cynicist

This is a great point. Labels are tricky because atheism is a conclusion that may not have been arrived at rationally, same as the others. It's also problematic since people don't always agree with what the labels mean in the first place. I like the convenience but when you have to explain yourself anyway due to misunderstandings it seems less and less useful. I like your approach. It's better to just honestly state your thoughts on the issue.

Because our intelligence is so much greater? Unfortunately as a species we have used it in a self-destructive manner too, but empirically there is no other species on the planet that is as capable or self-aware as we are. No, the issue is that they said nothing besides behavior was relevant because anything else couldn't be considered empirical. Even neuroimaging doesn't tell us exactly how those neurons map to behavior, so that doesn't change anything on its own. From what I understand, behaviorism has been abandoned in modern day psychology as too limited, even if there were some valid contributions in the past.

I completely agree.

I already did, but nobody can help you when you refuse to see.

Everyone can go against their values from time to time, but without action, values have no meaning. If I say that I value integrity and consistently cheat on women, then what is the significance of my statement? The consistency of behavior is the only way to really know what your values are, since we can claim anything as a value in our minds.

Well you are exactly correct on why UPB is valid and cannot be rationally rejected, but it's important to note that there is a difference between UPB as a concept and the application of UPB to morality. I think a large part of what confused me and what continues to confuse others is that in the book, Stefan refers to both of those as just "UPB". To be more clear let me use another example of UPB besides morality. Science is UPB. If your purpose is to know the truth, then using the scientific method is required. The scientific method itself is entirely optional, you can use chicken entrails instead, but the results of your divination won't be objective. Now the moral corollary is: Morality is UPB. If your purpose is to be good, then using "X" is required. Morality itself is optional, but without it you will not achieve virtue. See there isn't really a good word for the application of UPB to the moral sphere, something like the moral method or ethical method, as there is for science. Stefan compromises by just saying UPB or UPB framework, which is perfectly fine, but it can throw people off when going from UPB as a concept to UPB in application to morality. Anyway, your summary is accurate (albeit incomplete) so I would love to hear the objection. (It took me a loooong time to understand UPB so don't worry if you are uncertain, I've 'finally understood" UPB a few times now ) Actually I want to add a caveat here. It's not just that you are a 'hypocrite', it's that by debating with someone you are affirming UPB as valid. So you are denying it with your words but just through the act of debating you are proving its validity. In other words, you can't exempt yourself from the standard. It's the same as the self-detonating argument that, "Language is meaningless". There is no need to argue with the person because they have contradicted their assertion already through their actions.

Well caution sounds perfectly reasonable, the only issue I have with your post is that you seem to be suggesting that all morally gray areas need to be addressed before we can claim to have any answers to the question of ethics. This is a dangerous position to take because while scenarios like the one you describe are rare, things like war happen quite often. If this is just a hypothetical exercise then have at it, but I'm not sure I would call it courageous...

Well my main problem with behaviorism is that in its desire to be as empirical as the physical sciences it completely ignores the inner world. This includes an individual's conscience. We are not the same as less intelligent animals and being treated that way is degrading. In terms of morality, it's just plain useless. (the conscience is an internal stimulus, external stimulus like punishment/reward has nothing to do with being moral)

Action is good, but promoting marijuana legalization and putting bumper stickers on our cars is not going to bring about any fundamental change. I agree with you that rational people need a community they can rally around, and I think this is a great place for that. Advocating political action though.... trust me when I say that is going to be a hard sell to any anarchist on this board. However, I would like to welcome you to the board as a start. Good to see you here Nick

What you do is irrelevant to the morality of the situation. An adult having sex with a 13 year-old is always immoral due to the power disparity, and god, even worse when it's the parent. (since parents have the greatest power disparity possible, and therefore should be held to the highest standards in regards to how they deal with their children) This is one of those odd flag pole scenarios that people bring up. There is no way to win here, no good outcome, and it has little to do with ethics.

Just finished it and I wanted to drop a few thoughts I had. It's amazing how far children's movies have come, I'm actually jealous of what they get to watch lol. Tangled was better than a lot of adult movies I've seen that rely on violence to keep things remotely interesting. (and generally fail imo) I watched it to see the mother you guys were talking about but found myself laughing quite a bit, especially during the scenes with that lizard. I also felt moved emotionally more than I expected. The mother was as horrible as I imagined. The undermining, denial, manipulation, shutting down of conversation, and generally irritable nature are all recognizable. The only difference between her and my own mother was the teasing (though I got that from others), and the fact that mine not only talks about how dangerous the world is, she fears it herself. I loved the one part of the 'Mother Knows Best' song where Rapunzel hugs what she thinks is her mother and it turns out to be a mannequin. Fantastic symbolism but clearly understated and rare in the film. The other one that clearly stood out in my mind was how Rapunzel's 'mother' used her hair to stay young, which is analogous to how some parents use their children as dumping grounds for their toxic shame/rage/guilt in order to feel better. Seeing the conflict in Rapunzel about leaving was really interesting, the feeling of guilt or shame, I mean. I know it was done in a light-hearted way for comedy's sake but I'm glad they hinted at it a few more times later. The hysteria of the mother over her daughter leaving the tower had me cringing... They nailed that bit for sure, as well as her wide-eyed stare when Rapunzel confronted her about the truth of her history. There were a few minor aspects of the film I didn't like but for the most part it was really honest, which is why it had to be made as a children's film. I think just like comedy in general, it is acceptable to say certain things in this medium only because it allows adults an excuse to dismiss it. Just like when something is labeled 'childish' in a derogatory way. Great film with a really good ending scene involving the 'mother'.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of it that way. So it's a quick routine in the morning that acts like an affirmation of your values and sets the tone for the day. Like a reminder that you are actively pursuing self-improvement. I see how that would be useful in staying on a track. I only tried it once, and since I've been meaning to read Nathaniel Branden again, I think I'll also give this exercise another shot with this perspective in mind.

