ProfessionalTeabagger

That's not what I did. I made an argument so have the manners to rebut my actual argument and not present some mangled straw-man of it. I said "evil" is not necessary for the argument. If it matters to you, evil is when someone knows an action is wrong but does it anyway. I trying to show how the principle and the behavior is wrong. You don't need to bring evil into it. Maybe I don't know what you mean be "exists as an objective moral rule" but I'm sure I DID demonstrate that it is objective. And that rule/justification fails. Arbitrary declarations (especially ones from non-existent magical beings) cannot be valid justifications. That's because one can also assert the opposite when it comes to arbitrary declarations. Both cancel each other out so the justification is logically self-detonating. Also, if rape is morally good then one must agree that being raped is good and so must accept it. But by definition rape is something you do not accept; so that another logical implosion. Not to be rude but your attempt at a moral justification for rape is a spectacular logical clusterfuck. So you can see that rape is not justified here so if you proceed to rape (violate non-aggression) then you do so knowing your justification is wrong. It's impossible to provide a valid justification for rape. Keep trying. You'll find that every justification you try will collapse into insurmountable contradiction. I'm not saying anything logically valid is sound. I'm saying a moral justification must at least pass the test of logical consistency. It must be something that can be applied consistently. Universally preferable behavior exists. When we debate we accept that it is universally preferable to accept reason over nonsense, truth over falsehood. Morality is a subset of UPB that involves enforceable behavior. I showed you the reasoning and I don't know what "hidden definitions" you're talking about. If you do not have valid moral justifications for your behavior then that behavior is not moral. How hard is that to get?

It's not meant to achieve anything other than set up what I'm arguing. It's like if I say "the scientific method is objective" and then proceed to argue why that is so. See? I didn't mention good or evil because they are not strictly necessary to make my argument, which I wanted to keep simple. I think I DID show you the steps of how you reach objective morality. I showed you how the NAP is an objective rule of morality. If you violate it then that violation can never be logically justified. It's simple. Rape = can never have a valid moral justification Not Raping = can have a valid moral justification. Rape, murder, robbery and assault all fail the test of logical consistency and universality. It's objective. Again I ask you to try it. Give me a valid moral justification for rape or murder. If you can't then it follows that rape and murder cannot be morally justified. They are literally and demonstrably immoral. It is relevant if rape is not UPB because morality IS UPB. Moral theories or propositions are ones of universally preferable behavior. If you say you should not murder then that only makes logical sense if it's applied universally. So if you murder someone you do so in the knowledge that that murder, by definition, cannot possibly be justified. I DID speak to the issue. I spoke directly to the issue. Let's say your first principle is that propositions / theories / justifications have to be logically consistent. If they are logically inconsistent then they will be wrong, right? So any moral justifications / moral theories they support your behavior must also be logical consistent, right? Violations of the NAP cannot have morally consistent theories / justifications. Therefore those justifications are wrong. So all the justifications that might support violations of the NAP are wrong. You cannot morally justify violating the NAP. It is the only logically consistent moral principle. Libertarianism IS a personal preference but so is logic and science. Just because something is a preference doesn't mean it's not objective.

The NAP is objective. So if you violate it then your behavior will be unable to be morally justified. For example, lets say you rape someone. Any justification you give for that behavior will logically fail. It cannot be universally preferable behavior. Try it. All your justifications will either be arbitrary or logically contradictory. However NOT raping is perfectly justifiable and CAN be universally preferable behavior. It's just a fact of reality. All justifications/ moral theories that try to support violating the non-aggression principle fail. So if you commit such aggressive acts then you do so knowing that any moral justification you give for it will be wrong. You will be morally wrong.

The problem here is that you focus on the wrong thing. You are focused on specific scenarios rather than the principle. If the force is defensive then it's justified. That's it. Trying to figure to what degree if any some scenario that involves state violence may or may not be justified is besides the point. Generally when there's a state involved then the only choices left are evil ones.

1. Reality is objective and consistent. 2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality. 3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.” 4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.” 5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.” 6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. 7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. 8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). 9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification. 10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.” 11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence. 12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false. It applies to everyone because it's universal. Nothing stops someone form claiming anything they want. Unless the person can demonstrate this other group is inferior in some way that exempts them from the moral rules that bind everyone else then it's just a claim. Who cares?

