Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote: I don't think that you are following me.

The subject is whether someone believing that something is true makes it true.  You posited as an example of why belief doesn't equate to truth something that you knew NOT to be true.  That's not a good example.  A good example would be something that someone else really believes to be true and which I believe to be false.

Let's take my 6 year old son, for example.  He is currently in the throes of an elaborate set of basically fantasy-based ideas about an old immortal man who evaluates the behavior of selected groups of children all over the world and delivers gifts to them later this month based upon his assessment of their behavior and his own mysterious whims.

The existance of Santa Claus doesn't rely on your son believing in him or not. His existance is independant of that. That's my point. Belief alone does not create reality. This is the idea (imo false) that reality is just what people believe. It's the argument that "There is no such thing as absolute truth". Well ok....everything except that statement right? It falls apart instantly. Some things are real and some things aren't and they have nothing to do with someone's belief in them.

Kshartle,

You're probably going to hate me for this, but I'd ask you to do us all a favor... The structures of deductive logic were extremely useful for me:

- Premise (All mammals have hair)
- Premise (Gorillas are mammals)
--- Conclusion (Therefore, gorillas must have hair)

Can you use this method to prove "Self-ownership?"  Because you've tried to explain it by saying that we have a unique free will and understanding of the consequences of our actions, and that this gives us a special moral status of having "rights" of ownership of ourselves, and myself and others have explained how that conclusion doesn't logically follow the premise... so here's what I see you asserting:

- Human beings control their actions
- Human beings understand the physical consequences of their actions
- Human beings understand the moral weight of their actions
--- Therefore, human beings have a fundamental moral right to control themselves

I don't think that conclusion logically follows those premises.  In fact, I think there's a degree of ambiguity as to whether the premises are entirely true.  They make generalizations about humans that don't apply to everyone, though you claim everyone has rights. Am I misquoting?  Please use this format, so we can analyze it from a deductive logic standpoint.

moda0306 wrote:Can you use this method to prove "Self-ownership?"

Self ownership is a derivate from responsibility. Asking to prove it from first principles is imo impossible.
As I put in an earlier post, responsibility is a product from evolution. It came to existence because this concept gives us an advantage when it comes to survival as a group.

Question to moda: can we hold you responsible for the arguments you post in this forum? If so, then in effect you claim self-ownership. Arguing against self-ownership while at the same time claiming self-ownership as part of the argument is well... you know. If on the other hand you claim not to be responsible, then there is no argument really. Just a bunch of words possibly typed at random.

Please Define:

Ownership

Hold responsible

Keep in mind, I DO believe in individual sovereignty as a guiding ideal.  I just happen to think it's impossible when we're all stuck on this rock together, and impossible to prove deductively.

moda0306 wrote: Keep in mind, I DO believe in individual sovereignty as a guiding ideal.  I just happen to think it's impossible ... to prove deductively.

Well, I am with you on that one.
I think that these concepts (memes) have evolved because they help us survive.
It is useless imo to try and deduce them from first principles (whatever these may be!)


Edit: Removed some of the quote

moda0306 wrote: Keep in mind, I DO believe in individual sovereignty as a guiding ideal.  I just happen to think it's impossible when we're all stuck on this rock together, and impossible to prove deductively.

Ok this is what I already wrote, I'll follow it up with another post right now:

I've made the case that since we are the only ones who exercise control over our bodies, words actions etc, and have the ability to choose our actions based upon moral standards of right and wrong (even if they are our own) we are responsible for them. We are ultimately responsible for everything we voluntarily choose and in control of it. We are the stewards of our life. We demonstrate the action/principle of ownership of ourselves, every non mentally deficient adult human does this. We are the only creature that does this. This is not a moral assertion, it's an outright assertion of fact. If it's wrong please show me where. Please don't just repeat it's a subjective moral assertion. Is what I said right, or wrong? Not do I believe it or not, clearly I do. Believing it doesn't make it right, just like believing in God or not doesn't make him exist...or not. It's independant of my belief.

