Why are Individuals Equal(?)

[nanook]

humans can't be equal to you, because you keep shedding any gram of Ti from your psyche, because you think it makes you lighter and faster and sort of superhuman. the flash.

 

[Cherry Cola]

so...individuals are equal because...?

Now this question can only be answered this way: because the big bang caused a certain universe to be created in a certain way... *chain of events* ....which is why people are equal.

And not even that is an answer because why did the big bang happen? And why did it cause this particular universe to be created?

 

[TimeAsylums]

humans can't be equal to you, because you keep shedding any gram of Ti from your psyche, because you think it makes you lighter and faster and sort of superhuman.

So...because Ad Homs?

 

[Cherry Cola]

So...because Ad Homs?

 

[nanook]

and why do you keep using the inappropriate word "individual", part of your trolling scheme, so you can win the argument at the end? because according to some meaning of this word, not every human being has individuality.

 

[TimeAsylums]

and why do you keep using the inappropriate word "individual", part of your trolling scheme, so you can win the argument at the end? .

Explain?

I did not realize I presented an argument. I presented the question "Why are individuals equal(If they are)?"

I am not "arguing" with anyone, I am questioning your reasoning.

There is no "winning" in this question, it is a VERY serious and important question, see post #40

 

[nanook]

deletes the part where is say because and says: explain. lmao.

you are arguing that my response was questionable, but it was complete and coherent. that is an argument, but an agressiv argument, because you give no reason. or perhaps your only reason is that you say rooting our brand of reasoning in our nature is not "reason enough" to maintain it. which is clearly a fault, not a question, because you can not ask for anything else, if there is nothing else, there is only nature.

 

[TimeAsylums]

deletes the part where is say because and says: explain. lmao.

because according to some meaning of this word, not every human being has individuality.

You are claiming my question "Why are INDIVIDUALS equal?" Is faulty/troll-y because "not every human being has individuality."

I don't even understand what you mean.

What would be a better way to phrase the question?

"Why are all 'people' equal?" or the Constitution "(Why) All men are created equal(?)"

 

[Cherry Cola]

That moment when you made it clear that you were looking for the ultimate end all reason as to why people are equal because you weren't happy with any form of heuristic reasoning employing terms like choice or practical is when the question became unanswerable.

You are trying to find out where the treasure is hidden, but there is no treasure :O

 

[TimeAsylums]

That moment when you made it clear that you were looking for the ultimate end all reason as to why people are equal

I presented the question because of this:

The whole of modern life is predicated on the curious idea that no one person is any better in any way than another.

This^ is unbearably true. And the question is why?
(repeating post #40)



I have made NO claims that there IS an answer, I have presented the question to the forum.

 

[nanook]

you are familiar with individuation, for example? something people have to grow and cultivate inside, once they are ready for it. it's no option for children. and the word group mind means anything to you? it's what was there, in evolution, before individuation became possible.

HOW are humans ("all men") equal or HOW are sentient beings equal would be neutral questions. the time you ask why you go into a three year old's loop, "why?" is invalid, there is no why for the universe, the big bang, unless you give it a name, i call it nature. all that can be said is descriptive. saying i merely describe is not a valid way of rejecting what i say as untrue or irrelevant.

 

[TimeAsylums]

HOW are humans ("all men") equal or HOW are sentient beings equal

That changes the fundamental nature of the question.
WHY versus HOW

If there is a "HOW (all humans are equal)," why can't there be a "WHY? (all humans are equal)"

If it pleases you, I'll gladly reframe the question to "Why are all humans/sentient beings equal?", but HOW is a different question

 

[Cherry Cola]

@TA

You've already gotten answers. The rest is just a matter of working out the specifics, and you can never work out all the specifics because then you'll eventually have worked yourself back to the big bang following the chain of events caused by it and there it stops.

Of course someone could shed light on reasons which have hitherto not been mentioned, but the ones that have are not wrong, they just don't form the whole picture. You need to work out the specifics to form the whole picture.. so again not possible. Though you can get a bigger picture. But I don't see why are questioning the answers that you've been given with that in mind. It's like you are urging me and Nanook to do your homework for you.

