cynicist

Yeah, it's what is commonly accepted, although there is a certain positive connotation to the word in society. (even though slavery would have been normal at one point) Just check out the antonyms for normal and see how many you would like to have applied to yourself: abnormal (vs. normal), unnatural, aberrant, deviant, deviate, anomalous, antidromic, atypical, irregular, brachydactylic, brachydactylous, defective, freakish, kinky, perverted, subnormal, supernormal, vicarious Imagine any group you would find strange (for me its thugs, goths, punks, christians, etc) and then ask yourself if they see themselves as strange.

No need to remind anyone, people see the difference on TV when someone decides to draw Mohammed.

I'm not sure how significant the right/left brain thing is but web tests are fun so I'll give it a shot Strange, I generally score intuitive on these kinds of tests but here I'm marked as left-brained, 69% to 31%.

Wow. I'm getting off the carousel now.

I never said criminality is caused by intent, but that it is determined in part by intent (which to be fair is derived from action in the end, since you can't read people's minds). If I grab your mp3 player, am I a thief? That depends: If I found it on the sidewalk with your name on it and I returned it to you, the answer is no. If I thought it was mine and grabbed it by mistake, it's still no. The mere action of picking up your mp3 player isn't a crime itself until your actions show a particular intent. So the answer to your question would be no, since intent and action are both required. Until the rule has been broken by action there is no crime.

No it doesn't, because mutual driveways are handled through what are called easements, which are basically agreements between property owners for limited use of each other's property. There is still voluntary agreement and participation in this, and it's not ownership its just rights to limited use. Umm no. You are talking about ownership of city property through government right? Except you can't choose whether to participate in that or not. That's what I mean by leaving. If I buy a condo I have to agree to abide by the rules of the board that manages the common areas, but I know that ahead of time and if I don't like it I am able to rent or buy a home. This is because the rules for a condo only extend to the property of the owner. The rules for a city extend to all the property within the imaginary boundaries of that city, and that city is not owned by an individual or group of individuals voluntarily. Politicians are not bound to a property owner like a management board is for a condo precisely because of that fact. So since no one owns a city, why are people forced to pay for the right to be in one? If a group of people get together and try to start their own community voluntarily, what happens when a city's borders expand to cover that community? Suddenly all of their rules and regs now apply to that community as well, regardless of whether the inhabitants like it or not. That is because of force.

I think I get what you are saying, but correct me if I'm wrong. It's about how self-proclaimed skeptics will latch on to what is called science without necessarily doing any critical thinking of their own, just repeating what others parrot in order to feel superior by association. Usually these people are skeptical about views outside of the group but will not question their own. If you are correct about something then the evidence or logic should support it, and your association with a particular skeptical or scientific group isn't relevant. That's why I like this community, it is focused on the search for truth rather than supporting any particular view. (Skeptic communities seem focused more on being against popular culture, things like religion, sexual orientation, etc)

That simplifies things quite a bit. Then like I said above the matter becomes a question of whether or not the rule was broken. If you are considering theft, the goal of the legal system would be to prove intent, thereby proving the rule was actually broken; Obvious if there's evidence that I'm bashing the window of your car to get to the stereo, but more difficult if I claim to have found your phone on the sidewalk. If the rule is something like, "possession of marijuana", the determination is even easier, which is why I think the law in general trends that way.

Yes I understand that condo owners have units which are parts of a building. Who is hiring the management company? The owner of that building. Who owns a city, or the common area between property within it? Nobody. That's where your analogy breaks down. I know you want to respond by saying the residents of the city, collectively, have ownership because they all have a stake based on the property that they own, and are simply voting for a third party (the mayor) to manage it. The only problem with that is that you can't collectively own anything. You can form a group voluntarily and agree to make purchasing decisions together by vote, or voluntarily agree to split something into equal parts and own the parts individually, but that is the opposite of voting in government because you can't leave. You don't have a choice in participating in this group called government, you only get to choose the puppet that leads it.

Why are you being disengenuous? You know that a condominium is a piece of property with an owner who chooses lease out parts of the property. Who owns a city? Where is the contract with the city that you sign? Or is this the fictitious "social contract" that I keep hearing about, the one that is assumed and implied rather than explicitly agreed upon? The violence vs voluntary criteria is that taxes are taken without consent.

That is not reflected in the scenario the poster presented. If you donated the phone, or if the guy found it in a junkyard, that would be a different situation. In the one OP mentioned, the guy knew he was stealing. (taking property that was owned without the owner's consent and with the intent of depriving him of it) Yes exactly. It depends a lot on what constitutes a crime. The drug laws are particularly useful as an example since I disagree with them. To me they are illegitimate and invalid, so I would not see someone using drugs as a criminal even though a state prosecutor would. If I can reframe your questions, I look at it like this: What are the rules? Is the person breaking them? That is the only relevant criteria as I see it in establishing whether someone is a criminal or not. This methodology is objective, despite the subjective nature of the rules in our current legal system. This may seem nitpicky, apologies if you think so, but technically it's not even a question of morality. It only becomes so if you accept the premise that laws are moral.

