" I've requested that frequent commenter, Marshal, only comment and make claim facts IF he provides objective proof of his claims. I'm holding him to that requirement because he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God. As if they were objective, proven facts. I am relatively sure that he doesn't even understand that his opinions are not objectively proven, but I can't say that without sounding presumptuous. Nonetheless, that's how it seems."
From here on out I will be adopting and strictly enforcing this policy as well. If this policy is good enough for Dan to demand it of his commenters (really only selected commenters, but who expects consistency), then It's good enough to hold Dan to as well.
22 comments:
Sound policy. We can all it "the Dan Rule".
Setting aside his lie that "he so frequently offers his opinions as if they were THE Word of God. As if they were objective, proven facts", he is far more guilty of making truth claims without evidentiary support than I ever do. Of course, he won't delete himself for not complying with his "rule", but now it's clearly a "rule" specifically for me, and he can say whatever he finds compelling and rest on the "my opinion" or "self-evident" canards to absolve him from doing what he expects of others.
Art,
As I point out regularly, he makes argument that are presented as if they were objectively True until he's pressed, once his standards are applied to him, he hides behind saying that his claims are really just his opinions and that no one can possibly know the Truth. It's a good shtick, but it merely points out that absolutely nothing he says is intended to be objectively True, he just wants to act like it is.
He desperately wants to cling to a morality that is subjective, yet he demands the right to apply his subjective morality to others as if it was objective. He claims that "slavery is evil", which presumes that objective "evil" exists and that slavery meets that objective standards for being objectively "evil". Yet his only evidence to back up his objective claim, is that there is some sort of consensus among some group of people that agree with his opinion on the matter. Clearly there are millions of people who believe that slavery is not "evil" and that slavery is good. Dan wants to be able to treat those people as if they were objectively wrong, but his claim cannot be proven objectively True, which he admits.
Convoluted to say the least.
"He claims that "slavery is evil", which presumes that objective "evil" exists and that slavery meets that objective standards for being objectively "evil". Yet his only evidence to back up his objective claim, is that there is some sort of consensus among some group of people that agree with his opinion on the matter. Clearly there are millions of people who believe that slavery is not "evil" and that slavery is good."
Just to clarify what you're not understanding...
1. I've been quite clear that none of us can objectively prove our opinions about moral questions. So, of course, given that clear starting point, saying slavery is evil does NOT presume that we can objectively prove evil. Your premise is rationally flawed and not based in reality.
2. Claiming that "slavery is evil", then, does not presume that objective "evil" exists and can be objectively proven.
3. Rather, it presumes that we can find rational moral ground based on fairly universal notions of a golden rule and human rights. That, IF a society... a group of societies, can agree that humans have basic human rights and generally an obligation to do no harm to others, THEN, we can generate some basic levels of rules and rights that we can agree upon.
4. Furthermore, it presumes that some actions - slavery, rape, murder... - are SO overtly bad and harmful, that it is important for rational, moral people strive to prevent them... EVEN IF Craig is impotent to objectively prove they are wrong.
Do you agree that YOU can't objectively prove slavery is wrong? Do you agree that it is important to fight against them EVEN IF you can't prove they're wrong, objectively?
5. You have not proven that millions of people think, as you do, that slavery is sometimes acceptable. (And that IS correct, isn't it...? You do think, for instance, if "god" commands you to enslave someone or kill babies, then it is not an immoral action in that case?)
6. Even if there are "millions " of people who think slavery is sometimes acceptable, in a world of 7 billion people, millions is just a fraction. The rest of us can come to rational, moral conclusions against slavery, in spite of the outliers, and indeed, it is vital that we do so. Agreed?
Dan
1. Saying that "slavery is evil" is literally an objective claim, that slavery is objectively evil. Based on your own claim, the statement is self refuting.
2. Sure it does. Otherwise the claim is meaningless or incredibly poorly constructed.
3. Yet none of that gets you to the objective claim that "slavery is evil". At best it's a subjective opinion based on some level of consensus.
4. It's strange how you want to make your subjective hunches about things somehow objective, then demand that I must prove your claims.
"Do you agree that YOU can't objectively prove slavery is wrong?"
I've never made that objective claim, you heve. Why would you demand that I prove your claim, which you admit you can't prove, yet act as if it's objective.
"Do you agree that it is important to fight against them EVEN IF you can't prove they're wrong, objectively?"
