Pepin

But the differentiation you are making is in terms of potentiality, not of space and time. A sperm has the capacity to develop into an adult human if in the same space as an egg. An embryo has the capacity to develop into an adult human when in a womb. Is not the measurement of this theory whether you affect the capacity of an embryo or a sperm to develop? To make this more clear, if someone is to get an abortion, you would claim that they are immoral because they removed the capacity of the fetus to develop into an adult human. The measurement is not that of murder, which requires preferences, but of removing capacity. The objection I offer is that the dividing line, that the theory only applies upon conception, is an arbitrary one. In a technical sense, it is because the theory is a measurement of the capacity of a group of cells to develop into an adult human. Claiming that the concept of capacity only applies when a sperm and egg are in the same spacial location is to say that spacial location is not a measure of capacity prior to conception, but is after, doesn't really follow for me. In the case of the pro-abortion argument, the measurement made is the comparison of the entity to that of a human. A sperm and an egg are cells, and therefore have the same ethical equivalent to any other cell. An embryo is more complex and more human like than a sperm, but is still far too much away. As a fetus goes through its development, it becomes more and more human like, and therefore the ethics of abortion become more and more grey. An abortion days before a baby was to be born can be considered murder as what is aborted is the equivalent to a baby, and the spacial location of being in or outside of the womb is irrelevant to the measurement, as the theory is only measuring likeness.

An introduction to who people are and a little back story would be nice. So as soon as I post that, they go into religious histories.

Being racist means you are irrational, as racism is irrational. Racism is the ascription of behaviors to physical properties with no rational connection. It isn't racist to say that gingers tend to avoid the sun, as their skin is highly sensitive damage from the sun. It isn't racist to say that blacks are difficult to see at night, because their skin color is roughly the same color as darkness. It is racist to say that blacks are criminals, because this is to connect skin color and a behavior. The color of the skin is irrelevant to the behavior.

A retort that comes to mind is that the potentiality can be applied to a non-embyo, as in a sperm and an egg. If two people choose not to conceive a child, and instead use birth control, does this not rob a potential embryo, IE: a potential adult human, of its rights? If not, then what is the differentiation between an embryo and a separated sperm and egg?

The following is a passage from a book I am writing. The argument won't be as strong as it is based on the foundation of the previous sections, but it should still be understandable. God can be defined as a being of consciousness, and the creator of the universe. There are various religious views which claim that God is not conscious, rather God is the universe, which will be addressed. As discussed previously, perception and conceptualization requires the ability to differentiate between existents. We are capable of measuring our own independent nature through the differentiation of our properties and the properties of other existents. God is claimed to be omniscient and all powerful due to having the ability to create the universe. Though many philosophers have argued that these attributes cannot simultaneously apply to God due to contradicting each other, ie: if God is omniscient then he is powerless change anything, I am willing to ignore the issue and to accept that he is omniscient, which is to say that the deity is completely responsible for the creation of the universe and all that followed. An interesting point to make is that if God is omniscient, then his nature is ultimately linked with that of the universe. In being fully responsible for the universe, he must take on all of the features and attributes of the universe. This of course leads back to the claim that “God is the universe”, though with the addition of God being a little more. Yet, if God is the universe, how then is God capable of differentiating himself from everything else. To put another way, if God is everything since God created everything, how can God identify himself? The answer is that he cannot. If you are everything, then it is impossible to separate yourself as something independent. If you are all that exists, and the result of everything, then again it is impossible to separate yourself from what you create. If God is defined as a being that created the universe, then God is incapable of knowing that he exists, which means that God cannot exist. Another way to think about the idea is to think about God prior to his creation of the universe. How is he able to identify himself when there is nothing he can compare himself to? How can he learn of his nature or of his capabilities with nothing to act on? How can he know he exists when he cannot possibly conceive of the concept of nonexistence? Further questions can be raised, and a thought I experiment I recommend is to pretend as if you were in this situation as a baby, with the addition of being deprived of all senses. A few objections might be raised, such as “I made a painting, are you going to say that I can’t exist because I can’t differentiate myself from the painting?”. This objection is understandable, but it mistranslates the meaning of creation when in context to a deity. In the context of creating a painting, nothing is actually created; rather a consciousness is simply rearrangement an assortment of molecules in a manner which accords with their will. In the case of God, something is literally created, and this creation as argued above must be an extension of God. This isn't an argument. I have no clue what this means. Regardless, how do you know this to be the case? Because it resolves a contradiction? Unsupported argument which contradicts all of physics. Invalid appeal to authority. Insult against atheists. Unsupported claim. Let's say that all of the retorts to these objections were valid. Would it mean that pantheism is correct? Does the existence of god hinge upon on the validity of objections to god? Or does the existence of god hinge upon the existence of god?

