Wesley

I read the entire post. That particular sentence stood out to me. If logic and reason do not have anything to do with reality, then there is no sense in continuing a logically reasoned conversation in trying to determine reality. Other things in your post we can address later, but I am asking: what methodology you would like to use, in place of logic and reason, in order to solve the problem of ownership vs. responsibility?

You are certainly going to have to explain what you mean by that statement.

I believe I specifically addressed how negative =/= opposite in the text you highlighted. Can you tell me where I went wrong?

When I confronted my father about the abuse in my childhood, he had several bad arguments and I ended up reasoning him until he realized he was trapped and didn't know what to do. He was very dissociated and within the same sentence he would go back and forth between admitting that what he did was wrong and denying that it ever happened. The next day he tries to talk to me and says he is concerned for my soul as I did not forgive him and that is necessary to get into heaven. (of course if I ever told him I was atheist, then he would disown me) Of course, he didn't forgive me when I did things he thought were wrong as a child, but instead abused me. I am sure he has actually "talked with god" to get forgiveness or pray for my soul or something like that. Made what restitution he could with God to assuage his own psyche that he is forgiven (or that bad things did not occur, I have no idea which he thought by the end) and he made no attempt to provide restitution to me, but only to tell me that he is worried about my soul if I do not forgive my abuser. Just thought I would add some personal experience.

You could always look at Stef's Bomb in the Brain series which tries to relate many social and health problem to Adverse Childhood Experiences via the ACE study. One of the indicators of adverse childhood experience was if prior to your 18th birthday you lose access to any of your biological parents for any reason including divorce, or abandonment. From there it makes sense that a single parent who is working full time and trying to raise kids on top of that is going to be spread thin and stressed out which leads to a higher chance of the other ACE's being present for the children whether it is poverty, verbal abuse, or worse. http://www.cdc.gov/ace/about.htm www.fdrurl.com/bib

The video file was fine when I watched and I just checked it, but the audio file does seem to have some skips close to what were listed. Probably just ripping the audio from the video would address the issue.

I am sorry that my analogy was not clear. Strength has nothing to do with "speciest". I was saying that qualities that are true descriptions are not racist, sexist, or any other ...ist. It seems impossible to apply morals to an animal that does not have moral reasoning, as it could easily attack you or harm you and would not be wrong, but would just be an animal. Animals that do not have the ability to reason morally as a species do not seem to be capable of applying morality to them. I also do not consider invertebrates equal to humans. If I had a choice of killing a worm or killing a human, I do not think the choice would be difficult.

What here is false-self, shallow, promiscuous, or implies touching random strangers? I am asking you to quote something that supports your assertions of unhealthy behavior as I do not seem to be able to see it. If anything, it seems like there is little to no friendly touching and he desires to have more as he thinks it should be more healthy and normal to have more touching (correct me if I am wrong). This seems not only not present, but opposite unless you can highlight where he said that he was being shallow, promiscuous, evidence of sexual abuse, or whatever it is that you are claiming.

You claim yourself that humans are above animals and that the reverse was propaganda by your aunt. Also, it is not "...ist" if it is based on fact, logic, and evidence. For instance saying that human men tend to be stronger than human women is not sexist because it can be proven. You have seemed to dodge the argument I put forward. If there is a problem with the argument, then I may have a block of some sort. If it makes sense, then it supports my claim.

No. I consider that when one member of a species achieves reason and moral thinking that the species is capable of it and thus it becomes a goal of education for the species where the NAP could extend. This is why I am somewhat wary of borderline animals where moral reasoning may be on the cusp of development and would not aggress against them. However, I also conceded that I have not completely reasoned it out, so it is easily possible that I am missing something. Only that it seems apparent that moral reasoning abilities is another line like feeling pain is a line.

When did he have a promiscuous sexual advance with a stranger? I'm pretty sure he said that he didn't do them currently and was wondering what the male equivalent of playful flirting with someone you are starting to feel comfortable with would be.

