Pepin

I don't know, primarily because I am unsure of the capacity for a three year old to understand the concept. I don't believe lying is an option. Perhaps no explanation is needed. Perhaps the challenge is explaining it in a way they can understand, and isn't too horrifying. It would be a great introduction to the concept of the circle of life, though again, can a three year old understand that? I wouldn't trust my judgement on this matter, and instead would ask a secular psychologist who specializes in child development. A few articles I found on the general subject: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/developing-minds/201312/children-s-understanding-death-and-the-afterlife http://psychcentral.com/lib/children-and-grief/000374 http://cpancf.com/articles_files/helpingchildpetloss.asp One of those articles is giving me the inclination that the concept of a soul and afterlife is a childhood trait which is retained into adulthood. In a sense, it could be said that the adult never progressed past that part of their development.

I find it is best to do it slowly with people you are unsure of. Have conversations about other intellectual subjects, such as science and various hobbies, and mix in some safe political subjects. By safe, I mean stuff like the drug war, wars in general, and obvious ethical matters. This is to get an idea of the person's reasoning ability and an idea about their beliefs. If you find that they do not make much sense in simple matters, or hold beliefs without understanding, it is best to avoid getting into deep conversation. If I do it slowly, I tend to not use labels to describe my beliefs, yet simply let implications set in. Though I never talked about anarchism or hinted at it strongly, a friend of mine understood that I was an anarchist. Eventually I told him, and he was like "yeah, I kind of already knew". With this method, consistency in your beliefs and how you present them is vital. I want people to get the impression that there is a well connected underlying system of reason and evidence behind all of the philosophical thoughts I express, and that I am not just pulling floating concepts out of the air. I've found that there are certain people where you just know you can be open about your beliefs without worry. I've met someone who I almost instantly knew was an atheist and anarchist. My current girlfriend is someone who on the first night I met her, I began to have conversations about atheism and other fun subjects.

Meh, I am tempted to take the more vain approach and respond "I cannot be wrong about this, as God does not exist because God cannot exist". I think it is vital for people to understand that there are no hidden doubts in my mind. I am not at all willing to focus a debate on my potential doubt as it is only a strategy to avoid actual arguments.

I am unsure of how to respond as I am unsure if the problem is with you or with others. The framing of your post is very strange. There are a number of possibilities as to the possible states. A: You do not have good friends, and they will lambast your ideas no matter how well you convey them B: Your friends are correct in the assessment of your argumentative ability, but do not wish to provide decent criticism C. Your friends are not intelligent enough to understand your argument, and misinterpret confidence as arrogance D. You convey your arguments badly, yet with confidence, which create a feel of unfounded confidence, aka cockiness E: Some combination of the above I am leaning more on the side of not having good friends with the "your delivery makes me want to barf" comment.

This is fine so long as it is universalized. A man looking at your facebook profile to scope out potential flaws in your: beliefs, character, or appearance must also be acceptable. A man might search for any pictures of a potential girlfriend making the duckface pose, and reasonably reject the woman based on finding such a picture. It does seem rather strange that the women quoted would go so far in their research. They seem to mistrust their judgment of people to an extreme extent, so much so that they compare the man to intellectual concepts.