 

[nanook]

i have explained how (we understand equality) and why we choose to maintain it as relevant. the word why has a good meaning when it's concerned with human intentionality. why did you do it, give your reasons. this way i get to know you. there is no true or false reason.

"why" it's used loosely and thoughtlessly in other contexts, but then it's asking for so called explanations of how. when science explains why petrol is explosive, it is only descriptive of the relationship of molecules, who can't stand each other. nobody can say why, but the way they hate each other, the how, can be further described.

 

[nanook]

since you like questions, you should also ask: if people are equal, why can't i kill them anyway? in fact, if i kill one person, should i not kill all of them, as they are equal?

it's all about your intentionality, which is about your nature.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I am simply doing this as a means to keep up with everyone, if you think I am misquoting you/mis-representing please speak up, ill edit immediately:

Why are Individuals[human beings] equal? (If they are)

• Grayman
  • I do not want to be lesser
• Cherry Cola
  • Because they deserve to be -> they have equal experiences of joy and suffering
    • Why?^
  • It is practical
  • Big Bang?
    • I'm not sure if you're just attempting to say that humans are "physically/empirically equal?"
• Nanook
  • The "highest level" (level 4) currently presented is The Constitution
    • ^But we still had slaves and the only people that had "rights" were those male land owners over 30, so much for "all men are created equal" Necessary Evil then?
  • "We make choices because we are human"
    • In contradiction to the above^ you have also said "Free will does not exist, we do not make choices"
  • ”The question ‘Why are individuals equal?’ is faulty/trolly because “not all human beings have individuality”
    • Ok, "Why are all humans/sentient beings equal?"^
  • There is no “Why” humans are equal, only “how” humans are equal
• Analyzer
  • "because each individual has rights"
    • Why?^
• Methodician
  • "Individuals are unique, special, and most certainly not equal.; Humans are not innately equal."
    

Always relevant:

Spoiler

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=430731&postcount=40

Things that I intentionally left out of the OP, that I thought should be referenced:

"equality" is a brand new idea in modern times, there was no "equality" before the past 200 years (Is there even now?). Nepotism, ethnocentrism has dominated since...forever.

Claverhouse's sig sums it up in that our modern way of life/living/law/going about things is fundamentally based in that "Individuals are equal"

And the question to be asked is, "why?"



Some of you have already noted that it is simply utilitarian/pragmatic to benefit from cooperation, however all that means is that "it's a pro to have people as equals more than a con," however that does not mean that individuals ARE equal, just that it is a pro.

 

[Cherry Cola]

So now the purpose is to create a chart. Geez how much less complicated this would've been without all the ambiguity.

 

[Analyzer]

Equality has no unified meaning, so as an idea it is understood as a social justice issue not as a principle. In this case equality is a revolt against nature, as it goes against property rights. Property rights are inherit or natural and imply inequality.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Equality has no unified meaning

Fair enough

so as an idea it is understood as a social justice issue not as a principle.

I believe laws and cases appeal to(derive from) the principle "All men are created equal." the "social justice" can be(is) derived from that principle.

Property rights are inherit or natural and imply inequality.

FWIW you've gotten to where I was hoping everyone else would get.

Natural inequality is a fact. People are born with different skills/abilities.
Artificial inequality is the one we have attempted to equalize via "All men are created equal." And the real question is why the fuck do we do that?

 

[Absurdity]

The verbal sleight of hand in the statement "Individuals are equal" lies not with the word "equal" but with the word "individuals." Individuals =/= persons. Individuals are politically constructed units that primarily exist in a quantitative sense, meaning they are meant to be aggregated and dealt with abstractly. Laws and rights apply to individuals as a unit, it gets messy when you get to the actual application of statutes to persons and their circumstances, because people are demonstrably unequal.

Individuals are equal because the concept of equality is laden in the connotations of the term. Any unit is an abstraction like a Platonic form, and thinking of people as individuals makes them interchangeable and thereby expendable.

 

[TimeAsylums]

The verbal sleight of hand in the statement "Individuals are equal" lies not with the word "equal" but with the word "individuals." Individuals =/= persons. Individuals are politically constructed units that primarily exist in a quantitative sense, meaning they are meant to be aggregated and dealt with abstractly. Laws and rights apply to individuals as a unit, it gets messy when you get to the actual application of statutes to persons and their circumstances, because people are demonstrably unequal.