Here is a weaker argument: If it's possible to own anything, then we must own ourselves first. We are the thing that we (the individual that is us, in our brain) exhibit ownership over more than anything else. No one else can own us, because if anything can be owned then you can't deny self-ownership, the argument is self-detonating. So while I shy away from an argument from effects, I think this one is different. Essentially, if I don't have the right to myself, no one else can have a right to me, because no one can have any right above the right of self-ownership. You can't own anything if you don't own yourself because any criteria of ownship of any kind would be a slam-dunk for self-ownership.  So even if you don't believe people own themselves, you can know for certain that no one else can own them, and therefore either way it's impossible for force against another human to be moral or right. It can't be because the argument of ownership of another human falls apart at the slightest touch. It pre-supposes self-ownership which negates any external ownership of person because you can't simultaneously own yourself and be owned by someone else.

Blah blah. The point is if you own yourself then no one else can. Their attempt to control and force is the attempt to pretend to act like they own you, which they clearly don't, they can't. They can't own you because you own yourself and even if you don't then nothing can be owned anyway, therefore they still don't have the right to force you.

Does any of this make sense? Can you find a break in any of this line of thinking?

So there are two arguments here for self ownership existing. Note***** - this is not nor has it ever been me trying to prove that this is moral. I am not trying to prove my opinion or something subjective. This is me trying to prove 2+2=4 or if you think I'm wrong 2+2=5.

The first one is we own ourselves just as a matter of fact. Look at us. We control our bodies (which is what we are). We choose our actions. We exercise the aspect of ownership that entails control. If you can't control something you don't own it. Note* you can cede controllership of something you own to someone, but that is still your control being handed over. Double note** - just controlling something doesn't mean you own it. There is another aspect. The most important one is responsibility for, which in a property sense is the concept of stewardship. You are responsible for your dog. You are responsible for your car. If your dog bites someone you are responsible. If your car breaks no one else is responsible to fix it.

How does that relate to yourself? Well we know you control yourself. Now.....how can you be responsible for yourself and your actions? Is a baby responsible for it's actions? Is a mentally retarded person? Is a squirrel? If the squirrel chews through wires in your wall do you catch and send it to rodent prison? Do you put it in a gas chamber for being bad? Of course not. You might kill it, but not because it's bad, because its destructive.

Why do you not hold any of these responsible for their choices. That is, they are not good or bad because of their choices. It's because they lack the ability to choose. Yes a baby can decide to grab a rattle or not. A squirrel can decide to crawl into your wall or stay outside. They can't weigh the choice against a moral framework of any kind though. They don't have the ability to consider the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action so they aren't morally responsible. You and I are. All non-mentally deficient humans do this.

Therefore - they control themselves and their actions and are solely responsible for them. As a matter of fact they own themselves...it is obvious.

There is another argument that I think is just as strong and that's the obvious falseness of the argument that we don't own ourselves. I wrote about it already. If you'd like me to delve more into why it's completely false I will. It's like if you disprove that 2+2=anything other than 4 then it must equal 4. It has to equal something and it can't equal anything else.

There's a third related argument that I think demonstrates clearly that ownership of anything can only exist if we have self-ownership first. But I've written about think one also and we keep going back to saying this is all subjective and moral arguments so on and so forth. They are not. They are completely objective, at least from my perspective.

Please don't ask about the baby and the squirrel being disposable. This has all been answered already several times and very clearly in different arguments.   I would ask you re-read the posts on that stuff if you feel the urge to re-ask please.

I find it odd that you can't put it in deductive logical format. You have to explain and explain.

Deductive logic shouldn't need to work like this.  I can't attack your premises, because they're all built into one long sentence where you try to conflate control and awareness (pretty subjective concepts) with some sort of moral right and moral responsibility as a logical conclusion.

Further, somehow state, with certainty (though there's evidence against it) that animals have no conscious control of their actions at all and absolutely no concept of right/wrong.

But that's another one.

Please try to use deductive logic format (or whatever it is called) with simply laid out premises. We can't analyze your logic, or lack thereof, with run-on paragraphs.

- Premise
- Premise
--- Conclusion

Could we also define these terms:

"Responsible" or "responsible for"

"Own" or "ownership"

These both seem to carry moral goodness or a certain duty with them.  This is why I ask because I don't think moral rightness or wrongness deductively necessarily follows control, understanding of consequences, and moral feelings inside us.

