/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17711818]

It's literally impossible to argue against him.

[Anonymous No.17712910]

>>17711818
True, praxeology is literally unfalsifiable and meaningless

[Anonymous No.17712982]

Argumentation ethics only works if everyone is worth arguing with, which it assumes to be the case. On the contrary, there are some people who should just be beaten if they disobey -- children, slaves, rebellious subjects, etc.

I would be interested to see how Hans raised his children. I imagine any toddler raised on argumentation ethics would be an extremely neurotic child.

[Anonymous No.17713001]

>>17712982
>ethics
>in rhetoric

[Anonymous No.17713023]

you should go to next level and state that arguing against your position actually proof you right

[Anonymous No.17713048]

>>17711818
How does that work again, something about universality, right? How about not accepting rights as a metaphysical reality but rather a messy social construction that demands particularity?

[Anonymous No.17713149]

>>17712910

>unfalsifiable

So is mathematics. And yes, I think there're some problems with praxeology but that is just an absurd critique.

[Anonymous No.17713245]

>>17713149
Math is like art, you're not doing the same thing when you're making claims about empirical possibilities.

[Anonymous No.17713273]

>>17713048
He goes on like this:

>To argue, you need to assume you have property of your body, or else you couldn't use it to argue
>Ergo you can't argue against libertarian property without performative contradiction

He basically equivocates "property" as in the control of the body and "property" as the legal right and brainlets think this is some stroke of argumentative genius.

[Anonymous No.17713353]

>>17713273
My issue is more what the problem with performative contradictions would be in the first place. What does logic have to do with ethics? Rights are either pragmatic or revealed, beyond the human compulsion for patterns they don't logically manifest themselves into existence. They're social constructions that address specific needs. Even if we would accept the notion which you cited it doesn't follow whatsoever that we need to extrapolate that into autistic logical consistency.