Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[Greoric]

Ultra is obviously right, but I don't think he's addressing the real weakness of Greoric's argument, and that's where the comparison is instructive but irrelevant. When it comes to property ownership and distributive justice generally, there's no way to stay neutral--you can't be an atheist, a non-practicer, or even a supporter of "freedom of religion." If you say you want no rules at all, you're still actively supporting communism. That makes gov't fundamentally different from religion.

People will always disagree about what good governance is so there has to be some way to resolve it. A democratic gov't where people are free to exercise reason and to try to persuade others is the way that humans have found works best.

Why does that resolution have to come by way of a vote through government?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Why does that resolution have to come by way of a vote through government?

It doesn't *have* to. We could have it be resolved by whomever could put together the most-powerful military, for example. It's just that the liberal democracy is best way that people have found to do it. The results speak for themselves.

 

[Greoric]

A meaningless statement. Does absolutely nothing to advance your assertion. Who disagrees with this?
.

How do you figure? Are you denying that rule sets for behavior have objectively better or worse outcomes for a group of people?

 

[kpt018]

Red herring. Doesn't take away that Jack is a mental midget that lacks the aptitude for introspection, as demonstrated here.

I'm not getting in the middle of your shit with Jack but....huh? You asked if Jack ever questioned whether it's him because you said so many posters feel he's dishonest it seems perfectly appropriate to ask who these people are and why do they think Jack is dishonest.

I'd just point out that Jack is very well respected among moderate and left leaning posters and even some on the right. Just seems obvious to me to ask why some people view him as very honest and some very dishonest and also painfully obvious that the latter group share certain traits.

Whatever it is, it isn't the majority rule.

Ok, but it was at the heart of your argument in this thread, right? You don't have a definition other than it isn't "majority rule"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do you figure? Are you denying that rule sets for behavior have objectively better or worse outcomes for a group of people?

"Who disagrees with this?"

Clearly, he is saying that it is true and not a point of contention and not that he disagrees with it. You could have saved a post by reading better.

I'm not getting in the middle of your shit with Jack but....huh? You asked if Jack ever questioned whether it's him because you said so many posters feel he's dishonest it seems perfectly appropriate to ask who these people are and why do they think Jack is dishonest.

I'd just point out that Jack is very well respected among moderate and left leaning posters and even some on the right. Just seems obvious to me to ask why some people view him as very honest and some very dishonest and also painfully obvious that the latter group share certain traits.

Thanks, and these guys always tip their hand with the "mental midget" stuff. Greoric knows that I'm not a "mental midget."

 

[Greoric]

It doesn't *have* to. We could have it be resolved by whomever could put together the most-powerful military, for example. It's just that the liberal democracy is best way that people have found to do it. The results speak for themselves.

How do you figure? Democracies are the shortest lived governances that have existed.

BTW, could a decentralized community of individuals could be the most powerful "military"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How do you figure? Democracies are the shortest lived governances that have existed.

BTW, could a decentralized community of individuals could be the most powerful "military"?

How do I figure? Modern liberal democracies are by far the best places to live ever.

And, LOL, no.

 

[Greoric]

Ok, but it was at the heart of your argument in this thread, right? You don't have a definition other than it isn't "majority rule"?

No. I think you should improve your reading comprehension. Also you rule out conclusions before you arrive at a specific one.

 

[Greoric]

How do I figure? Modern liberal democracies are by far the best places to live ever.

How does a vote by the least common denominator raise a country's living standard?

And, LOL, no.

I'm sorry, Jack were you honor man of your BUD/S class? Did you go straight to DEVGRU and skip going to a vanilla team? Tell me all about asymmetric warfare and counter insurgencies, and what kind of combat power armed populations lack.

 

[ultramanhyata]

You tried to compare the observation and identification of a pattern/process to the existence of god in an attempt to undermine the former. An extreme example of your false comparison would be like discounting Darwin's observational work in the Gallapagos - at a time when the other sciences could not yet produce empirical evidence in support - and comparing it to the belief in the existience of god because you observed religion.

This only works if you have already arrived at the (bad and irrational) conclusion that science has somehow proven empirically that God does not and could not possibly exist.