I do believe it is inductively quite solid, though. Just not 100%. Deductive logic requires certainty.



So we don't disagree as much as you may think.

moda0306 wrote: I can't attack your premises, because they're all built into one long sentence where you try to conflate control and awareness (pretty subjective concepts) with some sort of moral right and moral responsibility as a logical conclusion.

I try to not do run on sentences. I think I'm pretty good at avoiding them, tempting as they might be.

Control and awareness are not subjective. It's 100% obvious you are controlling your actions. You make your body go. If you want to argue for pre-determination lets just stop here please. I'm not interested in disproving that, although others are free to try.

By awareness I think you mean the ability to weigh an action against a moral standard. Again this isn't subjective at all. The fact that everyone on this thread has even discussed the concept is proof that humans are capable of this. We can understand the concept so we're obviously capable of weighing our actions against a moral code. This is objective. The moral code might be subjective, but the ability to weigh the "rightness" or "wrongness" isn't.

I'm not going to waste my time proving to you that animals don't have a concept of morality. If you want to make the case that they do then go ahead, I'm certain you'll fail. Please prove me wrong so I can learn. You're going to have to prove it's not genetic or instinctual behavior though. I think that means you'll need to provide a non-human that can explain the concept using some form of language so it can demonstrate understanding. Not gonna happen.

I'll see if I can do better with the deductive logic. I thought I did. Maybe I just explained each concept too thoroughly.

BTW - the ability to judge if something is right or wrong implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Therefore having the ability to judge means you are responsible, because you actually have the free will to choose. Without free will there cannot be responsibility or ownership. I know it sounds circular but it's all happening at the same time so it a challenge to break out. There is a chicken and egg element and perhaps I haven't found the perfect bridge yet.

Headed to the office. I'll try to re-visit today.


Come on there are plenty of definitive statements I made that you are free to go after. Are you sure it's not just impossible to attack them because they're rock-solid?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I can't attack your premises, because they're all built into one long sentence where you try to conflate control and awareness (pretty subjective concepts) with some sort of moral right and moral responsibility as a logical conclusion.

I try to not do run on sentences. I think I'm pretty good at avoiding them, tempting as they might be.

Control and awareness are not subjective. It's 100% obvious you are controlling your actions. You make your body go. If you want to argue for pre-determination lets just stop here please. I'm not interested in disproving that, although others are free to try.

By awareness I think you mean the ability to weigh an action against a moral standard. Again this isn't subjective at all. The fact that everyone on this thread has even discussed the concept is proof that humans are capable of this. We can understand the concept so we're obviously capable of weighing our actions against a moral code. This is objective. The moral code might be subjective, but the ability to weigh the "rightness" or "wrongness" isn't.

I'm not going to waste my time proving to you that animals don't have a concept of morality. If you want to make the case that they do then go ahead, I'm certain you'll fail. Please prove me wrong so I can learn. You're going to have to prove it's not genetic or instinctual behavior though. I think that means you'll need to provide a non-human that can explain the concept using some form of language so it can demonstrate understanding. Not gonna happen.

I'll see if I can do better with the deductive logic. I thought I did. Maybe I just explained each concept too thoroughly.

BTW - the ability to judge if something is right or wrong implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Therefore having the ability to judge means you are responsible, because you actually have the free will to choose. Without free will there cannot be responsibility or ownership. I know it sounds circular but it's all happening at the same time so it a challenge to break out. There is a chicken and egg element and perhaps I haven't found the perfect bridge yet.

Headed to the office. I'll try to re-visit today.


Come on there are plenty of definitive statements I made that you are free to go after. Are you sure it's not just impossible to attack them because they're rock-solid?