A large issue with intellectual arguments is that they don't deal with the underlying problem.The state tends to be a projection of the family, which makes the process of making arguments against the state irrelevant. Religion tends to be more about maintaining family and friendships, which mostly makes arguments against religion pointless, because they are only religious because they fear ostracism from their social group. I agree that progress through argumentation can be made, but I think it is more vital to isolate the source. Instead of providing arguments against God, why not ask "hypothetically, what would happen if you told your family you didn't believe?". The state and religion are giant red herrings.

It is a little worse as what is meant by "existence" can not be comprehended. This is why philosophy requires strict and precise definitions. If I use the word "exists" in a manner which is inconsistent with the way it is defined, use the word without definition, or supply a definition through examples and then later use the word in a context that would not apply to the examples, then how can anyone actually understand my argument. I define existence as all that exists, and an existent as something that exists in some relation to existence. If something has no affect on reality, then it is does not exist. The establishment of an existent is essentially physics. There are a class of existent that do not exist in reality, but do exist, an example being concepts. Mathematics does not exist in reality, there is no number two found in physical processes, but mathematics does exist as a concept. A forest does not exist, it is just a concept to describe a large amount of trees and vegetation, but this does not mean that the constituents of the forest do not exist. Though concepts do not exist in a physical sense, they do have an affect on reality in our interaction with it. I can go deeper into this as I've written quite a lot on it. Through identification of the self. If you introspect, you can separate "you" from "the rest of you". The will are the desires and values that are associated with you, not the unconscious. To put another way, the self is a part in a large ecosystem of other parts which up the larger whole. The self is the part that you associate most with being you, as it is you, granted that it is what you are in control of. You can gain an understanding of the self through testing what you are in control of, and what you are not. For instance, I can consciously control my breathing. This is an act of the will. But control breathing can also be unconscious. I can determine what determines the action of breathing through measuring the action: breathing, and through relating the action or inaction to my will. If I consciously decide to take a breath, and I take a breath, then this is an affect of my will. If I breath automatically, then this is not an affect of my will. The self is a part which is best at thinking and long term planning. There are various metaphors to describe the role of the self, one I like is that it is like being the CEO of a large firm. The CEO does not control everything, most of the work is carried out behind the scenes, and the CEO does not concern itself with the repetitive day to day actions, but the CEO has a large role in the firm's actions and policies. I hope this doesn't sound too complex. The primary argument is that you exist, that you play a part in a larger system, and that you are able to identify the self through self-knowledge work. Most of this is what I've learned from psychology podcasts and lectures. Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology would be a great source to check out. To give a brief explanation, a high level abstraction are abstractions of abstractions. So say we have the concept of chair, which is an abstraction. Then say we have the concept of table.. Then of couch. And so and so forth. If we take the common properties of all of these concepts, then we can form a higher level abstraction called furniture, which is defined as: "large movable equipment, such as tables and chairs, used to make a house, office, or other space suitable for living or working". Another example of a high level abstraction is the concept of health. Health refers to many other lower level concepts such as: physical fitness, dental hygiene, disease, mental functioning, and so on. The concept of health is created through taking the properties which are the same across these concepts, and combining them into a new concept. As another example, imagine a bunch of two dimensional line segments. We can look at a number of these line segments with similar properties, such as having closed bounds and three sides, and conceptualize these features with the term "triangle". If we classify more and more line segments, if different classes have a similarity in their definition, such as "line segments with no open bound and with no cross sections", then we can then create a high level concept called "shape" which would include triangles, rectangles, rhombuses, circles, but not an hour glass figure or the letter 's'. We can then make even higher level abstractions, say we take a particle class of rectangles that have line segments of all equal length, and define this as a square. A result of this is that a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. A triangle is a shape, a square is a shape, but a square is not a triangle. Exercise is healthy, getting sleep is healthy, but exercising is not getting sleep. The concept of health contains properties which are found in the concept of exercise and adequate sleep, just as a shape contains properties of squares and triangles. As said previously, higher level concepts are abstractions of abstractions. I am being loose with the language, but I feel as though it conveys the idea accurately enough. Depends on what the high level abstraction is. If you value health, then you value the subsets of health such as exercising, dental hygiene, sleep, not eating unhealthy foods in excess, and so on. There is ambiguity in it, but I think as long as in general you live up to the standard you can say you value health. If you say you value your health, and smoke a pack a day, regardless of your other activities which support your health, I would claim to say to say that you don't value your health since the impact of smoking is large enough. I don't know why you feel scared, but I might suggest thinking about your values and if there are contradictions in your actions. It may be something like the above example. Or it might be something like "I value life", while putting yourself in risky situations that could end it. Again, I do not know, but that is a thought. I think you have the right idea in your example. It would make more sense to say you value communication than to say "I value making forum posts", "I value face to face interactions", "I value chatting with friends over facebook". It is similar to saying "I value health" in that it isolates the desired outcome. If you are to describe just a lower level concept of health such as "I enjoy exercising", it can't be assumed that you exercise for health, or for looks, or because you like the way it feels, or because there is nothing better to do. Also, the higher level concept is much easier to apply to other actions because it is rather impossible to compare different actions without abstraction. Let's say that you feel the benefits of sleep and say to a friend "I want something like sleep". He is likely to suggest actions which are literally similar to sleep. If you abstract the benefits of sleep, such as feeling more energized and good, then your friend will make the conceptualize connection that you want to be healthy and then would suggest something like exercise. Sleep is a large theme in this post because I am lacking it at the moment. I think this should be clear now, but just in-case, I argue that values are high-level concepts that relate to the self. This is to say that if you want to be healthy, this is the conscious part of you wanting to healthy, and not some unconscious process. It is far easier to say "I want to be healthy" as the high level concept of "health" is far easier to integrate into your life than the overwhelming subsets of health. It allows for you to make connections of all of your various actions and habits through their similarities and differences. No, I am saying that values pertain to the will and not to unconscious processes, and that values are in general high level abstractions. Yes, the existence of the eye is dependent on the existence of light. I actually have a section on this in the book I am writing. I hope this clarifies my argument. Again, I am a little sleep deprived, so I hope not to look back at a muddled mess.