Then there's nothing more to discuss. Close your account and leave. Why are you still here? If you want to go back to zombieland then don't be a faggot about it. Just go and stop wasting our time.

Generous, kindhearted (with other people's money) Matt Zwolinski strikes again. First , BIG violates the non-aggression-principle (which Zwolinski rejects) so you have to steal the money. Second a guarantee is not possible because the government cannot guarantee it will always have the money to pay the basic income. Utterly retarded.

Trump is destroying the media narrative and exposing them. He is the kid saying "The emperor has no clothes". If you actually want to ask if Stef is Russian operative then ask it.

I don't know what that means.

What part of space travel exploration would he own? (make sure all your terms are clearly defined)

It wouldn't matter. There's still no god.

What prevents dictators in a free society? A free society. Invariably any response you provide will have cold water thrown on it. I usually find it better to ask them , "What prevent dictators in a non free society?".

It shows your capacity to empathize is strong. I know we're generally anarchists around here but maybe you could contact social services. Maybe you could gather some evidence to show them.

I don't think you're a coward and I'm pretty sure you'd have done something if the abuse had been a little bit more. From your story I sense that you were about to crack. I don't think I would have said anything either. It's really hard because you know when you speak up you are seriously challenging generations of social norms so you're unlikely to have back-up and you're accusing someone of wrong-doing with their child. It's pretty scary.

My favorite line of Cap's is one that reminds me of Stefan's view that went something like "you stand beside the truth, refuse to move and let the world gravitate around YOU" You're right. Though all it would take is for cap to universalize his position on Bucky and he'd be an anarchist.

It seems the latest Marvel movie is dealing with issues around the moral legitimacy of government. This was also to a certain degree a subject of the previous Captain America movie "The winter soldier" and it appears to be in the upcoming Batman/Superman movie. But in Civil War, Captain America questions the government's legal right to put limits on him altogether. This would technically make him an anarchist. It might be a good idea to use this movie to illustrate anarchist concepts to people. It could help open a few more minds. Might as well use these silly movies for something other than entertainment.

There's been a recent controversy on you tube about certain channels being side-lined and other non-controversial channels being promoted to the top. This is something of a vindication of FDR's no-ad policy. If Stef had taken some people's advice and just used ads then FDR would be in a more precarious position. He would not have cultivated a culture of donation and so would be far more dependent on not pissing off advertisers. When you want to speak truth to power that's not a good position to be in. Also, what if Ad policies change and you tube requests ads be used every 20 minutes. Imagine stopping a serious discussion on parental abuse or an amazing rant to watch an ad for Call of Duty 16. How obnoxious would that be? The money is the only good reason to have ads but even that would be less because most people would no longer donate.

"Eternal" might be a better word for god as "infinite" can have a beginning.

Sounds like your ahead of many of us. I remember this question being asked on the show. Stefan advised the study of logic first and foremost. I'm a bit of a light-weight so I kinda enjoy good overviews of like Bertrand Russell's The history of western philosophy.

The office itself is fascist. Donald is just being honest.

Even if America and the west and Christians had done none of what she mentioned in the video you could still draw a moral equivalence by that standard. Drawing some moral equivalence between two groups because they both are not anarchy's (not willing to violate property rights) is not valid. In that view a person stealing a loaf of bread and a brutal mass murderer would be "morally identical". This is what can happen when anarchists lose perspective. Just because violations of property rights are all wrong does not make them all morally identical. The NAP is not a commandment from god, violations of which however slight or strong still send you to hell.

Shes fails to compare the principles of the west to the principles of Islam. There is no moral equivalence.

You can type climate change or Global warming into the FDR search bar and find plenty to refute this stuff. The funniest part of this nonsense is when he says "in balance" like "in balance" is some good thing.

What theory of truth would you say you used to arrive at your conclusions?

Punishment is a form of restitution and correction. I'm only talking about the amount of force needed to defend oneself. If a woman is dangerous and has, say, dragged you to the ground you might throw a few punches. But if after you have used enough force to ensure your safety but then proceed to punch, you've moved from defensive force into aggressive. What punishment the woman faces can come later.