<p>maize&blue does such a great disservice to Libertarians; he/she might as well wear a shirt with "Ayn Rand" on it.</p>
<p>paulreetz, yes. Send me a PM and I will give you my screen name.</p>
<p>I would, but it has come to my attention that the argument I was about to post in regard to the left having lost touch with common Americans has a hidden premise which implies that if I make the argument, the Equadorian flying lizard will usurp the throne of Morocco.</p>
<p>(hey, it makes just as much sense as my last "implied premise"!)</p>
<p>EDIT:
ohh- and by the way how would you have liked me to "prove" that opinion about unrealized possibility? Should I undo causality or build a time machine?</p>
<p>In the future, we will just assume it begs the question.;)</p>
<p>Abuse of the English language: "I would, but it has come to my attention that the argument I was about to post in regard the left having lost touch with the common Americans has a hidden premise which implies that if I make the argument, the..."</p>
<p>In cases of clearly unproveable opinion, please do assume I'm presenting somewhat circular OPINION before you assume I'm implying a premise against my own argument.</p>
<p>I didn't think I had to be explicit with that - should I put it in my profile?</p>
<p>the mark of a great CC argument is when people sick the spelling police on you</p>
<p>I, for one, would like to see the right actually finish an argument. while that was a funny joke about lizards, morocco and flying i would be interested to see your response to a substantive argument. you took offense when he called you non-substantive; wouldn't the best way to prove him wrong be to make substantive arguments? maybe I'm way off though.</p>
<p>(nspeds, if you are a girl, sorry for the "him"s)</p>
<p>Perhaps next time he/she could append his/her statement with "in my opinion" so I do not have to waste my time reading it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps next time he/she could append his/her statement with "in my opinion" so I do not have to waste my time reading it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, time that would obviously be better spent curled up with an intro to philosophy or intro to logic book (with google nearby so you can decipher the terminology).</p>
<p>Also, quick question for you:</p>
<p>How would you have liked me to "prove" that opinion about unrealized possibility? Shall I undo causality or build a time machine?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes, time that would obviously be better spent curled up with an intro to philosophy or intro to logic book (with google nearby so you can decipher the terminology).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Swing and a miss. You obviously ignored by reference to the Groundwork.</p>
<p>If you read the works I have published on my website, perhaps you will see the obvious references to my "Introduction to Philosophy" text...</p>
<p>Is there a "roll eyes" emoticon on this forum? We seriously need one.</p>
<p>All I see is an essay in which you plagiarize an incoherent attempt to sidestep Nagel to support the already self-contradicting Nozick. </p>
<p>I might be impressed if it wasn't an almost verbatim plagiarism of well established ideas already presented by Dworkin and Ralls.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I see is an essay in which you incoherently try to sidestep Nagel to support the already self-contradicting Nozick.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? I better inform the folks who are publishing it for me;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I might be impressed if it wasn't an almost verbatim plagarism of well established ideas already presented by Dworkin and Ralls.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have read nearly all of Dworkin's texts, and none espouse the unity of rights conception. Neither does Rawls. In fact, I patently disagree with him...</p>
<p>By the way, his name is spelled "Rawls."</p>
<p>Edit: Yikes, is that a fragment?</p>
<p>
[quote]
have read nearly all of Dworkin's texts
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Really? I better inform the folks who are publishing it for me
[/quote]
</p>
<p>better hope they haven't...</p>
<p>and you got me with a typo again - I guess when you can't win...</p>
<p>If it is a plagiarism, I urge you to provide me with the page numbers. You are so fond of "backing your claims," back it up this time. I have all the texts right next to my introduction to philosophy textbook:D</p>
<p>Also, I would love to know why you find Nozick self-referentially incoherent; odds are it is a paltry reason predicated on a misreading of his texts.</p>
<p>By the way, according to my cpanel log, you did not even download the paper.</p>
<p>I wonder why people lie, but when you cannot win an argument, I guess that is all they have left.</p>
<p>I'm not a political philosophy guy so I don't have the texts in front of me.</p>