Well, that's an entirely different question. If you live in a society where slavery is moral, then no. If you intend to force your subjective opinion on a society that disagrees with you, no. If by "fight" you mean try to persuade, sure.
5. Obviously the existence of more people enslaved that ever before in history isn't going to stop your absurd claims. It's always a good sign when all you have left is to lie about what I believe.
6. You are free to try to impose your subjective hunches however you like. That doesn't change the fact that they are subjective, that consensus doesn't equal moral, or that you continue to act as if your subjective hunches are objective.
While it would have been easier, as one who's dealt with Dan since at least 2008, it isn't impossible to accurately imagine the comments to which you responded in your comment on April 11, 2024 at 9:39 AM. Dan's ideology and belief system relies heavily on ambiguity, except where he's requested to defend them against legitimate criticism. Then he demands exactness...from his detractors, not himself.
Dan's entire shtick is built on demanding unreasonable levels of proof and accountability from other, while leveraging maximum deniability and obfuscation for himself. His ability to demand from other what he exempts himself from is impressive.
"Saying that "slavery is evil" is literally an objective claim, that slavery is objectively evil"
You're just literally factually wrong. You don't seem to understand how words and communication works.
People make claims all the time that they don't intend to be objectively proven.
"My school is the best!"
"You're crazy!"
Etc.
AND, when someone says, "we can't objectively prove slavery is evil... but it's clearly a great evil!"
Then, No. That is literally not a claim of objective proof.
You're just wrong. Literally, demonstrably, objectively.
Dan
"Obviously the existence of more people enslaved that ever before in history isn't going to stop your absurd claims.."
There are something like 50 million people in slavery in the world today. But surely you don't think the ENSLAVED are saying they're in favor of slavery, right?
So, let's say that those who are doing the enslaving presumably think they are justified... but, they almost certainly would object to being enslaved, right?
Regardless, if there are, let's guess, 7 million enslavers who either don't care about the morality or actually think it's a moral option.
Seven million who MAY think slavery is moral (an unproven hunch)... out of 7 billion in the world.
How does that change my point... that EVEN THOUGH Craig can't prove slavery is objectively wrong, the majority of humanity has an obligation to work to end slavery? That we do not need objective proof to work to end rape, slavery, religious bigotry and other harmful, oppressive actions?
Dan
And of course, it's clear you're not answering all the reasonable, pertinent questions being put to you.
Dan
7 million out of 7 billion is .1%, fyi.
How many people do you think approve of slavery as an actual moral option?
What percentage of those are suffering from a malignant harmful mental illness?
You don't really know, do you?
Dan
"You're just literally factually wrong. You don't seem to understand how words and communication works."
No, not on this.
"People make claims all the time that they don't intend to be objectively proven."
Interesting take. Is your contention that your claim that "slavery is evil" is not intended to be objectively proven. That it's merely your subjective opinion? If so, then why would anyone agree that it is imperative to stop this subjective evil? It's just your opinion, that you want to impose on others in your "fight" against slavery.
"My school is the best!"
"You're crazy!"
Yet both of those are obviously subjective. Are you seriously making the argument that your claim that "slavery is evil" is 100% subjective and on par with the examples you just gave?
"AND, when someone says, "we can't objectively prove slavery is evil... but it's clearly a great evil!""
Again with the self refuting claim. If you can't prove that there is an objective standard of "evil", and you can't prove that "slavery" meets that objective standard of "evil", then your statement that it's "clearly a great evil", makes no sense other than an expression of preference. "Is" is an indication of a binary. Something either "is" or "is not". There is no in between.
This notion that you can portray your claim as subjective, then demand that it be acted upon as if it is objective is simply ridiculous. To say that "I can't objectively prove X, but X is clearly Y." is nonsensical. But completely in character for you.
"Then, No. That is literally not a claim of objective proof."
Then, No. That is literally not what I said. Maybe you need to read for comprehension.
1. "Slavery is evil." is (as formulated) an objective claim.
2. Had you said, "In my opinion, slavery is evil", that would be a subjective claim.
3. What I think you are trying to do is to say #1, but expect everyone to assume that you mean #2.
4. In either case, you expect people to act on your statement #1 as if it is objectively True, while acknowledging that it is not objectively True. (Or at least that you can't prove your claim)
5. Therefore the problem is either in how you formulate your subjective hunch, or in your presumption that everyone will read into your claim things that are not there.
"You're just wrong. Literally, demonstrably, objectively."