The introduction to the thought is good. More of an expansion is needed to demonstrate your understanding of the claim, and to fill those who are unfamiliar with the claim in on the details. What does this mean? This sort of language works if you are internally dialoging or talking to someone who is familiar with your thoughts and ideas, but this feels unrelated and random. Furthermore, the sentence is incomplete, or not written well. Did you mean to say: "I was confused by this statement, but I then reasoned that this statement fits the criteria of a denial of different categories, with the denial in this case being the ability to be owned". The above might not be what you meant, but it is the best guess I have. Again, this sentence might be understood by those are familiar with your thoughts and ideas, but when presenting these ideas to a new audience, the ideas need to translated into a form that anybody can understand. Why? What only leaves two possibilities? Is there a line of reasoning that I missed in the last sentence that ruled out all but two possibilities? If so, what were the criteria for ruling out the other possibilities? I can assume that this relates to the previous statement, but how? The statement that "one thing can own another thing" is a denial of different categories This eliminates all but two possibilities, that no thing can own another thing, or that everything are owned by all things How do you expect someone who is reading this to follow this train of thought? This isn't a matter of intelligence, but a matter of filling in the gaps of the reason and evidence you ought to have filled us in on. Someone may guess correctly what your reasoning was, but this probability is quite low, and it is far more likely to have nothing to do with what you meant. The focus on this being a refutation of Anarcho-Communism is irrelevant and confusing because you want to talk about the validity of ownership as opposed to the validity of Anarcho-Communism. In conveying ideas with a short amount of text, it is important to leave out any material which may confuse the audience. To make something clear, I am not at all refuting your argument in this post, rather it is to show that any refutation I would make would require large amount of guessing, which is very likely to be wrong. The first sentence gets the point across, though some expansion is needed to make it clear to the audience what you are talking about exactly. In philosophy there is an issue of technical and confusing wordings that can be somewhat difficult to decipher. Though what is being said can be understood and makes sense, philosophers realize that the wording will trip people up, so they provide some simple examples of the concept. The second sentence needs to be broken up and expanded a lot. For instance, why is the operation of ownership different empirically? Are you to provide reason and evidence to support this claim? Or is it a claim which is thrown at the audience to figure out? Is it something the audience should just accept because it ought to be obvious? Even if you do provide some reason and evidence in support of the claim later, the structure would just be incredibly confusing. The sentence doesn't build, it just reads like a number of unconnected thoughts on a similar subject put next to eachother. To repeat, connecting back to anarcho-communism is just confusing. You are saying too much in too little space. It is very difficult to follow how you got here. When I first read your post, this seemed like it came out of nowhere and had nothing to do with anything previous. I can go on, but I hope this is enough. It may be the case that english is not your first language, in which case it is important to be even more clear and expansive in your writing. The conveyance of ideas, especially philosophical ones, is incredibly difficult. When I make complex philosophical arguments, or even simple ones, I try to frame them in a way which those are unfamiliar with my ideas can understand. I of course have a far more technical and off the cuff way of discussing philosophy, but I can only take that approach with myself or those who are familiar with my philosophy, or in a long article or book where the method of thought can be learned.

I would suggest that you spend some time working on improving your ability convey your thoughts and ideas through argumentation. I am not comprehending your posts, and others seem to be having the same experience. This isn't a criticism of your ideas, as I do not understand what they are, yet rather of your delivery. Online debates require very clear and concise language, as even the simplest points can be lost. I don't say this as an insult, yet rather a reflection of my reading of your posts. Right now, if I were to continue the debate, I would risk spending hours of my time reading and rereading your posts to make sure I understand and typing up a response, only to find I was replying to an argument that was not your's. This isn't preferable for either of us.

As a general principle, I would suggest that this sort of behavior has nothing to do with you. Someone telling you that you are being "too preachy" does not particularly care about your work, they simply wish to maintain their psychological relation thiers. They realize that if they are to put their beliefs in the open, they will be subject to criticism and rejection. They wish to be honest, they wish to put their thoughts into the public discourse, but are internally damned to remain closed due to fear. When someone tells you to not be "too preachy", they are not talking to you, yet rather projecting themselves onto you as a means to commit themselves to further inaction. You are playing the part of their drive to want to do something more, and they are playing the part of the dominant roles within their psyche which quell such thoughts. My suggestion is to be a bit of dick. Say, "I realize you have your own reasons for not wanting to commit to these actions and that is completely acceptable, I cannot stop you from hiding yourself from the world, but this isn't about you. This is a desire that I have, this is my will, and it is wrong to attempt to crush my courage to preserve your cowardice". Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but seriously, fuck these people that prevent virtue to preserve their inaction.

