DCLugi

There's much more detail to say about it but I'll start with this. If I need your spleen and you don't share it with me are you initiating force against me?

This is why it can't be moral. However it is possible for all people at all times to NOT rape, murder or steal. Universal moral claims apply to what you can't do. I am judging the actions not the states of mind. If someone desperately proclaims that they want to kill me but doesn't go through with it then nothing immoral has happened.

Would that be mostly based on race or simply convenient commonalities of culture? I wonder how much division takes place out of fear. If we've all agreed on the NAP then variety might have a sweeter taste to it.

"So, for your sister, you would want her to fight her best against the sexual assault, and do her best to commit sexual assault on her attacker." I would also have to want the rapist to rape her but I can't have it both ways.

On the street you could treat like a campaign. Stefan Molyneux, Running FROM President.

"Thus, if you put two people in a room together they would want to sexually penetrate the other person while not wanting their own body sexually penetrated. There's no necessity that a person want to personally fall prey to rape." If one makes the claim that rape is moral then it must also apply to the one claiming. I am making the universal claim that rape is a behavior that should be approved by all humans. I am advocating the action of sex against my own will. I can't advocate and be against the same action. Maybe it's clearer if we are judging someone else's behavior. If I am watching my sister getting raped I would be saying, "If you want to be moral you should want the rape and at the same time not want it."

Not sure why you were down voted so I played equalizer and up voted. So the geographical area of a nation is legitimately owned and all members sign a voluntary contract. If we remove race and culture and replace with values and virtues will it still stand as a nation?

Sorry. Not at all meant that way. I appreciate your vids but I'm a bit of a whore when it comes to sharing my comedy. I know it's not for everyone and probably not for this forum. Can I remove posts on this board? Cheers.

Define a nation. What are the physical attributes?

Sometimes you can turn it around. A: Democrats want a nanny government to control everything with force. B: Yes, but what about Republicans who want to use taxes for a giant military? A: Thanks for pointing that out. So we agree that neither are virtuous. B: But, I already have the bumper sticker.

I apologize for this up front but I couldn't resist:)

Interesting. If they are hoaxes that would affect quite a few FDR podcasts. Have you any interest in calling in the show to flesh is out?

Sorry I'm not being clear and I'm probably not answering quite what you asked and I'm also working it out myself as I type:) I'm using "objective" as a truth statement outside of subjective opinion. If I'm going to talk about human morality then it logically has to apply to all humans at all times simply because I'm talking about humans as a whole. Therefore if any moral claim isn't capable of fitting that criteria then it can't be moral. I can't advocate and oppose aggression at the same time. If I advocate that all humans can use aggression then I am supporting aggression against myself which by definition is no longer aggression because I want it to happen. If this shows that aggression is universally immoral the non aggression is universally moral as it is possible for all humans at all times to not use aggression.

I've seen your posts many times, does that make you real:) Claiming whether these events happened or not requires evidence on both sides, yes? You must recognize that the mass conspiracy required to fake some of the events you mentioned is due some skepticism.

If I make an objective claim about human morality then logically I have to be able to apply it to all humans at all times because fundamentally humans are the same. My claim might not be preferred by all humans but it has to have the possibility of being preferred by all humans. So I claim that murder is moral. Can all humans prefer murder? No because as soon as I prefer murder that includes me being murdered and if I prefer it then it's no longer murder.

I'll have a go. If I claim that aggression is preferable human behavior then I both want to aggress against others and be aggressed against by others. The contradiction is that if I want to be aggressed against then it isn't aggression.

Will this simply boil down to the question of legitimate ownership?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/03/why-arent-we-calling-the-oregon-militia-terrorists/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oregon-under-attack-anger-as-armed-white-militia-takes-control-of-a-us-government-building-to-a6794421.html I imagine this will stir up a lot of discussion and hope that FDR does an investigation.

Does collective voting actually affect the outcome?

When I argue for the NAP I've gotten, "Life is violent. Just by being born you're aggressing against everyone so we need a system that equals it all out." To which I reply, "So, the best thing you can do is kill yourself."

I'm always puzzled when a theist denies their faith and turns to studies and tests and evidence.

By definition, god is outside of existence. Doesn't this answer whether god exists? If so then evidence doesn't apply because it's within the category of existing.

Is there anything that this person would not be open to persuasion to?

It's a shame that the word atheism ever came about as it lends power to theism. We don't need asantaism or adalekism or amyrashisfromfoodallergynotsleepingwiththatprostituteism.