Sentience does not mean capable of morality. For instance a wild tiger who is loose in the city we can assume would attack people. not because it is wrong, but because that is the nature of a predator. In an environment of antelope and lions, a lion who hunts and kills an antelope is not wrong, but it is a part of the animal's nature. If a wild tiger could attack anyone at any time, then it would seem reasonable to have people go out and either incarcerate and deport the animal, or if necessary kill it to prevent it from harming someone. Both of these would technically violate the NAP if it were extended to animals, however it also seems to say that animals are not capable of moral thinking at any point in their lives or existence and thus in some way make them less than human. A child will eventually gain moral thinking and thus this would not apply to them. I also go not keep monkeys or dolphins as pets or food (even though moral thinking is questionable) I could see an argument for the NAP applying to these animals as they would be more likely to have moral thinking. I am not necessarily saying i have clinched anything, but there seems to be a difference between animals capable of moral thinking and reason and those who are not, just as there is a difference between animals capable of feeling pain and those who are not. I would not want myself or my family to be around undomesticated animals who are not capable of moral thinking or reason for the potential of harm or death. Besides this, there are some who define sentience as feeling pain and others who confine it more to realizing that they exist, which it is a much higher brain function to be able to achieve consciousness as as compared to feeling of pain.

I do not understand how you got from that post that Morse has had premature sexual advances. I easily could be missing the obvious, but would you mind pointing it out to me?

The implication is not that you just do not believe in it (which is silly and intolerant in itself because it is about scientific fact, not arbitrary preference). For instance I do not see you criticizing my avatar as that is a choice. You are claiming that religion is true and it is true that homosexuality is a choice. This puts it out of the realm of opinion into the realm of truth or falsehood. You say that people who disagree with what is true (the proposition you put forward) are wrong. Opinions are not statements of truth. "I like ice cream" puts no burden on you to accept it. "Homosexuality is a choice" is a proposition of truth about the world. Same with "I believe that religion is true". These are not arbitrary preferences or opinions, but rather statements about the world that exists and therefore are subject to logic, empiricism and evaluation of truth or falsehood. If it was merely and opinion, you would not be asserting them as true. Finally, you can drop the personal attacks. They do not help your case.

A penis does not fit into a rectum the same way it fits into a vagina? This is also why I tend to not be very tolerant of irrationality. Irrationality like "intolerance of my religion is bad" thus I am going to be intolerant of people who are intolerant, and apparently intolerant of homosexuality, as well as intolerant of the science behind homosexuality. Not to mention that this condemnation is not based on principles, or science, bu admitted irrational preference. This is why you demand tolerance. Not as a universal principle, but so that people do not challenge whatever arbitrary beliefs you hold, but rather just accept them and be tolerant of them. Despite this personal wish, you seem to not be tolerant of others, however we need to be tolerant of your intolerance while you are not tolerant of the intolerance of others.

At least in the section you pulled from the book, the error you seem to point out is not relevant. In fact, he specifically says that "necessary but not sufficient" exists. To use your examples, not-black is the negation of black and white is the opposite of black. Not-black (negation) is the necessary but not sufficient requirement to achieve white (opposite). Not-giving is the negation of giving and taking is the opposite of giving. Not-giving (negation) is the necessary but not sufficient requirement to achieve taking (opposite). Obviously these are not as clear as it is without a book to back up each example or which talking about Universal Preferable Behavior as opposed to innocuous actions or characteristics, but I do not see the problem. He specifically says they are not the same and thus creates the idea of "necessary but not sufficient" in order to satisfy the disparity.

You seem to be intolerant of people you deem intolerant. Just a bit inconsistent.

I have not forgotten anything. My asking you a question about what it means to you is the start of discussing an issue to know where you are coming from. Thus, my question and point seem to be directly related to your original post in this thread.

What was the goal of addressing this? I am sure there are plenty of religious people who are annoying and hypocritical, just like there are atheists who are annoying and hypocritical. One person is popular by this persona as it gets him views, it is hardly representative of a "belief system" (for lack of a better term).