Ownership is a concept which applies to molecules, but only applies to particular sets of molecules with particular properties and behaviors. These properties and behaviors are incapable of being applied to any set of molecules, yet only sets which such properties and behaviors can be identified. Ownership requires consciousness, that is the ability for a set of molecules to relate its behaviors of itself and all other sets of molecules accordingly. Humans are conscious beings which are able of identifying and differentiating internal processes from external processes. As I type through movement of my fingers, I am able to rationally relate the behavior to my conscious will, which is to say that I have executive control over my body and my mind. Through an understanding of what I am and what I am not, I am able to determine what I do not have executive control, such as your reaction to this post, or a cup of coffee. Ownership of the body is gained through homesteading. The process of homesteading is not particular only to the body, but to all matter which is not already owned. There is no particular difference between process of homesteading when applied to the body, and when applied to matter outside the body. Homesteading is not an argument I feel comfortable expanding upon, as I have not had much practice, but there are plenty of resources on mises.org which cover the topic in detail. Though I do not quite understand your argument, I am somewhat certain that the fallacy you are committing is a syllogistic one. A has property X A is comprised of Y Y has property X Humans have self-ownership Humans are comprised of atoms Atoms have self-ownership Though the conclusion is valid when applied to humans, it is logically invalid because it assumes the atomic nature is the determinant of self-ownership. To make this more clear, self-ownership is not a measurement of atoms, yet rather the capability of matter to control itself and to understand what it is and what it is not. In attributing self-ownership to any entity, the definitional requirements must be met, as opposed to the unrelated commonalities.

Often times with art, it is seen as bad to use it as a means of conveying philosophy and personal views. Though it tends not to be stated, it is because it cuts down on your potential audience. If you are to compose a song which is against religion, it is likely that those who are religious will not wish to listen to it, cutting down on your potential audience significantly. It is suggested by many to stick to safe subjects and points of view which everyone can relate to. Personally, I cannot adhere to such ideas. Art ought to be a psychological manifestation of your beliefs, and an argument in support of them. To make something shallow, which can be enjoyed by all, is to create something which contains none of you. To be "preachy", is to be daring. To be "preachy", is to hold your convictions as true, and to express them to the world. To be "preachy", is to take art seriously. To not do so, is to fall into cowardice.

