Are you saying terrorism isn't unjust?  How about Nazism?  Is that just?

The "values" which you refer to (most likely, moral right and wrong issues such as gay marriage) are subjective, I agree.  However, there is one objective value: Life has value.  Without life, all other potential values are meaningless.

While generally, there is a fine line between when you would cross the line, certain ideologies unequivocally cross the line into the unacceptable, by both moral and utilitarian frameworks.  In particular, I'm referring to neo-Nazism and radical racism.

That's the value which I respect.  Life.  None of this morality bullshit in this one.  We're going with a very simple calculation of body counts.  Nazism's goal is the utter genocide of a massive population of the world solely out of a fabricated claim of inferiority.  Radical racism is exactly the same.

Now, if you want to sit here and justify the Holocaust, be my guest.  I'm sure you'll win plenty of brownie points with the mods for that. 

> avogadro wrote:

> "Are you saying terrorism isn't unjust?  How about Nazism?  Is that just?"

no, im saying whether or not they're just is subjective. a neo-nazi would beleive nazism is just, why is your values more important then his?

We'll get to that on the value to life section.

"Without life, all other potential values are meaningless."

without all the other potential values, life is meaningless; life is just as subjective a value as the values giving life value.

True.  However, you would have to show that my philosophy means all other potential values are erased.  If there's no conflict, then we're good, and a value to life is retained.  In fact, under your interpretation, all I need to retain is a justification for living, a value upon which people can live.  Here you go: Protecting, or securing, life.  It's an ongoing, empirically meaningful system of living, and it's societally beneficial because it protects life.

"That's the value which I respect. "

and why is the value you respect any more significant then a neo-nazi's?

Because my value is empirically more beneficial to society than those of a neo-Nazi.
I'm going to debate this both from utilitarian and deontological frameworks:
Utilitarian: Nazism resulted in the wasteful destruction of 6 million lives.  That's 6 million contributing members to society.  And he would have gone further, killing many more people.  Each of those people were denied the ability to enjoy their quality of life, for absolutely no gain to society.  It was simply meaningless slaughter.  The "other values" which you mentioned above?  Remember them?  These people couldn't enjoy those.
Deontologically: Very simple: Nazism advocates utterly meaningless genocide.  There's not even an attempt at a justification other than religious/racial hatred, which in itself has no source justification, resulting in circular logic at best.

"Now, if you want to sit here and justify the Holocaust, be my guest.  I'm sure you'll win plenty of brownie points with the mods for that.  tongue"

i'd probably get banned before we even started the debate.

i think you got side-tracked, you didnt discuss how how determine what are good and bad ideas, only that you consider nazism and radical racism as part of the "bad" category.

Nope, I actually did show it.  I would say that "good" and "bad" would be evaluated on a utilitarian basis, counting bodies killed relative to potential gains.  However, to prevent abuse of the system, it would have to be an extreme cost-benefit tradeoff within the idea, to where the potential benefit to the flourishing of life is near zero.

I'm going to do you a favor and give a contradicting example: VHEMT, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  Now, this group actually advocates all humans dying.  However, it isn't motivated by racism, religious extremism, or other culturally motivated ideas.  It is pure utilitarianism.  Its argument is that humanity will inevitably result in the destruction of all life on Earth unless humans are left to die first.

> avogadro wrote:

how do you objectively give empiricism value? >

Because I can.

"but valuing life is a prerequisite to all your other values.  Therefore, it has a value above other systems."

valuing other values is  a prerequisite to valuing life (which you agreed with me on). therefore, all your other value are above your value for life. therefore your system has a value below other systems....  see how your logic is flawed?

"Should we assume that certain events don't cause other events?"

im not promoting a different way, but recognizing that there are different ways; showing that you're calling opinion fact.

"
Oh, and why do you give value to them?"

i dont, just showing how what you claim isnt objective, its subjective.

"
And one more thing: Screw em!  Why should their opinions be valued in the first place?"

why should anyone's opinion be valued in the first place?

"You don't need empirical evidence when the group you can show that the very advocacy of the group is for massive, meaningless destruction."

its only meaningless in your eye; you opinion isnt significant in this debate.

"
And why do you disregard the violence created by the very system?"

i didnt say i do

And one more thing to be very clear upon:

For the marketplace of ideas to properly function, it requires full, free discourse.

The violence of certain groups is a subversion of that discourse, in that it silences certain opinions.  A stance that may be beneficial to society normally can be completely silenced through that group's destruction.  The Holocaust is an example of this: Judaism was almost wiped off the face of the earth.  Not by the marketplace of ideas, but because of a forceful silencing.  Violence, therefore, is a failure in the marketplace.  At the point where the marketplace of ideas allows massive violence of today to occur, it is self-destructive.

> avogadro wrote:

> "Bullshit.  I did not say that valuing other systems was a prerequisite to valuing life."

you said "without all the other potential values, life is meaningless; life is just as subjective a value as the values giving life value.

True..."  you agreed that the potential values of life is required to have a value for life; so how did you not agree that the values of life is a prereq for life?

Did you notice the "but" clause right afterwards, which you have failed to address until then?

