ProfessionalTeabagger

The state doesn't own the land. Landlords do own their land. The state is forcing you to pay for their service. landlords are not.

How may non-high IQ people do you know are self-made multi-billionaires and can successfully presidential campaign?

This would be theft so proportionate force would be justified. Bob has initiated force in the form of fraud so Alice would be defending herself.

Does this apply universally? What if that's not in your "self-interest"?

The only significant reason to not care about morality in the pursuit of this "self interest" is if your "self-interest" involves violating some that morality. So that raises the obvious question; Why are you considering rape, robbery, assault or murder to be in your self-interest? Why are you keeping these options open? Do you think you might WANT to rape or murder someone at some point? Have you already done something and now want to debate morality to convince yourself it's just arbitrary preference? Why would not caring about it allow us to pursue our "self-interest" more effectively? Maybe our self-interest is better when we follow morality. I have no interest whatsoever in violating anyone so it's actually against my "self-interest" to not care about it. Again you have subtly framed this in terms on what's effective, not what's true or valid. Yes, we all get it. Morality sets limits on your behavior and that may conflict with your "self-interest". So what? Science and reason also set limits on what you can believe and accept as true. So what? How have I "shut my ears"? I have addressed and completely refuted everything you've argued. Please don't concern troll me with "you're losing out" and "perhaps others will choose more wisely". Everything you say is self-refuting. I could write pages about all the BS loaded into your comment. Ugh, such a lazy response. You go for the the dullest, most depressingly obvious response as if I just didn't think of that. So exhausting. Make an effort to think. It's not about what you CAN say. I can accept logic is valid but still SAY "logic is wrong". But I will be WRONG. Truth is universal so if you choose truth as your standard then you necessarily accept the methodology everywhere and at all times. So when you say "Stalin was a man" you are making a correct statement but you're using the wrong methodology. When you say "Hitler was a woman" you are either lying/joking etc or are mistaken. Do you understand? Well, you've been proven wrong about the advancement of their self-interest so the only reason you remain is that you find it amusing. That's pretty insulting. I'm here because I care about what's true. I believe you are here to attempt to debate away your anxiety over morality. Because it's it's not very plausible that you'd think your "self-interest" is well served debating strangers on some forum about something you claim not to care about.

Okay if this ever happens and you still need this basic income then we'll agree.

If there was "no reason" to "care" then there's no reason to accept your argument that there's no reason to care. You are literally spouting self-detonating nonsense. The reason to "care" is because it's correct. IT'S CORRECT. But I'm not talking about "caring". You have framed this as whether we do or do not care. I didn't bring up caring. But to the degree that an emotion like caring is relevant you can't pick and choose which times to be correct. Truth is universal, which means it applies at all times. You can choose to be correct or wrong. You can't choose to be correct some of the time and wrong some of the time. That's just choosing wrong. If you don't care about being wrong then why are you here? It is necessarily unwanted. A necessary property of rape is that it is unwanted. That's the god-damn definition of rape. Stop arguing this. It's absurd. So now we're back to the practicalities of what is effective at changing behavior. I've already gone over this. Why are you on a philosophy forum if your goal is to change behavior and you think reason is highly ineffective? Are you retarded or something?

Saying your opinion is irrelevant to philosophy does not mean philosophy can have nothing to do with subjective opinions. But philosophy is founded on objective standards. Saying you don't care what is or is not a valid philosophical standard is the most insulting response I've ever gotten on this board. You're on a philosophy forum holding others to objective standards while claiming you don't care about those standards. You are truly contemptible. What's wrong with no one being able to understand me? No, dummy. Rape by definition is unwanted. What a person may or may not feel at some point afterwards is irrelevant. You can't retroactively want something you didn't want. So if YOU had won the debate you'd have achieved nothing by doing? So you're just a troll then?

This would also apply to your reasoning as well, right? Truth would be no more objectively preferable than falsehood so cant we just reject your argument if we prefer to?

It's quite a good question. I think that ultimately moral responsibility falls on the school / government / authority. The abused person is being forced into the same space as the bully. The bully is using the fact you can't escape to psychologically hurt them. Under those circumstances I think there's a case that the bully has initiated force. They causing as much pain as if they punched you. So if the abused is wrong in retaliating with violence then they are still less wrong than the abuser.

It's a good question. The no recovery part seems to have come true. I think the west has managed to get a few new credit cards. How long can it avoid collapse when it's trillions in debt?

Stefan actually rebutted your examples in the video. You have the right of self defense and third party defense. At no point in the video did Stefan argue that counter-examples were not valid. You didn't even listen to the video your critiquing.

The notion that the young generation has not been spanked is very common.