Oh, sorry about that, thought that is what you wanted. But rereading your post, I seem to be mistaken. Logic is a set of rules, the base being A is A, which are derived through the nature of the universe. The universe, matter in conjunction with the laws of physics, is consistent. For instance, the properties of behaviors of an electron are the same for every electron. Particles with mass being unable to achieve speeds beyond the speed of light is impossible. Massless particles such as photons being able to achieve speeds other than the speed of light is also impossible. This being the case is not dependant upon any human mind, but simply dependent upon the laws of the universe. It is possible to say an electron is an electron because it retains all of its properties, and behaves in a consistent manner. If the universe did not operate in under any consistent laws, if particles with mass could go the speed of light at one time, and not at others without cause, if no properties of any particles remained constant, then the ability to make the statement "A is A" would be impossible as it could never be observed. Our universe is objective, which is to say that fundamental properties and laws remain constant. Biologically, life evolved in conjunction with an objective universe. Life which developed survival strategies which closer to the nature of reality were far more likely to survive than those that did not. A creature which spots its prey, a blue cluster of cells, will travel in the direction of the blue cluster of cells and not in any other direction. This is because in our universe, in order to interact with matter, you might travel spatially towards it to interact, traveling away does not allow for interaction. The creatures that did not take a path towards their food would not survive. This statement is obvious, but needed. More fundamentally, the assumption in this behavior is that the creature's food is the creature's food. The creature chasing after this blue cluster does not expect the blue cluster to be a predator, or a rock, or an underwater vent, or anything else at random intervals of time. If this creature is able to use its senses to identify its prey and to differentiate it from all else, the premise that it operates under is "A is A". I do not mean to attribute conscious motives to early life, or to even say that early life and even highly evolved life has intention, but to make the claim that the evolution of life is closely related to the laws of the universe. It ought to be no surprise, as the senses are simply physical devices which isolate particular phenomenon in reality. The primary laws which govern survival are the same laws that govern the stars. As life becomes more and more complex, it is able to divide parts of reality into different entities. Its method of division is through observation of sense data, and finding what is mathematically correlative. This may sound complex, so an example is in order. If you are watching a monitor of static, each bit of information is unrelated to all other bits. If a green set of pixels begins to move across the screen, if you notice that when one green pixel moves in any direction that all green pixels move in the same direction, perceptually you will clump all of the green pixels into a single entity. You'd correlate the behavior with one, with the behavior of all. You'd calculate that the movement of the green pixels has nothing to do with the movement of any other pixels. Though this is a gross simplification, it is good enough to get the idea across. The prime assumption in this is that the properties and behaviors derived will remain consistent and are what they are. There can be miscalculations, but they tend to be corrected pretty fast through more observation. You may look at a school of fish moving in harmony and think it is one thing... until they scatter into each individual component. Logic is an abstraction of the properties and behaviors of entities, without reference to any particular entity. With perception we are able to break up reality into parts, ideally with each part being relatively independent from all parts. Though a group of five lions walking across the ground are not truly separate from: the ground, the air, or even the pull of the moon, they are separate enough to see them as separate. Each lion is of course separate from each other, and though they all have the same properties and characteristics with minor variation, we do not perceive one big lion, yet instead five separate lions all with the same properties and behaviors of one. The fact that there are five of them does not change the nature of any individual lion. Again, this is "A is A". Through abstraction, we are able to take the perception of quantity, and drop reference to the perception. If we assign a symbol to it, we can say that "5 is 5", which is derived from the observation of five alike entities in reality which remain consistent. Logical rules can be derived through empiricism. A simple example has to do with spacial dimensions. If something is moving up, it is not moving down. Really, it becomes quite apparent that if something is moving up, it cannot be be moving down. If we abstract the properties and do no refer to the particulars, we are able to derive a theory of opposites, where if A, then not B, or if B, then not A. Logic tends to be practically universal in its application because the universe is objective. But the discernment of which logical rules are valid or invalid is dependent upon the faculty of reason. So it may be valid to use the concept of numbers to describe any amount of lions, but reason would tell us that using non-integer numbers would not be valid. A half of a lion is not a lion, as if you divide a lion in half, it will not at all act like a whole lion. The concept of division is applicable to cake, but only to a point. It can be said that once the slice of cake resembles a crumb, you would not call it cake as it is no longer edible in a practical sense. Reason is also the means of organizing and connecting concepts. It is the means by which logical implications are derived. A great example of this is Einstein's Special Theory or Relativity where he reasoned out the consequence of the speed of light being constant in all reference frames, and discovered the logical implications. In my mind, reason has more to do with particulars, while logic is more generalized. Logic is more of a framework, while reason is more of a process. Reason deals with logic, though it deals with instances, which logic tends not to deal with a whole lot. The majority of logical fallacies are the result of ignoring particulars, where a statement is valid logically, but does not apply to a certain circumstance. A good example I just found is If it rains, the street will be wet The street is wet. Therefore it rained. I hope this was helpful. Probably longer than you hoped, but it ought to be more understandable. I have been writing a book on this subject, so this is actually very condensed.

Logic is a conceptualization of the empirically derived implications of physics and perception. Physically, the matter we observe remains consistent simply due to the nature of the universe. Perceptually, matter which remains in a stable state for any observable range of time can be observed to have relative independence, it can be observed to be what it is and what it is not. Conceptually, these properties and behaviors are abstracted. Through abstraction and comparison, higher level relations can be derived through reason.