It's very simple: Yes, I can agree with that.  You need a potential value for life in order to have life be meaningful.

However, for there to be competition between value to life and life itself, you would have to show that protecting life itself removed ALL possible values to life.  You haven't done so.  As long as I find one functional value to life that can coexist with the need to protect people, value for life is retained.  Thus, there is no conflict, and no harm done in silencing other potential "values" to life that conflict with the overall goal.

"You didn't answer my argument that you have to show that ALL other values are removed by valuing life."

because i didnt think you were gonna be stupid enough to push it. i do not need to show all other values are removed by the valuing of life to show that the other values are required to value life. and i do not need to show that all other values are removed by valuing life to show that the the value of life is no more a prereq for the values in life then the values of life are a prereq for the value of life.

Thank you!  That's what I wanted you to say:

You have accepted that we can silence SOME ideals while still retaining a value to life.  At that point, there is no conflict between valuing life and having a value for life, since we can embrace values which give a value for life while still protecting life.  At that point, valuing life becomes the best yardstick for net benefits because it offers both quantity and quality of life.

"Why must I value Nazis in order to value life?"

you dont and i never suggested you did.

Then what values must I respect in order for there to be a value to life?  You're the one who begged the question that other values were a prerequisite to life having meaning.  Does this mean I can exclude certain values, or does it mean I have to respect all values?

"At the point where an opinion is empirically proven to be dangerous for society, it should be thrown out."

it is impossible to prove something is empirically dangerous, because theres no empirical way to define danger.

Huh?  I can't empirically define danger?  How the hell do you figure that?

"True, it is my opinion.  It's also the collective opinions of a good percentage of the planet, and it's empirically substantiated."

so the problem with nazi's isnt their violent nature but that they dont consist of a good percentage of the humans on the planet, but if they did, they would totally be right to kill off the jews? what is right and wrong is just whatever the mob decides?

An opinion being held by a vast majority of the population does mean it is most likely true.  That's the theory behind the marketplace of ideas (I'm not arguing with this portion of the theory).  If you disagree with this, then there is absolutely no reason why we should hold value to freedom of speech at all in the first place.  Otherwise... why value freedom of speech?

"If you argue that the massive violence created by the marketplace of ideas is outweighed by the violation of freedom of speech... then you do!"

but i dont

Then perhaps I'm mistaken about something.  Why don't you write up one paragraph saying "This is my advocacy."  Very plainly explain your argument.  No hypothetical questions.  Just give us your argument, and reasoning very clearly so we don't have to do this run-around.

> avogadro wrote:

> "However, for there to be competition between value to life and life itself,"

i wasnt suggesting competition between the two though. the point was made that it exists.

"At that point, there is no conflict between valuing life and having a value for life"

i never suggested there was.

Then you concede that life is the #1 most valuable thing to protect.  If life itself is a prerequisite to achieving other possible benefits of life, and you can protect life while not destroying the value to life, then the only logical course of action is that the protection of life is a priori over all else, as long as protecting life still allows the possibility of a value to life.

What does that mean?  We have one characteristic of right and wrong which can be accepted: That, on balance, protecting the most people is a good thing because otherwise, there is no way for people to obtain any value in their lives.  Death is the only absolute.

"Huh?  I can't empirically define danger?  How the hell do you figure that?"

do you know what empiricism is?  empiricism is a way to make predictions, it is not a tool to define language, and cannot be used as a tool to define language.

But language is defined by our world and culture.  That world and culture is defined, shaped, and interpreted based on predictions.

"An opinion being held by a vast majority of the population does mean it is most likely true.  That's the theory behind the marketplace of ideas (I'm not arguing with this portion of the theory).  If you disagree with this, then there is absolutely no reason why we should hold value to freedom of speech at all in the first place.  Otherwise... why value freedom of speech?"

you dodged my questions. i am not asking you, how to determine when things are likely true, but what makes values true or false?

Get to this below:

"Why don't you write up one paragraph saying "This is my advocacy."  Very plainly explain your argument"

my argument is simple. there is no official, empirically testable good and bad. empiricism is a tool for predictions, not a tool for morality. you're a moron for trying to use empiricism to define morality, a trait i find very often in atheists on this forum. without an agreed premise of what is good and bad, it is impossible to debate whether a system, such as the marketplace keeps good ideas and gets rid of bad ones.

1: See above.  I would argue that the protection of the most lives is, on balance, a good thing, as I have stated above.  That's your premise for good and bad.
2: If morality has no empirical basis, then morals themselves have no source basis, which means they aren't to be valued anyway.
3: Wait, what?  Huh?  A religious person saying that atheists define a "good" and "bad?"  Um... what planet do you live on?  And what religion is that?  I've never seen that one before. 
4: Anyway, anthropologists would do a good job at disagreeing with you on this one.  We can go one moral at a time, but it seems in large part that moral stances can be derived from the need to survive in a society.  A culture will need a particular trait in order to help their society.  For example, let's take something as similar as the Jewish doctrine against eating ham.  Remember, Judaism came from Israel, obviously.  The climate was hot as hell.  In fact, attempting to raise pigs in the region was difficult due to the fact that pigs can't sweat, so they can't deal with the extreme heat.  As a result, the conditioning method of morality was slowly established to increase the efficiency of livestock production by selecting and removing inefficient animals from production.  We could go through one moral or another if you want.  But many of them can be traced to either a real or a perceived social gain.

