ProfessionalTeabagger

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

There you go. You've answered the original "dilemma".

Thou shalt not eat grapes is a universal principle.

A principle does not have to be accepted by everyone in order to be universal. There's a difference between a universality accepted principle and a universal principle. A universal principle is one that applies universally, not necessarily one that is accepted universally.

The theft by the homeless man lead to a series of events that killed millions of people. So was it right to kill millions of people to save this one homeless man (who was a rapist)?

This is a debate between Professor Plum of Manhood Academy and MGTOW advocate Psychological Cynic. Towards the second half PC brings up anarchy and fumbles all the arguments, allowing the Professor to walk all over him using arguments that have been refuted a million times (how will roads work without government?, anarchy is utopia, etc). I felt embarrassed listening to this because even a highly intelligent person like the professor can make anarchy appear foolish in minutes. Anarchy is the correct position so I suggest there is something wrong with the general presentation of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juxz_WCTAGI

I just tell them I'm not wrong.

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Vote now.

The specific details do not matter when talking about the principle. The degree of force should be proportionate to the violation. You interpret it as honestly as you can. The violator takes the risk. You are under no obligation to to come with some precise degree of force that is proportionate. There is no possible way to measure that. This question has been answered. You use a proportionate level of force to counter a violation.

Aaron should be on the show. He is the man. What he's describing is basically the state as service provider. The state part (the legal and oral right to initiate force) is redundant.

The NAP is a principle so there are no exceptions, otherwise it would just be a rule of thumb. Who would care? If someone invades your home or steal your snickers bar then you use proportionate force. You can easily estimate what is appropriate for the theft of a chocolate bar or whatever. Where's the exception? Why is any of this a problem?

You own the effects of your actions. So when you create the child you create a person with self-ownership. You own the responsibility to care for it. You own guardianship of the child. You own the responsibility for its actions until such a time that it can exercise its full self-ownership. Often people will try to say something like "Ah ha, so the child is property and can be destroyed, blah, blah, blah...". What they don't get is that when you create the child you also create all the responsibilities that go with it.

I recommend watching at least the first couple of minutes of this review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mllRWv6uSXA

No, you are mistaken. The fact that you have no choice but to accept certain axioms as valid (in order to tell me axioms are all about choice) proves my point. You accepted that you exist, that language must be meaningful and that logic is valid and that your senses are valid. You did not need to accept a god or other mythological being. In order to even understand the concept of god you had to accept all these axioms. Children accept them even if they can't articulate what they are. The "axiom of choice" is generally in mathematics. What you're talking about is metaphysics and epistemology. It doesn't follow that because axioms can be chosen that ALL axioms are chosen. You can falsify what I'm claiming by responding to me without accepting these axioms as valid. I can respond to you without holding a god as an axiom but I can't without holding the others as true. Do you see the difference? God isn't an non-falsifiable proposition (unlike the axioms I just mentioned). God has properties that contradict with each other and reality. It cannot exist. There is no god. The notion that you pick some axiom because it's fun has no place in philosophy. What the hell has your "fun" go to do with anything? I will fight tooth and nail to prevent people like you dragging us down to your irrational level.

It's not a kind of faith. It is a proven fact that there is no god. It's properties are contradictory, therefore it cannot exist. Axioms are not a matter of taste. The axioms I use to disprove god you already hold to (logic, reason). It is impossible to proceed without using to these axioms. There is no choice. God IS a choice. God is not an axiom. Please do not try to draw some equivalency between a rational position and some horseshit you want to continue believing.

You've misunderstood. The body and toothbrush are both matter/energy and such can both be property. You have extrapolated a claim that they are the same in every way. In the context of the argument they are both property. He didn't say in ALL contexts they are precisely the same. He didn't apply "only one category".

I cannot follow your argument. Why is it a "denial of different categories"? What categories is it denying? Did Stef say "just a thing"? The body IS matter and energy. Why would everything be owned by all things? If I was listening to you in person I'd have to stop every sentence to clarify. Could you state precisely what Stef's argument was and state without ambiguity why it was wrong.

Your childhood experience is extremely messed up. I'm very sorry to hear about that serious abuse and sorry you feel despair about your current situation. It would seem there's no painless option for you. The worse thing and what's probably causing you most despair is that there's no painless way out for your daughter. The fact that you're realizing these things, facing up to them and placing your child first puts you way ahead of most parents. I have no idea how to help but I highly recommend calling into the show. I think Stef would be glad you called. I would certainly like to hear that call.

Their argument is obviously self-refuting. They are just setting a standard they know cannot be reached in order to avoid the anxiety and pain that comes with truth. They will also have been brain-washed into this standard by rulers. If people think everything is subjective and no objective answers are possible then they need to turn to the king or God or the state. If the standard of proof for something like the scientific method is logically impossible then yes, it's not possible to prove the scientific method.

I have watched the show and I am not aware of what you are talking about. Please provide a link. What libertarianism are you talking about in Brazil? Briazil seems like a centrally planned semi-third world country to me. If this supposed libertarianism isn't helping then what level and kind of violence do you think should be used on those people? Please make specific claims and arguments. What is your argument?

Please provide link to Stef specifically claiming people in these countries had the same opportunities as him. If you can't provide link then could you please take back the claim. What is the argument? Are you arguing for central planning?

A glitch in the matrix.

It's violence to compel or restrain.

Aggression is the initiation the of the use of force or fraud.

No, I gave examples of acts that cannot logically be coercion. "no, it would just be aggression, because it is an unconsented act of imposition on another's property rights." No, because you didn't get consent to do the opposite of those things either. If wearing a blue tie, or breathing or having a child is an act of aggression because you did not get explicit consent then the opposite of those would also be aggression because you didn't get explicit consent. I KNOW you know it's absurd. This cuntishly stupid argument (which is quite old) is a desperate reductio ad absurdum. The definitions of violence/aggression given by the OP are not correct. He sets up the straw-man by defining aggression in a way that can be made absurd. Such acts that you mention are NOT considered acts of aggression within the nap. It's complete bullshit that you just made up. If one chooses to define aggression in that silly way (an act of a human against a will or without permission of another human with respect to his person or property (to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something with the body or property...) then yes the nap WOULD be absurd. If you redefine anyone's terms in an absurd way then their argument will appear absurd. It's just lame sophistry. Also, I'm highly suspicious of the OP. I found his story too convenient (the chances of him becoming a non- statist without having heard this fallacious argument against the nap is extremely unlikely) and his definition of aggression sets up a straw-man. He's also failed to address any rebuttals. See above for proof.