What is your price range? As far as production quality, I'd argue that high end audio ought to the focus as opposed to video. If your goal is something more informative, audio that doesn't grate on the ears and is very pleasant to listen to for long periods of time is vital. It is also good to realize that a large number of people consume content which is not video dependent so that they can do other things such as work out, clean, or play video games while listening. A decent mic that doesn't require any special interface can be found below. http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Microphones-Yeti-USB-Microphone/dp/B002VA464S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1400392095&sr=8-4&keywords=usb+mic Something else to possibly learn about is how to process your audio to make it sound better. There are many different programs you can buy which can greatly enhance the audio you've recorded with a few plugins. Many producers use a program called Audacity, and I have trouble recommending this program. Personally, I use a professional digital audio workstation (DAW for short) called Studio One 2 for processing and recording audio. Learning to eliminate background noise and reverb ought to be a goal. More so, learning how to work a mic is essential. Far too many people totally mess up on this, and their vlogs and podcasts are full of clipping, annoying pops from them hitting the mic or pronouncing certain syllables, and not being aware of how close or far away you need to be for the volume you are speaking at. Video I am not as knowledge about. I have produce a lot of music in the past, so that is my area of expertise.

As I argued above, this seems to be mostly an accounting gimmick as the severs make the same amount of money if not more through tips. Really, the restaurant doesn't pay anyone, it is the customers that do, regardless if it more directly through tips, or indirectly through food and beverage. My guess is that without tips, the amount of money a server will make will be more consistent, but somewhat less. During slower times the higher wage will make up for the loss of tips from a slow night, while during really busy nights the servers will make less than they would if they received tips. I don't know, it might be more money overall for servers that stick around, but for the people who do serving to make a lot of money during tourist season, it will certainly be less. This is all just guess based on my experience with the industry.

I've worked as a busser at a restaurant and received 5% of the servers tips, which typically amounted to $20 an hour in addition to the $3.50 an hour I made working. The servers made more than that. Talking with other people at other restaurants, this seems to be pretty much the same where I live, though it varies on the season. I don't know, perhaps there are some restaurants where people don't make all that much. If that is the case, the restaurant is legally obliged to make up the difference and pay you minimum wage. Either way, the article says that it is common for people to earn up to $150 in tips a day. I'm a good bit confused by the idea that this meant to help workers as the concept that they are underpaid is not true. What I think is going on is that the owner figured out that he could attract more customers by increasing the food price by 18 cents and paying the staff more as opposed to having the customers tip the staff. If that isn't clear, overall it will be cheaper for the customer to pay an extra 18 cents per item as opposed to paying an extra 10-20% per item, and this will provide a competitive edge in price over the competition. Provided the above is true, this "workers are underpaid" sentiment is a way to gain publicity and popularity while obscuring the fact that this has nothing to do with the workers pay, and everything to do with what the customer pays.

I've never heard of this idea of tulpa, but I am pretty interested in this idea. If you could provide any good reading material, I'd appreciate it. As far as I understand, I would say yes, though I may disagree that the part of the personality is created. I would claim that we are an ecosystem of parts. Stefan calls it the mecosystem, and a more advanced theory of parts within a psyche and how they interact is covered by a theory called internal family systems, IFS for short. The theory suggests that these parts already exist, and that due to various circumstances they take on a wide variety of traits and personalities. In an unstable mind, as one part becomes more extreme, another will take on the opposite extreme role. It is also argued that personas often found in performers are parts with a distinct personality taking the seat of consciousness. Stefan's book Against the Gods has a section which you are likely to find relevant as he makes a similar argument, though equates the God part more with the unconscious in general than with a specific part. I've had some thoughts that there might be a sort of wise guru part in most all of us, which isn't to say that the part is wise, but that the experience of advice from this part would be similar to receiving advice from God or a guru. I'm quite a believer in parts as I've found it to be my experience. It is rather helpful in identifying what is you, and what is a part. A silly example is that I've been dating a girl after a long dating break, and there are many thoughts and things I say which are just my penis talking.