I've been working on a definition of values in conjunction with a theory of freewill I've been devising. Though I won't go deep into the connection, a value is a conscious decision to act in the future in relation to a high level concept. Values are constrained by reality. What cannot be achieved cannot be a valued because it can have no relation to reality. One cannot value being in two places. Contradictory value systems have no ability of being achieved and destroy the meaning of value. If one says they value health and sickness, then they really value neither, as there can be no way logically for both values to be sought after at the same time, their will to be both healthy and sick cannot relate to reality. Values are the primary measurement of your ability to manifest your will into reality. It is the relation of your will to reality. Your consciousness is not very good at decisions in the short term, which is not to say it is impossible to make on the fly decisions with use of the will, but it is far more likely to fall into previous thought patterns and reflexes. There are many studies done showing that people tend to attribute unconscious decisions to their own will, which makes it very difficult to accurately identify what is the result of your will and what is the result of conditioned processes. Values do not fall prey to these problems as their conceptual and long term nature allows for the will to be the prime determinant of the future action. Lastly, values are based on high level abstractions. They are not specific action plans. I would not say I value going to the gym, rather I would say I value physical health. As a result, it can be said that my working out is a consequence of my value, and exercise is an action which manifests my value. There are many reasons for the above claim, but I want to make it clear that there may be certain values that have direct correlation with an action, in which case you can say "I value [action]". Technically, it is valid to assume that if a set of actions fall under a particular value, then all of the actions are a value, but I would suggest that this isn't the best terms to think in. A large reason why values ought to be high level concepts is to gain an ability to integrate a large set of potential actions under a general category. The cognitive power needed as assess many different actions would be difficult, so instead the desired properties of the will are abstracted to allow for a large set of actions to be put under a single concept. For instance, you could say "I value clean teeth", "I value functional muscles", "I value being disease free", "I value..." and so on, but it is much easier to say "I value health". With the value established on a higher conceptual level, it is far easier to apply the concept across all potential actions, as opposed to considering all potential actions and determining a non-contradictory action. A tremendous function this plays is the ability to identify contradictions across thousands of actions through a few words. For instance, if you have five primary values, then all that needs to be done is to ensure that these are logically compatible. It is not needed to check each action contained within a value against an action in the same or other value category, rather you only need to ensure that the primary values are consistent with each other, and that the set of actions are consistent with the value. I hope this was helpful and easy to understand. Mostly, I hope it was convincing. The argument would be better if expanded, but I think that this enough.

