David Ottinger

The irrationality that circles this topic is oddly interesting because on one hand there are some valid points for opposing fat shaming because obesity is an issue that is far more complicated than the aesthetics of the dilemma, and on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with celebrating and promoting good health. Unfortunately, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people refer to when passing judgment on people who are either becoming obese or heading in that direction. And, to put some of this fat shaming analogously, there is a lot of fat shaming that would be the equivalent of going up to a drug addict and telling him/her how much they look like a bum and how unhealthy it is to live that way. e.g. "Do you know how easy it is to clean up after yourself?" Wouldn't make much sense, right? Sure, a person telling the addict such things is expressing concern, but is that really helping the addict? So, yes, there is a backlash now that amounts to, "I don't care what people think of me. Either accept me for who I am with all my faults or F-off!" And, it's getting out of hand because the more you confront the obese person who has decided to take on that hard stance, then any attempt to shame that person is going to trigger his/her fight or flight mechanism. It's just like the kid that fights the abusive parent(s) and is labeled rebellious. The more the parent pushes; the more the kid rebels. So, is it true that these people lack resolve? Is overcoming obesity really nothing more than a will power challenge? There certainly is more to it than that. The BBC documentary "The Truth About Fat" had some interesting info. All I can find now is this article: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17431970 What I found most fascinating from the documentary was how hormones affect appetite. Supposedly, people dealing with obesity do not experience a sense of satiation as long as other people. So, this whole idea of "Well, if I can do it [eat less], so can you," is akin to telling a super-taster, "Well, if I can eat that lasagna without tasting the acidity of the tomatoes, so can you." And, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people cannot overcome obesity. I believe it's the hubris that people have when approaching the topic that is leading to this sort of unnecessary conflict and leading to these polarized, irrational views. Aren't the so-called shamers simply appealing to fear? i.e. "If I accept obesity in this person than I might accept obesity in myself?" And thus compartmentalize away their abuse by claiming, "I'm just promoting better health." What's really going on here? Anyhow... that's just my 2 cents for now. Just to add: Would make sense why these women are turning to feminism since it's accepting them regardless of their faults. People just want to be loved.

Be warned: These kids are about to cuss their heads off for Feminism. Oops... already a thread with this video/topic. Sorry! I'll be more thorough at checking next time.

"White Privilege" is rhetoric that poisons the well. That's all that really needs to be said about it.

Couldn't help to think of this bit. Starts at 5:15 if it doesn't jump right to it.

Yes, that helps a little, but I think I need to clarify a few points because there is still some confusion, at least on my end. I meant upload metaphorically because I do not know a better way of describing how our brains process sensory information. I just don't know neurology well enough to actually describe the mechanisms that are occurring. So, I try to relate it to computers in an analogous way because that's something I understand better.My crude understanding of the brain is that we have these layers, i.e. the reptile brain; the mammal brain; and, then the human brain. So, we have all this sensory input that affects all these different brains. But, it's the human brain that allows us to absorb this input and project it into this abstract realm. This realm is not really there, so it's more of a simulation. When we imagine something we're producing a simulation. (Again, maybe a crude way of putting it.)So, I agree that we're definitely experiencing reality directly. But, there is a part of us, our higher brain function, i.e. the human brain, that's experiencing a simulation. And we can switch between the two, and one can experience this in a very fascinating way after taking certain psychedelics.If, for example, you had a kid's action figure standing on your desk, you could imagine it moving insofar as to overwrite your sensory input so that it appears that it's actually moving around as though it's alive. You can imagine it doing cartwheels across your desk so that it moves from one side of the desk to the other. And, that whole time you are experiencing this vision with your eyes open and fixed on that point, it's not actually happening in the real world. I don't know what's actually going on with one's eyes, but so long as you're holding that simulation in your mind, i.e. imagining this, you will not see that figurine in its real position. So, the whole time you're playing with this sensory override phenomenon you're aware that this experience isn't real, but it certainly feels real. Now, another time where I think something similar occurs is when you hear an athlete talk about being in the zone. Except, in such a case, one is not overwriting his/her sensory input, but rather turning off the simulation and thus being fully present in the moment. Is this what is referred to as duality?

