I'm not the one insisting that reason is a fiction.
So unless you can reason as to how what I described is incorrect - that there are not first principles from which law (duties and obligations) can be derived - I suggest we move on from this point.
Once again, using social pressure to effect change has a well-established track record. Moreover, in a society where coercion is universally rejected, that's the only method for effecting non-violent change.
and I believe in miracles..do you?
oh wait..I don't.
and you accuse ME of fiction?
like I said...any society larger than a clan is insane.
violence is the norm.
well it's pretty obvious that you no longer want to engage in discussion since you resort to ridicule.
I'll leave you with this.
Check out seasteading...go to the site and read the book (I made a post about it)
It would appear to me that if your miracle has any hope of occring it will occur on the high sea.
One more thing.
I stated that there is only fact or fiction.
then I asked you if reason was a fact.
you never responded..about then you resorted to ridicule.
so I guess I know the answer.
I've done a couple of podcasts with the guys from VONU. Great people, and I can't wait for sea-steading to become a feasible option for a wide range of people. Personally, that's how I'd like to go.
As far as ridicule goes: if you argue against reason, you're setting yourself up for it. The reasons why should be readily apparent. Once again, this post, and the posts of other people whom I work together with and have friendships with, is a market response. This is how the market functions absent coercion and how standards of behavior are established without a centralized authority. If everyone around you ostracized and derided you for being a douchebag, would you have any incentive whatsoever to be a douchebag? No. Onlookers would likewise avoid that behavior lest they be subject to those same sorts of societal pressures.
There you go, using reason again even though it's a fiction.
yup..just like you are.
Ever do any mathematical proofs?
The reasoning can be PERFECT.
but if your precepts are incorrect...it's wrong.
I'm not the one insisting that reason is a fiction.
So unless you can reason as to how what I described is incorrect - that there are not first principles from which law (duties and obligations) can be derived - I suggest we move on from this point.
Once again, using social pressure to effect change has a well-established track record. Moreover, in a society where coercion is universally rejected, that's the only method for effecting non-violent change.
and I believe in miracles..do you?
oh wait..I don't.
and you accuse ME of fiction?
like I said...any society larger than a clan is insane.
violence is the norm.
Cool story, bro. You should stop using reason if you think it's a fiction. Just saying; consistency is important.
well it's pretty obvious that you no longer want to engage in discussion since you resort to ridicule.
I'll leave you with this.
Check out seasteading...go to the site and read the book (I made a post about it)
It would appear to me that if your miracle has any hope of occring it will occur on the high sea.
One more thing.
I stated that there is only fact or fiction.
then I asked you if reason was a fact.
you never responded..about then you resorted to ridicule.
so I guess I know the answer.
I've done a couple of podcasts with the guys from VONU. Great people, and I can't wait for sea-steading to become a feasible option for a wide range of people. Personally, that's how I'd like to go.
As far as ridicule goes: if you argue against reason, you're setting yourself up for it. The reasons why should be readily apparent. Once again, this post, and the posts of other people whom I work together with and have friendships with, is a market response. This is how the market functions absent coercion and how standards of behavior are established without a centralized authority. If everyone around you ostracized and derided you for being a douchebag, would you have any incentive whatsoever to be a douchebag? No. Onlookers would likewise avoid that behavior lest they be subject to those same sorts of societal pressures.