<p>I'm more pure ethics (you Kantian you - not a good day for you and your self-defeating favorites is it?) so, yes, I do have a good background in the political stuff, but not enough to give you page numbers off the top of my head. I know I've read some of your "unique ideas" before, and I'm pretty damn sure it was in Dworkin. If you want me to, I'll take a look when I get back to Ann Arbor next week.</p>
<p>That aside, Nozick is incoherent in any number of ways. Which one do you want? Aside from the obvious: His ideas won't allow for even a minimalist state (which Nozick lovers dance around five ways to next Tuesday, but never adress).</p>
<p>Aside from that, his ideas lead directly to capitalist-anarchy - exactly what he wants to avoid.</p>
<p>Yes, I did. I else would I know you "borrowed" so heavily from Dworkin and Rawls?</p>
<p>Maybe it doesn't update right away, because I read the entire thing in acrobat (or maybe you think I'm not the IP address I am?)</p>
<p>Anyway, I'm off to bed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so, yes, I do have a good background in the political stuff, but not enough to give you page numbers off the top of my head. I know I've read some of your "unique ideas" before, and I'm pretty damn sure it was in Dworkin. If you want me to, I'll take a look when I get back to Ann Arbor next week.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If my idea belongs to Dworkin, then inform him right away, since he is then contradicting himself; I am an absolute neutralist, Dworkin is a partial egalitarian. Surely you would have noticed such by reading his analysis of equality by resource which was not only espoused in "Law's Empire," but also "Taking Rights Seriosly." I can provide page numbers if you wish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That aside, Nozick is incoherent in any number of ways. Which one do you want? Aside from the obvious: His ideas won't allow for even a minimalist state (which Nozick lovers dance around five ways to next Tuesday, but never adress).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are being painfully ambiguous; the invisible hand process leads perfectly to the minimalist state. From private protective agencies to a de facto monopoly, it is all in the first few chapters of his landmark text. Did you even read it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
his ideas lead directly to capitalist-anarchy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So I will take that as a "no." You obviously did not read it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm more pure ethics
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As am I.</p>
<p>To argue that my idea belongs to Dworkin is to claim that Dworkin contradicts himself; I disagree with Dworkin on numerous levels and it is abundantly clear in numerous parts of my piece. Prima facie, your arguments thus far really only demonstrate your proficiency in secondary texts on these authors, and even that is a generous assessment.</p>
<p>Are you sure you are not using google as a source for your regurgitations, because it seems like it. At any rate, I would like to know how it is possible for me to plagiarize an argument that does not even fit with the ideologies of Dworkin and Rawls. In fact, I perused all my Rawls and Dworkin texts for Kant citations, and none of them refer to the foundation of my argument. </p>
<p>Someone is lying... hehehe.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I do have a good background in the** political stuff**, but not enough to give you page numbers off the top of my head.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Psssst, Dworkin is a jurisprudential scholar;(sarcasm) of course, you have read Dworkin, so you must know that (/sarcasm).</p>
<p>this is why philosophy sucks these days--taking a well-known concept, tweek it up a bit, and spit out something and call it novel. when is this generation going to get off the tip of the highest branch and go back to the root? the root of your being, that is.
you both lost this argument ages ago when you digressed for about four hours with the sole purpose of weeding out each other's logical fallacies. and then topped it off with attempting to win an already pointless argument by quizing each other's understanding of terminology -- and, of course, throwing out personal productions to earn that catchy, ethical appeal.
might i end this debacle with the same notion i started it with: nonsubstantive claims only fog us from seeing the truth. </p>
<p>go to bed, boys.</p>
<p>
[quote]
this is why philosophy sucks these days--taking a well-known concept, tweek it up a bit, and spit out something and call it novel.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You actually buy his slander? My argument is completely novel.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dworkin is a jurisprudential scholar
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would put that under legal/political philosopher.</p>
<p>Anyway, I agree, I'm 100% done - if it makes you feel better you have a very good understanding of philosophy, and I really like your essay on the self.</p>
<p>Looking back, I'm ashamed I let it go this far. Sorry, Nsped.</p>