The answer is it was still a crime and he is still therefore a criminal. The person doing the stealing knew he did not own the phone and did not ask the owner if he could have it or make an exchange for it. The intent was to deprive him of his property. The fact that the owner forgave him doesn't change this, even if it alters the consequences for the criminal. (like not pursuing legal action against him) It can get rather complicated when you have an example of say, someone losing a watch and then finding one that looks identical in his friends house and taking it thinking he had just left his there. Technically he is taking what he does not own, but is unaware of this fact, so we would say that he is mistaken rather than a thief even though he fits a literal interpretation of one. The conclusion here is that intent is an important factor in criminality, despite how difficult it is to prove.

I'm not sure that is true. Just using some made up numbers here, but imagine a situation where gold as currency is valued at $1000, and it's value as an industrial metal or jewelry is $100. So if gold as a currency was banned you would make the argument that at least you still have that alternative use and value, while bitcoin being banned made it worthless. On the other hand, since bitcoin isn't a physical thing with alternative uses it enjoys the benefits of costing almost nothing to produce, store, secure, or trade (unlike gold). Since the cost of using a physical material like gold is far higher than a cryptocurrency, and that cost is factored into its value when you use it, I'm not convinced that the alternative usage is as valuable as many people claim. Sure with gold you retain some value after it was banned, but how do you know that bitcoin didn't give you the same or more value prior to the ban? (simply through being cheaper to use)

Wow, that's the scariest aspect for me. If people were looting government buildings I wouldn't be bothered, but this is like setting up a facebook event to rob your neighbor's house. I wouldn't want to live somewhere that considered this to be normal. I wonder how Chile is currently. The political climate of South America in general seems pretty nuts, moreso than usual.

Yeah we must have different definitions. For me a leader is someone who guides and directs things as part of a group or organization. Managing anything falls under that category for me, especially when you are chosen to do so by vote. Sure, the board that is setting fees in the first example actually owns the building, even if you own the unit that you live in. If I'm not mistaken you are signing a contract agreeing to follow the rules and voting procedures around the maintenance of the building when you purchase your condo. In the second example, cities aren't actual things that can be owned in reality, they are just a description of buildings and people. So when you pay taxes on property that you own, unlike in the first example, you are not paying maintenance fees to the owners of the city that your building is a part of, you are being extorted. The fundamental mistake here is believing that a city is some kind of property. (and that politicians have legitimate ownership of this imaginary thing so you owe them money for choosing to inhabit it)

Just reading your post from an impartial perspective, it seems like you chose your or your friend's preference to have a picnic over your child's preference not to. The ironic thing about her saying that "if you cave he is going to throw fits to control you" is that by agreeing with her you are "caving" to her opinion of you as a mother. I think that is where the negativity in the thread is coming from. This is just my opinion but I think that a child's tantrums are an expression of their needs not being met. The goal is to get the parent to always be there for them no matter what, which will give them security that will last a lifetime. That doesn't mean always doing what the kid wants, it means always listening and showing concern for the needs they express. None of this is a judgment of your ability as a mother, after all I don't know you or what you have done for your kid, and I'm sorry that it has been difficult for you. That said, why not practice negotiation? If your kid has a tantrum at home for example, make a deal with him and stick to your word. If you can't give him what he wants, apologize and explain why. As long as you are consistent with this behavior your child will learn that, 1) interactions don't need to be win/lose, you can both win 2) you can't always get your way, but there will always be an explanation. Imagine if you made a deal with your kid that if he behaved during the picnic, that you both would do what he wanted afterwards. Trust me when I say that he will remember this when he gets older, and spending a little more time now to get this stuff right will save you a lot of frustration in the future.

I agree with Pepin. I could write a book about the all the problems with his arguments, so I understand why you would feel frustrated trying to argue each individual point. It's better to stick to the core reason why government is bad, which is the use of force against others. He will want to stay within the argument of effect sphere because that is debatable for eternity, but if you ask him whether he is ok with violence being used against you that will clarify things very quickly. If thinking about his answer to this question makes you uncomfortable, then you have your answer.

He is in charge of managing the city though, right? That makes him a leader. Your question is like asking if a rottweiler is a dog, it's a subset so yes. The difference between a superintendent and a politician is the violence required for one to have his position. The superintendent is managing the property owned by the person paying him, and if that owner doesn't like the job he is doing then that guy gets replaced. If you suddenly stopped liking Rob Ford you wouldn't be able to stop paying taxes or fire him. The people who voted against Rob Ford are forced to pay his salary regardless of what they want.

