Stefantologists do not recognize Hume's "is/ought dichotomy", which states that we can NOT derive (logically) an "ought" from an "is".

Their argument against this exceedingly simple truth, is based on two exceedingly retarded rhetorical tricks.

The first trick, is ignore the distinction between DESCRIPTION and PRESCRIPTION, and the second trick is for them to deny or refuse to have any interest in logic and it's application.

Let's look at the first trick (conflation of description and prescription).

When we say that something is illogical, we are making an OBSERVATION (a description). We are NOT prescribing something.

Thus, when we say than an "ought statement" (prescription) does not LOGICALLY FOLLOW from an "is statement" (description), we are NOT PRESCRIBING ANYTHING, we are merely making an observation. We are simply saying, that according to standard rules of logic, we can not derive an "ought" from an "is". We are saying NOTHING about what people ought to do with this fact.

The trick then (for the Stefantologist) is to repeatedly contend, that our observation is a prescription. In order to do this, they must repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the difference between description and prescription (epistemology and ethics).

Apparently, in Stefantology, there is no such thing as epistemology.

Now... onto the second trick:

Normally, if someone is debating philosophy with you, it is fairly safe to assume that said person has an interest in logic, and it's valid application.

However, Stefantologists love to pretend that this assumption is an outrageous one.

When you point out a flaw in their logic, they say, "Why should I listen to logic? Why should I listen to anything you say, if one can't derive an 'ought' from an 'if'? Why should I care whether or not your/my argument is logical?"

Here, they are overlooking the obvious, and refusing to acknowledge the whole position we are defending in the first place.

Obviously, if they don't care about logic (and it's proper use), then there IS NO REASON why they SHOULD accept some fact of logic (such as the "is/ought dichotomy").

Likewise, there is no point then, in discussing the logical merits of an argument/philosophy (if that is NOT something they are personally interested in).

Just because something is logically valid, doesn't mean someone SHOULD accept it. Again, we CAN'T derive an "ought" from an "is".

Just because the dog bowl is empty, doesn't mean you should feed the dog.

What they are doing here, essentially, is being dick heads. You shouldn't have to begin every debate you have with somebody by FIRST establishing whether or not they have an interest in logic, and whether or not the goal of the exchange is to reach valid, logical conclusions. However, with Stefantologists, I guess that's what you have to do. You have to verify that they have a preference for logic, before the ethics debate can begin (which is just pointless and obnoxious).

To summarize/clarify my point here:

There's really no point in debating UPB with Stefantologists (especially on the matter of the "Hume dichotomy") without FIRST making sure the Stefantologist acknowledges the following two things:

a) They have a personal preference for logic and it's valid application, and

b) There is a difference between prescription and description.

If you don't get that out of the way, they will waste your time playing games and straw manning you ("You're telling me that I should be logical. Therefor it's universally preferable to be logical. You've just admitted to UPB by virtue of arguing against it. Har har har.").

A really excellent blog on why the "performative contradiction" stuff that Stef lifted from Hoppe is not the philosophical weapon of mass destruction he thinks it is.

http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-performative-contradiction.html