Just a couple of questions: 1. If you say you cannot control your body, then who else does (assuming your body was used to write the above post)? 2. You have admitted that this may be splitting hairs. Do you have a particular thing against the idea of ownership? Maybe a negative connotation? What about responsibility? What do you think of when you hear responsibility? Why are you bothered so much by the terminology? 3. People often claim responsibility for others unjustly. This leads to statism, welfare schemes that do not work, and massive problems and bad incentives. I have not heard anyone claim ownership over another person in years. What do you think of this? 4. I see no way that owning the self can ever lead to owning others. In fact, universalizing self-ownership necessitates that you cannot own others, but they own themselves. Responsibility on the other hand seems to conflate easily into gaining control of others. What do you think of this? 5. Why do you think subservience is superior to mastery? (The paragraph where you claim ownership and responsibility are opposites, despite the idea that self-ownership negates your example as the children own themselves and thus cannot be owned) 6. What were your experiences of being owned and controlled as a child? Descriptive answers would be very helpful in clarifying the position, and also letting me know where you are coming from.

I understand this. I also am saying that writing with a different hand is not necessarily bad. However, forcibly making a child do something that they do not want or is unnatural would be. That is the differentiation I am intentionally making. Looking at the past, it may not be relevant, but it may be relevant to the future of when a child learns to write you can explain what some benefits or drawbacks may be and then let them choose or do what they want. Obviously telling a child they are evil or wrong for doing what comes naturally is terribly abusive.

I am finding myself questioning the research/imprisonment art of it. To me it seems that there a few possibilities. Either you are researching yourself, in which case it would not be a political crime, but a crime against your false self or against parents or something and you have freed a part of you and are working to reveal your true self to the world. I think you have been doing a lot of research on what masculinity means in reading other threads, so you may have felt that a woman part of your true self was let go, who then went to the masculine self who once he researches he can reveal himself and then the two parts can marry and become one. I think this one synergies with what Meeri was saying. Else, it is political in nature and thus has more around the idolization of these people who stand up for ideals regardless of the personal cost. It is admiring intransigence for standing up for what is right. Now that I am thinking about it, I do not think it has to be an either/or and likely has elements of both. Obviously, all the caveats of me having no idea what I'm talking about and you can feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

In reference to the Is/Ought dichotomy and UPB, this thread may help: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/15156-upb-and-the-isought-dichotomy/ Which also links to this: http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed//FDR_1218_Sunday_Show_Nov_23_2008_UPB.mp3 (The relevant section begins around 13:30 or so) Basically, UPB does not violate the is/ought dichotomy because it relies on the other person putting forward an argument as to a moral theory. When they put forward a moral theory in the same way that science attempts to validate or invalidate a scientific theory. Through the act of debating UPB and moral theories as a whole, people use a massive amount of givens from which you can build a case for morality by merely asking for consistency. Science does not exist and does not need to be used (you can pray to mr. invisible man if you want to), however if you want to determine if a scientific theory is true, you need to use science. UPB does not exist and doesn't need to be used (you can pray to mr. invisible man if you want to), however if you want to determine if a moral theory is true, then you need to use UPB. UPB is the test of moral theories you request, not a moral theory in itself. It achieves this by simply demanding consistency, possibility, the coma test, and several other things as a basic run-through for moral theories. Morality is in such a sorry state, that most people violate all of these in the most basic moral claims and are completely unaware of it. You could always run through Appendix A in the UPB book and make sure that the premises make sense. If any step does not make sense, then we can work on the proof of that step.

This is how people act when they know they are wrong. They do not use reason and convince you of what is correct, for there is no reason to justify what they do. Instead, they yell "Blasphemy!" and try to shame you into compliance. In another age, maybe even force you into compliance. I am so sorry that you had to go through this experience, however he was admitting that he was wrong by doing what he did. You doing different than what he did made him anxious and angry (as I'm sure eating the cracker was inflicted on him at some point). As someone who also has a gluten intolerance, I can also empathize with that part of the story. I do applaud what you are trying to do for the girl, but this is the kind of place that she will be brought up in and the people who will shame her into compliance with rituals. I do not know what to do to help her, but you were able to not give in. The child may not have that luxury and a feel somewhat anxious about her future in that place.