The video wasn't intended to serve as an explanation. What the professor is explaining in the video are 4 categories: ontologically objective & ontologically subjective; epistemically objective & epistemically subjective. It is these categories that helped me come up with my simplification of what metaphysics pertains to. And, according to Kevin Beal, my description might actually be misleading. Personally, I'm trying to find a way to put the meaning in layman terms such that it is distinguishable from physics. And, I should've said this sooner, but my inability to explain metaphysic simply to someone has a lot to do with my own novice understanding of the term. I certainly see the point, but I'm not sure if it really negates the point. I watched the video, but I do need to watch it again because I don't know what "intentionallity" is. There were a lot of terms that I'm unfamiliar with as far as philosophy goes. But, to the point... Why is it erroneous to consider that the input from, say the eyes, aren't just an input source? It feeds the simulation insofar as to tether it to reality. Because, don't we experience everything at the subconscious level? Once we upload it to the conscious level we can play with the world in an abstract sense. Hence, Einsteins famous quote, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." Again, I have to watch the video you posted again. Though, any input is welcome (no pun intended).

If you had to explain what the term metaphysics referred to, what would be your simplest explanation? If you take the Wiki's first line, it simply states, "Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it"Someone could read that and easily say, "Yeah, but isn't that exactly what physics does?"And as one reads further through the Wiki, there is quite a bit of terminology that's rather overwhelming to someone just learning philosophy. Eventually, one gains this vague grasp that 'metaphysics' refers to belief systems, but that's not really a succinct explanation of the term. When left at that, some people ask, "What's the point of metaphysics when you have physics?" In other words, who cares about beliefs when there is science?So, after watching the below video, I'm considering that maybe the best way to explain metaphysics is to refer to it as the simulation our minds create. And maybe a great way to demonstrate that is to point out the sensation of color. Or how a child after a growth spurt has to recalibrate his/her coordination in order to realign his/her perception with reality. And, maybe even pointing out how the mind compensates for our blind spots. Basically leading one to point out the importance of truths and falsehoods of our internal "simulation" which really determines our perception of reality.(On a side note, funny thing I recently noticed is how sleep deperavation can affect one's coordination by creating "lag" in the simulation -- ended up dropping a cup when I tried to transfer it from one hand to the other.)

Stefan referenced Crime and Punishment from audible.com. I found quite a few different readings on there. Does anyone know which one he was referring to?

Well, I'm glad you're not offended, and for what it's worth, I wasn't accusing you of doing that, and I certainly could've expressed myself better. I am assuming your intent was to open up a discussion with the guy, not to show how witty you are. And a response like you provided is something I could definitely see myself doing, and I would've felt as though it was a witty and playful way to approach the topic. So, my interpretation is definitely a reflection of myself. And, it's definitely not without its irony.

I apologies that I offended you.

Well, if it's any consolation, I share your frustration in articulating this because I find I've addressed your premise insofar as to point out its flaws. So which one of us is labeling things inaccurately? Also, "begging the question" is synonymous with circular reasoning. And, we're definitely going in circles here, so I will try this one more time as well... You have not successfully argued that it's a valid act of trade (i.e. not immoral) and here is why: You have not accurately defined consent, i.e. the elements of consent; You have not accurately defined deception; You have not explained how one can logically consent to deception; and, You have not explained why duress or the 'initiation of force' is the be-all-end-all metric by which one would categorize the morality of an exchange. Now, I cannot go further in the discussion until these points are addressed. And, the only reason I'm asking for '1' and '2' at this point is because I do not fathom how there can be consent in the presence of deception as they are contradictory to one another. And just for clarity: Something is not moral or immoral solely based on whether there was an initiation of force. That only covers a portion, albeit a large portion, of the NAP. The NAP is just one principle, and it is one that allows us to categorize human action as it relates to conquest. And there are 3 forms of conquest: (1) physical conquest; (2) economical conquest; and, (3) epistemological conquest. (I can explain further if you need me to.) The initiation of force only deals with physical conquest.