Despicable.

Jews are from outer space? That'd be so awesome.

These sorts of posts seem to contain a large unawareness of the audience they are dealing with. How are people on the forum expected to react to a sum of conclusions without arguments? Even if arguments are presented, if they run completely contrary to the general philosophy accepted here, it should be assumed that they need to be high quality and presented in the most understandable manner possible to assist in convincing others. If an evolutionist is trying to convince a creationist, they realize who they are talking to, and present their arguments in a way that can be accepted and understood by the audience. When I used to spend a lot of time arguing with liberals on various forums, I spent a lot of time into my arguments, because I understood that I'd need high quality material to convince them. Just stating my conclusions and not spending the majority of the time on arguments would have not worked. I don't quite understand why people make these types of posts. It isn't exactly trolling, I feel like it has more to do with the person getting a reaction out of themselves.

There isn't any substance in your post. There are no arguments, more just a monologue of conclusions. I am pointing this out because this is not helpful on a board such as FDR where you are quite aware of the general opinions. To make a post of conclusions in this manner is not going to be understood nor agreed with. There are times when it is appropriate for that kind of dialog, and that is when people are in agreement with you, or after you have presented a strong argument for your case. To focus on the quote above, this is invalid as words have meaning, and this meaning applies to situations that fit the definition. There are grey areas insofar as what is considered force, but creating an artificial grey area where a particular instance of violence is not violence because there is a large degree of difference makes no sense. The NAP is based on the definition of force, the degree of difference is irrelevant as that is not what the concept measures, it is binary. I have no problem if you accept your argument, but please live by it. Never complain; if someone steals from you: remember that someone has it far worse off in another circumstance; if you are beat up: remember that that isn't actual violence because what people went through in concentration camps was far worse; if you lose a loved one: realize you have no reason to grieve because in other parts of the world, whole families are murdered with the exception of a child, who is conscripted into a gang.