Individuals are equal because the concept of equality is laden in the connotations of the term. Any unit is an abstraction like a Platonic form, and thinking of people as individuals makes them interchangeable and thereby expendable.

Hmm.

What is then your interpretation of The Constitution's [DoI] "All men are created equal?"

I imagine its inseparable from "the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. "



EDIT:

I believe that's the Declaration you're thinking of, which is pure rhetoric and has no legal standing.

It seems I have made the fundamental(retarded) error of assuming the DoI was in the Constituion... >_>

...

...

...

well then.

 

[Absurdity]

Hmm.

What is then your interpretation of The Constitution's "All men are created equal?"

I believe that's the Declaration you're thinking of, which is pure rhetoric and has no legal standing.

 

[Analyzer]

I believe that's the Declaration you're thinking of, which is pure rhetoric and has no legal standing.

The Constitution doesn't have any legal standing as well, in theory and in practice.

 

[Absurdity]

The Constitution doesn't have any legal standing as well, in theory and in practice.

You're going to have to walk me through your reasoning here. I could see what you mean by "in practice," but not in theory.

 

[Analyzer]

...how so?

Theory: I never agreed to the terms, simple as that.

Practice: Article 1 Section 8 is violated constantly - One example:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

How are these taxes uniform?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Theory: I never agreed to the terms, simple as that.

But didn't you? (Register for selective services/You stayed here, you didn't move to somewhere else)

Social contract-ishy?

I suppose implicit rather than explicit

 

[Cherry Cola]

Absurdity: Though the quote in his OP doesn't mention the word individuals. I would say the idea involved extends beyond what you mention.

But it was an ace post nonetheless.

 

[Analyzer]

But didn't you? (Register for selective services/You stayed here, you didn't move to somewhere else)

Social contract-ishy?

Social contract is an illusion and can't be justified because if an individual does not agree to enter into it, he will be forced by the State. A contract requires voluntary agreement with the parties at hand without coercion. If this is done through force, it is not a legitimate contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Treason

 

[TimeAsylums]

Social contract is an illusion and can't be justified because if an individual does not agree to enter into it, he will be forced by the State. A contract requires voluntary agreement with the parties at hand without coercion. If this is done through force, is is not a legitimate contract.

There is no coercion in not allowing you to move out of the country? Is there?

Staying here is a *voluntary* agreement.

 

[The Void]

Equality another vague concept, all of them are out of my system,
but still nonetheless I will bring them in for some moment.
In a strict sense no two things are truly equal, even if the two things are exact copies of each other, they are occupying different positions in time and space.
In a little loose sense, still no, people may have same potential but different people have different degree of access to the potential, and different ideas, perspectives,
conditionings, interests and bla bla bla....
so induviduals are not really equal,
now from the poopistic(Name of my philosophical system (which is dead now)) sense
all is just the same poop in different forms of expression,
there is some one crazy process(totality) going on unfolding itself, in different forms and stuff, just some conditionings working on impulses which will die and decomposes,
if a man does stuff better than other, then how actually his better ability makes him better? because all iz pointless so his abilities, lol,
(like in a video game, is one npc really better than the other, yes it can be in some sense but see it from the other sense from which it is not, becoz goat, I mean its just a video game after all)
(Also from which frame of referrence I am gonna say anything, to precisely perfectly, judge something, I have to look at the whole picture, because the something is not truly a separate stuff, but I myself being within the whole picture,
cant see the whole picture, all frame of reference are relative existing within the whole process, and absolutely there are no frame of referrence, because outside the whole their is void, because whole is whole, so we can only make relative concepts based on baseless frame of refference and calculate and judge by separating it from the whole, comparing to fragile conventions, and conditionings)

well ignoring poopy, poopistic perspective, if I adopt a more practical perspective, I guess cherry cola said most of it in first post....
we evolved through co-operation, for harmony, people must be treated equally,
with equal respect, and allowed to do their own different unique stuffs in the society, and let them do what they want to satisfy themselves,
it is for the harmony of all...

 

[TimeAsylums]

Absurdity: Though the quote in his OP doesn't mention the word individuals. I would say the idea involved extends beyond what you mention.

