Lars

Some people don't like Game of Thrones due to the gratuitous nature of its sex and violence, too many disposable one-dimensional characters, an immature perception of diplomacy, nihilistic themes and an over-reliance on shock rather than nuanced storytelling.

Those humanity-averse PETA dipshits don't deserve any publicity. Passion and logic have yet to reunite within mainstream discourse. It is understandably daunting to speak up nowadays, though we would have appreciated more passionate defenders of reason fighting back against moral relativism in the past, and we're all living in the past of the future.

Truth is deterministic? Are you saying that an idea is only valid if it produces a predefined result through observation or application? Fish are not moral agents.

Truth is defined as any idea which conforms to both reason and evidence. You claim that all ideas associated with the NAP are neither logical nor empirical, though do not explain why.

What is reason without empirical evidence? I'm not sure how I failed to answer your question.

Justifying your actions and/or beliefs in opposition to empirical evidence.

What do you mean by "considered in their whole reality"?

It is certainly possible to reject reality, though we should avoid granting philosophical consideration to the machinations of irrationality (if we wish to maintain consistency and minimize empty discussion).

Do you mean "in the absence of universal ethics"? Our exclusive claim over personal property is attached to our status as moral agents, it cannot be rightfully removed or denied under a universal system of ethics. Threat-based hierarchies turn ownership into an arbitrary self-righteous privilege.

We cannot assume that initiations of force within the economy will always lead to undesirable outcomes, even if is 99.999999999...% likely from our perspective given historical precedents. Undesirable for whom? It's subjective. Consequentialist arguments are never universal, it does not matter how or where they are applied, so instead we use the Non-Aggression Principle to morally justify our position against the State.

Have you seen this video? Ethical principles must be universal to be valid, the consequences of following or disregarding a principle have no bearing on moral legitimacy. "Don't X because bad things might happen" is just an appeal to emotion. Any decision can be interpreted as morally ambiguous if our priority is to address the infinity of hypothetical scenarios. Similarly, one could say it is preferable for all parents to neglect their children in order to avoid abuse. That's not a perfect analogy because parents have implicit responsibility over their offspring, though it represents the same ironic line of reasoning. Here are two opposing conclusions under different scenarios, both adhere to the Prime Directive: - Independence during our development granted us the power to assert ourselves on an interplanetary level. So the fact that we were left alone led to a potentially negative outcome. - We were imposed upon by a greater culture which granted us the power to assert ourselves on an interplanetary level. So the fact that we were not left alone led to a potentially negative outcome.

Graham, I'm under the impression that you're trying to stir up resentment rather than promote discussion.

The Prime Directive assumes that external interference will always involve worse outcomes than allowing nature to take its unaltered course. Some contentions: 1. Nature is completely amoral, it does not automatically favor positive outcomes. 2. The Prime Directive requires advanced civilizations to recognize their own superiority while respecting the supposed equality of cultures implicitly deemed lesser. 3. Who defines "certain threshold of technological, scientific and cultural development"? Is it relative? 4. Intervention is conflated with destabilization. 5. We cannot honestly look back over our own self-contained history and believe present circumstances reflect the best possible result. "It is universally preferable for advanced cultures to refrain from interfering with developing cultures (in the pursuit of virtue)" falls flat due to the creation of separate moral categories where any interaction has one side accrue all responsibility while the other is denied personhood. A culture could simultaneously be considered advanced and developing depending on the external parties acted upon or acting upon them. Keep in mind, I'm not saying it is therefore good to interfere with developing cultures, only that it cannot be construed as universally evil.

Freedomination Radio!

It is unwise to immediately judge others positively or negatively based on their donation status. Along with what has already been mentioned--the possibility of donating one's time toward spreading the show--there are likely more than a few who contribute money yet fail to uphold their supposed values.