Kshartle,

In one of my previous posts I mentioned the connection among mercy, truth and hope.  So, in light of that, I offer in love my observation for your consideration:

It appears you vehemently seek truth, as do I.  Perhaps I and others on the forum would consider your comments more carefully if you added a dose of mercy to your writing style.  I personally do not doubt that you are very intelligent, maybe even the most intelligent on this forum, or for all I know the entire earth.  However, humility is also valued by many.  It may be easier for us to swallow your concepts if you let us figure out you are brilliant rather than you pointing that out to us, either directly or indirectly.  We really are not Neanderthals incapable of relating to your insightful knowledge of all.  Thus, you can hope we will "get it", or at least be able to respond objectively to your comments.

Perhaps it would be good for all of us to review Gumby's comments on the matter periodically.  He had some really good insights in my opinion.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: It appears you vehemently seek truth, as do I.  Perhaps I and others on the forum would consider your comments more carefully if you added a dose of mercy to your writing style.  I personally do not doubt that you are very intelligent, maybe even the most intelligent on this forum, or for all I know the entire earth.  However, humility is also valued by many.  It may be easier for us to swallow your concepts if you let us figure out you are brilliant rather than you pointing that out to us, either directly or indirectly.  We really are not Neanderthals incapable of relating to your insightful knowledge of all.  Thus, you can hope we will "get it", or at least be able to respond objectively to your comments.

I believe that Kshartle is doing better in this area, though one or two more charm school sessions may be needed to complete his Jedi training.

Mountaineer wrote: We really are not Neanderthals incapable of relating to your insightful knowledge of all. 

I appreciate it Mountaineer. I really do know exactly what you're saying. My writing style is more for me than anyone else. I sometimes work it out as I'm writing and make definative statements rather than wishy washy ones and I can see how it appears I'm talking down. Unfortunately with the interwebs it's extremely difficult to convey tone. I know some have backhandly called my posts emotional. They really aren't, it's the way they are being read.

If I'm sure about something....I don't say I think it's true, I just say it is. That implies that people who think differently are wrong. I think that is part of the rub. That's not my intention, it really really isn't. It's to get to the heart of the matter. If I make definative statements it's so that I actually take a position rather than blowing with the wind. That way if I'm wrong it can be pointed out so I can learn. A lot of people throw out that certain things are just their opinion so they can argue that they are just expressing their opinion and don't really care about if based on provable falsehoods.

At any rate, I'll really try to soften the language. I will fail at times I'm sure but constantly discussing my discussion style is so boring I wish we could move off that topic. I really don't mean to offend unless someone gets into personal attacks. If it's really a big problem then I'll stop posting.

Kshartle wrote: If it's really a big problem then I'll stop posting.

Since this place apparently doesn't have any mods, I just think that it's really important to be especially diplomatic in discussions of controversial topics, not because you agree with someone who is on the other side of an issue, but just because you want the discussion to move forward without getting derailed.

I don't think that anyone wants you to stop posting.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Keep in mind, I DO believe in individual sovereignty as a guiding ideal.  I just happen to think it's impossible when we're all stuck on this rock together, and impossible to prove deductively.

Ok this is what I already wrote, I'll follow it up with another post right now:

I've made the case that since we are the only ones who exercise control over our bodies, words actions etc, and have the ability to choose our actions based upon moral standards of right and wrong (even if they are our own) we are responsible for them. We are ultimately responsible for everything we voluntarily choose and in control of it. We are the stewards of our life. We demonstrate the action/principle of ownership of ourselves, every non mentally deficient adult human does this. We are the only creature that does this.

A few things:

- Can you deductively prove that we are the only creature that controls its actions?  How do you know others don't?  You must either deductive proof of your premises, or your premises have to be self-evident.  This is not.  You didn't respond to some of Gumby's best post on morality and decision-making within humans vs other animals.  Please do so if you want to support on of your premises (that humans are the only ones with these traits).

- We exercise some control of our bodies, but not all.  If a rock falls on us, we die.  We can't lift super heavy rocks.  We can only do so much.  We only have so much control.  We don't control ourselves when we sleep, or if we develop dementia, or if we're too hopped up on drugs. It's a matter of degree.

- You have yet to define "responsible."  If you mean that our decisions will be responsible for certain effects, then yes, but we are not limitless in our ability to affect the world around us, or even ourselves.  Further, if by "responsible," you mean a duty to perform, then this is a moral assertion.  A "duty" is different than a simply cause/effect relationship.  Please clarify your definitions.

