I was saying UPB is based upon life, not the other way around. You didn't disprove me.
You say that, but that's not what the book says. UPB is based on argumentation ethics. You're the one who isn't paying attention to the source. Life doesn't need to assume most of the things, as I explained earlier, assumed by UPB. When I said that most people don't follow it, I meant it. Maybe it is from your point of view, where you make the assumptions in your own particular life, that you think that UPB is based on life - but you don't self reflect that that is only your opinion.
Then please tell me why you think that. You didn't disprove me now, either.
Because the book literally says that correction is about universal preferences. I said, and I suppose you agree with it, that correction is a mutual preference between people who have agreed to listen to each other - not something universal. We must invoke it, create it. UPB says it's deontological, not artificial.
I don't know what you're getting at, I'm sorry.
The assumptions UPB makes, I critiqued them. The "latter" part is the group of assumptions that deviate from the scientific method and are not necessary assumptions for an objective reality, but force conclusions by assuming them out of thin air.
Yup. For more info watch this: https://youtu.be/LYOtZvwNCsc?t=49m1s
(j/k, it's a song. But the sampled conversation is exactly about that.)
Cool song, artist, album. I like this genre of music a lot.
Then, you are talking in circles and not disproving anything. I can see no "You are wrong, and here is why:", while I have brought the necessary arguments. You formulate as if you were correcting me, but actually you're just propagating obvious truths I didn't doubt at all.
I don't see why it is obscure to you. It's in the title: Life is not a debate. UPB says: Pretend life is a debate. Boom! Moral theory, baby. My "you are wrong, here is why" is that.
One more quote:
No. That's like saying "According to math I cant count without arithmetics".
According to Islam I cant go to heaven if I don't explode next to a group of infidels - yet Atheists are right. I'm just making the case for UPB atheism.
You keep on pseudo-falsifying others, but never bring your own proof.
Proof is for positive statements. I am making a negative statement - of what life is not. I don't know if you didn't read the last page of arguments, but that's what it is about. I am challenging you to bring proof of life being just like a debate because that's what UPB is asking me to pretend. And it's not like people haven't tried to do that, it's just that they are wrong. Someone said that life is about avoiding pain, and that's really wrong. Somebody said that they can't see the difference between life and debate, and that's just insane. I think your case was that since life needs to correct course in order not to fail, that means that it must be just like a debate as well. Like if you were to tell me to not go west because there's a bear that could eat me there, then I would appreciate that correction. But even then I would have to verify it for myself since maybe you lie to me so that you could gain something out of my not going west instead. Corrections between two people can be mutually agreeable, but it's not necessary. If you mean internal correction within my mind - like, I go west and and see that there really is a bear there - that is not a debate, that is my own internal thought process working to keep me alive. You could even try to correct me with the best scientific knowledge available, and it turns out everyone was wrong and the thing you told me to do actually gave me cancer or something (historically, has happened a few times). So my point is that the proof for the positive statement "life is a debate" isn't good.
To prevent wasting your and my time I will only continue under the following conditions:
Look, I think the reason this is confusing is because I am not arguing against debate. I am arguing against taking debate outside of debate. I am not arguing against morality, or against the assumptions of debate for a debate, or the assumptions of UPB in the realm to which it applies (and the only realm it applies is during a mutually agreed debate). Like, if we are debating right now - then I have assumed the assumptions of UPB for practical purposes and then the book asks me to keep making those assumptions outside of the purposes, as if those assumptions were true. That's what I don't agree with. I agree only in making the assumptions of an objective reality for life, but UPB goes way beyond that. So when you ask "which system you agree as a base for debate" I say "the same you accept". But it's only for debate.
- You focus on why he is wrong, but bring no proof why you should be right;
- You are downright condescending;
- You assume Stefan wouldn't seek a reasonable debate with you, which he until now has always done to his best efforts - sure he got sidetracked at times, but still he is the most focused and fair debater I know.
1- I think I shouldn't go into what should be right if I can't even establish why the current situation is wrong. Like I said previously, if I told you that we're going to fall off a cliff if we keep driving in this direction - and you replied "I don't care if you have showed me why I am wrong, I won't stop until you tell me where is right to go". In this situation not going is correct enough. Stop the car. We can figure out where to go later.
2- Because I'm right.
3- He gives you 20 minutes to make your case, then does what I wrote earlier every time. He always goes for the "upb can't be proven wrong har har" when he's run out of patience. I've heard the debates. And my case is directly aimed at why that rebuttal isn't valid. But then he would say "ah but we're debating you think this is true already". That's the point of first writing out the arguments, so that they can be freshly laid out before he even says those already tired comebacks.
I hope that's all we need. I have some psychological idea about what is happening in the conversation, but if so I will talk about that in another thread. I'm giving my best not to become personal here, because it's a lot of information already.
Get personal here if you need. The only people who have gotten emotional are those challenging me, and have either quit, or I have had to ignore them out of them ceasing to make any sense.
I'm getting the feeling that each time you are presented with solid proof you just don't want to change your own opinion.
Well, my "opinion" is that life is not a debate. I have received attempts at arguments that it is, but they're not convincing. Probably because they're wrong.