Yet another subjective, unproven claim masquerading as an objective, proven claim. FYI, when you misrepresent what I've said to create a straw man, then argue against the straw man, that doesn't mean what I actually said was wrong.
Leaving aside how bizarre it is that you are literally arguing that we should "fight" against the "great evil" of slavery based on your subjective hunch. That you literally are hiding behind the excuse that you can't prove that something is a "great evil".
"There are something like 50 million people in slavery in the world today. But surely you don't think the ENSLAVED are saying they're in favor of slavery, right?"
No, I'm suggesting that the people doing the enslaving obviously thin it's a good and moral thing. But you knew that, you just needed some weak attempt to obfuscate.
"So, let's say that those who are doing the enslaving presumably think they are justified... but, they almost certainly would object to being enslaved, right?"
That is a conclusion based on facts not in evidence. It's also irrelevant. If the enslavers somehow became slaves, those who enslaved the enslavers would still argue that slavery is moral.
"Seven million who MAY think slavery is moral (an unproven hunch)... out of 7 billion in the world."
Interesting, you seem to be arguing that morality is decided by the majority of those in power.
"How does that change my point... that EVEN THOUGH Craig can't prove slavery is objectively wrong, the majority of humanity has an obligation to work to end slavery?"
1. Why do you continue to demand that I prove the claims you are making?
2. By what standard do you impose an "obligation" on others?
3. If morality is not universal and objective, what prevents two moral systems from coexisting even though they disagree on the specifics of morality?
4. Are you proposing that the "majority" (an unproven claim) should conquer those who enslave people and impose a subjective morality on them?
"That we do not need objective proof to work to end rape, slavery, religious bigotry and other harmful, oppressive actions?"
If you say so. Even though you can't prove that those behaviors are objectively evil, immoral, or wrong, and that you have the right to impose your morals on others.
"And of course, it's clear you're not answering all the reasonable, pertinent questions being put to you."
Given the fact that you can't point out one specific question that is objectively "reasonable" (or provide an objective standard for "reasonable"), nor a single question that I haven't answered, I fail to see your point. Unlike you, I'll post this comment to demonstrate your desperation.
"7 million out of 7 billion is .1%, fyi."
So, you can do basic math. You can make up numbers out of nowhere and pretend like you've made a point.
"How many people do you think approve of slavery as an actual moral option?"
Millions.
"What percentage of those are suffering from a malignant harmful mental illness?"
Don't know, don't care. Unless you can prove the claim that you seem to be making (That those who disagree with your subjective hunch about slavery have a "mental illness"), this can only be one more sign of desperation.
"You don't really know, do you?"
1. I'm not the one claiming I do.
2. You are batting 1.000 against straw men.
3. The problem is that you, self admittedly, don't know that any of your claims are objectively True, yet demand that others must act on your subjective claims as if they were objectively True.
4. It's a good sign when all you have is bullshit and straw men.
Dan,
You are confusing the concept of legal v. moral.
Legality is decided by a majority of a given group imposing the will of the majority on the minority. Legal does not equal moral. If you wanted to argue that it would be appropriate for you and your "majority" to declare "slavery" to be illegal within a territory you control, that would be appropriate. However, making slavery illegal, does not make slavery evil. Likewise, if another territory or majority decided that slavery was going to be legal in the area they controlled and could impose their will over, they are free to do so. Again, legal and moral are not equal.
Fwiw, someone taking the time to spell out in good, great detail, what I'm saying about morality:
https://www.quora.com/Can-moral-claims-be-objectively-true
Dan
And no, I'm not confusing the concept of legal v. moral. You're confusing not understanding my words with understanding my words.
As always, you read and reach bad conclusions.
Dan
I read two comments at Dan's "Quora" link and it is a better explanation for nonsense than the explanations given by Dan. That is to say, those explanations are based on the notion morals are subjective, and thus, the best one can say is that any assertion of objectivity is itself subjective and can only be presumed objective between two or more who feel the same way about whatever issue is being debated.