- You have yet to define "ownership."  If you mean that we have some degree of control in fact, then you are right, but we still have limited control of things around us.  Our control is not limitless, even of ourselves.  But if you mean "ownership" as a moral right (similar to "responsible" being a moral duty), then you are once again making a moral assertion that is unprovable.


Also, I shouldn't have said run-on sentences... but in fact run-on paragraphs.  Please present your arguments in deductive logic format, and please present definitions when asked.  When I'm arguing something that I deem to be DEDUCTIVELY PROVABLE, I will o the same.  I promise.  Please call me on it if I don't.

BTW - the ability to judge if something is right or wrong implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Therefore having the ability to judge means you are responsible, because you actually have the free will to choose.

On what basis do you believe that our ability to lend judgment on something in a given area means that this concept exists.  And, more importantly, how can you state that, while simultaneously stating that our individual perceptions of morality are irrelevant (if I think it's ok to rape someone it's still wrong), but that the overall concept of morality is VALID.

It sounds like you're almost saying what PS and a lot of other folks are saying.  That morality exists as a figment of our imagination.  It's only true because we believe it to be true, and has collective, social elements to it.

Come on there are plenty of definitive statements I made that you are free to go after. Are you sure it's not just impossible to attack them because they're rock-solid?

I think a lot of this has to do with definitions and some very good inductive logic around morality, but not deductive logic.  I am almost in complete agreement with you in ways... I think the fact that we 1) have feelings of morality, fear, joy, discomfort, depression, pain, etc, and 2) can control our actions to a certain degree, and 3) understand the consequences of those actions in functional and often moral sense (usually), is a good, but incomplete, inductive argument towards Moral Truths existing. However, we're also in a "moral dilemma" when all placed on a rock together competing for resources to survive and prosper.

I'm not going to waste my time proving to you that animals don't have a concept of morality. If you want to make the case that they do then go ahead, I'm certain you'll fail. Please prove me wrong so I can learn.

The burden of proof isn't on me.  It's on you.  You are the one claiming deductive logic is applicable in determining our rights to life, liberty, and property... But if it was, I'd point you to the inductive logic Gumby presented when you quit responding. 

You realize that the burden of proof is on the person claiming the deductive logic, right?  Deductive logic requires 100% certainty.  Your premises require 1) definitions of terms, and 2) to either be self-evident or provable to 100%, for you to have sound logic.  They do not have these, K.

Your premises might be true if we use certain definitions of words, and your argument would be valid (which assumes true premises) if we use different definitions, possibly, but it's damn hard to identify your logical structure because, while you make well-thought-out assertions in some ways, deductive logic requires a degree of organization and simplicity for us to analyze.  If you use vague terms like "responsible," "own," "control," or "steward," it's tough for others to see your logic... especially when you use paragraphs, rather than well-defined, straight premises and a conclusion following it.

I really do think we'll get somewhere if you 1) define terms, and 2) use logical format in simple statements/conclusions.  I really think one of us will get to a point where we better-understand the others position, and this will be extremely valuable for onlookers.

moda0306 wrote:

I'm not going to waste my time proving to you that animals don't have a concept of morality. If you want to make the case that they do then go ahead, I'm certain you'll fail. Please prove me wrong so I can learn.

The burden of proof isn't on me.  It's on you.  You are the one claiming deductive logic is applicable in determining our rights to life, liberty, and property... But if it was, I'd point you to the inductive logic Gumby presented when you quit responding. 

You realize that the burden of proof is on the person claiming the deductive logic, right?  Deductive logic requires 100% certainty.  Your premises require 1) definitions of terms, and 2) to either be self-evident or provable to 100%, for you to have sound logic.  They do not have these, K.

You are changing the subject and focusing on what is irrelavent. It makes no difference whether or not an animal has self-ownership or can make moral judgements. I think it's blazingly obvious that they don't, but so what. That's why I used them as an example to show how people do and that this is a critical component of self-ownership. It was to illustrate the point I was making about humans by showing the obvious (so I thought) difference. It doesn't matter if animals do or don't. That is not a neccessary component of human self-ownership. Animals could in theory own themselves and humans could still own themselves. They aren't mutually exclusive.