Yes, the OP is flawed in two ways. 1) I messed up in confusing "individuals"(absurdity) with "people."
2) Though not stated in the OP, I confused the DoI with the Constitution

(I am not tricky smart enough to be that facetious)


I suppose I should have said

"Why do we attempt to (if we do) equalize (artificial) inequality?"

 

[Analyzer]

There is no coercion in not allowing you to move out of the country? Is there?

Staying here is a *voluntary* agreement.

Kind of. This argument implies the State has prior claim to the land in the country. Taxpayers are technically the owners of the land. There might be other reasons why I might want to stay in a geographical region that is not necessarily related to it's laws as well. Also, I am still obligated to pay taxes if i do not renounce my citizenship(difficult and expensive) and moving elsewhere is not necessarily something easy. Why should I move out of the country? How come I cant stay and change things?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Human life has no objective value, therefore, no individual or no human has more objective value than the other, they are all equal to what they actually are in the sum of perceived realities that is their image of others and others image of them and their image of them.

The sum of human perceptions is a subset of existing relations, that can not be equal to the reality and that is not equal between the individuals.

Humans are both equal and not equal.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Kind of. This argument implies the State has prior claim to the land in the country. Taxpayers are technically the owners of the land.

I mean...people(we) are the government(the state), so...yes?

Why should I move out of the country? How come I cant stay and change things?

You absolutely can. And *staying* would be an agreement

 

[Absurdity]

Absurdity: Though the quote in his OP doesn't mention the word individuals.

Lol didn't even read OP.

I would say the idea involved extends beyond what you mention.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Analyzer]

I mean...people(we) are the government(the state), so...yes?

The state is made up of people, but that doesn't mean everyone is part of it. If you are part of the government you have different privileges than non-members. So you can say by voting we are part of the government but since it's a 'public' form of government, minority opinion is excluded which goes against their own property rights. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, this was well understood by the framers and philosophers before them.

You absolutely can. And *staying* would be an agreement

Your ignoring the fact that the State is not legitimately exercising jurisdiction over me. What if your neighbor throws garbage on your property and you don't move away and you stay there? Are you automatically consenting his pollution? Also what if one I day I show up on your property and I tell you not to wear shoes inside? You then say "when did I agree to do this ", I then say to you that you implicitly gave your consent because you moved next door to me. This is even after you told me to my face that you actually did want to wear shoes inside.

You can then say that because I use government services I have agreed to be expropriated and I consented to their rules. This is like saying the prisoner agrees to imprisonment because he eats meals while incarcerated.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Citizens have the ability to change the laws

Majority wins because it's a matter of utility

By choosing to stay in the land governed by the state, you are voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to the contract/laws that are in place.

Also by *using* the services provided by the state you are also agreeing (in return for taxes).

/social contract?


EDIT: WTF, why are we discussing this? What did this have to do with "in/equality?" I forgot how we got here

EDIT2: Oh you were attempting to explain in theory why the Constitution wasn't legal <- if you could somehow tie your points back into this, I'd appreciate it

 

[Analyzer]

Citizens have the ability to change the laws

They also have the ability to create their own laws in accordance to their property rights.

Majority wins because it's a matter of utility

Yes which is why it is dangerous.

By choosing to stay in the land governed by the state, you are voluntarily and implicitly agreeing to the contract/laws that are in place.

You keep ignoring the legitimacy of the State. I already gave an example of how implicitly agreeing to the rules only applies if there exists a legitimate jurisdiction. If I come to your property and you tell me not do something, those are the rules and I must follow. The State has no legitimacy - an expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.

Also by *using* the services provided by the state you are also agreeing (in return for taxes).
/social contract?

The prisoner example I gave is good example. Regardless of the laws, the prisoner himself might believe he is wrongfully imprisoned and has no choice but to use services available to him(food,bed,toilet). You cant keep assuming the State has this legitimate mystical power where whatever they do gives them authority, whereby you implicitly consent to their actions. Oh and social contract, I never signed anything.

EDIT: WTF, why are we discussing this? What did this have to do with "in/equality?" I forgot how we got here

EDIT2: Oh you were attempting to explain in theory why the Constitution wasn't legal <- if you could somehow tie your points back into this, I'd appreciate it

This whole discussion ties back into what I was saying how the idea that equality is not natural and what the State is center of egalitarianism - Democracy, Affirmative Action, Taxation, Civil Rights, ect...

