I really was persuaded by the argumentation ethics (AE)

I really was persuaded by the argumentation ethics (AE).

For everyone who doesn't know, AE runs like this:

P1: Justification is propositional justification;
P2: Argumentation (use of propositional justification in any discuss between people) presumes self-ownership;
Therefore, nobody can do rationally justification about any ethic position if he deny (righ to) self-ownership.

This is pretty simple prima facie and has some ground in the philosophy of Apel-Habermas (argumentation presumes some norms).

But I see a huge problem, at last for "paleolibertarians".

The problem is: all sort of things can be conciliated with "self-ownership".

Yes, pedophilia too.

You can be morally oposite to pedophilia but you can't do anything against it if you presumes AE as correct.

You can't deny kids have self-ownership. The family doesnt' has the ownership of the kid in the approach of AE. So the kid can do anything - since it doesn't violate any self-ownership.

So, I really wanna know: how pedophilia can be combated without disagreed with AE?

This is the only problem I can't answer. How to connect ethics with moral starting with AE?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
imgur.com/2lwX7EC
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

God, things here goes down fast...

im just going to kill you and take your shit if society collapses

fuck your rules faggot brazilnigger

Everyone can see who is the "nigger" here.

Arguments - or you will be nothing more than an angry monkey.

>Everyone can see who is the "nigger" here.

yeh u

huehuehuehue

ur thread sucks, say hello to page 10 for me

Not while you stil up for me.

Thanks.

Doesn't stop, bro.

Self ownership does not follow from making arguments. Further self ownership doesn’t imply ancap.

PEDOPHILIA UMA DELICIA !

Argumentation (the use of body to emites proposition with an logical syntaxe) presumes self-ownership.

Theres a big differece between "presumes" and "follow".

The argument isn't: "I argument, therefore self ownership" - that is "follow from".

The argument is: "I argument, therefore I PRESUME self ownership".

As we exists as material creatures, it is true. Nobody can deny that without performative contradition (the proposition contradictes the act).

Perdi duro.

PART ONE OF TWO

>I really was persuaded by the argumentation ethics (AE).

That's unfortunate. I'm not.

>For everyone who doesn't know, AE runs like this:
>P1: Justification is propositional justification;

Which is incorrect. Justification may be absolute; as per previously substantiated justification, i.e. law.

>P2: Argumentation (use of propositional justification in any discuss between people) presumes self-ownership;

This is also incorrect. Argumentation does not necessarily presume self-ownership.

>Therefore, nobody can do rationally justification about any ethic position if he deny (righ to) self-ownership.

Can a person make rational justifications about an ethical position without a sense of self-ownership? Absolutely. Could a slave in the cotton-fields of the Deep South hold rational justifications about his or her ownership? Obviously; and many did.

>This is pretty simple prima facie and has some ground in the philosophy of Apel-Habermas (argumentation presumes some norms).

Argumentation ethics is - itself - only opinion. It is not a theory, a doctrine, nor a cohesive rationale.

>But I see a huge problem, at last for "paleolibertarians".

I am not a "paleolibertarian", nor a "Libertarian". "Libertarianism" as it is commonly recognized in this modern era (including "paleolibertarianism") is not traditional "Libertarianism", but the very antithesis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

CONTINUED...

...CONTINUING... PART TWO OF TWO


>The problem is: all sort of things can be conciliated with "self-ownership".

I don't see many problems with "self-ownership", providing for civic duty and social responsibility.

>Yes, pedophilia too.

"Paedophilia" is a term for a psycho-sexual illness and a sexual orientation, the legal expression of that illness or orientation, and for forms of paraphernalia of the criminal expression of that illness or orientation. It is necessary to define which it is you are attempting to address.

>You can be morally oposite to pedophilia but you can't do anything against it if you presumes AE as correct.

One can be morally opposed to paedophilia and oppose it in any form, while maintaining the faulty presuppositions of Argumentation Ethics.

>You can't deny kids have self-ownership. The family doesnt' has the ownership of the kid in the approach of AE. So the kid can do anything - since it doesn't violate any self-ownership.

One not only can deny that children have self-ownership, it is in fact a matter of law -and reality - and is therefor the default position.

>So, I really wanna know: how pedophilia can be combated without disagreed with AE?

As stated, "paedophilia" is a term used for at least four different things. Any of those four different forms of "paedophilia" may be morally opposed while maintaining the faulty presuppositions of Argumentation Ethics.

>This is the only problem I can't answer. How to connect ethics with moral starting with AE?

If this is the only problem you haven't accepted a solution for, I suggest you find better problems.

Based Leafs will be spared on the Day of the Rake.

Fuck you.

we speak portuguese

Excellent post, OP.

Here is an ultra-simplified version for brainlets.

I'm answering, wait.

...

So child slavery is ok as long as their parents sell them into it

Kek I’m starting to think those ancap memes are true

OP here.

I have only one objection to the second post, so I will focus in the first.

>Which is incorrect. Justification may be absolute; as per previously substantiated justification, i.e. law.

Justification ALWAYS is propositional. If you give a reason, you express it as proposition. You know the definition of proposition, right? Proposition is the content of one sentence. I think you use another definition of proposition, not the logic definition.The only not propositional justification (in the logical sense) is... force - and force does'nt justificate anything.

I can explain it on details, if you want.

>This is also incorrect. Argumentation does not necessarily presume self-ownership.

Argumentation, defined as the making of propositional justification, ALWAYS, necessarily presumes self-ownership. Why? Because we are material creatures. Controlling our body we can use proposition. ONLY doing this we can make propositions. So, you doesn't control your body, you can't make propositions.

(Suposes: a witch control your body - the witch do the proposition, not you.)

The only objection possible is: we only control some parts of our body but that is another problem.

> Could a slave in the cotton-fields of the Deep South hold rational justifications about his or her ownership? Obviously; and many did.

You here confundes self-ownership (an fact) with the RIGHT to self-ownership. The slave use body to do propositions, the slave CONTROL her body - and that is self-ownership as fact. The slave has self-ownership, in this sense.

Also, this "slave objection" was really refuted by Hoppe, Van Dun and Marianescu Eabrasu. I can show you their objections, if you doesn't get persuaded.

>Argumentation ethics is - itself - only opinion. It is not a theory, a doctrine, nor a cohesive rationale.

Not. It just make an sinthetic a priori judge: argumentation presumes necessarilly the body. That isnt't opinion.

imgur.com/2lwX7EC

q

Well, thanks for the image. I will think about that too.

That image is so wrong I am going to assume it to be the offering of a Poe.

If you honestly think it defensible, feel free to express yourself.
"1. If belief in a proposition is inconsistent with being able to defend it by argument, the proposition is false".

Propositions need not necessarily be defended by argument to be true.

Propositions need not necessarily be defended - at all - to be true.

Belief and reason (the necessary element of objective argumentation) are mutually exclusive terms.

A belief may be incidentally rational without accompanying rationale.


"2. In order to argue about the truth of propositions we must have absolute self-ownership of scarce means, defined in objective, physical terms and obtained via homesteading."

The absolute self-ownership of scarce means defined in objective, physical terms and obtained via homesteading, is not inherently necessary for the argument of the truth of any proposition.

"Therefore 3. The denial of a libertarian ethic is false."

Posits 1 and 2 were both woefully incorrect, and neither need necessarily be correct to support a Libertarian ethic.

Oversimplification is fun!

Kids don't like being abused and freedom gives them the ability to refuse to be abused.