No I get that. The whole thing is really silly because logic applies to anything in our world, including a superbeing, but someone can just say he breaks logic whenever he wants to kill someone and we just call it a miracle. And when you start questioning the motive of a god that murders his own subjects they can pull out the 'god acts in mysterious ways' card and you lose. The best way to win is not to debate things that don't exist lol.

Man you are an excellent writer. I think you are wrong about men and football though, I always thought those activities were designed to avoid real conversation The guidelines you mention for conversation are good and I've intuitively known them all my life, though I haven't always practiced them. I used to consider etiquette as unnecessary, a frivolous tool more suitable for manipulators and hypocrites, but that assumes logical arguments are persuasive enough on their own. As I've grown wiser I've come to appreciate presentation almost as much as the ideas themselves, with the realization that generating thought in other people's minds is a more worthy goal than merely passing along your own. One of the biggest challenges for me in regards to conversation is thinking everyone has something interesting to say, and therefore everyone is deserving of my time. It is difficult to draw the line between prematurely judging people and allowing yourself to be bored to tears. Anyway great stuff thanks for sharing.

I wasn't surprised that you mentioned he was an alcoholic. He would have to be fairly bitter and cynical to talk to a child as sarcastically as that. Hell, I think teasing friends that way is pretty tragic and numbing, but to respond to your son's natural enthusiasm with that just makes me think, "What an asshole". When people make comments like that I know the idea is that it's funny, but I always get the sense that it's meant to put you down, deflate you or whatever. I'm not even getting into the implied meaning...

Oh sorry I wasn't very clear. My point was that god can't break the laws of logic and these are the basis of morality (universality to be precise). So as soon as he puts forward a universal like "killing is wrong" it has to apply to him as much as anyone else, because there are no exceptions to universality in our world (whether god is in it or not) just as there are no exceptions for logic. The only way to counter that is to argue that he is not saying murder is morally wrong, but that he is just commanding humans not to do it because he doesn't like it. (god's opinion, or a simple demand for obedience from a stronger being). However, that runs counter to the christian idea that the bible and god in particular are not only morally good, but the source of morality. IMO, the difference in the Asimov example is that those laws say what robots should do, but they make no universal claims. He doesn't say that robots who don't follow those rules are immoral. In fact he couldn't even he if wanted to, since those rules are programmed into robots and they have no choice on whether they follow them or not. To help understand that a bit better, imagine if one type of animal, let's say dolphin, developed the same ability as humans to abstract principles through a substantial increase in intelligence. Suddenly, the same moral rules that apply to humans now apply to dolphins. We don't make up new rules for them, and they can't avoid being held responsible the same way we are. That is the difference between universal moral rules and simple prescriptions like "Don't do X". The only reason we don't apply these rules to other animals right now is because they don't understand them

Upvote then

Yeah certainly you can argue that he might exist outside of our reality, like a scientist's relationship to a petri dish, but either he can still have an effect on our reality (something detectable) or he can't. If you go with the idea that god created reality but doesn't reside in it (and so can be immune to things like time or logic) and doesn't participate in it, that is no different from non-existence. (strictly the literal definition of objective measurable reality) As soon as anything enters our world though, it becomes bound by the rules of our world like logic and physics. If he did something to break those rules then at least the evidence of that breakage would remain. Like if the effects of gravity were reversed for a time, then everything that came after would be affected by that change, like a ripple effect. Even if our memories were erased or whatever, the physical evidence would still be there. If say the event were undone, time reversed to clean up the mistake, that would be the same as it not happening. The fundamental truth is that our world is logical and there is no way to get around that; saying that the rules governing reality can be broken is the same as saying that there are no rules. Now that my brain has been sufficiently pretzel'd I'm going to take a short break The flaw with this argument is that Asimov's laws of robotics remain within the constraints of physical reality. He is also not making any exceptions because he is not claiming universality. His laws specifically apply to robots and not humans. Oh and to clarify, obviously worship no other god but me would not be a universally applicable rule, since he is god, but thou shalt not murder is universal. (if it wasn't then would it simply be god's opinion that we shouldn't kill each other? ) Understanding this insanity is not really possible so don't stress yourselves too much!

I hope you're being ironic, because that Rebecca Watson situation with the elevator was ridiculous. If a guy propositions you in a way you consider creepy just decline. According to her there was no threatening body language or physical contact, just a weird invitation to have coffee in his room and talk about her presentation; It was clear he wanted to get laid, but so what? What bothers me about it is that her assumption that the guy might be rapey rather than just socially awkward or a player. To get on the internet later and blog about how scary it was to turn down this guy just makes it seem like men are aggressive, guilty, and that women should be careful of being around them in case we decide to get violent all of a sudden. Dawkins was right to criticize her by comparing her situation to women in the Middle East. I mean not having the ability to walk outside, dress how you please, or drive without risking being stoned to death puts her fears into proper perspective. It's crazy to me that we live in a world where an inappropriate invitation is assumed to be an attempt at sexual assault... That's sure to inspire confidence when approaching the ladies!