As to Dan's desperate attempt to argue his failed point, counting only those who own slaves doesn't come anywhere near exposing how many approve of the practice. According to Snopes (the first link which came up when I sought answers to respond), something like 1.4% of Americans owned slaves at the peak of slavery in America. But in the south, where the slave states were, it was a bit higher...around 6% of those in the slave states owned slaved. Another USA Today link dickered with the numbers, even suggesting 20% of "households" owned slaves as if it doesn't matter that the head of that household is the only person who can be legitimately counted as an owner of slaves. It then cited those who claimed it still isn't accurate as some folks rented slaves from slave owners...that what matters in order to fully disparage America is how many benefited from slaves. But what it doesn't realize is how all of this backs the point I intended to make in response to Dan and his numbers: 6% of slave owners doesn't speak to how many others favored slavery, would have owned slaves if they had the need or wealth to support having them. The fact that slavery was legal in those states, as it is tolerated in so many of the world's nations today, suggest that among non-slave owning people, there is enough who regard the practice positively enough to allow it to continue as it does. The same was true in the south, where ostensibly a state could discontinue it if the majority of the state's voting citizenry so chose. Thus, Craig referencing the many nations where slavery still exists is more relevant to the discussion than is Dan's weak attempt to diminish the truth of the reference, and as such, Craig's larger point remains unaffected by Dan's weak attempt.
"And no, I'm not confusing the concept of legal v. moral. You're confusing not understanding my words with understanding my words."
Yet, all of the arguments you make for your subjective, consensus based, moral system are all hallmarks of laws. You might not intend to do so, but you are making an argument that supports a legal code rather than a moral code. Laws are decided by a majority/consensus/those in power. Where your subjective moral code makes the turn in your determination to force your moral code on others, at that point you're advocating a legal code.
"As always, you read and reach bad conclusions."
If you say so. Usually, they're just conclusions you don't like.
Your "Quora" "expert" is advocating for a subjective moral code as are you. I gave the sociological definition of morality ages ago (morality is determined by consensus of individual societies, tribes, clans, or families) and his response isn't that different. You and he are still left with the problem of applying that subjective morality beyond yourselves. I have no problem is you hold yourself to a subjective moral standard, I do have a problem when you apply that subjective moral standard to others, or impose your subjective moral standard on those who have a different subjective moral standard.
"I read two comments at Dan's "Quora" link and it is a better explanation for nonsense than the explanations given by Dan. That is to say, those explanations are based on the notion morals are subjective, and thus, the best one can say is that any assertion of objectivity is itself subjective and can only be presumed objective between two or more who feel the same way about whatever issue is being debated."
Absolutely, the "expert" response still fails to move an individual, subjective, moral code to a moral code that can be applied universally. (In fact, the "expert" seems MORE committed to an individual, subjective, moral code than Dan is. Dan is continually trying to impose his moral code on others, the "expert" seems content to just muddle along with their subjective, individual moral code.)
"As to Dan's desperate attempt to argue his failed point, counting only those who own slaves doesn't come anywhere near exposing how many approve of the practice."
This should be self evident. If societies/countries allow slavery, then it would seem that the majority of those at least tolerate it. If they didn't, then they would protest or try to stop this objective "evil".
"According to Snopes (the first link which came up when I sought answers to respond), something like 1.4% of Americans owned slaves at the peak of slavery in America. But in the south, where the slave states were, it was a bit higher...around 6% of those in the slave states owned slaved. Another USA Today link dickered with the numbers, even suggesting 20% of "households" owned slaves as if it doesn't matter that the head of that household is the only person who can be legitimately counted as an owner of slaves. It then cited those who claimed it still isn't accurate as some folks rented slaves from slave owners...that what matters in order to fully disparage America is how many benefited from slaves."
The numbers of Americans who owned/rented/benefited from slaves was always very small. Also the majority of that small % owned very few slaves. The notion that various things wouldn't have been built if slaves hadn't built them is ridiculous. These people are also ignoring the societal cost of a slave/agricultural economy.
"But what it doesn't realize is how all of this backs the point I intended to make in response to Dan and his numbers: 6% of slave owners doesn't speak to how many others favored slavery, would have owned slaves if they had the need or wealth to support having them."
Good point. They obviously were willing to fight a war about it. Although, I suspect many of them were motivated by "states rights" rather than slavery specifically.
"The fact that slavery was legal in those states, as it is tolerated in so many of the world's nations today, suggest that among non-slave owning people, there is enough who regard the practice positively enough to allow it to continue as it does. The same was true in the south, where ostensibly a state could discontinue it if the majority of the state's voting citizenry so chose. Thus, Craig referencing the many nations where slavery still exists is more relevant to the discussion than is Dan's weak attempt to diminish the truth of the reference, and as such, Craig's larger point remains unaffected by Dan's weak attempt."
Thanks, I thought so as well.
Post a Comment