DCLugi

What is your stance on paying taxes and using government services? Do you think that these legitimize state authority? If you're the victim of a crime and under the current regime the police are your only choice of action would declining this forced service be the moral thing to do?

Excellent. I apologize if this is comes off like a broken record but this is very productive for me. We agree that we want to end cancer. You argue that current treatments are futile and are in fact strengthening the disease. You offer a cure but it requires that all efforts to "treat" the disease be used to implement said cure. Others claim that most are too weak to receive the cure so we need to continue treating until they are healthy enough to be cured. If they stop treatment then they will die before the cure can take effect. You argue that the treatment is part of the disease and to others it's necessary to ready patients for the cure.

This is the way I see it too but I'll throw one last opposing perspective at you. We are currently under aggressive violence looking for the most productive ways out. Two sociopaths give us the option of having our legs broken by sociopath 1 or our head cut off by sociopath 2. Fully recognizing that I'm dealing with sociopaths that may simply ignore my choice and throw me in a vat of acid, I still might voice my preference to have my legs broken given that the aggression is coming either way.

2 separate items. Originally when you said humans can't exist in opposing moral categories I thought, but they're doing that now. That's why I corrected myself as I read it as moral stances. The second item is me still working out the difference between voting in a system of violence and choosing a place to post while under that same violence. I both admire and agree with your stance but there's something I can't shake about it. We are all under some degree of that violence and make choices to expedite the journey out of it. The self defense vote is still sticky for me.

Ah, I misunderstood "Moral categories" for "Moral stances." Consider me corrected. Your are supporting this board over another by frequenting it and I assume it's because you value it more.

Perhaps. I was responding to the OP. I'm sure nudes of dsayers are way too expensive for me.

Given the political system aren't both still under a coercive authority? If the government so desired it could shut down this site yet this is still a better choice than the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea where perhaps one could be arrested. I realize I may be stretching here and am trying to work it out myself.

By using this board you are voting against other boards.

It would appear that humans can exist in opposing moral categories. Can I assume that you post on this board as opposed to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea because it is more likely that your points will be heard? Both boards are made up of users who are under invalid political rule.

Home? Nation? State? System? These are subjective terms. I can start a system today that claims anyone named Will must support every child in the world. Of course you would say that you don't participate in that system to which I will say welcome to my world:)

If you're aware of children starving that could be saved by a few dollars is your inactivity responsible for their outcome?

I'm still not clear why you're posting on this board as opposed to an Adele fan forum.

Indeed I should have said, "under the guise of organizing". May I ask why you post on this forum?

Both North Korea and the US are examples of initiating force to organize society. Both are immoral. Which one is the better choice for spreading the message of consistent principles?

As an investor I would ask, "Is the market lacking in nude pictures?"

Bruce Lee invested his whole life in effective self defense and still carried a gun.

I agree but the comeback is "I would have consented if I'd known that it would benefit me in the future." Many victims of spanking claim they are better people for it.

When I present the moral argument against hitting kids I'm met with, "It's like tackling someone to save them from getting run down. You have to use force to benefit their future." Now a mountain of evidence might say otherwise but with this stance the moral argument loses ground. Unfortunately this applies to taxes and war as well.

This was my argument too but now that we're shedding light on the genetics component there might be new evidence to look at. If we correlate race with IQ and then with financial success then this changes things.

It assumes legitimate ownership by government and consent by citizenship without showing either. Just saying you're already god's child doesn't make it so.

How adorably convenient that 8 years is 2 terms.

And yet it took him 30 something years to pen it. This would imply that if we can shake off the emotional baggage and irrational propaganda then UPB stares us in the face.

That was an interesting bit in the movie but I think the FDR quote is god can't be all powerful and all knowing. Lex's quote was closer to absolute power corrupts absolutely. What did you think of the film?

Nicely played:) We accept that modern medicine is good for us based on trust. Is this what we can expect with morality?

Do you think it's necessary to be equipped with a relatively high IQ to understand UPB? If so then what percentage of our current humanity will get it? Are we doomed?