To push back a little, the purpose of a certain class of negative thoughts might be related only to the circumstance, and not so much information about yourself. A continual occurrence of a particular type of thought likely indicates something, but if the thoughts being generated fit the circumstance, it is difficult to argue that you ought to look into it much more. As an example, Stefan told a story about when he was in Cali of how his daughter wanted to look at every single rock she saw. This elicited negative thoughts such as "wow, can't we go any faster", "does she really need to look at every rock", "uhg, this is so boring and tedious". This frustration isn't bad as it can be expected with the given stimulus, and its source is easily identifiable, which is to say that self-knowledge work isn't needed. It isn't beneficial to dwell on these thoughts, yet rather it is best to change your mindset to change your state. There is a psychological bias for us to pretend we have control over what we do not, and the result of this is often reacting in a way as if we had control. This isn't bad as it is just the result of evolution, but it can create unnecessary negative thoughts and emotions. Realizing what we can control and can not control is important to avoiding falling into this psychological bias. For instance, if stuck in traffic, you have no ability to affect the speed of traffic through getting annoyed, angry, or beeping the horn. Yet, people will create an illusion of control as a means of dealing with the circumstance, which is not only is not productive, but also stresses you out. This behavioral bias indicates little to nothing about you and is completely normal, these negative thoughts serve a purpose, but the purpose is irrational. As a final example, it is common for people to think in terms of negations, as in "don't mess up". Conceptually there isn't a problem with this, but psychologically it has a negative impact on performance and mood. These are negative thoughts in that they focus on a negative outcome as opposed to a positive one, and are unwanted because they indicate little about your self-knowledge. It is quite normal to think in these terms as it is the most direct, but since their effects tend to be negative, it is best to condition yourself to use language which focuses on positive goals. A good example of this from my own life is thinking "don't have a panic attack". What does this indicate about me? That I do not wish to have a panic attack, nothing really more. What is the effect? An escalation of the panic sensations. It is far more productive to stop yourself from thinking in these negative terms, and to instead think "take a deep breath, relax, you are in a safe environment, you are in control of your body". I think it should be clear that I am in general agreement with you in regard to many negative thought patterns, but I would argue that many of these patterns can be considered meaningless and serve no purpose outside the context of the situation. In my own observation of myself and others, these thought patterns are all over the place, and have pretty negative results in terms of stress. I invite you to observe people and yourself for a week or two to check this for yourself. My primary argument is that these thoughts are normal to have, that they indicate little about yourself, that changing these thoughts through reframing and particular word usage is the best method, and that this class of negative thoughts are common enough to warrant a differentiation from the class of negative thoughts you are talking about. Thinking about it is likely to help. A strategy I like to use is to think about a problem rationally in conjunction with reflecting on my past. You might come to the conclusion that self-deprecation is not only negative, but also completely irrational for any human to do, and then you can look at your past to identify why you act in this way. Following the money is a good approach, as in who benefited from putting these thoughts in your head. As an example, I used to care about complete idiots and douches opinion. On some level, I realized that this wasn't rational because they were beyond irrational, but their opinions of me still had an affect on my mood. After spending a few hours over the course of a week thinking about this, it just became so obvious to me how it didn't make sense for me to even listen to these people. I then began to think about why I listened to them and let it affect me, and of course this goes into childhood stuff. I used to get crazy long lectures about how I was a bad kid and how I was going to go to hell, and I had to listen and to take it seriously otherwise I'd be hit. There is also the social component to it where being ostracized by your "tribe" is going to affect you regardless of your opinions of them. Anyway, with enough work on this, I am pretty immune to being affected by idiots. I believe the last interaction I had of this type was pretty interesting in that I just didn't care about what the person was saying, it was almost like I wasn't even listening. I placed no value on the person or their words, and if I remember right, at the end they seemed sad and didn't interact with me again.

I would agree with the critique of the use of language. You do not wish to filter anything, as that is simply repression. Rather you want to be aware of any and all thoughts you are having so you can address them. Communicate with the part of you that is having that negative response, and understand it. If the negative response only serves to stress you out, reason with the part. There are negative thoughts that are legitimate and serve a great purpose that you want full access to. There are also negative thoughts that only stress you out. If you are playing pool and continue to miss easy shots and become quite angry and curse, this is not an appropriate response as all it is doing is making the experience unenjoyable. On the other hand, if you meet someone and they say some things that illicit negative thoughts about yourself or that person, this is quite vital in deciding if you ought to interact with them again. There is a great deal of scientific research that demonstrates the effects of negative thoughts. I found some articles real quick, but I recommend looking into it. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/owning-pink/201308/the-nocebo-effect-negative-thoughts-can-harm-your-health http://www.drmilhem.com/articles_thoughts.htm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-clear/positive-thinking_b_3512202.html The idea of positive thinking is not to repress negative thoughts, but to modify them through reframing. An example of this might be getting stuck in traffic for a couple of hours due to an accident, and instead of thinking "uhhh, this ruins my day, this sucks so much", reframing the event to "oh great, now I can listen to that album I have been meaning to hear", or "hey, this gives me time to call my good friend who I haven't talked to in ages". The experience of negative emotions is not seen as bad, yet rather quite important because of the information they are conveying. There are certain groups that take it into the wrong direction, like you ought to feel compassion for and forgive those who do you harm, but the meme I've been hearing a lot lately is to get these people out of your life because they are a psychological drain. I would claim that this is false because it takes an awareness of a problem to address it. The strategy I've been seeing most often in NLP circles is to become aware of your own patterns, to analyze what purpose they serve for part of you, to decide if this is a pattern you wish to continue, and if you choose to change to implement various methods of undoing the conditioning. A lot of NLP is centered around becoming aware of and deconditioning negative patterns in your life. It is also centered around modeling, where you become aware of patterns and behaviors in others that you want, and apply a method to achieve the goal. It is true that some people who are NLP advocates will claim that you can achieve everything through modeling and changing your thoughts, but in my research over the last month this doesn't seem to be the norm. What I was surprised to find is that they have a model of the mind and methods of dealing with parts that is quite similar to IFS. It isn't that much of a surprise as a lot of NLP is based in Gestalt therapy.