I'm essentially pointing out the equivalence of how a door can't be both closed and open at the same time, and you're telling me that's circular reasoning. So, again, I fail to see how that's the case. And, you can continue asserting logical fallacies, but that's not really pointing it/them out for further discourse. Also, what you pointed out here is duress. What I've been trying to establish with you is what consent is. And I find that you're limiting consent to merely offer and acceptance, and that's erroneous. I've already provided other elements that make up this abstraction called consent. By your definition of consent so far you can get a child to "consent" despite that they do not have the mental capacity to actually *consider* the deal. And, you also failed to address the point: One cannot logically consent to deception. Now, I can subject myself to willful blindness by saying, "Hey, I don't really want to know those details." And, at that point I've assumed the consequences. So, for me to consent to deception would cease to be decption just as it would cease to be theft if I said, "Yeah, you can take that." Well... it's not the initiation of force as it's typically used, but it is a form of economical conquest, and all acts of conquest violate the NAP. The principle you're violating with deception is the principle of equal consideration. It is universally preferable to act in good faith, i.e. with respect to the interest of the other parties, when conducting negotiations. Taking advantage of someone else's ignorance fails to do that. You are purposely misrepresenting the value of said good for your own monetary gain. You are clearly engaging in a transaction meant to defraud the person of his/her wealth. You're being a thief, a very cunning theif, but nonetheless, a thief. You are intending to hoodwink/dupe/cheat/swindle/mislead someone for your own personal gain. This is duplicitous behavior. When you offer that $20, you're telling that individual, "I think that's worth $20." No, you do not! You have purposely misrepresented yourself for gain at the expense of another. Of course I do. But I do not call that deception. It can be negligence. And, in the case of gross negligence such action is tantamount to fraud in the event of loss of property. Gross negligence being something where a person is informed of an issue or risk arising and failing to address that issue in due course, thus leading to unintended consequences such as loss of property. If, for example, I agree to manage your property, and I fail to take care of it because I misjudged an issue, then I am the reason you have to suffer more damages. There was no intent to decieve you. I just failed to do my job. Though, if I try to cover it up, then at that point it becomes intentional, and thus fraud.

The story told is simply a reiteration of the nobel lie. Rulers are needed for there to be order even if they're not perfect. "I don't agree with what they did, but ending them is not the answer." It's a metaphor for their title/position in the statist hierarchy, not the actual individual. They're presenting that as a virtuous stance, i.e. the acceptance of a necessary evil is good. In constrast, anarchy is associated with chaos, sociopathy/psychopathy, and overall destruction/death. Zeheer represents freedom without restraint and they villify that by associating that with the aforementioned qualities.

I fail to see how. You're mistakenly claiming something is both consensual and deceptive. One cannot fundamentally consent to deception just like one cannot consent to theft. Consideration is necessary for there to be conset, and there can be no consideration where there is deception. And where there is no consideration there is no valid contract.

Well, someone cannot be a victim and an aggressor at the same time. So, if the premise sets up such a scenario, is it not the question that is flawed?

The moment one presents an offer, whether a buyer or seller, the two are engaged in a negotiation. Both have a responsibility of full disclsoure. To introduce deception to the transaction changes the nature of the interaction from trade to economical conquest. The difference between conquest and peaceful relations is the NAP. The defintion of an unconscionable bargain is: UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, contracts. A contract which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848 For one party to decieve the other would be to perform an act that is deliberately intended to place the other party under delusion. The nature of war is deception. That is what the art of war is all about. Aren't you simply aksing: Can there be honor among thieves? And, is that not the sort of cognitive dissonance responsible for the duality we see in statism?

So, is the person thrust into such a position an aggressor?