By seizing upon the irrelavent and asking me to focus on explaining that and every single atom in existance you are engaging in an argumentative tactic. I don't need to prove the irrelavent to validate my argument. I don't even need to prove it all. If my arguments are false then you should be able to disprove them.

Incidently this false aregument is called Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection) It's related to argument by question. "You explained how how humans have self-ownership by comparing them to an animal that doesn't, now you must prove that animals don't". No I don't. Fine, animals do. It doesn't change the argument, it just makes it less obvious for everyone to understand.

It's really annoying. I want to beleive it's not deliberate and you're just struggling with the concept of what is relavent to an argument and what isn't. If it's deliberate then please stop.

If, for the sake of argument, I agree that animals can judge their own actions as moral or immoral, what does that change about my argument for human self-ownership? - Can you please answer this question? If the answer is nothing....then why are you seizing upon this and falsely stating that I need to answer it if I'm to support my argument? I think you're doing it because you aren't interested in the discussion, just argument about anything you can find to argue about.

I'm not interested in changing the subject to the morality of animals. It has nothing to do with the topic, much like many other diversions that I indulge too much.

moda0306 wrote: - Can you deductively prove that we are the only creature that controls its actions?  How do you know others don't?  You must either deductive proof of your premises, or your premises have to be self-evident.  This is not.  You didn't respond to some of Gumby's best post on morality and decision-making within humans vs other animals.  Please do so if you want to support on of your premises (that humans are the only ones with these traits).

I am done responding to this stuff unless you can clearly explain it's relavence. Imagine that animals don't exist. How does that change anything I've said about why humans clearly have self-ownership?

I am exhausted with irrelavent bunny trails. Yes they're giong to happen. Sometimes I'll go down them. Sometimes I won't. When they are irrelavent though let's not pretend that they are. Please 

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: We really are not Neanderthals incapable of relating to your insightful knowledge of all. 

I appreciate it Mountaineer. I really do know exactly what you're saying. My writing style is more for me than anyone else. I sometimes work it out as I'm writing and make definative statements rather than wishy washy ones and I can see how it appears I'm talking down. Unfortunately with the interwebs it's extremely difficult to convey tone. I know some have backhandly called my posts emotional. They really aren't, it's the way they are being read.

If I'm sure about something....I don't say I think it's true, I just say it is. That implies that people who think differently are wrong. I think that is part of the rub. That's not my intention, it really really isn't. It's to get to the heart of the matter. If I make definative statements it's so that I actually take a position rather than blowing with the wind. That way if I'm wrong it can be pointed out so I can learn. A lot of people throw out that certain things are just their opinion so they can argue that they are just expressing their opinion and don't really care about if based on provable falsehoods.

At any rate, I'll really try to soften the language. I will fail at times I'm sure but constantly discussing my discussion style is so boring I wish we could move off that topic. I really don't mean to offend unless someone gets into personal attacks. If it's really a big problem then I'll stop posting.

Please do not stop posting.  Thank you for your explanation of your style.  I will try to read your posts in that light.  I too, can be perceived slipping into "know it all" mode; I just get up, apologize, thank God for my friends and move on.  Just ask my wife who I value and depend on to keep me in line. 

moda0306 wrote: - We exercise some control of our bodies, but not all.  If a rock falls on us, we die.  We can't lift super heavy rocks.  We can only do so much.  We only have so much control.  We don't control ourselves when we sleep, or if we develop dementia, or if we're too hopped up on drugs. It's a matter of degree.

This is deliberate misunderstanding. A giant rock falling on us or demitia etc. does not invalidate anything or prove anything about our control of ourselves and ablity to pre-judge our actions making us the responsible stewards/owners of our lives.

If someone chooses to get hopped up on drugs and they do something they are responsible for the choice.

Moda can you please tell me you are not just deliberately misstating and missunderstanding because that's what it really seems like to me. I don't know how you could honestly type that as a response/retort and I hope it's not for the sake of argument or needling or whatever.

Mountaineer wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: We really are not Neanderthals incapable of relating to your insightful knowledge of all. 