The use of the word universal is applicable as it fits and is defined clearly. Almost all words are conceptually defined to describe the characteristics of part of reality as opposed to the whole. In particle physics, particular concepts only apply to subsets of the larger reality, like the difference in behavior and properties of bosons and gauge bosons. In regard to higher level concepts, such as biology, universalizations require different standards than that of physics. As far as I can think of, the only two claims which are valid of all existents is: that existents exist; existents have energy. To be honest, I am having a difficulty in understanding your argument. Ethics, theories of how humans ought or ought not to interact with humans, does not measure interactions between human and rock as rocks have no preference. It also does not measure interaction between human and alien as humans and aliens have yet to interact. The fact that a concept doesn't apply to all of reality is the point of a concept. The goal of any concept is to differentiate and to unify classes of existents through their similarities and differences, and to draw conclusions about a particular class through the properties of that class. If ethics is a theory which only relates to human interaction, and omits other interactions, then it is valid to ask the question of why? The answer not will attempt to appeal to a higher concept such as animal interaction, but instead focus on the properties that humans have that other existents do not, and use this as a rational basis for why there is a difference. As an example, if we are measuring the ability to do calculus, it may be claimed that humans are the only species that have such ability due to their unique brain structure which is highly developed for rational thought. The answer would not appeal to a wider class, such as humans have the ability to do calculus due to have a brain, as this statement applies to the entire class of organisms that have brains and does not differentiate the primary factors which are essential to the ability to do calculus. In relation to ethics, there are many arguments as to why ethics ought to only apply to human interactions, and these arguments are based on the primary differentiators between humans and all other existents. I am sorry to say this as you spent a good deal of thinking and time on this post, but this is completely unrelated to the theory of UPB. I am unable to respond to this because all I would be doing is disregarding everything you said, and providing an explanation of UPB. It is a difficult theory to understand due to our conditioning. I had to listen to the audiobook about three times until really getting it. After that, I was very confused as to how I didn't understand it before. It may be annoying to say, but the theory is extremely simple and easy to understand, it just takes time. Again, I say this as a person who read the book three times. To provide a bit of a response, different ethical classifications can be made within the class of humans if it is rationally justified. As an example, a doctor is subject to different ethical standards in regard to giving medical advice as opposed to a person. The differentiation being made is that a doctor is an authority figure on medicine due to their knowledge and experience, while the average person is not. A doctor giving bad medical advice is not the same as a person on the street giving bad medical advice. These subdivisions cannot contradict UPB as UPB applies to all humans, and can be handled with contract theory. This is to say that when you see a doctor, you agree to accept their advice based on their credentials and that they intend to help and not harm, and if this is not lived up to they have broken the contract. In the case of medical advice from a random guy on the street and why it is different, there is no implied contract, and no reason to believe their statements are factual. Neither. It is a methodology for testing claims that intend to apply to all humans. It applies many basic logical tests, such as seeing if it is possible for all humans to do follow the "ought", as well as applying common sense tests such as the coma test which asks if a man in a coma would be immoral as a result of an ethical claim. I am rather confused by this. I'd suggest looking into that argument a little more as you do not seem to understand it. I don't mean this as an insult, but it is somewhat clear in your wording that this is pretty muddled in your head. Oh, you're referring to Kant's theory of ethics. I doubt you've looked into it, but these sorts of claims do have a source, and you picked it up from various sources of media and social interactions. Personally I disagree with it on the basis that Kant argued that the theory would made masturbation immoral. The moment I am deemed immoral for what I do best is the moment I've lost all interest in being a good human being. To respond to your argument, it wouldn't make much sense for ethics to judge thoughts, as that is very difficult. Perhaps a better response would be that thoughts have no affect on others, but actions do, therefore ethics ought not to measure thoughts but only physical interactions, but I am too busy trying to imagine a society where whether someone is ethical or not is based on their ability to demonstrate that they want to do bad things, but don't. Also, I'm pretty certain in demonstrating that you are good, you will resist displaying your virtue, but will do so anyway because it is difficult to do. Though I am unsure if displaying your virtue would be moral or immoral according to Kant's theory... Hmm... I am rambling now.