I just wanted to add my thoughts on this. I tried sentence completion after reading Nathaniel Branden because it seems brilliant but I could never get it to work for myself. I ended up just feeling silly and saying things that seemed fairly random. I'm sure it works brilliantly for some people, I just didn't have success with it like I do with journaling or just taking time to think/meditate alone.

Ah, I understand your argument now. Sorry but I was a bit confused on exactly what you meant, but now that I get it I have to disagree that Stefan's position was the opposite. He said that bitcoin's value would go up after a ban, he didn't say that it wouldn't go up even further if retailers adopted it. Does that make sense? He wasn't talking about the potential for bitcoin if it went mainstream years into the future, he meant the more immediate effect a ban would have on bitcoin's current state. I don't know if he's right, personally I think it would tumble a bit and then rise higher, but that's also partly because I don't think bitcoin is mostly "an investment on speculated future value", since that time has kind of passed. Getting rich off bitcoin isn't going to happen anytime soon, the economy would need to get a lot worse for that.

This is interesting, I've been the same way in the past. I think it certainly could be empathizing, like you are conveying a related event to show that you understand. You need to be careful around people that you genuinely don't find interesting though. What I mean by that is pretending to be interested when you are not. I've led people on like that before when I was bored internally, it's manipulative and will lead to some very uncomfortable situations later. If you aren't interested in the person and you start talking about yourself, it's usually for validation or vanity. Don't do it. I was raised by a narcissist so this is a challenge for me. The way I approach it is to try and be honest. If someone starts talking about fishing and I feel my eyelids getting heavier, I'll just tell them I find fishing pretty boring. I might ask them what they find interesting about it if I'm genuinely curious, but I'm certainly not going to sit there and let them talk to me about lures... If they are just really boring people then I make my escape.

It is in an immoral society. The slavery example Kevin gave was good. Nowadays you can freely say you are against slavery but it doesn't take much courage to do it. In a world where the ideas discussed here were the norm, it would be much easier to be virtuous.

Simple truths are the best kind. I think you are correct: action reflects values. It has to, since we need a way to determine a specific one from the almost unlimited number we can perform. What other way do we have than by our preference?

I think that's true in person, but much harder for the chatroom. With the forum there is time inbetween posts to think about how you are forming your statement, and in person you have the obvious cues. The chatroom can escalate quickly without context and because of the instant nature of it I don't like trying to talk about very complex ideas in that format. It's hard enough on the forums. As Kristi said I think the key is not to judge the whole community based on a bad interaction with one member.

Yeah I agree completely. To be clear I also think the value of bitcoin would go up tremendously if it was adopted by retailers and a ban clearly would prevent that from happening. I just don't think banning somehow diminishes bitcoin as it is used currently by individuals, since a ban has zero effect on the actual utility of bitcoin. (just its adoption) So it certainly limits the potential value to people, but that's not what Jetrpg is arguing. Just like the government can't effectively stop people from copying bits from computer to computer in the form of copyrighted works they have no power to stop bitcoin or even affect its utility.

But you already can't go to a retail store and use bitcoin, so how does a ban affect that? And yet none of that applies to downloading mp3s, which are an electronic item banned in exactly the same way you are talking about. It hasn't affected illegal downloading, in fact illegal downloading went up despite legal threats.

Ha me too, that video was great. Seems like she really took off quickly from there.

Oh I see now. The word filter threw me off, I kept thinking suppression. You mean more like letting negative thoughts pass in order to avoid becoming trapped in a cycle right? Sort of like not taking them as legit problems that you need to panic over, but the results of trauma that they are. Yeah I think that is an acceptable way to handle it and that's how I began at first. I think that's how you are forced to begin because the critical voice can be so overwhelming. I remember being so stressed out about doing an interview with a manager that I would work myself into a panic before I even saw the guy. I think eventually when things calm down a bit more in your head you get the freedom to switch from the passive mode of letting things pass to trying out more active communication with yourself. You can't always take the time to work through everything, for example at work, so the passive mode is great for dealing with customers or situations that are too stressful to really focus, but I generally prefer engaging my parts when I can. Let me know if I'm still misunderstanding you.

I'm glad you mentioned accuracy, as I'm also interested in this. How does a ban on bitcoin impact the ease of trading coins or its utility in any way?

/facepalm So at best you are advising this guy on a site that you don't know anything about.