In other words, why isn't the observation of mankind's long history of religious devotion and experience a valid investigative avenue through which to begin building a case for, or against, the potential existence of God?

I believe there is evidence to support the notion of a pancultural process to morality i.e the golden rule. I know that the faciltiies from which we derive morality are biologically innate and universal to humans.

Why do you think different subjects act and choose differently during moral problem solving experiments?

I don't think anyone would argue with the assertion that the capacity for moral reasoning is hard-wired in humans. But that is a far cry from saying that one, single, ethical perspective is, itself, hardwired.

 

[m52nickerson]

@Greoric continuing his perpetual arguments against history, logic and reason. All because he is like a 5 year old that never grew up and can't accept that he has some responsibility associated with being part of society.

 

[Greoric]

@Greoric continuing his perpetual arguments against history, logic and reason. All because he is like a 5 year old that never grew up and can't accept that he has some responsibility associated with being part of society.

Reads like someone that doesn't have an argument.

 

[Greoric]

Why do you think different subjects act and choose differently during moral problem solving experiments?

I don't think anyone would argue with the assertion that the capacity for moral reasoning is hard-wired in humans. But that is a far cry from saying that one, single, ethical perspective is, itself, hardwired.

It doesn't have to be "hard wired" for a universal ethical standard to exist.

Anyway I'd like you to answer my question. Are there rule sets for behavior that have varying and objectively better or worse outcomes for a group of people?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How does a vote by the least common denominator raise a country's living standard?

Your approach here is wrong. We could get into the reasons for the painfully obvious superiority of liberal democracy some time, but what I'm pointing out here is the existence of that superiority. If you disagree with the general point, can you explain *why* a monarchy or dictatorship or mob rule or whatever you prefer would be better than previous ones were?

I'm sorry, Jack were you honor man of your BUD/S class? Did you go straight to DEVGRU and skip going to a vanilla team? Tell me all about asymmetric warfare and counter insurgencies, and what kind of combat power armed populations lack.

Same issue here. Do you think the U.S. military would be more successful if they just gave you guys guns and dropped you somewhere around the location of the battle zone at let you de-centrally figure out how to win?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Reads like someone that doesn't have an argument.

Does it embarrass you that everyone now knows that you're stealing your arguments and catchphrases from this guy?:

 

[Greoric]

"Who disagrees with this?"

Clearly, he is saying that it is true and not a point of contention and not that he disagrees with it. You could have saved a post by reading better.

He's disagreeing with it. His contention is centered around saying that no rule set is objectively preferable for any group of people, i.e. no standard for behavior and no ethical standard exists. (if we just want to approach it from a utilitarian approach).

 

[Greoric]

Does it embarrass you that everyone now knows that you're stealing your arguments and catchphrases from this guy?:

Which ones? I don't even know who that is.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Ultra is obviously right, but I don't think he's addressing the real weakness of Greoric's argument, and that's where the comparison is instructive but irrelevant. When it comes to property ownership and distributive justice generally, there's no way to stay neutral--you can't be an atheist, a non-practicer, or even a supporter of "freedom of religion." If you say you want no rules at all, you're still actively supporting communism. That makes gov't fundamentally different from religion.

People will always disagree about what good governance is so there has to be some way to resolve it. A democratic gov't where people are free to exercise reason and to try to persuade others is the way that humans have found works best.

Mine was not a criticism of his stance, but of the analogy used to convey it.
A good position is too easily undermined by a bad argument.

Honestly, i came in slap-bang in the middle of the conversation and should probably have kept my nose out of it because i am not sure how we got from cucking tucks to where we are, but couldn't help myself.

Religion and government aren't all that far removed though. The one governs ethics, the other, morality. Still got to pick a side.

 

[ultramanhyata]

How do you figure? Are you denying that rule sets for behavior have objectively better or worse outcomes for a group of people?

<{cruzshake}>

But laws certainly do have observably "better" or "worse" (relative to an agreed upon up/down metric) outcomes for each of the individuals within the group.

 

[m52nickerson]

Reads like someone that doesn't have an argument.

There is no reason to argue against you. You simply ignore facts and history and continue to make the same refuted arguments over and over again. In may ways you and a fantastic novel have a lot in common.