Though I am uncertain about this as I heard it second hand, apparently in Texas fracking companies have a legal immunity till some date for any damage they have caused. This might be the case as there are previous examples of this, such as railroad pollution and forest cutting, though I am having trouble verifying this. I am finding a lot of sites that seem to be saying that they can't be sued on X, Y, and Z reasons due to regulation exemptions, but with the description of the exemptions it seems like they are saying they can't be sued for reasons that are not related to the issue of polluting an environment. Like there is a regulation about the amount of water that can be used in these sorts of extractions, but since they have an exemption from this regulation, they cannot be sued for having gone far above this amount. I am finding it very confusing as most of the anti-fracking sites aren't quite straight forward. The language and the concrete information are in disjunction. I find it a good bit likely that the fracking industry is doing damage, but at least for now after doing about half an hour of research, I feel far more skeptical.

I am certain that we've all looked at the youtube comments on FDR videos and seen some tragically hilarious remarks. These comments are ultimately bad in that they demonstrate a complete lack of thinking, but some comedic value can be gained from them. As the title suggests, if you come across a comment which you find funny or beyond nonsensical, post it here. These are comments you think would be jokes, but aren't. The comment that made me want to make this topic is this:

I feel like I am in the minority of people who was able to apply rational principals to the concept of government immediately, it only required an exposure to the arguments. I can safely say that I didn't have any clue what a government was after high school. Going through a lot of libertarian material, I began to get a greater and greater understanding of what it was. I heard a lot of arguments about what government was needed for, and didn't exactly agree or disagree. Eventually, I came across a Bob Murphy video on private defense, and it took me a little bit to get that he was talking about a society without government. It wasn't a thought that had crossed my mind, not because I was instinctively opposed to it, but because my understanding of politics was very limited. Though I was convinced by that video, I decided to spend a month or two researching anarchism to make sure I wasn't being premature in my acceptance. Then I heard the claim that the state is a monopoly of force over a geographical area, and so so so much of what I didn't understand before made so much more sense.

Thank you for your interest and willingness to understand my posts. I would not say that the purpose of a value is to correct behavior, but to commit to a particular behavior in the future. A value might come about as a response to previous behavior, like someone who partied too hard might decide "I'm never drinking again", but the purpose of a value is unrelated to the past and instead related to your conscious will in the present. For instance, you may choose a value which has nothing to do with correcting behavior, and it is still considered a value. No. It would be like saying "I want to be healthy", and then doing to achieve the state of health. The purpose of a value is to act in a particular behavior in the future, and if one chooses a value and does not act on it, then it cannot be said that they value what they say the value. If I say I love my girlfriend, yet when I see her I ignore her and treat her badly, it cannot be said that I love my girlfriend. In a sense, yes. The more technical way to put it is that a value has more worth if it allows you to manifest your will in reality to a higher degree. Focus might be a way to describe the creation the fulfillment of values. It is like if you were to say "take some time and focus to figure out your future", you will identify what the ways you want to act in the future. I'm a little uncomfortable with the term, mostly because I'm a little overly technical with the terminology, but feel free to think of it in that way. Yeah, putting mental effort and time into god would be focusing on something that can't exist. You are incapable of interacting or discovering anything about something that doesn't exist. Saying you value your religion, with god at the top of that conceptual pyramid scheme, is to in-effect: value nothing. As far as the impact of belief in a deity on future behavior, it depends on what the belief entails. If it is a religion, it may have a large impact. Jews for instance don't eat bacon and other food on pass over, and won't work on a particular day. These actions are the result of the valuing of god's word, though this is a simplification of the topic. The result I would claim is a whole lot of irrational behavior. Someone who is a deist, who believes god created the universe and has no interaction with you, will not create a value system around god. It will have as much influence on their actions as the concept of god has on an atheist.