Nathan,I agree that it's far more accurate to point out the gun that's imposing legal tender laws and various other edicts. But, the fiat monetary monopoly is just one form of conquest, and in this case economical conquest. What you're referring to is the physical conquest over a geographic region that allows for this sort of monopoly to be imposed on the populace. And, just as a side note, the third form of conquest is epistemological conquest (propaganda, schools, etc.). It's these 3 aspects of conquest that are implemented and managed to build an empire.And even though this other guy might resist the idea of there being a physical form of conquest (i.e. what you pointed out), he is still alluding to economical conquest even though he might not frame his premise that way if you explored his thoughts further. He'd probably limit it to corporations, thus scapegoating them -- even I treat them as the flipside of the coin to government as they are currently a creature of the state. So, while I agree that there are plenty of market opportunities for creating wealth and (to add) limiting oneself to the labor market is far more riskier than entrepreneurship in this current economic environment, that still doesn't negate the Cantillon Effect which that guy was unknowingly alluding to. As far as the self-esteem goes, I don't know who this guy is to you or how well you know him, but I personally wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's a low self-esteem issue. If I expressed feelings towards something, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right. What I'm feeling is real to me. In this case, that guy's suffering is genuine. And, he's not completely off base in identifying the mechanism that's preventing his economic mobility. After all, he's limited to the concept of money that he only knows -- which is fiat money. And, that's a substitute money as opposed to real money. Most people don't know that. And, don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for his ignorance. I'm simply pointing out that there is merit to his grievances. So, while he's seeing the world through a key hole, I find that you blew right passed him instead of empathizing with him and opening that door. So, honestly, do you really think you were being thoughtful? Or were you trying to be clever in showing how smart you are? (And, on a side note, I don't know if there is a moral argument to be made here. I'm just sharing with you what I gleaned from your discourse.)

The last season of the Wire nails this idea of juking stats for political power.

They have to find a way to "tax" the poor somehow. They can't impose it, but they certainly can create a monopoly on gambling. "I'll give 'em an offer they can't refuse." Here, pay $1 and you have a 1 in 175 million chance to be rich!

Just to clarify, I'm not questioning your desire to discuss philosophy. I'm questioing the relevance of this line of thought as I do not follow it. I am confused as to what is really being discussed. As far as I can tell, what you're discussing is: What are the moral principles during a state of war? And to me that just doesn't make sense because the whole reason one is in a state of war is because someone somewhere chose to abandon moral principles -- specifically the NAP, thus leading to war. Such an environment is one of lawlessness. Lawlessness not being anarchy, but rather the abandonment of morality. Hence, how we can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have great injustice in the world. Rule by might is not the rule of law. If you look at Charles Manson's interviews, it is creepy to the degree he gets this and actually embodies it. If it's not clear what I'm saying, what I mean is that morality is irrelevant in an environment of war. What we can discuss is the degree to which one loses his/her humanity. And, I suppose that is where your question regarding scale is relevant. But, again, that's just my take on it. So, by all means, correct me where I might be wrong.

I thought the idea of it is clever. Though I wonder if your response put the audience on the defensive. The person was expressing how he felt, which is that he felt trapped. And, he finds that it is money that keeps him bound in an unfavorable life. Is he wrong in that observation? Are his instincts wrong? I'd say he was right. The fiat monetary monopoly does keep people bound to this despotic order. So, he is correct in noticing that income from wages keep his life economically static. Thus, he is right in his observation that he is enslaved. So, it's quite possible that your response came off as mockery and minimization of his subjective experience.

I don't really get the point of following this train of thought. We've already established that the engagement (i.e. war) is immoral. We've already established that the participants aren't acting in a voluntary capacity. So, unless we're discussing this for someone's personal sake at this point, where is this going?

Dsayers, does my post not address your question/challenge?

UPB is a methodology for evaluating moral theories. And I think what I presented here is another moral principle. One that deals with establishing contracts. What does it matter where the concept comes from? What matters is whether it's valid or not, right?