Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3662203" data-attributes="member: 4937">I didn't say it could.&nbsp; I said the premise could not be used as proof of itself.Not applicable.&nbsp; Occam's razor asserts only that the simplier of two explanations for the available evidence is probably correct.&nbsp; But we don't agree that the two explanations are equally explanatory given the available evidence.&nbsp; The problem is that I disagree over whether your simplier assertion sufficiently accounts for the complexities of the evidence.&nbsp; And there are plenty of counterexamples where additional evidence rendered the initial theory insufficient to acount for the complexity.&nbsp; Hense my assertion that you couldn't use the greater simplicity of your theory as evidence.On the contrary, it becomes more difficult.&nbsp; If you begin with the premise that violence is inherently evil, the you end up repressing the right of the innocent to defend themselves and be defended from those that would do them harm.&nbsp; You abbrogate with the right to self-protection, the right to life, and with that the right to liberty.&nbsp; People must live in fear, and you in your condemnation of violence do nothing to prevent it.&nbsp; You protect bullies and condemn those that would stop them.&nbsp; When you condem violence in and of itself, you end up condemning the wrong people - not the violent, not the treacherous, not those that threaten, but those that would openly defend against fear and threats.&nbsp; The only people that escape condemnation in such a system are the victims, and you make a cult of sainthood out of victimhood regardless of its causes and you make evil out of strength regardless of its purpose.&nbsp; Like you said, we'll see who falls apart first.&nbsp; I'm still not taking any bets.No, do as you would wish them to do. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 3662203, member: 4937"] I didn't say it could. I said the premise could not be used as proof of itself. Not applicable. Occam's razor asserts only that the simplier of two explanations for the available evidence is probably correct. But we don't agree that the two explanations are equally explanatory given the available evidence. The problem is that I disagree over whether your simplier assertion sufficiently accounts for the complexities of the evidence. And there are plenty of counterexamples where additional evidence rendered the initial theory insufficient to acount for the complexity. Hense my assertion that you couldn't use the greater simplicity of your theory as evidence. On the contrary, it becomes more difficult. If you begin with the premise that violence is inherently evil, the you end up repressing the right of the innocent to defend themselves and be defended from those that would do them harm. You abbrogate with the right to self-protection, the right to life, and with that the right to liberty. People must live in fear, and you in your condemnation of violence do nothing to prevent it. You protect bullies and condemn those that would stop them. When you condem violence in and of itself, you end up condemning the wrong people - not the violent, not the treacherous, not those that threaten, but those that would openly defend against fear and threats. The only people that escape condemnation in such a system are the victims, and you make a cult of sainthood out of victimhood regardless of its causes and you make evil out of strength regardless of its purpose. Like you said, we'll see who falls apart first. I'm still not taking any bets. No, do as you would wish them to do. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification