TheRobin

That's not true, since the argument doesn't claim universality. It just says "usually", which is rather true. So it may be that the poster was too made by an arrogant hipster who knows nothing about life, but it might just be someone who's fed up with those kinds of posters and uses their style for ironic purposes. It also does't say that ALL such posters contain bad advice, just that some of the worst advice usually comes in the form of these posters

I don't know what you mean with "philosophically true" or "proofing something philosophically". There's no different standard for truth and proof in philosophy, rather philosophy tries to come up with universal standards for these things to begin with.

Not quite sure what you mean with that, Carl. Can you expand a bit on that?

This is more a practical/legal problem than an ethics problem. If it's your field then obviously you can exluce anyone from walking through that field for any reason. However that doesn't mean you can just shoot people who set a foot on your ground. As there might be lots of reasons why they do it (like being unaware that don't wish the have your field traversed or maybe they're in grave danger or whatever). Also, even assuming they continue to walk through your field without adhering to your warning, shooting them for it would still be immoral, as they haven't threatened your life or anything else. Think of it this way, assuming the case goes to court afterwards: What would be the restitution for the trespassers? Certainly not a death penatly, so shooting them is out of question. However it was still a breach of proeprty rights on their parts, so you can use force to get restitution if you so desire. If they couldn't then you'd just make their property rights in their store, facility, business, etc. superflous. As you'd then claim to have a better right to decide how they can use their own property than they themselves do, which would completely invalidate any property rights (as they then would have the same right to make decisions over how you can use your own property)

Unless you're a farmer or a caretaker of a protected nature area how would you get the ownership in the first place? What "land" people actually own is houses/appartements and maybe a bit of garden/lawn. I fail to see the problem. Unless you want to say that you should have a right to enter other people's homes, make yourself comfortable on their lawn or walk through their cornfields (or whatever they plant) then where's the problem? Like, what locations would you want to visit where you expect problems to occur as a result of ownership?

Given that you do not know how the woman actually is in real life, I think a big clue could be gotten out of you telling us (or analysing yourself) what you imagine her to be like and how exactly you judge that behaviour.

From what I understand about String theory, I think you're incorrect when you say that GR and QM back it up. String Theory was designed to come to the same conclusions as GR and QR, because physicists already know the validity of those theories. But it's more like knowing the eliptic curve of the Earth and then deciding to describe it with circles within circles. Of course, given enough time, you can make the circles-model be accurate with what you already know, but because there's no deduction of prinicples that give you any new insight it won't be reasonable to expect that it can then solve other problems that you haven't already solved. Might be dead wrong here of course. It's been a while since I read aynthing about string theory, but that's how I always understood it.

Okay, I see what you mean. Not sure what any of that would have to do with the NAP though. If anything that affects people negatively would fall under the NAP then it would be practically impossible to do anything anymore. And as you pointed out in three of the examples, people are free to associate with whomever they like. (And they can have whatever standards they like that they want people to meet with whom they want to associate with) Also slightly off-topic: I don't think I ever heard/saw any evidence that children are that devious unempathic plotters as you make it sound here. And temper tantrums are especially not a calculated move but when the child is overwhelmed by anger/sadness.

I'm no physicist, but I think I can help you when it comes to the definitions (to a degree at least). The main problem with any definition that concerns a fundamental aspect of reality is that you can't really define it as nicely as you can anything else. If you're familiar with categorical logic, then you know that usually definitions relate the chategory that you want to define to an overarching category and then show how it differs from everything else in that category. For instance if I want to define human beings I'd first say they're mammals (overarching category) and then show the difference between all other mammals (like ability to think, opposing thumbs, etc.). However fundamental aspects of reality don't have an overarching category. Matter doesn't share properties with anything else except matter, so the definition will be slightly different. We know matter excerts force on other matter (gravity), but of course that definition is circular in nature. However because you can't really compare it to anything else, that is all you can do. As for "exploring concepts with no tangible relation to concrete reality" that's not at all accurate. Dark matter for instance is a result of the difference between observational data and the laws of nature that we know. (i.e. the way the universe expands should be different than it is, given our formulas have been accurate so far, so we need to add more mass/energy to make it work). And this is nothing new at all. Before we had telescopes good enough to see Saturn we already knew from models that there "must be" some body there that has a gravitaional pull, if the models we used are correct. So scientist plotted the planet's course and mass before we actually could observe it (and ofc this was confirmed once we could observe it). Dark Matter is the same thing. We add it because we assume our models are correct, so instead of arbitrarily creating new models, we just assume there must be some undiscovered mass that explains the actual observations. And afaik they're setting up an experiment to proof/disproof the existence of dark matter too, so it's very tangible in that sense. I'm not sure what your problem is with black holes (especially since you put it in the "non-tangible"-category) and I don't even know of virtual particles. As for string theory it's "just" a different way to explain the fundamental aspects of physics in a way that should make it possible to get rid of the problems of not being able to combine the General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. However I'd agree here, that it doesn't come from any observations and is just a made up thing. And given that so far no predictions from String Theory were accurate, I think that shows that this is not a rational approach to create new models.

Yes, I don't see the difference, since you need violence to coerce someone. You can't have coercion without violence. And I'm Swiss (german part), so I understand the german language quite well and I don't see how it's a language thing at all either

Yeah, the Badges are just showing your donor status. Not proof of any skill as a philosopher. Although statistically speaking, most people who donate more are usually longer time listeners as well and as such usually have quite good with philosophy and self-knowledge and emapthizing with people.

A question I asked myself when I was trying to figure out whether or not I want to continue seeing my family was: Assuming I just met them in a bar and talked with them for a while, would I want to see them again at some future point? Like, ignore all the negative past experience for a moment and just see if they actually provide any value right now. Do you enjoy their company? Do you like spending time with them? And if not, then why would you continue seeing them despite them not providing much or any value to you? I don't see how any of that would mean you don't take responsibility for you life either. Like, if you know or meet someone and you don't like them and you decide to not see them anymore, how would that mean you'd avoid responsibility?

I don't really see the difference. Do they think that coercion doesn't require physical force? I mean, it either a rule has a threat of force to back it up or it's just a freindly suggestion. And I doubt they claim that friendly suggestions are what they mean with coercive force. as for justifications: Stef has written "Universally Preferable Behaviour" that makes the case for rational ethics. There's also Hans-Hermann Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics that makes a similar case.

Thanks for the nice feedback. Happy to hear the question helped you

Using the word "own" for actions is rather meaningless, if you use the same definition of "own" that you use for property. Owning property means you got the right to exlude others from using the property. Obviously that doesn't make any sense for actions. What you mean is that we are responsible for our actions. As for ownership and theft, you can go with Hoppe's argument about whoever is first in claiming ownership over a previoulsy unowned property has the strongest claim. Because if you would do it otherwise anyone can come after you and claim ownership, but then by definition no one will own anything, as anyone can jsut claim ownership over anything basically. So if you steal something the other person still has a stronger claim of ownership than you and as a result the right to exclude you from using that thing and since you're responsible for the theft it's up to you to give it back and/or make restitution for it. Same goes for the three-way scenario of Kanith101: A still has the strongest claim, so he can take it back from C. And B owes both A and C restitution, assuming he stole from A and then defrauded C by omiting that it's stolen goods. On the other hand if he C knew it was stolen, then I think he knows he'll have to give it back if the original owner turns up and so B doesn't owe him anything.

I've literally never heard of any Psychologist telling people to feel ashamed of anything. Where did you get that one from? Freud was wrong in virtually everything he claimed about Psychology or Psychoanalysis. He also faked his evidence for his irrational theories in order to seemingly proof them. Nowaydays I think it's generally accepted that he didn't add anything to Psychology, but rather set it back half a century with his non-sense. From hat I undersand about Jung, similar things apply to him. He wasn't a cheat like Freud iirc, but his theories are still just about as much irrational non-sense as Freud's were. When was the last time you felt any sort of reward, stisfaction or happiness? And what were you doing then?

Yeah I'd be up for that, especially if it's over skype and one can leave after being killed (Don't know the rules, just heard of the game). Also I'm from Europe (just for timezone purposes) Btw nothing wrong with lies and deception when it's confined to the realm of games. I'm a huge boardgame nerd, so I'm slightly familiar with the art of deceiving and backstabbing people

The price isn't increasing in Switzerland. Although I pay about the same (or slightly more) than 5 years ago, the speed has either doubled or tripled along with that. So I can't really complain. And don't even ask me about the times I had to use expensive dial-up modems that cost more for 10 hours at 56 kylobyte per second download rate than I pay for a whole month at 3MB/s now

I don't understand the analogy here. If someone steals your bike and you steal it back, then as a result you get your bike back. So what would you get back when you called her out on it? That reminds me of a short comment I made on fb a few days ago about restitution vs revenge. So since she wouldn't be making restitution you would have revenge, so what do you think you'd get out of that?

ugh that Dollar Vigilante piece. What kind of Wife does that guy have?

I second that. Can't wait for that one to come out. (Well, I guess techincially I CAN wait, but you know what I mean )

I skipped some of the posts, so in case this already come up I apologize, but: Do you want to apologize to her because you want to make resitution ot her or because you want forgiveness from her?

I don't know, I'd guess the only difference might be the interval and range. So instead of having 85% in the 80-120 range, maybe it has it in the 60-140 range. But I don't know really.

What scale are you using? I recently did an online IQ test (http://sifter.org/iqtest/index.html) and at the end it showed values fom two different scales. One was the European/Cattell scale (which had a significantly higher value) the other was the Stanford-Binet/USA scale

You ask how can people deal with loss if they have no hope. I'd say the premises aren't really true. You don't deal with anything if you still have hope, cause you got the imaginary idea of "the person's not dead", so there's nothing to deal with, except a longer pause in the relationship. The only way to deal with it is to actually face the reality and the emotions it brings. Hope is like an anestethic, it doesn't help people deal with anything it just makes you numb towards your own feelings of sadness (and as a result also numbs down everything else that is connected to that). So to me it's a bit similar to asking "How can you deal with loss if you got no drugs?"