do otherwise—often called the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP). According to this view, if an agent could not have chosen differently in an identical situation, then they do not have "free will" in the full sense.
In the same situation, they are going to make the same choice. They are not going to choose differently because they have no reason to choose differently.
Let's say that exactly the same situation exists twice and the free-willer selects a different option each time.
Which choice represented the will of the person? How can they have two different wills in the same situation? One of the choices must be the preferred option.
you are absolutely FREE to claim words 'have meanings', but you are absolutely CLOSED, and thus absolutely STUPID as well, if you BELIEVE that 'words' mean exactly, and only, what you the definitions you have CHOSEN them to mean.
LOL