In some of the studies I have seen, they perform worse than heterosexual couples. I am open to this being the case, not because homosexuality is the contributing factor, but because homosexuals are far more subject to abuse and prejudice than the average straight person. Part of the issues with these studies is that negative results are highly politicized without an understanding of the factors involved. If homosexual couples tend to make worse parents because society in general mocks and abuses them, then the problem is not with the homosexual couple, but with the culture. My essential claim is that homosexual couples will produce the same level of parenting if early experiences are taken into consideration.

I don't see the problem in this, but it is a risk. At least around here, cops are very sneaky in where they hide. Camera placements are also often not obvious.

It is important to pay attention to people and what they are telling you with their body language. Adjust to it. Use your empathy to understand what the other person wants. It is like when you are talking to a girl who is interested in you, and you get the sense that she wants you to keep talking... Or the reverse. I can go on talking for a long time about complex ideas, but whether I do or not depends on if the person wants me to. Some people like hearing me talk a lot because I make it interesting and have a quite unique perspective. Others like to have more of an interplay, or control in the conversation, in which case the roles flip and they become interesting and unique. It depends on the person, how they process information, and their interests. If you are unsure if you are taking too much conversation space, just ask the person. The only real problem I have is that I am OCD in terms of completion. If I start explaining an idea, I need to explain it fully. If I tell a story, I can't leave it without the ending. One thing to be careful of are people who lack assertiveness and who likely had the sort of mother that made them listen to all her problems and ideas without interruption. They will likely not put out the proper body language, but you should be able to tell. Another helpful tip is to act as if you are narcissistic and selfish. Read some Ayn Rand if you want some clarity on the validity on this, but essentially your life does revolve around you. Be aware of your values and what you are getting out of an interaction. What I find is that if I value the person, the most I get out of the interaction is from that person and not myself. This doesn't always apply because the person may only want to get something from you, especially if you have expertise they don't. I am very good at philosophy, so when I talk about it with a friend who isn't as well versed, the conversation will be focused more on my thoughts and ideas than their's. I am not very knowledgeable of LGBT subject matter, so when talking to a friend who knows a lot about it, the entire focus is on her thoughts and ideas and not mine.

Just reading your post riled up my emotions. You seem unsure if you ought to be considered brave or heroic. What may help is to define the words and to see if you fit the bill. If you do, then you are that. Screw the overly-modest behavior, examine yourself rationally and draw the conclusions based on your actions. For instance, I play guitar and make music. I am quite good. In the past when people asked me about my ability, I would downplay myself and put in a lot of conditional statements. I did this because I didn't want to seem like I was bragging, so I made myself out to be far less than I was. Eventually, I realized that this wasn't being honest. Speaking about what happened to you in the way you did, in a public form, in a culture that is opposed to this takes an incredible amount of courage. It of course wasn't easy, but it wouldn't be courage if it was easy. You actions meet the definition, therefore you have full right to look in mirror and to see yourself for what you are. Your hesitation to do so is understandable, as you likely fear criticism from others. The impulse to do what is right and to act on it, when few others will, forces them to see their cowardice. Instead of admitting that you did what they couldn't, they will want to reframe your actions in a manner that you do not meet the definition. If you apply the word to yourself, they will lash out to dismiss you in order to preserve their own incapacity to act with a shred of integrity. They will say "no, courage is what MLK did", "that courage? no, courage is going against the Nazi forces knowing you are likely to die", "you're courageous? come back to me when you grow up". The whole idea is to keep the achievement of virtue as far away as possible, from you, and from yourselves. The courage is in pushing against the tide of culture, as the culture does not wish for you to recognize your courage. I can go on with this rant, but seriously, fuck these people. Don't lose your capacity to rationally judge yourself because these people lack rationality.

