You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Statism or Anarchism: Which has the greater burden of proof?
No one decides morality. Morality is praxeologically discovered through the realization that it's impossible to consent to a violation of your own consent. Truth isn't subjective. No one has "their own truth" because there is only the truth. Any deviations from the truth are falsehoods by definition. By defining truth as subjective, you strip all meaning from the word.
Redefining terms and conflating ideas. Things that statist are quite fond of. You almost always have to stop and have an entirely different discussion about defining terms before you can proceed with your original topic, lol.
Damn i didn't know anarchists were so into absolutes. That is kinda the nature of language isn't it? It has to be redefined so we can be on the same page and have a conversation. I'm not a statist, if anything i'm an existential-nihilist (which would be why i'm so caught up on this notion of truth).
The word truth can be subjective. Base 10 4+4=8 truth. Base 4 4+4=20 truth.
Now in our culture if some one comes up and says 4+4=20, they will be laughed at and corrected. Maybe that person came from a culture that does regular math in base 4 though. They aren't any more wrong than you are, but the burden of proof is on them isn't it?
Changing the counting system from base 10 to base 4 only changes the symbols used; not the quantity. You can't change the territory by changing the map. Is your claim that absolutes are falsehoods? Because that would be an absolute, which by your standard would be a falsehood. Do you know what "performative contradictions" means? Because you just engaged in one by using an implied absolute to criticize absolutes. If there's no such thing as absolute truth then you've effectively rendered all language meaningless which means there's no point in even having a discussion with you