But it's no more of an idea in our heads than the logic you are using for your argument that it is just an idea in our heads. Murder, rape, theft and assault were wrong before they were ever ideas in anyone's head. All justifications for such behavior fall into contradiction. Justifications that fall into contradiction are wrong. So if you choose to engage in such behavior then you do so knowing that there is no moral justification for it. Morality is still valid even if there's only two people in a room. So it can't be founded on collectivism because that would require more than two people. Unless you can explain how two people can be collectivism?

This guy's position is left anarchism.

False dichotomy. No, having objective standards does not mean ignoring subjective preferences. So brainwashing IS a valid philosophical standard then? You've already stated that "convinced" is a valid standard and brainwashing can convince people so I assume you agree violence is valid, right? Rape fantasy is not rape. It's simulated rape. Rape by definition is unwanted. So it is universal. Also it's not just universal by combining the subjective preferences as you claim. It's universal logically. What does that matter? Why can't my preference be both? It's not like being correct is logical an objectively higher standard.

Right, so you're just putting forward your entirely subjective opinion and are not using any objective standard. When you say X is preferable you;re saying you like it. That's irrelevant to philosophy. In philosophy you use objective standards to compare your arguments and proposition agianst. As you're not doing that then your arguments are not valid. Why? What if I prefer to view brainwashing as non-violent? If it's right for me what's wrong with it? It's just an arbitrary preference no better or worse than yours. I'm pretty sure not want to be raped is a universal preference. Why? Why can't they be preferable and not preferable at the same time even if hate torturing them? It truth is objectively preferable to falsehood then why isn't preferring and not preferring something at the same time preferable? It is in the sense that "scientific" has become synonymous with correctness. But strictly speaking they are not synonyms. Some scientists argue that certain scientific principles may be incorrect and it's valid to debate that. This shows that science itself is not the objective standard. Same with ethics. You follow ethics or be moral because it's correct. There is. It's called being correct. If you disagree then stop correcting everyone.

Torturing them is a standard too. You said it was THE standard in that it was preferable. No that's wrong. It IS believable as clearly people believe it. What's wrong with pointless pain? What's wrong with religion? It's just preference like being correct or liking toast or stabbing yourself, right? What has what most people agree with got to do with anything. Most people agree with religion. So what? Right so if I could brainwash or torture them that would be just as preferable? Making sense is only prefeable in the sense it;s the only realistic option I happen to have, right?

You can have incorrect scientific principles. The scientific method is debated by many. The ultimate standard for science is correctness (being in accord with reason and evidence). It's not necessarily synonymous with being correct. We just often use it that way. Same with ethics. Why be moral? Why be scientific? Why be rational? Because if you don't then you'll be wrong. IOW because it's correct. People sometimes then ask "Why be correct?". That in itself assumes correctness as the standard for beliefs, theories, propositions. Anyone insisting you must provide a correct answer to the question "why be correct?" is a troll.

Yes it is different. It's not moral to be correct. Is "to be scientific is to conform to correct scientific principles" a tautology? The immoral principles would be incorrect by definition. Those principles (like say - it's right to rape or it's good to murder) would result in logical contradiction. If you do those things then you do them knowing that the action cannot be morally justified. It is objectively immoral. Being immoral is knowingly violating valid moral principles, not conforming to immoral principles. I guess you could phrase it that way but it appears to be just another rather awkward way of saying the same thing.

Not that they're necessarily correct but just that they convince you? So if I forcibly brainwash you and you're convinced then that's a valid and objective philosophical standard? A person may be convinced the earth is flat but you are convinced is not flat. Both of you would be meeting the standard of "convinced". But both your views contradict. So how is it valid? No, religion doesn't ask you to make personal sacrifices that are not believable? But if that were true then what's wrong with making personal sacrifices that are not believable? Why is it preferable if you want to convince someone? If the standard is "convinced" why not just torture or threaten them or something? How is making sense objectively preferable?

I've already answered it. It's because it's correct. What does "convincing" mean? Please define the objective meaning of "convinced". How do we measure the degree or quality of convinced-ness? Because it's correct. You've already accepted that being correct is sufficient answer. If not then what standard are you using to evaluate arguments and propositions? Oh yes, quite right old chap. Jolly good. Maybe instead of making little digs at "moralists" here why don't you explain what exactly would be wrong with religion or why making sense is somehow preferable.

You're moving goal-posts on the anarchy question. It's got nothing to do with the main topic anyway. What difference does it make to me or anyone if someone does not care about being correct? Why is this question relevant? Unless you make sense in your next comment I'll not respond to you again.

That's called a non-sequitur. If so many evil people exist then you can't have government because evil people will flock to it. So if evil people exist then you need anarchy so as to protect yourself from the evil people and not have a coercive government that forces you into economic and social relationships with them. What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself. That's even more nonsensical. "Logical with himself" doesn't mean anything. In fact I tried to find a single usage of that phrase and couldn't find one anywhere. Can you provide an example? Every such nihilist is trying to create rules for people and an exemption to those rules for themselves.

Yes. That's why it's called evil. Don't know what that means.