I don't know how to feel about this. I am more on the side of the grandfather, but he likely did have a play in the creation of his daughter's behavior. I don't think it can all be put on him as his daughter is now and adult and has full moral responsibility, but this isn't the same as divorcing from a friend.

UPB is a methodology that validates or invalidates theories that intend to apply to all humans through the measurement of the relation of preferences to behaviors through rational means. That likely sounds a little too complex. Anyway, the theories that UPB deals with are theories that intend to apply to all humans. The universalization component is not so much a test, rather a requirement for an ethical theory. The application is to analyze a theory of behavior and its preference across the human race. If the behavior is not possible for anyone to perform, or for everyone to perform at the same time, or if the behavior requires contradictory preferences, then the theory is false as it fails to meet the criteria of being applicable to all humans. The measurement of preference is needed because behaviors are morally neutral. The slitting on one's through is bad when done by a murderer, yet good when done by a surgeon. The difference in these situations is not the action, yet the preference. The man who is murdered does not want their throat cut, while the man who is about to die from choking does. An example of an action that requires contradictory preferences is rape, as rape requires one person to prefer the sex, and the victim to not. If both prefer the sex, it is not rape. Because of this, rape cannot be universalized as it requires contradictory preferences.

I would highly recommend the Introduction to Philosophy series. Changed my life. It brings so much structure, order, and certainty to your knowledge and thoughts. It is as if my brain completely restructured itself within the last three years. Also, this might sound weird, but when driving talk to yourself out loud about philosophy. Make up theories, convey arguments you've heard before, explain science, talk about anything. It really helps in developing your communication abilities, while also really refining your thoughts and ideas. I know I make a lot of simple connections that are extremely useful in my comprehension through explaining an idea. Take bad arguments you've heard and deconstruct them, figure out why they are wrong. You are likely to identify fallacies and other errors without learning about them.

Though likely not needed, I'll outline a few key characteristics of the issue with this sort of rebuttal. Concepts are abstractions of properties observed in reality, with the particulars omitted. The concept of numbers rely on the perception of discrete entities, a measurement of the quantity of discrete entities, and then a retention of the perception of quantity with the omission of the entities being measured. The result is being able to speak in terms of numbers without referring to any entity. The implicit argument being made in the concept of numbers is that each entity retains its properties. This allows for addition, subtraction, and all of the other basic mathematical procedures. We are able to do addition with entities of a class because the addition does not change their nature, rather it is preserved. If we count wolves, the base property of a wolf does not change when we count a particular number, the wolves do not become something else. This is the law of logic, that A is A, that when counting wolves all of the properties of a single wolf are retained in the measurement of many wolves. The concept of integer based numbers is very useful when there is a perception of entities that come in in discrete quantities, as the concept can immediately be applied. The concept is not applicable to existent that do not come in discrete form, or have new behavior when added. The measurement of the behavior of a sodium molecule and a chlorine molecule in isolation are far different than when combined into the compound sodium chloride. Though we have the ability to count clouds when they are are apart, when they move into each other, the measurement of quantity is not preserved as it is now one big cloud. I bring the above up as this is likely to be the first line of defense, that the concept of theft does not apply to taxation as they are different things altogether, theft is A and taxation is in a different class altogether. It is like asking what color the number two is. This ought to be easy to rebut by referring to the measurements, that is the actions properties involved. To get to the heart of the argument, the application and validation of a concept to a particular case depends upon the abstractions which the concept is defined. A wolf can be defined as an animal with four legs, eats meat, has , these genetic markers, and so on. With this concept of wolf, upon observing an entity with these characteristics, we are able to identify that the entity is a wolf due to its characteristics. The concept of theft can be defined as the removal of property against the preference of the owner of said property. Granted this definition, the identification of theft simply requires the observation of a property which is rightfully owned and a removal of this property by another against the owner's will. The concept refers to consciously acting entities, as it would not be said that a hurricane which blows a beloved paperback book miles away, or an infestation of flies into one's food is theft. In regard to taxation, the property in question is money, and it can be established that one rightfully owns it. It can also be established that there is a removal of this property from consciously acting agents against the person's preference. There are many ways to confirm that the removal is against the person's, a primary one being the threat of the use of force in the case non-compliance. Since the observation meets all the criteria for the concept, it must be concluded that the taxation is theft. Arguing that "it is different" must be answered with "how?". If the definition of theft is valid, and all observers can agree on the measurements made, then there can be no artificial division. For such a division to be made would be to invalidate the concept of theft. To say it is different without reference to any differences is the measurements is to perform a contradiction, it is to say that A is not A. The most common retort is that there is a social contract, which invalidates the measurement of the removal occurring against one's preference. Though the person does not wish to pay the bill now, but they did agreed to pay their taxes in order to receive access to the services at a previous point. If someone takes out a loan to buy a house and they later do not wish to pay, they still have an obligation to pay as they made an agreement, and it is valid for the bank to use force against to get the owed money if the person does not pay. There is also this idea that a person makes a contract implicitly to pay taxes, and that they can simply move if they do not agree to the rules everyone else agrees to. The idea of the social contract is difficult to take apart, but can be done by references the concepts and the measurements involved. Some behavior will be labeled as voluntary, and all that needs to be done is to define voluntary and to assess if the concept applies to that particular instance. If you are to continue with the debate, I'd advice focusing on the definition and the application of the definition. The purpose will not to be to convince the person that taxation is theft, as propaganda is designed to be very difficult to cut through with a single slice, yet rather to get them to agree on the principal of theft and to differ on the measurements. Then the conversation will begin to focus on the social contract, and the same methodology applies. It may be helpful to ask them about situations where taxation would be theft, and to have them expand upon what the differences are. It is likely good to focus on corrupt governments overseas as opposed to your own. I hope this wall of text was useful. I realize that this is information that you likely know, but putting it in a more technical language is useful for really understanding what is occurring in a debate. Something I wish to bring to the movement is a strong understanding of concepts which will allow for people to have a very organize conceptual structure in their mind. This makes a big difference in a person's perception of you because they start to notice that everything that you are saying is connected, that part of an integrated whole. My hope is that people will see this, and want it.