 

[TimeAsylums]

Yes which is why it is dangerous.

I did not say it was right.

You keep ignoring the legitimacy of the State.

Explain the state's illegitimacy then.

The prisoner example I gave is good example.

No. It wasn't. There are consequences for breaking the law. The prisoner chose to accept those consequences by breaking the law

Regardless of the laws, the prisoner himself might believe he is wrongfully imprisoned and has no choice but to use services available to him(food,bed,toilet).

See: Appeal

Oh and social contract, I never signed anything.

See: implicit, social services, you're paying taxes for services rendered by the state

This whole discussion ties back into what I was saying how the idea that equality is not natural

Yes, I agree that equality is not natural.


...I don't get your overall point/gist I just see a bunch of small points.

Explain the illegitimacy of the state

 

[Latte]

Equality has no unified meaning, so as an idea it is understood as a social justice issue not as a principle. In this case equality is a revolt against nature, as it goes against property rights. Property rights are inherit or natural and imply inequality.

No, sorry. That's not true. That's metaphysics. Rights as inherent is metaphysics. It has no connection with physical reality beyond the indirect mechanism that is that creatures believe in it.

Regarding main topic

Note: I will use the terms ethical and moral not only in the sense of behavior, but also in the broader sense of what is ethical and moral to think and feel.

Well, as you (TA) know, and the replies in this thread indicate... there is no answer to this in an objective sense because the question assumes that people are equal. A very clever socratic way to illustrate that people are in fact not equal in any real sense (even when it comes to "rights", how things "should" be, etc). Claiming that people aren't equal would just result in you being flamed massively with much pee all over the thread.

Humans have a tendency to try to internally make objective their preferences for general human behavior, feelings towards each other and thoughts about each other, and as such incorporate this preference into the rest of their perception of reality. Once people interact and a mediated objective reality of ethics and morality manifests itself and is continually developed, one has this phenomena in a societal semi-hivemind scale.

Results from this are the ideas and systems that fall under the categories Ethics and Morality.

While of course, entirely delusional, this can have a function for groups, as people liable to see norms of social behavior and the moral/ethical concepts they are implications of as the true ideal. The objective ideal. As an inherent part of the universe, as something beyond preference. As... what things "should" be like. Objectively "should". Not "should if we are to [insert pragmatic reason] but really truly just "should".

On a cultural scale, this results in people treating aspects of societal or sub-societal preference for how people should behave as knowledge of how people should behave, and this increases resistance in most individuals both towards social deviancy from others, and towards social deviancy from themselves. It functions here as providing a high degree of social stability. It even influences people go against and suppress their own subjective preference because they have learned what the true "should" is from others.

Some of you may have noticed how some fringe religious individuals think atheists could just go murder or rape someone or whatever and be fine with it if it wasn't for legal(retribution) consequence. This is because the religious individual can have its theology as the provider of the axioms that justify their particular set of ethics and morality. They can regard individuals who does not have any such metaphysical belief as the basis for objective morality as simply not being able to have a system of ethics or morals at all, because there is no foundation for it in the science adhering atheist when it comes to its idea of how the universe works.

But... as we have seen throughout history and see every day and know from personal experience, even without a proposed physical/reality basis for an ethical or moral system being objective in some sense, people still go around shoving their preferences into ethical/moral frameworks and even argue about them with each other at length. Often metaphysical concepts are created to serve as basis for ethical or moral belief systems. Seen as evident or implicative of things that don't really necessitate them at all, nor support them as existing.

Property as inherent in reality is one of them. Equality as inherent is another. Heritage and divine right were quite popular in their days. In some ways it still is within capitalist morality relying on the idea of property rights (we do not treat society and as a part of that, economically directive positions in government of nations as hereditary anymore, but we still allow someone to inherit massive economy directive power through full property inheritance). Rights is a metalevel up from some of those just mentioned and is one as well.

They all serve to make objective the societal and individual preferences of humans, though they themselves are not a part of reality in any other way than through our actions and beliefs.