I appreciate it Mountaineer. I really do know exactly what you're saying. My writing style is more for me than anyone else. I sometimes work it out as I'm writing and make definative statements rather than wishy washy ones and I can see how it appears I'm talking down. Unfortunately with the interwebs it's extremely difficult to convey tone. I know some have backhandly called my posts emotional. They really aren't, it's the way they are being read.

If I'm sure about something....I don't say I think it's true, I just say it is. That implies that people who think differently are wrong. I think that is part of the rub. That's not my intention, it really really isn't. It's to get to the heart of the matter. If I make definative statements it's so that I actually take a position rather than blowing with the wind. That way if I'm wrong it can be pointed out so I can learn. A lot of people throw out that certain things are just their opinion so they can argue that they are just expressing their opinion and don't really care about if based on provable falsehoods.

At any rate, I'll really try to soften the language. I will fail at times I'm sure but constantly discussing my discussion style is so boring I wish we could move off that topic. I really don't mean to offend unless someone gets into personal attacks. If it's really a big problem then I'll stop posting.

Please do not stop posting.  Thank you for your explanation of your style.  I will try to read your posts in that light.  I too, can be perceived slipping into "know it all" mode; I just get up, apologize, thank God for my friends and move on.  Just ask my wife who I value and depend on to keep me in line. 

Read my posts in a calm, deliberate voice and they might sound different. That's the state I'm in when i type them, even if I express frustration.

When I read Moda's it's in the voice of that free money guy from the commercials. Maybe that's part of the difficulty for me.

Dementia doesn't invalidate our ability to pre-judge our actions?  I'm not following, Kshartle.  Disagree if you like, but I really don't see how that makes it seem that Moda is deliberately misunderstanding anything.

Your premises just aren't as solid as you'd like to think they are.  Now, it may be that those premises are solid enough to be the rules of a society, and they may even be the best way to organize society, but they are in no way so self-evident as to command everyone's assent in all circumstances.

Xan wrote: Dementia doesn't invalidate our ability to pre-judge our actions?  I'm not following, Kshartle.  Disagree if you like, but I really don't see how that makes it seem that Moda is deliberately misunderstanding anything.

Your premises just aren't as solid as you'd like to think they are.  Now, it may be that those premises are solid enough to be the rules of a society, and they may even be the best way to organize society, but they are in no way so self-evident as to command everyone's assent in all circumstances.

Someone with dementia isn't responsible. Just because dementia exists doesn't mean humans don't own themselves and they don't have rights.

Xan wrote: Dementia doesn't invalidate our ability to pre-judge our actions?  I'm not following, Kshartle.  Disagree if you like, but I really don't see how that makes it seem that Moda is deliberately misunderstanding anything.

Your premises just aren't as solid as you'd like to think they are.  Now, it may be that those premises are solid enough to be the rules of a society, and they may even be the best way to organize society, but they are in no way so self-evident as to command everyone's assent in all circumstances.

He's trying to argue that because we don't have 100% control of the physical world (rocks falling on us) or our mental state at all times (dementia) then humans don't have control over what they do. Can you see the difference between the two? PS has already explained this and others have as well. Contol over your actions and responsibility for them don't require complete mastery of the universe or whatever. PS explained it much better than I did.

It's nitpicking my statement that humans are in control of their bodies, and born of deliberate missunderstanding.

When I say humans are in control of themselves does anyone on Earth think that means I'm saying they can lift a giant boulder or are immune to mental disease? No one in their right mind would draw that conclusion from my statements. That's why I'm saying its deliberate missunderstanding to change the subject or require endless clarification and specifity that is completely uneccesary. It's an argumentative tactic.

Here's the pattern I'm seeing repeat over and over again:

Kshartle: assertion of fact
Moda/Gumby: introduction of real-world exception to that fact
Kshartle: objection that the exceptions do not invalidate the premise of the fact

Kshartle, I think you will have more luck if you acknowledge the exceptions rather than trying to minimize them or claim that they do not diminish your point, because once you argue that, you're outside of the realm of deductive logic. If I can logically deduce a fact, it can't have a million obvious exceptions.