As stated previously, I am in complete agreement with the general conclusion here, but I would like to say that less intellectually minded people can be mislead through sophism. A skill I have worked to achieve is the ability to provide a strong case for the opposing side, with the goal of being more convincing than the advocates. Unfortunately what I've found is that I can start to convince people of that belief in doing so. I have a good friend that I talk about philosophy a lot to and I've gone through many arguments against god, and he is usually in full agreement. The other week I decided to make the case for the other side and what I found was that we felt convinced by it, which he didn't like. The red flags in my arguments didn't seem to pop up at all for him, and he was somewhat distraught that this was making him doubt his atheism. I imagine it like an onslaught of reasoning that instinctively makes sense, and combining this with the tactic of piling on many layers, these arguments creates a pull that is hard to push back against. He is quite intelligent, but doesn't seem to have the ability to spot fallacies on the spot. I of course went back through and pointed out all the errors in what I was saying. I'm sure we've all experienced this. I know I felt it when Stefan made the case for statism in one of his books. I hated listening to it because I was like "I know this is wrong, but I feel like it is right". When Stefan deconstructed every argument after, I felt quite relieved. I am not providing any sort of excuse, rather I just want to point out that philosophy isn't easy when there are so many good sophists. I would claim like James that the line is no longer fuzzy, yet we have to understand the level of indoctrination which is exploited by sophists, and just be that much better.

Though this may seem off topic, an important realization I had a while ago is that I am not a concept. It is so easy to think about ourselves in terms of "I am an anarchist", "I am an atheist", "I am a philosopher" and so on... but none of this is true. We are not the word ascribed to a conclusion of a line of reasoning, rather we are what we value. I value truth over falsehood, I value honesty, I value life, I value peace, I value myself. These are not conclusions, yet empirically actions characteristics we create and cultivate.

The vast majority of people who claim they believe in a god don't. The small minority that actually believe we can consider partially insane. I do think there is a difference in telling a child about a religious god and a deity which only created the universe and has no other affect on it. I would guess that most people who say they believe is deism do believe in it. I would also claim that teaching a child deism, not that one should as the child is too young to comprehend, will likely do no damage if made clear that the deity will never interact with you or the universe ever.