Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[ultramanhyata]

It is for the PEOPLE------not a single person but the people....a well formed militia-----to fight a tyrannical government.

So these guys are approved to storm their Statehouse and rack up a body count.

We do not have a TG. If you think so, I suggest you live in any other country in the world first.

So "tyranny" doesn't exist in the US as long as a more profound example of tyranny can be found in some foreign government...

Sorry you weren't around to have informed the Confederacy about this litmus test.

 

[Greoric]

Right, that's one of your standard plays when you know you're in over your head. Refuse to explain your position and accuse anyone making a good-faith effort to understand it of attacking a strawman.

You didn't ask for an explanation that an ethical standard exists beyond whatever a fleeting majority (or any sized group) proposes. You just tried to contort the argument into a strawman to say I'm advocating for a hyper-relativist view of ethics (the precise opposite), just like you did with @Cubo de Sangre a couple days ago, and almost everyone in here.

 

[lecter]

Couldn't agree more.... especially with this part.

Do you think it's the most legitimate form of resistance to shoot political leaders though?
I always thought resisting the executive makes more sense.
At the end of the day, 'political leaders' are simply individuals and their claim to have authority.
Anybody could do that, including mentally ill, confused and homeless bums who consumed too much alcohol.
A mature citizen is responsible for what he does, for what orders he follows for his monthly salary.
Those who carry out the orders are the people who actively transform somebody's idea, which, per se, only exists in his head, into reality.
I can also write down my laws and put them online, I don't think I should be assassinated for it.
If people start to carry out my orders, others have the right to resist though.
Which is also the reason why I always thought comments like "SS soldiers were just following their orders" are a really weak, almost insane argument.
Yeah they were following orders of a maniac to put other people into ovens lol

 

[xcvbn]

So these guys are approved to storm their Statehouse and rack up a body count.



So "tyranny" doesn't exist in the US as long as a more profound example of tyranny can be found in some foreign government...

Sorry you weren't around to have informed the Confederacy about this litmus test.

Yeah I mean for all we know that guy acted on some collective group's manifesto. But that's besides the point because the poster already took it out of context.

Also, maybe the most well-known tyrannical government was the one America fought against for its freedom. And at the time(and for nearly another 200 years) the British were the world's only superpower.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Yes. An ethical standard exists beyond whether any number of people agree to it.

Here we go again...

This is identical to the religious argument that God exists whether X number of people choose to believe it or not.

Provide empirical proof of the existence of this vaunted "ethical standard".

And without any appeal to the number of people who have either chosen to adopt it or who may benefit from it.

 

[lecter]

different culture
hard to judge

 

[Greoric]

Do you think it's the most legitimate form of resistance to shoot political leaders though?
I always thought resisting the executive makes more sense.
At the end of the day, 'political leaders' are simply individuals and their claim to have authority.
Anybody could do that, including mentally ill, confused and homeless bums who consumed too much alcohol.
A mature citizen is responsible for what he does, for what orders he follows for his monthly salary.
Those who carry out the orders are the people who actively transform somebody's idea, which, per se, only exists in his head, into reality.
I can also write down my laws and put them online, I don't think I should be assassinated for it.
If people start to carry out my orders, others have the right to resist though.
Which is also the reason why I always thought comments like "SS soldiers were just following their orders" are a really weak, almost insane argument.
Yeah they were following orders of a maniac to put other people into ovens lol

Ethically? Sure. They're complicit in advocating for an enforcement arm to do whatever it is they're proposing. Just because their share in the conspiracy is less than someone else's doesn't also mean they're absolved as moral actors. You can write your own laws on paper all you like, but there isn't any actionable means that you could outsource them to carry them out (unless you intended on enforcing them yourself).

But strategically? I don't know. If its not then engaging SWAT as they raid your home woudn't be either. Prudence wouldn't have it that you defend your rights from your mailbox. You defend them from your neighbors.

 

[Greoric]

Here we go again...

This is identical to the religious argument that God exists whether X number of people choose to believe it or not.

Provide empirical proof of the existence of this vaunted "ethical standard".

And without any appeal to the number of people who have either chosen to adopt it or who may benefit from it.

No its not. It's identical to understanding that the laws of physics exist whether or not you understand or acknowledge them. In the same way, there's an ethical standard that maximizes harmony among any group of people. Hence why I told you yesterday that the universe is under no obligation to allow you to understand it.

 

[helltoupee]

No its not. It's identical to understanding that the laws of physics exist whether or not you understand or acknowledge them. In the same way, there's an ethical standard that maximizes harmony among any group of people. Hence why I told you yesterday that the universe is under no obligation to allow you to understand it.

I think his point is that defining what maximizes harmony in a group is subject to the morality of the group's participants, and maybe not universal, per se.

 

[Greoric]

I think his point is that defining what maximizes harmony in a group is subject to the morality of the group's participants, and maybe not universal, per se.