There are other ways than attempting to make human preference objective that can provide social stability... and we are heading towards these, I think. Where we let go of objective morality and are left with the perspective of subjective preferences. From this, we can consciously find preferences that overlap and generate compromises where agreement is not there (if that is what we wish). Being acknowledged as being not how things should be, but how a group of people largely want them to be. And mechanisms for handling people who deviate in various ways from the largely openly shared preference is also something people can find preference compromises for amongst each other, while not obfuscating the issue with the intellectual baggage of moral/ethical philosophy and making it pseudo objective.

I think... many people are scared that the implications of there being no objectivity in regards to how people should be is that one no longer has any basis to punish people from deviating or to organize society in certain ways.

But we don't really need that. We have subjective motivation enough. We have preferences. We like things to be certain ways. And we can negotiate or force our ideals onto other people and ourselves without any objective justification, because... there is no because. We simply we can and want to. We can (almost) all have a degree of will to power for the sake of making things more as we want them to be than if we did nothing, because that's what's left when objective morality is not even a concept in a culture. We face that we have no justification wanting things to be a certain way, and we learn to accept this lack of justification as not being relevant, as not being necessary, and we are left feeling comfortable with imposing our ideals on the world simply because those ideals are what we like.

 

[Absurdity]

"...and we are heading towards these, I think."

What makes you think this?

 

[Analyzer]

No, sorry. That's not true. That's metaphysics. Rights as inherent is metaphysics. It has no connection with physical reality beyond the indirect mechanism that is that creatures believe in it.

No it is not metaphysics, that's always the biggest scapegoat when discussing philosophy.

By you denying property rights your enter into a perfomative contradiction as your presupposing the right to assert your own belief using your own body(vocal cords, brain) to try to justify that property right's don't exist.

 

[TimeAsylums]

No, sorry. That's not true. That's metaphysics. Rights as inherent is metaphysics. It has no connection with physical reality beyond the indirect mechanism that is that creatures believe in it.

No it is not metaphysics, that's always the biggest scapegoat when discussing philosophy.

By you denying property rights your enter into a perfomative contradiction as your presupposing the right to assert your own belief using your own body(vocal cords, brain) to try to justify that property right's don't exist.

The original quote is

Property rights are inherit or natural and imply inequality.

"rights are inherit"

I have no idea if analyzer meant "inherent" (If so yes thats metaphysics)

If he actually meant "...inherit(ANCE) imply inequality" that's different.

So...did you mean "property rights are inherit(ed)," or "property rights are inherent"?

 

[Analyzer]

Explain the state's illegitimacy then.

There is none. "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else" - Frederic Bastiat

No. It wasn't. There are consequences for breaking the law. The prisoner chose to accept those consequences by breaking the law

What if the law is not legitimate?

Explain the illegitimacy of the state

How can an expropriator be a property protector?

 

[Latte]

No it is not metaphysics, that's always the biggest scapegoat when discussing philosophy.

By you denying property rights your enter into a perfomative contradiction as your presupposing the right to assert your own belief using your own body(vocal cords, brain) to try to justify that property right's don't exist.

Nope, you're wrong. I'm not presupposing that. I have no right to assert my own belief. I'm simply doing it. I wanted to do it. I did it.

@Absurdity
I will make a post later or tomorrow about that (card game time now).

 

[TimeAsylums]

How can an expropriator be a property protector?

Do you not pay taxes for services rendered by the state.

There is no fallacy in the expropriator being the protector as well.

It is the "social contract." You have agreed to give up some of your "individual" rights, for this state, and in return you receive benefits.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Lol didn't even read OP.



What do you mean by this?

Meh, just that the concept of the invidivual extends beyond that which you brought up, and the same with equality.

@Latte: Having shit one already knows illustrated is tiring rather than clever.

 

[Analyzer]

Nope, you're wrong. I'm not presupposing that. I have no right to assert my own belief. I'm simply doing it. I wanted to do it. I did it.
.

Exactly so you are engaging in argumentation. What is the point of discourse if you are not trying to assert a statement? To just say things for no reason, or to just project sounds or type commands in a keyboard? Argumentation ethics presupposes you have control over your own body.

 

[Absurdity]

Argumentation ethics presupposes you have control over your own body.

And this statement presupposes that "you" and "your own body" are two different things.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Because values are subjective, thus nobody has any basis for saying any group is objectively better than any other.