ProfessionalTeabagger

It doesn't violate UPB. A person on the street gives permission to have their ear-drums moved. If you can't find any valid reason why talking to someone in public is immoral then put it forward. The burden is on the person claiming something is wrong because if it was on the other person then they couldn't do anything. You're not forcing them to listen to your words. The accept sound-waves when they're in public. If some person does not want to have people speak to them without explicit permission then they shouldn't go out in public. Expecting everyone else to adapt to some new preposterous norm is insane and impossible.

D is not immoral.

As far as I remember the lemonade stand example was brought up in response to the assertion from Peter Joseph that free trade was violence. It is to illustrate that in principal, no violence is occurring in a free trade. If you scale it up to ten people trading voluntarily there's still no violence. When you scale it to 100 percent there's still no violence. The violence only enters when coercion is involved, which generally means the state. Consider a free market of love. Call it capitalist romance. At the very simplest level two people voluntarily getting together is not an act of violence. It is a free trade of sorts. Both parties believe they're better off. No matter how many people get together voluntarily, at no point is violence occurring; even if many people suffer in this market of romance. So the "reductionist" example of two people getting together accurately demonstrates the principal.

That's not true because the appeal to consensus is valid when it comes to evolution. Evolutionary scientists are not just giving their opinion. If someone said evolution is true because of the consensus then you'd have a point but I don't think anyone is making a fallacious appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populum).

I can't respond to your last post because I can't understand it. I would have to guess what you mean half the time and I don't know what terms and concepts are yours or just your interpretation of Stef's or some mixture of the two. I think your question about opposites and negations has been answered. A mugger has knowledge of virtue. What is a "universally preferred outcome"? I ask because it seems to me you may be angling towards the opposites of immoral "actions" being moral actions that achieve this outcome.

What is a "universally preferred outcome"? I'm pretty sure it's not the opposite of actions but the opposite of rules. The opposite of murder may be saving a life or giving birth or whatever but the opposite of "Thou shalt steal" would be "Thou shalt not steal" or "Refrain from stealing". If one doesn't notice that then they may think Stef is confusing negation with opposite. Scientific theories are objective because they're valid or invalid regardless of what you think. If you're going to use "inter-subjectivity" then just get rid of "objective" altogether because everything is in our mind. There is a valid distinction between things that are objective and subjective. Stef recently did a video on Evil

Remind them that the social contract makes everyone a soldier. Civilians pay for all the military actions and whether they agree to those actions or not, they voluntary choose to fund them. If they chose not to fund it they would leave. So all supporters of the social contract are complicit in the wrong-doings of their government. Only those who reject the social contract are not morally complicit.

"Stef's" argument violates no such is/ought dichotomy. If you are looking for some objective ought then that's something YOU are adding as a criterion for accepting the argument. Morality is a choice, not a commandment.

Hi Alexander. It's very cool to see you on the boards. I subscribe to you on you tube and am a fan. A big welcome to you.

Once they hear your solution they will just change the scenario to say that all the people on the tracks do not give consent. The point of these cretinous dilemmas is to create moral paralysis. They are specifically created to have no answer. If one pulls the lever or doesn't pull it they have made a choice. Either choice violates the nap but the violation is not with the lever puller/ non-lever puller but with person who created the situation. The person with the choice is just a helpless link in person X's violation of the nap. Whatever choice they make they are not morally responsible for so the nap can not even be applicable. So pull the lever or don't pull it. Either way you cannot violate the nap.

I guess that was a rhetorical question.

He didn't throw candy at her. It's not disgusting and it's not treating her like an animal. It's nothing like throwing fish at a seal.

Okay then, book a call on his call-in show and argue your case. Also, be sure to mention how he bosses his daughter and how main-stream medicine did not cure his disease.

What makes you think I said he shouldn't talk about it? I asked him a question? The type of discussion cchuthbert's engaging in never goes anywhere. No one is going to change their minds based on arguments from incredulity. It's a monumental waste of time. So why is in not reasonable for me to suggest that cchuthbert focus on biology forums or actually go do some science and prove something? What is it that creationists expect to happen HERE? So what if he receives nastiness from biology forums? Evolutionists received nastiness from all sides so maybe he should stop being a pussy.

These are not statements of cause and effect. We don't say everything you cause you own. We do lots of things and cause lots of effects that we have no choice over. If I murder someone I own that murder. It is in a sense my property. If I kill someone in a genuine accident then I do not own any murder. It's purely causal. To say that any of us are just asserting that we also have rights over our property when we've made repeated arguments for it is something you've not argued for. You just keep saying it doesn't follow without proving anything. I just gave you any argument for such rights in my last post. It's been argued countless times on FDR in many different ways. You don't need to say "capitalist property right". Putting the word "capitalist" before adds nothing except confusion.

The logical progression has been shown. You own yourself (you ARE yourself and have exclusive control over your body). Therefore you must also own the effects of your voluntary actions. Property created (like a chair) is an extension of yourself into reality. You necessarily own the chair. You can't make a chair that someone else made. The chair is your time and labor and just as you have rights over your self you have rights over the chair. If someone takes the chair they are taking your time and labor (effectively enslaving you retroactively). They are violating your property just the same as if they violated your body and mind.

Are you PhilosophyLines?

It does if you follow the argument and not re-frame it as "Person A attributed an argument to person B", therefore "Property rights should be universally respected as a moral imperative". You attributed the argument to Stef. It's is Stef's argument. Stef choose to make it. Stef created it. Stef used his mind and vocal chords to state it. You accept Stef's ownership of the argument (or presentation of that argument, etc). You therefore accept that Stef owns himself. His body is his property. If you do not accept this then your statements about "Stef's argument" logically fail because those statements have your acceptance of Stef's property rights embedded in them.

It's that one cannot argue against property rights without using property rights. For example you are attributing the argument to Stef. It is HIS argument, made by him.

They would work because the renters can have such clauses too. That solves this supposed problem.

"Good Artists Borrow, Great Artists Steal"

It's not troublesome for me. It's only people who insist it's a problem that are troublesome. I can't speak for other an-caps though. Put a anti-cartel clause in your contracts. That solves it.

Socialism is morally wrong and it would not follow that anarcho-socialism solves this problem.

Well you're a christian and your bible requires you put atheists like us to death. You are also positing a god that is supposedly non-contradictory while telling us you believe in a god that is contradictory. What's polite or rational about that? Yes, Your beliefs are unpopular. Nazi beliefs are unpopular too. So what?

If you think religious belief is not important then why is this being discussed on this philosophy forum? Why not take it to a biology forum or better yet, take the evidence you have that falsifies the theory and present it? If this subject isn't being discussed directly because it is so tied to religion then why is it important to attempt to convince a bunch of people here that "Darwin was wrong"?