I appreciate your response. I think I might understand what you are saying, so I'll attempt to make the argument, of course in my own way. Tell me what you think. Opposites exist in the universe. Though there are many examples, a simple one is that up is the opposite of down. These are binary states in that if it is one, it cannot be the other. If something is moving up, it cannot also be moving it the opposite direction: down. We as humans perceive these properties through our senses, and conceptualize them. For instance, the specific instance is If this rock is moving up Then it is not moving down A rock cannot move up and down at the same time A generalization of this is If A is X Then it is not Y A cannot be X and Y at the same time The observation is ultimately empirical, though the thought experiment of imagining a point moving up and down at the same time is also likely to have some sway. The above line or reasoning is condensed into the word "opposite". This conceptualization allows for a wider application and identification of opposites. With this conceptualization of opposites, it can be applied to ethics through identification of opposite characteristics. As a proponent of UPB, this measurement of good or evil would look at an interaction and the preferences involved. Preferred and preferred behavior are opposites in that they cannot apply to the same interaction at the same time. If ethical theories intend to apply to the entire human race, and if ethical theories intend to make claims about preferred behavior, then ethical theories must be put through various logical tests to ensure that any preferred behavior can be universalized.

I held off reading Rand until recently. I was very surprised by the level of thought and insight. I am disappointed with a lot of articles she wrote where she makes some decent arguments, but I don't really feel convinced at the end. What is certainly true about Rand is that almost anyone who talks about her and her ideas isn't. It will involve Stefan revealing that he's been wearing a bald cap the whole time.

SWIM has done cocaine a few times and was rather disappointed with the effects to price ratio. They said the effects were far more mild than anticipated.

Sorry, this may be a little annoying. No clue what this means and how it relates to ethics. Is the claim that: Reality is a single thing Right and wrong are apply to reality This is a contradiction in a sense in that opposites properties apply to a single concept If so, the error is in the definition of reality. Reality is a concept which contains all things that exists. Since the concept is measuring only whether something exists, and not the properties of any particular existent, the claim can be reduced to Reality is comprised of all existents Right and wrong apply to existents Right and wrong apply to different classes within the set "reality" If not, then ignore the above. I can guess what this sentence entails, but there is far too much going on in it to understand. For instance, with the first statement, are you claiming that ethics and morality are only understood by humans? That the concepts do not exist without humans? What does "inherently rooted from the perspective" mean?. With the second statement, I have no idea why awareness and empathy contribute to ethics and morality, what they have to do with universalization, nor what "socially accepted principles" mean. Also, why is the qualifier "often" applied? Trust that I am not being nitpicky, but rather that it is incredibly difficult for someone to really understand the argument if it isn't expanded and simplified. These sorts of phrases are perfectly acceptable when discussing these ideas with those who are familiar with these particular ideas, but not with others. A large difficulty is that these phrases and words have completely different meanings when used by other people. As I'm certain that you have debated plenty of people online and in person, they might use a word or a phrase and you think you know what it means, but then to find out they are using it in a way you've never seen. Understand that I wouldn't be putting so much effort into criticizing your post if I didn't think you were intelligent, or if I thought you were spewing nonsense. It is obvious there is a lot of thought going on behind the scenes, but it is difficult for people to understand these ideas if not translated to a friendly format, otherwise people will hallucinate and misunderstand the things you said every couple of sentences. I can guess as to what you mean, but chances are that I am going to guess wrong, and the conversation will focus on irrelevancies to your actual argument. I have gone through this far too many times. By many people yes, but ought this be the case? Are there issues with this theory? The primary issue I have with the claim is that it is a concept applied to a set of individuals, yet does not apply to each individual, like in social contract theory. Since humans retain their individualistic properties in any quantity, "the good of mankind" would reduce to "the good of every individual". I am having a difficult time understanding what this means, especially "skin-bag bias", and am unable to comment on it. Well-being isn't a concept that can apply to the moon, stars, or galaxies. Importance is a subjective concept and cannot result in definite answers. Comparing well-being to importance, also while attempting to establish a relation between man and the cosmos, is pretty non-nonsensical. No clue how the second sentence relates to the first, nor the rest. Same goes for the final question.