I was just throwing that out there. Harmony may not necessarily be the penultimate objective of ethics. But even going off that, no one would agree that harmony among a group is maximized if a majority ordered the minority to slaughter. Even further, just ratifying that the majority has that authority is a claim to a standard in and of itself.

 

[ultramanhyata]

No its not. It's identical to understanding that the laws of physics exist whether or not you understand or acknowledge them. In the same way, there's an ethical standard that maximizes harmony among any group of people. Hence why I told you yesterday that the universe is under no obligation to allow you to understand it.

This is not an argument, much less proof of your claim.

"Since we have irrefutable evidence that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion, with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force, we can logically conclude that an absolute, ethical standard exists that must be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of all human behavior.

"And the moral worldview I espouse is that absolute standard. As Newtonian physics has proven."

- Greoric

 

[Greoric]

This is not an argument, much less proof of your claim.

"Since we have irrefutable evidence that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion, with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force, we can logically conclude that an absolute, ethical standard exists that must be used to judge the rightness or wrongness of all human behavior.

"And the moral worldview I espouse is that absolute standard. As Newtonian physics has proven."

- Greoric

The premise is that standards exist, which also applies to ethics as it does to physics. That's unless of course you are to say no standard for ethics exists, in which case, I only have to find some example that you would declare as unethical.

What is with you and Jack and strawmen?... Its like the only tool you have in discourse.

 

[helltoupee]

I was just throwing that out there. Harmony may not necessarily be the penultimate objective of ethics. But even going off that, no one would agree that harmony among a group is maximized if a majority ordered the minority to slaughter. Even further, just ratifying that the majority has that authority is a claim to a standard in and of itself.

Very true.

I will add that your example above seems to split people into two groups though. One that wants murder, and one that doesn't want to be murdered. Both are demonstrating their own subjective view of morality rather than a universal set of ethics.

But I think we are splitting hairs, because I understand and agree with your point in general.

As an overall comment to your thread, I think it's a good one - I posed a similar question in a thread a couple weeks ago - asking when the slow erosion of rights or liberties actually reaches the tipping point for people to exercise revolt. It seems to me that you are implying that tyranny won't come in the form of deliberate and literal oppression (like a police state), but more as a slow burn (wars on drugs, taxation, checkpoints, etc.). I thought of it after re-watching the Waco Texas documentaries.

 

[Greoric]

Very true.

I will add that your example above seems to split people into two groups though. One that wants murder, and one that doesn't want to be murdered. Both are demonstrating their own subjective view of morality rather than a universal set of ethics.

But I think we are splitting hairs, because I understand and agree with your point in general.

As an overall comment to your thread, I think it's a good one - I posed a similar question in a thread a couple weeks ago - asking when the slow erosion of rights or liberties actually reaches the tipping point for people to exercise revolt. It seems to me that you are implying that tyranny won't come in the form of deliberate and literal oppression (like a police state), but more as a slow burn (wars on drugs, taxation, checkpoints, etc.). I thought of it after re-watching the Waco Texas documentaries.

 

[ultramanhyata]

The premise is that standards exist, which also applies to ethics as it does to physics. That's unless of course you are to say no standard for ethics exists, in which case, I only have to find some example that you would declare as unethical.

Do you understand the difference between a subjective and an objective standard? How about the difference between descriptive and prescriptive claims?

You really need to master square one before trying to take a second or third step.

What is with you and Jack and strawmen?... Its like the only tool you have in discourse.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim. And you are really making two claims at the same time.

1. An absolute, inerrant ethical standard of human behavior exists in the universe.

2. Greoric can define and articulate that standard.

Asking for proof of claims is not a straw-man.

 

[cincymma79]

Take your pick. CAF laws, drug laws, etc....

Do us a favor and try the Rambo thing then

 

[Greoric]

Do you understand the difference between a subjective and an objective standard? How about the difference between descriptive and prescriptive claims?

You really need to master square one before trying to take a second or third step.

I asked you to provide evidence of your claim. And you are really making two claims at the same time.

1. An absolute, inerrant ethical standard of human behavior exists in the universe.

2. Greoric can define and articulate that standard.

Asking for proof of claims is not a straw-man.

Can you demonstrate there's gravity without quantifying it into a formula?

 

[Greoric]

Do us a favor and try the Rambo thing then

What did this response just accomplish?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You didn't ask for an explanation that an ethical standard exists beyond whatever a fleeting majority (or any sized group) proposes. You just tried to contort the argument into a strawman to say I'm advocating for a hyper-relativist view of ethics (the precise opposite), just like you did with @Cubo de Sangre a couple days ago, and almost everyone in here.

I think I had it correct, and my initial take on your position was accurate but not spun the way you would have preferred. Your rephrasing of my argument was not accurate. You're attacking the legitimacy of democracy but not putting forth any kind of plausible alternative for setting policy.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Can you demonstrate there's gravity without quantifying it into a formula?

This is sad. Even for you. Don't waste my time again unless you can offer solid evidence to support your claim.

(And, yes, if it saves you time, I've read this steaming pile of pseudo-intellectual dogshit.)