Market regulation is an extremely broad term... anyone in favor of government is usually in favor of some form of market regulation (even taxes is a market regulation).

But this debate isn't an economic debate.  The "marketplace of ideas" is a term of art.

Avo, could you come back and call me an idiot or something?  Reading ARFeh's crap is physically painful!

> avogadro wrote:

> "If life itself is a prerequisite to achieving other possible benefits of life, and you can protect life while not destroying the value to life, then the only logical course of action is that the protection of life is a priori over all else, as long as protecting life still allows the possibility of a value to life."

you are confusing life as in all living things, life as in a singular human life, and life as in all human lives. you are also ignoring existence outside of life and what things that people do in life that can destroy value outside of life.

How am I doing so, with regards to the the first three?

As for existence outside of life... what do you mean?  Like the intrinsic value of a non-living thing, such as the beauty of an artwork or something?  You'll have to explain this one.

"But language is defined by our world and culture.  That world and culture is defined, shaped, and interpreted based on predictions."

language is defined on the individual basis and while you can empirically predict what people beleive a word means, you are not empirically proving the definition of a word no more then you would be empirically proving the existence of God by empirically predicting what people beleive about God.

If language is defined on an individual basis, how can I communicate with you?

"2: If morality has no empirical basis, then morals themselves have no source basis, which means they aren't to be valued anyway."

why do you value empirical basis? morals are valued and theres no empirical way to determine that its wrong to value them.

Oh?  Go back to the #1, which you missed.  If preserving the most amount of life can be shown to be an absolute good, which I have given an explanation for, and which you missed, then there is a basis on which to weigh morals.  From there, we can apply empiricism: Go to my #4, saying that morals are based on societal needs.  At the point where morals are constructed to improve societies, then they can be evaluated based on their expected results.

"3: Wait, what?  Huh?  A religious person saying that atheists define a "good" and "bad?"  Um... what planet do you live on?  And what religion is that?  I've never seen that one before.  tongue"

i see it all the time on these forums, primarily from Econ and Justinian.

Actually, Justinian claims quite the opposite: That there is no empirical way to test morals.  But let's not get into this.  I'd rather not get into a debate of profiling other people here... that would waste both our time. 

"  A culture will need a particular trait in order to help their society.  For example, let's take something as similar as the Jewish doctrine against eating ham.  Remember, Judaism came from Israel, obviously.  The climate was hot as hell.  In fact, attempting to raise pigs in the region was difficult due to the fact that pigs can't sweat, so they can't deal with the extreme heat.  As a result, the conditioning method of morality was slowly established to increase the efficiency of livestock production by selecting and removing inefficient animals from production.  We could go through one moral or another if you want.  But many of them can be traced to either a real or a perceived social gain."

i agree, but "helping" a society is moving it in a direction, and whether that move in that direction is good or bad is very subjective.

Okay, cool.  Then it's a question of four things:
1: How large a shift is my proposition causing in a society that undertakes that action,
2: In which direction is that proposition causing a shift,
3: What other "shifts" would occur in that society without the help of the proposition, and
4: Would those shifts be a result of the society choosing actions or being similarly forced into said actions?

Now let's first go to #1: the significance of the shift.  Now, in this case, I would argue that the shift my proposition undertook was an extremely small shift, taking the form of condemning a small minority of extremists.  After all, ideologies such as Nazism have been relegated to insignificance.
2: Here's the biggie: By the fact that a minority extremist group has been relegated to a vast minority, it shows that the society's direction of change is against that movement anyway.  That means a further push by an outside force is only helping further the society's own goals.
3: As I've said previously, violent extremist groups create a shift in overall ideological balance because they use genocide and intimidation to influence the marketplace of ideas.  Thus, it means that, if we allow said groups to continue thriving, the inevitable result is that another force will "help" said society by moving it in a direction, via violence.
4: That shift would be in a direction against the society's current standing, as the group would previously be in a minority position, nearly relegated to non-existence, yet would be later fighting violently to obtain status again.

That means there will inevitably be a force "helping" a society develop its moral framework, manipulating the marketplace of ideas without using the tool of freedom of speech as their method of conversion.  Both the pre and post proposition societies would experience shifts.  However, the proposition works to advance the system already in place against extremist minorities.  The pre-proposition society, however, would see shifts against the direction which the society would normally undertake according the the marketplace of ideas theory.

"Avo, could you come back and call me an idiot or something?  Reading ARFeh's crap is physically painful!"

i have a life, i cant respond asap all the time man. oh, and dont show the pain, thats why he posts to see the pain.

Haha, fair enough.  But you're not supposed to have a life!  You're in IC!

> avogadro wrote:

> "Avo, could you come back and call me an idiot or something?  Reading ARFeh's crap is physically painful!"

i have a life, i cant respond asap all the time man. oh, and dont show the pain, thats why he posts to see the pain. <