Maybe, but unfortunately it had nothing to do with my argument to which it was intended as a response. I have already written that values are a part of human nature.
The norm is not what humans do when in the embryologic state, when they are ignorant of the subject, or what they value when asleep.
Humans lack a particular value before they ever hold that value, and many things they will never value at all.
I would like to know some examples of what you describe as "some reasonably intelligent people are to floating predicates."
The actual quote refers to people being "dedicated" to floating predicates. English is very flexible. It allows us to make complete sentences that really make no sense without some implicit concepts. We can talk about thinking without ever mentioning or refering to any thinker. However, a thinker is implied and to deny so is to leave floating the predicate "thinks about X." The same is true for people who seem to think that valuing is concievable without a valuer. They are the same type of folks who would build from sentences like "Eat at Joe's" a whole philosophy about "eating" without reference to any eater.
It doesn't make sense that "the excpeptions of which humans may NOT be killed that supports the position that they hold the value that humans MAY kill humans." Unless we need to redifine "exceptions."
There is nothing in the meaning of "exceptions" that requires that people primarily value preserving human life. You made such a claim that people first value NOT killing then make exceptions for killing. You offered no reason why it couldn't be the other way around. In fact, a look at history would seem to show that people have often taken great value in killing. Who's to say that the value of not killing wasn't a later development of prehistoric men who found killing other men as useful as killing tigers or mammoths?
In fact, as I pointed out, even in historical times killing has been seen as a great value. Etruscans routinely slaughtered slaves and captives in sacrificial ceremonies. Rome slaughtered 500,000 inhabitants of Carthage. Caesar bragged to have slaughtered 1,000,000 Gauls. The philosopher king Marcus Aurelius waged vengeful genocide against Germanic tribes. Gladiatorial games were especially popular when people were killed. The 30 years war was characterized by slaughtering villages with religious differences. The Mongols would put entire cities to the sword just so the word of mouth would scare other towns into quick surrender. Conquistadors found it very useful to slaughter thousands of Indians. Mao claimed that his followers killed 20 million people. Pol Pot's followers killed 1/8th of Cambodians. From ancient Babylonia to modern times, killing has been deamed very valuable by many people. One could argue that the West's current high regard for abstract human life is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Since we were discussing when life begins and your statement that the "default position" of humans is one of no values and that the one who values must necessarily convince the one who does not, it appears to me that the conversation has been on topic.
The default position is of no values, as you already at one point agreed to once recognizing my use of "default position". I could appreciate your stated high-minded principles of debate better if it weren't that you then later chose to revert to deliberately misinterpreting my meaning. You are off topic because of that. You switched topic by reverting my point of development of thought from nothing, to one of your own desire to misconstrue my use of "default position" as the set of already developed values of some person you just met.
I haven't been able to reply for a couple of days, due to travel. However, in the interest of "high minded" -ness, your post does require a response since you state that I have deliberately misinterpreted your meaning.
I never agreed that the human "default postition" is one of no values. I did eventually, in the course of our dialogue, say that I finally understood your definition and that I disagreed with you on that definition, as the term has a definition in general use. The use of the term is what prompted me to respond to you in the first place, as well as your assertion that
"" Absence of value doesn't require justification. Values are applied only to things which we initially have no value for. Justifications are applied to things we initially have no justification for. By default we are unthinking creatures who do not value or justify things, even many of the things we are privy to.""
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165523/posts?page=144#144
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1165523/posts?page=107#107
Interesting: when I repeated the Google search on the term "default position" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22default+position%22&btnG=Google+Search
I found a discussion of the point I believe that appears similar to yours:
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/religion/existential-negativism.html
However, this is not a case of "no values" by "unthinking" humans, this is a case of rules for resolving arguments between (thinking) humans who hold competing values, one who says "no" and one who says the answer is "yes." Where 2 values are in conflict, it is incumbent on the one who has the postitive position - who says, "yes" - to prove his point to the one who holds the negative position - the one who says "no."